identities as motivators of action. Educational Psychologist, 44(2), 78-89.29. Bandura, A. (1977) Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84(2), 191—215.30. Schreyer Institute for Teaching Excellence (2007). Adult Learners in Higher Education. Pennsylvania State University.31. Aycock Jr, G. L. (2006). Support Needed By Adult Learners To Accomplish Educational Goals In Higher Education.(Doctoral dissertation).32. Main, J. B. (2012). Trends in doctoral education: engineering students' perspectives on faculty advising. American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference and Exposition.33. Khiewnavawongsa, S., & Schmidt, E. (2009). Assessment of the mentoring relationship between
development, it mustcontinue to recruit and retain domestic students into engineering master’s and doctoral programs.They collected and analyzed online data of more than 1,000 respondents related to the perceptionof graduate school. Results of their data analysis indicated that the presence of role models andstudents’ perceptions of their chance of success and level of knowledge about several aspects ofgraduate school contributed to the decision to enroll. They further developed a Social CognitiveCareer Theory (SCCT) framework focusing on student self efficacy, and how they perceivedgraduate school’s alignment to their interests and future goals.Other studies16, 8, 20 reported in recent years have advocated the attainment of a masters degreeprogram
better indicators ofgraduate school success. Measures of self-efficacy, perseverance, motivation, and belonginghave all been linked to completion of degree and achievement, as well as passion for researchand prior research experience [23,35-40].These data and others were used to directly inform the development and implementation of anentirely holistic approach to graduate admissions, one that aims to level the playing field forapplicants from all backgrounds and experiences. After gaining a thorough understanding ofbest practices in graduate admissions, and recognizing faculty need for a relatively efficientmeans of reviewing large volumes of applicants as fairly as possible, the Holistic PhDAdmissions Rubric was developed. This rubric is
. Pressure from the administration or from students decreased teachers‟ motivation.Using the same instrument as well as surveying the students, Roth et al. found that moreautonomy lead to greater feelings of personal accomplishment, less exhaustion, increased studentreports of autonomy supportive teaching, and increased student autonomy for learning 14. Againusing Pelletier‟s instrument, with others, Leroy et al. found that teachers with more self-efficacy,more experience in the classroom, and less external pressure provided more autonomy support totheir students 15. Deci and Ryan10 reported that teachers who perceived a lack of interest and lowlevels of self determination in their students responding by behaving in a more controllingmanner. The
been proven again and again to bepoor indicators of success in graduate school, particularly in research-based degree programs;and instead, are better predictors of gender and race/ethnicity. Likewise, research tells us that astudent’s GPA is a result of a wide variety of factors in addition to academic potential, includinggender, race, first generation status, and socioeconomic standing [24-29].Alternatively, several better indicators have now been correlated with graduate school success inresearch-based degree programs, including self-efficacy, perseverance, motivation, and a passionfor research and prior research experience [30-34]. A holistic application review process thatfocuses on these evidence-based metrics of success with a de
; Kanagui-Munoz, 2015; Navarro, Flores, Lee, &Gonzalez, 2014). The key predictive elements in SCCT include self-efficacy (confidence inone’s ability to successfully perform a task), outcome expectations (beliefs about theconsequences of performing specific behaviors), and contextual factors (environmental supportsand barriers). Regarding the latter, contextual factors, SCCT posits that these factors can eitherenhance or constrain educational and career progress (Lent, Brown & Hackett, 2000). To date,limited attention has been given to examining the impact of barriers such as institutionalstructures and STEM departmental climate on the mental health of women in STEM and in turnon STEM persistence. The advancement of women in STEM hinges on
as microteaching) is a practice that is recommended by Prieto, Yamokoski, & Meyers(2007) for graduate student development because the practice helps increase TAs’ self-efficacy.21 Page 23.136.3During the 5-minute practice teaching, TAs plan & present a topic, reflect on their teaching withthe support of a trained facilitator (often a peer teaching mentor) and provide feedback to a smallgroup of their peers about their teaching. For students where English is their second language,we ask students to self-select into microteaching sessions where there is at least one facilitatorwho is trained to provide English language feedback and
, 2014, pp. 141–146.[6] M. Ardis and N. R. Mead, “The Development of a Graduate Curriculum for Software Assurance,” in Proceedings of the Seventeenth Americas Conference on Information Systems, 2011.[7] M. Bashir, C. Wee, N. Memon, and B. Guo, “Profiling cybersecurity competition participants: Self-efficacy, decision-making and interests predict effectiveness of competitions as a recruitment tool,” Comput. Secur., vol. 65, pp. 153–165, Mar. 2017.[8] K. J. Knapp, C. Maurer, and M. Plachkinova, “Maintaining a Cybersecurity Curriculum: Professional Certifications as Valuable Guidance,” J. Inf. Syst. Educ., vol. 28, no. 2, pp. 101–114, 2017.[9] T. R. Andel and J. T. McDonald, “A Systems Approach to
mentors and mentees, not on any official recommendations or suggestions.While the mentors were generally positive and optimistic program participants, differences ininitial assumptions or assumed understanding of program expectations led to variedinterpretations of their self-efficacy as mentors. Early on, several mentors explained theirperspectives on the difficulties of being a mentor without a clearly established structure: “Since she [my mentee] can only work on my primary project, she’s just been reading papers that are way over her head and helping me order stuff. The phase my project has been in is not hands-on. This lack of flexibility has also made meeting with her a drain on my time…When structured well