(DCI) or the proposed Rigid BodyDynamics Concept inventories (RBDCI) have been shown to be effective at identifying studentmisconceptions and guiding instructor efforts [1,2]. In their 2020 paper on the propagation ofthe use of concept inventories in Mechanical Engineering [3], Cornwell and Self et. al. suggestthat instructor adoption of concept inventories depends on a variety of factors including theinstitutional context, learning context, and the instructor’s interaction with the conceptwarehouse community.In other work, researches have explored the role of institutional and learning contexts on studentsuccess [4], student perceptions [5,6,7], and student self-efficacy. Additionally, by changing thelearning contexts, instructor’s outlooks
efforts, we will also work on additional resources to help students and STEM enthusiasts tobuild such platforms in publicly accessible makerspaces. University or library makerspaces have added a new dimension tostudent learning through hands-on projects that help students build a wide range of skills otherwise underdeveloped [12] andsupport diversity and inclusion [18], [32]. Student engagement (voluntary or through courses) is associated with higher STEMidentity [23], GPA [17], and engineering design self-efficacy [18]. The maker movement started outside of academia with theDo-It-Yourself (DIY) culture [3], which some consider a form of citizen science and lifelong learning environment [13]. Giventhe research context of our platform, students
groups: miniGEMS for middle school or fifth-grade through eighth-grade students and megaGEMS for ninth-grade through twelfth-grade students. GEMS offersafter-school programs for miniGEMS middle school students and summer camps for bothminiGEMS and megaGEMS.GEMS’ mission is to inspire and empower the next generation to be innovative with their futurein the STEM fields [1], [2], [13]-[15]. GEMS covers diverse topics of education that the studentswould not normally be exposed to, such as supporting each other, developing teamwork skills,learning how to better the community with their knowledge, being creative, and developing self-efficacy [3]-[8], [10]. GEMS’ goal is to increase the number of students interested in STEMcareers, especially in
around students’ self-efficacy [10], [11], students professional skill development and self-directed learning inproblem-based learning contexts [11], attitudes, self-concept, and team dynamics of students[12], and student portfolio assessments in engineering courses [13]. While these topics are allrelevant in the discussion of using personal mastery as a framework for developing students, theydo not touch on the relevance of personal mastery in developing engineering leaders or students’commitment to lifelong learning. Personal mastery has been linked to general leadership development, which lends to itscapacity to do so in an engineering-specific context. Personal mastery has been explored inconnection with developing authentic
, 30, 34]. Hence, the majority of stud-ies reporting benefits of LLMs focus more on student engagement, interaction patterns, and be-haviors, or student perceptions, such as satisfaction, perceived benefit, self-efficacy, or motiva-tion [33, 37, 25, 39, 40, 41, 26, 42, 7, 43, 27, 44, 45, 46].We discuss the relevance of this work at further length in Section 5 but note here that our studydiffers significantly in context, as our tasks are not assessing programming ability specifically,but broader knowledge and problem-solving skills related to computer engineering and embeddedsystems.3 MethodsTo test the potential impact of LLMs in SRL, we designed a 2-stage study consisting of a coun-terbalanced repeated measures experiment, and a
AssessmentsStudents completed final design projects that were evaluated using a structured rubriccovering four domains: (1) conceptual understanding, (2) technical execution, (3) creativity,and (4) teamwork. Key findings from 96 evaluated projects include: • 85% of students achieved “Proficient” or “Advanced” ratings in problem-solving and innovation. • Projects in biomedical and renewable energy domains received the highest scores for creativity and real-world relevance. • 72% of students showed improvement in design iteration and documentation between initial and final projects.C. Participant Journals and ReflectionsThematic analysis of over 300 journal entries revealed consistent growth in studentengagement and self-efficacy
effective as “the goal is assistingthe mentee in becoming more expert in a role [they and their] mentor already share” [26].Undergraduate students from under-resourced communities that serve as peer mentors to otherundergraduates have been shown to benefit from increased STEM identity, sense of belonging,and self-efficacy [27]. Undergraduate students can also serve as near-peer mentors for middle andhigh school student mentees [12], the GGEE program’s target audience (Figure 1). Figure 1. Types of Mentoring Relationships that May Exist in the GGEE Program.Undergraduate student mentors have been shown to gain “personal, educational, and professionalbenefits” from mentoring their K-12 mentees [12]. Tenenbaum et al. [12] studied the impacts ofthe
