Displaying all 10 results
- Conference Session
- Women in Engineering Division Technical Session 3
- Collection
- 2020 ASEE Virtual Annual Conference Content Access
- Authors
- Amrita Dhakal Ghimire, Mississippi State University; Litany H Lineberry, Mississippi State University; Sarah B. Lee, Mississippi State University
- Tagged Topics
- Diversity
- Tagged Divisions
- Women in Engineering
programmingincreased from 5.5% to 7.0 % in spring 2019, and that measure decreased from 7.1% to 3.6% infall 2019. Males who indicated they are good in computer programming in comparison to theirpeers increased from 16.7% to 29.6% in spring 2019. Similar patterns can be seen in fall 2019 pre-to post- results where self-efficacy grew from 29.8% to 42.9% for male students, but remained flatfor females.Figure 3. Perceptions of Male vs Female between pre-post survey in Spring 2019 and fall 2019 (Column labels are in percentage).With the post-survey results across semesters presented in Figure 4, gaps between positiveperceptions of programming ability among males versus females is evident. The perception ofmale students reporting to be better at computer
- Conference Session
- Women in Engineering Division Technical Session 3
- Collection
- 2020 ASEE Virtual Annual Conference Content Access
- Authors
- Shaundra Bryant Daily, Duke University; Jessica Sperling, Duke University; Megan Gray, Duke University; Medha Gupta, Thomas Jefferson High School for Science and Technology; Amy Arnold, Duke University; Kelly Perri, Duke University
- Tagged Topics
- Diversity
- Tagged Divisions
- Women in Engineering
internships (this occurred between July and August 2018). All surveys wereadministered electronically through Qualtrics, and participants completed the surveys on theirown time. In total, 52 Scholars completed the pre-survey, 49 completed the post-survey, and 44completed both (68% response rate both pre and post assessments, based on n=64 summerprogram completers).Outcome measures were based upon the program theory of change and included multi-itemscales for general self-efficacy/perseverance; computer science/engineering self-efficacy in anapplied setting; teamwork, leadership, and communication skills (in both academic and appliedsettings); and mentoring and peer relationships. In addition, the post-program questions alsoaddressed confidence and
- Conference Session
- Women in Engineering Division Technical Session 10
- Collection
- 2020 ASEE Virtual Annual Conference Content Access
- Authors
- Katherine L Walters, University of Georgia ; John M Mativo, University of Georgia; Uduak Zenas George, San Diego State University
- Tagged Topics
- Diversity
- Tagged Divisions
- Women in Engineering
efficacy in mathematics higher than women [17]. Itis also important to look at SES as a factor as higher SES students tend to have higher gradeswhich may lead to higher reports of self-efficacy across disciplines. By identifying the influences and interests of the undergraduate women enrolled inengineering majors, the ultimate goal of this study was to identify possible avenues to invest oureffort towards enhancing the recruitment and retention of female engineering students. The studywas guided by the following research questions. 1. What do women identify as influences for enrolling in an engineering major? 2. What role does their educational and family backgrounds play in their success, as measured by GPA? To answer the research
- Conference Session
- Women in Engineering Division Technical Session 7
- Collection
- 2020 ASEE Virtual Annual Conference Content Access
- Authors
- Denise Wilson, University of Washington
- Tagged Topics
- Diversity
- Tagged Divisions
- Women in Engineering
study. All participation was voluntary, and students were informed that theirsurvey responses would remain confidential. In several courses, students were incentivized witha nominal amount of extra credit for the course in which they were recruited. All studentscompleted an electronic survey online and outside of class. Surveys were collected withidentifying information so that duplicates could be removed before aggregating data for analysis.All results were cross-sectional. Students reported their perceptions of various items related toengagement, belonging, effort, peer harassment, task value, self-efficacy, TA and facultyinteractions, and measures of course achievement as well as responding to demographic items.Data AnalysisThe data were
- Conference Session
- Women in Engineering Division Technical Session 6
- Collection
- 2020 ASEE Virtual Annual Conference Content Access
- Authors
- Courtney Green P.E.
