interpersonalskills are less likely to pursue a career in engineering (vs. in a non-engineering field) thanstudents with lower self-confidence in these skills [6, 10]. However, only one of the abovestudies [9] investigated the connection between engineering undergraduates' self-efficacy in theircommunication skills and their perceived importance of these skills directly, despite a suggestionfrom Riemer [4] that they might be related. Further, none of the above studies developedinstantiated items with which to measure communication skills. They instead relied on genericterms such as verbal communication skills, written communication skills, or presentation skills,suggesting that engineering students may not have a true understanding of what is involved ineach
attempts to correct minority underrepresentation in the engineering disciplines,educational researchers, cognitive psychologists, and scholars in related fields have since the1980s developed many studies centered on the notion of student self-efficacy. 1-6 These studiesseek to measure the degree to which under-represented minority or otherwise marginalizedstudents experience a sense of self-confidence or feeling that they are able to counter "barrierconditions." Those conditions might include discrimination or other challenging social andintellectual situations encountered in college. While such studies are certainly preferable to adenial of differences between minority and majority experiences, they intentionally or otherwisesupport the notion
and faculty place oncommunication skills, the students’ perceptions of themselves as communicators, how thoseskills are developed within the wider curriculum, how proficient the students are upongraduation, and how these capabilities can be strengthened through improved pedagogicalmethods. Throughout the study, we use five different data collection techniques: (1) aninventory of the types and frequency of communication instruction and assignments through acontent analysis of syllabi; (2) two online student surveys, one administered at the beginning ofthe students’ undergraduate career and one given before graduation, to measure self-efficacy forcommunication; (3) a faculty survey to gauge the value instructors place on communication, aswell
-item “embracing” subscale of the CEI-II, measuring “a willingness toembrace the novel, uncertain, and unpredictable nature of everyday life” (p. 955). Respondentsindicate how they “generally feel and behave” on each item on a five-point Likert-type scalefrom 1=“Very slightly or not at all” to 5=“Extremely”. The variable “mindful attitude” is createdby averaging the four CEI-II items for each respondent. The mindful attitude items are only onthe EMS 2.0 survey.3.1.3 Measuring Innovation Self-Efficacy (ISE) and Engineering Task Self-Efficacy (ETSE)We measure both Innovation Self-Efficacy (ISE) and Engineering Task Self-Efficacy (ETSE) inthe EMS. All self-efficacy items were measured on a 5-point Likert-type scale from 0=“Notconfident” to 4
electrical and mechanical engineering majors. Each ofthese courses has a final team project, with varying degrees of open-endedness, in lieu of atraditional exam. Design competencies were measured in these courses, both pre- and post-experience, using self-reported surveys as well as instructor assessment of ABET learningoutcomes. The post-experience surveys as well as final project rubrics were used to measurechanges in design competencies as well as changes in self-efficacy. There was a correlationbetween the changes of self-efficacy and ABET outcomes at the end of the courses for bothmajor-specific and general education courses. Students in the general education course scoredlower in final self-efficacy compared to their peers in the major
our research group include a more detailed synthesis of these frameworks and thedevelopment and validation of a measure that can be used across different outreach programs.Conclusion The current body of literature suggests the presence of common impacts onundergraduate engineering students who participate in outreach. Communication and technicalskills were frequently included as an area of improvement, along with motivational and identity-related constructs such as identification with engineering and self-efficacy for professionalbehaviors. Although research and evaluation of engineering outreach has increased over the past20 years, further efforts must more clearly theorize, assess, and compare the impact of varioustypes and
todemographic characteristics (underrepresented racial/ethnic minority (URM), women, URM women),college experiences (internships/co-ops, having a job, conducting research, and study abroad), andengineering task self-efficacy (ETSE) which is a respondent characteristic that may be targeted ineducational interventions (i.e., outcome indicator for evaluation of impact of an intervention). All ofthese measures were collected on the survey instrument via self-report by student respondents to fixed-choice survey questions.Table 1. Variables compared between students classified as first-generation/low-income based on definitions Demographic Characteristics URM Underrepresented racial/ethnic minority status in response to ‘racial or ethnic
