the assessment of student learning, particularly the assessment of academic growth, and evaluating the impact of curricular change.Dr. Paul R. Hernandez, West Virginia University c American Society for Engineering Education, 2016 Measuring Student Content Knowledge, iSTEM, Self Efficacy, and Engagement Through a Long Term Engineering Design InterventionAbstractThe current study reports on the outcomes of a classroom-based long-term engineering designintervention intended to increase high school students’ perceptions of the integrated nature ofSTEM disciplines (iSTEM) and to assess the effect of the intervention on student participation inan extracurricular STEM activity (i.e., a research poster
to lower numbersof females in certain STEM majors and subsequent STEM careers. Gender differences in self-efficacy have been demonstrated in relation to math and engineering disciplines amongundergraduate students.10,11 We investigated the effects of a mentored summer researchexperience on high school students’ self-efficacy as it applied to STEM research-related tasks.The program participants are approximately 50% male and 50% female. Participants were askedto answer a 32-item anonymous, online survey, which is designed to measure STEM researchself-efficacy, both prior to entering and immediately upon completion of the program.2. Brief Description of Summer ProgramBased at New York University Tandon School of Engineering (NYU Tandon), a
engineering clubs and marketing campaigns with smiling female faces of all races haveemerged, and seem to help underrepresented students believe they can succeed and will “fit in”to the engineering culture. Recent reports and research measuring female student engineeringself-efficacy assert the positive impact of these types of treatments (American Association ofUniversity Women Educational Foundation, 2002; Burger, Raelin, Reisberg, Bailey & Whitman,2010; Corbett, Hill & Rose, 2008; Corbett, Hill & Rose, 2010; Fantz & Miranda, 2010; Marra,Rodgers, Shen & Bogue, 2009; Society of Women Engineers report, 2015).Self-efficacy beliefs are the thoughts or ideas people hold about their abilities to perform thosetasks necessary to achieve
-Lopez, Changes in Latino/a Adolescents’ Engineering Self-efficacy and Perceptions of Engineering After Addressing Authentic Engineering Design Challenges, in Proceedings of American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference. 2015, ASEE: Seattle, WA. p. 1-14.18. Mejia, J.A., et al., Funds of Knowledge in Hispanic Students’ Communities and Households that Enhance Engineering Design Thinking, in Proceedings of American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference. 2014, ASEE: Indianapolis, IN. p. 1-20.19. Olitsky, S., Structure, agency, and the development of students’ identities as learners. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 2006. 1(4): p. 745-766.20. Kennedy, M., The Ownership
measured the degree to which teachers’ lesson implementations showed evidence of theengineering design practices encouraged by the project, and students’ scores on the contentknowledge post-tests for each design task. The results are shown in Table 11 (for grade 5 tasks)and Table 12 (for grade 6 tasks).The results indicate that there were small to moderate positive correlations between teachers’implementation rubric scores and students’ knowledge post-test scores in both grades 5 and 6.These correlations ranged from a low of r = 0.14254 (for the relationship of teachers’ WaterFilter implementation scores and students’ Water Filter post-test scores) to a high of r = 0.45466(for the relationship of teachers’ Solar Tracker implementation scores and
STEM careers butthe question remained how much was attributable to the EPICS experience itself. An instrument9based in Social Career Cognitive Theory10 was developed to assess change in self-efficacy,outcome expectations, and personal interest in engineering amongst high school students whoparticipated in the EPICS High program. It was comprised of survey questions and open-endedresponses. In addition to the focus on self-efficacy, outcome expectations, and interests, thesurvey addressed perceived attributes of an engineer, student understanding of scientists versusengineers, changes in grades, college and major goals, and contextual supports. More detailsabout the full instrument have been published previously9, and the analysis of the data
