the interviews over a three-day period in private conference rooms at the high schoolduring the participants’ regularly scheduled science or engineering courses. The teacher, amember of the research team, was aware of which students participated in the interviews,however, to protect participant confidentiality, we did not share any interview data with theteacher until after the semester had ended. Our interview protocol was developed with questionsto collect data about 1) students’ beliefs about the nature of intelligence (i.e., fixed versus growthmindset), 2) science self-efficacy, 3) career aspirations, 4) views on the gender gap in STEM,and 5) students’ beliefs about smartness. In this paper, we focus on the data collected from theportion
]. In addition, it has been shown that an Online PBL environment supports self-efficacy, a key elementfor students’ success in the online environment [12].According to (Kow, 2019) [7], the online PBL model is not different from the traditional classroommodel, only the environment changes. The PBL model employed for this course follows that by Peffers etal, 2007 [14] as shown in Figure 3. Figure 3: Project-Based Lesson Structure Model [14]3.0 Method 3The Project AssignmentThe team of three mechanical engineering students were given the project description below. The methodto be employed in executing the project included site visits, customer interviews, engineering
interplay of self-efficacy, learning goal orientation, and transformational leadership. Teaching and teacher education, 26(5), 1154-1161.Schӧn, D. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. New York: Basic Books, Inc.Schӧn, D. A. (1987), Educating the Reflective Practioner: Toward a new design for teaching and learning in the profession. San Francisco: Jossey-BassTom, A. R. (1985). Inquiring into inquiry-oriented teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education, 36(5), 35-44.Valli, L. (1990). Moral approaches to reflective practice. Encouraging reflective practice in education: An analysis of issues and programs, 39-56. Teachers College PressValli, L. (1997). Listening to other voices: A
., & Tarule, J. (1986). Women’s Ways of Knowing: The Development of Self, Voice, and Mind. New York: Basic Books.11. Sprague, J., & Massoni, K. (2004). Student Evaluations and Gendered Expectations: What We Can’t Count Can Hurt Us. Sex Roles, 53(11-12), 779-793.12. Bailey, J. G. (1999). Academics’ Motivation and Self-Efficacy for Teaching and Research. Higher Education Research and Development, 18(3), 343-359.13. Schuster, J.H., & Finkelstein, M.J. (2006). The American Faculty: The Restructuring of Academic Work and Careers. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.14. Winslow, S. (2010). Gender Inequality and Time Allocations Among Academic Faculty. Gender & Society, 24(6), 769-793.15. Hart, J., & Cress, C. M
, decision making, and self-efficacy will be monitored through a mixed methodsassessment including a follow up quantitative survey and an ethnographic interview. The researchquestions of the project are as follows: 1. Does participation of alternately admitted students in student success programs increase student persistence in engineering programs from semester 1 to semester 2 and from year 1 to year 2? 2. What aspects of student success programs are valued most highly by alternately admitted students in encouraging their success in Engineering? 3. For alternately admitted students who do not participate in student success programs, what factors discourage their participation and what out-of-college programs do
several characteristics shared by all. Barrett, et. al (2015), Forest, et.al (2014), and Wilczynski (2015) all noted the sense of community embraced by universitymakerspaces, exhibited by an environment conducive to collaboration between students. There iscurrently a need for a baseline to study university makerspaces, their best practices, and thespecific ways that they can benefit engineering education. Morosz, et. al (2015) posited thatMaking activities in university makerspaces can improve retention and encourage broaderparticipation in engineering, noting that “there is a strong relationship between the amount ofengineering experiences and engineering design self-efficacy,” a quality which has been shownto increase retention among
people with different skillsets ascompared to laboratories, creating an environment with greater social interaction. Morocz et al(2015) found that influence of peers can decrease anxieties around making because makerspacescan function to level the playing field by modeling different degrees of comfort with differentmaking processes. Further, Bandura’s theory posits that the social interactions can increasestudents’ self-efficacy. Having shared and communal making opportunities dissipates fearsaround making and increases student confidence in the process [1].Engineers in many disciplines are most effective when, in addition to technical knowledge intheir field, they have enhanced knowledge of the capabilities of processes such as milling,welding
