’ increased proficiency. Moreover, 90% of the students developed models either fromscratch or by ensembling multiple models. This involves significant coding in Python (Figure 2A).Increase in student self-efficacy. We report the change in student self-efficacy measured usingthree related variables: (1) student confidence on speaking up about a technical area like AI, (2)student self-assurance and positive outlook for success in an AI career, and (3) outlook towards thefield of AI. First, we observe an increase in the students’ ability to understand and communicateAI research. As shown in the post-survey results (see Figure 5A), students’ showed a significantincrease in confidence in speaking up about topics in AI. The students’ ability to handle
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
allparticipantsInstrument To assess the impact of the course on teachers’ engineering self-efficacy, data wascollected using the Teaching Engineering Self-Efficacy Scale (TESS) [15], [16]. TESS is avalidated instrument consisting of 23 items with five subscales: Engineering PedagogicalContent Knowledge Self-efficacy (KS), Engineering Engagement Self-efficacy (ES),Engineering Disciplinary Self-efficacy (DS), and Engineering Outcome Expectancy (OE) [16].The TESS demonstrates high internal consistency reliability, with Cronbach's α ranging from0.89 to 0.96 across the four factors [16]. These high-reliability coefficients indicate that theTESS consistently measures teachers' engineering self-efficacy with precision and accuracy. Byutilizing the TESS in this
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
”). 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
[1]. FET is a framework designed to evaluate ToLthrough the factors that impede or facilitate the transfer. In contrast with other methods that focuson determining the factors (see, for example, [9], [16], [17]), the FET model aims to assess them[1]. Furthermore, the FET’s framework encompasses evaluating multiple dimensions influencingthe ToL. Specifically, the FET model's categories include transfer dimensions, achieved learning,and intent to transfer. The transfer dimensions are: 1. Trainee, which includes factors related to the participants’ reactions to a training program, such as motivation of transfer, self-efficacy, and locus of control; 2. Training, that evaluates the training itself and its design, and includes factors
about post-high school plans. The pre-and post-surveys asked participants about their career interests or anticipated majors.Parts of the Knowledge, Awareness, and Motivations (KAM) survey tool were modified toevaluate awareness, exposure, career interest, and motivations. The KAM survey is a modifiedversion of the Motivation and Exposure in Microelectronics Instrument [6], an instrumentderived from the Nanotechnology Awareness Instrument [7]. The instrument was initiallydeveloped to assess changes in awareness, exposure, motivation, and knowledge ofnanotechnology [7]. To measure students’ self-efficacy and career outcome expectations, weadministered a modified Social Cognitive Career Theory Survey (SCCT) [8]. TheMicroelectronics SCCT Survey
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
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
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
young BLV children. The library ran its programin fall 2022 and 2023 (for 14 and 19 students, respectively) as a semester-long (50-hour)experience held after-school and on weekends. The library developed project ideas incollaboration with a nearby school for the blind.MethodsSite leads collaborated with the research team to collect pre/post surveys and audio reflectionsfrom interns and feedback from site leaders and clients. Interns participated in a focus group atthe end of their internship experience. To date, the survey has adapted measures from validatedinstruments including the Fit of Personal Interests and Perceptions of Engineering Survey (F-PIPES) [12], Engineering Design Self-Efficacy Instrument [13], Short Instrument for
report, we hope to include various measures of success forthis project that will aid in better understanding how short summer camps can be leveraged toincrease student knowledge of STEM integration and student interest in future STEM careers.The project team will conduct both a process and outcome evaluation. We will evaluateattendance at the camp and the community educator training as a measure of process evaluationto measure dose delivered and received. We will also measure fidelity of implementation of thecurriculum. For the outcome evaluation, we will measure community educator geospatialtechnological content knowledge and self-efficacy. We also aim to incorporate communityeducator definitions of success in their own camps as an evaluative
engineering incorporates hands-on projects, known as experiential learning, which have beenshown to increase interest in pursuing sciences, improve self-efficacy and technical skills, and result inhigher retention rates in engineering [26, 29, 30].In New Mexico, every high school student interested in participating in the Dual Credit (D.C.) Programcan enroll in college courses. This program provides access to academic, career, and technical education(CTE) courses that offer simultaneous credit toward high school graduation and a postsecondary degreeor certificate.NTU and GMCS seized the opportunity to launch a Dual-Credit engineering program. Research [31, 32,33] has shown that in courses where high school teachers teach college courses in high
participation of high school autistic students, whohave historically been excluded from or under-served in both engineering education (i.e., secondary,higher education) and industry. ECIIA addresses the following research questions: (1) Is virtual reality(VR) effective in increasing access to engineering education for individuals with autism?; (2) Doesparticipation in the VR environment and accompanying support result in the development of engineeringidentity, engineering self-efficacy, engineering interest, and an understanding of the engineering designprocess?; (3) Does supporting individuals with autism in the VR environment as Community Collaboratorsresult in increased understanding, and presumed competence and advocacy for individuals with autism
engineering teaching self-efficacy and outcome expectancy: exploring the impacts of efficacy source experiences through varying course modalities. International Journal of STEM Education, 11(1), 4.Lachapelle, C. P., & Cunningham, C. M. (2017, June). Elementary engineering student interests and attitudes: A comparison across treatments. In 2017 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition.Li, Y., Wang, K., Xiao, Y., & Froyd, J. E. (2020). Research and trends in STEM education: a systematic review of journal publications. International Journal of STEM Education, 7(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-020-00207-6Margot, K. C., & Kettler, T. (2019). Teachers’ perception of STEM integration and education
significant improvements in students’ interest,self-efficacy, stereotypes, and utility perceptions of engineering after participating in anengineering workshop [10]. Similarly, design experiences in secondary school education havebeen shown to develop students’ practical and professional skills. The activities influenced theirself-efficacy beliefs and shaped their future career interests [6].One of the key outcomes of pre-college engineering education is the positive impact onpromoting equity. For example, a one-day workshop for high school girls improved attitudestoward STEM fields, boosted their confidence in engineering, and enhanced their knowledge ofcareer opportunities [11]. Likewise, a one-year Engineering Projects in Community Serviceprogram
(Award#1238089) project designed to develop, implement, andtest a set of three, 18-week engineering curricula for grades 6 – 8. This curriculum uses appliedengineering problems, Problem-Based Learning (PBL), and an engaging, single, semester-longcontext for each grade level. The curriculum creates an experience designed to promote studentengagement in engineering work, self-efficacy for engineering skills, persistence in engineering,and enhanced academic performance in not only engineering but also science and math. Thisapproach is grounded in the literature [5, 9, 10, 11, 12] as well as relevant teaching experiencesamong the curriculum designers. PBL, a cognitive-apprenticeship model with collaborative problem solving at its core
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
. 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
. 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
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
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
(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
. 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.