they are capable of achievement in a given learningsituation, as expressed on the MLSQ); and control-of-learning beliefs (a student’s belief that acourse’s content is indeed learnable at all, also expressed on the MLSQ).Our quantitative evidence of the relationship between students’ intrinsic and extrinsicmotivations and the three measures of perception of competence can be seen in Figure 5. Acrossthe 432 survey respondents whose scores were complete enough to characterize, there was astatistically significant relationship between intrinsic goal orientation and writing apprehension,self-efficacy for learning, and control-of-learning beliefs, which can be modeled as a linearcorrelation. There was also a statistically significant linear
first-time student retention at a public Midwest community college (Published doctoral dissertation)., Saint Louis University, USA., 2013.[14] P. K. Roberts, Perceived changes in career decidedness following completion of a for- credit career class (Published doctoral dissertation), University of Northern Colorado, USA, 2004.[15] R. Reese and C. Miller, "Effects of a university career development course on career decision-making self-efficacy," Journal of Career Assessment, vol. 14, no. 2, pp. 252-266, 2006.[16] A. Scott and K. CIani, "Effects of an undergraduate career class on men’s and women’s career decision-making self-efficacy and vocational identity," Journal of Career Development, vol. 34, no. 3, pp. 263
disadvantage, the symbolic meanings entwined with disabilitystatus are often expressed and experiences as positive, self-efficacious senses of identity [18] andcan be the foundation of disability community subcultures (e.g., the ASL Deaf community’sconnections through shared linguistic and cultural similarities) that work to suppress deficit-based narratives and advocate for their inclusion in policy and social change conversations [13,18].This paper focuses on three potential domains of disadvantage experienced by engineeringstudents and engineering professionals with disabilities: social marginalization, professionaldevaluation, and persistence intentions. I discuss these in detail below. As much of the attentionon the experiences of engineers with
their work, andemphasizes non-confrontational feedback processes in which the presenter chooses what kind ofcritique they would like to hear 36. In terms of physical space, the chairs and tables would be setup by instructor and GTAs when students arrived, then students would be able to restructurespace according to the activity planned for the day. As in the first introductory course, studentsoften worked with their groups using supplies from the art cabinet at their tables and on thewhiteboards. Although we did not employ Gerber’s survey to measure Innovation Self-Efficacy(ISE)12, in many ways the students dispositions reflect signs of low self-efficacy. However, theISE indicators reflect the types of activities taught in the class, and
cast as holding responsibility for inclusive or exclusive educational experiences. Forexample, one intriguing study found that the learning disparities between deaf and hard ofhearing students under examination arose not from differing student capacities but fromdifferentials in teacher training.11 Obviously, in order for a research study to find instructorcapacity to be the problem, researchers have to start by considering it to be a factor. Self-efficacy-centered models and measurements of student attainment could bring in this factor butdo not routinely do so.42While in some instances like that described above a student has initiated institutional reform, andin others students have led technical projects to create custom-designed assistive
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
andengineering. One study explored the relationship between mindfulness and innovation inengineering and found that dispositional mindfulness significantly correlated with innovationself-efficacy among students (Rieken et al, 2017). This study defined innovation self-efficacy asone’s confidence in their ability to innovate. There was another study that demonstratedmindfulness correlated with business skills self-efficacy (i.e. students’ confidence in performingbusiness skills) and the intent to pursue a career in a start-up or entrepreneurship (Rieken, Schar,and Sheppard, 2016). The purpose of this study is to evaluate whether engineering studentswould be receptive to potentially integrating contemplative practices such as mindfulnessmeditation to
,understanding engineering, self-efficacy, and hands-on activities/structure and virtual format. Toincrease validity in the coding, multiple researcher triangulation was conducted. The statementsset forth in Table 1 below are representative responses of students to each of the emergingthemes. Representation "I enjoyed hearing about different engineers and black and women excellence.” “It was an amazing experience to meet so many women from all different backgrounds who are so successful.” “I really liked when the women from [manufacturing company] came and spoke to us about what they did. And, when the women came and spoke her computer science journey.” “My favorite part was hearing from the speakers and their wisdom. It opened job opportunities that I
