Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Background This paper examines the nature of instruction in a first‐year engineering program at the University of Cincinnati, arguing that the instrumental learning approaches commonly used in engineering education may limit student retention and development. It advances transformative learning as a framework to enhance student experiences and outcomes. Purpose/Hypothesis This study investigates student experiences in a first‐year engineering program through the lens of transformative learning theory, and identifies the contributing factors. A mixed‐methods approach is employed, with findings disaggregated by student demographics and compared across fall and spring semesters. Design/Method Over 350 first‐year engineering students participated in a survey incorporating the Learning Activities Survey and open‐ended reflection prompts. A mixed‐methods analysis was conducted to categorize students based on their transformative learning experiences, identify contributing programmatic factors, and examine changes in habits of mind. Results A majority of students experienced Profound Transformation in both semesters, while relatively few were classified in the Reflection without Action category. Although levels of Profound Transformation remained consistent, more students demonstrated Straightforward Transformation in the fall semester. Students reported the greatest changes in epistemic habits of mind, particularly related to learning strategies, with comparatively limited changes in philosophical dimensions. Conclusions The findings highlight the presence and variability of transformative learning within first‐year engineering curricula. Results suggest that intentionally structured experiences, particularly those integrating reflection, interaction, and application, can support deeper transformation. These insights have implications for the design of first‐year engineering programs aimed at improving student development, engagement, and retention.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Shandliya et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: