Paper ID #14844Facilitating Learner Self-efficacy through Interdisciplinary Collaboration inSustainable Systems DesignDr. Tela Favaloro, University of California, Santa Cruz Tela Favaloro received a B.S. degree in Physics and a Ph.D. in Electrical Engineering from the Univer- sity of California, Santa Cruz. She is currently working to further the development and dissemination of alternative energy technology; as project manager of a green building design initiative and researcher with the Center for Sustainable Engineering and Power Systems. Her background is in the development of characterization techniques and
pilot study shows that students' self-efficacy for specific cross-disciplinary team learning objectives was influenced by participation on team projects withothers from different disciplines. Further data collection will help better understand how teamcomposition, stage of project design, and individual factors such as year in school and priorexperience with similar projects impacts confidence levels.II. Development of cross-disciplinary team functioning measuresThe team also attempts to develop and measure teamwork in cross-disciplinary projectteams. Such teams consist of members with different functional experiences and abilities, andwill likely come from different departments within the organization 13. Many believe that inorder for
in which undergraduates can participate. The question is how might such initiativeshelp create an integrative learning experience for undergraduate education? What constitutes anintegrative learning experience? And how might impact on students be measured?BackgroundPerceived self-efficacy is defined as a person’s belief in his or her abilities to successfullycomplete a task or reach a goal. The choices that people make are directly governed by theirperception of their self-efficacy – people will gravitate towards activities and situations that theyare confident they will succeed in and avoid situations that require skills and abilities that theymight lack.According to Bandura, students who have the opportunity to successfully complete a real
concreteengineering and cross-disciplinary tasks using a Bandura-style confidence scale. The surveyincluded self-efficacy questions that measured the ability of students to complete tasks that fallunder the following three ability areas: Engineering (use of math, science and engineering concepts, problem solving, experimentation, design) Cross-disciplinary (use of knowledge and perspectives from social science/humanities in problem solving, integration of engineering and social science/humanities knowledge and concepts in problem solving) Professional (teamwork, writing, oral communication).Disciplinary engineering skills are the skills that students are expected to develop through theircoursework in a single engineering discipline; cross
(the degree to which the learning task is deemed to be ofimportance for present and future work and learning) and self-efficacy for learning (pertainingto the individual’s confidence in their ability to successfully complete assigned tasks). The fullscales are provided in Table 3. For each statement, the respondents rated themselves on a 6-point Likert scale ranging from 1 point, “Strongly disagree” to 6 points, “Strongly agree”. TheCronbach’s α of the two subscales was .91 and .89.Table 3. Questionnaire of Learning MotivationItems Questions 1. I am very interested in the content area of this course. 2. I like the subject matter of this course.Task value 3. It is important for
graduate, or professionalschool. He also found positive correlations between research involvement and a broad range ofself-reported growth measures and satisfaction with many aspects of an educational experience.(Astin, 1994)” They further reported that students, and faculty, overwhelmingly find it to be apositive experience. [5]To assess that the ASPiRe program creates a similar positive impact, a Likert Survey was createdto assess self-efficacy and confidence. Several surveys, such as the Longitudinal Assessment ofEngineering Self-Efficacy [LAESE] and the Pittsburgh Freshman Engineering Attitude Survey[PFEAS] were researched to establish preliminary questions to assess self-efficacy and confidence.[2] The former was the primary influence for
AC 2012-3218: ELICITING STUDENTS’ INTERPRETATIONS OF ENGI-NEERING REPRESENTATIONSDr. Adam R. Carberry, Arizona State University Adam R. Carberry is an Assistant Professor in the College of Technology and Innovation, Department of Engineering at Arizona State University. He earned a B.S. in materials science engineering from Alfred University, and received his M.S. and Ph.D., both from Tufts University, in chemistry and engineering education respectively. His research interests include student conceptions, engineering epistemological beliefs, self-efficacy, and service-learning.Dr. Ann F. McKenna, Arizona State University, Polytechnic Ann F. McKenna is Chair of the Department of Engineering and the Department of
