Content uploaded by Michael Jacobson
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Michael Jacobson on Mar 14, 2024
Content may be subject to copyright.
Paper ID #37614
Summer Bridge Programming for Incoming First-Year
Students at Three Public Urban Research Universities
Miriam Howland Cummings (Graduate Research Assistant)
Miriam is a PhD candidate in Education Research and Evaluation Methods at the University of Colorado Denver (CU
Denver) and a graduate research assistant on an NSF S-STEM grant in CU Denver's College of Engineering, Design, and
Computing.
Maryam Darbeheshti (Faculty)
Dr. Maryam Darbeheshti is an Assistant Professor of Mechanical Engineering at the University of Colorado Denver. Her
research interests are in multiphase fluid flow, and Engineering Education.
Stephanie S Ivey (Associate Dean for Research)
Craig O. Stewart
David J. Russomanno (Dean)
Danny King (Director, New Student Academic Advising Center)
Katherine Goodman
Katherine Goodman is an assistant professor (teaching track) at the University of Colorado Denver. She serves as
curriculum lead for Inworks, an interdisciplinary innovation lab within the College of Engineering, Design and
Computing. Her research focuses on transformative experiences in engineering education. She is the past division chair of
the Technological and Engineering Literacy / Philosophy of Engineering Division (TELPhE).
James T. Campbell (Professor)
Tom Altman
Dr. Tom Altman – Professor Tom Altman received his B.S. degrees in Computer Science and in Mathematics, and M.S.
and Ph.D. (1984) in Computer Science, all from the University of Pittsburgh. Dr. Altman specializes in optimization
algorithms, formal language theory, and complex system simulation. He joined CU Denver in 1990 and became a full
professor in 1997. Dr. Altman has published a book and over 90 journal, conference, and technical papers. He has been a
recipient of numerous research awards, including ASCE Best Research Paper and USEPA Star Award. Professor Altman
has been a PI or co-PI on over 20 external grants, including multiple ones from the NSF, DARPA, AFOSR, MDA, AFRL,
Army and Navy.
Michael S. Jacobson
© American Society for Engineering Education, 2022
Powered by www.slayte.com
Summer Bridge Programming for Incoming First-Year Students at Three
Public Urban Research Universities
Introduction
This Complete Evidence-based Practice paper describes how three public urban research
universities designed, implemented, and iterated Summer Bridge programming for a subset of
incoming engineering students over the course of three consecutive years (2019-2021). There
were commonalities among each institution’s Summer Bridge, as well as unique aspects catering
to the specific needs and structures of each institution. Both these commonalities and unique
aspects are discussed, in addition to the processes of iteration and improvement, target student
populations, and reported student outcomes. Finally, recommendations for other institutions
seeking to launch or refine similar programming are shared.
Background: The Urban STEM Collaboratory
The Summer Bridge programs described take place at three public urban research universities
participating in an NSF S-STEM project called the Urban STEM Collaboratory [1]. The purpose
of the Urban STEM Collaboratory is to award scholarships of up to $10,000 per year to
academically talented students majoring in engineering or mathematics who have financial
need. Students receiving this S-STEM scholarship are referred to as Urban STEM Scholars
(Scholars). These three institutions share some commonalities in how they execute the Urban
STEM Collaboratory at their individual campuses, while also engaging in some unique campus-
specific aspects. For example, Scholars at all three institutions participate in Summer Bridge
programming through their home campus, but each Summer Bridge program has unique aspects
catering to the specific needs and structures of each institution.
Purpose of Summer Bridge
At all three institutions, Summer Bridge serves several purposes. In the broadest sense, the
purpose of Summer Bridge is to provide additional academic and social support for incoming
Scholars (that is, students receiving the S-STEM scholarship). More specifically, the purpose of
each Summer Bridge is to create community among these students, prepare them for the
academic rigor of first-year engineering curriculum, and build their STEM identity and sense of
belonging. Considering that the COVID-19 pandemic had an effect on STEM identity
development [2], Summer Bridge offered an especially important opportunity to build
community during the pandemic.
