program for high school students— NM PREP Academy—had a measurable effecton student confidence (a subcomponent of self-efficacy) and content knowledge. We also aimedto gain a greater understanding of how similar short-term intervention programs could be used toincrease interest, participation, and persistence in STEM-related careers, as well as to understandwhich specific portions of the program were most closely related to the students’ gains in eitherknowledge or confidence. Our research questions were as follows:1. Did the confidence and/or content knowledge of the students change as a result of engagement in the pre-engineering program?2. Was there a relation between changes in student confidence and knowledge?3. Was there a relation
learning program to college choice. The remaining two questions are open-ended and allow students to describe their favorite ENGR 102 HS design and build project andcomments about their teacher. Many of the Likert scale questions for the online survey wereobtained from the on-campus course evaluations handed out to undergraduates in the ENGR 102course and deal with the quality of instruction and content. Additional questions, those dealingwith self-efficacy, were selected from the Longitudinal Assessment of Engineering Self-Efficacy(LAESE) instrument measuring student self-efficacy [36]. The LAESE instrument is a validatedinstrument that was developed with NSF funding as part of the Assessing Women in Engineering(AWE) project and can be found at
Moderate or Considerable 0.50 Communicative Interactions - SEC Moderate or Considerable 0.00 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 Journal Average Coded ScoreFigure 3: Comparison of SEC scores and Journal scores. SEC scores are calculated both as average (circle data points) andthe number moderate or considerable (X data points). The measurements are compared for procedural knowledge (blue) andcommunicative interactions (orange)In the 2016 – 2017 school year, the same tools are being used to measure teachers’ use of hands-onactivities and self-efficacy. In addition, focus
quantified attitude and motivationintegrating frameworks of self-efficacy theories with outcome expectancy theories. Self-efficacyis social cognitive approach with roots in self-determination theory and describes a person’sperception or beliefs about their capabilities to produce effects (Bandura, 1986). This is closelytied with outcome expectancy which is a person’s expectations about the consequences of anaction (or outcome of a task). The combination of these frameworks, in the context of STEMeducation, have been shown to influence motivation and persistence in an academic track(Unfried, Faber, Stanhope, & Wiebe, 2015). However; in order to situate student attitudes,interests, and experiences within a larger career context, the social
Tuijl and van der Molen(2015) maintained that male and female STEM role models are particularly important forchildren. Holmes, Gore, Smith, and Lloyd (2017) studied children ages 8-18 and found anincrease in STEM interest for students who have a parent working in a STEM occupation. Theysuggest that those without a parent working in a STEM field are left with teachers and schoolguidance counselors to promote STEM careers in order to foster an interest.Grounded in Bandura’s (1977) social cognitive theory, social cognitive career theory (SCCT)focuses on three primary mechanisms that drive career decisions: self-efficacy, outcomeexpectations, and goals (Lent, Brown and Hackett, 1994). Self-efficacy is defined as perceivedcapability to perform a
their relativeimportance. We investigate different strategies and awareness levels of TPACK in differentschools. We develop an assessment method to assess the self-efficacy of the teachers to teachrobotics-focused STEM lessons under TPACK. We analyze the reasons behind the deficits in theself-efficacy scores. We explore whether the TPACK self-efficacy of the teachers is influenced bySTEM subjects. We provide recommendations to improve TPACK self-efficacy of teachers fortheir robotics-focused STEM teaching in middle schools.We posit that this paper, which i) examines the teachers’ understanding of TPACK construct andtheir TPACK self-efficacy, ii) documents and analyzes the results of such an investigation, and iii)provides the details of
overarching goals that are the focus of all Creative Design sections.Areas of common measurement included; (1) Creative Self-Efficacy and Creative Role-Identity,(2) Ideation Capacity and (3) Creativity in Engineering Design (Artifacts).Creative self-efficacy is one’s belief that they are able to design creative products6. Researchcompleted by Tierney and Farmer reported that creative self-efficacy is a predictor of creativedesign performance. The Creative Self-Efficacy and Creative Role-Identity Scale was identifiedas an appropriate instrument to measure student growth through a pretest/posttest researchdesign.7 Surveys completed in Fall 2016 and Spring 2017 indicated that students from educationschool majors (n=33) have the lowest reported average
(3), 175-213.19. Mamaril, N. A., Usher, E. L., Li, C. R., Economy, D. R., & Kennedy, M. S. (2016). Measuring undergraduate students' engineering self-efficacy: A validation study. Journal of Engineering Education, 105(2), 366-395. doi: 10.1002/jee.2012120. Kier, M. W., Blanchard, M. R., Osborne, J. W., & Albert, J. L. (2013). The development of the STEM career interest survey (STEM-CIS). Research in Science Education, 44(3), 461-481. doi: 10.1007/s11165-013-9389-321. Jackson, A., Mentzer, N., Kramer, R., & Zhang, J. (2017, June). Enhancing student motivation and efficacy through soft robot design. Paper presented at the 2017 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition, Columbus, OH.
