conversationsthrough social media platforms in the context of engineering education? Engineeringeducation pathways contain many dimensions, as shown by several studies. One investigationwas into the elaboration of self-concept and self-efficacy in engineering education,highlighting differences and suggesting frameworks for improving first-year retention [5].Another study critically investigates language in discussing inequity, signifying atransformation from "underrepresented minority" to "Excluded Identities" to address systemicissues [6]. Finally, another study with a comprehensive approach created a pathway programaligning with national models to increase engineering graduates through peer support andskill development [7]. Evidence from the literature
staffthroughout the entire planning and exploration process [12]. This Student as Partners (SaP)approach has revealed several critical pedagogical elements contribute to the success of student-initiated projects, including increased student engagement, motivation, and ownership oflearning, as well as heightened student confidence and self-efficacy [13], [14].While SaP is a promising model in supporting the SIGs, the survey study reminds that asuccessful SaP implementation values reciprocity of partnership, emphasizing equal support andbenefit for the students and staff involved [13]. Research further points out that tensions andchallenges in SaP that could potentially occur when different perspectives and motivations ofstakeholders come into play, such
of creative problem solvingoutcomes for their community service learning projects, indicating that scaffolding throughquestion prompts may play an important role in self-regulated learning processes and creativeproblem solving outcomes. The authors’ ASEE conference paper published in 2015 revealedthe impacts of scaffolding for creative problem solving through question prompts on students’perception on creative problem solving, self-efficacy, identity, and application of creativestrategies based on data collected from implementation at that time [14]. Results fromanalysis of available data indicated that scaffolding for creative problem solving mightenhance students’ self-efficacy and their interest in engineering and promote their
involves designing and assessing interventions for extra- and co-curricular activities for students throughout the educational ecosystem. He is also a member of the ASEE CDEI Spotlight Team. Dennis holds a B.S. in mechanical engineering from The University of Alabama and a M.S. in mechanical engineering from the University of Florida.Jabari Wilson, University of FloridaDr. Karen Theodora HicklinDr. Jeremy A. Magruder Waisome, University of Florida Dr. Jeremy A. Magruder Waisome is an Assistant Professor in the Engineering Education Department at the University of Florida (UF). Her research focuses on self-efficacy and critical mentoring. She is pas- sionate about broadening participation in engineering, leveraging
-determination theory variablesincluding competence, autonomy, and relatedness, with the addition of effort scale items inaccordance with recommended practices [33]. As the number of student responses is very small,we share frequency distributions below.Competence, according to SDT, refers to a sense of accomplishment and self-efficacy related toa focus area [19]. Three questions contributing to the competence construct were, “during thiscourse I felt…” a. that I was successful in completing difficult tasks. b. that I was taking on and mastering hard challenges. c. very capable of learning the material.As illustrated in Fig. 1, most of the answers to this question were positive with three negativeresponses to “I felt that I was taking on and
Educational Psychology with the specialties in Gifted Education and Research Methods & Measurement, respectively from Purdue University. Her work centers on P-16 engineering education research, as a psychometrician, program evaluator, and institutional data analyst. She has authored/co-authored more than 30 journal articles and conference proceedings and served as a reviewer of journals in engineering education, STEM education, and educational psychology, as well as an external evaluator and an advisory board member on several NSF-funded projects.Dr. Noemi V. Mendoza Diaz, Texas A&M University Dr. Mendoza Diaz is Instructional Assistant Professor at the Dwight College of Engineering at Texas A&M University. She
major rolein institutional priorities, individual experience, and engineering culture that necessitates anuanced and holistic research agenda.1.1. Prior Empirical Work on Smartness Relevant in Engineering EducationDespite evidence that smartness is interwoven into disciplinary practice and implicated in issuesof equity and inclusion, there is a limited amount of critical dialogue about it in our community.Some extant work has concluded that intelligence beliefs are linked to self-efficacy and the useof active learning strategies and knowledge building behaviors [18]. A study considering howyoung African American students construct perspectives of science and school related to theirown identity showed that students conceptions of science and
