2026 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition

This empirical research brief explores factors that may contribute to engineering undergraduate students reporting lower perceptions of thriving in their degree programs. Success in engineering education has often been explored in relation to academic performance; however, little focus has been placed on assessing success within more holistic frameworks like thriving. Inclusion of assessments that consider student well-being can address persistent concerns surrounding engineering student mental health and retention. Increased perception of thriving has shown to contribute to positive physical and mental health in workplace environments and could be used to assess ways to encourage improved well-being for engineering students. In this study, we investigate why engineering undergraduate students may report lower levels of thriving and what support systems could be employed to increase both thriving and retention.

We draw on Ge and Berger’s (2018) engineering thriving framework and Porath et al.’s (2012) thriving scale to guide exploration of thriving in the context of an undergraduate engineering program. The engineering thriving framework conceptualizes thriving in engineering undergraduate students as the development of academic, interpersonal and intrapersonal competencies within engineering program structures. Porath et al.’s (2012) thriving scale explores perception of thriving composed of two constructs: learning, defined as gaining and applying knowledge, and vitality, defined as the feeling of energy and aliveness. We use Porath et al.’s (2012) scale to frame our quantitative exploration and supplement their scale with Ge and Berger’s (2018) engineering specific framework to lead our qualitative analysis.

This paper draws on mixed-methods data, including 173 student responses to the thriving scale and follow-up semi-structured interviews with a subset of respondents. Data was collected at a research-intensive public university in April and May 2025. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 17 undergraduate engineering students and covered topics related to major decision, persistence, coursework, advising, and peer interaction. Initial quantitative analysis of the thriving scale identified five students who reported the lowest levels of thriving within the interview group. We then drew on thematic analysis to develop themes to characterize these five students’ experiences, guided by Ge and Berger’s (2018) engineering thriving framework.

Within the interview group of students with lower thriving scores, all but one reported a lower vitality score in comparison to learning. This trend raised further questions as to the cause of the discrepancy between learning and vitality in the interview group. Analysis framed by the engineering thriving framework showed insufficient preparation and the importance of connection with peers and supportive academic relationships as emerging themes in interviews with students that reported lower thriving scale scores. By understanding the specific experiences of students with low thriving scores, we can contribute to supporting students’ ability to thrive by identifying factors that influence not only academic success but also vitality, engagement, and sense of belonging within the engineering programs.