of the program toward becoming physicians. At the end of the program,the Scholars were 90% ± 6 certain of becoming physicians (no significant change from thebeginning, p=0.4), and 81% ± 5 certain of becoming engineers (p=0.05). The effect size forincreasing interest in becoming an engineer was large (Cohen’s d=1.1). This is most easilydescribed as the program promoting the development of Clinician Engineers.We also asked participants to estimate the impact of the immersion experience on the abilitydimension of their engineering design self-efficacy – a measure of students’ self-perceived abilityto engage in nine different engineering tasks [10], to which we added “document technicalmatters,” “learn new things,” and “empathize.” There were
Evaluating the performance of Lithium ion Chemistry-H Challenge batteries under cold environment (Grosse Pointe)3. Increase in RET-OU participant self-efficacy to teach engineering. Participants completedpre (n=33) and post surveys (n=30) asking about their self-efficacy to teach engineering in asecondary school setting. Surveys were given on the first day of the summer program and againon the final day of the program. The survey had nine items measuring teacher beliefs about theirpedagogical skills to teach engineering. The survey asked teachers to indicate their level ofagreement on a six point scale (Strongly Disagree
students (n=79) at a Hispanic-Serving Institution(HSI) through a semester-long group project. Life cycle assessment (LCA) and life cycle costanalysis (LCCA) were used to analyze the environmental and economic impacts of energyrecovery, water reuse, and nutrient recycling processes from a small-scale agriculturalwastewater treatment system in rural Costa Rica. Students’ ability to solve problems and producesolutions that accounted for environmental, economic, and social factors were evaluated usingdirect measures of student performance on specific assignments (e.g., final report, final videopresentation) and indirect measures using a self-efficacy questionnaire. Direct measures weregraded by the instructor of the course and an in-country partner
scales included in the survey, the Inventory of Graduate Writing Processes and theGraduate Concepts of Academic Writing surveys developed and validated by other researchers.Inventory of Graduate Writing Processes [26]. The Inventory of Graduate Writing Processesscale asks multiple questions using a Likert scale regarding the student’s approach to the writingprocess. Results from the questions were sorted into their factors and averaged with the other in-factor items to find each student’s primary and secondary approaches. The factors are describedbelow. Elaborative—writing is a personal investment and part of knowledge creation Low Self-Efficacy—lack of confidence in ability to articulate thoughts No Revision—avoids or resists
rubric Technical Writing I rate my writing skills before and after each lab [1-5] Ability My writing skills are reflected by my report grade The report grading across each lab course was consistent My grades and writing skills improved with each submission Self-Efficacy I feel more confident to write a technical lab report I believe I can write a technical lab report without a rubric How many iterations of the writing cycle are required for you to feel confident in writing a technical lab report? [1-4] I feel
-Year EngineeringIt is critical that first-year engineering programs have a plan to assess the objectives and outcomes.Continuous improvement will allow a program to make adjustments along the way to meet theirobjectives and outcomes for students. Recently, Spurzer, Douglas, Folkerts, and Williams (2017)developed an assessment framework for the first-year introduction to engineering courses whichfocuses on student-learning objectives. While this is much needed, there is an opportunity toexpand beyond assessing only student-learning objectives to include student-growth objectives(e.g., motivation, identity, self-efficacy, integration). The term student-growth objective is coinedfrom the ever-expanding research and instruments used to measure
constructs that are prevalent in engineering education literature related to careerchoices --namely identity (Ross, Godwin, 2016) and self-efficacy (Hofacker, 2014, 2015)-- arethe topics shared among studies on industry and government. Academia Industry Government Mentoring Workplace Experiences Recruitment, Retention, & Representation Engineering Identity Career Self-Efficacy Career Development & Advancement Pay EquityTable 1. Topical Themes Among Workforce Studies There is last
and low-income students are least likely to matriculate withengineering degrees [3], suggesting these populations may demonstrate decreased self-efficacy.Self-efficacy beliefs are significant predictors of academic success, where STEM-specific self-efficacy beliefs relate to entry and retention in STEM majors [4]. Moreover, it has been foundthat women and minority students are less likely to report interest in STEM fields [4]. Thesefindings are important, because students who express measured interest in STEM are more likelyto major in science and engineering, and are more likely to persist in those majors [1]. The purpose of the current study is to examine the engineering interests held by a diversesample of high school students