Commonalities among the three institutions’ Summer Bridge programming
There were several common elements that the three Summer Bridge programs shared. Each
Summer Bridge was a 3-5 day experience held in the week immediately prior to the start of the
Fall semester and included workshops, academic preparation sessions, and community-building
times among students. Each Summer Bridge program had a target student population of
incoming Scholars, though at some campuses additional students (e.g., second-year Scholars or
other incoming first-year engineering students) were also invited to participate. As part of the
tri-campus Urban STEM Collaboratory, all students were expected to participate in an academic
social communication platform called CourseNetworking (the CN). During Summer Bridge,
students were introduced to the CN during a synchronous tri-campus workshop, where Scholars
from all three institutions met each other for the first time using a video conferencing
platform. Other activities primarily focused on helping with the transition from summer break
into impending coursework, through mathematics review, special-interest presentations, and
other development activities (such as communication and growth mindset workshops) in the
initial year. All institutions conducted Summer Bridge in person in 2019 for the first cohort of
Scholars, and then shifted to a synchronous online Summer Bridge in 2020 due to the COVID-19
pandemic. Because Institution #1 had only two cohorts of Scholars, they conducted just two
Summer Bridge programs, but Institutions #2 and #3 conducted a third Summer Bridge in 2021,
which was offered in an in-person format.
Summer Bridge at Each of the Three Institutions
Institution #1
At the first institution, a larger, campus-wide Summer Bridge program was already in existence
for incoming first-year students. Upon the establishment of the Urban STEM Collaboratory, a
specialized version of the institution’s Summer Bridge was developed just for Scholars. This
specialized Summer Bridge was focused on increasing college readiness through the transition
from summer break into impending coursework and included STEM special-interest
presentations (such as biomedical or electrical engineering) and other development activities
(such as communication and growth mindset workshops). Additionally, this institution’s
Summer Bridge continued into the Fall semester via a 1-credit hour First Year Seminar class,
which built and reinforced student networking and community beyond the summer experience.
Participants
At Institution #1, the Urban STEM Collaboratory Summer Bridge program took place in August
of 2019 and 2020 and comprised two cohorts of new Urban STEM students. Each cohort
included both first-time entering first-year students, as well as rising sophomores from
University College, who were not directly admitted into their STEM program as incoming first-
year students. Special emphasis was placed on increasing readiness for Calculus I during
Summer Bridge, which all students in the cohorts would be taking in the Fall
semester. Including all cohorts, there were 45 total Scholars. The group of Scholars was 27%
female, 58% White, 11% African-American, 11% Hispanic, and 20% other races. Scholars were
majoring in one of the following disciplines: biomedical engineering, computer engineering,
computer science, mathematics, electrical engineering, energy engineering, mechanical
engineering, or motosports engineering.
Description of Summer Bridge Program
The Summer Bridge program at Institution #1 was a 5-day experience that took place the week
prior to the start of classes in the Fall semester. It was intended to help incoming students
increase their readiness for college by transitioning from summer break into impending
coursework through Calculus I readiness review, STEM special-interest presentations (such as
biomedical or electrical engineering), and other development activities (such as communication
and growth mindset workshops). Also, for the specialized version of the Summer Bridge for the
Urban STEM Collaboratory, rising sophomores from University College were also important
members of the bridge. The Summer Bridge program at Institution #1 included additional topics
to assist students in their transition to college. Example topics included:
Campus Technology Resources
Core Academics – How to approach college classes
What does it mean to be a STEM professional?
Clifton Strengths: Top 5 Strengths and your STEM Identity
Time Management
Discussion of Diversity and Cultural Competency topics and exercises
Finding your Fall Classrooms on a large urban campus
For targeted bridge sections, including the Urban STEM Collaboratory, after the summer Bridge,
students continued to meet weekly throughout the Fall semester via a 1 credit hour First Year
Seminar class to build and reinforce the student networking and community beyond the summer
experience.
Unique Aspects
The summer bridge week was designed to engage the Urban STEM Collaboratory cohort
students in ice breaker activities that allowed them to become acquainted with each other,
including students from Institution #2 and Institution #3, as well as faculty engaged in the overall
Collaboratory project. An important aspect of Summer Bridge week was an introduction to the
CN, which was used for students and instructors to interact throughout the project and implement
the seed and badge systems that were used to track students’ participation in the project and
attainment of certain knowledge, abilities, skills, or other characteristics associated with
developing a STEM identity. A joint tri-campus session was held via web conferencing
software. Students at each site were able to interact with each other utilizing the CN. An
activity was facilitated by Institution #1 using CN to engage the students in polling questions and
interactive posts. Students were also provided with an opportunity to ask questions about the
program at the end of the session.