engineering careers and on developing theircontent knowledge in select grade-appropriate science and mathematics content areas. Pre-posttesting was conducted with sixty-five students of diverse backgrounds in grades six through eightto measure their self-reported engineering-related self-efficacy, knowledge of engineering careers,and motivation to pursue future engineering classes and careers. In addition, interviews wereconducted to examine any changes in middle school camp participants’ affective characteristics ofmotivation, self-efficacy, and self-determination.Introduction The attraction and retention of students in science, technology, engineering, andmathematics (STEM) disciplines along the full length of their education is a national
theintegrated STEM lessons to measure lasting effects. The students of the participant teachers arealso being assessed using STEM content knowledge tests and surveys to measure attitudestoward STEM learning and career interest.Data Collection Instruments and Methods Several instruments are being used to collect data from teachers. The Science TeachingEfficacy Belief Instrument (STEBI) is designed to assess teachers’ perceptions of theireffectiveness for teaching science with 25 questions using a 5 point Likert scale, with 1 being“Strongly Disagree,” to 5 being “Strong Agree” (Riggs & Enochs, 1990). The Teacher Efficacyand Attitudes toward STEM (T-STEM) survey measures changes in teachers’ self-efficacy andconfidence in STEM subject content
activity, but not whether such activities achieved theoutreach goals and objectives [17]. Fantz et al. [2] used formal assessment to determine theinfluence of outreach activities on the engineering self-efficacy of engineering students. Theyfound only seven of 53 activities had a statistically significant difference on self-efficacy ofstudents who did and did not experience the activity. Of those seven activities, five were pre-collegiate hobbies and two were pre-engineering classes. Although there were no significantdifferences in self-efficacy with respect to other activities, many still have merit in the outreachprocess, and assessment results like these are important in planning new programs to ensure themost efficient use of time and
,2014;Century,Cassata,Freeman,&Rudnick,2012).Inparticular,Centuryetal.defineanarrayofindividual,organizational,andcontextualfactorsthatmayinfluencewhetherindividualusers(e.g.teachers)decidetoadoptandcontinuetoutilizeanintervention.Thesefactorsincludecharacteristicsoftheinnovation,suchasitscomplexity,duration,andscope;characteristicsofindividualuserssuchasmotivation,self-efficacy,attitudestowardtheinnovationandusersperceptionsoftheeaseofusingtheinnovation;andorganizationalcharacteristicsattheschoollevelincludingsharedbeliefsandvalues,resources,andinstructionalleadership.AnindepthexplorationofallofthefactorsinfluencingSTEAMTrunkutilizationisbeyondthescopeofthispaper;however
engineering confidence, but this percentage reached 50% when the camp was male-only (figure 1). Figure 1 Engineering Self-efficacy Self Reports* n for female only = 35 participants, n for male only = 8 participants, n for co-ed = 7 female, 8 male studentsThe final camp session was male-only. STEPS student responses from this session compared tothe mixed-gender session indicates that the absence of female campers led to male self-efficacyincrease of 100%. The study was not designed to measure the effect of female participation onmale student self-efficacy. And while the data sample is small, this is an interesting observation.While having
, presentand justify their end products. CS is traditionally presented as a stand-alone subject in current preand post secondary classrooms, however, in reality, CS has become a fundamental component ofmany STEM disciplines – often known as big data. In order to develop a pipeline of K12students with CS skills and competencies, the current K12 STEM teachers need to not onlyacquire those same CS skills but also the pedagogical skills and self-efficacy to teach theirstudents. If a post secondary CS education requires four years of coursework, then how can weexpect our K12 teachers to gain the required STEM subject matter expertise, CS competencies,and educational pedagogy while teaching? The study highlighted in this paper, focuses on thenovel use of a
Possible Solution(s) Solution(s) Construct PrototypeFigure 2: Design Process Model Utilized with Participating TeachersData CollectionWe focus this evaluation on analysis of surveys (T-STEM), content knowledge tests (DTAMS),and focus groups each completed both before and after professional development, as well asteacher-generated engineering design lesson plans and observations as teachers implementedlessons in their classrooms.The Teacher Efficacy and Attitudes Toward STEM (T-STEM) 15 Survey is intended to measurechanges in teachers’ confidence and self-efficacy in STEM subject content and teaching, use oftechnology in the classroom, 21st century learning
