In the engineering education pipeline, the first year of a student’s college experience sets the tone for the future and, indeed, whether a student decides to remain in the engineering program at all. Engineering programs around the country experience difficulty in assisting students with the transition from high school to college, and struggle with the delicate balance between supporting a student’s transitional needs and maintaining academic rigor in a demanding major. The first year confronts students with a curriculum that challenges their long held beliefs of “being good in math and science.” Their first introduction to engineering education throws them into the realm of learning through experience and discovery. This at times can be overwhelming and challenging, on the way to achieving the goal of providing them with enough information to help them understand the breadth of the engineering profession and to prepare them for their sophomore year in engineering. During the summers of 2006 and 2007, engineering educators gathered at the University of Notre Dame to engage in discussions on how best to achieve the goals of this complex first-year experience. This paper elaborates upon three specific discussion points that have emerged from these summer workshops, including: (1) the relationship between persistence in engineering and the first year experience; (2) how to prepare first-year students to “stay the course”; and (3) trends in first year engineering program design. Finally, this paper will discuss the attendance at and feedback received from the workshops so that other universities can consider this as an opportunity to host their own regional first-year engineering workshop. Background & Introduction Many of today’s engineering educators recognize the need to develop a first-year engineering curriculum that takes into consideration the diverse academic, social, cultural, and economic backgrounds of an incoming class of students. Generally speaking, many feel that today’s students are more academically prepared, but are less prepared to be individually responsible for the largely self-directed study required in college. Ultimately, these students experience a transition from high school to college that is different and potentially more difficult than in the past. Universities around the country have initiated a variety of programs to ease this transition. Not all programs that are successful at one university will be successful at another, but a discussion of various aspects used by successful programs can raise the level of consciousness or understanding of faculty and provide a basis for dialogue that can lead to the implementation of innovative programs for first-year engineering students. Such topics include developing effective advising techniques, creating learning communities, using technology in the classroom, and addressing the needs of students from diverse backgrounds. For the past two years, a first-year engineering workshop entitled Dialogue on Engineering Education: the Role of the First Year has been held at the University of Notre Dame to engage engineering educators on these and other topics. It was conceived as a way for those involved in first-year programs to discuss current pedagogical approaches and to engage in an open dialogue on issues that pertain specifically to first year engineering education. The workshop offered formal presentation sessions, panel discussions, and breakout sessions. P ge 13977.3 This paper brings together some of the broad themes addressed at these workshops so that others who work in the first year engineering educational field can benefit. The many questions raised and topics covered essentially collapse into three main areas of discussion: • What is the relationship between persistence in engineering and the first-year experience? • How do engineering educator’s best prepare first-year engineers to “stay the course”? • What are the trends in first-year engineering program design? The Relationship between Persistence in Engineering and the First-Year Experience Persistence in engineering is affected by a number of factors, some that result from the student’s pre-college experiences, and some that result from the student’s experiences in the first year itself. Some pre-college factors lend themselves to measurement and tracking such as the student’s academic preparation and math proficiency. Other factors tend to be less tangible and more difficult to quantify, but no less important. These include the student’s family background and support, financial pressures that might require the student to work while in school or to finish college in the shortest possible time, and the student’s own motivation and desire to complete the rigorous and demanding engineering curriculum. Engineering attracts strong and capable students, but these students may come to college with personal and family pressures that can impact their decisions to stay in engineering. These factors are beyond anyone’s control, but attempts to understand these factors can benefit both individual students and classes of students as a whole. The collegiate-experience factors include a rigorous, demanding, and somewhat inflexible course load that causes even students with a strong academic performance records to switch to other majors, often in science or business. The complexities and impact of peer pressure, whether old friends back at home or new college friends in other majors who have a different college experience, cannot be underestimated, and may impact the ability of an engineering student to see the ultimate payoff for the hard work to come. The engineering curriculum, packed with consecutive requirements, may mean that even a small deviation from the preplanned curriculum can lead to an additional year of study because of missed pre-requisites. These strong, talented students often lack the ability to ask professors and similarly talented classmates for help, and faculty advising may lack the sensitivity to understand the complex issues that impact student performance or the student’s perception of his or her performance, particularly for women and students of color. Considering these realities helps all engineering programs to develop a firstyear program that addresses many of the concerns common to today’s students. It is necessary to engage students on a personal level, to help them to believe that they can succeed in this worthwhile endeavor, and to show them how their eventual success will bring them personal fulfillment. In a very practical way, these relationships can help students learn to exercise a degree of control over their academic future. Building schedules that work within the realities of their academic preparation and their daily lives is the first step. The option to proceed at a pace that suits them as individuals is imperative. And for students who thrive on challenges, this personal interaction at an early stage can help to build mentoring relationships that lead to meaningful research experiences and heightened interest in the breadth and depth of engineering study. P ge 13977.4 The key to persistence in engineering is infusing the first-year experience with the human element. Students must be shown that ideas and personalities have been and continue to be essential to engineering success. Further, students must be privy to the transformative power of engineering, to the idea of how engineering has changed society, often for the better. In addition to these broad themes, however, bringing the human element to engineering in very personal and real ways can be accomplished by engaging a student’s personal accomplishments and struggles to show that someone cares about their success. Students must be taught more than just calculus, physics and chemistry; they need to have opportunities to learn to be resourceful and resilient. Preparing First-Year Engineers to “Stay the Course” Many engineering programs provide introductory engineering courses in the first year so that students can “experience engineering” early on in their academic careers and thereby make an educated choice about their futures. The courses present engineering problems that emphasize the use of math and science so that students learn to apply these subjects to solve real engineering-related problems. But educators of students in first-year programs find themselves involved in a balancing act between nurturing the first-year students through the transition to college life and letting students figure out some things on their own. Faculty have a responsibility to the institution to prepare them technically for what is to come in the engineering curriculum, as well as to set the expectations for both work load and critical thought. Many programs have leaned too far in one direction or another, neither of which is good. If the environment is too nurturing, then students get shocked when they hit the sophomore year. If the environment leaves them on their own to “sink or swim”, then retention numbers are negatively impacted and students that have the aptitude, ability, or desire to pursue a degree in engineering may make a decision prematurely out of fear or frustration. From a student’s perspective, being 18 years old and trying to make a decision on what you want to do for “the rest of your life” can be overwhelming. Engineering educators need to offer exposure to the vast opportunities that are available through engineering while being careful not to intimidate students before they see what engineering is all about. In the past, engineering education has taken the “sink or swim” approach, but today, when students come in the door as first-year students, they are still in many ways high school seniors. Thus educators need to take the steps necessary to critique and improve pedagogical approaches to align with the desire to have a group of students that are prepared for sophomore year and have made