This work-in-progress paper/poster describes the development and initial implementation of a new approach to mentoring and advising students that we call "strengths training from a social justice perspective in engineering and computer science as context." This approach to mentoring and advising is part of a larger California-based Multi-Institutional S-STEM project called "Engineering Neighbors: Gaining Access, Growing Engineers" (ENGAGE, NSF DUE 1834128, 1834154). ENGAGE is designed to increase the number of low-income, academically talented students with demonstrated financial need who begin their engineering education at two Hispanic-Serving California Community Colleges; transfer to a highly-selective, predominantly white public institution; and then are retained in and graduate with a B.S. degree in engineering, and enter the STEM workforce or graduate program. The broader project also seeks to transform our institutions and the relationships between them to prioritize transfer student success via the utilization of the Essential Transfer Practices framework created by the Community College Research Center at Teachers College and the Aspen Institute [1]. The identified Essential Transfer Practices are designed to strengthen the implementation of practices that 1) make transfer student success a priority; 2) create clear programmatic pathways with aligned high-quality instruction; and 3) provide tailored transfer student advising to create sustainable change. As part of describing the development and initial implementation of this new model of mentoring and advising, this work-in-progress paper/poster shares information about student and faculty workshops and ongoing grant-related activities and support systems for mentors and mentees. Preliminary results related to student experiences and outcomes utilizing the "strengths training from a social justice perspective in engineering and computer science as context" framework during COVID-19 are included. The approach to ongoing research focused on the intersections of strengths, social identity, context, and social networks as related to this model of mentoring and advising is introduced.

While scholarships can serve as an important source of financial support and motivation for students attending university, they do not guarantee that recipients will graduate on time or graduate at all. Personal, health, and financial issues can conspire to overwhelm students, who then may stumble academically and thus lose their scholarships. To maximize the impact of scholarships, the NSF-funded S-STEM Engineering Leadership Pathway Scholars (ELPS) program provides support and activities to motivate and prepare upper division students to complete B.S. engineering degrees with the attitudes, knowledge, and skills to be leaders in the 21st century workforce and to pursue graduate degrees. Dedicated mentors and frequent interactions with industry professionals have been key to the success of the program. The average graduation rates and time to degree for these students are better than those of the university. Furthermore, ELPS recipients participated at higher rates in research and other professional development programs than typical students at San José State University. This innovative practice work-in-progress paper presents results of a post-scholarship survey and follow-on interviews, which indicate that the high-impact practices embedded in ELPS, in particular the mentoring, have had a positive impact on recipients' leadership skills and attitudes, their career paths, and their overall university experience.

Work in Progress: Creating Alternative Learning Strategies for Transfer Engineering ProgramsAbstractThe 2012 President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST) report “Engageto Excel: Producing One Million Additional College Graduates with Degrees in Science,Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics” indicated that addressing the retention problem inthe first two years of college is the most promising and cost-effective strategy to produce theSTEM professionals needed in order to retain US historical preeminence in science andtechnology. The California Community College System, with its 112 community colleges and71off-campus centers enrolling approximately 2.3 million students (roughly a third of all UScommunity college students) is in a prime position to grow the future STEM workforce.However, in the face of shrinking resources and increasing costs and other barriers, an effectiveapproach is needed in order to capitalize on this opportunity. One prong in this approach is tomore fully exploit modern technological capabilities to reduce costs, broaden access, andimprove educational productivity. This paper presents preliminary results of a collaborativeproject, Creating Alternative Learning Strategies for Transfer Engineering Programs(CALSTEP), which aims to strengthen community college engineering programs using distanceeducation and other alternative delivery strategies that will enable small-to-medium communitycollege engineering programs to provide their students access to lower-division engineeringcourses needed to be competitive for transfer to four-year engineering programs. Funded by athree-year grant through the National Science Foundation Improving Undergraduate STEMEducation (NSF IUSE) program, CALSTEP will leverage existing educational resources anddevelop new ones for online lecture courses, as well as core engineering laboratory courses thatare delivered either completely online, or with limited face-to-face interactions. The initial areasof focus for laboratory course development are: Introduction to Engineering, EngineeringGraphics, Materials Science, and Circuit Analysis. CALSTEP will also develop alternativemodels of flipped classroom instruction to improve student success and enhance student accessto engineering courses that otherwise could not be supported in traditional delivery modes due tolow enrollment. The project will iteratively evaluate and refine the curriculum over the three-year grant period, as well as train other community college engineering faculty in the effectiveuse of the curriculum and resources developed.

