will be also students’ non-cognitive characteristics, such asanalyzed between students’ perceptions of the motivation to persist in engineering [3]. As a result,introductory engineering courses. Independent T-tests engineering colleges have included specific initiatives to notwill be conducted comparing students’ perceptions in only support students’ academic achievement, but also tothe two different course types. Motivation constructs address students’ motivation to learn, and to persist inincluded in surveys presented at the end of the semester achieving an engineering degree. As an illustration,in the two versions of the course are the measures of engineering colleges
, Columbus, OH W1A-1 Session W1Acognitive depletion [11]. Stereotype threat undermines Survey CRSS) did not consist of questions adopted directlyacademic achievement in two ways. First, it induces anxiety to SVS but a confirmatory factor analysis was completed tothat may impair academic performance. Second, in the relate questions to the SVS (the process is described below).long- term, it causes students to devalue their academic The SVS is a unidimensional scale designed to measure theinterests and eventually leads to dis-identification with
self-regulation in terms of cognitive, 1. Where would a “world-class” engineering students want metacognitive, and affective measures, this work in progress to be in the topic areas covered in class? focuses on reporting out initial results in how students talk 2. Where are you currently on each of these items? about their motivation and how that impacts academic, 3. What do you need to do to move from where you are to personal, and professional choices. Here, we define where you would need to be to become a “world-class” motivation loosely as the impetus that drives a person to do engineering student? something. Each
physiological state, and extrinsic utility value.computer programming in an introductory engineeringdesign course were compared to their homework Index Terms – Self-efficacy, reflection, first-year design.assignment and test grades in engineering graphics andcomputer programming. The graphics unit consisted of INTRODUCTIONfour weeks of manual drafting followed by three weeks of Students’ perceptions of their abilities in fundamentalcomputer-aided drawing (CAD) with Autodesk Inventor. engineering skills such as graphics and computerThe programming unit, lasting six weeks, consisted of programming may be influenced by their familiarity withreview and expansion of
Engineering Experience (FYEE) Conference August 6 – 8, 2017, Daytona Beach, FL W1A-1 Session W1A ENGINEERING IDENTITY TABLE 1The first year surveys administered to the GE students MEAN RESPONSE FOR UNDECIDED STUDENTS RESPONDING “NEGATIVELY”include validated measures of constructs related to Beginning of Fall End of Fall End of Springengineering identity and belonging created by the first year Q1
implemented in fall 2017. Finally, future cohorts identity: Definitions, factors, and interventions affectingare anticipated to be larger, which may allow for insight into development, and means of measurement”, European journal ofthe efficacy of identity formation efforts on population engineering education, 2017, 1-23.subgroups. [9] Arnett, J. J, "Are college students adults? Their conceptions of the transition to adulthood", Journal of adult development 1, 4, 1994, CONCLUSIONS 213-224
, and lectures.from various engineering disciplines. The course Previously, an engineering graphics and “fundamentals”presented a great breadth of topics through a series of style intro sequence was required of all students and thetutorials, laboratory experiments, and lectures. When faculty led the programs through a change to thereflecting and commenting on the course, students aforementioned model in 2008. In 2012, the author started hisexpressed frustration with a “lack of accomplishment” faculty career at Norwich and was immediately tasked withand “jumping around”—indicators of low self-efficacy “fixing” this introductory course, which was in its infancy. Abeliefs. Further
should be provided by the OIR. Goal three includes activitiesOffice of Institutional Research. As for the HOME partici- that support the student’s personal and professional develop-pants, out of the 189 students, only six have changed majors ment. Future measurements should include data to measureand 18 have not completed a degree in engineering or com- the student’s self-efficacy. No measurements were taken toputer science. assess Goal four. However, future measurements should in- clude the level of engagement for members in the community. TABLE II
understandFirst Year Engineering Experience (FYEE) Conference August 6-8, 2017, Daytona Beach, FL W1A-2 Session W1A STUDY DESIGN Issues with Response Shift BiasTo understand the students understanding of their change in Most qualitative measures of global preparedness orglobal preparedness through the EWB Challenge project, the awareness are by nature, self-efficacy, which may call intostudents were asked to undertake the
that indicate college success and are on the job, interpersonal communication strategies,within the power of the individual to adjust. The activities and networking, interview strategies, working on a team, projecttopics covered in the Connections course focus on these six management and working in a global context. Furtherfactors and provide resources to help students improve. The opportunities to become connected are provided through theareas are as follows: academic self-efficacy, organization and Clay N. Hixson College of Engineering Student Success Fairattention to study, stress and time management, involvement where each organization and department shares informationwith college activities
courses and/or programs. Allafter the two group discussions. disciplines are welcome to attend. Our goal is continuousFirst Year Engineering Experience (FYEE) Conference August 6 – August 8, 2017, Columbus, OH W1A-2 Session W1Ainnovation and we welcome all perspectives to promotecreative thinking and change. REFERENCES[1] Hutchison, M, A, Follman, D, K, Sumpter, M, & Bodner, G, M, “Factors Influencing the Self-Efficacy Beliefs of First-Year Engineering Students”, Journal of Engineering