] concluded that a fully-flipped statistics course for engineers enabled more personalizedlearning and instruction than a partially-flipped classroom. A study led by Motamedi [19]indicated that a flipped and “modified instructor-guided” pedagogy for a data analysis coursefor engineers yielded higher computational understanding and theoretical and statistical self-efficacy than a problem-based learning approach. However, problem-based learning tended toresult in higher self-efficacy for using data analysis software. Similarly, Huang et al. [20]found that students in a project-based learning intervention were more likely than those in anonline course to talk about the connection between statistics and their disciplines but notthemselves. They posited
) framework to provide undergraduate students with morepractice in tissue characterization. The framework involves structuring a multi-week lab thatintegrates theoretical foundations, bioinstrumentation background, experimental design, and dataanalysis. The goal of the framework is to enhance lab-based learning by providing opportunitiesfor students to incorporate multiple levels of Blooms Taxonomy. By consolidating theseopportunities into a multi-week module, we hypothesized that students would experience morereinforcement and thus self-efficacy with these experimental methods. For this study, we focusedon the development of a TDA module to measure apoptosis in tissue constructs using real-time,reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR
these experiments were visualized in real-time.To measure the key constructs associated with students’ success (motivation, epistemic andperceptual curiosity, and self-efficacy), data collection was done pre-and post-implementation ofthe experiments using the Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire (MSLQ) developed byPintrich, Smith, García, and McKeachie, in 1991. Also, the Classroom Observation Protocol forUndergraduate STEM (COPUS) was employed to characterize the simultaneous activities ofinstructors and learners during class sessions. More so, students’ understanding of the course andthe application of knowledge gained were evaluated using signature assignments.Data analysis was conducted using Statistical Package for Social
]. These brain cells are the building blocks for core human spatial reasoning and thought. Thenotion that learning and memory are neurobiological processes provides opportunities to explorehow pedagogical techniques might harness these known neurological processes to create andretrieve new (geospatial) thinking patterns in STEM education. Learning is possible because thebrain creates memories through altering the synaptic connections between specific neurons,stores them in connected ensembles of neurons, and retrieves them by reactivating those sameneurons and connections [23].A recipe for nurturing spatial literacy as a 4-step process includes self-efficacy, context, scaleand pedagogy [16]. First, self-efficacy (i.e., gender, experience, age
experimentation, teamwork, and effective communication. By analyzingstudents' performance in these areas, the assessment aims to provide insights into the overallimpact of the PBL approach on their knowledge acquisition, practical skills, and self-efficacy inthe field of engineering.ConclusionThe transformation of the conventional materials and manufacturing laboratory into a PBLenvironment represents an effort to bridge the gap between education and workplace challenges.This WIP responds to the declining involvement in experimental curricula by introducing adynamic framework that enhances students' critical thinking, problem-solving abilities, andpractical skills. The integration of PBL aligns with the evolving demands of the workforce,emphasizing
ofcommunication and leadership skills, and increased engagement in the learning process.Additionally, they discuss the importance of faculty being a part of the student’s preparation toimprove self-efficacy and quality of the content.From 2020 to 2022, a faculty who specializes in Geotechnical Engineering at The Citadel, ateaching-focused institution in the Southeast United States, utilized four peer teaching techniquesin Introduction to Geotechnical Engineering, Geotechnical Engineering laboratory, andMechanics of Materials (Table 1).Table 1. Peer teaching methods used in this study. Peer Teaching Method Course Reciprocal Teaching Introduction to Geotechnical Engineering
valuablecontrol measure for assessing classroom activities.Keywords: STEM education, experiment-centric pedagogy, artificial intelligence, deep learning,education assessment, student engagement, learning dynamics, classroom observation.IntroductionScience, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) education is shifting fromtraditional lecture-based methods to more immersive and experiment-centric pedagogy. Thispedagogical approach aims to foster self-efficacy, critical thinking, and problem-solving skillsamong students and enhance their interest and motivation in STEM fields [1], [2]. However,assessing the effectiveness and impact of this pedagogy poses significant challenges, especiallyin measuring student engagement during the implementation of