offered additional proof that developing and delivering at a distance a Dynamicscourse, using instructional design best practices, is equivalent to a F2Fcourse as reflected by thestudent outcomes and perceptions.Reference[1] J. Bourne, D. Harris and F. Mayadas, "On-Line engineering education: Learning anywhere, anytime," Journal of Engineering Education, 2005.[2] S. Huang and J. Mativo, "Impact of interventions on students’ conceptual understanding of dynamics, principles and self-efficacy.," in ASEE, Paper #12469, Seattle, WA, 2015.[3] L. G. Gary, F. Constanzo, D. Evans, P. Cornwell, B. Self and J. L. Lane, "The Dynamics Concept Inventory Assessment Test: A Progress Report and Some Results," in ASEE, Portland, OR, 2005
opportunities can foster or hinder belongingness and identity development [7].Consistently, education researchers are investigating questions associated with students’ self-identification as professionals in their field of study. Factors such as gender, career goals, careerexposure, and academic success are predictors of this self-identification [9]. Vocational interests,occupational self-efficacy, occupational prestige are closely associated with each other, and withschool, leisure, and actual engagement in corresponding activities [10]. Career identity has beenlinked with career development [6]. The lack of adequate training, time, and incentives couldcreate tension with truly recognizing and forming professional identity. It is important that
, training on operation of research related equipment, rigorouspreparation and evaluation of curricular units, and participation in events aimed at developingteacher-faculty interaction and teacher-teacher communication. II.2. Undergraduate Research Program The undergraduate research program is a residential summer program that engagesundergraduate rising juniors and seniors in innovative “green” science and engineering researchduring a 10-week summer program and provides these scholars with professional developmentand academic training and exposure to cutting edge research equipment and facilities, where theprogram was designed to foster undergraduates’ understanding of and self-efficacy in scienceand engineering. Students who
pursuingengineering degrees [5-6]. This is particularly true for women in STEM [7-8]. Of the womenwho do graduate with an engineering degree, many seek jobs outside of the engineering industrymore often than their male counterparts. Many reports indicate that women leave engineeringjobs in part because of low self-confidence in their technical abilities. A study published by theAmerican Sociological Review shows that women express and feel less professional roleconfidence than men when in engineering [9]. This study, along with others, affirm that womenin engineering careers often have lowered self confidence in their technical competencies even ifthey persisted through getting an engineering degree [9-10]. Lowered self-efficacy coupled withan extra pressure
recipients with demonstrated financial need and academic talent in STEMmajors to better prepare them for the workforce through scholarship funding, mentoring, and 3educational enhancement activities. The intended outcomes were to increase participants’retention, graduation, readiness, and transition to the workforce in their field, or to transitionto graduate school in STEM. The purpose of requiring educational enhancement activities was to help build self-efficacy, community connectivity, and professional identity. Another reason was to increasewhat Sociologist/Anthropologist Pierre Bourdieu [4] refers to as social, cultural, andeconomic
-Jan-2019][4] S. A. Ambrose, M.W. Bridges, M. DiPietro, M.C. Lovett, and M.K. Norman, How learning works : seven research-based principles for smart teaching: John Wiley & Sons, 2010.[5] A. Williams, "Online homework vs. traditional homework: Statistics anxiety and self- efficacy in an educational statistics course," Technology Innovations in Statistics Education, vol. 6, no. 1, 2012.[6] D. S. Brewer and K. Becker, "Online homework effectiveness for underprepared and repeating college algebra students," Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, vol. 29, no. 4, pp. 353-371, 2010.[7] J. Mestre, D. M. Hart, K. A. Rath, and R. Dufresne, "The effect of web-based homework on
quitting, suggesting that the most pertinent information should appear in the first half ofthe video.Wu et al. investigated the key factors of student learning satisfaction in a blended e-learningenvironment, where instruction consisted of a mix of face-to-face and online education. 9 Theyargued that a blended learning environment has the potential to maximize the best advantages ofboth instructor-driven and online education. Using questionnaire data, they discovered thatcomputer self-efficacy, system functionality, content feature, and interaction all impact a student’sexpectations, learning climate, and satisfaction of a course.Lim et al. looked at the differences in learning outcomes and student perceptions betweenstudents enrolled in two
