2026 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition

This work in progress research paper is a conceptual replication and longitudinal extension of a previous study on how a microelectronics intervention influences the career choices of students in a first-year engineering course. The United States is currently experiencing a significant push to expand semiconductor manufacturing to meet rising demand across industries like transportation, national defense, and AI. While the CHIPS and Science Act of 2022 serves to strengthen domestic manufacturing, the workforce needs are outpacing the available engineers and technicians, with a projected shortfall of 67,000 jobs in the semiconductor industry by 2030.

This lack of engineers pursuing careers in microelectronics and semiconductors is partially attributed to a lack of exposure and awareness of the industry among engineering students. Historically, semiconductor curricula have been treated as a specialized discipline in higher education. The curriculum specialization has limited student interaction with the content to those students already pursuing semiconductor careers. Today, a growing number of programs are integrating semiconductor concepts across the education pipeline, from K–12 through higher education. However, there is a critical need to study the actual impact of these interventions on students' career pathways and persistence. This study examines these impacts using a Social Cognitive Career Theory (SCCT) framework, which explains how career development is driven by the interaction of affective factors (e.g., self-efficacy, interest), personal variables, and environmental supports. While SCCT provides a conceptual framework, this study investigates the influence of these affective and environmental factors on students' experiences and decisions.

To investigate the impact of a microelectronics intervention in introductory engineering course on student engagement and persistence, this study employs two sets of research questions. The first set addresses the generalizability of previous findings: (1a) How do prior experiences and barriers (e.g., access, social dynamics) affect students’ engagement, self-efficacy, and learning outcomes in microelectronics activities? (2a) How do students’ perceptions of the personal, academic, and societal relevance of microelectronics influence their engagement, persistence, and evolving outcome expectations?

The second set of research questions focuses on differences and longitudinal elements unique to this conceptual replication: (1b) How do students perceive changes in their interest, self-efficacy, and outcome expectations over the course of the following semester? (2b) What are the key challenges of integrating microelectronics content at this scale?

This paper presents a conceptual replication of our previous work (REDACTED) that examined students' experiences within the course receiving the intervention. The current study extends that work by using conceptual replication to improve generalizability and also to provide a longitudinal perspective.

Participants in this study were drawn from nine different course instructors, expanding the instructor sample compared to the single instructor in the initial study. This broader instructor base offers a more representative perspective on the curriculum’s implementation. Eighteen participants completed semi-structured interviews approximately one full semester after the microelectronics intervention while enrolled in the subsequent first-year engineering course. This allowed us to examine longitudinal impacts of the intervention.

The interview protocol, collaboratively developed and pilot-tested, was structured around the six core factors of SCCT: self-efficacy, outcome expectations, interest, satisfaction, persistence, and environmental supports. Data analysis followed a two-stage process. First, a round of deductive, structured coding was conducted using the SCCT framework and pattern codes from the previous study. Next, inductive pattern coding was applied to identify emergent themes related to the intervention’s long-term impact.

Initial findings indicate a wider range of student experiences compared to the previous study. More students reported unresolved technical difficulties during the microelectronics activities, often referencing their instructor’s or TA’s ability to provide (or not provide) support. This suggests that the effectiveness of the intervention may be significantly influenced by instructional support. By revisiting key research questions through a broader and more longitudinal lens, this study offers new insights into how instructional context and time shape students’ engagement, self-efficacy, and evolving career expectations in microelectronics.