2024 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition

This review discusses the role of sense of belonging in the experiences of low-income engineering students, including interpersonal and structural supports and challenges and the role of S-STEM programs in supporting the retention and persistence of low-income engineering students. This paper also outlines action items for institutional leaders to enhance existing practices and broaden the participation and success of low-income engineering students beyond S-STEM programs.

Recently there have been calls to increase the diversity of engineering programs, leading to the development of programs that support the retention and persistence of underrepresented students in engineering, including S-STEM programs. S-STEMs are NSF scholarships geared towards increasing the graduation rates of STEM students with financial need. Low-income students often report a lack of sense of belonging, which is consistently linked to retention levels. Challenges to a low-income students’ sense of belonging may relate to institutional classism, differences from peers, or challenges with faculty and staff. More specifically, low-income engineering students may experience a misalignment between their values and the values of engineering programs. Previous research discusses the correlation between the number of hours worked and the likelihood of remaining in a STEM degree program, which negatively impacts low-income students at higher rates when compared to their wealthier peers. Although it is important to understand the barriers of low-income engineering students to inform solutions, it is crucial to explore support structures and practices in place that aid in the success of this student population. In a review of the literature on S-STEM programs, students consistently report the crucial role of faculty and staff, community-based activities such as bridge programming, and access to internships as components that positively impact their sense of belonging. Students in S-STEM programs are also significantly more likely to remain and persist in a STEM major when compared to students with similar identities outside of S-STEM programs.

There are several implications for practice and research to support the persistence of low-income engineering students. First, previous research frequently discusses the essential role of faculty and staff (sometimes referred to as institutional agents) in supporting the sense of belonging and retention of students. Future research should explore the perspectives of institutional agents who support low-income engineering students to help inform more inclusive practices. Understanding the perspectives and processes of institutional agents can also inform professional development opportunities for faculty and staff. Second, the outcomes of S-STEM programs are impressive, however these programs serve a small percentage of students. Campus leaders can lead initiatives to analyze the policies students interact with and encourage departments to have discussions on campus processes and pedagogical practices that support or hinder low-income engineering students. Lastly, institutional and S-STEM program leaders can explore possibilities for internal and external collaborations to enhance support processes for low-income engineering students.