ways that make their success more likely [4].In engineering, there are different ways in which self-efficacy is measured. Three categories ofself-efficacy measures used are: 1) general academic self-efficacy, 2) domain-general self-efficacy, and 3) self-efficacy measures for specific engineering tasks or skills [5]. Generalacademic self-efficacy scales broadly assess engineering students’ beliefs in their capabilities toperform academically or perception of their competence to do the work [5]. The second, adaptedfrom general academic self-efficacy, domain-general self-efficacy asks students to rate theirgeneral confidence within a particular subject area of engineering [5]. Third, task- or skill-specific self-efficacy asks students to evaluate
students’ self-efficacy and interest in aSTEM field, we analyzed student responses to the following questions/statements (stronglydisagree/disagree/neither agree or disagree/agree/strongly agree): 1. I am able to get a good grade in my science class. 2. I am able to do well in activities that involve technology. 3. I am able to do well in activities that involve engineering. 4. I am able to get a good grade in my mathematics class.These four questions served as an indicator of self-efficacy among the student participants. Eachquestion measures the self-reported self-efficacy in each of the four major fields in the acronymSTEM (each question respectively). We then tabulated the responses to another set of statements: 1. I like
engineers do. Related out-of-school-time experience thatinformed the creation of our program have elements of physical prototyping, but no HCDapproach explicitly stated, include programs at New York University [11], North Carolina StateUniversity [10], and Columbia University [12]. Numerous sources that have also shown thepositive effects on self-efficacy, career awareness, and STEM-identity [13] illustrate theimportance of such programs to a generation of students for which STEM careers are on the rise.Following, in this paper, we will share our program curriculum with a step-by-step guide forstudent-led project ideation and team selection to develop “Tech for Good” along withevaluation findings.3. Curriculum and Student activitiesStudents were
,” Turkish J. Educ., vol. 9, no. 1, pp. 64–105, 2020.14. F. Tauro, C. Youngsu, F. Rahim, et al., “Integrating mechatronics in project-based learning of Malaysian high school students and teachers,” Int. J. Mech. Eng. Educ., vol. 45, no. 4, pp. 297–320, Jun. 2017, doi: 10.1177/0306419017708636.15. A. R. Carberry, H. S. Lee, M. W. Ohland, “Measuring engineering design self‐efficacy,” Journal of Engineering Education, vol. 99, no. 1, pp. 71–79, 2010.16. K. M. Whitcomb, Z. Y. Kalender, T. J. Nokes-Malach, C. D. Schunn, C. Singh, “Comparison of self-efficacy and performance of engineering undergraduate women and men,” International Journal of Engineering Education, vol. 36, no. 6, 1996-2014, 2020.17. M. Helms, S. S. Vattam, A. K. Goel
with their support, participation, and control function across all administrative decisionsregarding personnel, social, and organizational measures at the university. Within the equalityconcept of H-BRS’s EEO, P12-acitivities are offered to female pre-college pupils to give themthe chance to overcome structural, social, and personal barriers.The P12-activities at H-BRS are organized and carried out by staff of the Equal OpportunitiesOffice with the aim of empowering female pupils especially in the fields of engineering andcomputer science and to raise the proportion for female enrollment and retention. Based onBandura's self-efficacy framework [5], the activities are intentionally designed as correctiveexperiences to overcome self-debilitating
numerous psychologicalfactors such as student self-efficacy in academic subjects, sense of belonging to campus andprogram community, social and academic adjustment, and motivation to complete theengineering degree. In this study, we combine mixed methods data to evaluate the impact ofBridge with a sample of 35 engineering students of diverse ethnic backgrounds, in three phases:The first and second phases implement a repeated measures design that assesses student self-efficacy in academic subjects, sense of belonging to campus and program community, and socialand academic adjustment. The first Likert type survey is distributed to students a week before theprogram and the second survey at the program completion. The post-program survey includes
to students and Experiences local community Iteration – opportunity to review, revise, improve lessons based on measurable outcomes Focusing pedagogical shifts/PD within one content area creates relevance but allows for impact across all content areas Affective Success/student engagement begets positive affective state leads to States increased self-efficacy Verbal Support and collaboration from administration persuasion On-going touchpoints, check-ins for continuous learning, reflection, collaborationSummer institutesTeacher participants began the [Anonymous
impact” amongmigratory high school students, we designed and implemented a culturally responsive andgamified engineering design activity. The activity aimed to connect engineering concepts tostudents’ cultural backgrounds and experiences while leveraging game-based learning elements toincrease engagement. We administered pre- and post-surveys to measure changes in students’engineering impact, interest, self-efficacy, and identity (n = 235). We used a multiple linearregression model to examine the relationships. Our results show that migratory students’ engineering interest and self-efficacysignificantly supported the development of their belief that engineering could be a tool for socialimpact. Specifically, as students’ engineering
