Why Do Students Choose Engineering?
A
Qualitative, Longitudinal Investigation of
Students’ Motivational Values
HOLLY M. MATUSOVICH, RUTH A. STREVELERa, AND RONALD L. MILLERb
Colorado School of Minesb, Purdue Universitya, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University
BACKGROUND
Recently published reports call for an increase in the number of engineering
graduates and suggest appropriate characteristics that these graduates
should embody. Accomplishing such change first requires understanding
why students choose to pursue engineering degrees.
PURPOSE (HYPOTHESIS)
Framed in motivation theory, our purpose was to better understand how stu-
dents choose engineering by answering the question: How do engineering stu-
dents’ engineering-related value beliefs contribute to their choices to engage
and persist in earning engineering degrees?
DESIGN/METHOD
This research uses Eccles’ expectancy-value theory in a qualitative, longitudi-
nal examination of undergraduate students’ choices to enroll and persist in
engineering majors. In particular, the focus of this work is Eccles’ subjective
task value (STV) construct, which incorporates the personal importance an
individual assigns to engaging in an activity. Using a multiple case study
I. INTRODUCTION
A. Problem Statement and Research Questions
Fueled by reports calling for increases in science, technology,
engineering, and math (STEM) graduates (Committee on Sci-
ence, Engineering, and Public Policy (COSEPUP) and Policy and
Global Affairs (PGA), 2006; Jackson, 2002; NAE, 2004, 2005),
considerable research efforts have focused on attracting and retain-
ing engineering students. Students who graduate in engineering
are called persisters and students who leave engineering majors are
called non-persisters. Significant findings include descriptions and
characteristics of persisters and non-persisters (e.g., French, Im-
mekus, and Oakes, 2005; Mendez et al., 2008; Nicholls et al.,
2007). However, what is lacking in current research findings is a
general understanding about how and why students choose to
enter and persist in earning engineering degrees. This greatly in-
creases the difficulty associated with attracting and retaining
students in engineering programs. It is hard to recruit and train fu-
ture engineers when prospective candidates’ goals, objectives, and
decision-making criteria are not well understood. Although
Ohland et al. (2008) recently found that persistence rates of engi-
neering students are actually not that different than those for
students in other majors, their findings continue to highlight the
gender gap in engineering majors. This makes understanding per-
sistence choices vital in creating a sufficiently large and diversified
engineering workforce.
October 2010
method approach, participants included eleven students (five men and six
women) at a U.S. technical school.
RESULTS
Results demonstrate that different patterns exist in the types of value or per-
sonal importance that participants assign to earning an engineering degree.
Moreover, a primary differentiating feature of these patterns is whether or not
participants choose engineering because it is consistent with their personal
identity or sense of self.
CONCLUSIONS
We conclude that values are very important in students’ choices to become
engineers. To increase persistence rates we must focus on values, especially by
helping students connect their personal identities to engineering identities.
KEYWORDS
expectancy-value theory, identity, motivation
To address this knowledge gap, we examined persistence using
motivation theory and specifically expectancy-value theory (Eccles,
2005, 2007; Eccles et al., 1983). In its simplest form, Eccles’ ex-
pectancy-value theory suggests that choices to engage in activities,
such as earning an engineering degree, are shaped by competence
and value beliefs (Figure 1). Competence beliefs address questions
of ability, “CAN I do this task?” and value beliefs consider the per-
sonal importance of a task, i.e., “Do I WANT to do this task?” This
study focuses on value beliefs to offer explanatory insights into per-
sistence choices by answering the question: How do engineering
students’ engineering-related value beliefs contribute to their choic-
es to engage and persist in earning engineering degrees? To answer
this question, we used case study methods to qualitatively examine a
series of extensive, matched longitudinal interviews with five male
and six female engineering students. This study was part of a larger
body of work, the Academic Pathways Study (APS), conducted by
the Center for Advancement of Engineering Education (CAEE)
(Clark et al., 2008; Sheppard et al., 2004).
II. SITUATION IN CURRENT LITERATURE
Many factors contribute to the choice to become an engineer,
which makes attracting and retaining engineering students a com-
plex task. Researchers suggest that pedagogical and programmatic
changes are necessary to influence current and perspective students’
Journal of Engineering Education 289
choices to be engineers (e.g., NAE, 2008; Sheppard et al., 2009).
However, before we can effectively design these pedagogical and
programmatic changes, we need a deep-rooted understanding of
the students’ perspectives and why they choose engineering. In
order to connect with current and prospective students, we need to
know their starting point.
Surprisingly little existing research on persistence in engineering
has been conducted from the student perspective, and even less re-
search explains how persistence happens. One notable exception is
Seymour and Hewitt’s (1997) large-scale study on persistence in sci-
ence, math, and engineering (SME) which explicitly addresses rela-
tionships between reasons for choosing SME fields and tendencies
to complete degrees in those fields. Their findings show that leaving
SME fields was usually not a result of poor preparation or conceptual
difficulty. Instead, choices to leave SME fields tend to reflect the
reasons they originally chose SME fields. Persisters were more likely
to have chosen engineering based on interest. Non-persisters tended
to choose SME fields for reasons not related to the nature of the
work associated with the major such as the influence of family mem-
bers, high school teachers, and others, for materialistic reasons,
and/or through uninformed choices, such as choosing engineering
because they did well in high school math and science courses. Sey-
mour and Hewitt (1997) suggest that intrinsic interest must be a
strong element by itself or in combination with other reasons for
choosing SME fields to favor persistence.
This current study builds on the work of Seymour and Hewitt
(1997) by framing persistence choice in motivation theory. Since
motivation theories attempt to explain the process whereby individ-
uals choose and continue to engage in activities, they have the po-
tential to facilitate a move from describing characteristics of persis-
ters and non-persisters to explaining how and why persistence
happens. Specifically, this research uses expectancy-value theory
(Eccles et al., 1983), which has rich history of application in under-
standing career choices (Eccles, 1986; Eccles et al., 1983; Eccles,
Barber, and Jozefowicz, 1999; Frome et al., 2008). We intentionally
chose a motivational perspective, and specifically expectancy-value
theory, over several other models of career choice including social
cognitive career theory (SCCT) (Lent, Brown, and Hackett, 1994).
SCCT has found application in understanding the career choices of
engineering students (Lent et al., 2003, 2008a, 2008b; Trenor et al.,
2008) and has some overlapping constructs with expectancy-value
theory such as ability beliefs, outcome expectations, and interests
Figure 1. Simplified view of Eccles' expectancy-value theory showing the relationship between competence and value beliefs and the
motivated action of earning an engineering degree.
290 Journal of Engineering Education
(Lent, Brown, and Hackett, 1994). However, the defined value
categories in expectancy-value theory provide a more explicit
framework to examine students’ beliefs about the importance of
choosing engineering careers and how such beliefs shape the per-
sistence process. SCCT frames values, primarily interest, within
outcome expectations, meaning that interest in an activity is fu-
eled by the anticipated outcomes from an activity and the impor-
tance of such outcomes to the individual (Lent, Brown, and
Hackett, 1994). In contrast, expectancy-value theory posits four
value categories, including interest, importance, cost, and
attainment, to describe how individuals assign importance to
engaging in an activity (Eccles, 2005). The four value categories
and relationships to activity engagement, such as career choice,
are described in greater detail in the following section.
A. Expectancy-Value Theory and Persistence Choices
As previously described, expectancy-value theory posits two pri-
mary sets of beliefs, competence and value, which factor into choic-
es to engage in activities such as earning an engineering degree
(Figure 1). Competence and value beliefs are shaped by many con-
tributing factors including: past experiences, the influences of so-
cializers (e.g., parents, teachers and peers), personal identity beliefs
(the aspects of ourselves that make us unique), and collective identi-
ty beliefs (the aspects of ourselves that tie us to others) (Eccles,
2005, 2009; Eccles et al., 1983). Consistent with the tenets of social
cognitive theories, Eccles’ model is based on an individual’s percep-
tion of his or her abilities and task values that shape engagement
and persistence behavior; importantly it is not his or her actual abili-
ty or task completion that is important.
Within expectancy-value theory, competence beliefs are identi-
fied as expectancies of success and include an individual’s belief as to
how well he or she will perform in an upcoming task or activity (Ec-
cles et al., 1983). Expectancies of success are similar to both Ban-
dura’s (1997) self-efficacy construct and also to self-concept of abili-
ty (Shavelson, Hubner, and Stanton, 1976). Although these three
concepts are distinct by definition, they have proven difficult to sep-
arate empirically (Eccles and Wigfield, 1995; Eccles et al., 1993;
Watt and Eccles, 2008; Wigfield, 1994; Wigfield and Eccles, 2000)
and are often measured in the same ways (Bong, 2001).
