engineering design process to meet the needs of aclient; 2) iteratively prototype a solution; 3) work collaboratively on a team; and 4) communicatethe critical steps in the design process in written, oral, and visual formats. Students work on oneproject team for the entire semester, with the focus of delivering a built and tested solution to theclient. To better understand the effects of this course, we used a quantitative evaluation process.The survey addresses how the course contributes to students’ self-efficacy and commitment infour areas: professional development, professional skills, engineering/academics, and creativity.Using a repeated-measures design, all students taking the course in fall 2018 were invited toparticipate in a survey
. AcknowledgementThis work was conducted under the auspices of the National Science Foundation (NSF) undergrant number EEC-1640521. However, any items expressed in this paper do not necessarilyrepresent the views of NSF or its affiliates.ReferencesBandura, A. (1977). Self-Efficacy: Toward a Unifying Theory of Behaviorial Change. Psychological Review, 84(2), 191-215.Bandura, A. (1982). Self-efficacy mechanism in human agency. American Psychologist, 37(2), 122-147.Engineering Accreditation Commission (2015). Criteria for accrediting engineering programs: Effective for reviews during the 2016-2017 accreditation cycle. Baltimore, MD: ABETFantz, T. D., Siller, T. J., & DeMiranda, M. A. (2011). Pre-collegiate factors influencing the self
aspirations, level of motivation, andacademic accomplishments” [8]. In the context of engineering, this is essential as students navigatetechnically challenging coursework and rigorous workloads. Self-efficacy has a strong relationshipto both learning and achievements. As Mamaril et al. state, it is most effective to measure self-efficacy at both the general engineering field level and the specific technical skill level [9].Evaluating at these different levels yields a more comprehensive understanding of a student’sconfidence in their overall engineering abilities. A major contributor to a student’s self confidence in completing engineering tasks is theirperceived proficiency in technical skills. Usher et al. investigated students in
in which to integrate newcontent in an effective manner. The total class time required for all three interventions ranges from 1-2 hourswhich equates, on the higher end, to one class session per quarter. The researchers and instructors of the courseagreed that the number of interventions and required time is reasonable without interfering with the core classmaterial. These interventions are hypothesized to improve engineering students’ sense of belonging and self-efficacy in their majors [14, 15].After considering course assignments and scheduling, the researchers chose a selection of ENGR 104 coursesin which to embed the interventions: Fall 17, Spring 18, and Fall 19. Each course was taught by a differentinstructor however, the content of
MSLQ X X X X X X X XThe GRIT survey was developed by Angela Duckworth and consists of 12 Likert Scale questions[2]. Grit, defined as “perseverance and passion for long term goals”, was recognized as a trait byDuckworth [3].The LAESE survey was developed at Penn State University with support from the NationalScience Foundation. The LAESE was designed to measure the self-efficacy of undergraduateengineering students by using 31 Likert scale questions. Self-Efficacy aspects of studentsmeasured by the survey include outcomes expected from studying engineering, the process ofselecting a major, expectations about workload, coping strategies in challenging situations, careerexploration, and the
online at http://caeeaps.stanford.edu/phpESP/admin/manage.php.[20] LAESE (Longitudinal Assessment of Engineering Self-Efficacy) survey versions 3.0 (copyright 2006) and 3.1 (copyright 2007), which are products of AWE (Assessing Women and Men in Engineering), available online at www.aweonline.org.[21] DeVellis, R. F. (1991). Scale Development: Theory and Applications. Newbury Park, California: Sage Publications.[22] Armstrong, J.B., and Impara, J.C. (1991). The impact of an environmental education program on knowledge and attitude. Journal of Environmental Education, 22(4):36-40.[23] Barrow, L. H., and Morrisey, J. T. (1987). Ninth-grade students' attitudes toward energy: A comparison between Maine and New Brunswick. Journal of
) and have shown that self-expansion can have many benefits includingsharing of resources and greater self confidence. We call this “closeness,” and have used Aron’sscale to measure student closeness to “others” in the engineering classroom – Professor, TA, LabGroup, Classroom and Friend. A total of 571 complete observations were obtained at threeuniversity locations among students enrolled in the local equivalent course, Introduction to SolidMechanics or Statics. Classroom sizes varied from Large (~400 students) to Medium (125-150students) to Small (75-90 students).Results show that closeness plays an important role in classroom performance, particularly incombination with mechanics self-efficacy (or personal confidence in your mechanics
