Research in Higher Education

, Volume 57, Issue 3, pp 363–393 | Cite as

Co-Curricular Connections: The Role of Undergraduate Research Experiences in Promoting Engineering Students’ Communication, Teamwork, and Leadership Skills

  • Deborah Faye Carter
  • Hyun Kyoung Ro
  • Benjamin Alcott
  • Lisa R. Lattuca
Article

Abstract

This study examined the impact of undergraduate research (UR) in engineering, focusing on three particular learning outcomes: communication, teamwork, and leadership. The study included 5126 students across 31 colleges of engineering. The authors employed propensity score matching method to address the selection bias for selection into (and differential availability of) UR programs. Engineering students who engage in UR tend to report higher skill levels, but when curriculum and classroom experiences are taken into account, there is no significant effect of UR on teamwork and leadership skills. Not accounting for college experiences such as curricular, classroom, and other co-curricular experiences may overestimate the positive relationship between UR participation and professional skills. After propensity score adjustment, we found that UR provided a significant predictor of communication skills; a finding that provides support for previous research regarding the importance of communication skills as an outcome of UR. The study highlights the importance of taking into account selection bias when assessing the effect of co-curricular programs on student learning. Implications of the study include expanding undergraduate research opportunities when possible and incorporating communication and leadership skill development into required course curriculum.

Keywords

Engineering Undergraduate research Communication skills Propensity score matching 

Supplementary material

11162_2015_9386_MOESM1_ESM.docx (37 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 37 kb)

