students compared to their male counterparts. Similar results wereobserved in a four-day engineering summer camp for girls [14], where participants had increasedinterest and understanding of engineering topics after camp completion. On the other hand, amixed-method study [15] on a six-day middle school engineering summer camp showed nostatistically significant change in participants’ intrinsic motivation, interest in engineeringcareers, self-efficacy, and self-determination based on the quantitative data. Nonetheless,qualitative data indicated that camp experience positively impacted participants’ outlook towardengineering and STEM careers and their awareness of STEM career requirements.The Friday Institute of Education S-STEM survey has been used
for supporting teachers to demystify and bring concepts of AIand ML into classrooms [9].Teachers’ confidence is central to the integration of technology in the classroom in general, thehigher a teacher’s self-efficacy with technologies in their class, the more positive their attitude,which leads to a higher level of confidence and technology use[10]. This aligns with Ajzen andFishbein’s Theory of Reasoned Action (TRA), which predicts teachers’ behavioral intentions,which lead to technology decisions, with high accuracy by understanding their attitude towardthe behavior [11]. Evidence also shows that the exploration and use of available technologytools relevant to the teachers’ subject matter during professional development training results
online qualitative and quantitative survey whichwas designed using questions from previously published self-efficacy and teacher experienceinstruments. Participants were also invited to discuss their experiences during a virtualinterview.Results indicate that COVID-19 continued to disrupt STE teaching and learning through the2021 – 2022 academic year and that STEAM Labs, collaborative group work, and investigativeproblem solving skills were missing from STE instruction. Findings reveal that there is renewedinterest in project-based learning, inquiry-based learning, innovative pedagogy, STEAM Labsand engineering as the “keystone” to STEAM education, especially as COVID-19 healthprotocols and restrictions subside. To apply the results of this
]. In turn, the nature of this engagement mayimpact children’s levels of self-efficacy in a task or concept, subsequently influencing theirinterest or perseverance in learning [13].Failure, Frustration and LearningSan Juan and Murai [21] note that frustration and failure are not synonymous. Rather, they arerelated constructs, with failure or perceptions of failure often developing into emotionalresponses such as frustration or dissatisfaction [22]. While both frustration and failure are oftenviewed as negative emotions or responses [23], [24], both can be catalysts for motivation orframed to support more positive cognitive-affective states [25], [26]. Experiences withfrustration while learning can shape an individual’s level of motivation and
underrepresented populations in engineering whohad an interest in STEM fields and would benefit most from hands-on experience and student-ledinquiry. The goal was to increase self-efficacy in vulnerable populations. Teachers identified apossible participant pool of 50 students. 24 students decided to participate, 88% fromunderrepresented populations. In the first week, students met on AMSA’s campus to developteam-work capacity and plan what prosthetic prototype they would like to 3D print to respond toan issue or problem they identified within the field of prosthetics. In the second week, they wentto the university’s campus and 3D printed their design. They also created posters and developedtheir final presentation for friends and family. The
paper evaluates the effectiveness of strategies geared toward encouragingcreativity and innovation in conjunction with the engineering design process during a one-weekcivil engineering summer course. The evaluation methodology used three assessment tools toevaluate creativity and innovation: class surveys, student artifacts, and instructor feedback. First,pre-and post-course surveys were administered to measure the effectiveness of the pedagogy onstudents’ understanding of creativity and innovation in relation to engineering design.Additionally, an analytic scoring rubric was used to assess creativity, innovation, andengineering design process application in student artifacts. Instructor feedback was also analyzedto illustrate the student’s
. Freire studied theconcept of empowerment in school environments and educational settings 50 years ago[19]. Hefound that an educational system can either liberate marginalized students or maintain systems ofoppression that fail to give students a voice and opportunity to control their educational destiny.Intrapersonal student empowerment is predicted by equitable power use, positive teacher-studentrelationships, and a sense of community in the classroom[20]. Empowering students entailsbuilding their self-efficacy, agency in their learning, and resilience in schools[21].Inclusive refers to classrooms or school settings where educators are aware of and responsive tothe ways that students are marginalized by our current education system and
-college STEM students.OverviewUnderrepresented groups in STEM gives a benefit to pre-college STEM education initiativesusing PBL as a tool for at learning and scientific innovation. Mentorship provides opportunityfor accessibility, increase self-efficacy and STEM degree completion of learners. In STEMprofessions, the mentorship practices allow for a transformative STEM interdisciplinary mindsetfor industry careers. For students in the STEM fields, mentoring is essential for matriculation,retention, and graduation. Mentoring in STEM promotes the formation of a STEM identity andoffers knowledge of industry trends, technical expertise, and professional networking. Mentoringprovides STEM students with setting goals and expectations, building