to build this version of the circuitwere successful.Figure 3: LED calculator circuit using (a) discrete components and (b) an input/output PCB [31]Intellectually challenging PBL projects that maintain a high success rate are vital for building self-efficacy among students. In the summer 2019, a PCB version of the LED calculator activity wasdeveloped that uses surface-mounted components for the 5V regulator, switches, LEDs, andresistors. See Figure 3b. By abstracting away the complex input and output circuitry, campers wereable to focus on the wiring connections between the switches, logic gates, and LED outputs,thereby increasing the success rate of building the LED calculator to 100% for the 36 students whoparticipated when the camp was
early 1960s1,2 as a popular strategy, demonstrating itseffectiveness in engaging students with the learning process. Initially introduced within a reformpedagogy known as 'guided inquiry3 ', active learning unfolds in three phases: exploration,invention, and application. Research suggests that this pedagogical approach substantiallyenhances students' conceptual understanding when compared to traditional teaching methods4,5,6. 1Encouraging engineering faculty to incorporate active learning strategies, in classroominstruction is common. There is a necessity to explore self-efficacy at various academic levels tounderstand variations among different populations. At the same time, further research is
a professional educationcomponent consistent with the institution's mission and the program's educational objectives andpromotes diversity, equity, and inclusion awareness for career success [3]. "The need to feelbelongingness and linked with others" is how relatedness is defined (Baumeister and Leary [8]).According to studies, learning environments that provide a sense of connectedness to peers,parents, and instructors can enhance motivation and improve academic results (Ryan, et al. [9]).Self-efficacy, engagement, interest in school, higher grades, and retention have all beenconnected to feelings of relatedness, which are measured in terms of "school environment" andinstructor-student connections (Inkelas, et al. [10]). Research on
effectively.After identifying these concepts, experiments utilizing electronic instruments are developed andimplemented. The Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire (MSLQ) was used to assesskey constructs related to student success, such as motivation, epistemic and perceptual curiosity,and self-efficacy [34], [35]. Student success was determined by the academic performance ofstudents who received ECP doses in different classes and across the gender spectrum.Furthermore, the fundamentals of ECP and the classroom observation protocol are implementedto effectively integrate ECP into the Biology Discipline.Student participation in ECP was evaluated using the Classroom Observation Protocol forUndergraduate STEM(COPUS), developed by Smith et al. [36
and A. Kolmos, “Student conceptions of problem and project based learning in engineering education: A phenomenographic investigation,” Journal of Engineering Education, vol. 111, no. 4, pp. 792–812, 2022.[15] E. M. Starkey, A. S. McKay, S. T. Hunter, and S. R. Miller, “Piecing together product dissection: how dissection conditions impact student conceptual understanding and cognitive load,” Journal of Mechanical Design, vol. 140, no. 5, p. 052001, 2018.[16] E. M. Starkey, S. T. Hunter, and S. R. Miller, “Are creativity and self-efficacy at odds? an exploration in variations of product dissection in engineering education,” Journal of Mechanical Design, vol. 141, no. 1, p. 012001, 2019.[17] C. A. Toh, S
experimental platforms in chemistry laboratory education and its impact on experimental self-efficacy," INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY IN HIGHER EDUCATION, vol. 17, no. 1, 07/09/ 2020, doi: 10.1186/s41239-020-00204-3.[10] D. May, L. T. Smith, and C. Gomillion, "Student motivation in virtual laboratories in bioengineering courses," in 2022 IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference (FIE), 2022: IEEE, pp. 1-5.[11] C.-H. Huang, "Using PLS-SEM Model to Explore the Influencing Factors of Learning Satisfaction in Blended Learning," Education Sciences, vol. 11, no. 5, p. 249, 2021. [Online]. Available: https://www.mdpi.com/2227-7102/11/5/249.[12] I. D. Dunmoye, D. Moyaki, A. V. Oje, N. J. Hunsu
report for this lab exercise was easy to S10: Lab report grading was reasonable. prepare by the deadline. Figure 12. Survey report of Category 2 statements. The number value above each bar indicates the actual count of students responded.Figure 13 shows the Likert distributions for statements S11–S16, which comprise Category 3. TheLikert distributions for the statements about learning self-efficacy are again strongly positive, with 12at least 55% indicating that they Agree or Strongly Agree with all statements. The mostdisagreement occurs for S16 about the lab exercise making the students excited to work withpumps, for which a sum of 16.5% of respondents Disagree or Strongly Disagree. In
focus of this paper, has experiencedsimilar outcomes. A notable uptick in graduation rates at CU occurred between 2009 and 2015,with six-year degree completions reaching 62.2%, yet recent years have witnessed plateaus inretention rates. Persistent disparities befall minoritized students [1], [2]. These stagnantcompletion rates occur in the face of substantial need for increased engineering talent, bothnationally and globally, to support fields including technology, security, transportation, andinfrastructure.The causes of student attrition from engineering are multifaceted and vary across demographics.A range of known issues includes an unwelcoming climate, conceptual difficulties in corecourses that hamper progress toward degree, lack of self