, UPRM is onlybeginning to incorporate JEDI into Strategic Planning. This project will accelerate those efforts.We intend to work with administrators to develop a climate survey and to improve the counting ofnon-binary students.3. MindsetsBefore discussing the program design, we deliberate a set of mindsets essential to develop instudents. This is a precursor to developing a competency-based profile that is under development.Student Self-efficacyAside from the theme of Sustainability, students in the new programs must be prepared to be self-motivated and willing to take a high level of responsibility for their learning. We plan to use thePittsburgh Freshman Engineering Attitudes Survey (PFEAS) to assess student self-efficacy uponentry and use
Motivation and Learning, K. A. Renninger and S. E. Hidi, Eds. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2019, pp. 617–644.[10] L. T. Hu, and P. M. Bentler, “Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives,” Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 1-55, 1999.[11] M. Guan, and J. So, “Influence of social identity on self-efficacy beliefs through perceived social support: A social identity theory perspective,” Comm. Studies, vol. 67, no. 5, pp. 588–604, Oct. 2016.[12] C. S. Hulleman et al., “Making connections: Replicating and extending the utility value intervention in the classroom,” J. of Ed. Psych., vol
, self-efficacy in problem solving, academic performance, and knowledge retention as indicators oflearning effectiveness.Some students also used achieved outcomes to gauge their learning effectiveness. The outcomesidentified by focus group participants included enhanced conceptual understanding (ST11),increased confidence in problem solving (ST9), better grades (ST11, ST12) and betterknowledge retention (ST10), particularly after some time (ST12). The three student responsesalso illustrated the importance they placed on understanding the course structure (ST9) and theconnections among topics (ST9, ST10). It was also a math-based course, but the whole course was structured around problems. We started the class every day with a problem
presence of the words, rather than the same % as the standarddictionary. This still gives a measure of relative usage when comparing across papers.Refer to Table 8 for our custom dimension findings related to the following discussion. Allpapers used generic study jargon (e.g., data, research, etc.). While all papers used somedemographic jargon, they primarily communicated age, race, and sex dimensions ofdemographics rather than meaningfully discussing location or socioeconomic status. EnEdJargon was unsurprisingly the highest category for most papers [17]–[19], [22]. Besides thegeneric eID Jargon, these papers tended to focus on the identity dimensions of attitude,intersectionality, and mentors rather than self-efficacy or competence. Besides the
adaptation recommendations.Pre-module and post-module anonymous surveys were administered through Qualtrics todetermine prior student climate literacy and engagement with the topic, measure the studentlearning and engagement due to the climate module, and seek their feedback on how the teachingmethods and content in the module promoted their understanding of and ability to take action toaddress climate change. This paper reports the details of the development of the learning module,the assessment of student learning, and the results of the pre- and post- module surveys. Thepurpose of this paper is to measure how the learning module influences student beliefs,knowledge, and self-efficacy with respect to understanding of climate science and ability
, D., & Layton, R. A.(2008). Persistence, engagement, and migration in engineering programs. Journal of EngineeringEducation, (December), 260–278. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2168-9830.2008.tb00978[5] Sun, J. C. Y., & Rueda, R. (2012). Situational interest, computer self-efficacy and self-regulation: Their impact on student engagement in distance education. British Journal ofEducational Technology, 43(2), 191–204. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8535.2010.01157.x[6] Guthrie, J. T., Wigfield, A., Barbosa, P., Perencevich, K. C., Taboada, A., Davis, M. H., &Tonks, S. (2004). Increasing reading comprehension and engagement through concept-orientedreading instruction. Journal of Educational Psychology, 96(3), 403–423.https://doi.org
them as diversity tokens. They emphasized the importance of social and structuralsupport to promote self-efficacy and retention for women of color. The bearings of thoseidentities cut across other interactional experiences, such as teamwork, in which students wereexpected to assert themselves and navigate unfamiliar team dynamics.Teamwork was often studied through the lens of student behaviors. Using an educationalanthropologist approach, Tonso (2006a) studied how the campus culture (categorized by studenttypes – nerds, Greeks, and academic achievers) influenced teamwork in an engineering collegeof a state-funded university in the Midwest. By observing team behaviors in situ, Tonso foundthat non-design engineering classes promote social
studentswith greater mindfulness (trait mindfulness) and was more evident when the task demandedsignificant working memory resources [15]. Another study [16], including 75 students in anintroductory solid mechanics course, measured students' self-reported trait mindfulness at thetime of completing the mindfulness instruments. This study did not conduct mindfulness trainingwith the students. However, the self-reported mindfulness measures revealed that traitmindfulness does not correlate with students' final grades or mechanics self-efficacy butpositively correlates with business skills self-efficacy. The study further suggests thatmindfulness-based classroom activities may help broaden the engineering education experience.Some research results suggest