an issue not only with competency,but also with a lack of self-efficacy in math, science, and engineering which creates anxiety. According to Beck-Winchatz and Riccobono (2007), the majority of students with VI arefollowing general education curricula. However, less than 30 individuals with VI earned ascience and engineering research doctorate on average each year from 2001 to 2009 compared to25,600 people without a disability on average per year during the same time period (NSF, 2012).Lack of higher level degrees in the science and engineering fields do not reflect the fact thatstudents with VI have the same spectrum of cognitive abilities as sighted peers (Kumar,Ramasamy, & Stefanich, 2001) and with appropriate accommodations can
for Engineering Education, 2017 The Influence of Gender Grouping on Female Students’ AcademicEngagement and Achievement in Engineering and Biology: A Case of Small Group Work in Design-Based Learning (Work in Progress) IntroductionDuring the past 30 years, much attention has been drawn to the lack of women in STEMfields and the need to attract and retain them in these fields. In the relevant literature, theinfluence of gender grouping on variables such as female students’ interest, self-efficacy,participation/engagement and achievement in STEM subjects has been a salient line ofresearch. However, researchers have arrived at mixed findings. Also, while researchers haveinvestigated the influence of
-richprograms in their classrooms is a lack of both self-efficacy and a support network to help themprepare and teach such lessons. Supporting conclusions can be found in the literature,particularly highlighting the pitfalls of teachers having only a superficial understanding of theEDP5. Working through an EDP with proper guidance gives teachers the tools and confidence topush their students outside of the comfort zone of concrete answers and encourages creativityand innovative thinking5, 6.For these reasons, every participant in this program is immediately immersed in the EDP so thatthey can become comfortable playing the role of an engineer. One of the foundational conceptsof real-world Engineering is that there is not one right solution to a problem
Affective/Non- Measure of student experience, interest, self-efficacy, or similar, typically Cognitive using a survey Achievement or Measure of factual, conceptual knowledge or of practices, including Learning standardized examsQuantitative methods Disaggregation Compares sub groups (male/female; White/nonwhite students, etc.) Control or Compares an experiential or intervention group top a control or Compare comparison group Pre Includes a pre-test Post Includes a post-testDelayed Post test Includes a delayed post-testQualitative Methods Details how analysis was done, such as by coding data or interaction Analysis analysis
,students followed a set of directions to build their heat engines provided by the instructor; next,students redesigned their heat engines with the goal of increasing the device’s efficiency. At theend of the class, students completed some questions to help them reflect on the activity and itsconnection to efficiency, the design process, and the operation of power plants, and the instructorled a brief discussion during which participant groups shared their results.Analysis and Discussion Several assessment methods were implemented to determine the effectiveness of the E-GIRLprogram with respect to the students’ technical skill, self-efficacy, perceptions of engineering,and interest in engineering. Pre- and post-surveys were conducted asking
. Since educational robotics activities are often designed to promote situated cognitionand learning, we believe that the lack of trust in robotics may adversely affect student’s cognitionand understanding of STEM concepts underlying the robotics lesson. Note that the concept of trustin robots for young age middle school students, who may have less experience with technologiesin general and robots in particular, may differ from the concept of trust in robots for moreexperienced technology persons, including the teachers. Moreover, it may be necessary to examinewhether different STEM disciplines and gender affect students’ trust levels in robots for theirrobotics-aided lessons. The concept of trust in robots may also be connected to teachers’ self
such, teachers need to have access to high quality STEM curriculum that isaligned with the academic content standards or to professional development opportunities thatwill enhance their capacity and self-efficacy in engineering if they are to be successful inimplementing the NGSS.Professional development in STEM is available to teachers through a variety of engineering andeducational professional organizations such as ASM, American Society of EngineeringEducation (ASEE), and through various National Science Foundation sponsored programs.17-20One such program is the National Science Foundation’s Research Experience for Teacher (NSF-RET) program.21 This program seeks to provide authentic engineering research experiences forteachers in university