Insufficient academic preparation is a major barrier to student success in higher education in the United States; one nationwide study found that 75% of students entering community colleges need remedial education in at least one subject to meet prerequisites for college credit courses. 1 The cost of preparing these students for college-level work is extremely high, both to the educational institutions delivering the instruction and to the students themselves, with $4.6 billion in federal Pell grants going to students enrolled in at least one remedial course in 2011–12. 2 Further, a large percentage of students who require remedial education become mired in courses that are taught using the same deficit-based pedagogy that contributed to their failure to master the curriculum in high school. 3

MOOCs have the potential to help institutions and students needing remedial English language instruction in two ways. First, with their capacity to use a wide range of instructional approaches and to emphasize contextualized and visual learning, MOOCS can offer potentially more effective pedagogical approaches for remedial students. Second, if students increase success meeting college-level English competencies, MOOCS can help institutions and students conserve their limited resources. Similarly, MOOCs offer domestically and international employers opportunities to provide professional development to workers both in ways that are flexible, affordable and interactive.

In Spring 2013 San José State University (SJSU) launched SJSU Plus: three college courses required for most students to graduate, which used massive open online course provider Udacity’s platform, attracting over 15,000 students. Retention and success (pass/fail) and online support were tested using an augmented online learning environment (AOLE) on a subset of 213 students; about one-half matriculated. SJSU faculty created the course content, collaborating with Udacity to develop video instruction, quizzes, and interactive elements. Course log-ins and progression data were combined with surveys and focus groups, with students, faculty, support staff, coordinators, and program leaders as subjects. Logit models used contingency table-tested potential success predictors on all students and five subgroups. Student effort was the strongest success indicator, suggesting criticality of early and consistent student engagement. No statistically significant relationships with student characteristics were found. AOLE support effectiveness was compromised with staff time consumed by the least prepared students.

In this working paper we examine five institutional issues linked to resources and funding: 1. the influence of the course as the basic unit of educational provision; 2. the importance and form of professional development; 3. the crucial role of adjunct faculty, and their isolation from the rest of the institution; 4. the role of institutional research with limited capacity; 5. the community college as a laissez-faire institution and some policies that move away from this model toward more coordination, centralization, and understanding of mutual responsibilities among both faculty and administrators. These institutional influences make it difficult for individual faculty or even departments to make much change on their own. These also imply a large agenda for change — some of which require additional funding in obvious ways, and are therefore impossible in periods of fiscal decline, but some of which * This is the ninth of 10 working papers based on research undertaken with funding from the Hewlett Foundation, with additional funding from the David Gardner Chair in Higher Education; see the Appendix of Working Papers 1 and 2 for details. Please send comments to W. Norton Grubb at

Improving student success and graduating more engineers often requires us to reach a set of students who are the least prepared for college-level work, have the most complex educational experiences and lives, and the greatest need for academic intervention and support. One method of improved intervention may be to change the dominant paradigm for academic advising, moving it from a little-rewarded service activity to a reflective, well-regarded aspect of teaching. We describe a curriculum for an engineering faculty advisor professional development program, designed to help faculty become more effective in their efforts to prepare students for professional practice as technically competent, socially responsible and globally informed citizen-engineers. In addition to a deep understanding of all of the policies, practices, programs, resources and personnel available for student support on their campus, the advisor also needs some knowledge of student development theory, and can become more effective with an appreciation of students and their challenges and contexts. The exemplar faculty advisor must also reflect on their practice, and deeply understand all aspects of the baccalaureate curriculum. Advising must help the student look beyond a semester-to-semester roadmap of isolated coursework and should help the student plan his or her trajectory through the program in terms of academic work, career planning, workplace engagement, and community involvement, all of which are critical steps on the way to becoming an engineer. In this paper, the theoretical frameworks for academic advising are presented; the concept of an advising syllabus is described, and results from our own professional development program for engineering faculty advisors are discussed.

Community colleges provide a substantial array of student support services, designed to help student master basic subjects and to learn “how to be college students”. However, the use of these services by instructors and students varies substantially. Some instructors rarely or never mention the availability of such services; others make the use of some services mandatory. But the largely voluntary nature of student services means that many students do not use these services, for reasons ranging from competing demands for their time to avoidance of stigma or stereotype threat. The result is general consensus that the students who most need support services fail to get them — except where colleges have moved to portray such services as “what all good students do”.

This work addresses a gap in the professional development of engineering faculty: student advising. The development and assessment of the Designated Faculty Advisor program is described, including training components, student and faculty responses, and future plans.