shows a student performing an experiment using one of the devices developed in the ECPproject. By adopting ECP, students were able to have a better understanding in the course (COSC243 – Computer Architecture) and other STEM subjects that are part of the project.Figure 6: Students setting up the experiment.The Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire (MSLQ) developed by Pintrich, Smith,García, and McKeachie [15] was used to measure key constructs associated with students’ success,such as motivation, epistemic and perceptual curiosity, and self-efficacy. The effectiveness of theimplementation of ECP was evaluated using the MLSQ measure, which consists of a learninggoals scale that is further divided into cognitive and resource management
]. Students whose identities align with their academic community experienceincreased persistence and better retention [25, 49-52].Engineering identity has also been linked to improved sense of belonging, or the feeling ofbeing included in the engineering community [53]. Students are more likely to stay in theirengineering programs if they feel they are part of that academic environment [54-55]. Sense ofbelonging has also been positively correlated to academic engagement and self-efficacy inSTEM disciplines [56]; factors that are also linked to retention [57].Engineering identity and sense of belonging become even more important when consideringhistorically underrepresented groups in engineering. Lack of belonging continues to be one ofthe top reasons
groups in computer science programs and careers have been suggested. Lackof access to computing technology, inadequate K-12 preparation, lack of role-models, stereotypethreat, and lower self-efficacy have all been identified as reasons non-majority students do notenter or eventually leave computing programs [8]-[19]. Specifically in STEM fields anddisciplines, non-majority students’ sense of belonging is imperative to their retention and successwithin STEM programs and is associated with a variety of positive outcomes for individualsincluding: increased GPA, increased self-reported health and well-being, and increased academicscores [20], [21]. Yet, in direct opposition to non-majority students cultivating this sense ofbelonging, or fit, in
B. A. Montelone, “KS-LSAMP pathways to STEM: A system approach to minority participation in STEM,” in Proceedings of the American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference, Seattle, WA, USA, June 14-17, 2015. Available: https://peer.asee.org/24389[2] C. S. H. Kamphoff, Bryant I; Amundsen, Scoot A, Atwood, Julie A, "A motivational/empowerment model applied to students on academic probation". Journal College Student Retention, vol. 8, no. 4, pp. 397-412, 2006.[3] A. Bandura, Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: Freeman, 1997.[4] W. Glasser, Reality therapy in action. New York: HarperCollins, 2000.[5] J. L. Bloom, and N. A. Martin, “Incorporating appreciate inquiry into academicadvising
engineers do. These questions were crafted as the authors had previously observed thatmiddle school students abandoned the idea of becoming an engineer either because of lack ofself-confidence in succeeding as an engineer or lack of understanding of what engineers do (e.g.,more than build bridges, make cars, and work at chemical plants). The survey began with a set ofLikert-type statements to determine students’ interest and self-efficacy in engineering with thechoices: yes, a lot; yes, a little bit; not sure; probably not; and no way (see Appendix B). Thenext question was open-ended and directed students to list as many types of engineering as theycould. The last question consisted of a list of 14 things and instructed students to answer
academic competency but also comfortability, self-efficacy,and awareness [6]. Early exposure to different STEM career paths increases the chance of astudent choosing STEM as their career destination. More specifically, Dou et al. found thatinformal STEM experiences including “science consumption” through STEM activities at homeand conversations with family and friends about science “were predictive of STEM identity incollege” [7]. Further, research shows that social capital is key to broadening participation inSTEM; Saw suggests that a student’s social capital is “derived from families, peers, teachers, andprofessional networks” and supports their academic performance in STEM subjects as well astheir career trajectory in STEM pathways [8
, graduate research, etc.) aims to prepare graduate students fora workforce – in academia, industry, government, or nonprofits – that requires transdisciplinaryproblem solving both locally and globally.Results of Cohort 1 are reported here since the data set includes all three time points, specificallypre-survey to follow-up survey. When comparing Cohort 1 trainee baseline and follow-upresults, all four subscales within the Research Self-efficacy scale showed statistically significantincreases. Cohort 1 trainees reported statistically significant positive changes inConceptualization (mean change=15.6; p<0.001), Implementation (mean change=14.2; p<0.01),Early Task (mean change=9.8; p<0.05), and Presenting the Results (mean change=15.5;p<
