SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Çukurova Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi / 2018 / Cilt: 47 - Sayı: 2

The Analysis of the Factors That Weaken Engineering Students’ Engagement and Lead Them to Transfer to Other Universities

Adnan BOYACI
Mehmet Fatih KARACABEY
Mustafa ÖZDERE
Yakup ÖZ
Pages
384–410
Publication Date
2018-10-01
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

At the end of the study, there are a discussion how the engagement and persistence of engineering students in Turkey differ from the context in the western countries and some bits of advice for the policymakers, universities, and researchers.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Öz Turkey has been living a massive growth in higher education since 2006.
📊
Key Findings & Data:This rapid acceleration in the growth of higher education can be considered as a positive situation for the participation and access to higher education.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:At the end of the study, there are a discussion how the engagement and persistence of engineering students in Turkey differ from the context in the western countries and some bits of advice for the policymakers, universities, and researchers.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:2006 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Anahtar Kelimeler Engineering students · College engagement · College persistence

Özet

Öz Turkey has been living a massive growth in higher education since 2006. This rapid acceleration in the growth of higher education can be considered as a positive situation for the participation and access to higher education. However, it also brings a substantially growing concern in the higher education system related to college satisfaction or engagement. The purpose of this study is to examine the factors challenging student engagement in higher education in the Turkish context, specifically focusing on the engagement of engineering students with a qualitative approach. Participants in the study are all engineering students who had been transferred from some other universities and enrolled in a state university. Participants were determined by criterion and snowball sampling methods. The data were gathered by semi-structured interviews. A descriptive design was adopted in the study and the thematic analysis was employed during the analysis of the participants’ opinions. According to the aim of the study, opinions of the participants are categorized into three main themes as individual level, institutional level and environmental factors affecting the college engagement and persistence among engineering students. At the end of the study, there are a discussion how the engagement and persistence of engineering students in Turkey differ from the context in the western countries and some bits of advice for the policymakers, universities, and researchers.

🔖

Cite This Article

BOYACI, A., KARACABEY, M. F., ÖZDERE, M., ÖZ, Y. (2018). The Analysis of the Factors That Weaken Engineering Students’ Engagement and Lead Them to Transfer to Other Universities. Çukurova Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, Cilt: 47 - Sayı: 2, 384–410. https://ajindex.com/articles/6123

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (5)

  1. Alford, S. M. (1998). The impact of inner-city values on student social adjustment in commuter colleges. NASPA Journal, 35(3), 225-233.
  2. Astin, A. (1975). Preventing students from dropping out. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Astin, A. W. (1985). Achieving educational excellence. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Astin, A. W. (1991). Assessment for Excellence: The Philosophy and Practice of Assess- ment and Evaluation in Higher Education. New York: MacMillan. Astin, A. W. (1993a). What matters most in college? Four critical years revisited. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Astin, A. W. (1993b). Engineering outcomes. ASEE Prism, 3(1), 27-30.
  3. Audet, J., and d'Amboise, G. (2001). The Multi-Site Study: An Innovative Research Methodology. The Qualitative Report [On-line serial], 6 (2). http://www.nova.edu/ssss/QR/QR6-2/audet.html
  4. Aydin, Y. Ç., Güneri, O. Y., Yildirim, F. B., & Çag, P. (2015). Predicting College Student Success: College Engagement and Perceived English Language Proficiency. Çukurova University. Faculty of Education Journal, 44(2), 229.Aypay, A., Çekiç, O., & Boyaci, A. (2012). Student retention in higher education in Turkey: A qualitative study. Journal of College Student Retention: Research, Theory & Practice, 14(1), 91-116.Baillie, C., & Fitzgerald, G. (2000). Motivation and attrition in engineering students. European Journal of Engineering Education, 25(2), 145-155.Bean, J. P. (1980). Dropouts and turnover: The synthesis and test of a causal model of student attrition. Research in Higher Education, 12, 155-187.Berger, J. B., & Braxton, J. M. (1998). Revising Tinto's interactionalist theory of student departure through theory elaboration: Examining the role of organizational attributes in the persistence process. Research in Higher education, 39(2), 103-119.
  5. Bogdan, C. ve Biklen, K. (1992). Qualitative Research for Education. An Introduction to Theory and Methods (2nd ed.) Boston, London, Toronto, Sydney, Tokyo, Singapore, Allyn and BaconBoles, W., & Whelan, K. (2017). Barriers to student success in engineering education. European Journal of Engineering Education, 42(4), 368-381.Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative research in psychology, 3(2), 77-101.Braxton, J. M., & Hirschy, A. S. (2005). Theoretical developments in the study of college student departure. College student retention: Formula for student success, 3, 61-87.Cabrera, A. F., Nora, A., & Castaneda, M. B. (1993). College persistence: Structural equations