resulted in a relatively lowperformance expectation—an expectation that their design merely result in a functioning powergenerator and accompanying monitoring system for measuring the generator’s power output.Constructing and constraining the project in this manner is critical to the perception of theproject as a “mastery experience” by most of the participants. Mastery experiences have beennoted2 as key to shaping many students’ self-efficacy beliefs; it has also been noted that astudent’s self-perception of content mastery is highly linked to their self-reported enjoyment,interest, and satisfaction. These factors are also commonly linked to one’s motivation forlearning. The next section presents how the scope of the project was appropriately
, student self-assessments are used to gauge self-efficacy and quizzes are used to assess competency. What isinnovative about the approach is the automation of the process for students and faculty. Studentscomplete a worksheet online and receive a copy of their responses by email with the option togenerate a PDF version of their responses. Subsequently, the student submits the PDF version toBrightspace for review by the instructor. After submitting the worksheet, students complete aself-assessment survey to assess student’s self-efficacy with content covered in class andreinforced in the worksheet. Worksheets coupled with self-assessments provide insight onstudent’s data visualization capacity levels.The goals of the worksheets are to enable
communityconnectedness (β=0.146, p<0.05). Moreover, results indicated that dominant ethnic group(namely the reported Caucasian ethnic group) held lower levels of global centrism (β=-0.203,p=0.06). In terms of engineering efficacy, the results indicate a negative/inverse relationshipbetween engineering efficacy and being an international student (β=-0.215, p<0.05). This findingmay be attributed to fundamental difference in educational systems, structures and pedagogicalpractices between students’ home country and the United States university systems, which may,in turn, contribute to lower self-efficacy in engineering. Lastly, the regression analyses revealed that studying abroad in a culture different fromstudents’ culture of origin was
work collaboratively. Reasons for this are that methods for assessing andproviding feedback to students relative to team learning are not well developed and are Page 22.241.2challenging to implement.In response to this opportunity, we have designed, developed, and evaluate targeted assessmentstrategies that specifically focus on improving team learning and performance practices. Fouruniversity programs are described with reference to the team assessment measures deemedappropriate within each context. Assessment measures developed include a cross-disciplinaryteam learning (CDTL) self-efficacy; a survey of cross-disciplinary functioning; and a
notconducive to deep learning or a quality product. Students get so good at this “team dance” thatthey are not aware of the important issues that they are avoiding11.Language, self-efficacy, and leadership rolesThe typical model that students have of an engineering leader is that of “the boss.” Students donot differentiate between leadership and management authority. This interpretation affects theirself-perception of their own leadership potential. The concept of leadership is one miss-generalized to all situations. Therefore; since the students cannot see themselves in powerfulpositions until well into the future, they have not considered their own personal skills andabilities (efficacy) in regards to leadership12, 13, 14.The necessary step in the
Ph.D. in experimental psychology from the University of North Dakota. Her research focuses on assessment of educational outcomes in higher education as related to STEM learning, with a focus on the effects of various experiences on in- dividuals’ self-efficacy, entrepreneurial intentions, creativity, and other related constructs, as well as the effects of an individual’s values and professional role orientation on STEM learning, retention, persis- tence, and ethics. Page 25.219.1 c American Society for Engineering Education, 2012 Assessing the Impact of Faculty
interpersonalcommunication and conflict resolution strategies that encourage peripheral participation acrosssectors and help formulate the T-shaped individual [8,9]. Teams may be self-selected and self-managed, enhancing motivation and instilling a sense ownership over the project, whichultimately contributes to self- efficacy as an outcome [10,11,12].However, professionalization in today’s global market has taken on new meaning in an industrymore focused on dynamic change, innovation and entrepreneurship. The National Academy ofEngineering predicted the joint roles of globalization and technological diversity in shaping theengineer of 2020, themes that are also reflected in the 2018-2019 ABET student outcomes[13,14]. There is greater emphasis placed on creative
