Black college oruniversity. Carrico and Tendhar [17] also reported evidence of a significant correlation betweenstudents’ self-efficacy, interest, and goals to pursue engineering. While these two studies usedifferent variables to approximate students’ choice, the predictive utility of self-efficacy andinterest is strengthened when the variables are used together.Using this lens of parallel measures, this paper analyzes the content and year one implementationresults of a 9th-grade design curriculum intended to grow students’ self-efficacy, interest, andcareer choice for engineering. Following our research team’s year-long curriculum developmentprocess, we have now been involved in the implementation process of soft robot design lessonsas they
in their capabilities of using CAD software. Therefore, there iscurrently a lack of research investigating how students develop self-efficacy in relation to CADprior to their undergraduate degree.As there currently does not exist a validated scale to measure CAD self-efficacy, in this paper,we explore the related concepts of undergraduate engineering students’ initial 3D Modeling andEngineering Design self-efficacy before formal CAD instruction at the university level.Bandura’s Theory of Self-Efficacy suggests there are four main sources of self-efficacy: masteryexperiences, social persuasion, vicarious experiences and physiological states [1]. Therefore, weaim to answer the question: “What prior CAD learning experiences influence
small groups (60 min total). Results from the Repeated-Measures Analysis of Variance (RM-ANOVA) demonstrated that participants reported higherperceived ability to engage in scientific learning processes (d = .17) and in science learningbehaviors (d = 0.15). Both theoretical and practical implications are discussed.Objective Self-efficacy is the judgement an individual makes regarding their ability to performvarious tasks and this judgement is domain and task specific (Bandura, 1977, 1982). Since theway in which people act, think, and feel, is a direct reflection of their own beliefs in theircapabilities, learners’ beliefs promote both engagement and learning (Linnenbrink & Pintrich,2003), as well as long-term achievement (Parker
help students develop a high level of design self-efficacy, the belief in one’s ability to complete engineering design tasks. Engineers problem-solve by practicing design tasks. As a result, design self-efficacy is a critical component of asuccessful engineer [1]. Preparing students to become successful engineers, in both industry andacademia, therefore demands that design tasks be taught to a level where students may obtainself-efficacy [2, 3]. The importance of design tasks has also been acknowledged by theAccreditation Board for Engineering and Technology (ABET). This work seeks to measure theimpact of different variables on design self-efficacy, based on the specific project experiences ofthe students at the end of their two-semester
Tech. Her research interests include the impact of metacognitive and self-regulated learning development on engineering student success, particularly in the first year. c American Society for Engineering Education, 2020 Impact of Self-Efficacy and Outcome Expectations on First-Year Engineering Students’ Major SelectionAbstractDeciding on a major is one of the critical decisions first-year students make in theirundergraduate study. Framed in Social Cognitive Career Theory, this work investigatesdifferences between measures of self-efficacy and outcome expectations by students intending topursue different engineering majors. Our results show that tinkering self-efficacy
. Identification of our neurodivergent studentassets can then motivate the degree to which that engineering program requires adaptation tosupport these students, such as cohorts, space/dorms, etc. Beyond this, it also gives insights tohow interactions with others may affect the confidence and self-efficacy of neurodiverse studentsin the major, particularly as interventions are designed and deployed. Low self-efficacy has beenlinked to low retention rates in programs, particularly for Students of Color, so a measurement ofsocial capital, as an example, is a way for a program to address issues in retention and alignopportunities for students of color with goals of improving relations and confidence.LimitationsIt is uncertain how students self-defined
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
member.Since the inception of the Douglass Engineering Living-Learning Community in 2012, 42 first-year women have participated and completed the program. Of those women, 38 havesuccessfully stayed in an engineering curriculum (90% retention rate), and 29 have continued tolive together in another residence hall. To assess the effectiveness of this program on thepredictors of retention, all students participating were asked to complete the LongitudinalAssessment of Engineering Self-Efficacy (LAESE) developed by The Pennsylvania StateUniversity and University of Missouri. This instrument measures several outcomes related toretention and is widely used to better understand students’ feelings towards engineering. Focusgroups were also used to generate