Competence beliefs have been studied more widely than value
beliefs across all age groups. For example, competence beliefs: 1)
link to better task performance among fifth to twelfth graders
October 2010
(Eccles et al., 1983) and among college students (Bong, 2001), 2)
relate to beliefs about task value or importance (Jacobs et al., 2002;
Wigfield et al., 1997), 3) tend to decrease with age for primary and
secondary school children (Jacobs et al., 2002), and 4) predict career
aspirations (Correll, 2001; Eccles, Barber, and Jozefowicz, 1999).
Competence beliefs are also more widely studied than value be-
liefs among engineering students and are most often grounded in
self-efficacy theory. Research on competence beliefs shows: 1) self-
efficacy mediates the relationship between positive feedback and
better performance (Alias and Hafir, 2009), 2) mastery experiences
and social comparisons are extremely important sources of self-
efficacy beliefs among first year engineering students (Hutchison
et al., 2006; Hutchison-Green, Follman, and Bodner, 2008); and 3)
among female students, self-efficacy is related to intention to persist
(Hutchison et al., 2006; Hutchison-Green, Follman, and Bodner,
2008; Marra et al., 2009).
Although studied less often, value beliefs are no less important.
Whereas competency beliefs look at a person’s ability to do a task or
engage in an activity, value beliefs look at the desire to engage, or
the importance of engaging, in a task or activity. Eccles defines sub-
jective task values (STV) as the individual’s incentives for engaging
in different tasks or activities based both on the nature of the task
and how well it aligns with personal values, goals, and needs
(Eccles, 2005; Eccles et al., 1983). There are four categories of
STV: 1) attainment value, the individual’s perception of how per-
formance on the task reflects on the individual and how this reflec-
tion matches with self-concept; 2) intrinsic or interest value, the
enjoyment experienced in doing the task; 3) utility value, the per-
ceived future importance of engaging in the task that may be direct-
ly or indirectly related to the task itself; and 4) relative cost (cost), the
price of success or failure in terms of effort, time, and/or psychologi-
cal impact (Eccles, 2005; Wigfield and Eccles, 1992).
Research directed towards understanding STV shows that they:
1) relate to future task engagement plans such as enrollment in ad-
vanced mathematics courses among fifth to twelfth graders (Eccles
et al., 1983; Eccles, Barber, and Jozefowicz, 1999) or occupational
choices among fifth to twelfth graders (Eccles, Barber, and Joze-
fowicz, 1999) and among early career professionals (Frome et al.,
2008), 2) predict undergraduates’ intentions to attend graduate
school (Battle and Wigfield, 2003), and 3) are better predictors of
activity choice than competence beliefs (Wigfield, 1994; Wigfield
and Eccles, 2000) among children and adolescents. Limited work
on STV has been conducted specifically regarding engineering al-
though there are several notable exceptions. First, a survey found
that both engineering and non-engineering college students gener-
ally believe that engineering benefits society but that it takes too
much effort to earn a degree and the resulting careers are very de-
manding (Li et al., 2008). More recently, Jones et al. (2010) found
that among freshman, value-related constructs predicted career
choice better than expectancy constructs. Additionally, a study
comparing the possibility of several models for predicting persis-
tence in engineering found no predictive power for Eccles’ ex-
pectancy-value model (although the authors conceded that the pri-
mary scales used had low internal consistency) (Schaefers,
Epperson, and Nauta, 1997). With the exception of the last set of
questionable findings, overall these results suggest that values play a
very critical role in understanding task persistence.
In a review of current findings related to goal theory, motivation,
and school achievement, Covington (2000) noted that, in contrast
October 2010
to achievement, little is known about the role of personal values and
interests related to learning. He recommends, “It is time that we re-
dress this imbalance and give more attention to the valuing aspects
of motivation” (p. 192). Echoing this call, we need more research on
engineering students’ values so that we can fully understand and
then influence persistence in engineering.
III. METHODS
In conjunction with expectancy-value theory, case study meth-
ods guided this research. Case study research differs from other
forms of qualitative research, such as ethnography and grounded
theory, because case study research tests existing theory (Yin, 2003).
Together, expectancy-value theory and case study methods shaped
decisions regarding participant selection, use of data sources, the
analysis process and interpretation of results.
Case study research methods are used across many disciplines,
e.g., psychology, social science, business, and economics, when re-
searchers want to understand events or social systems while main-
taining the realistic characteristics and details of such systems or
events (Yin, 2003). In this application, we examined students’
choices to pursue engineering degrees, which we argue constitutes
both an event and a social system. As an event, choosing to pursue
an engineering degree is a formative life event that extends over the
undergraduate years, i.e., each year until degree completion stu-
dents must choose to continue an engineering major or to leave en-
gineering. As a social system, students are making persistence
choices based on their experiences, perceptions, and with input
from faculty, peers, and family members. To maintain realistic
characteristics of the choice process, we considered the participants
holistically in the context of being engineering students. This
means we did not just examine their choice process as a separate and
distinct activity; rather we considered the choice process as an expe-
rience situated in the context of other simultaneous and related ex-
periences such as taking classes, participating in campus activities,
interacting with family members, etc.
Using multiple cases allows deeper exploration of, and additional
context for, the individual cases (Miles and Huberman, 1994;
Stake, 2006). For example, in this research students have different
campus and classroom experiences; therefore, a broader perspective
on the choice to be an engineer is obtained than if a single case, or
student, had been the sole focus. This deeper, contextual under-
standing can promote greater transferability of results (Miles and
Huberman, 1994) and enable generalization to theory (Yin, 2003).
In all case study research, it is important to set spatial and tem-
poral bounds around the cases under analysis (Creswell, 1998;
Stake, 2006). For this study, the bounds are established as five male
and six female students enrolled in engineering majors, at a techni-
cal public institution we refer to as TPub, from fall 2003 through
spring 2007. The participants and the context of TPub are de-
scribed in more detail in later sections. Each participant represents
an individual case and each case was analyzed separately before
being analyzed together.
A. Introduction of CAEE and APS
All data used in this analysis were collected as part of a larger
body of work, the Academic Pathways Study (APS) conducted by
the Center for Advancement of Engineering Education (CAEE)
Journal of Engineering Education 291
and funded by the National Science Foundation (NSF) grant ESI-
0227558. CAEE represents a multi-institutional collaboration of
more than 40 scholars. Both CAEE and APS have been described
previously in the literature (Clark et al., 2008; Sheppard et al.,
2004).
B. Context
TPub, a public research university located in the western moun-
tain region of the United States, is a highly competitive school at-
tracting top performing high school students as measured by grades
and SAT scores. TPub specializes in undergraduate engineering
education with very few majors outside of engineering. Non-engi-
neering majors are still math and science-related and include
Chemistry, Economics and Business, Math, and Computer Sci-
ence. The overall undergraduate population is heavily weighted to-
wards engineering majors. Students choosing to leave engineering
have few options at TPub for alternative majors.
It is possible that TPub being primarily an engineering school
contributes in two ways to increased persistence in earning engineer-
ing degrees. First, students choosing to enter engineering programs
at TPub may be self-selected towards engineering persistence since
they know they will have few options of major outside of engineer-
ing. Second, students considering leaving engineering might have an
increased tendency to stay since choosing another major usually
means they have to leave TPub entirely. This makes the TPub con-
text useful for studying persistence choices by highlighting the ways
that students negotiate choices to stay in engineering even when
staying is difficult. Understanding how students navigate difficult
persistence paths and ways that they succeed in engineering can help
us uncover possible ways we need to support and encourage students
to stay in engineering, not only in contexts like TPub but also in con-
texts where there are more choices in major. Moreover, this study
has only one non-persister and therefore is limited in what it can
offer with regard to understanding non-persistence. Therefore, we
consistently frame our study and its findings as contributing to un-
derstanding persistence rather than non-persistence.
Women are underrepresented at TPub (roughly 18 percent) rel-
ative to the general population but not necessarily with regard to
other engineering programs. However, since TPub is predominant-
ly an engineering school, the representation of women in the engi-
neering program is reflective of the entire school. This is unlike
other universities that may offer programs attracting predominantly
female students thereby raising the overall gender equity.
Other than Native American students, ethnicity distributions at
TPub are similar to other engineering programs. While the nation-
al average for Native American students in undergraduate engineer-
ing majors is 0.6 percent (NSF, 2006), the percentage at TPub is
nearly doubled. This may result from TPub being located proximal
to areas with large Native American populations. One APS partici-
pant, Mark, reported being of Native American descent.
C. Participants
The subset of APS data used for the analysis described herein
included longitudinal interview and survey data for eleven stu-
dents (five males and six females) at TPub. These 11 participants
represent a purposeful sample of the 40 TPub APS participants.
In accordance with APS design, 16 of the 40 TPub APS partici-
pants engaged with researchers in semi-structured interviews each
year for all four years. Of these sixteen participants, only ten had
292 Journal of Engineering Education
complete sets of interviews (i.e., one for each of the four years).
The eleventh participant, Julie, left engineering in her third year.