transformative shift in engineering education, prioritizingsustainability, cultural understanding, and social justice to equip engineers for a rapidly evolving,interconnected world [1].Contemporary insights into the competencies sought by European engineering firms highlightcritical deficiencies in recent graduates, including interpersonal communication, adaptability, andengineering self-efficacy [2]. Additionally, attributes such as emotionalintelligence—particularly empathy, as emphasized in design thinking—and cooperative skills areoften underdeveloped [2].Universities are addressing the challenges of fostering global competence by promotinginternational academic partnerships that encourage mobility for students, faculty, and staff.Traditional in
assessments: Shedding light on sequential conversation-based measurement,” International Journal of Assessment Tools in Education, vol. 10, no. Special Issue, pp. 194–207, 2023.[10] Y. Gil, E. Deelman, M. H. Ellisman, T. Fahringer, G. Fox, D. Gannon, C. Goble, M. Livny, L. Moreau, and J. Myers, “Intelligent workflow systems and provenance-aware software,” AI Magazine, vol. 38, no. 3, pp. 47–62, 2017.[11] S. Malallah, E. U. Osiobe, Z. Marafie, P. Henriquez-Coronel, L. Shamir, E. L. Carlson, and J. L. Weese, “Developing an instrument for assessing self-efficacy confidence in data science,” in 2024 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition Proceedings, (Portland, Oregon), American Society for Engineering Education (ASEE), 2024
an increasing trend forengineering majors to be placed in Precalculus in their first semester [1]. This trend, coupledwith concerns about the college enrollment “cliff” and a critical need for engineers, led the SEASto explore issues around retention and student success outcomes in engineering [2]. Additionally,previous research into retention in engineering linked student confidence in college-level mathand science (self-efficacy) to their persistence in the degree, which raises concerns when placingstudents in a math class that could be considered behind what is considered on track [3].First Year Student Success and Retention in EngineeringA commonly quoted number is that roughly half of engineering students change out ofengineering or
preparation in enhancing theacademic performance, critical thinking skills, and career readiness of second-year engineeringstudents at a Historically Black College or University (HBCU) in Maryland.The survey employs the use of a 5-point Likert scale tailored to the topic of hands-on physicspreparation for pre-engineering students. • Demographics: Age, gender, prior physics background. • Engagement: Participation in hands-on physics activities (e.g., labs, experiments). • Self-Efficacy: Confidence in applying physics concepts to engineering tasks. • Academic Performance: Self-reported grades in physics-related coursework. • Career Readiness: Perceptions of preparedness for engineering challenges.4.1.2 Sample:A total
: 10.1109/TALE.2018.8615271.[2] I. Ngambeki, O. Dalrymple, and D. Evangelou, “Decision Making In First Year Engineering: Exploring How Students Decide About Future Studies And Career Pathways,” in 2008 Annual Conference & Exposition Proceedings, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania: ASEE Conferences, Jun. 2008, p. 13.351.1-13.351.12. doi: 10.18260/1-2--4247.[3] J. Sperling, M. Mburi, M. Gray, L. Schmid, and A. Saterbak, “Effects of a first-year undergraduate engineering design course: survey study of implications for student self- efficacy and professional skills, with focus on gender/sex and race/ethnicity,” IJ STEM Ed, vol. 11, no. 1, p. 8, Feb. 2024, doi: 10.1186/s40594-024-00467-6.[4] J. R. Power, D. Tanner, and J. Buckley, “Self
self-efficacy and senseof belonging for Engineering and Computer Science (ECS) students using the campusmakerspace as a central hub for cohort activities. The scholars received financial assistance eachsemester, intentional advising, mentoring and transfer support. Weekly study hall/tutoringsessions were made available to all ECS students and were strongly encouraged for the scholars.In addition, scholars were advised to complete the Introduction to Engineering course whichemphasizes research on engineering disciplines, team building activities, academic planning andinternship preparation.Reviewing the academic outcomes of these scholars compared to other ECS students from springof 2020 to spring of 2024 demonstrates the positive impact of the
beginning and end of the semester. The initial reflection assessed theirbaseline engineering self-efficacy, prior experience in global health, and motivation for enrollingin the course. The final reflection examined how their views on global health, engineering, and thedesign process have changed over the course of the semester (see Appendix 1 for details).We have deductively analyzed these reflections through direct content analysis with predeterminedcodes aligned with the course objectives and research objectives. Namely, we looked to identifykey shifts in students' understanding of their roles as engineers, their approaches to global healthchallenges, and their engineering self-efficacy. Coding and analysis were completed in NVivo v14
students’ learning and self- efficacy,” Act. Learn. High. Educ., vol. 16, no. 2, pp. 119–132, Jul. 2015, doi: 10.1177/1469787415574053.[39] J. Saldaña, The coding manual for qualitative researchers, 2. ed. Los Angeles, Calif.: SAGE Publ, 2013.[40] R. K. Yin, Case Study Research: Design and Methods. SAGE Publications, 2013.[41] T. Ringeisen, S. Lichtenfeld, S. Becker, and N. Minkley, “Stress experience and performance during an oral exam: the role of self-efficacy, threat appraisals, anxiety, and cortisol,” Anxiety Stress Coping, vol. 32, no. 1, pp. 50–66, Jan. 2019, doi: 10.1080/10615806.2018.1528528.