- Tagged Topics
- Diversity
- Tagged Divisions
- Women in Engineering
school. In fact, Cass, Hazari, Sadler, andSonnert [10] found that only 280 out of 6,860 engineering students were interested in pursuing anengineering career at the beginning of high school. As the nation’s need for highly qualified engineering professionals grows, policymakersand educators have focused their efforts in increasing recruitment and retention of womenpursuing post-secondary engineering degrees and engineering careers. While self-efficacy hasbeen found to be a significant factor in predicting academic success of women pursuing non-traditional career paths, such as engineering [11] the exact nature of how engineering curriculumand engineering contexts impacts self-efficacy for women remains unclear [9]. Exploring thefactors
- Conference Session
- Women in Engineering Division Technical Session 5
- Collection
- 2020 ASEE Virtual Annual Conference Content Access
- Authors
- Anu Osta, Rowan University; Jennifer Kadlowec, Baldwin Wallace University; Alissa Papernik; Amanda Ferreira Dias-Liebold, Rowan University
- Tagged Topics
- Diversity
- Tagged Divisions
- Women in Engineering
c Society for Engineering Education, 2020 Studying the Factors affecting Women Recruitment and Retention in Engineering Alissa Papernik, Amanda Dias-Liebold, Anu Osta, Jennifer Kadlowec Rowan University, Glassboro, NJAbstractWomen in engineering face different challenges than men in engineering programs due toengineering being a male dominated field. This impacts their recruitment, retention, and futurecareer paths. Women often face issues such as lowered sense of self-efficacy, poorer groupexperiences, and less stable support networks. The goal of this multi-semester study was to findthe factors that help recruit and retain women engineering
- Conference Session
- Women in Engineering Division Technical Session 4
- Collection
- 2020 ASEE Virtual Annual Conference Content Access
- Authors
- Mary Kay Camarillo P.E., University of the Pacific; Eileen Kogl Camfield, University of California at Merced
- Tagged Topics
- Diversity
- Tagged Divisions
- Women in Engineering
industry working on water and wastewater treatment infrastructure projects.Dr. Eileen Kogl Camfield, University of California at Merced Since 1997, Eileen has been a college instructor, curriculum designer, and faculty pedagogy coordinator. She spent five years as Director of a University Writing Program, which included leading faculty learn- ing communities for Writing in the Disciplines. She subsequently served as the Executive Director of Student Academic Success Services. Eileen’s deep commitment to advancing equity, diversity and inclu- sion connects with her research interests pertaining to student success, writing self-efficacy development, resilience theory, and authentic assessment. At UC Merced, she has a dual
- Conference Session
- Women in Engineering Division Technical Session 8
- Collection
- 2020 ASEE Virtual Annual Conference Content Access
- Authors
- Astrid K Northrup P.E., Northwest College, Powell WY; Andrea Carneal Burrows Borowczak, University of Wyoming
- Tagged Topics
- Diversity
- Tagged Divisions
- Women in Engineering
aspirations. Many of these factors can betraced to family origin and early childhood, not just to experiences in school. To this end, theliterature review in this paper explores gender-related factors relevant to females’ college majorchoices, including family influences, self-image and self-efficacy, perception of gender roles,students’ value systems, and outcome expectancies for attaining a college degree. Although several of these factors have been widely studied, and family of originconfiguration in relationship to college major has been studied in other countries (specificallyItaly), there is a gap in the literature for this relationship as concerns US students
- Conference Session
- Women in Engineering Division Technical Session 5
- Collection
- 2020 ASEE Virtual Annual Conference Content Access
- Authors
- Andrea Nana Ofori-Boadu, North Carolina A&T State University; Victor Ofori-Boadu, Penuel Consult Inc.; Jacob Randall Vanderpool, North Carolina Agricultural and Technical State University; Dongyang Deng, North Carolina Agricultural and Technical State University
- Tagged Topics
- Diversity
- Tagged Divisions
- Women in Engineering
, “ProfessionalIdentity Formation and Development in HBCU Construction,” Proceedings of the 2019American Society for Engineering Education (ASEE) conference, Tampa, Florida, USA, June 16– 19, 2019, 2019, pp. 1-16.A. N. Ofori-Boadu, D. Deng, C. Stevens, K. Gore, and I. Borders-Taylor, “Learning Experiencesand Self-efficacy of Minority Middle-School Girls during a ‘Bio-char Modified Cement Paste’Research Program at an HBCU,” Proceedings of the 2019 American Society for EngineeringEducation (ASEE) conference, Tampa, Florida, USA, June 16 – 19, 2019, 2019, pp. 1-16.A. N. Ofori-Boadu, R. B. Pyle, I. Borders-Taylor, C. Bock-Hyeng, and T. Graham, “AdvancingHBCU Students’ Interests in Residential Construction Careers through an NAHB program: AnIndustry-University
- Conference Session
- Women in Engineering Division Technical Session 2
- Collection
- 2020 ASEE Virtual Annual Conference Content Access
- Authors
- Robyn Paul, University of Calgary; Laleh Behjat P.Eng., University of Calgary; Bob Brennan P.Eng., University of Calgary
- Tagged Topics
- Diversity
- Tagged Divisions
- Women in Engineering
., & Leifer, L. J. A1 (2005). Engineering design thinking, teaching, and 1613 learning. Journal of engineering education, 94(1), 103-120. Atman, C. J., Adams, R. S., Cardella, M. E., Turns, J., Mosborg, S., & Saleem, J. (2007). Engineering design processes: A comparison A2 433 of students and expert practitioners. Journal of engineering education, 96(4), 359-379. Carberry, A. R., Lee, H. S., & Ohland, M. W. (2010). Measuring A3 engineering design self‐efficacy. Journal of Engineering 192 Education, 99(1), 71-79