An adaptive response model to describe emergent engineering education system properties

To meet current and future challenges, engineers are needed that have different ways of thinking and one way this can be achieved is by attracting and retaining more diverse people from more diverse backgrounds. Student retention and attraction have been studied extensively in engineering education; however the underlying cause is still not well understood. This paper reports the results from the conceptual design and development of a theoretical model to better understand attraction and retention of engineering students and the influences on overall system properties. The proposed adaptive response model, developed by the authors, extends person-environment fit theory and Attraction Selection Attrition theory by introducing temporal scales and multiple hierarchical scales ranging from individuals to organizations. The findings that emerged from this study highlight the system attributes that result from low and high person-environment fit and the impact of the person-environment fit of people within the system on cognitive outcomes.

[1]  J. Lopreato,et al.  General system theory : foundations, development, applications , 1970 .

[2]  Harold W. Goldstein,et al.  Attraction–selection–attrition: Toward a person–environment psychology of organizations. , 2000 .

[3]  Vincent Tinto,et al.  Leaving College: Rethinking the Causes and Cures of Student Attrition. , 1988 .

[4]  B. Schneider.  THE PEOPLE MAKE THE PLACE , 1987 .

[5]  Understanding reflective practice in occupational therapy , 2002 .

[6]  D. Norburn,et al.  Planning for Existing Markets: Perceptions of Executives and Financial Performance , 1975 .

[7]  Lyle M. Spencer,et al.  Competence at Work: Models for Superior Performance , 1993 .

[8]  Gary Natriello,et al.  Achieving Educational Excellence: A Critical Assessment of Priorities and Practices in Higher Education , 1985 .

[9]  C. Cooper.  Theories of organizational stress , 2000 .

[10]  S. Schwartz,et al.  Leaving College: Rethinking the Causes and Cures of Student Attrition , 1987 .

[11]  David Radcliffe,et al.  Engineering education: Targeted learning outcomes or accidental competencies? , 2006 .

[12]  Beatriz Chu Clewell,et al.  TAKING STOCK: WHERE WE'VE BEEN, WHERE WE ARE, WHERE WE'RE GOING , 2002 .

[13]  Karan Watson,et al.  Diversifying the U.S. Engineering Workforce: A New Model , 2007 .

[14]  Richard H. Price,et al.  Person-environment psychology : new directions and perspectives , 2000 .

[15]  L. Bertalanffy.  General system theory : foundations, development, applications , 1977 .

[16]  R. Moos.  2001 INVITED ADDRESS: The Mystery of Human Context and Coping: An Unraveling of Clues , 2002, American journal of community psychology.

[17]  A. Astin.  What matters in college? : four critical years revisited , 1994 .

[18]  Daryl E. Chubin,et al.  Diversifying the Engineering Workforce , 2005 .

[19]  F. Heider,et al.  Principles of topological psychology , 1936 .

[20]  Cheri Ostroff,et al.  Perspectives on organizational fit , 2007 .

[21]  J. C. Smart,et al.  Higher Education: Handbook of Theory and Research , 2001, Higher Education: Handbook of Theory and Research.

[22]  N. Brickhouse,et al.  Women and science: The snark syndrome , 1998 .

[23]  John C. Smart,et al.  Major Field and Person-Environment Fit: Using Holland's Theory To Study Change and Stability of College Students. , 1999 .

[24]  Suzanne G. Brainard,et al.  A Six‐Year Longitudinal Study of Undergraduate Women in Engineering and Science * , 1998 .

[25]  C. Bao Iturbe,et al.  Educating the engineer of 2020: Adapting engineering education to the new century , 2009, IEEE Engineering Management Review.

[26]  L. Bourgeois.  STRATEGIC GOALS, PERCEIVED UNCERTAINTY, AND ECONOMIC PERFORMANCE IN VOLATILE ENVIRONMENTS , 1985 .

[27]  Bárbara C. Cruz.  Walking the Talk , 1997 .

[28]  Bruce J. Avolio,et al.  Full leadership development : building the vital forces in organizations , 1999 .