can increase students’ interest in engineering and their self-efficacy insolving engineering problems.“Engineering Design and Management” course is the focus of this article. It introducesfundamental concepts and principles used in the implementation and management of engineeringdesign projects or processes. Topics include an introduction to engineering design, problemdefinition/formulation, information and communication, professional/social context, conceptgeneration, project planning, engineering economics, and design decision-making.2. Methodologya. Teaching methodology for the instructors:All instructors follow the same textbooks and have the same list of topics. Each instructor haslisted his/her course evaluation methods shown below
of social responsibility. Resultsshowed that, irrespective of the weighting system, volunteerism had poor to moderate correlationwith social responsibility attitudes. Looking specifically at the eight dimensions of the PSRDM,the strongest correlations existed between volunteerism and how engineering students weightedthe costs and benefits of volunteering and how they saw their professional obligation to helpothers as engineers or through their profession; though these had only weak correlations (0.3).BackgroundEngaging in volunteer activities has been shown to be very beneficial to students, not only intheir development of personal values and self-efficacy, but also having positive effects onacademic performance measures1. When tied to
; Morgan, E. M. (2010). The role of self-efficacy and identity in mediating the effects of science support programs (Technical Report No. 5). Santa Cruz, CA: University of California Cooper, T. (2009, Spring). Collaboration or plagiarism? Explaining collaborative-based assignments clearly. POD Network News. Estrada, M., Woodcock, A., Hernandez, P. R., & Schultz, P. W. (2011). Toward a Model of Social Influence That Explains Minority Student Integration into the Scientific Community. Journal of Educational Psychology, 103, 206-222. doi: Doi 10.1037/A0020743 Finelli, C.J., Bergom, I., and Mesa, V. (2011). Student teams in the engineering classroom and beyond: Setting up students for
using an online testing toolthey developed. They found there was no significant differences in performance, howeverstudents spent more time on the online test.Other studies have found some differences in on-line versus paper exams. Deutsch, Herrmann,Frese, and Sandholzer4 found gender differences in students taking online exams. These genderdifferences were attributed to differences in computer-self efficacy, but they found thedifferences were reduced considerably after students had a single experience taking an onlineexam. McDonald5 considered score equivalence between paper and computer-based assessmentsand concluded that individual differences in computer experience, computer anxiety, andcomputer attitudes could impact the potential of some
during group work andcollaborative learning [26], [27], but the lack of negative results among both US and non-UScitizens is notable. An interesting question that these results do not address is whether cross-national interactions led to any overall declines in non-US citizens’ self-efficacy or self-confidence about their CS knowledge and skills (as opposed to comparisons with one’s partner).With the exception of driving role, the lack of effects of partners’ national origin among UScitizens is also noteworthy. Any linguistic or cultural challenges that US citizens encounteredmay been balanced out by the benefits of potentially different perspectives that non-US citizensbrought to these collaborations. It is also possible that the work of
, Engineering, and Mathematics. A Review of Literature,” Tomas Rivera Policy Institute, Apr. 2008. Accessed: Jan. 04, 2024. [Online]. Available: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED502063[3] NGCP, “The State of Girls and Women in STEM,” 2023. Accessed: Jan. 04, 2024. [Online]. Available: https://ngcproject.org/resources/state-girls-and-women-stem[4] A. Brem, P. M. Bican, and C. Wimschneide, Gender Differences in Technology and Innovation Management. De Gruyter Oldenbourg, 2020. Accessed: Jan. 22, 2024. [Online]. Available: https://www-degruyter- com.libweb.lib.utsa.edu/document/doi/10.1515/9783110593952/html[5] N. Huang, Y. Chang, and C. Chou, “Effects of creative thinking, psychomotor skills, and creative self-efficacy on engineering
, little is known about the critical role thattransformative pedagogy may play in fostering curiosity of students. The current study thereforeseeks to examine the impacts of an experiment-centric pedagogy on curiosity and the learningoutcome of learners in terms of performance over two academic semesters. Experiment-centricpedagogy has been implemented in other STEM fields and has been reported to improvemotivation and self-efficacy. The choice of industrial engineering was made because of its strongemphasis on practical problem-solving abilities in addition to theoretical understanding. Inaddition, ECP aligns seamlessly with the objectives of industrial engineering education andthrough its interactive and immersive nature, there is a promotion of