. Does IL instruction result in increasedPhillips & United An undergraduate undergraduateZwicky (1) 2018 States of mechanical engineering 84 engineering technology ✔ ABET[54] America technology design course. student IL learning and self-efficacy United The development of twoPurzer et al. 2014 States of n/a n/a valid and reliable IL ABET[55
the self-efficacy to function in a complex solutionspace. Research literature suggests that a continuum of intellectual understanding of the worldviewexists. This continuum varies from a dualistic worldview on one end of the spectrum to a more 1 © American Society for Engineering Education, 2019 2019 ASEE 126th National Conferenceflexible pluralistic worldview on the other end. It is expected that students develop a more nuancedunderstanding of the problem spaces through their progression in college. However, movementalong this spectrum is usually far from expectations. The problems to
Engineering Teachers’ Literacy InstructionPeople enter and exit science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) pathwaysat different points in their educational trajectories (Cannady, Greenwald, & Harris, 2014;Maltese, Melki, & Wiebke, 2014), but middle school is an especially critical juncture forcapturing and maintaining youths’ interest in STEM fields. From fifth to eighth grade,adolescents’ interest in STEM often declines (Gonzales et al., 2008; Osborne, Simon, &Collins, 2003), and many develop a negative sense of self-efficacy regarding their potentialto succeed in future STEM courses (Chen & Usher, 2013). Though many people exit STEMpathways before they enter high school, this problem is especially pronounced
portrayal) [12], [13] which leads to lower interest. Additionally, minority populations are challenged with access to computers [8], [14] and resultant low self-efficacy [15]. This program will follow a design protocol and a curriculum based on constructivism (drawing on learners’ existing beliefs, knowledge and skills) [16] and real-world experiential, project-based applications which have been shown to support STEM and computing interest and success for minorities [17], [18]. Computational thinking practices in STEM will focus on students gaining experience in practices for data management, computational problem solving, modeling and simulations and systems thinking. One of the controversial topics in the study of CT is a lack of consensus on a
prior success; if they fail, they are more likely toavoid the task in the future [8]. Research on undergraduate students’ achievement and retentionin the major demonstrates that high self-efficacy, especially as it relates to learning engineeringconcepts, indicates that a student will remain in engineering as opposed to transferring to anothermajor [9].If pre-college outreach programs like summer camps are meant to continue to build the futureengineering workforce by encouraging students to pursue engineering degrees and engineeringcareers, looking at how informal science experience increases student efficacy can be one way tocontinue the trend. For the remainder of this paper, we will offer a look into how we have
for Research to Improve Postsecondary Teaching and Learning, The University of Michigan, 1986.11. R. Schwarzer and M. Jerusalem, M, “Generalized Self-Efficacy scale,” in J. Weinman, S. Wright, and M. Johnston, Measures in health psychology: A user’s portfolio. Causal and control beliefs. Windsor, UK: NFER-NELSON, pp. 35-37, 1995.12. B. J. Zimmerman, “Self-regulated learning and academic achievement: An overview,” Educational Psychologist, vol. 25, pp. 3-17, 1990.13. B. P. Helmke, “Barriers to learning in a large flipped biotransport course,” ASEE Annual Conference, June 25-28, 2017, Columbus, OH. Paper ID #18299.14. J. J. Endo and R. L. Harpel, “The effect of student-faculty interaction on students
Expectancy-Value Theory, developed by JacquelineEccles, to understand the factors influencing students’ persistence in engineering. AsMatusovich et al. explains [6], Expectancy-Value Theory suggests that a student’s decision topersist is shaped by: 1) their expectancy or belief that they can succeed in engineering (i.e., “CanI do this?”) and 2) the value or importance they put on engineering (i.e., “Do I want to do this?”).Expectancy beliefs can include: - Engineering self-efficacy (i.e., confidence in one’s ability) - Expectations for success in engineeringValue beliefs can include: - Intrinsic interest (enjoyment of engineering activities or interest in engineering) - Attainment (importance of doing well in engineering in terms of one’s
for the reader.]1There is a growing national concern over decreases in science achievement in middle and highschool. Paired with it are challenges associated with workforce declines in STEM-relatedcareers. In response, in a recent PCAST report,2 recommendations for recruitment of science andengineering students and corresponding recommendations for increased attention to strategicSTEM-related instruction and teacher professional development have emerged. A significantchallenge facing urban science and math teachers is a low sense of self-efficacy in teachingSTEM content.3 Additionally, a recent large-scale study of teachers revealed that secondaryteachers indicated a strong need for help in the area teaching in science, and that a weakness