Her interview data set included three interviews with the third in-
terview specifically addressing her choice to leave. Having a total
of eleven participants is consistent with Stake’s (2006) suggestion
of five to fifteen cases to insure sufficient but not overwhelming
quantity of data.
Participants’ demographic information is shown in Table 1
using pseudonyms. Gender and ethnicity are self-reported in the
interviews and GPA were obtained from participants’ transcripts.
All students entered college directly from high school and are typi-
cal college-aged students (by Sax’s (2008) suggestion of typical
meaning entering college in the age range of 17-19). Participants
self-reported the following engineering majors: Chemical Engi-
neering, Materials Science/Metallurgy, Mechanical Engineering,
Physics, Civil Engineering, Environmental Engineering, and Pe-
troleum Engineering. Participants also represent a range of back-
grounds and campus experiences including various financial aid
arrangements, a member of an athletic team, a fraternity member,
club sport participants, engineering society members, and some
spent one or two semesters studying outside of the United States.
While not every possible case is represented, we believe that this
case variation covers a sufficiently broad space to explore the phe-
nomenon of choosing to pursue an engineering degree while not
being overwhelming in diversity.
D. Data Sources
1) Primary Data Source: The primary data source for this study
was individual semi-structured interviews collected during the
spring semester each year for four years. A loosely structured frame-
work of guiding questions prompted the students to think about
topics central to APS research questions. The design of the inter-
view protocol, described in detail elsewhere (Stevens, O’Connor,
and Garrison, 2005), intentionally included questions that drove
students to reflect on past, present, and future experiences in engi-
neering to capture changes over time. Two interviewers at TPub
followed a written APS protocol guide to conduct the audio-
recorded interviews, which were later transcribed verbatim. Al-
though all interview responses were included in the present analysis,
questions with particular salience for this study include:
1. Can you tell me how you became interested in engineering?
2. Think of other engineering students that you have come
across here. Would you say that in general they are more dif-
ferent from you or more similar?
3. Think about your professors here at TPub. What would you
say they think it means to be a good engineer?
a. How does that fit with your own image of an engineer?
4. Okay, let’s imagine it’s a few years from now, and you’ve
graduated with a degree in (student’s planned major).
a. What’s next for you? (if not engineering explore why they
have made this choice)
b. What do you imagine yourself doing on a day-to-day
basis?
c. What would you say it takes to be a good (insert student’s
career choice)?
Interview questions were generally the same from year to year.
However, minor modifications recognized that questions had been
asked in previous years but that the interviewers wanted to explore
them in more detail.
October 2010
 Table 1. Participants' demographic information.
2) Additional Data Sources: Case study analysis often uses multi-
ple data sources (Creswell, 1998; Stake, 2006; Yin, 2003), and
therefore this analysis also incorporated information obtained
through academic transcripts and informal conversations. Academ-
ic transcripts provided GPA information which can be considered
an indication of academic performance. Seven of the eleven partici-
pants also participated in informal conversations. Unlike the semi-
structured interviews, these informal conversations did not follow
even a loosely scripted list of questions. This allowed greater free-
dom for participants to discuss topics of importance to them and for
the interviewer to continue probing. These conversations were also
recorded and transcribed verbatim. There are a total of 22 informal
conversations for seven participants. Not all participants engaged in
recorded informal conversations because APS was designed to have
differing levels of interaction with different groups of participants.
The students having informal conversations had the greatest
amount of interaction with the research team. The informal conver-
sations provided supplementary information and were used to tri-
angulate findings from the primary data source (semi-structured in-
terviews with all participants); in no cases were the informal
conversations found to contradict information provided in the
semi-structured interviews. Therefore, it is believed that there is no
negative impact on the overall results of this study as a consequence
of having informal conversations available for some but not all of
the participants.
E. Data Analysis
Our data analysis started with the semi-structured interviews,
which are considered the primary data source. We followed an
analysis approach similar to the methods described by Miles and
Huberman (1994). First, the interviews were grouped by case, i.e.,
each of the eleven participants represents a case and each case in-
cludes four semi-structured interviews (three for Julie). Then, each
case was analyzed separately before looking across cases for themes
and patterns. Our analysis included a combination of coding output
from Atlas Ti and pictorial and graphical data representations
October 2010
(Matusovich and Streveler, 2009). Miles and Huberman (1994) de-
scribe three categories of data analysis strategies including: a) case-
oriented, where the individual cases are of central importance; b)
variable-oriented, where the variables identified across the cases are
of central importance and details of the cases may be lost; and c)
mixed strategies, where a combination of the two is used. This
study incorporated a mixed strategy where the eleven individual
cases and the four STV categories (value constructs) were equally
important. Results are presented as variable-oriented assertions
such that they are organized around the four STV categories in-
cluding attainment, cost, interest, and utility.
This analysis began as part of a broader research project with 10
cases (participants) that examined competence, value, and identity
beliefs (Matusovich, 2008). Building on that project and focusing
on values, this analysis includes an eleventh case. Consistent with
case-study methods, findings from the original analysis were tested
by adding a new case with distinguished characteristics (Kirk and
Miller, 1986; Stake, 2006; Yin, 2003). The added case represented
a non-persister, Julie who left engineering and TPub after her third
year in an engineering major. The description of methods reflects
the process of adding an additional case.
Starting with a case-based approach, interviews (a total of 40; 4
for each of the 10 participants excluding Julie), were read repeat-
edly and then coded using Atlas Ti software. Initially we used
open-coding strategies, developing codes inductively from the
data (Patton, 2002) with expectancy-value theory in mind. The
resulting initial list of codes was refined by examining the codes
for uniqueness and combining codes where sufficient overlap ex-
isted. We then applied this refined list to all 40 interviews to in-
sure consistency across cases.
This initial coding pass maintained a focus on the participants’
words. This allowed us to develop operationalized definitions of
Eccles’ value categories that are reflective of the participants’ per-
spectives. By “operationalized definitions” we mean that we created
useful, measureable definitions relevant to this study but that corre-
spond to definitions given in the literature. For example, in one
Journal of Engineering Education 293
source Eccles (2005) defines attainment value as “the value an activi-
ty has because engaging in it is consistent with one’s self-image”
(p. 139). Our operationalized definition translates “the activity” to
“choosing an engineering career” such that in our study, attainment
value is “a reason for pursuing (or not pursuing) engineering that is
related to being the type of person who is an engineer.” This broad-
er code encompasses multiple inductively developed codes which
encompass the characteristics the participants attribute to engi-
neers. For example, codes such as “being good at math and science”
or “being a problem-solver” are attainment values because they de-
scribe choosing engineering because one is good at math and sci-
ence, or problem-solving, and believes that being an engineer
means being good at these things. The other three value categories
were operationalized in a similar manner. All 40 interviews were re-
coded with the broad codes in place to insure that all relevant sec-
tions of responses were appropriately captured. Additionally, as part
of the data triangulation, the set of informal conversations (a total of
22, for 7 participants) were coded using the operationalized a priori
codes and the inductively developed codes.
In addition to data triangulation, this analysis incorporated re-
searcher triangulation. The first author was responsible for most of
the coding. The first author trained an additional researcher, only
mildly familiar with the project, in using the codebook by coding
two interviews with the primary author and discussing code appli-
cations. The additional researcher then independently coded one
interview from each participant (third year interviews were used)
using the established code book. The author and secondary re-
searcher then discussed any coding discrepancies until an agreement
was reached. This resulted in a final clarification of codes. The final
code list, including literature definitions, operationalized defini-
tions and examples is shown in Table 2.
Following methods outlined in Miles and Huberman (1994), the
coding output for each case was examined by creating tabular dis-
plays. Using one table for each case, quotes were summarized and
displayed in columns by value category. Rows were organized by
Table 2. Final code list applied across all interviews showing code definitions and examples of code applications.
294 Journal of Engineering Education
increasing undergraduate years. A meta-matrix graphic display
(Miles and Huberman, 1994) was created for cross-case analysis.
We grouped, sorted and organized the information presented in the
individual tabular displays into a single display for each variable, e.g.,
data related to attainment values for all participants across all years
was organized into a single table. This allowed cross-case patterns to
emerge. By organizing the tabular displays based on the variables, we
shifted our analysis to a variable-based approach in which the four
value categories had priority over the individual cases.
As a final step in the analysis, we rated each participant with
regard to each value category for each of the four years. Ratings of
high (H), moderate (M), and low (L) were used. High attainment
means engineering is consistent with sense of self. High cost repre-
sents making sacrifices to become an engineer. High interest in-
cludes enjoying activities believed to be associated with engineer-
ing. High utility is the perceived future usefulness of an
engineering degree. The ratings represent a combination of fre-
quency and quality of coded segments. This combination balances
participants who talk more with those who say less. For example,
a participant who repeatedly mentions a value would be rated as
“High” for the appropriate category. Ratings of “Low” mean that
a particular value was mentioned infrequently or not at all. Corre-
spondingly, “Moderate” ratings are in the middle. Alternatively, a
participant who uses minimal words and has less of a tendency to
repeat himself or herself but gives an emphatic response related to
a particular value category would also be rated “High” for that cat-
egory. As shown in the results section, this rating system made
patterns across variables and cases highly visible.