that target students throughout their academic journey and use culturally anchored curriculum to increase students’ knowledge and skills, improve students’ self-efficacy in pursuing higher education, increase sense of belonging on a university campus, and help students navigate campus systems.Prof. Gregory L. Heileman, The University of Arizona Gregory (Greg) L. Heileman currently serves as the Associate Vice Provost for Academic Administration and Professor of Electrical and Computer Engineering at the University of Arizona, where he is responsible for facilitating collaboration across campus tKian G. Alavy, University of Arizona Kian Alavy is Director of Strategic Planning and Initiatives for the Division of
meetings with the students including standardized tests, AP tests, prior collegeexperience and self-efficacy. This process is particularly critical for students enrolling inmathematics courses. Currently, around 20% of incoming first-year engineering students(approximately 180/900 students) begin in a College Algebra course. This placement puts themtwo levels below the optimal starting point of Calculus I, categorizing them as underprepared.Advising these students can be particularly challenging, as they may also lack AP scores, priorcollege experience, or even, in some cases, standardized test scores.In Summer 2023, advising for underprepared students was modified to include high school GPAas a placement factor. Students with a GPA below 3.7
interaction with rigid bodies will deepen their comprehension of equilibrium and force balance.4. Application of Theoretical Concepts: Through interactive gameplay, students will apply theoretical knowledge to practical scenarios, advancing from basic force applications to complex systems like frames and trusses, where internal force representation is required.5. Increased Self-Efficacy: The immersive VR experience is designed to boost students' confidence in their ability to understand and apply statics concepts. Pre- and post-assessments will measure their improved ability to resolve forces in 3D space, highlighting increased mastery of the subject matter. V. Research Questions:Our main research question is: How does How does the
coursework.Engineering identity, or a student’s sense of themselves as an engineer, is discussed as havingaffective components (e.g., interest). However, the specific influences of local affect and otheraspects of global affect (like recognition and self-efficacy) on engineering identity formationhave not been systematically explored, which motivated this study. Using a mixed-methodsapproach consisting of surveys and interviews, our study has followed two cohorts of studentslongitudinally. Our work has revealed important differences between affect towards engineeringitself and towards mathematics and science, as well as interactions between affect and identity.Keywords: identity, affect, emotion, undergraduate engineeringIntroduction and BackgroundThis paper
. Culturally Relevant Practices at Hispanic Serving Institutions: A Systematic Review of Engineering.32. Exploring the Use of Artificial Intelligence in Racing Games in Engineering Education: A Systematic Literature Review.33. Supporting Undergraduate Engineering Students Who Are Primary Caregivers to Children: A Systematic Literature Review.34. Summer Bridge Programs for Engineering Students: A Systematic Literature Review.35. Teaching Online Engineering: A Systematic Literature Review.36. Engineering Self-Efficacy and Spatial Skills: A Systematic Literature Review.37. A Systematic Literate Review of Racialized Stress, Distress, and Trauma for Black, Latin, and Indigenous Engineering Students.38. Inclusive Teaching Practices in
Engagement, and Self-Efficacy in STEM RLCs. Learning Communities Research and Practice, 2019. 8(1).15. Brion-Meisels, G., et al., Personalized Learning Pathways for DEIB: A White Paper on the Development of a Tool to Support Personalized Learning in the Domains of Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, & Belonging (DEIB). 2022, Harvard Graduate School: Harvard Graduate School of Education.