the entrepreneurial mindset across the curriculum,” unpublished. 4. S. Purzer, N. Fila, and K. Nataraja, “Evaluation of Current Assessment Methods in Engineering Entrepreneurship Education,” Advances in Engineering Education, Winter 2016 issue, Feb. 2016. 5. Shartrand, P. Weilerstein, M. Besterfield-Sacre, and B. M. Olds, “Assessing student learning in technology entrepreneurship,” 2008 38th Annual Frontiers in Education Conference, 2008. 6. J. E. Mcgee, M. Peterson, S. L. Mueller, and J. M. Sequeira, “Entrepreneurial Self-Efficacy: Refining the Measure,” Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, vol. 33, no. 4, pp. 965–988, 2009. 7. M. Schar, S. Gilmartin, A. Harris, B. Rieken, and S. Sheppard, “Innovation Self
analysis. Majority of CP career decisions occurred at the middle-school age, making it a critical time to introduce age-appropriate construction learningopportunities. The six thematic categories that emerged from students’ reasons for switchingcareer interests were psychological, experiential, academic, physical, social, and economic; andthese reasons corresponded with the educational stages. While pre-college reasons for switchingcareer interests were mostly associated with new knowledge and experiences, college reasonswere associated with barriers that hindered students’ progression. HBCU construction studentshad positive perceptions of their own CPID with a high sense of belonging, self-efficacy, andself-recognition. CPID was neither gender
some educationaland career choices are made. SCCT shows the impact of interest and self-efficacy, learningexperiences, personal inputs and environmental influences on choice actions, persistence andsatisfaction.Likewise, disciplinary identity theory [12], [13] describes how students’ perceived feelings oftheir competence/performance, recognition, interest, and sense of belonging form their identities.In this framework (Figure 1), identity has been defined using four sub-constructs includingcompetence/performance, recognition, interest, and sense of belonging [14]. Student interest isdefined by their engagement with respect to a topic. Competence/performance refers to astudent’s self-confidence in understanding a particular topic and feeling
, sustainability, and professional identity as well as multiple demographic items.The survey also included affective measures assessing self-efficacy, task value, belonging, andjob values that may play a role in mediating how students develop their views of sustainability orsense of social responsibility and global citizenship during their undergraduate years. Table 1: Characteristics of the Study Population Women Men Total Total 164 235 399 Type of Major Business 54 32 86 Education
, Hispanics, and Girls in STEM by Expanding Summer Engineering ExperiencesAbstractPromoting the participation of under-represented minorities in engineering is a nationalimperative. Focusing on elementary school students is critical for broadening participation inengineering, as many children form lasting beliefs about their STEM identities and STEM self-efficacy in elementary school. While there has been a recent surge in efforts to integrateengineering in curriculum in traditional school settings, out-of-school settings continue to playan important role in promoting equity in pre-college engineering experiences. Out-of-schoolsettings in particular can be ideal for providing children with culturally-relevant engineeringexperiences
Paper ID #26856The Influence of Background Characteristics on Socialization Processes inEngineeringMs. Emma Brennan-Wydra, University of Michigan Emma Brennan-Wydra is research associate in the Office of the Associate Dean for Undergraduate Ed- ucation at the University of Michigan College of Engineering. Her master’s thesis investigates the rela- tionships between library use and academic self-efficacy of undergraduate engineering students. Emma holds a master’s degree from the University of Michigan School of Information and bachelor’s degree in chemistry and women’s, gender, and sexuality studies from Yale
of our project is the assessment strategy. Forboth undergraduates and high school students, we have been able to collect content areaknowledge both before and after completing the class, as well as information about their attitudestowards engineering and self-efficacy beliefs. This has been particularly illuminating in regardsto subgroups like women and students of color. The Knowledge Assessment can be seen inAppendix A. It contains 10 multiple choice and five essay questions to determine studentknowledge about the basics of the course. The Attitudinal Assessment was taken from apreviously validated metric of engineering undergraduates’ attitudes towards engineering andself-efficacy assessment on those skills [14-15]. It can be seen in