”). We excluded these because they do not appear to be directly measuring factors thatmight lead to the pursuit of STEM in the future. Another group of papers measured contentlearning that occurred during outreach (such as math skills or geophysics concepts). While thismay influence self-efficacy measures and/or better prepare students should they choose to enterSTEM, it is not directly measuring factors that most authors focus on as proxies for change toeducational and career paths. We have not included tests of content knowledge in thedescriptions of the outreach evaluation.Table 3: Examples of commonly referenced constructs in the papers, and our definitions.Construct DefinitionsAttitude What an individual
for each time point to measure changes overtime. Preliminary quantitative analysis included the use of two-tailed t-tests to compare pre- andpost-survey construct scores. ANOVA was conducted to explore differences among students ofdifferent genders within pre- or post-survey data.ResultsThe t-test results showed that there was a statistically significant increase (p = 0.0002 < 0.01) interms of self-efficacy between pre- and post-survey data, underscoring a marked increase instudents’ self-efficacy in the engineering field after taking the course. Further analysis for eachgender group showed a statistically significant increase in self-efficacy for both male (p = 0.0196< 0.05) and female (p = 0.0067 < 0.01) students, while no change
these questions, the study employs a mixed-methods approach. Pre- and post-eventsurveys measure shifts in students’ STEM interest and self-efficacy, while observational metrics,such as task engagement, peer collaboration, and facilitator interactions, provide qualitativeinsights. Knowledge checks and thematic analysis of feedback from participants, parents, andeducators further enrich the evaluation of the fair’s impact. Preliminary findings highlight howculturally and socially relevant STEM activities can inspire and educate underrepresentedstudents, fostering both technical skill development and sustained interest in engineering fields.By contributing to the broader discourse on diversity and inclusion in STEM education, thispaper underscores
group gender composition on girls’ motivation and engagement. Dr. Robinson is a PI and Co-PI on several NSF sponsored grant projects which focus on teacher professional learning and self-efficacy with implementing culturally relevant engineering education, connecting to place and community, and centering culture and Indigeneity within STEM education. Dr. Robinson has over twenty years of K – 12 teaching experience, including seven years as a teacher leader of professional development in the Next Generation Science Standards, the Common Core State Standards in Mathematics, and in elementary science and engineering pedagogy.Dr. Frank M. Bowman, University of North Dakota Dr. Frank Bowman is Thomas C. Owens Endowed
a more sustainableand equitable approach. As we prepare for the next iteration of the course, including a February run, we haveidentified several opportunities to enhance our research and gather more comprehensive data. Akey area for improvement is the direct assessment of students' self-efficacy beliefs inengineering, which will be addressed through the implementation of pre- and post-coursesurveys. These surveys will measure changes in self-efficacy and provide valuable insights intothe course's effectiveness in building students' confidence in their engineering abilities. Our primary focus will be on introducing and evaluating modifications to the coursestructure and content, accompanied by preliminary observations of their
identities, epistemologies and values. Volume 2 : engineering education and practice in context. Cham, Switzerland ; Heidelberg, Germany : Springer International Publishing, 2015.[29] Y.-h. Liu, S.-j. Lou, and R.-c. Shih, "The investigation of STEM self-efficacy and professional commitment to engineering among female high school students," South African Journal of Education, vol. 34, no. 2, pp. 1-15, 2014.[30] D. Kiran and S. Sungur, "Middle School Students' Science Self-Efficacy and Its Sources: Examination of Gender Difference," Journal of Science Education and Technology, vol. 21, no. 5, pp. 619-630, 2012, doi: 10.1007/s.[31] T. P. Robinson, "THE DEVELOPMENT OF AN INSTRUMENT TO MEASURE THE SELF
interact with undergraduate STEM students.Data were passively collected from students via the online learning management system (LMS)every year of implementation (2021-22, 2022-23, 2023-24). Data included time spent in the LMSand number of role model videos viewed. Additional data collected includes measures of studentalgebra proficiency (i.e., graded rubrics of student work) and pre-post survey instruments(measuring math self-efficacy, STEM interests, STEM outcome expectations, and STEM choicegoals). Interviews with 25 students were collected using a semi-structured protocol to capturereasons for electing to participate, barriers to participation, and reactions to the role model videosand field trips. Finally, external evaluators characterized