interdisciplinaryengineering field to inform adaptive undergraduate curricular reform. Interdisciplinaryengineering programs and courses, those that focus on solving problems that require skills andtechniques of multiple disciplines [1], have gained traction in engineering education [2], [3].Such programs have also been shown to promote 21st century skills (critical thinking, complexproblem solving, self-efficacy, etc.) [4] and diversity in the engineering pipeline [5]. One fieldthat both embodies the characteristics of interdisciplinary engineering and has motivated thedevelopment of undergraduate specific programming is tissue engineering and regenerativemedicine (TERM). TERM, a subfield of biomedical engineering (BME), brings togetherresearchers from a variety of
positive and significantrelationship with workplace learning and job performance [4]. Entrepreneurially mindedengineers are not just the entrepreneurs with engineering degrees; they are able to fill both theroles of traditional staff engineers as well as leadership roles within organizations [5].The set of teaching and learning strategies that aim to support the KEEN 3Cs framework for EMis referred to as Entrepreneurially Minded Learning (EML) [6]. Oftentimes, EML builds onactive pedagogies, such as Project-Based Learning (PBL), and focuses holistically onopportunity recognition, stakeholder awareness, discovery, and value creation [7]. There arethree entrepreneurial learning domains EML targets: affective factors (such as self-efficacy,intention
engineers than non-HSIs [6]. Focusing efforts atthese institutions has the potential to increase representation of the Latinx population inengineering.Faculty play a critical role in educational change efforts and within the day-to-day support ofstudents’ self-efficacy and self-regulated learning behaviors [7], [8]. For Latinx students, inparticular, faculty support is a key factor in student retention [9]. Faculty support students byserving as role models and mentors, which if maintained, particularly outside the classroom, cancontribute to higher student satisfaction and persistence to graduation [10].Within engineering programs at HSIs, and engineering programs more broadly, instructional,non-tenure track faculty comprise nearly 14% of the
belonging and academic integration (expectations students havefor positive student-faculty interactions are met), positively relates to self-efficacy [4], [16]. ForURM students within STEM fields, insufficient support systems, stereotype internalization, andexperiencing racism and isolation have been recognized as elements that influence attrition [17].Working to improve the climate within undergraduate engineering programs can address thesefactors and may lead to improvements in the retention of women and URM students. Insummary, it is important that instructors are aware of these potential barriers to success, attunedto how students are experiencing learning in their classrooms, and address issues that contributeto a chilly classroom climate
0.1 0.0 Persisted in Discontinued Engineering Figure 2: Bernoulli persistence data for 2012 cohort.While the NFS version has a higher persistence percentage, the statistical significance of thisdifference needs to be assessed. For this analysis, n1 = 71, p1 = 0.437, n2 = 86, and p2 = 0.384.The statistical significance depends on the z score for the difference p1 − p2 . The null hypothesissays this difference should be zero. The z score measures how many standard deviations awayfrom zero the observed difference is. The null hypothesis analysis also depends on the persistencefraction for both
-environmental engineering. Educational areas of interest are self- efficacy and persistence in engineering and development of an interest in STEM topics in K-12 students.Dr. Chris Geiger, Florida Gulf Coast University Chris Geiger is an Associate Professor and Chair of the Department of Bioengineering in the U.A. Whitaker College of Engineering at Florida Gulf Coast University. He received his M.S. and Ph.D. de- grees in Biomedical Engineering from Northwestern University in 1999 and 2003, respectively, and his B.S. in Chemical Engineering from Northwestern University in 1996.Ms. Kimberly A. Reycraft, Florida Gulf Coast University Kim Reycraft earned a Bachelors degree in Environmental Science and Policy and worked in that field
Paper ID #16220Student Perceptions of Faculty Support: Do Class Size or Institution TypeMatter?Dr. Cheryl Allendoerfer, University of Washington Dr. Allendoerfer is a Research Scientist in the College of Engineering at the University of Washington.Dr. Denise Wilson, University of Washington Denise Wilson is a professor of electrical engineering at the University of Washington, Seattle. Her research interests in engineering education focus on the role of self-efficacy, belonging, and other non- cognitive aspects of the student experience on engagement, success, and persistence and on effective methods for teaching
autonomy. The learner can stop,rewind, and replay a screencast as many times as she wants and move with her own pace. Shecan watch the screencast at any location and time on a world-wide-web browser that can be on apersonal computer, a tablet, or a smart phone. The initial learning is fast since students do not Page 26.737.3spend time in interpreting the steps and avoid the laborious trial-and-error process. Since astudent learns by observing the desired behavior of an expert on the screencast, it aids learnerswith low self-efficacy in exploring the demonstrated behaviors1. Teaching how to use CAD software with the screencasts has additional