Paper ID #16242Observing and Measuring Interest Development Among High School Stu-dents in an Out-of-School Robotics CompetitionJoseph E. Michaelis, University of Wisconsin - Madison Joseph E Michaelis is a Ph.D. student in Educational Psychology in the Learning Sciences area at the University of Wisconsin - Madison. His research involves studying interest in STEM education, focusing on the impact of learning environments, feedback, and influence of social constructs and identities. This research includes developing inclusive learning environments that promote interest in pursuing STEM fields as a career to a broad range
design processsupport application of the information obtained from this study to other students in engineeringdesign classes that include design activities mediated by a design process. Students enrolled incourses were surveyed at the beginning and end of the curriculum.VariablesTwo main variables were of interest in the study: engineering design self-efficacy and creativethinking self-efficacy. Self-efficacy beliefs are domain specific 36 and the questions used toevaluate self-efficacy are of great importance. The first scale used attempts to measure anindividual’s belief in their abilities to do engineering design 4. The work of Carberry et al. (2009,2010) represents initial work in the development of a self-efficacy instrument for
develop self-efficacy beliefs in design, modeland scaffold engineering design mindsets, and apply design concepts in engineering design. Theresearch questions we intend to address include: 1. What is the influence of the toy design workshop on students' self-efficacy? 2. What is the influence of the toy design workshop on students' application of engineering design concepts during design?Theoretical frameworkSelf-efficacy in Engineering DesignEngineering design self-efficacy is the degree to which students believe they can excel at tasksrelated to design and making3. Social cognitive theory and previous research has suggested thatstudents’ self-efficacy beliefs are under the influence of mastery experiences
1.4 Missing 4 .8Instrumentation The 2014 version of the STEM IQ consisted of 71 items. 13 were demographic, 58attitudinal items related to students’ experiences, teamwork, learning experience, hands on activelearning, and career. The study focuses on only attitudinal items with a high reliability Cronbachalpha (α=.83). The items in the questionnaire are based on 100 scale. Further, the attitudinalitems are divided into three components. First component aims to measure STEM-related self-efficacy, like a student’s ability to complete academic milestones and to overcome performancehurdles. Students are asked to indicate their confidence to perform successfully
students.In Texas, students were measured over a six-year period. From 2006 – 2010, enrollmentquadrupled and participants increased 18,686 individuals (4498 in 2006 to 23184 in 2010)9.Female participation increased 586% and Hispanic students increased 507%. This study alsoshowed a high impact on students enrolling in higher education (62.1%) compared to their non-PLTW counterparts (58.4%)9. In addition, post-secondary enrollment was slightly greater forfemales (63.5%) compared to their non-PLTW peers (63.1%).Several studies have examined self-efficacy of females for math and science subjects whenparticipating in PLTW10,11,12. Exposure to engineering through PLTW has shown to havesignificant impact on self-efficacy and underrepresented students10. The
SurveyThe MATES62 was developed and revised66 to measure middle school students’ attitudes towardmathematics, science, especially engineering, and their knowledge about careers in engineering(i.e. what engineers actually do). In addition to all over attitudes toward mathematics, science andengineering, six subscales have been identified to measure Interest in engineering: stereotypicaspects (Stereotypic), Interest in engineering: non-stereotypic aspects (Nonstereotypic), Negativeopinions (Negative), Positive opinions (Positive), Gender Equity (Gender) and Self-Efficacy forProblem Solving and Technical Skills (i.e. skills needed for engineering).The MATES also measures knowledge about careers in engineering with a multi-part open-endedquestion that
. pp. 30-35.[4] G. Pleiss, M. Perry, Y.V. Zastavker. “Student Self-Efficacy in Introductory Project-Based Learning Courses”. IEEE. Proc. Front. Educ. Conf. FIE, 2012.[5] “A Guide to Bloom’s Taxonomy”. Innovative Instructor. Johns Hopkins University. 2015. http://ii.library.jhu.edu/tag/blooms-taxonomy/.[6] A. R. Carberry, H.S. Lee, M.W. Ohland. (2010, Jan.). “Measuring Engineering Design Self-Efficacy”. Journal of Engineering Education. pp. 71-79.