Analysis proceeded similarly for Julie’s case, which includes three
interviews. The stabilized list of codes was applied to each interview,
outcomes were added to the meta-matrix, and ratings were assigned
for each value category. We recognized there could be potential bias
by having researchers familiar with the outcomes from analysis of the
previous ten interviews analyzing the eleventh interview. Therefore, a
third researcher coded Julie’s interviews. This researcher was trained
October 2010
using the final codebook and interviews from two of the ten previous-
ly analyzed cases. The author and third researcher coded segments to-
gether and independently until the third researcher was comfortable
with the codebook. They then coded all three of Julie’s interviews
separately and assigned value-category ratings. Discrepancies were
discussed until agreement was reached.
F. Research Quality
Validity and reliability are measures of research quality (Patton,
2002) and are as important to qualitative research as they are to
quantitative research (Yin, 2003). Strategies used to enhance validi-
ty and reliability were mentioned throughout the methods section
and are summarized in Table 3. One additional strategy, virtual
member-checking, is discussed following the table. The definitions
in Table 3 are based on Yin’s (2003) discussion of measures of qual-
ity as applicable to case study research.
1) Virtual Member-Checking: Member-checking, a procedure
that can mitigate researcher bias, is a process where the participant
reviews the researcher’s interpretation of the interview (Creswell,
1998; Patton, 2002). However, member-checking was not possible
in this study. The longitudinal nature of the study with analysis oc-
curring a year or more after all data were collected meant that verify-
ing interviews after such a long delay would provide limited mean-
ingful information. Moreover, the annual interviews were designed
to allow participants to reflect on their experiences over time
(Stevens, O’Connor, and Garrison, 2005) perhaps making it more
difficult for participants to reconstruct a previous mindset. In lieu of
actual member-checking, the researchers developed a means for vir-
tual member-checking.
We created poster-sized representations of the participants. We
called these representations “pictorial personas.” Described in great de-
tail previously (Matusovich and Streveler, 2009) the creation and pur-
pose is summarized here. Pictorial personas were modeled after a user-
centered design approach where fictitious persona representations of
clients/customers become the ideal person for whom the product is
being designed (Pruitt and Adlin, 2006). In our study the personas
Table 3. Definitions for measures of quality and descriptions of implementation in this qualitative research study.
October 2010
were not fictitious and were based on interview data. Rather than tar-
gets for marketing purposes, our personas were holistic representations
of the participants intended to mitigate researcher bias with virtual
member-checking and hypothesis testing during data analysis.
In creating these pictorial personas, the first objective was to dis-
play salient information about the participants in an “easy-to-see”
format. The second objective was to represent the participants
holistically, i.e., as complete people and personalities having experi-
ences beyond those specifically related to the analysis. Although
seemingly contradictory, we accomplished both objectives through
the systematic creation and organization of the posters to include
participants’ described identities, future career goals, internships,
and other important on and off-campus experiences. Each poster
entry was color-coded by year to visually highlight developmental
changes. All posters were organized to have the same types of infor-
mation in the same places to create uniformity.
As the primary analyst, the first author took great efforts to identi-
fy and continually acknowledge her biases by making a concerted ef-
fort to see aspects of herself and her story in her participants. Promi-
nent pictorial personas displayed in her primary research workspace,
provided a visual reminder to consciously and continuously ask herself
if she was telling her story or theirs and if her assertions were consis-
tent with her participants’ stories. As themes developed during analy-
sis, they could easily be checked against the representations of the par-
ticipants to assess goodness of fit with each case.
IV. RESULTS
Framed in motivational theory, this research proposed to an-
swer the question: How do students’ engineering-related values
contribute to their choices to engage and persist in earning engi-
neering degrees? In answering that question, this research shows:
• all four of Eccles’ value categories are represented in partici-
pants’ choices to earn engineering degrees, although attain-
ment value plays a prominent role
Journal of Engineering Education 295
 • the four categories are not mutually exclusive
• distinct patterns within values emerged
The results are summarized in Figure 2, followed by details of
each category. When participant quotes are included in the results,
they are followed by an indication of the participant’s name, the in-
terview type with semi-structured interviews denoted by “SS” and
informal conversations denoted by “INF”, and an indication of the
semester and undergraduate interview year.
Recalling the methods section, participants were rated
(Figure 2) each year with regard to expressions of value used in de-
scribing choices to be engineers. Note that Julie has no ratings for her
fourth year since she left engineering and TPub after her third year.
High (H) attainment means engineering is consistent with sense of
self, i.e., consistent with the type of person each participant thinks he
or she is. Low (L) attainment represents engineering as inconsistent
with sense of self. High cost represents sacrifice in becoming an engi-
neer while low cost means the participant perceives he or she is mak-
ing no sacrifices in becoming an engineer. High interest equates to
high enjoyment associated with engineering activities while low
interest is a lack of enjoyment associated with engineering activities.
High utility is the perceived future usefulness of an engineering de-
gree whereas low utility is a lack of usefulness. Moderate (M) ratings
fall in the middle in each category.
The figure highlights several important patterns in the data
which are summarized here and expanded upon in following sec-
tions. All participants are categorized as having either high or low
attainment values; these ratings remained consistent and unchang-
ing across all four years. There were no ratings of moderate for this
value category. For participants with high attainment values, interest
values stay the same or increase with time and cost values are consis-
tently low. Conversely, for these same participants, utility values stay
the same or decrease with time. For participants with low attain-
ment values, cost and interest values differ for each participant and
utility values stay the same or increase.
Figure 2. Changes in participants' engineering persistence-related values (by category) with time across four undergraduate years.
296 Journal of Engineering Education
A. Attainment Values
Not surprisingly, the data show that students choose to en-
gage and persist in earning engineering degrees for a variety of
reasons. Participants’ reasons always connect to an attainment
value, i.e., a sense of self. However, this sense of self is not always
engineering-related. Consider the following two examples. Joe
considers himself to be an “engineering-type person.” During an
informal conversation (INF) in his second year he says,
I mean it is what I like doing. It’s what I do. And, it’s just
rather convenient for me to think that I can get a job doing
it. (Joe, INF, Spring 2nd year)
While also showing an interest value, this quote demonstrates
Joe’s belief that an engineering career matches who he is as a person.
In contrast, consider Anna. Anna views an engineering degree as a
base for other more interesting future career options. In the spring
of her first year she says in a semi-structured interview (SS),
…engineering, uh like I see it as a tool for what I wanna
do… I will learn engineering and physics because it is going
to lead me into what I’m doing. (Anna, SS, Spring 1st year)
This statement is part of a much longer response (several min-
utes) where Anna lists many potential future career options that she
sees as more consistent with the person she considers herself to be.
For example, she describes using her engineering degree to qualify
her for advanced degrees culminating in work in psychology or biol-
ogy. It is this pathway to other careers that she refers to when saying
“what I’m doing.” Anna sees an engineering degree as useful for fu-
ture, non-engineering career plans but does not see engineering as
consistent with her sense of self.
In theory, attainment value is how important one perceives a task
to be and how consistent that task is with his or her sense of self
October 2010
(Eccles, 2005; Eccles et al., 1983; Wigfield and Eccles, 1992). Op-
erationalized for this study, attainment values are reasons for pursu-
ing (or not pursuing) engineering degrees that are related to percep-
tions of the self as an engineer. These perceptions of the self as
engineers are similar to professional identities (e.g., Ibarra, 1999) or
engineering roles (Davis, Beyerlein, and Davis, 2005). By this defi-
nition, Joe has a high attainment value and Anna has a low attain-
ment value. Joe and Anna experience the continual choice process to
pursue engineering very differently, as do their peers who have simi-
larly rated attainment values. As mentioned, all participants are
rated as either high or low in engineering-related attainment value;
no participants had moderate ratings.
Hillary, Mark, Will, Max, and Beth also have high attain-
ment values for being engineers. Hillary thinks of herself as a
problem-solver and looks forward to working in the field solv-
ing the real-time problems that arise during operation. Mark
thinks of himself as a designer and initially hopes to design au-
tomobile parts in the future. Will is a designer and builder and
he thinks of engineering as the career name for his hobbies.
Max describes himself as a materialistic person and he believes
engineers are well-paid. Beth enjoys math, science, and hands-
on activities and believes those are characteristics of engineers.
For all six of these participants, their beliefs about being engi-
neers match beliefs they hold about themselves; they have at-
tainment values related to being engineers.