impacted by his/her competency, self-efficacy, andtheir perceived level of control over the task31. Weiner32 states that expectancy will be lower ifthe individual’s perceived ability is low or his/her perceived difficulty of the task is high. Healso states that if an individual assumes that conditions will remain the same and that his pastsuccess was due to ability, he will anticipate success in another similar task. Since manystudents measure success by GPA, first semester GPA was used as a measure of expectancy inthe current study. Further support for using GPA to measure expectancy is given in the literaturereview section.Value Value is related to the incentive or gain from doing or completing a task31. Eccles andWigfield31 list four
administered X X X MSLQ X X X X XThe GRIT survey is a questionnaire consisting of 12, 5-point Likert scale (1 = not gritty to 5 =very gritty) questions that were developed by Angela Duckworth from the Department ofPsychology at the University of Pennsylvania. [23]. Duckworth has identified grit as a unique trait,defining it as “perseverance and passion for long term goals” [22].During the first-year, students’ academic self-efficacy has been directly related to academicperformance [10]. Among other things, the LAESE survey measures a student’s academic self-efficacy. The LAESE survey instrument is a validated instrument developed via the NSF
Using asimilar approach of measuring cultural consumption and preferences by proxy, we examinestudent music genre preference as a potential mediating factor in engineering students’ disciplinechoice.We situate our examination in the context of self-efficacy, which has been shown to have asignificant impact on student behavior, including major choice. Self-efficacy, the belief in one'sabilities, plays a central role in the achievements of individuals throughout their careers.Differing levels of self-efficacy has been documented to impact student behavior from academicachievement to the success in a job search.2 Furthermore, self-efficacy has been shown to have asignificant impact on students’ decisions to major in engineering
will have adirect and positive effect on grade performance.2.0 Study OverviewThis study is intended as a pilot study of the measures of social belonging in an engineeringclassroom. Data were collected from an introductory level solid mechanics class at a privateuniversity in the United States. Most student respondents were beginning their engineeringacademic careers, mostly as sophomore students taking their first-ever engineering specificcourse. The instrument used to measure engineering self-efficacy was developed by our researchteam. The instruments used to measure social belonging, engineering identity and interpersonalcloseness have strong research pedigrees but have never been used in this novel combination.2.1 Measuring Social Belonging
motivational itemssuch as perceived instrumentality and self-efficacy beliefs. We must note that this pilot study alsoserved to test the instrument. Future studies will gather data regarding prior training related tospatial visualization skills. 3.2 Data Analysis: To analyze the findings from the self-report questions, exploratory factor analysis (EFA)was used with the measures of motivational factors such as perceived instrumentality and self-efficacy beliefs. Based on the literature, we expected that individuals who were exposed in theirearly childhood and later on in live to experiences related to the manipulation of objects viasectional cuts, three dimensional rotations, and other mental operations will have higherperformance score on
outcomes of their project-based communityservice learning based on collected students’ learning data, this paper reveals impacts of thescaffolding through different delivery approaches on students’ perceptions on creativeproblem solving, self-efficacy, identity, and application of creativity strategies. It alsoconfirms the correlation among application of prompts and students’ learning process andlearning outcomes, and compares the available results of data analysis from twoimplementation years. The results from data analysis indicate that scaffolding creativeproblem solving through freshmen’s project-based service learning may in general enhancestudent’s self-efficacy, strategies application, and interest in engineering. Among threeintervention
and metacognition. Thus this response is surprisingwhen looking at the clustering alone. The literature suggests a few possible reasons why thisresponse occurred. First, self-efficacy and test anxiety may play a more distinct role in gradeperformance than many of the other factors investigated in this particular study [12, 13]. Cluster3 participants reported higher levels of self-efficacy, lower levels of test anxiety when comparedto cluster 1. Future work will further investigate how these factors play a role in performance.Second, many SRL theorists believe that participants may have difficulty accurately assessingtheir levels of SRL skills [14-16]. A call for qualitative measures as well as studies conducted intrue learning contexts may