Orbis Foundation. Fulcher, K. (2004). Towards Measuring Lifelong Learning: The Curiosity Index. James Madison University. Karwowski, M. (2014). Creative Mindsets: Measurement, Correlates, Consequences. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 8(1), 62‐70. Karwowski, M., Lebuda, I., Wisniewska, E., & Gralewski, J. (2008). Big Five Personality Factors as the Predictors of Creative Self‐Efficacy and Creative Personal Identity: Does Gender Matter? The Journal of Creative Behavior, 47. Kaufman, J. C. (2012). Counting the muses: Development of the Kaufman Domains of Creativity Scale (K‐ DOCS). Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 6(4), 298‐308. Krueger, N. (2015). Entrepreneurial Education in
be measurable through improved undergraduate student evaluations, and2) publications and conference presentations by the instructional team for the benefit of the broaderengineering education community. 4OutcomesProgram Outcomes are classified according to short-, intermediate-, and long-term targets. In theshort-term, the individual participants should develop increased self-efficacy about their teaching,as well as an awareness of how their leadership skills can be enhanced through effective teach-ing.In the intermediate-term, our goal is to improve trends in undergraduate student feedback andfaculty satisfaction with GTA performance. An accompanying goal is that GTAs on the campuswill exhibit
]found that college students who were high-achieving usually had access to a summer bridgeprogram prior to entering their first year.In the second area, increasing interest in the major [13], [14], improving student sense of belonging[15], [16], [17], increasing student sense of preparedness [17], [18], increasing student self-efficacy [17], [19], and networking with students [20], [21], [22], and faculty [15], [23] can beconsidered as sub-goals. Finally, recruiting students to the majors [13], [14] and enhancingdiversity in the major [15], [24] are considered sub-goals for the third category.This paper presents a detailed report of a Summer Bridge Program (SBP) as a part of an ongoingNational Science Foundation (NSF)-supported project, which
the teachers and theuniversity students related to engineering habits of mind, awareness of engineering as aprofessional field, and development of self-efficacy related to engineering topics.Data Collected: Consistent with a mixed methods approach [28], we collected multiple sources ofdata to evaluate our RET program, including a STEM teaching efficacy instrument, video andobservation of classroom lessons, engineering-based lesson plans, laboratory notebooks, and anend-of-summer reflection survey.STEM teaching and learning outcomes were measured by the MISO T-STEM instrument, whichwas intended to characterize participant attitudes on entering the program and identify areas ofgrowth due to program participation. The T-STEM (Teacher Efficacy
Barriers to LearningAnalytics Adoption in Higher Education. Lester, J., Klein, C., Rangwala, H. & Johri, A. (Eds.).Learning Analytics in Higher Education: Current Innovations, Future Potential, and PracticalApplications. Routledge, NY, pp. 1-19.Karim, S., & Kandy, M. (2011). Time management skills impact on self-efficacy and academicperformance. Journal of American Science, 7(12), 720-726.Kearns, H., & Gardiner, M. (2007). Is it time well spent? The relationship between timemanagement behaviours, perceived effectiveness and work-related morale and distress in auniversity context. Higher Education Research & Development, 26(2), 235-247.Khatib, A. (2014). Time management and its relation to students' stress, gender and
the emotional experience of shame presentswithin a real student, outside of theory. This IPA study, true to the methodology, is intended tomake connections of theory concerning engineering education, gender identity and shame withthe real ways that shame is experienced within the student [19]. The five themes presented abovepresent a picture of the interaction between engineering culture and the individual student.Nicole’s experience of shame follows a cognitive path that is valuable for those in theengineering community who wish to see students succeed. Navigation of shame experiences isclosely linked within the literature to student’s self-efficacy [22-25]. Students who continuallyexperience pervasive shame within their academic and
characterize STEM careers as unworthy of literate andcreative individuals [2]. Does she have a good point? During the last two decades substantial efforthas been expended towards reconciling developing students with what can be broadly defined asSTEM identities. Considerable recent research broadly on STEM identities [e.g. 3-21], includingseparate considerations of science, engineering and math identities, has focused on the identitiesof groups and intersectionalities underrepresented in STEM disciplines and careers. But, someresearch also suggests that merely inserting a STEM label, e.g. science or scientist, into adiscussion unleashes implicit biases of gender, race and ethnicity in middle school children [14].Surveys to assess self-efficacy and