betweendisciplines can open up new pathways to creative solutions to emerging problems. Moreover,being a critical part of a larger project promotes interdependence among the players onmultidisciplinary teams, which tends to develop the self efficacy of the individual in terms oftheir own ability to contribute, recognizing the contribution of others, and the ability to “speakthe language” of the other members and even make contributions in their domain.1The emphasis of the project was on the engineering design process within a multidisciplinaryteam, while the technical scope was designed to be a vehicle for this process while introducingtechnical concepts that the students would study in depth later in their programs. The technicalscope was therefore
for success and the value they attach to the available options. Simply put, theEccles’ theory suggests that choices to engage in activities are shaped by competence and valuebeliefs. Competence is about acquiring skills and applying them. Competence beliefs have beenstudied more widely than value beliefs among K-12 and engineering students. They are mostlybased on the self-efficacy theory (Bandura, 1997). Self-efficacy is enhanced by positivefeedback, better performance, and social comparisons. Value beliefs, on the other hand, have notbeen that well studied. Whereas competency beliefs look at a person’s ability to engage in anactivity, value beliefs consider the desire and/or importance of engaging in the activity.The value system refers to
pandemic potentially impacted the results ofthis survey. It is also possible that an established survey on self-efficacy in technical writing forengineering students has already been developed. Using a validated survey could provide morethorough and nuanced results than those obtained in this research.It is also important to note that faculty advising practices may need to be adjusted, to furtherencourage sophomore students to enroll in the ENGR 291 Experimental Design and TechnicalWriting course as sophomores, rather than waiting until they are upperclassmen. While increasinga student’s comfort with technical writing is a desirable outcome, increasing their technicalcommunication skills is the primary objective. Faculty should reinforce the
research provides insight into this issue through partnerships between PSTs andUESs and faculty. In the Paired Peer Mentors project (Fogg-Rogers et al., 2017), pairs of PSTsand engineering students presented engineering design challenges to primary school children.Both groups of college students showed sizable gains in teaching engineering self-efficacy andsubject knowledge confidence after the project. In a study exploring a similar partnership model,PSTs and engineering students collaboratively planned robotics activities for early childhoodstudents using LEGO WeDo robots (Bers & Portsmore, 2005). PSTs used robotics to helpelementary students explore concepts in math and science supported by engineering studentpeers. Although these studies
, the research team is made up of two junior tenure-track faculty membersfrom the departments of architectural (structural) engineering and computer science. The facultyadvisors collaborate to set overarching goals and outcomes of the project, but more or less,independently lead a team of students in their respective fields. The teaching institutionadvocates applied learning opportunities that promote student initiative and self-efficacy. As aresult, students are involved in project development including presenting suggestions fordeliverables and participating in research dissemination.This paper focuses on the educational outcomes of the multidisciplinary research. Specifically, itsummarizes the research roles, learning gains, and unique
Congress. 14. 395.10. Weinberg, J. B., Engel, G. L., Gu, K., Karacal, C. S., Smith, S. R., White, W. W., Yu, X. W. (2001). AMultidisciplinary Model for Using Robotics in Engineering Education. Proceedings of the 2001 ASEE Annual Page 14.428.11Conference & Exposition.11. Ahlgren, D., Verner, I. M. (2008). Building Self-Efficacy in Robotics Education. Proceedings of the 2008 ASEEAnnual Conference & Exposition.12. Ciaraldi, M., Cobb, E., Cyganski, D., Gennert, M., Demetriou, M., Looft, F., Michalson, W., Miller, B., Rong,Y., Schachterle, L., Stafford, K., Trygvasson, G., Van de Ven, J. (2008). The New Engineering BS Program at
fewer opportunities for undergraduate students tocultivate these skills before they are deeply embedded in their profession specific courses.11,12Educating pre-professional students in processes of creativity and innovation is recognized andencouraged to enhance innovation in addressing current health challenges.13 Studiesdocumenting the importance of Interprofessional Education (IPE) for medical and nursingstudents have identified successful outcomes including improved communication skills,increased knowledge of role, and greater self-efficacy.14,15 Moreover, IPE has been shown topositively change students attitude towards working in teams for medical students.16 Theseoutcomes are process-oriented; yet, two separate systematic literature
knowledge and developing a healthyappreciation for outside expertise. The collaboration also benefited the non-engineering studentsby demystifying the field of engineering, potentially alleviating “imposter syndrome” bynormalizing team performance expectations, and providing some literacy of the engineeringdesign process. In the case of early childhood education students, these altered perceptions of theengineering discipline may have impact on their self-efficacy for teaching science andengineering (Maier et al., 2013; Kallery 2004; Watters et al., 2000); as such their teaching inthese two content areas may positively influence the perceptions of engineering by their futurestudents, particularly females and minorities. This study adds to the