, socializing, and academic preparations, measured on a 5-point Likert-typescale to indicate how frequently they did those activities during a regular week (5 = Always; 4 =Often; 3 = Sometimes; 2 = Rarely; 1 = Never). One item is related to work (i.e., Working forpay) and one item asks about “relaxing and socializing.” The remaining six items are related toacademic activities, such as “Preparing for class.”1.2 Core Integration ConstructThe Academic Self-efficacy scale (10-item 5-point Likert-type scale, with 5=Extremelyconfident, 1=Not at all confident) measures the student’s self-evaluation of their ability andchances for success in the academic environment [60].The Career Self-efficacy scale (4-item) identifies the extent to which students have
the questiondifficulty increases between the pre- and post-assessment, as was the case with the units inequations question. While the purpose of the survey is to give instructors a quick, baselinecompetency level for students in their classroom, this could be improved by including a greaternumber of questions and ensuring the pre- and post-assessment questions are of similardifficulty.The survey also addressed student confidence in these topics using a simple 5-item Likert scale.There are other scales that measure confidence or self-efficacy in engineering (e.g., LAESE12,Loo and Choy3). Since we were interested in topical confidence, we did not use these scales;however, we may consider incorporating some aspects of these or similar metrics in
by the endof the semester.Results for Student Ranking of Class ActivitiesIn addition to the diversity and engineering identity survey questions, students rated classactivities to better understand what pedagogical practices fostered self-efficacy and engineeringidentity (see Tables 5-8).Students in the grand challenges course indicated that the visit with Steve Swanson (NASAastronaut) was the most helpful course activity in developing student self-efficacy and interest.Students also suggested that discussions about engineering and interacting with professors washelpful in developing self-efficacy while discussion of engineering challenges helped to fosterinterest. Students in the civil engineering course indicated that learning practical
elements of affect. For example, feelings can often beconsidered to be measured by a students’ physiological state [20]; and one contributor to self-efficacy (an aspect of a student’s affect) is physiological state [5]. If a student has an upsetstomach or dizziness – in other words, symptoms of anxiety – they may experience reduced self-efficacy. Whereas if they experience an elevated heart rate or increased blood rush to the head,symptoms that can be associated with being excited, they may experience an increase in self-efficacy. In other words, a student’s most basic feelings will both be influenced by and, in turn,influence, their self-efficacy.Therefore, while it is recognized that it is important to study how different elements of
toward their backgroundknowledge and abilities to be successful in engineering and found subgroup differences, such asby genders and by persisters/non-persisters (Besterfield-Sacre, Atman, & Shuman, 1997;Besterfield-Sacre, Moreno, Shuman, & Atman, 2001). In the analysis of some freshmen students,students’ self-perceptions including self-efficacy were found to be a positive predictor offreshman retention (Hutchinson, Follman, Sumpter, & Bodner, 2006). Student research wasconducted by a study which consisted of two rounds of surveys from 663 participants to examinethe predictability of course grades and again self-efficacy for learning course materials emergedas one of the important factors key to achievement for the students (Stump
Surveys, Dimensions of Success (DoS) Observation tool, pre/post topic self-efficacy, and survey student interviews. The results showed that engineering design activitieshad a positive impact on attitude towards STEM learning and careers. Integration ofengineering design principles, student demographics and evaluation instruments and resultsare discussed in this paper.IntroductionEngineering is a natural platform for the integration of science, technology, engineering, andmathematics (STEM) content into K-12 classrooms, while sparking creativity amongst youngminds. Research around effective learning in K-12 classrooms demonstrates that anengineering approach to identifying and solving problems is valuable across all disciplines.Educators and
course offered in Fall 2014 collaborating on designing, building, andtesting autonomous waste sorters. Teams from one section of 38 mechanical, aerospace, electrical,and chemical engineering students are paired with those of the other section with 43 computerscience, informatics, software engineering, computer systems engineering, industrial engineering,and engineering management students. While the teams from each section focus on differentaspects of the design, inter-disciplinary collaboration and system integration is required for asuccessful final product.The impact of this experience on students’ knowledge and self-efficacy of the engineering designprocess, their technical communication skills, and teamwork has been measured. A
choice, but that there can be barriers that confound decision making. For example anindividual’s prior experiences and background (culture, gender, genetic endowment, sociostructuralconsiderations, and disability or health status) impact the nature and range of their career possibilitiesconsidered. In theory, SCCT aims to describe the intersection of self-efficacy beliefs, outcomeexpectations, and goals11. Self-efficacy, defined by Bandura, is one’s own belief about one’s ability toachieve a task12. This derives from four primary sources: performance outcomes, vicarious experiences,verbal persuasion, and physiological experiences. Self-efficacy is a task level theory; it is useful in classsettings where students can perceive separate domains