As shown in Figure 2, five participants, Anna, Marie, Leslie,
Tim, and Julie, have low ratings for attainment values; how they see
themselves may not match how they see engineers. For example,
Tim waivers in choosing a career in engineering. Tim thinks of
himself as a businessman and pursues engineering primarily because
he believes it will help him be a better businessman in the future. In
his third year, Tim describes how he initially became interested in
engineering,
I didn’t think I could go straight into business because
that is not my personality. And, it was kind of my
strength but like I thought I wanted more. (Tim, SS,
Spring 3rd year)
In this excerpt, Tim describes needing something “more”
than a business major, and he believes engineering provides that
added something. While also encompassing one of Tim’s utility
beliefs, i.e., that a background in engineering as something use-
ful for working in business, Tim describes choosing engineering
because he is the type of person that needs something more than
a straight career in business could provide. Although he intends
to complete his degree and practice engineering, in his fourth
year Tim expresses doubts that engineering is consistent with
his sense of self,
Like the theory, what makes things work, taking things
apart, and figuring all this stuff out, and all the intricacies,
sometimes I just don’t care about that. I’m like, ‘OK so
these guys are engineers, that’s what their thing is. Why am
I an engineer?’ And I look at like where I wanna’ do kind of
with my career, and you see this shift away from
engineering. And I ask myself, ‘Well so why did I get an
en… [sic], involved in engineering in the first place?’ (Tim,
SS, Spring 4th year)
October 2010
Even as a fourth year student, Tim doubts if engineering is the
right career choice for him. Similarly, Anna initially pursues engi-
neering as a foundation for a career in another field and, like Tim,
struggles with fit. Leslie believes she wants a career in engineering
then finds it is not a good fit for her because she doubts her abilities.
She does not believe she has the “mechanical intuition” which is in-
herent in engineers. Conversely, Marie does not talk about how en-
gineering matches or does not match her sense of self; she plans to
pursue a graduate degree and has postponed career choices until she
reaches graduate school. In talking about choosing engineering,
Julie also talks about aspects of teaching that are more and less con-
sistent with her sense of self:
Julie: Um, well when I was little I wanted to be a teacher
but I mean…
Int: Talk about that?
Julie: The being a teacher? [Int: Mm-hmm.] I don’t
know, it was probably cause like um, there’s a gap
between me and like my next cousin, so like I was
the oldest among the other cousins, so I really liked
teaching them how to do things, and I kinda like
being in charge for some odd reason but, as I got
older like I just couldn’t see myself being
responsible for a lot of kids and their education so,
and then I really got into like the math and the
science and, and ‘Julie, what do you like?’ ‘Math
and science.’ ‘Oh you should be an engineer.’ ‘Oh
okay.’ So you know like never really thought about
anything else really. (Julie, SS, Spring 1st year)
Julie describes enjoying teaching activities. The responsibility
teachers have is inconsistent with her sense of self so she was direct-
ed towards engineering out of interest and skill with math and sci-
ence courses. Julie’s passage suggests engineering is a default career
rather than something she is drawn to because of the types of work
engineers do.
B. Cost Value
According to Eccles (Eccles, 2005; Eccles et al., 1983; Wigfield
and Eccles, 1992), cost is the time, effort, and psychological price of
succeeding or failing in a given task. In this study, costs associated
with being an engineer or not being an engineer in the future are
considered. For example, an individual might view working long
hours on an isolated oil rig as a cost of being a petroleum engineer or
they might view failing to become a petroleum engineer as a missed
opportunity to work in a foreign country.
The costs of being a practicing engineer are different from the
costs of being an engineering student. For example, the costs of being
an engineering student might include heavy course loads or the
emotional and psychological toll associated with the financial bur-
den of paying for engineering courses. This study acknowledges
that there are costs of being an engineering student but focuses on
the costs of being a practicing engineer. This is necessitated by insuf-
ficient information to distinguish the costs of being an engineering
student from being a college student. For example all participants
mention at least once having a difficult semester, not having enough
free time, having a hard class, etc. However, the challenges they
mention could be associated specifically with being engineering stu-
dents or they could be associated with attending a competitive
Journal of Engineering Education 297
school like TPub. Therefore, for this study, costs are limited to those
associated with a career in engineering.
Two different patterns emerge across the eleven participants
with regard to the cost values associated with being an engineer
and with attainment values. The six participants shown in Figure 2
rated with high attainment values are also rated as low with regard
to the importance of relative costs in their choices to become engi-
neers. In fact, these participants generally do not talk about costs
related to a career in engineering.
The five participants shown in Figure 2 with low attainment val-
ues have different cost rating patterns from each other and some have
cost ratings which change with time. Marie does not talk about the
costs of being or not being an engineer extensively. Anna, Tim,
Leslie, and Julie do consider costs as they consider if becoming an
engineer is the right career choice. Some examples of the costs ex-
pressed by Anna and Leslie are given here.
Anna has a love of art and believes that choosing a career in engi-
neering potentially means not having time for the art which she en-
joys in her spare time,
Well there’s a constant struggle with me and art. Because I
love it. And it’s a part of who I am. And I wish I could do it
more, you know? (Anna, SS, Spring 4th year)
Leslie fears that choosing engineering means choosing a career
she will not enjoy,
And I kind of feel like I’m not really going to enjoy it if I
actually go into engineering. (Leslie, INF, Fall 3rd year)
While this is also an interest value, Leslie expresses this in a cost for-
mat; a potential cost of being an engineer is not enjoying her work.
Julie does not mention the costs associated with being an engi-
neer until her third year when she has decided to leave engineering
and TPub to pursue a career in teaching. For Julie, part of the cost of
becoming an engineer is being someone that she is not. In her third
year, she describes her choice to leave:
…well another thing that scared me was I knew I was
graduating in like a year and a half and it just scared me that
I couldn’t be an engineer. Like I don’t see myself fitting in
there anymore (Julie, SS, Spring 3rd year)
Also related to attainment value, being an engineer has a psycho-
logical cost for Julie associated with her identity. Additionally and
much like Anna, being an engineer also has a cost associated with a
perceived inability for Julie to simultaneously pursue dance-related
activities. In her third year, Julie describes how teaching will allow
her to also dance while being an engineer might not:
But, I think that’s another reason that I wanna’ go into
teaching is because there’s you know, like dance teams, and
drama. And that maybe I could choreograph musicals.
Whatever. I mean, I feel like I have more opportunity being
a teacher than I do as an engineer.
Dance is one of Julie’s hobbies and she perceives that being a
teacher will afford her a better opportunity to continue her involve-
ment in dance than engineering.
298 Journal of Engineering Education
C. Interest Value
Interest value refers to doing a task for the enjoyment experi-
enced while doing the task (Eccles, 2005; Eccles et al., 1983;
Wigfield and Eccles, 1992). Interest is operationalized in this study
as the enjoyment experienced in performing activities perceived to
be engineering activities and/or enjoyment related to becoming an
engineer in the future.
As shown in Figure 2, the six students with high attain-
ment values also have moderate to high interest levels. Hillary,
Will, Beth, and Joe have a high interest level in engineering
that is unchanging over their four years. Max and Mark have
moderate interest values that increase over their four years be-
coming high by the end. Following is an example quote from
Hillary:
I used to go down there after class and help [name] set up
for labs and stuff, and that’s kind of where I really fell in love
with it, like how things worked, because I’d go and there
would be bowling balls hanging from the ceiling and we had
ramps and tracks and everything and I’d just get to go down
there and play… (Hillary, SS, Spring 1st year)
In this quote, Hillary describes pre-college enjoyment for what
she perceived as an engineering-related activity, i.e., investigating
how things work. She describes her time in the lab as “play,” an ex-
pression of enjoyment.
Anna, Tim, Leslie, Marie, and Julie, the five participants with
low attainment value ratings, have low to moderate ratings for in-
terest values. There is not a discernable pattern within these five
participants related to changes in interest levels. One increases,
one remains constant, two decrease, and one increases then re-
turns to starting level. These participants express interest in engi-
neering activities less frequently than the other six and often with
less passion. For example, unlike Hillary’s quote, these partici-
pants do not easily use words like “love” or “play.” While Leslie
has typically expressed a generic or matter-of-fact interest in engi-
neering, in this quote she realizes she does not have the deeper
level of interest or “passion” she believes is needed to be happy in
an engineering career:
And, I just really realized you have to be really passionate
about what you do. ‘Cause it’s not about your 40-hour week
and then it’s over. Like, usually you’re gonna’ be working a
lot more [I: Um-hum.] and you should be excited about
what you’re doing. [I: Um-hum.] And, I kind of feel like
that I’m not really going to enjoy it if I actually go into
engineering. (Leslie, INF, Fall 3rd year)
This realization comes during her first internship when Leslie
finds she does not have passion for the type of engineering work she
and those around her are doing.
D. Utility Value
According to Eccles, utility value incorporates the perception of
the future use of engaging in the task (Eccles, 2005; Eccles et al.