References

  1. Abet.org. (2015). ABETAccreditation Criteria and Supporting Documents. Retrieved December 1, 2014 from http://www.abet.org/accreditation-criteria-policies-documents/.
  2. Armor, D. J. (1974). Theta reliability and factor scaling. In H. Costner (Ed.), Sociological methodology: 1973–1974 (pp. 17–50). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  3. Astin, A. W. (1993). What matters in college. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  4. Austin, P. C. (2011). An introduction to propensity score methods for reducing the effects of confounding in observational studies. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 46(3), 399–424.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Baruch, Y. (1999). Response rate in academic studies—A comparative analysis. Human Relations, 52, 421–438. doi:10.1177/001872679905200401.Google Scholar
  6. Bernstein, Laura, Alexander, Debra, & Alexander, Ben. (2008). Generations: Harnessing the potential of the multigenerational workforce. The Catalyst, 37(3), 17–22.Google Scholar
  7. Bowman, N. A. (2010). Can 1st-year college students accurately report their learning and development? American Educational Research Journal, 47(2), 466–496.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bowman, N. A., & Seifert, T. A. (2011). Can college students accurately assess what affects their learning and development? Journal of College Student Development, 52(3), 270–290.Google Scholar
  9. Boylan, M. (2009). Undergraduate STEM research experiences: Impact on student interest in doing graduate work in STEM fields. In R. G. Ehrenberg & C. V. Kuh (Eds.), Doctoral education and the faculty of the future (pp. 109–120). Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Brawner, C. E., Camacho, M. M., Lord, S. M., Long, R. A., & Ohland, M. W. (2012). Women in industrial engineering: Stereotypes, persistence, and perspectives. Journal of Engineering Education, 101(2), 288–318.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Carter, F. D., Mandell, M., & Maton, K. I. (2009). The influence of on-campus, academic year undergraduate research on STEM Ph.D. outcomes: Evidence from the Meyerhoff Scholarship Program. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 31(4), 441–462.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Cheslock, J. J., & Rios-Aguilar, C. (2011). Multilevel analysis in higher education research: A multidisciplinary approach. Higher education: Handbook of theory and research  (pp. 85–123). Netherlands: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Cox, B. E., McIntosh, K., Reason, R. D., & Terenzini, P. T. (2014). Working with Missing Data in Higher Education Research: A Primer and Real-World Example. The Review of Higher Education, 37(3), 377–402.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Craney, C., McKay, T., Mazzeo, A., Morris, J., Prigodich, C., & de Groot, R. (2011). Cross-discipline perceptions of the undergraduate research experience. The Journal of Higher Education, 82(1), 92–113. doi:10.1353/jhe.2011.0000.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Dey, E. L. (1997). Working with low survey response rates: The efficacy of weighting adjustments. Research in Higher Education, 38(2), 215–227. doi:10.1023/a:1024985704202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Eagan, M. K., Hurtado, S., Garcia, G., Herrera, F., and Garibay, J. (2010, June). Making a difference in science education for underrepresented students: The impact of undergraduate research programs. Paper presented at the annual forum of the Association for Institutional Research, Chicago, IL.Google Scholar
  17. Espinosa, L. L. (2011). Pipelines and pathways: Women of color in undergraduate stem majors and the college experiences that contribute to persistence. Harvard Educational Review, 81(2), 209–241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Fang, N. (2012). Improving engineering students’ technical and professional skills through project-based active and collaborative learning. International Journal of Engineering Education, 28(1), 26–36.Google Scholar
  19. Goldstein, A. O., Calleson, D., Bearman, R., Steiner, B. D., Frasier, P. Y., & Slatt, L. (2009). Teaching advanced leadership skills in community service (ALSCS) to medical students. Academic Medicine, 84(6), 754–764.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Graham, J. W. (2009). Missing data analysis: Making it work in the real world. Annual Review of Psychology, 60(1), 549–576. doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.58.110405.085530.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hackett, E. J., Croissant, J., & Schneider, B. (1992). Industry, academe, and the values of undergraduate engineers. Research in Higher Education, 33(3), 275–295.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Harder, V. S., Stuart, E. A., & Anthony, J. C. (2010). Propensity score techniques and the assessment of measured covariate balance to test causal associations in psychological research. Psychological Methods, 15(3), 234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Ho, D. E., Imai, K., King, G., & Stuart, E. A. (2007). Matching as nonparametric preprocessing for reducing model dependence in parametric causal inference. Political Analysis, 15(3), 199–236. doi:10.1093/pan/mpl013.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Holland, J. L. (1966). The psychology of vocational choice. Waltham, MA: Blaisdell.Google Scholar
  25. Holland, J. L. (1973). Making vocational choices: A theory of careers. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  26. Holland, J. L. (1985). Making vocational choices: A theory of vocational personalities and work environments (2nd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  27. Holland, J. L. (1997). Making vocational choices: A theory of vocational personalities and work environments (3rd ed.). Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.Google Scholar
  28. Jones, M. T., Barlow, A. E., & Villarejo, M. (2010). Importance of undergraduate research for minority persistence and achievement in biology. The Journal of Higher Education, 81(1), 82–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Knight, D. B. (2012). In search of the engineers of 2020: An outcomes-based typology of engineering undergraduates. In Proceedings of the 119th Annual Conference of the American Society for Engineering Education, San Antonio, TX.Google Scholar
  30. Knight, D. B., Lattuca, L. R., Yin, A. C., Kremer, G., York, T., & Ro, H. K. (2012). An exploration of gender diversity in engineering programs: A curriculum and instruction-based perspective. Journal of Women and Minorities in Science and Engineering, 18(1), 55–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Lanehart, R. E., Rodriguez de Gil, P., Kim, E. S., Bellara, A. P., Kromrey, J. D., and Lee, R. S. (April, 2012). Propensity score analysis and assessment of propensity score approaches using SAS procedures. Paper presented at the annual meeting of SAS Global Forum, Orlando, FL.Google Scholar
  32. Lattuca, L. R., Terenzini, P. T., Harper, B. J., & Yin, A. (2010). Academic environments in detail: Holland’s theory at the sub-discipline level. Research in Higher Education, 48(2), 251–282.Google Scholar
  33. Lattuca, L. R., Terenzini, P. T., Knight, D. B., & Ro, H. K. (2014). 2020 Vision: Progress in Preparing the Engineer of the Future. Ann Arbor, MI: Author.Google Scholar
  34. Lattuca, L. R., Terenzini, P. T., & Volkwein, J. F. (2006). Engineering Change: Findings from a Study of the Impact of EC2000, Final Report. Baltimore, MD: ABET Inc.Google Scholar