analysis of presence and extent. Journal of Engineering Education, 101(3), 1-26.Carberry, A. R., Lee, H. S., & Ohland, M. W. (2010). Measuring Engineering Design Self-Efficacy. Journal of Engineering Education, 99(1), 71-79.Dawes, L., & Rasmussen, G. (2007). Activity and engagement—keys in connecting engineeringwith secondary school students. Australasian Journal of Engineering Education, 13(1), 13-20.Duderstadt, J. 2008. Engineering for a changing world: A roadmap to the future of engineeringpractice, research, and education. Ann Arbor, MI: The Millennium Project, The University ofMichigan.IronCAD (Computer Software). (2015) Retrieved from http://www.ironcad.com/Kelly, A. E. (2014). Design-based research in engineering education: Current
approaches is addressed in question 1,the emotional state of the students during teaming. Table 1 shows that students in the twocohorts experienced similar emotional states during teaming, with the exception of their self-efficacy: 50% more of the students in the student-teamed cohort felt happy that they had somecontrol of the process. This is the only statistically significant difference in the question 1responses, and indicates that the student-formed teaming process resulted in the students feelingmore agency, while not significantly increasing anxiety. Table 1: Team-Forming Survey Results for Question 1 (Emotional State During Teaming) Student-formed Faculty-formed Very stressed
Paper ID #31145Understanding a Makerspace as a Community of PracticeChieloka Mbaezue, Stanford University Chieloka Mbaezue is a senior in Mechanical Engineering at Stanford University conducting research to understand how learning happens in makerspaces. Through research, he desires to understand the mechanisms of learning in community in order to democratize the experience of self-efficacy experienced in makerspaces. He hopes to apply his gained understanding to the product development industry in African countries and in the United States, particularly in black communities.Eric Reynolds Brubaker, Stanford University
students’ engagement and Engineering courses. The section details confidence in hands-on lab/workshop activities; specific strategies and resources to make the hypervisibility of lab settings can cause laboratory experiences engaging and disengagement and low self-efficacy among a inclusive. certain population of students when using unfamiliar machines and tools - Avoid assumptions about
that can contribute to its rise and fall.Though not explicitly measured in previous quantitative studies in construction, sense ofbelonging is linked to several other factors, such as classroom environment, self-efficacy, peerrecognition, family and friends support and others [7], [12]. One result obtained in the presentstudy that stands out due to its difference between male and female students is the question aboutstudents’ perceptions of having to constantly prove themselves for peer recognition, with womenindicating a higher agreement than male students. This echoes some of the participants fromMoore and Gloeckner [16], which mentioned having to prove themselves especially for malestudents.Our findings related to females perceiving gender
has drawn even more attention to theunderrepresentation of women in computing. Women currently comprise only 15.7% of computingdegrees awarded, a proportion that has been declining in the past three decades. Some researchersbelieve that this is due to the fact that women experience lower perception of self-efficacy andhigher perception of computer anxiety (Ahuja & Thatcher, 2005; Venkatesh & Morris, 2000;Whitley, 1997). Many female students believe that traditional approaches of teaching computerscience are boring and uninviting (AAUW, 2000; Margolis & Fisher, 2002; Ashcraft et al., 2012).Therefore, gamification can be a potentially promising approach to enhance the engagement andenjoyment of computer science students. There are
gender equity, we focused onsupporting the behaviors (e.g. the climate variables discussed above) to promote equity. Wewanted to see how this indirect dual agenda approach impacted faculty beliefs about their 11department’s ability to achieve gender equity, as well as their perceptions of other key aspects ofdepartmental climate.Our research addresses an issue raised by Acker: “Does the sex composition of change agentgroups make a difference in the success of projects?” (p. 627)4 Our goal was to see if there weredifferential impacts of the Dialogues process on departmental climate measures among academicdepartments that vary in the percent of
. Different example methods can be seen in the faculty narratives. (2) Mentors should listen to the ideas and concerns of their mentees. This was uniformly important throughout the faculty narratives. All faculty mentioned methods to increase student interest in the project/field and support their self-efficacy as researchers. Further, the student survey, regardless of student gender, emphasized the importance of mentor “personal consideration.” (3) Mentors should provide career support, particularly for female mentees. While all undergraduate students should receive some level of career support, the female students surveyed indicated this as the most important role of the faculty research mentor
