2024 Collaborative Network for Engineering & Computing Diversity (CoNECD)

In the spring of 2020, WE@RIT Director Kathy Ehrlich-Scheffer completed a mixed methods needs assessment analysis on the WE@RIT program’s offerings for the current student population, brought about by a rapid shift in student engagement patterns. Kathy has previously presented in detail (via CoNECD 2021, ASEE 2021 and WEPAN Fall Program Days 2021 & 2022) on her background research for the project and the insights generated regarding Gen Z engagement and how it differs from that of the Millennials that preceded them. These changing trends include a linear focus on academics and pragmatism, a rise in social anxiety resulting in part from 24/7 digital connection, an overall acceptance of no-showing and “ghosting,” and a peer-centeredness that trumps the individual, all of which are a departure from the hallmarks of Millennial engagement. For programs like WE@RIT which is staffed by one FTE, is event-driven, has limited space and even more limited financial resources, engaging this new crop of students was the impetus for the needs assessment to be undertaken. Three questions were originally asked as part of that process: why is this decrease in current student engagement with WE@RIT being seen? What are the present needs of women engineering students in Kate Gleason College of Engineering? and How should WE@RIT effectively meet these current student needs going forward? This presentation will focus on the results of the third question answered via the needs assessment process: examining the implementation process and results thus far of the programmatic, communication and attendance recommendations to better meet current student needs.

For WE@RIT, while some needs assessment program recommendations have been a booming success, (the creation of a peer mentoring program and collaborating with other diverse programs and groups), others have been more challenging to implement and get right (the inception of a student leadership board, engaging a wider range of corporations into programming, connecting transfers to current students.) One program recommendation remains out of reach for the time being due to funding, space and political constraints (creating a physical lounge space for WE@RIT students.)

At a more micro level the same can be said for both communication and attendance recommendations. Whereas a tiered approach to communications based on sponsor versus no sponsor involvement is working quite well, getting peer-minded current students to buy into spreading the word about programs via their own platforms has represented a much greater challenge. Likewise, implementing a two-stage ticketing system to reduce food waste in an equity-minded way has worked fantastically, but follow-up surveys to both participants and no-shows are garnering an ever dwindling pool of respondents.

This presentation will offer an honest look at what happens after the data is collected and the recommendations are implemented. As practitioners, we are ever reminded that we live “on the ground, in the real world;” which means that while research and recommendations are necessary for improvement, there’s typically not a 100% success rate at the level of their implementation.