Paper ID #29944Individual Design Experiences Improve Students’ Self-Efficacy onTeam-Based Engineering Design ProjectsDr. Amy Trauth, University of Delaware Amy Trauth, Ph.D., is the Senior Associate Director of Science Education at the University of Delaware’s Professional Development Center for Educators. In her role, Amy works collaboratively with K-12 sci- ence and engineering teachers to develop and implement standards-based curricula and assessments. She also provides mentoring and coaching and co-teaching support to K-12 teachers across the entire tra- jectory of the profession. Her research focuses on teacher
to lower numbersof females in certain STEM majors and subsequent STEM careers. Gender differences in self-efficacy have been demonstrated in relation to math and engineering disciplines amongundergraduate students.10,11 We investigated the effects of a mentored summer researchexperience on high school students’ self-efficacy as it applied to STEM research-related tasks.The program participants are approximately 50% male and 50% female. Participants were askedto answer a 32-item anonymous, online survey, which is designed to measure STEM researchself-efficacy, both prior to entering and immediately upon completion of the program.2. Brief Description of Summer ProgramBased at New York University Tandon School of Engineering (NYU Tandon), a
scale was employed to measure students' self-efficacy in engineering tasks. Thisinstrument assesses various dimensions of engineering self-efficacy, including students’confidence in their ability to succeed in engineering courses, solve technical problems, andpersist in their engineering studies [15]. The assessment of engineering self-efficacy amongstudents will be focused on several constructs, each measured through specific items that providea comprehensive understanding of students’ confidence and perceived abilities within the field ofengineering, including Factor1: Engineering Self-Efficacy, Factor 2: Engineering CareerExpectations, Factor 3: Sense of Belonging, and Factor 4: Coping Self-Efficacy.Computer Programming Self-Efficacy Scale
-Middle and High School Students [5]will assess students’ attitudes about STEM-related academic course work, STEM-related careers,personal interests and professional contacts, growth mindset and self-efficacy. The survey is partof a set of STEM outreach measurement resources available for educational purposes from TheFriday Institute for Educational Innovation at North Carolina State University College ofEducation.The items assessing attitudes about STEM-related academic courses ask students to rateagreement, using a 5-point Likert scale, with statements related to math courses (3 items), andscience courses (3 items). Students are also asked to indicate agreement with statements assessinginterest in activities related to engineering and
personal impact of the conferenceand included questions related to conference usefulnesses, self-esteem, self-efficacy, and programlogistics, as well as feedback about the overall conference experience. The Heatherton and Polivy 11State Self-Esteem Scale (SSES) was specifically designed to measure state self-esteem, which isdefined as the temporary fluctuations in self-esteem. The SSES is generally considered to be astable qualitative measure that is psychometrically sound and valid in laboratory, classroom, andclinical settings 11 . Table 1 lists the 14 questions from the SSES utilized by this study to measurethe self-esteem subcategories of academic performance (seven questions) and social confidence(seven questions). A 5-point Likert scale was
Area developed theSTEM Institute, a three-week program for current high school freshmen and sophomoresinterested in exploring Science, Technology, Engineering and Math (STEM). The programintroduces STEM through experiential learning using hands-on/real-world projects,classroom/lab instruction, speakers, on-campus field trips and workshops in five STEM fields ofstudy.This paper describes the evolution of the STEM Institute, including challenges encountered andstrategies employed to overcome those challenges. It also examines the effect that the programhad on student interest and self-efficacy in STEM, employing non-parametric statistical tests tocompare repeated measurements of student interest and self-efficacy. Program impact on thesubject
theonline activities of Homework 3, 4, and 6). These three during-the-quarter surveysincluded pre and post measures. While some questions varied with online activity, totrack students’ progress of self-efficacy from beginning to end, there were two questions,which were asked consistently throughout the quarter that we refer to herein as Case 1 inthis study. These questions were:1) “How confident are you in drawing a free-body diagram?” This question was asked in the beginning of quarter survey, Homework 3-pre survey, Homework 3-post survey, Homework 4-pre survey, Homework 4-post survey, and end of quarter survey. Page 26.1672.92) “How confident