1983; Wigfield and Eccles, 1992). For this study, utility value is the
perceived future use or advantage of becoming an engineer and the
usefulness of an engineering degree. The following are examples of
how students expressed utility values:
October 2010
 ‘Cause I wanna’ make money. That’s a huge goal of mine, is
money. That’s such a large motivator for me. (Max, SS,
Spring 4th year)
I decided engineering because it’s more applicable. I think it
has more benefits to humanity than just straight science or
more immediate benefits. (Hillary, SS, Spring 1st year)
For Max, an engineering degree is useful because it leads to a
profitable career. For Hillary, an engineering career is useful to hu-
manity. For students with low attainment values, an engineering de-
gree may be seen as providing a useful back-up career:
…if you have an engineering degree and you are an artist,
then, you still have something to fall back on. (Anna, SS,
Spring 2nd year)
Anna believes that if she finished her engineering degree then
pursued her art passion, she could fall back on a career in engineer-
ing if her career in art was not successful.
As shown in Figure 2, for participants with high attainment
value ratings, utility values stay the same or decrease with time,
while the opposite is generally true of the utility values for partici-
pants with low attainment values. Julie is an exception and across all
three years has a low utility value for engineering. In the first two
years, Julie does not express a utility value and in the third mentions
that an engineering degree would not be useful to her because she
does not intend to practice engineering. In her third year Julie sug-
gests that continuing in engineering would not be useful.
And, I’m gonna’ get a degree [in engineering] that I am
probably not going to use. And, I’d rather backtrack and get
a degree [in teaching] that I want. It’s not just the fact that
I’m just going to get a degree. I’m going to get a degree that
I’m gonna’ use. And, I’ll be proud of…
Julie believes that a degree in teaching will be much more useful
to her than an engineering degree.
E. Summary
In summary, this research finds that participants can be catego-
rized as having either high or low engineering-related attainment
values. These attainment values remain consistent and unchanging
over their four-year academic careers. Participants with high attain-
ment values all have low cost values, have consistently high or in-
creasing from moderate to high interest values and have consistent
or decreasing utility values. Participants with low attainment values
Figure 3. Relationships among value constructs derived through this study, showing the central importance of attainment value.
October 2010
tend to have moderate or high cost values, have low or moderate in-
terest values and have consistently moderate or high utility values.
The one student in this study who left the engineering program had
a low attainment value towards engineering. These relationships,
also shown in Figure 3, are intended as a way to summarize the gen-
eral patterns that emerged from the data not as direct correlations.
Notably, Max is an exception having a high attainment value and
also a consistently high utility value across all four years. Important-
ly though, his interest value still grows from moderate to high by his
fourth year showing that it is not high utility alone contributing to
his persistence.
V. DISCUSSION
A. Values and Persistence Patterns
Career decision-making models, such as those by Holland
(1997), Lent, Brown, and Hackett (1994), and Super (1980,
1990) highlight the importance of interest-based choice. In their
longitudinal study on persistence, Seymour and Hewitt (1997)
also highlight interest as salient to career decisions. In contrast, the
results of this current study show a career choice process hinging
on engineering as being consistent with students’ sense of self (at-
tainment value) rather than interest. Moreover, this study confirms
that one value category alone is not enough to explain persistence;
while Seymour and Hewitt (1997) found that low interest when
coupled with other factors contributed to persistence, this study
finds that low attainment values coupled with high utility value
and/or moderate interest can lead to persistence. Situations in
which attainment, interest, and utility values are low and cost values
are high challenge students’ intentions to persist the most. For ex-
ample, students such as Anna, Marie, and Tim seem likely possi-
bilities to leave engineering based on reporting little connection
between engineering and their sense of self (low attainment value).
However, they persist because they have other reasons for wanting
to be engineers. For example, Anna feels pressure to earn a high
paying salary and help support her parents. The perceived useful-
ness of an engineering degree helps propel her along towards
graduation. On the contrary, Julie, who has low attainment value,
generally low interest and low utility value for engineering, opts to
leave engineering (and TPub) during her third year. Julie does not
have a strong value sustaining the pursuit of an engineering de-
gree.
This research does not suggest that reasons for pursuing engi-
neering degrees that are associated with low attainment values,
such as those of Tim, Anna, Marie, Leslie, or Julie, are invalid or
Journal of Engineering Education 299
are somehow less meaningful than high attainment-value-related
reasons. Instead, this research shows that students with low attain-
ment values experience the persistence process differently and with
greater difficulty. Tim, Anna, Marie, and Leslie frequently renego-
tiate or rejustify the choice to be (or not be) an engineer. Only Julie
ultimately decides not to pursue an engineering degree. Perhaps
students with low attainment values are the students on whom engi-
neering educators and policy-makers can have the greatest impact;
these students show resiliency and tenacity and actively look for rea-
sons to stay in engineering.
Moreover, this research highlights individual differences in val-
ues. While there are differences in ratings across categories, there
are differences within categories. For example, utility values can take
on many different forms, such as Max’s desire for a high paying job
and comfortable life and Anna’s desire for a high paying job to help
support her parents and siblings. While both related to earning
money, these are very different yet equally powerful personal moti-
vators for earning engineering degrees. To persist in earning an en-
gineering degree, not every student must be motivated in the same
way by the same things. By showing the great variety in the values
that students assign to earning an engineering degree, this research
suggests there are many ways to reach students and help them con-
nect to the personal possibilities an engineering degree could bring.
B. Gendered Patterns
In this study, more women than men participants experienced a
lack of connection between their engineering-related values and
sense of self (low attainment values). Four of the six women partici-
pants (Anna, Marie, Leslie, and Julie) experienced low attainment
values. Of the five men in this study, only Tim (notably an ethnic
minority) experienced low attainment values. Seemingly contradic-
torily, these women (other than Julie) generally had higher GPAs
than the men, including two women with low attainment value for
engineering having cumulative GPAs over 3.9. While it would be
inappropriate to generalize gendered findings based on the limited
data presented herein, it would be equally inappropriate to ignore
the qualitative pattern that emerged through this study.
These findings related to gender differences in values and aca-
demic achievement are consistent with current literature. For ex-
ample, research shows that women, both persisters and non-per-
sisters, are more likely than men to lose interest in the various
STEM disciplines with time (Brainard and Carlin, 1998; Sey-
mour and Hewitt, 1997). Also, female engineering students have
a greater perceived lack of fit than male engineering students
(Heyman, Martyna, and Bhatia, 2002) where perceived lack of fit
is similar to attainment values as defined herein. Finally, Sax
(2008) found that women college students tend to attain higher
grades than men from their final year of high school through col-
lege. Consistent with current literature, our research continues to
highlight the existing apparent contradiction that women have
higher grades but lower values for engineering. This also rein-
forces Pascarella and Terenzini’s (2005) findings that “college
grades may well be the single best predictor of student persistence,
degree completion and graduate school enrollment” (p. 396). Al-
though the women doubt their choice, they have high grades and
they persist. This research offers insight into understanding this
apparent contradiction. By examining multiple categories of val-
ues and the interplay between such values, we can see that these
high-achieving women find pathways to persistence.
300 Journal of Engineering Education
C. Implications for Research and Practice
Smart, capable students may leave engineering fields (Seymour
and Hewitt, 1997) and this study contributes to understanding pos-
sible reasons. While Anna, Leslie, Marie, Tim, and Julie may not
be at risk for leaving college based on academic achievement, they
may be considered the highest risk for leaving engineering due to
their limited connection between engineering and personal sense of
self. Generally, the students with low attainment values also have
low competence beliefs and/or uncertainty about becoming engi-
neers (Matusovich et al., 2008; Matusovich et al., 2009b, 2009a). It
is entirely possible that had TPub offered degrees in other fields,
Anna, Leslie, Marie, and Tim might have changed majors rather
than persisting in engineering. Therefore, the findings of this study
could be even more significant in different academic situations.
While answering questions about the development of engineer-
ing-related task values over time, and the relationships among dif-
ferent categories of such values, this research also raises a number of
important questions. First, this research focuses on students who
persist in earning an engineering degree as opposed to students who
leave engineering. With only one non-persister included in this
study, insights into choices to leave engineering are limited. To gain
a more complete understanding of value patterns as related to per-
sistence in engineering, future research should examine value pat-
terns associated with choices to leave engineering majors.
Second, this research scope was intentionally limited to relation-
ships between task values and the choice to become an engineer.
This simplified and isolated a portion of the Eccles model for deep
investigation. It is now important to resituate what has been learned
about value beliefs back into the complete model to fully understand
the implications for the findings. For example, understanding
sources of, and influences on, value beliefs, such as socializers (e.g.,
parents, faculty, and peers), gender identity, ethnic identity, and
cultural influences, could help us better understand ways educators,
advisors, and policy-makers can influence value beliefs. It is also im-
portant to reconnect value and competence beliefs by directly prob-
ing the relationship between the two. For example, prior research
with these same participants shows changes in competence beliefs
with time and in relation to campus and internship experiences
(Matusovich et al., 2008; Matusovich et al., 2009a). We should
specifically target understanding the causes of changes in compe-
tence and value beliefs. Moreover, it is important to understand
how specific classroom and program practices contribute to chang-
ing and developing value beliefs.