. Educational areas of interest are self- efficacy and persistence in engineering and development of an interest in STEM topics in K-12 students.Dr. Chris Geiger, Florida Gulf Coast University Chris Geiger is an Associate Professor and Chair of the Department of Bioengineering in the U.A.Whitaker College of Engineering at Florida Gulf Coast University. He received his M.S and Ph.D.degrees in Biomedical Engineering from Northwestern University in 1999 and 2003, respectively,and his B.S. in Chemical Engineering from Northwestern University in 1996. Page 26.799.1 c American Society for
Paper ID #13326Go Team! The Role of the Study Group in Academic SuccessDr. Denise Wilson, University of Washington Denise Wilson is a professor of electrical engineering at the University of Washington, Seattle. Her research interests in engineering education focus on the role of self-efficacy, belonging, and other non- cognitive aspects of the student experience on engagement, success, and persistence.Dr. Cheryl Allendoerfer, University of Washington Dr. Allendoerfer is a Research Scientist in the College of Engineering at the University of Washington.Prof. Rebecca A Bates, Minnesota State University, Mankato
for medium or large companies. It was further found that “those who had taken one ormore entrepreneurship courses showed significantly higher entrepreneurial self-efficacy on anumber of measures”. The growth of entrepreneurship programs in engineering undergraduate education has beenstudied by Shartrand & others 3 finding that “the vast majority of programs were labeled asminors, concentrations or certificates” rather than integrated into the core curriculum. Thisresearch has also provided detailed categorization of the models being implemented to provide a“landscape” by clustering types of opportunities and the perspective by which they are taught4.Much of the delivery of entrepreneurship education is via courses, however it is argued
• University students’ perceptions • Students • TeachersPopulation • Parents and caregivers • Principals • Constructivism (Constructionism, Guided Inquiry, CommunitiesInforming Theory of Practice) • Self-efficacy • National and State Mathematics, Science and TechnologyStandards Addressed • Massachusetts Technology/Engineering Page 26.625.3Several examples measured how informal STEM educational
procedure, Design groups’ unique visions andinterests are important topics which are addressed and covered during the aircraft design teachingprocess. These experiences will significantly impact on student development, particularly onlearning, self-efficacy, diversity, and the ability to innovate. The implementation of systems engineering requires a flawless interface between teammembers working toward a common system thinking to correctly execute systems engineeringprocess. Although there is a general agreement regarding the principles and objectives of systemsengineering, its actual implementation will vary from on discipline to the next. The processapproach and steps used will depend on the backgrounds and experiences of the
; Exposition, Indianapolis, IN, 2014.[9] M. Stickel, S. Hari and Q. Liu, "The Effect of the Inverted Classroom Teaching Approach on Student/Faculty Interaction and Students' Self-Efficacy," in Proceedings of the ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition, Indianapolis, IN, 2014.[10] J. L. Bishop and M. A. Verleger, "The Flipped Classroom: A Survey of Research," in Proceedings of the ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition, Atlanta, GA, 2013.[11] N. K. Lape, R. Levy, D. H. Yong, K. A. Haushalter, R. Eddy and N. Hankel, "Probing the Inverted Classroom: A Controlled Study of Teaching and Learning," in Proceedings of the ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition, Indianapolis, 2014.[12] H. Jia, "The Student Life," The Associated Students of
; Philadelphia, PA, 2014.35. Jones, M. G.; Howe, A.; Rua, M. J. Sci. Educ. 2000, 84, 180–192.36. Wang, J.; Werner-Avidon, M.; Newton, L.; Randol, S.; Smith, B.; Walker, G. J. Pre-College Eng. Educ. Res. 2013, 3, 2.37. McIlwee, J. S.; Robinson, J. G. Women in engineering: Gender, power, and workplace culture; SUNY Press, 1992.38. Modell, M.; Reid, R. C. Thermodynamics and its Applications; Prentice-Hall Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 1974.39. Richardson, A. L. Tinkering self-efficacy and team interaction on freshman engineering design teams; ProQuest, 2008.40. Eccles, J.; Harold, R. Teach. Coll. Rec. 1993, 94, 568–587.41. Eshach, H. J. Sci. Educ. Technol. 2007, 16, 171–190.42. Mau, W.-C. Career Dev. Q. 2003, 51, 234–243.43
doing and focus on the work rather than the potential rewards. Personality The importance of certain personality attributes for creative functioning. These attributes include, but are not limited to, willingness to overcome obstacles, willingness to take sensible risks, willingness to tolerate ambiguity, and self-efficacy. Often creative people seek opposition; that is, they decide to think in ways that countervail how others think. Note that none of the attributes of creative thinking is fixed. One can decide to overcome obstacles, take sensible risks, and so forth. Environment One needs an environment that is supportive and rewarding of creative