(a survey that measures intrinsic goal orientation, extrinsic goalorientation, task value, control of learning beliefs, and self-efficacy). This study was similar toLawanto and colleagues’ study42 described above, but here the authors did not compare studentmotivations when engaging in two distinct design tasks. Rather, they built a regression model topredict success expectancy. Their results indicated that “students’ intrinsic goal orientation andtask value were significant predictors […] to students’ expectancy for success.”The next article, a 2011 dissertation from Capella University by Martin,41 explored the variablesthat influenced black PLTW students’ self-efficacy using the MSLQ54. Using the casualcomparative method, Martin found that
groups in STEM fields such as black, Hispanic, and femalestudents. A persistent gender gap exists for STEM majors and careers which involve rigorousmath and science such as engineering6. Currently, the national average for women enrolled inundergraduate engineering programs is roughly 18%5 and is 20% at Texas Tech University. The difficulty of recruiting and retaining women in engineering stems from a variety offactors which can be summarized by several themes: low self-efficacy in STEM4,12, differingexpectations for male and female students2, curricula which do not emphasize real-worldproblem solving7, and a lack of institutional commitment to diversity11. Outreach efforts whichaddress some or all of these factors have been effective for
similar summer research programs offered at universitiesaround the country. The framework of the supporting features of Northeastern University’sprogram is what enables participants to succeed in the labs, build self-efficacy in STEM andprepare them for their academic journey into college. The weekly schedule is supported throughmorning homerooms during which a variety of topics and activities are introduced, in addition tolunchtime technical seminars, and field trips to local companies and research facilities. Utilizingformative evaluations, such as weekly reflections to inform program design and implementation,allows staff to make adjustments that might be necessary to ensure a high level of participant andfaculty satisfaction with the program
2013, researchers have evaluated FIRST® roboticsprograms (FLL, FTC, FRC) across the state. As Jr. FLL was not implemented in AZ with asignificant number of teams, researchers did not include Jr. FLL in the assessment measures.The purpose of evaluation was to indicate the 1) overall success and program impact on students,teachers and mentors; 2) the impact of hands-on learning to interest students in STEM subjects;3) the impact of developing workplace skills that can be transferred to the classroom; and 4)impact on career choice.In addition to compiling data to understand increasing students' technical skills and self-efficacy,researchers embedded outcomes that are aligned to the Accreditation Board for Engineering andTechnology (ABET
; Middle School Student Interactions. Students in attendance during the fourth Saturday were asked if they enjoyed interacting and working with the undergraduate student volunteers. In the future, we hope to encourage more robust mentor/mentee relationships by allowingfor more interactions outside of the program. These strategies could include a PenPal program, ora visit day on campus so students can see what a typical day at a university looks like for theirmentors.Future Plans Research shows that providing long-term engagement is crucial in moving youth fromsimply having an interest in science to actually having the skills, knowledge, and self-efficacy topursue careers in science13
, conducteda longitudinal study to determine if a summer camp was effective in increasing the interest andunderstanding of the engineering profession and in developing self-efficacy in engineering forfemale camp participants. Results of this study showed that this camp was successful in meetingthese goals and also served as a successful recruitment tool for the host university.38 Otherresearch suggests that engineering projects that show the humanitarian side or social relevance ofengineering have been effective at attracting and retaining females.52-54Although many universities are engaged in engineering outreach, there are several barriers thatmake it difficult for universities to offer effective outreach to a large number of K-12 students
the interrelationship among individual, environmental, andbehavioral variables that have key impacts on academic and career choice5. Additionally, TPBsuggests that any behavior, like STEM choice and performance, can be explained by a person’sintentions to engage in the behavior. The predictors of a behavior are an evaluation of thebehavior, perceived social pressure to perform the behavior (viz, teamwork) self-efficacy inrelation to the behavior, also known in TPB as behavioral control, and intention to perform thebehavior6. SCCT, self-efficacy, outcome expectations, and goals operate together with personalcharacteristics and environmental contexts to help shape academic and career development7.While it is claimed that SCCT is comprised of
implicitlearning.There has been little to no work done to understand how learners learn in Makerspaces, andto find or develop tools to assess this learning. In the recent ASEE conference Morocz et al.11 presented plans of measuring the impacts of a university makerspace “through engineeringdesign self-efficacy, retention in the engineering major; and idea generation ability".A study by the Maker Ed Open Portfolio Project 12 strengthens the promise of our proposal toemploy self-reflection to assess learning in Makerspaces. This work presents self-reporteddata by Makerspaces all over the United States about their alignment with nationaleducational initiatives. Most sites reported themselves as being aligned with STEM (94%)(Science, technology, engineering, and