ensure they receiveeffective instruction when resources, especially time, were limited? The answer was to betterutilize an existing resource – the GTAs who assessed student work.Evolution of GTAs and Writing in EngineeringIn the last fifty years, the literature on GTA training has evolved from non-existent to discipline-specific, with the need for such training undisputed but the content of the training of moreinterest lately [5-9]. In addition, GTA self-efficacy, which involves “beliefs in one’s capabilitiesto organize and execute the courses of action required to produce given attainments” [10], hasalso been the subject of research [11-12]. Additional research has been done in training GTAs toteach writing in composition courses [13-15] and
to obtain a measure of EI, an example being the Emotional Knowledge Test [8] and theMayer-Salovey-Caruso Emotional Intelligence Test (MSCEIT) [9], [10].The mixed model approach is coined because the assessment includes non-ability measures andintelligent behaviors [6], [11], [12], [13]. These types of mixed approaches work to evaluateconcepts such as emotional perception but then add in scales such as happiness and stresstolerance [6].Pérez [14] defines the difference in emotional intelligence not by the approach of the model butby the distinction of concept. This concept leads to trait EI, also known as emotional self-efficacy and ability EI, also known as cognitive-emotional ability. Pérez argues that thedifference between mixed and
perceived utility of differentinstructional strategies, on a scale of 1 to 4, with 4 being the most useful. The results of thisstudy show that students perceived the lecture format (3.76) and feedback on reports (3.71)among the most helpful of the instructional strategies implemented. This may be because thelecture used exemplars of student work to model good communication skills. The use of peermodels may have contributed to students’ motivation and self-efficacy (Schunk 2007).Additionally, the lecture, which was integrated into the engineering course and delivered by theengineering instructor, may have provided students an opportunity to see connections betweenunderstanding of content and expression of that content. Students also cited the small
time when (an instructor) asked us to write, I was like ‘ughhh.’ Ihad no idea. I just made up something. I did not know how to tackle it. I definitely did not try inthat class.”Whether students acquire these self-concepts through exposure to stereotypes or throughunpleasant experiences in writing (e.g., “red pencil” comments and poor grades), they interferewith students’ acquisition of technical communication habits and impede writing fluency,especially critical in a career where so much rests on the ability to communicate complexconcepts accurately and clearly. As demonstrated in one review of the research on self-efficacyand writing achievement [40], self-efficacy may influence students’ choice of majors and thusengineering students may
communication orWAC faculty to help identify expectations, perceptions of quality and criteria for effectivecommunication, areas of overlap, skills that are not being addressed, and opportunities forreinforcement or development as students move through the curriculum. A richer understandingof faculty motivation with respect to these issues, to be developed in the next phase of this study,holds strong promise for identifying strategies and tools to support this dialogue. For example,research shows that faculty are uncomfortable teaching skills for which they also have low self-efficacy 34. Building faculty self-efficacy may be a critical part of such dialogs.Teaching teamworkThe findings surrounding teamwork, in contrast, show a strong need for more
mechanical engineering undergraduate students" in ASEE Annual Conference and Exposition, Conference Proceedings (0-87823-241-9, 978-0-87823-241-3).[13] Olds, Suzanne A. (2003). "Designing an outreach project that trains both future faculty and future engineers". ASEE Annual Conference Proceedings (0190-1052), p. 4233.[14] Mieke Schuurman, Michael Alley, Melissa Marshall, Chris Johnstone, and Sarah Zappe (2008, June). The effect of a targeted speech communication course on the public speaking self-efficacy of engineering undergraduates. Proceedings of the 2008 ASEE National Conference. Pittsburgh, PA: American Society of Engineering Educators.[15] National Academy of Engineering (2008). Changing the
gender and ethnic differences in STEM participation (Eccles, 2005). Theyhypothesized that educational, vocational and avocational choices would be most directly relatedto person’s expectations for success and the value they attach to the available options. TheEccles’ theory suggests that choices to engage in activities are shaped by both competence andvalue beliefs. Competence is about acquiring skills and applying them. Competence beliefs havebeen studied more widely than value beliefs among K-12 and engineering students. They aremostly based on the self-efficacy theory (Bandura, 1977). Self-efficacy is enhanced by positivefeedback, better performance, and social comparisons. Value beliefs, on the other hand, have notbeen that well studied
