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
personal agency. Self-efficacy is a person’s ownconfidence in their ability to complete a task. Self-efficacy can be informed by classroomexercises, internships, social interactions with peers, abilities, and completing goals, among otherthings. Outcome expectations are the expected consequences, positive or negative, of completinga given task. Similar to self-efficacy, outcome expectations can be informed by the learningprocess, observing outcomes from the actions of others, as well as outcomes from previouslyperforming a task, among other things. Personal goals are the desires and willpower to cause anoutcome to become reality. Personal goals, as the name infers, are informed by the individualand are shaped by their self-efficacy and outcome
, 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
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
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
-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
]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
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
experiences to assist students with choosing an intended major [1]. The commonfirst-year experience provides students with a place to explore and address their misconceptionsabout the engineering profession and its disciplines, a setting which student motivations becometangled with those of the department and faculty.MUSIC model of academic motivationMotivation theories attempt to explain the relationships between beliefs, values, and goals withrespect to action. A number of motivational theories are related to the student themselves such asSelf-Determination Theory [5], Expectancy-Value Theory [12, 13] or Self-Efficacy [14]. In thisstudy, the MUSIC model of academic motivation [4] was used to measure student motivation inthe FYE courses. The MUSIC
tracked for five semestersbeyond.Foundationally, this engineering major discernment study is theoretically founded in SocialCognitive Career Theory (SCCT) to consider students decisions14-15. SCCT is used to evaluate thegoals, outcomes expectations, and self-efficacy beliefs14. An engineering education based studyon engineering major discernment used SCCT by VanDeGrift and Lao reported that courseprojects, faculty advisory interactions, and other laboratory experiences were influential inengineering major selection. The current study expects to reveal that other targeted courseexperiences would likewise influence students16.Research Questions: 1. How effective is the engineering informed decision making module at meeting its intended goals
comparison of students and expert practitioners”, Journal of EngineeringEducation, vol. 96, pp. 359–379, 2007.[26] A. R. Carberry, M. W. Ohland, “Measuring engineering design self-efficacy”, Journal ofEngineering Education, vol. 99, pp. 171–179, 2010.[27] J. Hirtz, R. B. Stone, D. A. McAdams, et al., “A functional basis for engineering design:Reconciling and evolving previous efforts”, Research in Engineering Design, vol. 13, no. 2, pp.65-82, 2002.[28] R. Bailey, "Effects of industrial experience and coursework during sophomore and junioryears on student learning of engineering design," Transactions of the ASME, vol. 129, pp. 662-667, 2007.[29] J. D. Bransford, A.L. Brown, and R.R. Cocking, “How people learn: brain, mind,experience, and school
that predict student success, including academic preparedness [25],[26] and the psychological factors of motivation, self-efficacy, and attitude [27]–[30]. Ouruniversity’s school of engineering mirrors that of many engineering schools across the country asefforts of research to improve teaching and learning are made in hopes of retaining engineeringstudents into engineering careers. The longitudinal interdisciplinary research group, GEARS,that initially assembled around the research goal of focusing on first-year engineering studentretention and academic achievement has sustained in their efforts, while expanding theirexploration of first-year student retention through innovative, interdisciplinary viewpoints. Ourgroup is now poised to look at
include: o Exceptionally high stress levels associated with successful transition into the college/university, as well as, pressures related to academic performance, o Feelings of isolation and/or a lack of “belonging” within the college/campus setting (ESP. First Generation students). This may pose negative effects on student confidence and perception of self-efficacy, o Assistance avoidance behaviors related to asking for help both inside and outside of the classroom. Utilizing campus support services if efforts to avoid association with negative stereotypes historically attribute to their cultural, ethnic, or gender group (11). o Perceptions of isolation which result in USP students becoming less involved in
the last 60 years, engineering graduation rates have been around 50% [4]; similarly, inMexico, engineering graduation rates barely achieve 40%. A review of the literature conductedby Geisinger and Raman [4] identified a set of factors that contribute to the attrition of students.These factors include classroom and academic environment including teaching and advising,grades and conceptual understanding, self-efficacy and self-confidence determined by highschool preparation in math and science among others. Engineering educators have argued thatpersonal and socio-economic factors can contribute to the attrition of students; however, there isa proportion of engineering students that leave because of the educational system. Studies haveshown that