. [15]We hypothesize that increased participation in co-curricular activities, especially engineeringstudent organizations, will provide positive experiences that will be a driving force to pursuemore activities and more responsibilities. The more students experience positive outcomes whenperforming responsibilities could lead to increased self-efficacy and increased academic success.[16] The compounding reward system proposes that participation in co-curricular activitiesincreases self-efficacy and academic success in college. Student GPA, time to degree completion,and internships will be used to measure student success. A survey and case study interview willbe used to assess self-efficacy. Figure 1 shows the possible scenarios between self
, is crucial to manifesting interest in a subject or domain [4, 2] and, asresearch shows, contributes significantly to self-efficacy [4]. By capitalizing on methods toincrease students’ sense of belonging and confidence in STEM majors, more students could beattracted to pursue STEM degrees [4]. Recent trends in welcoming makerspaces into educationalenvironments suggests that makerspaces provide a domain in which interest and creativity ispropagated. This work-in-progress study hypothesizes that by implementing a universitymakerspace that welcomes a representative population through non-verbal, physical cues,increased feelings of belonging and self-efficacy can be achieved. However, a tool is needed toevaluate stereotypes and ambient belonging
). Enhancing learning in the life sciences through spatial perception. Innov High Educ 15, 5–16 https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00889733 13) Lord, T., & Nicely, G. (1997). Does spatial aptitude influence science–math subject preferences of children? Journal of Elementary Science Education 9: 67–81. 14) Maier, P.H., Spatial geometry and spatial ability – How to make solid geometry solid? In Elmar Cohors-Fresenborg, K. Reiss, G. Toener, and H.-G. Weigand, editors, Selected Papers from the Annual Conference of Didactics of Mathematics 1996, Osnabrueck (1998), 63–75. 15) Mamaril, N. A., Usher, E. L., Li, C. R., Economy, D. R., & Kennedy, M. S. (2016). Measuring undergraduate students' engineering self‐efficacy: A
% lower than males at LSU. The same confidence issues that ethnicminorities feel might explain this small decrease. The stigma that engineering is a maledominated career field can subconsciously affect female students by reducing their confidenceand self-efficacy, and a correlation clearly exists between self-efficacy and success in STEMfields (11, 12).2.3 The LSES Minority Students of low socioeconomic status (LSES) have to overcome many barriers to gettingan education that other students do not face. These students are often solely responsible forpaying their own way through college, having to work full-time jobs while taking a full load ofdifficult classes. These students often have additional financial burdens that can make the path
. Mccormack, Thompson P. Beyerlein, S., S. Howe, P. Leiffer, and P. Brackin. Assessing team member citizenship in capstone engineering design courses. International Journal of Engineering Education, 26(4):771–783, 2010.[13] R. M. Marra, K. A. Rodgers, D. Shen, and B. Bogue. Women engineering students and self efficacy: A multi-year, multi-institution study of women engineering self-efficacy. Journal of Engineering Education, pages 27–38, Jan. 2009.[14] M. A. Hutchison, D. K. Follman, M. Sumpter, and G. M. Bodner. Factors influencing the self-efficacy beliefs of first-year engineering students. Journal of Engineering Education, pages 39–47, Jan. 2006.[15] G. E. Okudan, D. Horner, B. Bogue, and R. Devon. An investigation of gender
self-efficacy, sense of belonging, identification and identityintegration. Often, negative experiences are the result of subtle bias or schemas that all studentsbring with them into their teams, and occur despite the employment of best practices in teamformation.This paper presents a summary of a contemporary understanding of this phenomenon aspresented by several individual researchers covering the fields of stereotype threat, engineeringdesign, teamwork, motivation, and race, gender and their intersections. The content of this paperwas generated by collecting the individual responses of each researcher to a set of promptsincluding: • examples of how students can be marginalized in engineering teamwork and what governing
• Agreeableness • NeuroticismOpenness refers to introspection, intellectual curiosity, willingness to entertain novel ideas, andimagination. Conscientiousness refers to being purposeful, being strong-willed, determination,accomplishment, self-efficacy, and reliability. Extraversion refers to being social, a preferencefor large groups, being talkative, being active, and assertion. Agreeableness refers to beingaltruistic, being empathetic towards others, a willingness to assist others, and an assumption thatothers will be helpful in turn. Neuroticism refers to a tendency to experience negative affectssuch as embarrassment, guilt, and anxiety. Each of the five traits in the FFM is represented as ascaled dimension such that a person could have any level