Process of Iteration and Improvement
The campus-wide Summer Bridge program at Institution #1 was moved to an online
environment in 2020 because of the COVID-19 pandemic, therefore the Collaboratory
curriculum was dramatically changed for cohort 2 as well as compared to cohort 1. A total of 6
synchronous online sessions were held with the students in cohort 2, which addressed a series of
STEM related topics, such as:
Introduction to the CN and the E-portfolio feature
What is the Study of Calculus? (with a professor of mathematics)
Getting to know your cohort
The Importance of Teamwork in the STEM field
What does it mean to be a STEM professional?
In addition, some of the curriculum items that were covered during Bridge Week for cohort 1
were moved to the fall semester for cohort 2 as part of the First Year Seminar course that the
students took together, such as:
Discussion of the Engineering Design Process
Developing an approach to Problem Solving
Clifton Strengths: Top 5 Strengths and your STEM Identity
School of Engineering and Technology Faculty Panel
Reported Student Outcomes
At Institution #1, Scholars demonstrated a higher overall GPA, math GPA, major GPA, and
outperformed in math overall (Calculus I) while also taking more credits on average when
compared with all students. Figure 1 shows the grade distribution for Calculus I in Fall 2019,
comparing Scholars with the entire population of students who took Calculus I that semester. In
that semester, Calculus I had a DFW rate of 27.63%, but no Scholars received grades of D, F, or
W in that semester. Performance data for Calculus I is summarized in Table 1.
Figure 1. Calculus I Grade Distribution
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
A B C D, F, W A B C D, F, W
Fall 2019 Fall 2020
Calculus I Grade Distribution
(with 95% Confidence Intervals)
Scholars Only All Students
Table 1. Calculus I Grades, Fall 2019 and Fall 2020
Fall 2019 Fall 2020
Letter
Grade
All Students Scholars Only
(Cohort 1)
All Students Scholars Only
(Cohort 2)
n % n % n % n %
A 91 23.95% 7 28% 111 28.03% 8 40%
B 101 26.58% 11 44% 89 22.47% 3 15%
C 83 21.84% 7 28% 102 25.76% 6 30%
D 27 7.11% 0 0% 25 6.31% 2 10%
F 49 12.89% 0 0% 50 12.63% 0 0%
W 29 7.63% 0 0% 19 4.80% 1 5%
D, F, W 105 27.63% 0 0% 94 23.74% 3 15%
Total 380 100% 25 100% 396 100% 20 100%
Institution #2
At the second institution, all students receiving the NSF S-STEM scholarship (not only those
who are first-year students) participate in Summer Bridge. This means that Scholars at this
institution participate in Summer Bridge multiple years in a row. Relatedly, after the first year,
Summer Bridge transitioned to a student-led and student-delivered program, affording
sophomore and junior students leadership opportunities, which not only serve as marketable
experience after graduation, but also potentially builds their sense of STEM identity and
belonging by affording opportunities in enact STEM identities and to relate to others as “STEM
people” [3].
Participants
The Summer Bridge program at Institution #2 began in 2019 with a cohort of 17 Scholars (first-
year students and sophomores). An additional 21 Scholars were added to the program in 2020,
and another 12 in 2021. Scholars are majoring in one of six engineering disciplines (biomedical,
civil, mechanical, electrical, computer, or engineering technology). The overall cohort was 38%
female, 41% White, 38% African-American, 8% Hispanic, and 13% other races.
Description of Summer Bridge Program and Process of Iteration and Improvement
The Summer Bridge program at Institution #2 engaged the Scholars in ice breaker, academic
preparation, and other interactive activities that allowed them to become acquainted with each
other, the faculty engaged in the project, the campus, and its resources. All Scholars were
required to attend the program each year.
The Summer Bridge activities at Institution #2 have evolved over the course of the project based
upon feedback from Scholars, the COVID-19 pandemic, and faculty assessment of impact. In
the initial year (2019), the program activities were developed and delivered by the Urban STEM
faculty team over the course of three days immediately preceding the start of the fall
semester. While students reported enjoying these sessions and learning from them, they most
valued the activities that built community, promoted networking, and provided opportunities for
Scholars to learn more about the campus. Faculty agreed with the students’ assessment, having
noted that students were much less engaged during academic preparation and technical
presentations.