extrapolating these subgroup results. Greatersample sizes would yield more solid proof of the effects on a diverse learner’s body.According to [22], there is a high practical significance and potential for real-world impact dueto the very large effect size (d=1.03). However, depending solely on self-report measures has itslimitations due to its potential for bias. The conclusion that effects are meaningful would bestrengthened by the inclusion of objective competence measures. Long-term monitoring is alsorequired to ascertain whether effects endure over time [21]. All things considered, thispreliminary study offers a promising foundation for future research on self-efficacy andexperiment-centric pedagogy.ConclusionThis study demonstrates that
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
undergraduatesfrom marginalized groups in engineering and to undergraduates who may not have the resourcesduring the academic year to participate in research at their institutions. Students are selectedusing holistic measures by each of the sites. The curriculum for the summer program aims tofoster self-efficacy in research through (1) participation in authentic research work, (2) facultyand experienced graduate student researcher mentoring, and (3) community building across thenatural hazards engineering and research communities.Students meet weekly through virtual means to discuss their research progress, address anychallenges, and discuss the rhetoric of scholarly publications and other activities. REU studentsalso participate in career development
Paper ID #41572Gender-Based Comparison of Creative Self-Efficacy, Mindset, and Perceptionsof Undergraduate Engineering StudentsDr. Christine Michelle Delahanty, National Science Foundation Dr. Delahanty is a Program Director at NSF in the Division of Undergraduate Education (EDU/DUE), and has a background in physics, electrical engineering, and STEM Education, with a concentration in creativity and innovation. Her research focuses on creative self-efficacy, creative mindset, and perceptions of engineering majors, particularly women, to offer insight into why there are so few women in the major and in the profession. She
explored the app, but did notregularly use it, which justified combining the two into a single comparison group.3.2 Data Collection and MeasuresData were collected using the retrospective Student Assessment of their Learning Gains - anNSF-funded and validated survey [14] that asks students how much they learned for each of a setof learning objectives and the extent to which they attribute their learning to specific learningactivities. The SALG has been used to date by more than 22,000 instructors to assessapproximately half a million students.3.2.1 Student OutcomesItems were averaged to construct measures of growth in content mastery, self-efficacy related tostatics, and willingness to seek help. Each of the items included the same question stem
– extremely)Post survey items to measure engineering self-efficacy (response options strongly disagree – strongly agree): I will be able to achieve most of the engineering-related goals that I have set for myself When facing difficult tasks within engineering, I am certain that I will accomplish them I believe I can succeed at most any engineering-related endeavor to which I set my mind I am confident that I can perform effectively on many engineering-related tasksPost survey items to measure commitment to engineering (response options): I have no doubt that I will graduate with a degree in engineering (strongly disagree – strongly agree) It is my intention to pursue a career in engineering (strongly disagree – strongly agree
Paper ID #29438The Role of Teaching Self-Efficacy in Electrical and ComputerEngineering Faculty Teaching SatisfactionMr. Kent A. Crick, Iowa State University Kent Crick is currently in his third year as a graduate student at Iowa State University. He is currently a PhD candidate in Counseling Psychology and conducts research in self-determination as it relates to student and faculty motivation and well-being. Prior to attending Iowa State, he obtained a Master’s Degree in Clinical Psychology from the University of Indianapolis. He then worked as a research coordi- nator for the Diabetes and Translational Research Center
aspirations, level of motivation, andacademic accomplishments” [8]. In the context of engineering, this is essential as students navigatetechnically challenging coursework and rigorous workloads. Self-efficacy has a strong relationshipto both learning and achievements. As Mamaril et al. state, it is most effective to measure self-efficacy at both the general engineering field level and the specific technical skill level [9].Evaluating at these different levels yields a more comprehensive understanding of a student’sconfidence in their overall engineering abilities. A major contributor to a student’s self confidence in completing engineering tasks is theirperceived proficiency in technical skills. Usher et al. investigated students in