and collaborativeefforts have been the backbone of the experience but never overpowered the component ofindividual development and allowed for a balanced and holistic exposure to the field. In thissection, we dive into these topics in further detail and discuss how our program design andparticipant reflections follow the topics of self-efficacy, outcome expectations, and learningexperience discussed in the Socio-Cognitive Career Theory.Creating Inclusive Pathways to Experiential and Emotional Engagement: Echoing the work of [24], [25] the first findings from our work suggests that hands-on,self-exploratory, and gamified activities were particularly memorable and impactful forparticipants. The intentional design of the program offered
interaction, network density, network bridging, and networkreach at the school, district, state, and national/international community level, using 18statements. This instrument uses social network analysis (SNA) with visual network scales(VNS) to visualize and quantify characteristics of the CoP and then relates this to the constructsof self-efficacy and identity [24]. Preliminary results measured before and after the PD areshown below from our initial group of TRAILS 2.0 teachers (COP) Network Survey (n = 7). • Overall CoP Network size increased at the 95% confidence level (p < 0.05). • CoP Network size at the national/international level increased at the 95% confidence level (p < 0.05) • CoP Network sizes at the school
-based assessments, presentations, and reflections. Thesesections were distilled using a combination of classroom experience and research. Eachof these elements is powerful on its own but added together they create opportunitiesfor students to build self-efficacy, belonging, and inclusion. These qualities then lead toclassrooms that can foster students who can find resilience and joy in diversity andcreate equitable spaces. The framework I developed is visualized in Figure 1 below. Iwill describe each of these elements and the research that went into them.Before the Framework: While doing research around actionable science DEIB strategies, I encounteredand studied social-emotional learning (SEL). While the tenants of following theframework
jobs forcomputer engineers [11]. The percentage of students identifying as women enrolled has notchanged over the last 20 years in electrical and computer engineering (ECE) (also ~15% in 2002)while the percentage of women bioengineers has increased (up from 43%) [10].It has been shown that there is no academic reason for the lack of women in STEM fields [12];however, low interest and low self-efficacy are two important factors. Social Cognitive CareerTheory provides a robust theoretical framework to understand the phenomena impacting theparticipation of women [13,14]. Research indicates that some of the reasons that women areinterested in biomedical and related engineering fields include an interest in solving socialproblems, and that they are
understanding of its structure and purpose. Below is a detaileddescription of the rubric that has been recontextualized from its original application inmanufacturing to its broader use in inclusive STEM education. The rubric is structured into threeprimary sections—Head, Heart, and Hands—each representing critical facets of the learningexperience and corresponding to cognitive engagement, emotional engagement, and activeparticipation. Our application of the 3H model[1] is rooted Piaget’s constructivist learningtheories[2], Vygotsky’s Zone of Proximal Development[3], brain-based learning like that ofSmilkstein[4], self-efficacy[5], and cultural responsive teaching[6].Head (Cognitive Engagement): This section of the rubric focuses on self-efficacy
opportunities based on two hands-on activities from the e4usa™ curriculum to engage autistichigh school students in engineering. With the support of VR content being developed, the ECIIA projectaims to increase access to engineering education for autistic individuals and develop their engineeringidentity, engineering self-efficacy, engineering interest, and an understanding of the engineering designprocess. Another component of ECIIA is the commitment of Community Collaborators, whichemphasizes that everyone has a responsibility and unique ability to enact inclusive change for autisticindividuals in engineering. Community Collaborators will take on the dual role of informing all stages ofthe project based on their expertise and increasingly gain
of teachers identified asfacilitating implementation included pedagogical content knowledge, self-efficacy,resourcefulness, and organizational and time management skills. Teachers reported that studentinterest in the STEM-ID challenges and STEM, more generally, was another facilitating factorwhereas, to varying degrees, disruptive student behavior and students’ lack of foundationalmathematics skills were reported as limiting factors. Teachers also highlighted specifictechnological challenges, such as software licensing issues, as limiting factors. Otherwise, wefound that teachers generally had sufficient resources to implement the curricula includingadequate physical space, technological tools, and supplies. Across teachers and schools
attitudes and long-term changes in educational outcomes. Thesesurveys will assess variables such as self-efficacy, academic performance, and interest in STEMand healthcare careers, aligning with validated measures from prior STEM education research(Bandura, 1997; Zimmerman & Cleary, 2006). Evaluation surveys will be administered periodically to track changes in students' interestin healthcare careers, their academic progress, and other psychosocial variables that couldinfluence their career paths. These surveys will be strategically distributed at the outset,midpoint, and conclusion of the program, and at annual follow-ups to capture longitudinal data.Additionally, we plan to collaborate with schools and educational institutions to
