strategies embedded in the PEARLS program, offer renovated alternatives to positively impact the level of success achieved by students in their paths to complete degrees in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) disciplines. Acknowledgment This research was supported by the National Science Foundation under Award DUE 1833869. Any opinions, findings and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation. References[1] Rogers, J. J., & Rogers, A. A., & Baygents, J. C. (2020, June), Effects of High School Dual-Credit Introduction to Engineering Course on First-year Engineering Student Self-efficacy and the Freshman
high rates of universitydropout and the determination of its main causes and solutions [1]. Dropout affects significantlyboth personally and socially. Deficient education for dropouts can be reflected in a significantdecline in their future economic and social well-being [2]. Furthermore, a shortage of skilledworkers can undermine a country's productivity [2]. Currently, universities have high dropoutrates that are evidenced in the data officially presented by official institutions. According to theUnited Nations Organization, dropout exceeds 40% in Latin American countries such asColombia and Ecuador, and even 50% and 54% in Costa Rica and Brazil respectively [3]. Theserates worsen significantly when emphasis is placed only on STEM careers
project-based learning can enhance confidence and refine a skill setdirected towards engineering fields. Feinaur’s integration of innovation and entrepreneurshipinto first-year engineering courses focused on product-based innovation projects to develop acurriculum for students [5]. Students were successful in applying the techniques that theylearned.Assessing engineering design through projects has proven to increase first-year engineeringstudents’ self-efficacy [6]. This study included an in-class team design task supplemented byindividual reflections. The exam on the other hand was an individual written assessment. Resultsconcluded that the design task increased levels of self-efficacy more than the exam.Conclusions about whether a student
-cognitive theory, Zimmerman [14]established a cyclical framework of self-regulation that is divided into three phases: 1)forethought phase (processes promoting a learning mindset by involving one’s beliefs, attitudes,and processes before any academic task), 2) performance control phase (intentionally 2participating in learning activities specific to a personal strategic plan and augmenting learningby utilizing self-control and self-observation processes), and 3) self-reflection phase (evaluatingpersonal performance against goals, learning outcomes, or self-standards and modifying futurelearning strategies). The cyclical nature of this model posits
Manage, vol. 37, no. 1, pp. 280–304, 2011, doi: 10.1177/0149206310386227.[10] K. L. Meyers, S. E. Silliman, N. L. Gedde, and M. W. Ohland, “A comparison of engineering students’ reflections on their first-year experiences,” Journal of Engineering Education, vol. 99, no. 2, pp. 169–178, 2010, doi: 10.1002/j.2168-9830.2010.tb01053.x.[11] P. J. Collier, “Why peer mentoring is an effective approach for promoting college student success,” Metrop Univ, vol. 28, no. 3, 2017, doi: 10.18060/21539.[12] J. M. Kiyama and S. G. Luca, “Structured opportunities: Exploring the social and academic benefits for peer mentors in retention programs,” J Coll Stud Ret, vol. 15, pp. 489–514, 2014.[13] R. Ghosh and T. G. Reio, “Career
management (n = 8),transitioning to college (n = 5), and commuting (n = 3). Time management, especially coupledwith transitioning, was a main issue in the beginning of the semester. Specifically, studentsstruggled with balancing responsibilities in their lives (e.g., spreading out assignments andreadings instead of waiting until the last minute, study life versus work life, exercise, sleep andwaking up schedule). Being commuters affected academic performance and health. Due to a longcommute, sometimes students came to classes late, missing critical class information. Thisimpacted their understanding of the subject matter, and it was reflected in their low grades.Similarly, after a long commute back home, they only had limited hours of sleep. This
. Relative to the EDP, EM is anewer addition to the FYEP curriculum, so we posit that an EM-to-EDP connection may indicatethat students are beginning to see an EM as integral to the design process. Although we hesitateto draw strong conclusions given our sample size, future work should explore how studentsconceptualize the relationship between moving through the EDP and doing so with an EM astheir guide.On the other hand, Exploration was the least applied code across datasets. Our finding thatstudents mentioned Exploration the least may indicate an area where the design projectcurriculum can be improved. For example, we could have students reflect on how externalexperiences, resources, and/or other courses may relate to their projects, or we could
round of interviews was scheduled to take place in the spring of 2020. Due to theCOVID-19 pandemic, and the abrupt switch to online learning in March of 2020, data collectionfor the first cohort was delayed until mid-summer. We also needed to update IRB protocols toinclude remote interviews as well as update the interview protocol to ask about any positive andnegative experiences the students had due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Consequently, weinterviewed cohort 2 (AY 2020-2021) in the spring of 2021. We then interviewed students fromcohort 1 (AY 2019-2020) in the fall of 2021. Although these students were entering their thirdyear of college (typically junior level), we used the same protocol and asked them to reflect ontheir first year. Finally