self-efficacy, motivation, and the presence of mentors androle models can influence occupational and academic behavior, pursuits, and success forconstruction-education. Their research suggested that students with a person of influence havehigher self-efficacy and motivation toward successful performance in their constructioneducation [5]. While our study focuses on whether a Structural Engineer faculty member can bea mentor and/or role model for students, it does not determine if the faculty member is theprimary person of influence.There are multiple options on how to incorporate mentoring within the architecture, engineering,and construction (A/E/C) related majors. One mentoring model is the P5BL pedagogicalapproach which stands for Problem
engineeringliterate students, and as argued by others [11]-[12], can be seamlessly integrated into thecurriculum to support young children’s learning development. Additionally, some prior researchsuggests that practicing and prospective educators may have difficulty planning, designing, andimplementing lessons and activities that develop and promote children’s HoM as engineers [12]-[13]. This may be due to several reasons such as lack of readiness to teach engineering [14], lowengineering self-efficacy and low teacher efficacy related to engineering pedagogical contentknowledge [15], lack of engineering pedagogical content knowledge [16], and misconceptionsregarding the field of engineering [17].Out-of-school learning environments may be an alternative
iterative or parallel prototyping strategy impacted students’ use ofCAD during a design competition in an introductory mechanical engineering course. The resultsin this paper build from prior work that investigated how the two prototyping approachesaffected competition performance, engineering design self-efficacy, solution space exploration,and design satisfaction [11], [12]. This paper specifically addresses how the prototypingstrategies impacted design complexity and CAD software feature use and is compared tocompetition performance. In this work, CAD features refer to the specific operations that adesigner specifies within the software space to create a model. The overarching aims of thisresearch are to understand how novice engineers are using
-efficacy in tutoring engineering and engineeringtechnology students [14]. The results showed WATTS had a positive impact on tutors, andsubsequent research has supported this with statistically significant data demonstrating itspositive impact on peer tutor self-efficacy and application of knowledge transfer skills [15].During this iteration of the research, the student lab reports also had noticeable improvements,and the team received a STEM Education Innovation & Research Institute at IUPUI seed grant todetermine if this impact could be replicated at other institutions.The data supported the idea that WATTS impacts student writing and could be replicated. Toassess additional data and obtain a robust data set to measure the impacts of WATTS
other underrepresented groups in engineering degrees, whoexperience more difficulties to feel welcome in college settings as future engineers [4].Prior work has shown that several factors can influence an individual’s well-being and mentalhealth, including social factors, motivation, and academic discipline, among others [1]. Otherconcepts that have been explored are self-sufficiency, sense of belonging, and social self-efficacy[1]. Studies have also examined the relationships among self-reported stress, anxiety, anddepression; engineering identity; and perceptions of inclusion of undergraduate engineeringstudents [3].In this context, it has become critical to determine the predictive factors of student well-beingand how well-being affects
program for WomenComputing Students at a Commuter College and Measuring Its Effectiveness." In 2022 ASEEAnnual Conference & Exposition. 2022.[4] M. Bong and E. M. Skaalvik, “Academic Self-Concept and Self-Efficacy: How Different AreThey Really?”, Educational Psychology Review, 15(1), 1–40, 2003.https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1021302408382[5] Haktanir A, Watson JC, Ermis-Demirtas H, et al. “Resilience, Academic Self-Concept, andCollege Adjustment Among First-Year Students. Journal of College Student Retention:Research, Theory & Practice.” 2021;23(1):161-178. doi:10.1177/1521025118810666[6] A. Sullivan, “Academic self-concept, gender and single-sex schooling”, British EducationalResearch Journal, 35(2), 259–288, 2009. https://doi.org/10.1080
reflect students’ lived experiences?RQ2: How can serious games like Next Stop provide an opportunity for students to experiencecomplex transportation engineering and urban design collaborative problem solving?RQ3: What is the role of playful experiences in engaging students into difficult conversationsabout complex engineering problems that affect their communities?We intend to conduct interviews with bilingual students about their experiences with the gameand how they identify as an engineer through self-efficacy STEM student measures [28]. Thesedata sources will help us explore the ways that games can shift students into the mindset of anengineer and how best to meet the educational materials needs of multilingual students. We willalso video