and the extent to which they view themselves as a “STEM person”. Slightly modified version of the Chemistry Motivation Questionnaire (Glynn & Koballa, 2005), which includes 30 items that measure the following six student factors: Intrinsic Motivation, Extrinsic Motivation, Self-Efficacy, Self-Determination, Goal-Orientation, Anxiety-Related Motivation. The Sense of Belongingness scale [8], which is part of the National Survey of Student Engagement, used by Higher Education Research Institute at UCLA and the Center for Post-Secondary Research and Planning at Indiana University. This instrument operationalizes "belongingness" in a number of different contexts, including
and are part of a 35high school program. After the spatial visualization application course was completed the meanscore for the participant group improved by 6.3% and students who were classified in the at risklow performing group and had a pre-test of 70% or lower improved on their post-test score by15.6%. Additionally, female students improved their post-test score on average by 10.7%.Importantly, student self efficacy improved after treatment completion, as was demonstrated inthe student evaluation survey responses. Due to the positive results found in the qualitative andquantitative data from this small evaluation, additional schools will be encouraged to use thespatial visualization application in the future, particularly for students
research programs, tend tohave stronger retention rates (Fakayode et al., 2014).Similarly, scholarship on Hispanic-Serving Institutions (HSIs) has advanced the concept of servingness asa measure of HSIs’ supportive institutional climate (Garcia, Nuñez & Sansone, 2019). Researchers alsoposit that engineering students at HSIs benefit from having professors who show interest in students, peerswho are more like family members, and a sense of self-efficacy that they gain from a supportive institutionalculture (Fleming & Smith, 2013). Additionally, undergraduates at HSIs benefit from co-curricularexperiences such as research opportunities, as well as tutoring and other types of engagement on campus(Garcia & Hurtado, 2011). Garcia and Hurtado
identity currently evidencedin the ASEE body of literature. The CTI layers, written in italics, are followed by relevantthemes pulled from ASEE conference papers. • Personal: self-efficacy and self-confidence in engineering students [7] • Enactment: the development of professional / authentic skills [8] • Relational: creating interpersonal bonds [9] • Communal, specifically community and sense of belonging [2], [9], [10].Pertaining to the programmatic goals of student academic success and retention, the authors wereable to identify relevant literature to guide in the design of the program. Relevant literature fellinto three categories: relating mentorship programs to favorable academic outcomes, specificallyincreases in student GPA
relaxation, improved concentration, self-confidence, improvedefficiency, good interpersonal relationship, increased attentiveness, lowered irritability levels, andan optimistic outlook in life” [15, p. 218]. Additionally, in related research on mindfulness,engineering education researchers have explored relationships between mindfulness, innovation,and self-efficacy [18], [19].Other relevant specific populationsWhile not conducted specifically with university students, there is a third body of research onanother specific population that has relevance for engineering education. Veterans chooseengineering majors at a rate of 1.5 times than that of non-engineering majors [20], and often havedifferent mental health challenges than the general student
the participants to women beyond the Mentoring Network.Previous workshop topics have included “Innovative Teaching and Improving TeachingEvaluations”, “Self Efficacy, Self Advocacy, and Negotiation”, “What Does it Mean to TeachScience?” and “Successful Strategies in Writing and Publishing.” Several of these topics havebeen so successful as measured through post workshop surveys that they have been repeated formultiple years. Two semi-annual STEM-UP Symposia have also been considered core workshopopportunities. These have included Symposia on Collaborative Research Opportunities andInnovative Teaching and Improving Teaching Evaluations with presentations from STEM-UPmembers and other faculty at regional institutions.During the years of the
knowledge and developing a healthyappreciation for outside expertise. The collaboration also benefited the non-engineering studentsby demystifying the field of engineering, potentially alleviating “imposter syndrome” bynormalizing team performance expectations, and providing some literacy of the engineeringdesign process. In the case of early childhood education students, these altered perceptions of theengineering discipline may have impact on their self-efficacy for teaching science andengineering (Maier et al., 2013; Kallery 2004; Watters et al., 2000); as such their teaching inthese two content areas may positively influence the perceptions of engineering by their futurestudents, particularly females and minorities. This study adds to the