. Emiola-Owolabi, “Understanding the Anchors Associated with Secondary School Students’ Engineering Design Experiences”.[2] T. D. Fantz, T. J. Siller, and M. A. DeMiranda, “Pre-Collegiate Factors Influencing the Self-Efficacy of Engineering Students,” J. Eng. Educ., vol. 100, no. 3, pp. 604–623, Jul. 2011.[3] M. A. Benitz, this link will open in a new window Link to external site, and Y. Li-Ling, “Bridging Education and Engineering Students through a Wind Energy-Focused Community Engagement Project,” Sustainability, vol. 13, no. 16, p. 9334, 2021, doi: 10.3390/su13169334.[4] N. Léger, S. S. Klein-Gardner, and B. T. Berhane, “Board 178: Teacher Perspectives of Outcomes and Challenges Resulting from Students’ Interactions with
thatschool teachers and leaders both found ways to implement integrated STEM within their schoolsystems as a result of participation in the professional development offered on STEM integration.Additionally, the authors found that participants increased their self-efficacy for STEMintegration, but the emphasis of the work from Havice et al. (2019) was on classroomimplementation and teacher experiences. Therefore, while administrators were included in theprofessional development and the study data for some measures, they were excluded formeasures of classroom implementation and there was a lack of measures directly related toadministrator outcomes specifically, suggesting a need to explore administrator experiencesfurther as they seek to bring STEM
. 4. Hylton, P.e.a. Science Bound: A Success Story for STEM Education. 2012 Frontiers in Education Conf. Proc. 2012, Seattle, WA. 5. Enriquez A.G., Pong, W.O., N.M., Mahmoodi, H., Jiang, H., Chen, C., Shahnasser, H, Patrick, N., Developing a Summer Engineering Program for Improving the Preparation and Self-Efficacy of Underrepresented Students. 21st ASEE Annual Conf. & Expo. 2014, Indianapolis, IN. 6. Vaidyanathan R., Umashankar, R., Summer Engineering Academy (SEA), a STEM initiative to recruit high-school students into engineering and science disciplines. World Engineering Education Flash Week. 2011, Lisbon Portugal. 7. Cohodes, Sarah R., Helen Ho, and Silvia C. Robles, STEM Summer Programs for
development, and student learning in integrated STEM environments. Dr. Alemdar is currently PI and co-PI on various NSF funded projects. Her expertise includes program evaluation, social network analysis and quantitative methods such as Hierarchical Linear Modeling, and Structure Equation Model- ing. She received her Ph.D. in Educational Policy, with a concentration in Research, Measurement, and Statistics, from Georgia State University.Dr. Michael Helms, Georgia Institute of Technology Dr. Michael Helms is a Research Scientist at the Georgia Institute of Technology. He received his Ph.D. in Computer Science from the Georgia Institute of Technology, where his research focused on improving design creativity.Dyanne Baptiste
partnerships. In C. C. Johnson, M. J. Mohr-Schroeder, T. J. Moore, and L. D. English, Handbook of Research on STEM Education. Routledge, 2020.(pp. 152- 165). New York, NY: Routledge. [2] L. Fogg-Rogers and T. Moss, “Validating a scale to measure engineers’ perceived self-efficacy for engineering education outreach,” PLOS ONE, vol. 14, no. 10, p. e0223728, Oct. 2019, doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0223728. [3] International Technology and Engineering Educators Association (ITEEA), “Standards for technological and engineering literacy: The role of technology and engineering in STEM education,” 2020. [Online]. Available: http://www.iteea.org/STEL [4] E. Council, “Optimizing stem industry-school partnerships: inspiring
of veteran mathematics teachers but is more common in current teacher educationprograms [3]. The in-service teachers’ beliefs about the purpose and role of instruction impactthe ways in which they may adopt curricular content and technological tools in their classroom.Thurm and Barzel [4] explored the complex relationship between mathematics teachers’ beliefsand technology use. One of their findings highlighted teacher self-efficacy in implementingtechnology when more integrated, constructivist methods were present. Not unsurprisingly,technology in the classroom tends to be more difficult for teachers with more of “a proceduralfocus than an explorative one” (pp. 57) [4]. Mathematics instructional material traditionallyincludes one right
spaces and virtual reality to provide connection in cases such as palliative care [7, 8].However, current virtual technology largely focuses on visual and auditory stimulation withlimited capabilities regarding tactile engagement. We investigated the remote control of roboticprosthetics to engage students remotely. In comparison to traditional robots, soft robotic deviceshave advantages for human interaction including use of low-modulus, biocompatible materials[9] and biologically inspired designs [10]. Soft robot projects were recently shown to increasetinkering self-efficacy for female students in educational settings [11]. Additionally, hands-onactivities for young students can be used to teach bioinspired design [12], and broaden