To address findings from the first year, a team of Scholars was selected to develop the agenda
and lead the sessions in year 2 (2020). Because of the pandemic, the 2020 program was held
virtually. Rather than being conducted in consecutive days the week prior to the start of the
semester, the sessions were held weekly beginning in July, were no more than 2 hours at a time,
and were hosted via Zoom. A tiered-mentoring framework was introduced such that Scholars
from the first cohort were assigned to mentor students in the second cohort. The 2020 program
included many similar activities from 2019 but eliminated technical presentations and increased
activities designed to help scholars develop relationships with one another. Additionally, more
emphasis was placed on virtual interactions between campuses. In addition to a joint session
introducing the CN, a Collaboratory-wide student panel was included with students from the
2019 cohort sharing about their experiences. This format was well-received by the new cohort of
scholars and was also highly rated by returning Scholars, who enjoyed the opportunity to lead
sessions and serve as mentors. For 2021, the same structure was maintained (and included two
cohorts serving as mentors). Math preparation was dropped from the program and more
extensive networking activities were introduced. A Scholar-led joint session across the
collaborating campuses was also added to the agenda. 2021 Bridge sessions were once again
held in person on consecutive days the week prior to the start of the fall semester.
Unique Aspects
One unique aspect of the Summer Bridge program at Institution #2 was the formation of a
Scholar leadership team. The Scholars demonstrating strong leadership skills in the initial
Summer Bridge program were invited to plan activities during the academic year as well as the
subsequent summer sessions. This group was also tapped to develop and lead the peer mentoring
program. The shift from faculty-led to student-led programs resulted in greater overall
participation and engagement of the Scholars.
Reported Student Outcomes
Several important differences in academic performance and retention were found in comparing
the Urban STEM Scholars to their peers who are not engaged in the program. Students in both
the first and second cohorts earned higher GPAs in math courses (2.92/2.48 (2019); 2.52/2.06
(2020)) than their peers who were eligible for but not participating in the Urban STEM program
(see Figure 2). First year retention rates were also higher for the Urban STEM Scholars versus
their program-eligible peers (86%/61% (2019); 86%/76% (2020); see Figure 3). The difference
in retention rates for the 2019 cohort is of particular interest as the pandemic disrupted the spring
semester and led to significant learning losses and disengagement campus-wide. Urban STEM
Scholars were retained at a rate 25% higher than their program-eligible peers. Informal
discussions as well as semi-structured interview findings indicate that scholars felt the
connections they formed with peers and faculty through the Urban STEM program were
instrumental in their ability to persevere, remain engaged, and access support resources in the
midst of the pandemic.
Figure 2. Math GPAs.
Figure 3. First-year Retention Rates.
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
2019 2020
Math GPAs
Urban STEM Peers
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
2019 2020
First-year Retention Rates
Urban STEM Peers
Institution #3
At the third institution, a special focus was placed on building community. This was achieved
through several means. First, each day of Summer Bridge included a unique team-oriented
design challenge where students worked together and learned about each other within an
engineering context, also reinforcing their STEM identities [4]. Second, students at this
institution’s Summer Bridge met their future instructors in an informal, conversational, lunch
setting; many students reported this was one of their favorite aspects of Summer Bridge. Finally,
Summer Bridge facilitated a first connection between incoming first-year students and their peer
mentors (sophomore and junior students also receiving the NSF S-STEM scholarship), with
whom they would meet regularly throughout the following Fall and Spring semesters.
Participants
At Institution #3, the incoming cohort of first-year S-STEM scholarship recipients (Scholars) are
required to participate in the Engineering Learning Community (ELC), which is a bundle of
courses including English composition, mathematics, and a first-year design course. The ELC
contains a mix of Scholars and non-scholars. This means that every Scholar is an ELC member,
but not every ELC member is a Scholar. The ELC has demonstrated positive outcomes for
students over several years [5]-[8].