search of profound empathy in learning relationships: understanding the mathematics of moral learning environments,” J. Moral Educ., vol. 39, no. 1, pp. 79–99, Mar. 2010, doi: 10.1080/03057240903528717.[13] M. Goroshit and M. Hen, “Does Emotional Self-efficacy Predict Teachers’ Self-efficacy and Empathy?,” J. Educ. Train. Stud., vol. 2, no. 3, Art. no. 3, May 2014, doi: 10.11114/jets.v2i3.359.[14] S. N. S. Hassan, N. M. Ishak, and M. Bokhari, “Impacts of emotional intelligence (EQ) on work values of high school teachers,” Procedia-Soc. Behav. Sci., vol. 30, no. 0, pp. 1688– 1692, 2011.[15] I. Narinasamy and W. H. W. Mamat, “Caring teacher in developing empathy in moral education,” MOJES Malays. Online J. Educ. Sci
students interests towards pursuing a graduate degree.The physical and psychological impacts of student involvement, such as attending social events,giving oral presentations, being part of a group, club, organization, etc., have been studied widelyby scholars [31][32][33][34]. They have shown a major role in students’ self-efficacy andpersistence and positively impact students’ academic autonomy, career, and lifestyle planning[32][35][36][37]. “Academic involvement, involvement with faculty, and peer involvement” arethe three most powerful involvement forms according to the literature [31]. Likewise, learning ina group is an effective practice in promoting greater academic achievement, promising attitudestoward learning, and increasing
material is consistent with their future career (Wigfield, 1994; Wigfield &Eccles, 2000). The interest component is based on how students perceive course topics andinstructional methods, interesting (Hidi & Ann Renninger, 2006; Renninger, Hidi, Krapp, &Renninger, 2014). Further, the success component is formed on expectancy for success(Wigfield, 1994; Wigfield & Eccles, 2000). This component reflects students’ self-efficacy aboutthe coursework (Bandura, 1986). The caring component is based on students believes thatinstructors care about their success and well-being (Noddings, 1992).Motivation can be perceived as a student’s intention and engagement in learning as student’saction (Christenson, Reschly, & Wylie, 2012). In other
in their engineering education and earlycareers 2 . Research has been done on counteracting this perceived lack of belonging. Rosenthal,London, Levy, and Lobel 3 showed that single gender programs created a greater sense ofbelonging and compatibility in women in their STEM majors and their co-educationaluniversities. Miyake et al. 4 looked at how value affirmation had a strong effect on decreasing theachievement gap in college STEM classes. Additionally, a study from Harvard Kennedy Schoolof Women and Public Policy Program found that female students exposed to female faculty hadincreased self-identification with the STEM field and a greater sense of self-efficacy in pursuing acareer in STEM with no negative effects to their male counterparts
STAR Legacy cycle11 which guidesstudents through six phases entitled The Challenge (problem definition), Generate Ideas(brainstorming), Multiple Perspectives (open inquiry), Research and Revise (guided inquiry,lecture, textbook), Test Your Mettle (formative assessment), and Go Public (summativeassessment, presentation).A decision was made to use CBI as the framework for the development and implementation ofthe fourth year curriculum for the outreach program. The decision was based on the previoussuccess of integrating projects into the curriculum in the TexPREP program and studies showingpositive results, especially in self-efficacy and adaptive expertise12, associated with theimplementation of CBI. The development of four courses using CBI
. Her current research interests, publications, and presentations give attention to racial identity, science identity, science self- efficacy, metacognition, and STEM achievement of African American students. As a strong advocate for the participation of African American females in STEM, Dr. White continuously engages in discourse and research that will promote greater access to STEM-related opportunities and recognition of African American females. American c Society for Engineering Education, 2021 Faculty Perceptions of STEM Student and Faculty Experiences During the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Qualitative Study (WIP)Abstract The recent
Graduate Training Program on Teaching Self Efficacy,” Natl. Teach. Educ. J., vol. 4, no. 2, pp. 49–56, 2011.[15] F. Nasser-Abu Alhija and B. Fresko, “Graduate teaching assistants: how well do their students think they do?,” Assess. Eval. High. Educ., vol. 43, no. 6, pp. 943–954, 2018.[16] C. Graham and C. Essex, “Defining and ensuring academic rigor in online and on-campus courses: Instructor perspectives.,” in Annual Proceedings of Selected Research and Development [and] Practice Papers Presented at the National Convention of the Association for Educational Communications and Technology, 2001, pp. 330–337.[17] J. S. Boman, “Graduate student teaching development: Evaluating the effectiveness of training in
. Pers. Assess., vol. 90, no. 3, pp. 261– 269, 2008.[36] R. Day and T. D. Allen, “The relationship between career motivation and self-efficacy with protégé career success,” J. Vocat. Behav., vol. 64, no. 1, pp. 72–91, 2004.[37] J. J. VanAntwerp and D. Wilson, “Difference between engineering men and women: How and why they choose what they do during early career,” in 2015 ASEE Annual Conference and Exposition, 2015.[38] N. A. Fouad, R. Singh, K. Cappaert, W. Chang, and M. Wan, “Comparison of women engineers who persist in or depart from engineering,” J. Vocat. Behav., vol. 92, pp. 79–93, 2016.[39] M. Brouwer, “Q is accounting for tastes,” J. Advert. Res., vol. 39, no. 2, pp. 35–39, 1999.[40] G. W. K