Breaking Barriers in STEM: Rethinking Pre-Engineering Education - Aishwary Pawar

College access and success remain critical issues in post-secondary education across the United States. As science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) proficiency declines, universities must proactively address students' needs, particularly those in Pre-Engineering programs. While many aspiring engineers begin their academic journey with enthusiasm, they often encounter challenges that lead to frustration and disengagement. Complex admission processes, lack of clear guidance, and overwhelming coursework create barriers that prevent students from thriving in Pre-Engineering programs.

In a recent study conducted at a large Midwestern public university, I examined the obstacles students face when entering Pre-Engineering and explored their experiences throughout the program. Many students struggle to balance rigorous coursework while navigating academic advising systems and identifying available support resources. This research follows a human-centered design approach, asking: "How might we understand students' learning experiences, attitudes, and struggles with the support provided in Pre-Engineering?"

Understanding the Challenges

The study was structured into three phases.

Phase One: Student Experiences The first phase focused on students' experiences during the Pre-Engineering admission process and their early academic journey. Data was gathered through surveys and interviews with both current and former Pre-Engineering students, supplemented by demographic and academic performance data.

Key findings revealed that many students lacked clear guidance on the Pre-Engineering curriculum. Additionally, they were unaware of crucial resources such as tutoring, mentoring, and hands-on learning opportunities. These barriers led to a sense of isolation and frustration, causing some students to reconsider their engineering aspirations.

Phase Two: Faculty and Advisor Perspectives The second phase shifted the focus to faculty members and academic advisors.

Interviews uncovered several major challenges, including students' struggles with overwhelming coursework, disengagement, and difficulties in mathematics-particularly pre-calculus-due to varying levels of preparation. Faculty noted that students often failed to recognize the value of certain courses, while advisors emphasized the need for improved communication and mentorship to enhance student engagement. Both groups acknowledged the necessity for targeted, personalized advising and mentoring.

Phase Three: Collaborative Solutions The final phase involved faculty and advisors collaborating to develop strategies for improving the Pre-Engineering program. Through co-design sessions, participants proposed solutions such as interactive learning environments, peer mentorship networks, and streamlined advising services. These initiatives aimed to provide students with personalized support and foster a more inclusive academic experience.

The Path Forward: A Holistic Approach

The study's findings underscore the importance of comprehensive support systems for Pre-Engineering students. Key recommendations include:

• Enhanced Orientation Programs: Providing students with clear expectations and available resources from the outset.
• Targeted Academic Advising: Implementing more structured and individualized advising sessions to address specific student needs.
• Peer Mentorship Networks: Encouraging experienced students to guide newcomers through the academic and social challenges of the program.
• Hands-on Learning Opportunities: Integrating real-world applications into coursework to keep students engaged and motivated.

These strategies have practical implications for Pre-Engineering educators and policymakers. Data-driven approaches and stakeholder collaboration are essential for creating an inclusive and supportive environment that enhances student retention and success. This study contributes to the growing body of literature on engineering education, offering valuable insights into effective practices and strategies for improving student outcomes.

Conclusion

Despite the increasing adoption of Pre-Engineering programs, limited research has explored their effectiveness and key success factors. This study presents a human-centered model that administrators can use to understand student experiences, engage faculty and staff, and collaboratively design improvements in support services.

Moreover, these findings have the potential to inform institutional strategic planning and recruitment efforts to address barriers that hinder student learning and engagement. By shifting from a one-size-fits-all approach to a more individualized, student-centered model, universities can create environments where Pre-Engineering students feel seen, heard, and supported.

As demand for STEM professionals continues to grow, universities must take action. Investing in stronger support systems for Pre-Engineering students is not just an educational imperative-it is an investment in the future. This research serves as a call to action for universities and policymakers to rethink Pre-Engineering education. By fostering an inclusive, holistic approach, we can equip the next generation of engineers with the tools they need to succeed in their careers and beyond.