The first Summer Bridge program occurred in the summer of 2019 in an in-person
format. Attendees included 18 incoming first-year Scholars. The second Summer Bridge
program occurred in the summer of 2020 in a synchronous online format. Attendees included 9
incoming first-year Scholars and 3 non-scholar ELC members. In addition to requiring all
incoming first-year Scholars to attend, all non-scholar ELC members were also invited to join if
they wished. The third Summer Bridge program occurred in the summer of 2021 in an in-person
format. Attendees included 5 incoming first-year Scholars, 9 non-scholar ELC members, and 9
returning sophomore-level Scholars (whose initial Summer Bridge experience the summer prior
was virtual). For this third year of Summer Bridge, in addition to requiring all incoming first-
year Scholars and inviting all non-scholar ELC members to attend, returning sophomore-level
Scholars were also encouraged to attend. This was not only because their initial Summer Bridge
experience the summer prior was virtual, but also because these sophomore-level students would
serve as peer mentors to the incoming first-year students, and it was thought that meeting in
advance of the Fall semester would be beneficial for the mentorship relationship. All Summer
Bridge attendees were majoring in one of 5 engineering programs (mechanical engineering, civil
engineering, electrical engineering, construction engineering, bioengineering, and computer
science). Among all three cohorts of Scholars, 25% were female, 62.5% White, 10% Black, and
25% Hispanic or Latino.
Description of Summer Bridge Program
At Institution #3, Summer Bridge was a 3-4 day experience occurring in the week immediately
prior to the start of the Fall semester. Summer Bridge was designed for Scholars as a way to
prepare for the academic rigors of a first-year engineering curriculum, establish the development
of engineering identity through design activities, and build community among Scholars.
For each year of the Summer Bridge program, activities included: academic preparation
workshops for mathematics and English composition, design activities and competitions, a
campus resource scavenger hunt, talks from engineering and mathematics professors on topics of
interest, and informal unstructured times (e.g., lunches) to connect with engineering professors
and fellow students.
The first two Summer Bridge programs (2019 and 2020) were developed and organized by
faculty members and graduate students. However, the third program (2021) was developed and
organized nearly entirely by undergraduate student leaders who had participated in the first
Summer Bridge program.
Unique Aspects
One of the unique features of Summer Bridge at Institution #3 was the focus on engineering
design. During each day of Summer Bridge, students participated in at least one design activity
or competition. Students would work together in small groups to, for example, build a tower out
of dried spaghetti and marshmallows, or build a backpack out of only printer paper and
tape. The incorporation of design activities was conceptualized to serve as a precursor to the
first-year engineering design course all ELC members take in their first Fall semester. However,
in addition to this continuity between Summer Bridge and the first-year design course, these
design activities also served to promote STEM identity and allowed students to socialize and
work together toward building a community [4].
Similar to Institution #2, Institution #3 shifted from a program planned and executed by faculty
to one planned and executed entirely by student leadership. These student leaders took over
planning and implementation for the 2021 Summer Bridge, and they each had participated in the
2019 Summer Bridge.
Lastly, another unique feature of Summer Bridge at Institution #3 was the way faculty members
were included in the program. In addition to delivering talks and facilitating workshops during
Summer Bridge, faculty members also socialized with the students during lunch breaks and other
informal contexts. The students reported that this was one of their favorite aspects of Summer
Bridge, and that they felt much more at ease starting the Fall semester after having met and
gotten to know some of their professors in the week before classes began.
Process of Iteration and Improvement
The Summer Bridge program at Institution #3 underwent several changes between each
iteration. After each Summer Bridge, participants submitted a satisfaction survey where they
reported on what they found helpful and what they did not. This student input, as well as
assessment from faculty members involved with the program, were the main impetus for changes
between iterations.
When the Summer Bridge program shifted to being student-run in 2021, the student leaders were
given freedom to choose how to design the program. While the students decided to keep much
of the program the same, one large change they did make was to invite sophomore-level
students, who would serve as the first-year students’ mentors in the Fall semester, to attend
Summer Bridge. Additionally, the student leaders developed some separate sessions for the
sophomore students, meaning that most of the time all students were together during Summer
Bridge, but occasionally the sophomore students were separated from the first-year
students. Most notably, during the mathematics and English composition academic review
sessions, the sophomore students split off to receive training on how to be a mentor. This
structure was considered a success among students and faculty through informal feedback, and
this change was made due to the ideas and planning of student leaders.
Reported Student Outcomes
ELC members, both Scholars and non-scholars, have demonstrated higher rates of retention than
other engineering majors at Institution #3. For example, for first-year students who began in Fall
2019, ELC members demonstrated a two-year retention rate of 71% (n=21), while non-ELC
engineering majors had a two-year retention rate of 55% (n=121). For first-year engineering
students who began in Fall 2020, ELC members had a one-year retention rate of 87% (n=23),
while non-ELC members had a one-year retention rate of 71% (n=110; see Figure 4). It is
difficult, however, to determine how much the Summer Bridge program contributed to these
increased retention rates since ELC students receive a number of additional supports including
peer mentorship throughout the first year and being part of a learning community.