thestudent-institution relationships, which include student-instructor (“teaching”) and student-student relationships, are related to the educational interface. This interface connects the fourpsychosocial constructs of self-efficacy, emotions, belonging, and well-being, to engagement.The specific aspects of engagement to be studied related to belonging are social and behavioralas defined by Bowden et al. [16].3. Instructional strategies implementedLang [15] posited that if we promote a sense of cognitive belonging in the classroom, we canremove a significant barrier to students’ learning, i.e., students asking themselves, “Do I belonghere?” To increase this sense of belonging Lang recommends incorporating several instructionalstrategies into
- 364, 2017.[6] T. Esfahani and D. A. Copp, "Undergraduate Engineering Students’ Time Management and Self Efficacy in Different Learning Formats," in American Society of Engineeirng Education Conference Proceedings, Baltimore, 2023.[7] J. E. Mills and D. Treagust, "Engineering Education, Is Problem-Based or Project-Based Learning the Answer," Australasian Journal of Engineering Education, vol. 20, no. 1, 2003.[8] J. Uziak, "A project-based learning approach in an engineering curriculum," Global Journal of Engineering Education, vol. 18, no. 2, pp. 119-123, 2016.[9] I. Osunbunmi and N. Fang, "Work in Progress: An Early Look Into the Systematic Review of Project-Based Learning in Engineering Education," in American Society of
3.95 0.75 -0.27 0.08 15 3.3 4.12 0.83 -0.2 0.04 16 2.7 4.25 1.55 0.53 0.28 17 3.15 4.02 0.87 -0.15 0.02 M: 1.02 SS: 0.44 M: mean of the difference between the two surveys (Post-Pre) SS: sum of squares of deviations3.2.2 Descriptive Results of Survey QuestionsThis section provides a detailed descriptive results of the survey questions.Q3 - Self-Efficacy in Problem Solving: Rate your confidence in solving programming
fundamental components: curiosity, connections, and value creation [6].Entrepreneurial education shapes university students’ entrepreneurial intention and self-efficacy[6] [7]. It is implied that the entrepreneurial education programs cultivate students’entrepreneurship awareness apart from the mathematics theory, equations, calculation, orexperiment, which are from the traditional STEM education program.Intellectual capital and innovation were elements that enabled universities to achieve the goal ofknowledge transfer [8]. According to a study from ten European countries, the higher educationsystem contributed to two entrepreneurial-related developments in the 21st century: 1) forresearch, to improve scientific knowledge that can progress
results in employees who are emotionally committed to the leader. Despite its origin of superior-subordinate pairs in formal organizations [23], LMX hasbeen applied to graduate student-advisor relationships in fields outside of engineering [24], [25]as well as postdoc-advisor relationships in engineering [15]. Research on graduate students hasbeen largely quantitative and shown that high-quality LMX relationships are correlated withsatisfaction and self-efficacy of doctoral students in rehabilitation counseling programs [24]. Inanother quantitative study of Chinese students in many disciplines, high LMX was found to bepositively correlated with creativity and negatively correlated with hindrance stress, the type ofstress arising from
studentsparticipating in industry-linked PBL projects reported higher levels of self-efficacy andmotivation compared to their peers in lecture-based courses. These outcomes are particularlypronounced in vertically integrated projects, where students from different academic levelscollaborate, creating opportunities for mentorship and peer learning (Cabrera et al. 2018). However, challenges remain in implementing PBL, particularly in interdisciplinarysettings. For example, Hmelo-Silver (2004) noted that the open-ended nature of PBL cansometimes lead to frustration and cognitive overload, especially for students with limited priorexperience. Nonetheless, these challenges can be mitigated through structured guidance andscaffolding, which help students
certifications are common among job postings for cybersecurity and informationtechnology positions. Although academic institutions have been advised against teaching solelytowards passing a certification exam, the domains covered in these exams can offer valuableinsights into evolving industry needs (Knapp et al., 2017). Ngo-Ye and Choi (2016) summarizeda few benefits of achieving an industry certification: demonstration of an applicant’scompetency, skills, and abilities; differentiation among applicants; and development of anapplicant’s confidence and self-efficacy. One international survey found that “90% ofrespondents who got a cybersecurity certification before their first job in cybersecurity found it
. 1, pp. 57-72, 2005. 16. Shuman, L. J., et al., "The Impact of Engineering Curriculum on Retention and Academic Performance," Journal of Engineering Education, vol. 88, no. 4, pp. 441-448, 1999. 17. Gutiérrez, K. D., & Rogoff, B., "Cultural Ways of Learning: Individual Traits or Repertoires of Practice," Educational Researcher, vol. 32, no. 5, pp. 19-25, 2003.18. Handelsman, J., et al., "Scientific Teaching," Science, vol. 304, no. 5670, pp. 521-522, 2004.19. Seymour, E., & Hewitt, N. M., Talking About Leaving: Why Undergraduates Leave the Sciences, Boulder: Westview Press, 1997.20. Bandura, A., "Self-Efficacy: Toward a Unifying Theory of Behavioral Change," Psychological Review, vol. 84, no. 2, pp. 191-215
generative artificial intelligence and learning achievement: serial mediating roles of self-efficacy and cognitive engagement," Frontiers in Psychology, vol. 14, 2023.[13] R. Michel-Villarreal, E. Vilalta-Perdomo, D. E. Salinas-Navarro, R. Thierry-Aguilera and F. S. Gerardou, "Challenges and Opportunities of Generative AI for Higher Education as Explained by ChatGPT," Education Sciences, vol. 13, no. 9, p. 856, 2023.[14] Y. Walter, "Embracing the future of Artificial Intelligence in the classroom: the relevance of AI literacy, prompt engineering, and critical thinking in modern education," International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, vol. 21, no. 15, 2024.[15] X. Zhai, "ChatGPT User Experience