Development of the Engineering Student Integration Instrument: Rethinking Measures of Integration

Abstract

Background There is a need for engineering‐specific theories and constructs to advance our understanding of student development. Student integration, widely used in educational research, is a suitable construct; however, it has also received some criticism. These critiques can be addressed by rethinking student integration and its use in the context of engineering education. Purpose/Hypothesis This article re‐conceptualizes student integration and describes the development of the Engineering Student Integration Instrument (ESII), which measures integration, as well as provides evidence of its validity. Design/Method Preliminary items for the ESII were developed using open‐ended survey responses from undergraduate engineering students about the impact of co‐curricular support. These items were reviewed by multiple researchers to assess question phrasing, formatting, and face validity. The resulting instrument was administered electronically to students in the College of Engineering at a large East Coast public university. Data from 586 students were used to develop evidence of validity by conducting an exploratory factor analysis on half of the data and a confirmatory factor analysis on the other half. Results Evidence of validity indicates the appropriateness of the ESII for measuring integration and operationalizes integration constructs from the model of co‐curricular support (MCCS) for undergraduate engineering students, including academic, social, professional, and university integration. Conclusions Grounded in the MCCS, the ESII begins to address several critiques of student integration as originally defined by Tinto's model of institutional departure, those related particularly to the measurement of the integration constructs.

How Older People Experience the Age-Friendliness of Their City: Development of the Age-Friendly Cities and Communities Questionnaire

“…In order to investigate the validity of the AFCCQ, the dataset was split randomly in half ( n = 192 for each half) and an EFA was conducted using the first half of the data and a CFA on the second half. This approach is used to investigate validity from a single survey administration, especially when the sample is large enough so that resulting subsets represent enough observations to run multiple rounds of factor analyses [ 36 , 37 , 38 ].…”

Engineering Students’ Perceptions of Belongingness in Civil Engineering

“…The normality of the belongingness items were checked to ensure that the data did not severely violate assumptions about normality (|skew|>2 and kurtosis>7) (Johnson, Tietjen, and Beckmand, 1980). Any items that did not fit these requirements were removed from further analysis (Lee, Godwin, and Hermundstad, 2018). As part of a larger study, a Confirmatory Factor Analysis will be done to confirm that the model of factors from the entire survey behaves in the manner expected, which requires an assumption of a normal distribution (DeVellis, 2012).…”

The Influence of Experiential Learning on Student Professional Development: A Literature Review

“…In addition to considering skill development outcomes, many researchers have investigated the role of involvement in providing students with networks of support and a sense of belonging, which are critical to their persistence and professional identification [8], [38], [39]. Involvement has been shown to support students' persistence in engineering by supporting sense of belonging [8], supporting goals and integration [47], [48], and helping develop emergent resistant capital toward success in engineering [7]. Additionally, experiential learning through student organization involvement can introduce students to the engineering profession prior to full-time employment and help these students formulate career plans and prepare for their transition to the workforce [10], [11].…”