Figure 4. Retention Rates.
During the Fall 2020 semester, interviews were conducted with five first-year Scholars. Because
they were Scholars, all five had attended the Summer Bridge program, but the interview purpose
was for research separate from Summer Bridge and no interview questions were asked about
Summer Bridge. However, one of the questions asked how connected they felt to their peers in
76.19% 71.43%
86.96%
68.60%
55.37%
70.91%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
One-Year Retention Rate Two-Year Retention Rate One-Year Retention Rate
Fall 2019 First-Year Students Fall 2020 First-Year Students
Retention Rates
(with 95% Confidence Intervals)
ELC Students Non-ELC Students
their classes, and three of the five interviewees brought up Summer Bridge, unprompted, as
something that helped them feel more connected to their peers. This is worth noting because this
group of students started their college careers in Fall 2020 when both classes and Summer
Bridge were completely remote. It is possible that remote learning offers fewer opportunities for
peer connection and community building than in person learning, and Summer Bridge may have
mitigated that impaired community building.
Conclusion: Recommendations for Other Institutions
Summer Bridge programs typically focus on transitioning students from high school to college
and remediating academic content and skills [9]. Our bridge programs extended the purpose and
participants for Summer Bridge, based on details of the Urban STEM programming, student
feedback, and the pandemic. At Institution #1, because of the make-up of the cohorts and shared
courses, the bridge included not only first-year students transitioning from high school to
college, but also second-year students transitioning from University College to Engineering. At
Institutions #2 and #3, the bridge programs included returning students transitioning from
mentee to mentor roles, shifted from faculty to student leadership, and evolved to de-emphasize
academic content in favor of community building. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, all three
bridge programs shifted from on-campus, to remote, back to on-campus formats, ultimately
transitioning students from remote to on-campus learning.
At Institution #1, there was a significant positive impact of combining both incoming first-year
students and returning sophomores into the specialized Summer Bridge for the Urban STEM
program. Although there were some redundancies for the sophomores, as many of them
participated in the general Summer Bridge the prior year, their participation in the Urban STEM
specialized version of Summer Bridge strengthened the networking among the students, and
created an unanticipated, informal peer mentoring network. The common theme of all students,
both incoming first-year students and returning sophomores was taking Calculus I in the Fall
semester further strengthened the bond and networking among the students.
Other institutions considering launching similar programming should consider increased
participation of rising sophomores in Summer Bridge to help establish peer mentoring networks
with incoming first-year students with the common theme that the students would be taking some
courses together in the Fall (at Institution #1, all students were taking Calculus I). This seemed to
make Summer Bridge an even better experience for all, because so many of the students in the
classroom already had some college experience to share with the group.
For Institution #2, one of the central lessons learned to date from this program is the importance
of community building to student success. The close relationships forged between students and
faculty at Institution #2 has resulted in Scholars feeling more connected, being better able to
access support resources, and being more successful than their peers who are not part of the
program, particularly given the disruption of the pandemic. The Summer Bridge was
instrumental in developing these relationships, as the program provided an opportunity for
Scholars to meet one another and faculty prior to the start of the academic year. A shift from a
faculty-driven to a Scholar-driven approach to developing and delivering program components
was also important for increasing engagement and sense of community among the Scholars.
For Institution #3, the most successful and engaging iteration of Summer Bridge was the
program that was designed and executed almost entirely by student leaders. The student leaders
came up with ideas and made changes to the program that would otherwise not have been
identified through typical program evaluation means, such as satisfaction surveys and faculty
assessment. Specifically, student leaders thought to involve sophomore-level students in
Summer Bridge and create breakout times when the sophomore-level students received training
on how to embody the role of peer mentor.
In addition to student leadership, another recommendation for other institutions seeking to
launch Summer Bridge programming for STEM, and specifically engineering, students is to
incorporate design challenges. The daily design challenges employed at Institution #3 were
frequently reported as participants’ favorite aspect of Summer Bridge, and the small group
structure helped to build community. Additionally, STEM identity was not only fostered by
engaging in design activities, but also socially reinforced through teamwork with other students.