perceptions of team teaching remain acrossdifferent disciplines and are held by students from diverse backgrounds [8].The literature unequivocally supports the benefits of team teaching. Recent studies [2], [9] havefound that team teaching enhances student knowledge and satisfaction and attributed this successto the diverse instructional perspectives and the heightened level of support. Team teaching isalso effective at boosting student self-efficacy and team skills [10]. Furthermore, team teachingfacilitates instructors' professional development. Many authors [1], [6], [11] report thatinstructors who team teach are more likely to adopt evidence-based strategies, critically self-reflect on their courses, and learn innovative teaching techniques. In
, teachers reinforceautonomy, contribute to increased intrinsic motivation in their students, and positively affectstudent engagement and feelings of competence [17] [18]. Students with self-efficacy who knowthey have successfully solved problems in the past believe in themselves and are more likely tosucceed in future problem-solving opportunities [19]. The integrated STEM curricula developedfor middle school students for the current study aim to support student autonomy andcompetence needs by giving students structured opportunities to make choices and reflect upontheir decisions in an engineering design project [5]. By helping students feel independent andcompetent, we support students' intrinsic motivation. The curriculumdesigners' motivation
Paper ID #43282Students’ Use of The Engineering Design Process to Learn Science (Fundamental)Mr. Diallo Wallace, Purdue University Diallo Wallace is currently pursuing a Ph.D. in Engineering Education at Purdue University focusing on the benefits of integration of physics first and engineering curriculums for student self-efficacy in engineering. Diallo holds a Bachelor of Science in Electronics Engineering and a Bachelor of Arts in Mathematics from the University of Illinois. At the graduate level, he has attained a Master of Science in Astronautical Engineering from the Naval Postgraduate School and a Master of Project
-Year Interest in Engineering via a Makerspace-Based Introduction to Engineering Course,” ASEE 127th Annual Conference & Exposition, Virtual, June 21-25, 2020.[20] Hawkins, NA, Robinson BS, & Lewis JE. “Employment of Active Learning Pedagogy Throughout a Makerspace-Based, First-Year Introduction to Engineering Course,” ASEE 127th Annual Conference & Exposition, Virtual, June 21-25, 2020.[21] Lewis JE, Robinson BS, & Hawkins, NA. “First-Year Engineering Student Perceptions in Programming Self-Efficacy and the Effectiveness of Associated Pedagogy Delivered via an Introductory, Two-Course Sequence in Engineering,” ASEE 127th Annual Conference & Exposition, Virtual, June 21-25, 2020.[22] Robinson, B
students ending their studies in 2012 were higher than in previous years [2].The study also highlighted an increase in four-year graduation rates from 29 percent in 2006 to33 percent in 2011. However, the graduation rate dropped to 22 percent in 2015, and surveyresponses from colleges were inconsistent, making it difficult to determine the exact rate in thatyear.Numerous studies have researched the factors influencing retention rates in engineeringprograms. In a 2013 Geisinger and Raman analyzed fifty studies on attrition rates in engineeringeducation at the postsecondary level and found broad factors driving students to leaveengineering including “classroom and academic climate, grades and conceptual understanding,self-efficacy and self
andEngineers in Rural School", or PEERS. PEERS is a four-years-study-project. They started toidentify the student conception of engineering and then support different activities involvingseveral social and economic factors like community belief and local industry activity [43], [45].The papers of this review focused on the following specific fields: Engineering activities,careers, components, support, work, practice, design, process, workforce, manufacturingfacilities, industry-community, career pathways, and local engineering plant. There were fewresearchers in the studies of engineering education that took a sociocultural perspective prior torecent years [34]. Grohs’ research [44] used the words: students' self-efficacy in engineering,hands-on
(ranging from 1-strongly disagree to agree 5-strongly). Students were asked torespond to items covering their intent to persist in engineering, the value of biologically inspireddesign, general engineering self-efficacy, and environmental values. The researchers developedthe items based on the expectancy-value theory (EVT) because EVT postulates that students’motivation in learning relies on their beliefs in academic success and the values they perceiverelative to the task they are learning [32]. The items showed good reliability based onCronbach’s alpha (> 0.75). For this study, we only examined students’ perceived value ofbiologically inspired design (pre-post) to determine if students’ views about the use of biology inthe context of
measurements" to the little character, person, or community doggy as she's making his house that informs the design during the Doggies activity. challenge, process, or solution. (F13R3, min 16-17) The characters or persons can be real or imaginary, but they must be a “user” of the design and not just a reflection of personal preference.Secondary Analysis of Qualitative DataFollowing the extensive retrospective analysis of Round 3 data completed by the full REACH-ECE research team, a secondary analysis of the Round 1 and Round 2 video data was conducted.The first two authors of the present paper led a
. Walker, “Impacts of a summer bridge program in engineering on student retention and graduation,” J. STEM Educ., vol. 19, no. 2, pp. 26– 32, 2018.[36] J. M. Barth, S. T. Dunlap, A. C. Bolland, D. M. McCallum, and V. L. Acoff, “Variability in STEM summer bridge programs: Associations with belonging and STEM self- efficacy,” Front. Educ., vol. 6, no. June, pp. 1–12, Jun. 2021, doi: 10.3389/feduc.2021.667589.