The Journal of College & University Student Housing Vol. 47 No. 1 - 72

Samuel Wonson * Lori L. Moore * Pauline Wade * Dustin K. Grabsch * Kasey Martinez * Andrea M. Ogilvie

and anticipated retention to the fall semester.
This self-reported data may not be accurate
for determining such commitments and retention as compared to utilizing institutional
data. Third, while our sample size is sufficient,
we note a limitation related to the sample size
yielding adequate representation for some
statistical analysis. For instance, as we later
report, we were unable to conduct statistical
analysis on various racial and ethnic groups.
Finally, the data may also be subject to a volunteer bias, as students within the engineering
LLC applied for and sought out a specific experience for engineers. This potential for volunteer bias may mean that they already had high
professional and engineering identity scores
before their participation. Previous studies on
LLCs have cited such volunteer bias (Slotta &
Acosta, 2017); therefore, it is suggested that
future researchers invoke a process of pre- and
post-testing to understand the changes in professional and engineering identities for students who participate in LLCs or other forms
of pedagogical and curricular experiences.

RESULTS
The first research objective sought to describe
the professional and engineering identities of
on-campus students within a college of engineering. Table 2 and Table 3 use descriptive
statistics to explore professional and engineering identities, respectively. Tests for statistical
significance between professional or engineering identity and student group (i.e., ethnicity,
first-generation college student status, gender,
and years at the institution) were conducted.
Each table presents only statistically significant
differences by student group.

. . . engineering curricula should
focus on bolstering female
engineering identity by emphasizing
both their recognition and their
performance and competence in the
field.
Professional Identity Results
The sample (N = 503) reported a total professional identity mean score of 3.28 (SD = 0.45).
In terms of professional identity subscales, selfefficacy was the highest subscale, with a mean
of 3.83 (SD = 0.43). The lowest subscale mean
was preference for a particular profession,
with a mean score of 2.28 (SD = 0.65), likely
caused by the different scales used to complete
this particular mean score. The professional
identity instrument was a 5-point Likert scale
(Tan et al., 2016), while the engineering identity instrument was a 7-point anchored scale
(Godwin, 2016). As a reminder, assessment of
preference for a particular profession featured
a question requiring a response of yes or no
(Tan et al., 2016). Thus, this construct used a
different scale.
Independent sample t-tests were conducted
to determine any differences in the professional
identity subscales between males and females.
Levene's test for homogeneity was applied to
ensure that each test met the assumption of
p < 0.05. The findings of these tests indicated
no statistically significant differences.
Independent sample t-tests were performed on first-generation college student
status to determine any differences in profes-

THE JOURNAL OF COLLEGE AND UNIVERSITY STUDENT HOUSING

Journal of College & University Student Housing Vol. 47 No. 1

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of Journal of College & University Student Housing Vol. 47 No. 1