There is a strong body of prior work on summer bridge programs (e.g., [10]), yet future work
may need to focus on remote versus in-person effects, as well as faculty/staff led versus student-
led versions. Although a component of the Urban STEM Collaboratory since it was first
proposed, the Summer Bridge programs were never intended to be a focus of research. Yet,
student feedback indicates that these programs may have positive impact on student belonging
and identity. There is significant variability among the three institutions, such as the number of
cohorts (scholarships being awarded to two, three, or four years of incoming students), and
variability in how the programs were offered, including in-person versus remote delivery due to
the pandemic. Investigating which elements are most important will take additional study.
However, since each institution’s summer bridge demonstrated positive student outcomes, it is
possible that any social interaction among peers before the start of the semester is beneficial, and
the actual programming of summer bridge may be less important than the broader experience of
socialization that a summer bridge provides.
Summer bridge programs are common to many universities, and are used for a variety of
reasons, including academic review, orientation to the physical campus, and introduction to
campus technology. In the summer bridge programs specific to the Urban STEM Collaboratory,
we found the most important elements to be those that helped incoming students connect to each
other, to student mentors, and with faculty. These were not random groupings, but people they
would meet again -- “familiar faces” in classes and mentoring meetings. The iterations described
here follow the feedback from students: shifts from individual work to team-based design
activities, from faculty-designed sessions to student leaders guiding the program content. For
both in-person (2019/2021) and remote delivery (2020), these programs lessened feelings of
isolation for students, whether they entered physical classrooms or online ones, because these
programs emphasized connecting with their new community.
Acknowledgment
This work is supported by NSF S-STEM #1833983.
References
[1] K. Goodman, S. S. Ivey, C. O. Stewart, S. O’Brien, M. Darbeheshti, W. Schupbach, and K. D.
Alfrey, “Launching the Urban STEM Collaboratory,” paper presented at the ASEE Annual
Conference and Exposition, Virtual, June, 2020.
[2] C. O. Stewart et al., “An Initial Exploration of Engineering Student Perceptions of COVID’s
Impact on Connectedness, Learning, and STEM Identity,” presented at the 2021 ASEE Virtual
Annual Conference, Virtual Conference, Jul. 2021. doi: 10.18260/1-2--36670.
[3] C. O. Stewart, “STEM identities: A communication theory of identity approach,” Journal of
Language and Social Psychology, vol. 41, no. 2, pp. 148–170, Mar. 2022, doi:
10.1177/0261927X211030674.
[4] J. Rohde et al., “Design Experiences, Engineering Identity, and Belongingness in Early Career
Electrical and Computer Engineering Students,” IEEE Trans. Educ., vol. 62, no. 3, pp. 165–172,
Aug. 2019, doi: 10.1109/TE.2019.2913356.
[5] M. Darbeheshti and D. Edmonds, “A Creative First-year Program to Improve the Student
Retention in Engineering,” in 2018 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition Proceedings, Salt
Lake City, Utah, Jun. 2018, p. 29672. doi: 10.18260/1-2--29672.
[6] M. Darbeheshti et al., “Learning Communities: Impact on Retention of First-year Students,” in
2020 ASEE Virtual Annual Conference Content Access Proceedings, Virtual On line, Jun. 2020,
p. 34899. doi: 10.18260/1-2--34899.
[7] M. Howland Cummings et al., “Comparing Student Outcomes from Four Iterations of an
Engineering Learning Community,” presented at the 2021 ASEE Virtual Annual Conference,
Virtual Conference, Jul. 2021. doi: 10.18260/1-2--36519.
[8] G. E. Simon et al., “WIP: A Layered Mentorship Program (LMP) for Engineering Student
Success and Retention,” presented at the 2021 ASEE Virtual Annual Conference, Virtual
Conference, Jul. 2021. [Online]. Available: https://strategy.asee.org/38066
[9] J. R. Sablan, “The Challenge of Summer Bridge Programs,” American Behavioral Scientist, vol.
58, no. 8, pp. 1035–1050, Jul. 2014, doi: 10.1177/0002764213515234.
[10] B.C. Bradford et al., "A meta-analysis of university stem summer bridge program
effectiveness,” CBE-Life Sciences Education, vol. 20, no. 2, Summer 2021, doi:
10.1187/cbe.20-03-0046