year of UUR, a survey instrument was developed which assessed eachstudent’s interest and self-efficacy in STEM 23. The assessment was influenced by related STEMassessments, such as the STEM semantics survey and the STEM Career interest Questionnaire 20.The assessment asked questions regarding students understanding of STEM principles, interest inSTEM topics, careers, and fields of study. According to Wright, in that first year of study,quantitative data received from the surveys did not reveal that the ROV activity had made anystatistically significant impact on student interest in STEM areas. Researchers still believed,however, based on observations, and on teacher, student, and administrative feedback, that theROV program had potential to
the pre- and post-surveys ask “What do you think it means tobe an engineer?” and the difference in answers allow researchers to determine if theirunderstanding of what an engineer is/does has changed after attending the camp.An additional note on the research surveys involves the ranking questions. The researchquestions draw from the NSF project “Assessing Women and Men in Engineering” 10. Theranking questions are identical from the pre- and post-surveys in order to determine if significantchanges in self-efficacy were made. These questions include, “I consider myself to be good atscience” and “I consider myself to be good at math”. However the camp does not focus onteaching any specific aspects of these subjects or explicitly building self
we would focus more on theeducation of project based learning but instead we simply worked on projects using project basedlearning. I would not have taken the course had I known this is what it would be.”Through the course evaluations students expressed the value of the course in stimulating ideas onincorporating engineering in their future teaching. “Before the design challenges I never thoughtthat I could design and build things. Now I have so much more confidence in myself to apply allof these skills and techniques in the classroom.” “… the course taught me multiple ways ofintroducing and teaching the engineering design cycle…” Students also spoke of improved self-efficacy - “I feel as though I learned a lot about what goes into the
: Visualization of Rotations) for secondary and under- graduate students, developed the TESS (Teaching Engineering Self-efficacy Scale) for K-12 teachers, and rescaled the SASI (Student Attitudinal Success Inventory) for engineering students. As a program evaluator, she evaluated the effects of teacher professional development (TPD) programs on elementary teachers’ attitudes toward engineering and students’ STEM knowledge through a NSF DRK-12 project. As an institutional data analyst, she is investigating engineering students’ diverse pathways to their suc- cess.Dr. Johannes Strobel, University of Missouri Dr. Johannes Strobel is Full Professor, School of Information Science & Learning Technologies at Uni- versity of
This need for a stronger STEM workforce is a function of education andawareness at all levels of student education, but it has been documented that choosing STEMmajors is largely decided by an early interest in STEM disciplines.4 As such, one of the nationalgoals set forward by the National Science and Technology Council Committee on STEMEducation is to increase participation in authentic STEM experiences for K-12 students in orderto provide students the opportunity to develop and deepen their interests in STEM as well as tobuild student self-efficacy regarding their ability to participate in STEM.1Summer camps are commonly offered as a mechanism for exposing K-12 students to STEMmajors and careers, often with the direct goal of recruiting
, and crosscutting concepts1. Even ifdeveloped tomorrow, it would still take years for most districts to adopt and implementthis new curriculum in elementary classrooms. Curriculum adoption and revisionrequires many levels of professional development, pilot study implementation, anddistrict/board approval. In the meantime, teachers are left to work with the curriculumthey currently have and attempt to meet the demands of the NGSS. Research has shown that, given their limited preparation for teaching science,elementary teachers rely heavily on their science curriculum materials7, 8. This reliancestems from a combination of factors including (1) teachers’ reported low self-efficacy forteaching science9, (2) their reported lack of deep
,” or “making mistakes” rather than to engineering. It isin this environment that the present study examines how students and teachers respond toengineering design failure and how teachers acclimate to an increased use of and comfort levelwith fail words.Literature Review While engineering is now formally included in P12 education due to the NGSS, teachingengineering remains a complex challenge for teachers at all levels, but particularly those inelementary grades. Elementary teachers often lack both self confidence and self efficacy withregard to teaching engineering.5,6 Teachers’ self confidence in a subject is linked to both howthey perceive it and their knowledge of the subject itself.7,8 Teachers at the elementary levelreceive