Increases in attrition rates among science, mathematics, and engineering (SME) majors have produced a variety of deleterious effects for the society. This article attempts to clarify and interpret the interaction of those characteristics of the structure and culture of undergraduate SME programs that perpetuate high loss rates among their first year college majors. The interaction of instructional factors, differing high school and college faculty expectations for entering SME undergraduates, and epistemological considerations was found to contribute to a higher dissatisfaction among SME majors as compared with non-SME majors and the resulting attrition. Significant support was not seen for the contribution of commonly cited explanations of SME attrition such as cognitive factors and large class sizes.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AstinA. (1977). Four critical years. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
2.
AstinA., & AstinH. (1993). Undergraduate science education: The impact of different college environments and the educational pipeline in the colleges. Los Angeles, CA: Higher Educational Research Institute, U.C.L.A.
3.
BeersS. (1988). Epistemological assumptions and college teaching: Interactions in the college classroom. Journal of Research and Development in Education, 21, 87–93.
4.
CampbellG. (1996). Bridging the ethnic and gender gaps in engineering. National Action Council for Minorities in Education (NACME), 6(1).
5.
ChampagneA., & HornigL. (1985). Science teaching. Washington, D.C.: American Association for the Advancement of Science.
DaempfleP. (1999, April). The relationship between stated and actual faculty expectations for introductory college biology. Paper presented at the annual meeting of New England Educational Research Organization, Portsmouth, New Hampshire.
8.
DaempfleP. (2000). Faculty assumptions about the student characteristics required for success in introductory college biology. Doctoral dissertation (Accession No. AA19997550). The University at Albany, New York.
9.
DavisB. (1993). Tools for teaching. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
10.
DeweyJ. (1938). Experience and education. New York: Collier Macmillan Publishers.
11.
EbleK. (1988). The craft of teaching. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
12.
FreemanM.MacNeilC.DaempfleP.ThuynsmaB., & UzohM. (1997). Above and beyond stakeholder participation: Making collaboration work. Paper presented at the Edward F. Kelly Evaluation Conference, Albany, New York.
13.
GainenJ. (1995). Borders to success in quantitative gatekeeping courses. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 61, 5–14.
14.
GoodsteinD. (1993, February 25–26). Scientific elites and scientific illiterates. Proceedings of a forum on ethics, values, and the promise of science. New Haven, CT: Sigma XI.
15.
GreenK. (1989). A profile of undergraduates in the sciences. The American Scientist, 78, 475–480.
16.
HiltonR., & LeeD. (1988). Student interest and persistence in science: Change in the educational pipeline in the last decade. Journal of College Student Retention, 59(5), 510–526.
17.
HumphreysS., & FriedlandR. (1992). Retention in engineering: A study of freshman cohorts. Berkeley, CA: University of California at Berkeley.
18.
HydeM., & Gess-NewsomeJ. (1999). Adjusting educational practice to increase female persistence in the sciences. Journal of College Student Retention, 1(4), 335–355.
19.
KingP., & KitchenerK. (1997). Developing reflective judgement. San Francisco: CA: Harper and Row Publishers.
20.
LoftinL. (1993). The role of quality of instruction in persistence, attrition, and recruitment of college science/mathematics/engineering majors. Doctoral dissertation (Accession No. AAG9323615). The University of New Orleans, Louisiana.
21.
LowmanJ. (1995). Mastering the technique of teaching (2nd ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
22.
McDadeR. (1988). Knowing the right stuff: Attrition, gender, and scientific literacy. Anthropology and Education Quarterly, 19(2), 93–114.
23.
McKeachieW. (1994). Teaching tips: Strategies, research and theories for college and university teachers (9th ed.). Lexington, MA: D. C. Heath and Company.
24.
McShannonJ. (2001). Gaining retention and achievement for students program: A faculty development program to increase student success (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 450 627). New Mexico: New Mexico University.
25.
McShannonJ., & DerlinR. (2000, February). Retaining minority women engineering students: How faculty development and research can foster student success. Paper presented at the New Mexico Higher Educational Assessment Conference, Las Cruces, New Mexico.
26.
MitchellA. (1990). Analysis of views of college faculty concerning introductory chemistry courses. Doctoral dissertation (Accession No. AAG9103243). The University of Iowa, Iowa City.
27.
National Academy Press (1997). Science teaching reconsidered: A handbook. Washington, DC: Committee on Undergraduate Science Education.
28.
National Research Council (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academy of Sciences Press.
29.
NewtonE., & Wells-GloverL. (1999). Mentors for undergraduates in technical disciplines: A collaborative effort by faculty, student development professionals and alumni to improve undergraduate student retention and success in technical programs. Journal of College Student Retention, 1, 311–321.
30.
PerryW. (1970). Forms of intellectual and ethical development in the college years: A development scheme. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.
31.
RazaliS., & YagerR. (1994). What college chemistry instructors and high school teachers perceive as important for incoming college students. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31, 735–747.
32.
RyanM. (1984). Conceptions of prose coherence: Individual differences in epistemological standards. Journal of Educational Psychology, 76(6), 1226–1238.
33.
SchommerM. (1993). Comparisons of beliefs about the nature of knowledge and learning among postsecondary students. Journal of Research in Higher Education, 34, 355–368.
34.
SeymourE., & HewittN. (1994). Talking about leaving: Factors contributing to high attrition rates among science, math, and engineering undergraduate engineering majors. Final report to the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation on an Ethnography Inquiry at Seven Institutions. Boulder, CO: University of Colorado.
35.
SeymourE., & HewittN. (1997). Talking about leaving: Why undergraduates leave the sciences. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
36.
StrentaC.ElliottR.RussellA.MatierM., & ScottJ. (1994). Choosing and leaving science in highly selective institutions. Research in Higher Education, 35, 513–537.