,” showeda drop of 1.75 (P value < 0.00001 using an unranked T-test), from an initial 6.36 to a final 4.61.Interestingly, the place of these scores almost exactly reverses Q2, going from the highest initialscore to the lowest final score. We have not seen previous studies on this drop in self-efficacy ata time of increasing knowledge in the literatures of writing or communication. We understandthis shift as a clear indicator of a transition stage between novice and expert, and as a step inprofessionalization.We also saw a small increase (+ 0.35, P value 0.0193 using an unranked T-test) in Q8, “Iunderstand how to reflect on the communication choices I make in light of context, purpose, andaudience.” These terms were used consistently in workshops
, International Journal of Engineering Education, Vol. 27, No. 6, pp. 1-12, 2011.4. T.T. Utschig and J. Norback, Refinement and Initial Testing of an Engineering Student Presentation Scoring System, American Society for Engineering Education Conference, Louisville, KY, June 20-23, 2010.5. Eccles, J.S. 2005. Subjective task value and the Eccles et al. model of achievement-related choices. In Handbook of competence and motivation, eds. A. J. Elliot and C. S. Dweck, 105-21. New York: Guilford Press.6. Velez, J. 2008. Instructor communication behaviors and classroom climate: Exploring relationships with student self-efficacy and task value motivation. http://etd.ohiolink.edu/send- pdf.cgi/Velez%20Jonathan%20J.pdf?acc_num=osu1211151901 (last
explains the nature of these six measurements, how they are represented, andwhy they are useful as formative feedback, both for instructors and for students. Table 1: Data Collected In Situ by CPR Workspace Data Use Measurement Text/Submission Quality of the Expressed as a number from 1 (low) to 10 (high); Rating Artifact this score is the weighted average of the holistic (TextRate) evaluations made by three peer reviewers. Calibration % Correct The percent of correct answers to the rubric questions for three benchmark examples
relaxation, improved concentration, self-confidence, improvedefficiency, good interpersonal relationship, increased attentiveness, lowered irritability levels, andan optimistic outlook in life” [15, p. 218]. Additionally, in related research on mindfulness,engineering education researchers have explored relationships between mindfulness, innovation,and self-efficacy [18], [19].Other relevant specific populationsWhile not conducted specifically with university students, there is a third body of research onanother specific population that has relevance for engineering education. Veterans chooseengineering majors at a rate of 1.5 times than that of non-engineering majors [20], and often havedifferent mental health challenges than the general student
construct their own general education pathways.23Innovation as a Content Area for General Education As a content area, innovation is a relatively new academic focus. As part of the challengeof working across disciplines, the team addressed the fact that there is no single accepteddefinition of innovation. Some define innovation from an organizational perspective24 – as anecessary trait for an organization (corporation) to be sustainably productive and for thatorganization to produce disruptive technology.25 Others define innovation from an individualabilities standpoint – as the capacity for students to execute the known processes of innovators,at which point the focus is on self-efficacy.26 There are multiple ways of connecting
(November 2009): pp. 14í25.13. M. Schuurman, M. Alley, M. Marshall, and C. J. Johnstone (2008, June). The effect of a targeted speech communication course on the public speaking self-efficacy of engineering undergraduates. Proceedings of the 2008 American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference and Exposition. Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania: American Society of Engineering Educators.14. Sarah Zappe, Karen Thole, Melissa Marshall, and Michael Alley (2013, June). Engineering Ambassador Network: Dissemination through an inaugural national workshop. Proceedings of the 2013 ASEE National Conference, Atlanta, Georgia; American Society of Engineering Educators.15. Catherine Talbot, Melissa Marshall, Michael Alley, and Joanna
. Pintrich, P. R. A Motivational Science Perspective on the Role of Student Motivation in Learning and Teaching Contexts. J. Educ. Psychol. 95, 667–686 (2003).18. Hagemeier, N. E. & Murawski, M. M. An instrument to assess subjective task value beliefs regarding the decision to pursue postgraduate training. Am. J. Pharm. Educ. 78, (2014).19. Artino, A. R. & McCoach, D. B. Development and Initial Validation of the Online Learning Value and Self- Efficacy Scale. J. Educ. Comput. Res. 38, 279–303 (2008).20. Garcia, T. & Pintrich, P. R. Assessing students’ motivation and learning strategies in the classroom context: The Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire. Altern. Assess. Achiev. Learn. Process. prior