  35. Lord, S. M., Layton, R. A., & Ohland, M. W. (2011). Trajectories of Electrical Engineering and Computer Engineering students by race and gender. Education, IEEE Transactions on, 54(4), 610–618.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. May, G. S., & Chubin, D. E. (2003). A retrospective on undergraduate engineering success for underrepresented minority students. Journal of Engineering Education, 92(1), 27–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. McKenna, A., Plumb, C., Kremer, G. E., Yin, A. C., and Ro, H. K. (2011). Approaches to engaging students in engineering design and problem solving. In Proceedings of the American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference, Vancouver, Canada.Google Scholar
  38. McKinney, L., & Sadler, T. D. (2010). Scientific research for undergraduate students: A review of the literature. Journal of College Science Teaching, 39(5), 43–49.Google Scholar
  39. Morozov, A., Kilgore, D., Yasuhara, K., and Atman, C. (2008). Same courses, different outcomes? Variations in confidence, experience, and preparations in engineering design. In Proceedings of the American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference. Pittsburgh, PA.Google Scholar
  40. Myers, C. B. (2011). Union status and faculty job satisfaction: Contemporary evidence from the 2004 National Study of Postsecondary Faculty. The Review of Higher Education, 34(4), 657–684. doi:10.1353/rhe.2011.0028.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Neter, J., Wasserman, W., & Kutner, M. H. (1990). Applied linear statistical models: Regression, analysis of variance, and experimental design (3rd ed.). Burr Ridge, IL: Irwin.Google Scholar
  42. Niehaus, E., Campbell, C. M., & Inkelas, K. K. (2013). HLM behind the curtain: Unveiling decisions behind the use and interpretation of HLM in higher education research. Research in Higher Education, 55(1), 101–122. doi:10.1007/s11162-013-9306-7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Palmer, B., Terenzini, P. T., McKenna, A. F., Harper, B. J., and Merson, D. (2011). Design in context: Where do the engineers of 2020 learn this skill? In Proceedings of the American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference. Vancouver, Canada.Google Scholar
  44. Pascarella, E. T. (1985). College environmental influences on learning and cognitive development: A critical review and synthesis. In J. C. Smart (Ed.), Higher education: Handbook of theory and research (Vol. 4, pp. 1–61). New York, NY: Agathon.Google Scholar
  45. Pascarella, E. T., & Terenzini, P. T. (2005). How college affects students: A third decade of research (Vol. 2). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  46. Porter, S. R., & Umbach, P. D. (2006). Student survey response rates across institutions: Why do they vary? Research in Higher Education, 47, 229–247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Reason, R. D. (2009). An examination of persistence research through the lens of a comprehensive conceptual framework. Journal of College Student Development, 50(6), 659–682.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Ro, H. K., Terenzini, P. T., & Yin, A. C. (2013). Between-college effects on students reconsidered. Research in Higher Education, 54(3), 253-282.Google Scholar
  49. Rubin, D. B., & Thomas, N. (1996). Matching using estimated propensity scores: relating theory to practice. Biometrics, 52, 249–264.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Russell, S. H., Hancock, M. P., & McCullough, J. (2007). Benefits of undergraduate research experiences. Science, 316, 548–549.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Sabatini, D. A. (1997). Teaching and research synergism: The undergraduate research experience. Journal of Professional Issues in Engineering Education and Practice, 123(3), 98–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Sadler, T. D., Burgin, S., McKinney, L., & Ponjuan, L. (2010). Learning science through research apprenticeships: A critical review of the literature. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47(3), 235–256.Google Scholar
  53. Sankar, C. S., & Raju, P. K. (2011). Use of presage-pedagogy-process-product model to assess the effectiveness of case study methodology in achieving learning outcomes. Journal of STEM Education: Innovations and Research, 12(7), 45.Google Scholar
  54. Schwartz, J. (2012). Faculty as undergraduate research mentors for students of color: Taking into account the costs. Science Education, 96(3), 527–542.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Seat, E., Parsons, J. R., & Poppen, W. A. (2001). Enabling engineering performance skills: A program to teach communication, leadership, and teamwork. Journal of Engineering Education, 90(1), 7–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Seymour, E., Hunter, A.-B., Laursen, S. L., & DeAntoni, T. (2004). Establishing the benefits of research experiences for undergraduates in the sciences: First findings from a three-year study. Science Education, 88(4), 493–534. doi:10.1002/sce.10131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Shadish, W. R., Cook, T. D., & Campbell, D. T. (2002). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for generalized causal inference. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.Google Scholar
  58. Shadish, W. R., & Steiner, P. M. (2010). A primer on propensity score analysis. Newborn and Infant Nursing Reviews, 10(1), 19–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Smart, J. C., Feldman, K. A., & Ethington, C. A. (2000). Academic disciplines: Holland’s theory and the study of college students and faculty. Nashville, TN: Vanderbilt University Press.Google Scholar
  60. Smith, T. W. (1995). Trends in non-response rates. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 7(2), 157–171. doi:10.1093/ijpor/7.2.157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Smith, C. M., & Sodano, T. M. (2011). Integrating lecture capture as a teaching strategy to improve student presentation skills through self-assessment. Active Learning in Higher Education, 12(3), 151–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Steiner, P. M., & Cook, D. (2013). Matching and propensity scores. In T. D. Little (Ed.), The oxford handbook of quantitative methods: Foundation (Vol. 1, pp. 237–259). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  63. Tinto, V. (1993). Leaving college: Rethinking the causes and cures of student attrition (2nd ed.). Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  64. Tomek, S. (2011). Developing a multicultural, cross-generational, and multidisciplinary team: An introduction for civil engineers. Leadership and Management in Engineering, 11(2), 191–196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Tonso, K. L. (2006). Teams that work: Campus culture, engineer identity, and social interactions. Journal of Engineering Education, 95(1), 25–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Van Horn, P. S., Green, K. E., & Martinussen, M. (2009). Survey response rates and survey administration in counseling and clinical psychology: A meta-analysis. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 69, 389–403. doi:10.1177/0013164408324462.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Deborah Faye Carter
    • 1
  • Hyun Kyoung Ro
    • 2
  • Benjamin Alcott
    • 3
  • Lisa R. Lattuca
    • 4
  1. 1.School of Educational StudiesClaremont Graduate UniversityClaremontUSA
  2. 2.Department of Higher Education and Student AffairsBowling Green State UniversityBowling GreenUSA
  3. 3.Faculty of EducationUniversity of CambridgeCambridgeUK
  4. 4.Center for the Study of Higher and Postsecondary EducationUniversity of MichiganAnn ArborUSA

Personalised recommendations