in academia at a R1 Hispanic servingUniversity in the American Southwest. The research was guided by the following question: Towhat extent does participation in undergraduate level research affect student’s self-efficacy andconfidence to succeed in undergraduate level academia/research? Students’ confidence and self-efficacy was measured using a Likert-scale survey. Responses were compared before and afterparticipating in the program to determine whether students’ confidence improved. We used SPSSfor statistical analysis of data which focused primarily on changes to mean response values.Following the conclusion of the Fellowship, interviews of the students were conducted via emailto gain further qualitative data on the impacts of the
random drawing for one of three $35 gift cards to the University bookstore.In addition to the any relationships between students’ time allocations and their retention andacademic performance, we also hoped to gain insights into initial values and changes in the self-efficacy beliefs of ENGR 2100 students over the course of the semester (as measured by theCollege Self-Efficacy Inventory) in relation their academic outcomes [10,11]. Solberg et al.found that self-efficacy can play a significant role in student success, particularly for Hispanicstudents (and possibly other minority groups). This data could contribute to an early warningmethod of identifying students in most need of targeted intervention. The questions from theCollege Self-Efficacy
, respectively from Purdue University. Her work centers on P-16 engineering education research, as a psychometrician, program evaluator, and institutional data analyst. As a psy- chometrician, she revised the PSVT:R for secondary and undergraduate students, developed the TESS (Teaching Engineering Self-efficacy Scale) for K-12 teachers, and rescaled the SASI (Student Attitudi- nal Success Inventory) for engineering students. As a program evaluator, she has evaluated the effects of teacher professional development (TPD) programs on K-6 teachers’ and elementary students’ attitudes to- ward engineering and STEM knowledge. As an institutional data analyst, she is investigating engineering students’ pathways to their success
, Columbus, OH W1A-1 Session W1Acognitive depletion [11]. Stereotype threat undermines Survey CRSS) did not consist of questions adopted directlyacademic achievement in two ways. First, it induces anxiety to SVS but a confirmatory factor analysis was completed tothat may impair academic performance. Second, in the relate questions to the SVS (the process is described below).long- term, it causes students to devalue their academic The SVS is a unidimensional scale designed to measure theinterests and eventually leads to dis-identification with
in which to integrate newcontent in an effective manner. The total class time required for all three interventions ranges from 1-2 hourswhich equates, on the higher end, to one class session per quarter. The researchers and instructors of the courseagreed that the number of interventions and required time is reasonable without interfering with the core classmaterial. These interventions are hypothesized to improve engineering students’ sense of belonging and self-efficacy in their majors [14, 15].After considering course assignments and scheduling, the researchers chose a selection of ENGR 104 coursesin which to embed the interventions: Fall 17, Spring 18, and Fall 19. Each course was taught by a differentinstructor however, the content of
MSLQ X X X X X X X XThe GRIT survey was developed by Angela Duckworth and consists of 12 Likert Scale questions[2]. Grit, defined as “perseverance and passion for long term goals”, was recognized as a trait byDuckworth [3].The LAESE survey was developed at Penn State University with support from the NationalScience Foundation. The LAESE was designed to measure the self-efficacy of undergraduateengineering students by using 31 Likert scale questions. Self-Efficacy aspects of studentsmeasured by the survey include outcomes expected from studying engineering, the process ofselecting a major, expectations about workload, coping strategies in challenging situations, careerexploration, and the
dormitory and for thefirst four weeks of the summer students were required to take their meals “to-go” in the diningcommons. Beginning in July the mask mandates and in-person dining restrictions were lifted.In this assessment report, SOAR’s history as a diversity-focused cohort program and COVID-19both contributed to the context which shaped the data collection. Consequently, the findings andresults are also situated in this context.3. MethodsThroughout the course of the internship program, assessment was conducted through quantitativeand qualitative measures. The data collection methods were guided by ethnographic case studymethodology. Informed by ethnographic data collection approaches, the qualitative datacollection methods included interviews