difficulties can consist of negative beliefs or thoughts that may“decrease the individual’s self-esteem and perceived self-efficacy, [and thus] …decrease theindividual’s confidence in his or her ability to make decisions” (Kleiman, 2004). Gati (1996)developed a taxonomy of career decision-making difficulties to explain possible sources ofvocational indecision. Examples of difficulties include lack of information about occupations,lack of information about oneself, internal conflicts, external conflicts, and dysfunctional beliefs,such as irrational expectations about the career-decision making process itself.Dysfunctional career thinking appears to have a large impact on STEM career choice in females.In a meta-analysis of literature exploring the
engineering education research as a psychometrician, program evaluator, and institutional data analyst. As a psychometrician, 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 Attitudinal Success Inventory) for engineering students. As a program evaluator, she evaluated the effects of teacher professional development (TPD) programs on elementary teachers’ attitudes toward engineering and students’ STEM knowledge through a NSF DRK-12 project. As an institutional data analyst, she is investigating engineering students’ diverse pathways to their success.Dr. Teri Reed, Texas A&M University Teri
participants’ spatialperception, mental rotation, and spatial visualization skills, both the experimental group and acontrol group will complete the Purdue Spatial Visualization Test (PSVT) before the onlineworkshop, in the middle of the semester, and after completion of the workshop. Results of this pilotstudy will be analyzed to determine the value of offering online spatial reasoning content to allincoming engineering students. It is our hope to understand how to best increase spatial skills forwomen engineering students, and doing so early in their college careers might lead to increasedretention, success, and self-efficacy. This research also aims to expand representation of women inengineering by creating resources that properly address specific
benchmarks. It details an XRframework that can be implemented by CM institutions that follow ACCE accreditation as part oftheir student learning outcomes and program objectives.XR in Construction EducationExtended Reality (XR) technologies, such as virtual reality (VR), augmented reality (AR), andmixed reality (MR), can provide significant benefits in the field of construction education. Theyhelp improve understanding of AEC subdisciplines, enhance the visualization of complexconcepts, and increase student engagement and self-efficacy [6]. XR is particularly useful forsafety training and risk management, with VR being the most used tool [7]. Integrating deeplearning and XR technologies in construction engineering and management presents
Lents, N. H., 2016, “Cultivating Minority Scientists: Undergraduate Research Increases Self-Efficacy and Career Ambitions for Underrepresented Students in STEM,” J. Res. Sci. Teach.[8] Watkins-Lewis, K. M., Dillon, H. E., Sliger, R., Becker, B., Cline, E. C., Greengrove, C., James, P. A., Kitali, A., and Scarcella, A., 2023, “Work In Progress: Multiple Mentor Model for Cross-Institutional Collaboration and Undergraduate Research,” American Society for Engineering Education, Baltimore MD.[9] Lopatto, D., Hauser, C., Jones, C. J., Paetkau, D., Chandrasekaran, V., Dunbar, D., MacKinnon, C., Stamm, J., Alvarez, C., Barnard, D., Bedard, J. E. J., Bednarski, A. E., Bhalla, S., Braverman, J. M., Burg, M
widespread adoption ofsustainable, decarbonized energy systems. The goals of the Ohio State EmPOWERmentProgram were developed by twelve faculty in departments across six colleges within theuniversity, in consultation with external stakeholders who work in industry, U.S. nationallaboratories, and non-profit organizations. These stakeholders are ensconced in various aspectsof the field of sustainable energy. Together, this process identified important attitudes,experiences, and core competencies necessary to support three-overarching program goals: 1. Prepare a diverse cohort of versatile graduates with the innovation capacity, self-efficacy, and collaborative capacity to influence positive change in the transition to environmentally
single goal. Engagement in unstructured-specific activities is characterized by high self-motivation and high self-efficacy. For theseactivities, sometimes people engage to learn a task, while in others, engagement is driven by afixed-mindset: their mind was set on independent task completion. For example, one studentreflected on how he approaches working on his car in high school in this manner, saying, “I'd belike, all right, I'm going to try and identify the problem. I'm going to try and look at a video, seehow to do it.” Here we see that the activity was focused, goal-oriented, and driven by one’s self.A noted difference between unstructured-specific and structured-specific, is in the type ofactivities; with unstructured activities, the
: o How are the student learning activities perceived by teachers (in terms of overall quality and perceived usefulness in building STEM interest, skills, and knowledge)? o Are the teacher professional development workshops associated with improvements in teachers’ confidence delivering STEM content in the classroom? o Are the student activities associated with improvements in student outcomes (including students’ self-efficacy, outcome expectations, and interest in STEM)? Inputs Activities Outputs Outcomes • NASA funding Developing Teaching Teaching Modules