The findings from this study suggest a need to increase stu-
dents’ attainment values related to engineering in order to increase
persistence. In other words, we can encourage students to stay in
engineering by helping them associate a perceived engineering
identity with their personal identity and demonstrating the value
of this association. Doing this requires an understanding of what
students value and then connecting this to one or more of the
many different ways of practicing engineering. We must help stu-
dents understand what it means to be an engineer not only by
teaching a variety of engineering skills, but also by exemplifying
the breadth of activities engineers perform in their daily work.
Perhaps this is another way of saying that engineers work in many
varied jobs and situations as they participate in a wide variety of
activities. We need to make sure students do not develop a narrow
view of engineering that omits activities and goals that might par-
ticularly interest them as individuals. We must continually (over
October 2010
all four years) and explicitly reference various possible engineering
identities. Authentically exposing students to a variety of engi-
neering career possibilities and activities would create opportuni-
ties for students to find such connections. While important for
both genders, the lower attainment values among women and
greater uncertainty about engineering and engineering abilities
found in women suggest it is even more important to develop in-
terest and competence beliefs in women to retain them in engi-
neering fields.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This material is based on work supported by the National Sci-
ence Foundation under Grant No. ESI-0227558, which funds the
Center for the Advancement of Engineering Education (CAEE).
Any opinions, findings and conclusions or recommendations ex-
pressed in this material are those of the author(s) and do not neces-
sarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation. CAEE
is a collaboration of five partner universities.
The authors would also like to acknowledge Aidsa Santiago and
Katherine Winters for assistance with inter-rater coding and the re-
viewers from this journal for their helpful comments.
REFERENCES
Alias, M., and N. Hafir. 2009. The relationship between academic self-
confidence and cognitive performance among engineering students. In
Proceedings of the Research in Engineering Education Symposium (REES).
Palm Cove, Australia.
Bandura, A. 1997. Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: W.H.
Freeman.
Battle, A., and A. Wigfield. 2003. College women’s value orientations
toward family, career, and graduate school. Journal of Vocational Behavior 62
(1): 56–75.
Bong, M. 2001. Role of self-efficacy and task-value in predicting col-
lege students’ course performance and future enrollment intentions. Con-
temporary Educational Psychology 26 (4): 553–70.
Brainard, S.G., and L. Carlin. 1998. A six-year longitudinal study of
undergraduate women in engineering and science. Journal of Engineering
Education 87 (4): 369–75.
Clark, M., S.D. Sheppard, C. Atman, L. Fleming, R.L. Miller, R.
Stevens, R. Streveler, and K. Smith. 2008. Academic Pathways Study:
Processes and realities. In Proceedings of the 2008 American Society for Engi-
neering Education Annual Conference and Exposition. Pittsburgh, PA.
Committee on Science, Engineering, and Public Policy (COSEPUP)
and Policy and Global Affairs (PGA). 2006. Rising above the gathering
storm: Energizing and employing America for a brighter economic future.
Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
Correll, S.J. 2001. Gender and the career choice process: The role of bi-
ased self-assessments. American Journal of Sociology 106 (6): 1691–1730.
Covington, M.V. 2000. Goal theory, motivation, and school achieve-
ment: An integrative review. Annual Review of Psychology 51:171–200.
Creswell, J.W. 1998. Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing
among five traditions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Davis, D.C., S.W. Beyerlein, and I.T. Davis. 2005. Development and
use of an engineer profile. In Proceedings of the 2005 American Society for En-
gineering Education Annual Conference and Exposition. Portland, OR.
October 2010
Denzin, N.K., and Y.S. Lincoln. 2003. Strategies of qualitative inquiry.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Eccles, J.S. 1986. Gender-roles and women’s achievement. Educational
Researcher 15 (6): 5–19.
Eccles, J.S. 2005. Subjective task value and the Eccles et al. Model of
Achievement-Related Choices. In Handbook of competence and motivation,
eds. A.J. Elliot and C.S. Dweck. New York: The Guilford Press.
Eccles, J.S. 2007. Families, schools, and developing achievement-related
motivations and engagement. In Handbook of socialization: Theory and
research, eds. J.E. Grusec and P.D. Hastings. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Eccles, J.S. 2009. Who am I and what am I going to do with my life?
Personal and collective identities as motivators of action. Educational Psy-
chologist 44 (2): 78–89.
Eccles, J.S., T.F. Adler, R. Futterman, S.B. Goff, C.M. Kaczala, J.L.
Meece, and C. Midgley. 1983. Expectancies, values, and academic behav-
iors. In Achievement and achievement motivation, ed. J.T. Spence. San
Francisco, CA: W. H. Freeman.
Eccles, J.S., B.L. Barber, and D. Jozefowicz. 1999. Linking gender to
educational, occupational, and recreational choices: Applying the Eccles
et al. Model of Achievement-Related Choices. In Sexism and stereotypes in
modern society: The gender science of Janet Taylor Spence. Washington, DC:
American Psychological Association.
Eccles, J.S., and A. Wigfield. 1995. In the mind of the actor—the
structure of adolescents achievement task values and expectancy-related be-
liefs. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 21 (3): 215–25.
Eccles, J.S., A. Wigfield, R.D. Harold, and P. Blumenfeld. 1993. Age
and gender differences in childrens’ self and task perceptions during ele-
mentary-school. Child Development 64 (3): 830–47.
French, B.F., J.C. Immekus, and W.C. Oakes. 2005. An examination
of indicators of engineering students’ success and persistence. Journal of En-
gineering Education 94 (4): 419–25.
Frome, P.M., C.J. Alfeld, J.S. Eccles, and B.L. Barber. 2008. Is the de-
sire for a family-flexible job keeping young women out of male-dominated
occupations? In Gender and occupational outcomes: Longitudinal assessments of
individual, social, and cultural influences, eds. H.M.G. Watt and J.S. Eccles.
Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Heyman, G.D., B. Martyna, and S. Bhatia. 2002. Gender and achieve-
ment-related beliefs among engineering students. Journal of Women and
Minorities in Science and Engineering 8 (1): 41–52.
Holland, J.L. 1997. Making vocational choices: A theory of vocational per-
sonalities and work environments. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment
Resources.
Hutchison-Green, M., D.K. Follman, and G.M. Bodner. 2008. Pro-
viding a voice: Qualitative investigation of the impact of a first-year engi-
neering experience on students’ efficacy beliefs. Journal of Engineering Edu-
cation 97 (2): 177–90.
Hutchison, M.A., D.K. Follman, M. Sumpter, and G.M. Bodner.
2006. Factors influencing the self-efficacy beliefs of first-year engineering
students. Journal of Engineering Education 95 (1): 39–47.
Ibarra, H. 1999. Provisional selves: Experimenting with image and
identity in professional adaptation. Administrative Science Quarterly 44 (4):
764–91.
Jackson, S.A. 2002. The quiet crisis. San Diego, CA: Building Engi-
neering and Science Talent.
Jacobs, J.E., S. Lanza, D.W. Osgood, J.S. Eccles, and A. Wigfield. 2002.
Changes in children’s self-competence and values: Gender and domain dif-
ferences across grades one through twelve. Child Development 73 (2): 509–27.
Jones, B.D., M.C. Paretti, S.F. Hein, and T.W. Knott. 2010. An
analysis of motivation constructs with first-year engineering students:
Journal of Engineering Education 301
Relationships among expectancies, values, achievement, and career plans.
Journal of Engineering Education 99 (4).
Kirk, J., and M.L. Miller. 1986. Reliability and validity in qualitative
research, Qualitative research methods. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.
Lent, R.W., S.D. Brown, and G. Hackett. 1994. Toward a unifying so-
cial cognitive theory of career and academic interest, choice, and perfor-
mance. Journal of Vocational Behavior 45 (1): 79–122.
Lent, R.W., S.D. Brown, J. Schmidt, B. Brenner, H. Lyons, and D.
Treistman. 2003. Relation of contextual supports and barriers to choice be-
havior in engineering majors: Test of alternative social cognitive models.
Journal of Counseling Psychology 50 (4): 458–65.
Lent, R.W., A.M. Lopez, F.G. Lopez, and H.B. Sheu. 2008. Social
cognitive career theory and the prediction of interests and choice goals in
the computing disciplines. Journal of Vocational Behavior 73 (1): 52–62.
Lent, R.W., H.B. Sheu, D. Singley, J.A. Schmidt, L.C. Schmidt, and
C.S. Gloster. 2008. Longitudinal relations of self-efficacy to outcome ex-
pectations, interests, and major choice goals in engineering students. Jour-
nal of Vocational Behavior 73 (2): 328–35.
Li, Q., D. McCoach, H. Swaminathan, and J. Tang. 2008. Develop-
ment of an instrument to measure perspectives of engineering education
among college students. Journal of Engineering Education 97 (1): 47–56.