module was organizedwith the intent to provide a new set of vocabulary in parallel with new opportunities for praxis.Engineering educators are positioned to nurture professional identity development, and indeed,the process of “identifying with a community of practice” is central to learning itself [9].Godwin [10] identifies several components of engineering identity development: individualinterest and affinity, self-efficacy, performance, recognition. In ENGINEERING 101, eachstudent produced a course portfolio in which the student curated showcase examples of theircourse production and narrated individual reflections on the assignments and methods employedtherein, their learning, and a statement of who they are across identities that hold
surveywas adapted from an energy literacy survey created by Dr. Jan DeWaters that has been used inmultiple contexts, including both K-12 and higher education [17], [18]. Her original survey wasdesigned to gauge energy literacy which encompasses students’ energy-related knowledge,attitudes, and intentions/behaviors [17]. The original survey examined four categories relating tostudents’ understanding of energy: cognitive, affective, self-efficacy, and behavior. The studentsscored lowest on the cognitive questions, but they were aware of many of the issues surroundingenergy and the need for conservation. We selected a total of 43 questions that focused on threeprimary areas: students’ interest in energy topics, students’ pre-existing factual knowledge
undergraduates. Economics Education Review 29: 935-946, 2010.6. Shotton, H.J., Oosahwe, E., Cintron, R. Stories of success: experiences of American Indian Page 26.1640.12 students in a peer-mentoring retention program. Rev higher Educ 31(1): 81-107, 2007.7. Amelink, C.T., Creamer, E.G., Gender differences in elements of the undergraduate experience that influence satisfaction with the engineeirng major and the intent to pursue engineering as a career. Journal Engineering Education 99(1): 81-92, 2010.8. Concannon, J.P., Barrow, L.H. A reanalysis of engineering majors' self-efficacy beliefs. J Science Education
, education courses for PSTs shouldprovide resources and opportunities to increase science and engineering knowledge, andassociated pedagogies to help address the needs of elementary teachers and their students. Hsu et al. [11] found that while elementary school teachers believed that it was importantto incorporate engineering into their curricula, they did not feel confident to teach the concepts.A possible solution is to have PSTs implement engineering lessons in a supported and low-riskcontext. This strategy was found to be a powerful mediator of self-efficacy in a recent study within-service teachers [12]. One means to provide a supportive environment is to partner PSTs withengineering students as they develop lessons. One study found that
: A case for the assertion-evidence approach,” International Journal of Engineering Education, 29(6), 1564-1579, 2013.[11] L. Reave. “Technical communication instruction in engineering schools: A survey of top- ranked US and Canadian programs.” Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 18(4), 452-490, 2004.[12] M. Schuurman, M. Alley, M. Marshall, C. Johnstone, “The effect of a targeted speech communication course on the public speaking self efficacy of engineering undergraduates. In Proceedings from the 2008 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, 2008, June. Retrieved from https://peer.asee.org/3210.[13] C. A. Twigg, C. A. “Redefining Community: Small Colleges in
“Soft” Outcomes," presented at the 2006 Annual Conference & Exposition, Chicago, Illinois Jun 18-21, 2006. [Online]. Available: https://peer.asee.org/1400.[8] T. McClary, J. A. Zeiber, P. Sullivan, and S. Stochaj, "Using Multi-Disciplinary Design Challenges to Enhance Self-Efficacy within a Summer STEM Outreach Program " presented at the 2018 ASEE Gulf-Southwest Section Annual Conference The University of Texas at Austin Apr 4-6, 2018. [Online]. Available: https://peer.asee.org/31537.[9] M. Ellis, "Multi Disciplinary Teaching And Learning In A Senior Project Course," presented at the 2003 ASEE Annual Conference, Nashville, Tennessee Jun 22-25, 2003. [Online]. Available: https://peer.asee.org
. Educational areas of interest are self- efficacy and persistence in engineering and development of an interest in STEM topics in K-12 students.Dr. Chris Geiger, Florida Gulf Coast University Chris Geiger is an Associate Professor and Chair of the Department of Bioengineering in the U.A.Whitaker College of Engineering at Florida Gulf Coast University. He received his M.S and Ph.D.degrees in Biomedical Engineering from Northwestern University in 1999 and 2003, respectively,and his B.S. in Chemical Engineering from Northwestern University in 1996. Page 26.799.1 c American Society for