SketchTivity?A Drawing Self-Efficacy Instrument was used to measure the pre and post self-efficacy of studentswho practiced using SketchTivity[25]. The instrument consisted of 13 items and the average ofdrawing self-efficacy score was calculated for each student.B. ParticipantsThe participants in this study consisted of undergraduate and graduate students enrolled in fourcourses at three different institutions. Out of a total of 138 students enrolled in three courses atthree institutions, 137 students responded to Q1 and Q2; 109, 88, and 65 participants respondedTable 1: Demographics of the participants Participant demographcis Percentage Men 76.09% Women 18.84% First-generation 10.14
. 2005.[6] R.W. Lent, S.D. Brown, and K.C. Larkin, “Self-Efficacy in the Prediction of AcademicPerformance and Perceived Career Options,” J. Couns. Psy., vol. 33(3), pp. 265-269, Jan. 1986.[7] A.R. Carberry, H.S. Lee, and M.W. Ohland, “Measuring Engineering Design Self-Efficacy,”J. Eng. Ed., vol. 99(1), pp. 71–79, Jan. 2010.[8] J.S. Mullin, “Developing Technical Self-efficacy through a Maker-inspired Design Project,”at At Home With Engineering Education: ASEE’s Virtual Conference, June 22-26, 2020.[9] A. Jackson, N. Mentzer, J. Zhang, and R. Kramer, “Enhancing Student Motivation andEfficacy through Soft Robot Design,” at 2017 ASEE Annual Conference and Exposition,Columbus, OH, USA, June 24-28, 2017.[10] L. Murray, J. Ekong, S. Niknam, and M.J
practices focused on team- and project-based learning. ©American Society for Engineering Education, 2023 Student perspectives on engineering design, decision-making, adaptability, and support in capstone designAbstractThis study analyzed how students’ sense of support from industry mentors and teammates in acapstone design course was related to their perceived learning regarding engineering design andadaptability when controlling for design self-efficacy and preparedness. An end-of-course surveyprovided the data for this study and included Likert-type items to measure these six factors aswell as open-ended questions regarding students’ experience in capstone design. An explanatory
communities of practice. This case study was completed as part of courseevaluation and feedback processes, in order to identify improvements to how the course kits andtools were implemented and supported. All processes were completed under the supervision andwith the approval of the course instructors. The survey questions, shown in Appendix 1 in Table2, included open-ended questions to explore students’ feedback on the benefits of kits and theirvalue in supporting their learning, and any barriers they experienced in using them. Questionswith Likert scale rating for students to rate an item on a 1-to-5 scale [12], were used fordetermining level of student engagement and measuring students’ self-efficacy in developingdesign, experimentation, analysis
their engineering workplace. DEIconcepts can be incorporated in first-year engineering curriculum to enhance student design andexposure to diverse cultures during this unique design for additive manufacturing (DfAM)teaching module. This paper describes the development of a DfAM workshop that incorporateshistorical and cultural themes. Students’ perception of the design experience will be measuredusing an engineering self-efficacy validated tool, pre- and post-workshop survey, and measureddesign outcomes (CAD model) after engaging in a DfAM workshop. The workshop uses activitiesguided by the Kern Engineering Entrepreneurial Network (KEEN) framework which includescuriosity, connections, and creating value. The workshop introduces the
. Three research questions are asked:RQ1: How does student STEM SC relate to their design performance in parametricbuilding design? In this study, “design performance” refers to the ability of students to generatesolutions that have good performance in quantitative metrics such as low energy usage. Previousresearch shows that student self-efficacy and performance are positively related both outside ofSTEM [11] and in STEM [12]. However, this study evaluates performance specifically in abuilding design exercise with quantitative goals that are simulated within a parametric designtool. This relationship can reflect potential student effectiveness in technical building design, butit does not fully reflect student behavior. The extent of their
Structure How peer mentors Fostering Learning, Supporting Self-Efficacy, Familiarity of the Space/Tools, helped develop Supportive, Encouraging, Creating Common Identity, They did not, Limited to confidence in ability No Interaction, Building Self-Reliance, Growth Mindset, N/A, no conflicts, to do engineering. Offered Explanations, Predictable What peer mentors Positive Statements of Current PM Support, No improvement, N/A, Limited/No could have helped interaction, More information about clubs/activities/resources, Share more with to make others Experience, Promptness/Availability/Accessibility, Had no impact More feel more a part of interactions, More conversations unrelated to project/task -deeper
]. 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
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
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
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
makerspacescan be found in the news as the source of the next manufacturing revolution [6].Makerspaces as a locus for design learning is a topic that has received extensive attention. Thetheory of maker education relates to many educational frameworks, including Piaget’sconstructivism theory [7], the Situated Learning Model [8], and Community of Practice [9], allof which have been applied to understand learning in a makerspace [10]. The style of learningand appropriate frameworks depend highly on the type, location, and use of a makerspace.Experience working in a makerspace improves creativity [11], collaboration in diverse teams[12], design self-efficacy [13], and technical skills used in industry [12]. Agency is an importantcomponent of a makerspace
Negative Affectivity and Their Relation to Anxiety and Depressive Disorders," Journal of abnormal psychology (1965), vol. 97, no. 3, pp. 346-353, 1988, doi: 10.1037/0021-843X.97.3.346.[13] R. W. Hass, J. Katz-Buonincontro, and R. Reiter-Palmon, "Disentangling Creative Mindsets From Creative Self-Efficacy and Creative Identity: Do People Hold Fixed and Growth Theories of Creativity?," Psychology of aesthetics, creativity, and the arts, vol. 10, no. 4, pp. 436-446, 2016.[14] H. F. Posada-Quintero, J. P. Florian, A. D. Orjuela-cañón, T. Aljama-corrales, S. Charleston-villalobos, and K. H. Chon, "Power Spectral Density Analysis of Electrodermal Activity for Sympathetic Function Assessment," (in English
et al. observed to students involved in group work. Lin andYou [14] developed the Predicting Teamwork Performance system to identify functional rolesautomatically. In their work, students agreed (60%) that the strengths and role assignment systemhelped them cooperate with team members effectively and distribute the workload appropriately.Deemer et al. [12] studied how an energy science intervention caused an increase in leadershipand teamwork, increasing the self-efficacy of students. Martin et al. [16] showed the importanceof understanding justice through the teaching materials that they developed. They studied theimpact of teaching students how to work effectively in teams for the problem-based learningintensive BS Biomedical Engineering
rural children includes recognizing the importance ofconnecting the students’ experiential habitats in their engineering learning and for their sense ofself-development [24]. Similarly, in the LED program, a priority in the curriculum is to supportstudents’ engineering identities and their self-efficacy related to science and engineering.In Practice: Our Work Thus Far for 2D/3D Modeling Curricula DevelopmentDeBoer Lab and partners are collaborating in designing an assessment to recognize the priorskills of the students in their ability to communicate ideas for 2D/3D modeling and prototyping.This assessment would support future work in designing a curriculum with activities for studentsto aid their engineering problem-solving process with 2D/3D
werederived from the proficiencies of the USAFA Outcomes for Application of Engineering Problem-Solving Methods and Critical Thinking (see Appendices A and B). The final question was includedto capture the students’ self-efficacy in their learning development, which is a topic not specificallyaddressed in this paper. The initial and final questionnaires were identical to gauge a student’sself-assessed development in a given outcome proficiency from the beginning of the semester tothe end. In the Spring 2022 semester, all seven instructors and 369 students participated in the newcourse with the new course projects. The same questionnaire was given to the students at the startand end of the semester, and 321 students responded.The students responded to