. Developed by Estrada and colleagues [8, 9] and grounded in Kelman’ssocial influence theory, TIMSI explores how social interactions shape motivation,engagement, and persistence, particularly for underrepresented minorities in STEM [13,14]. By focusing on three key processes—self-efficacy (rule-orientation), identification,and internalization of values—TIMSI explains how individuals come to see themselvesas part of a scientific community [8, 15]. This model emphasizes how identity formationand aligning personal values with community norms are essential for fostering long-termengagement in STEM fields. Mentorship and research experiences are pivotal in facilitating the processesoutlined in TIMSI. These interactions encourage individuals to
providedby the agency to develop educational self-efficacy, responsibility, and empathy for others.Inclusive: Educators are aware of and responsive to the ways that students are marginalized by ourcurrent education system. Educators (and all individuals in the building) actively and lovinglyaddress negative bias and integrate affirmations to promote social-emotional growth and well-being for all individuals in the classroom and school.Relevant Students experience “relatedness” with their teachers and a learning relevant to their livesthrough direct connections to their community, their country, and the world.The Engineering CurriculumPI Bayles co-developed the INSPIRES Curriculum (Figure 3)which was designed to specificallytarget three Standards for
IntroductionThere is substantial evidence that most K-12 science and math teachers who aim to incorporateengineering design processes into their courses acquire these skills through extracurricularprofessional development (PD) programs or self-directed learning [1-4]. Research has shownthat PD programs are valuable in increasing teachers' engineering self-efficacy and thelikelihood of implementing engineering processes in the classroom [5-7]. These programs offerflexibility in introducing engineering design to teachers in diverse formats (e.g., in-person versusvirtual) [8], using various theoretical frameworks [9]. They often provide participation incentivessuch as stipends [9, 10]. However, despite the value of these PD programs, teachers areusually
report using the search term “STEM outreach”[2].Despite efforts to recruit more underrepresented students to engineering, overly difficultengineering tasks and courses can serve as a barrier to recruiting students to the engineeringworkforce. Research shows that negative STEM experiences such as “weed out” courses, orcourses that are purposefully difficult, cause low STEM persistence in first-generation collegestudents [3]. A separate study on outreach events geared towards female elementary schoolstudents stated that decreases in STEM self-efficacy occur around young elementary age [4]. Tomitigate negative experiences, there is a need to focus on creating positive STEM experienceswhich can increase student engagement and increase the likelihood
-related higher education programs, and STEM-related career pathways.Research to determine the impact of the program on students' interest, understanding, and self-efficacy towards STEM careers, as well as teachers and undergraduate students’ understandingof promoting change, will also be conducted. The Partnerships in Education and Resilience(PEAR) Common Instrument for students and teachers, and interviews with stakeholders arebeing used to support data gathering and program feedback. These data sources will be used forprogram assessment and future research.Introduction An interdisciplinary team of faculty, staff, and students at Illinois State University (ISU)is collaborating with Chicago Public Schools (CPS) and non-profit Community
participants were asked to fill out self-efficacy surveys 3 separate times; at the beginning of the first professional development (PD)before receiving training or experience on engineering instruction, at the beginning of PD 2 afterimplementing one month of engineering instruction, and at the beginning of PD 4 aftercompleting the unit. The surveys measured their confidence in the UDL framework, theirunderstanding of the 16 engineering Habits of Mind (HOM), their perceptions of the importanceof these HOMs, as well as their confidence in fostering HOMs within their students. The overallmean scores for all participants increased in each area indicating an increase in their overallconfidence with teaching engineering to their students. The HOM in which
likely to pursue STEM majors and careers. Additionally, Alexander, etal. [15] indicate that minority students who participate in STEM outreach programs demonstratehigher levels of academic self-efficacy and are better positioned for future STEM success.Despite significant advancements in renewable energy technologies and growing publicawareness, clean energy education has not fully reached all segments of society [16]. Existingliterature suggests that targeted educational outreach remains critical for addressing these gaps[17-20]. Ikevuje, et al. [5] note that while general STEM outreach has expanded, specializedprograms focusing on clean energy and sustainability are less common, particularly those thatcater to underrepresented student