” within an individual. The intellectual “equipment” is comprised of the learner’sknowledge and beliefs, whereas the value-based equipment are solely driven by the learners’personal goals and interests. Also, Deci 10 proposes that learners’ interests motivate them toparticipate in learning activities. According to Atkinson and Wickens 11 this motivation toengage in learning is a function of learners selecting activities that pique their interests, and alsopersisting and making efforts to accomplish goals they find interesting. Further, activities thatcater to students’ interests have also been claimed to be related with self-efficacy, educationalchoices, and career outcomes 12–14. The role of interests and the humanistic nature of
education researchers have long grappled with impact questions (in the ASEEconference archives alone, “impact” is mentioned in 568 titles; “measuring impact” is in 24titles), and proposed various study-specific methods to probe impact. In one study, for example,student impact of project-based service learning (PBSL) was described through engineeringcollege retention, participation by underrepresented students, fulfilment of ABET learningoutcomes, and enhanced student preparation to practice engineering design.16 Another study thatfocused on measuring the impact of infusing entrepreneurship across engineering curriculumused measures of self-efficacy and locus of control.17 Student attitudes towards math and sciencewere used to measure the impact of
Internet.Many participants took advantage of this option. The program integrated experiential learningtheory [5], 21st Century skills such as creativity and technology proficiency [6]–[8] and ethnicallymatched mentorship [9], [10] to increase academic success, self-efficacy and a sense of belongingin STEM. Where possible, instruction and activities were aligned with the Next GenerationScience Standards for engineering and Common Core Mathematical practices. In addition, near-peer mentoring was provided by undergraduate and graduate students in related disciplines.Summer ProgramThe components of the four week summer program are described below: 3D Modeling: Participants were introduced to visualization in three dimensions, geometry, isometric drawing
mentioned ona high-level within the internal report. For example, the evaluator stated that two particular sitesleadership team members received overwhelming poor feedback from classroom mentors andthat NSBE SEEK should further investigate the potential causes [9].LITERATURE REVIEWThe unique structure of the NSBE SEEK program requires that it is youth led. For the purposesof this review, youth are defined as 18 - 25. Within this youth led model, it is necessary for thereto be components of service, cultural competency, and self-efficacy. Youth participation canhave a considerable effect on community change. Since the community of the NSBE SEEKprogram is one of youth leaders, you essentially have youth leading other youth. It is importantto note
analysis of presence and extent. Journal of Engineering Education, 101(3), 1-26.Carberry, A. R., Lee, H. S., & Ohland, M. W. (2010). Measuring Engineering Design Self-Efficacy. Journal of Engineering Education, 99(1), 71-79.Dawes, L., & Rasmussen, G. (2007). Activity and engagement—keys in connecting engineeringwith secondary school students. Australasian Journal of Engineering Education, 13(1), 13-20.Duderstadt, J. 2008. Engineering for a changing world: A roadmap to the future of engineeringpractice, research, and education. Ann Arbor, MI: The Millennium Project, The University ofMichigan.IronCAD (Computer Software). (2015) Retrieved from http://www.ironcad.com/Kelly, A. E. (2014). Design-based research in engineering education: Current
energy demandburden as they are available through more defined communications, rather than have to operateat pre-determined values. The complexity of these levels was meant to match the expertise of the high school studentsattending the lessons. Smart Grid and Micro-Grid were both highly collaborative lessons withinteraction amongst all parties to promote self-discovery of the system in discussion.Assessment The Young Scholar’s group knowledge and experience gains were observed in several areasincluding science self-efficacy, science understanding, sense of inclusion, and energy beliefs,knowledge, and behavior. (Assessing Women and Men in Engineering (AWE). (n.d.),DeWaters,J. Quaqish, B.,Graham, M., & Powers, S. (2013). Riggs, I.M
elementary schools isworthwhile for students and society at large, its implementation is not a trivial matter. One of thechallenges is that most elementary teachers have not had pre-service coursework or in-serviceprofessional learning experiences related to engineering education, and many elementaryteachers lack self confidence or self efficacy with respect to teaching engineering.10-13 Anotherchallenge has to do with the use of fail words and ideas about what failure means in theelementary context. What it means to fail in engineering is different than what it means to fail ineducation.9 In most elementary school environments the concept of failure and the fail wordsthemselves have very negative connotations. A simple online search of “failing