students to be more reflective in later courses?IntroductionThis work in progress paper assesses whether a first-year ePortfolio experience promotes betterreflection in subsequent engineering courses. While reflection is vital to promote learning,historically, reflection receives less attention in engineering education when compared to otherfields [1]. Yet, cultivating more reflective engineers yields several important benefits includingbuilding self-efficacy and empowering student agency. Through continued practice, engineeringstudents can develop a habit of reflective thinking which increases students’ ability to transferknowledge across contexts. The adoption of ePortfolios is becoming an increasingly popularstrategy to improve student learning
toresources such as incubators (Karataş-Özkan & Chell, 2015; Parker et al., 2017; Poggesi et al.,2020). More recently, Wheadon and Duval-Couetil (2018) created a “capital framework” thatoutlines categories of barriers that control access, participation, and persistence in technologyentrepreneurship. This framework moves beyond social and financial capital, to explore howhuman capital (e.g. education) and cognitive capital (e.g., self-efficacy) are also factors inviewing oneself as a technology entrepreneur.Women currently face negative stereotypes about their competence in STEM fields as well assimilar stereotypes about their entrepreneurial abilities (Gupta et al., 2009), leading scholars todescribe technology entrepreneurship as "doubly
such influence can be the major a student is pursuing[19]. Along with varying by year of study, another study showed that the motivation of studentsis not stagnant but evolves throughout their time studying, with some motivation factorsbecoming more important than others [3]. There are multiple questionnaires that investigate themotivation of students, for this study the MSLQ is utilized.The MSLQ is a self-assessment questionnaire utilizing a Likert scale, rating a list of questions ona scale of “not true to me” to “very true to me.” This study specifically views five motivationfactors, which are gathered using this questionnaire: cognitive value, self-regulation, anxiety,intrinsic value, and self-efficacy. Cognitive value describes the
between team dynamics. The findings in this study also have limitations at the team forming stage. While UDO scoreswere used a criteria in different ways, it wasn’t the only criteria for team forming. Traditionalcriteria used in the course were given priority and UDO was used as a last criteria in formingteams. This could have significant implications to the interpretation of findings. A trulyexperimental setup was not feasible for a course offered at such a large scale. Furthermore, teameffectiveness can also vary with different factors in the course such as different instructors, priorexperience of students with teamwork, self-efficacy in course content, personality difference, andteam player disposition. These confounding factors need to be
understanding thatmay be necessary for success in senior design without more prior exposure. Finally, it has beenreported that involvement in makerspaces, whether in a voluntary or class required settingsignificantly helped students' motivation and confidence (engineering design self-efficacyscores) [7]. This course was therefore intended to provide increased exposure to a variety ofmaker skills with an anticipated boost in self-efficacy leading to greater success in theirformation as engineers.Additional pedagogical foundation for this approach is to be found. There is experience with thepositive results from robotics competitions across many ages and formats. For example, theTrinity College Fire-Fighting Home Robot Contest promotes skills of design
-related fields, and further courses inall areas of STEM build on foundational programming knowledge taught in CS1. Accordingly,previous research has largely focused on assessing CS1 courses using relatively traditionalapproaches such as concept inventories [5], retention rates [6], or student perceptions of thecourse [7]. In addition to quantitative evaluations, there have been efforts to qualitatively evaluatestudent experiences in CS1-style courses, such as their self-efficacy [8] or struggles [9].Unfortunately, there is considerably less research on the development of knowledge and skillsrelevant to professional programmers, such as code quality, and the existing research seems toindicate that these skills are not priorities in CS1 courses [10
, Dr. Tequila Harris, and Dr. Jenny Serpa.References[1] Society of Women Engineers, “SWE Research Update: Women in Engineering by the Numbers (Nov. 2019) - All Together,” 2019. https://alltogether.swe.org/2019/11/swe-research-update-women-in-engineering-by-the-numbers-nov- 2019/#_edn3 (accessed Sep. 17, 2021).[2] B. L. Yoder, “Engineering by the Numbers,” American Society of Engineering Education, 2011.[3] L. O. Flowers, “Course-Based Undergraduate Research Experiences at HBCUs,” J. Educ. Soc. Policy, vol. 8, no. 1, p. 33, 2021, doi: 10.30845/jesp.v8n1p4.[4] A. Carpi, D. M. Ronan, H. M. Falconer, and N. H. Lents, “Cultivating minority scientists: Undergraduate research increases self-efficacy and career ambitions for
professional skills,” Int. J. Eng. Educ., vol. 29, no. 1, pp. 85–98, 2013.[18] P. L. Yorio and F. Ye, “A meta-analysis on the effects of service-learning on the social, personal, and cognitive outcomes of learning,” Acad. Manag. Learn. Educ., vol. 11, no. 1, pp. 9–27, 2012, doi: 10.5465/amle.2010.0072.[19] L. Dent, P. Maloney, and T. Karp, “Self-Efficacy Development among Students Enrolled in an Engineering Service-Learning Section,” Int. J. Serv. Learn. Eng. Humanit. Eng. Soc. Entrep., vol. 13, no. 2, pp. 25–44, 2018, doi: 10.24908/ijsle.v13i2.11483.[20] Litterati, “Litterati - The Global Team Cleaning The Earth,” 2021. https://www.litterati.org/ (accessed Jun. 21, 2021).[21] J. M. Wolfand, K. A. Bieryla, C