the face of challenges. Beliefs about the nature of intelligence havebeen identified as a key lever across these critical behaviors linked to academic success and life-long learning [3].Beliefs are recognized as powerful sources of behavior and various outcomes, and they are awell-established construct of interest in engineering education research. For example, students’beliefs about their own capabilities, or self-efficacy beliefs are important [4-9], and theycorrelate with retention in educational pursuits [10, 11]. Prior work has shown the importance ofbeliefs held by engineering students about the self (i.e. identity) [12-14] and how those beliefsframe their interactions with others [15]. Theory has been generated that connects
”responses related to strategies students realize they were not using effectively.A single researcher scored the responses; thus our study did not have the benefit of a more robustreview of the data or the benefit of inter-rater reliability.Conclusion and Implications for Future ResearchWe propose that a course environment that focuses on increasing metacognitive awarenessthrough self-directed learning in individual and collaborative settings may positively impactstudents’ self-efficacy. As students focus on attaining goals that are important to them, in settingswhere the challenge is not beyond their capability, in a social setting that supports persistence,students’ self-efficacy should be enhanced [16]. This is an area ripe for future
continued to rise andmost first year engineering students were presenting SAT scores well above the nationalaverage, across gender and ethnicities. In addition, the college used validatedinstruments to assess psychological predisposition, which revealed that 95% of the 1styear students in this study consider themselves to be “gritty” and 86% reported verystrong self-efficacy (belief) in their ability and high school math preparation to studyengineering.However, in contradiction to their above average SAT scores, half of the first yearstudents entering Temple Engineering in Fall 2014 and Fall 2015 tested below Calculus I,only 33% had experienced a high school engineering course or activity, less than 33%had a family member in a STEM field, and only
into groups. In Proceedings of Frontiers in Education Conference. Tempe, AZ, USA.4. Oakley, B., Felder, R. M., Brent, R., & Elhajj, I. (2004). Turning student groups into effective teams. Journal of Student Centered Learning, 2(1), 9-34.5. Marra, R.M., Rodgers, K.A., Shen, D., Bogue, B. (2009). Women engineering students and self-efficacy: A multi-year, multi-institution study of women engineering student self-efficacy. Journal of Engineering Education, 98, 27-38.6. Hutchison, M. A., Follman, D. K., Sumpter, M., Bodner, G. M. (2006). Factors influencing the self- efficacy beliefs of first-year engineering students. Journal of Engineering Education, 95, 39-47.7. Okudan, G.E., Horner, D., Bogue, B., & Devon, D. (2002). An
Motivation, Self-Efficacy, Self-Determination, Grade Motivation, and CareerMotivation. Glynn and his associates define student motivation to learn science as the “internalstate that arouses, directs, and sustains student behaviors associated with the learning of science[8].Table 1. Student Scores on the SMQ II-Pre & Post TestsTest Students/Scores Intrinsic Self- Self- Grade Career Overall/Raw Motivation Efficacy Determination Motivation Motivation AggregatePre Total # 114 114 114 114 114 Average Score 14.25 14.23 13.64 16.92 15.35 74.39 (n=114) STEMGrow(n=86) 14.63
]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
self-efficacy, sense of belonging, identification and identityintegration. Often, negative experiences are the result of subtle bias or schemas that all studentsbring with them into their teams, and occur despite the employment of best practices in teamformation.This paper presents a summary of a contemporary understanding of this phenomenon aspresented by several individual researchers covering the fields of stereotype threat, engineeringdesign, teamwork, motivation, and race, gender and their intersections. The content of this paperwas generated by collecting the individual responses of each researcher to a set of promptsincluding: • examples of how students can be marginalized in engineering teamwork and what governing
sense of belongingwith their selected major and college (Good, Rattan, & Dweck, 2012). Indeed, feelings ofbelonging are related to overall well-being (Ryan & Deci, 2000) as well as higher levels ofacademic self-efficacy and motivation (Freeman, Anderman, & Jensen, 2007). It is particularlyconcerning that students who belong to groups that are underrepresented in engineering feel lessconnected with their major, which is also generally related to problems with adjustment to thecollege environment (Dennis, Phinney, & Chuateco, 2005). To address the issues of retention inengineering majors, many colleges and universities have implemented programs to supportstudents in their first year (Purdie & Rosser, 2011). This paper will