Marra, R.M., K.A. Rodgers, D. Shen, and B. Bogue. 2009. Women
engineering students and self-efficacy: A multi-year, multi-institution
study of women engineering student self-efficacy. Journal of Engineering
Education 98 (1): 27–38.
Matusovich, H.M. 2008. Choosing engineering: Can I succeed and do
I want to? Doctoral Dissertation, Engineering Education, Purdue Univer-
sity, West Lafayette, IN.
Matusovich, H.M., and R.A. Streveler. 2009. Pictorial personas: A way
to look at longitudinal qualitative data. Paper presented at Ethnographic and
Qualitative Research Conference. Cedarville, OH.
Matusovich, H.M., R.A. Streveler, H.G. Loshbaugh, R. Miller, and B.
Olds. 2008. Will I succeed in engineering? Using expectancy-value theory
in a longitudinal investigation of students’ beliefs. In Proceedings of the 2008
American Society of Engineering Education Annual Conference and Exposition.
Pittsburgh, PA.
Matusovich, H.M., R.A. Streveler, R.L. Miller, and B.A. Olds. 2009a.
Competence in engineering: A tale of two women. In Proceedings of the
2009American Society of Engineering Education Annual Conference and Expo-
sition. Austin, TX.
Matusovich, H.M., R.A. Streveler, R.L. Miller, and B.A. Olds. 2009b.
I’m graduating this year! So what IS an engineer anyway? In Proceedings of
the 2009 American Society of Engineering Education Annual Conference and
Exposition. Austin, TX.
Mendez, G., T.D. Buskirk, S. Lohr, and S. Haag. 2008. Factors associ-
ated with persistence in science and engineering majors: An exploratory
study using classification trees and random forests. Journal of Engineering
Education 97 (1): 57–70.
Miles, M.B., and A.M. Huberman. 1994. Qualitative data analysis.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
National Academy of Engineering (NAE). 2004. The engineer of 2020:
Visions of engineering in the new century. Washington, DC: National Acade-
mies Press.
National Academy of Engineering (NAE). 2005. Educating the engineer
of 2020: Adapting engineering education to the new century. Washington,
DC: National Academies Press.
National Academy of Engineering (NAE). 2008. Changing the conver-
sation: Messages for improving public understanding of engineering. Washing-
ton, DC: National Academies Press.
302 Journal of Engineering Education
Nicholls, G.M., H. Wolfe, M. Sacre Besterfield, L.J. Shuman, and S.
Larpkiattaworn. 2007. A method for identifying variables for predicting
STEM enrollment. Journal of Engineering Education 97 (1): 33–44.
National Science Foundation. 2006. Women, minorities and persons with
disabilities in science and engineering. http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/
wmpd/pdf/tabc-5.pdf (last accessed, July 2010).
Ohland, M, S. Sheppard, G. Lichtenstein, O. Eris, D. Chachra, and
R.A. Layton. 2008. Persistence, engagement, and migration in engineering
programs. Journal of Engineering Education 97 (3): 259–78.
Pascarella, E.T., and P.T. Terenzini. 2005. How college affects stu-
dents: A third decade of research. 1st ed, The Jossey-Bass higher and adult ed-
ucation series. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Patton, M.Q. 2002. Qualitative research and evaluation methods. Thou-
sand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Pruitt, J., and T. Adlin. 2006. The personal lifecycle: Keeping people in
mind throughout product design, The Morgan Kaufmann series in interactive
technologies. Boston, MA: Elsevier.
Sax, L.J. 2008. The gender gap in college: Maximizing the developmental
potential of women and men. San Francisco, CA: Jossey–Bass.
Schaefers, K.G., D.L. Epperson, and M.M. Nauta. 1997. Women’s
career development: Can theoretically derived variables predict persistence
in engineering majors? Journal of Counseling Psychology 44 (2):173–83.
Seymour, E., and N.M. Hewitt. 1997. Talking about leaving: Why un-
dergraduates leave the sciences. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Shavelson, R.J., J.J. Hubner, and G.C. Stanton. 1976. Self-concept:
Validation of construct interpretations. Review of Educational Research 46
(3): 407–41.
Sheppard, S., C. Atman, R. Stevens, L. Fleming, R. Streveler, R. Adams,
and T. Barker. 2004. Studying the engineering student experience: Design of
a longitudinal study. In Proceedings of the 2004 American Society for Engineer-
ing Education Annual Conference and Exposition. Salt Lake City, UT.
Sheppard, S., K. Macatangay, A. Colby, and W. Sullivan. 2009. Edu-
cating engineers: Designing for the future of the field. San Francisco, CA:
Jossey-Bass.
Stake, R.E. 2006. Multiple case study analysis. New York: The Guilford
Press.
Stevens, R., K. O’Connor, and L. Garrison. 2005. Engineering student
identities in the navigation of the undergraduate curriculum. In Proceedings
of the 2005 American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference
and Exposition. Portland, OR.
Super, D.E. 1980. A life-span, life-space approach to career develop-
ment. Journal of Vocational Behavior 16:282–92.
Super, D.E. 1990. A life-span, life-space approach to career develop-
ment. In Career choice and development: Applying contemporary theories to
practice, eds. D. Brown and L. Brooks. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Trenor, J.M., S.L. Yu, C.L. Waight, K.S. Zerda, and T.L. Sha. 2008.
The relations of ethnicity to female engineering students’ educational expe-
riences and college and career plans in an ethnically diverse learning envi-
ronment. Journal of Engineering Education 97 (4): 449–65.
Watt, H.M.G., and J.S. Eccles, eds. 2008. Gender and occupational out-
comes: Longitudinal assessments of individual, social, and cultural influences.
Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Wigfield, A. 1994. Expectancy-value theory of achievement motivation:
A developmental perspective. Educational Psychology Review 6 (1): 49–78.
Wigfield, A., and J.S. Eccles. 1992. The development of achievement
task values—A theoretical analysis. Developmental Review 12 (3): 265–310.
Wigfield, A., and J.S. Eccles. 2000. Expectancy-value theory of
achievement motivation. Contemporary Educational Psychology 25 (1):
68–81.
October 2010
 Wigfield, A., R.D. Harold, C. Freedman-Doan, J.S. Eccles, K.S. Yoon,
A.J.A. Arbreton, and P.C. Blumenfeld. 1997. Change in children’s compe-
tence beliefs and subjective task values across the elementary school years: A
3-year study. Journal of Educational Psychology 89 (3): 451–69.
Yin, R.K. 2003. Case study research: Design and methods. 3rd ed, Applied
social research methods series. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
AUTHORS’ BIOGRAPHIES
Holly M. Matusovich is an assistant professor in the Department
of Engineering Education at Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State
University. She holds a B.S. in Chemical Engineering from Cornell
University, and a M.S. in Materials Science from the University of
Connecticut and a Ph.D. in Engineering Education from Purdue
University. Dr. Matusovich has more than 12 years of experience in
engineering practice including work as an engineering consultant and
later in a variety of roles in a manufacturing environment.
Address: Department of Engineering Education (0218), 626
McBryde Hall, Blacksburg, VA 24162; telephone: (1)
540.231.4205; fax: (1) 540.231.6903; e-mail: matushm@
vt.edu.
Ruth A. Streveler is an assistant professor in the School of Engi-
neering Education at Purdue University. She holds a B.A. in Biolo-
gy from Indiana University, a M.S. in Zoology from The Ohio
State University and a Ph.D. in Educational Psychology from the
October 2010
University of Hawaii at Manoa. Prior to coming to Purdue, she was
the founding director of the Center for Engineering Education at
the Colorado School of Mines. She has been a co-PI on several pro-
jects funded by the National Science Foundation and served a stint
as acting director of the Center for the Advancement of Engineer-
ing Education. She earned the 2006 and 2007 Helen Plants
Awards for best non-traditional session at the Frontiers in Educa-
tion Conference.
Address: School of Engineering Education, Purdue University,
Neil Armstrong Hall of Engineering, West Lafayette, IN, 47907;
telephone: (1) 765.496.9031; fax: (1) 765.494.5819; e-mail:
streveler@purdue.edu.
Ronald L. Miller is a professor of Chemical Engineering and
director of the Center for Engineering Education at Colorado School
of Mines. He earned degrees in chemical engineering from the
University of Wyoming and Colorado School of Mines. Dr. Miller
has received three university-wide teaching awards and has held a
Jenni teaching fellowship at CSM. He has received grant awards for
education research from the National Science Foundation, the U.S.
Department of Education FIPSE program, the National Endowment
for the Humanities, and the Colorado Commission on Higher Edu-
cation and has published widely in the areas of engineering education
assessment, pedagogy, and curricular design.
Address: Chemical Engineering Department, Colorado School
of Mines, Golden, CO, 80401; telephone: (1) 303.273.3892; fax:
(1) 303.273.3730; e-mail: rlmiller@mines.edu.
Journal of Engineering Education 303