3.2.2 Search Keywords 3.2.3 Article Selection Measures 3.2.4 Assessment Criteria for Study Quality 3.3 Finding of Quality Assessment 3.3.1 Author Credibility Results 3.3.2 Literature Impact Results 3.3.3 Data Extraction and Analysis4. Results 4.1 Overview of Included Articles 4.1.1 Summary of Papers Included by Publication Year 4.1.2 Articles Grouped by Theme Objectives 4.1.3 Articles Grouped by AI Technology Used 4.2 Results for RQ1: Examining AI Literacy Coverage in Current Research 4.2.1 Analysis Framework 4.2.2 Evaluation of AI4K12 Concepts in Selected Articles 4.2.3
counselling and awareness, learning centers, workshops and seminars, academicadvising, financial support, and curriculum and instructional reform [9]. Research on the effect of SIPs suggests that many help improve academic preparation,self-efficacy, STEM identity, sense of belonging, and ultimately persistence in STEM [10]–[12].While investment in these focused interventions is important for mitigating the effects ofsystemic inequity within education and society more broadly, the structure of higher educationinstitutions contributes to a patchwork of student support programs that are difficult to sustainand often operate in parallel [13], [14]. The lack of consistent coordination and collaborationacross efforts can lead to redundancies and gaps
], entrepreneurship competitions[17], and peer-led leadership programs [18], contribute demonstrably to the development ofSTEM identity and subsequently to persistence and motivation to study engineering.Intentionally designed mentorship programs as well as research experiences for undergraduatestudents that happen outside of the core curriculum strengthen students’ engineering identity,including their confidence and self-efficacy to study engineering [35, 36]. Programs that buildcommunity among students construct a familial atmosphere that has been shown to be a catalystfor engineering identity building [37]. Platforms that allow students to share engineeringexperiences and build engineering portfolios, both connected to formal classroom work andoutside of
andEngineers in Rural School", or PEERS. PEERS is a four-years-study-project. They started toidentify the student conception of engineering and then support different activities involvingseveral social and economic factors like community belief and local industry activity [43], [45].The papers of this review focused on the following specific fields: Engineering activities,careers, components, support, work, practice, design, process, workforce, manufacturingfacilities, industry-community, career pathways, and local engineering plant. There were fewresearchers in the studies of engineering education that took a sociocultural perspective prior torecent years [34]. Grohs’ research [44] used the words: students' self-efficacy in engineering,hands-on
on graduatestudents who hold marginalized identities -- highlight the ongoing need to research the mentalhealth of STEM graduate students and how mental health influences various aspects of their livesand academic trajectories, aligning with the conclusion in the review conducted by Bork andMondisa focused on graduate student mental health in engineering (2021).Our findings reveal a significant shift in the focus on mental health publications during and afterthe COVID-19 pandemic. The observed shift in focus towards mental health publications duringand after the COVID-19 pandemic is indicative of an increased acknowledgment of the mentalhealth challenges that arose and the necessity for supportive measures and interventions toeffectively
conducted on theother sections of the post-survey to compare the scores of men and women identifyingparticipants. While our analyses of previous cohorts of REU students have shown no genderdifferences in student gains in research-based experience and skills during the REU program[27], it would be interesting to further examine whether correlations exist between studentlearning gains from research experiences with a student’s sense of belonging. By furtheranalyzing the additional sections of the survey based on the reported participant sex, moreinformation can be gathered on whether correlations exist between a student’s sense of belongingand growth mindset, scientific identity, self-efficacy, and likelihood of graduate school. REUbelongingness
] A. Robins, J. Rountree, and N. Rountree, “Learning and teaching programming: A reviewand discussion,” Computer Science Education, vol. 13, no. 2, pp. 137–172, Jun. 2003, doi:https://doi.org/10.1076/csed.13.2.137.14200.[13] S. Katz, D. Allbritton, J. Aronis, C. Wilson, and M. L. Soffa, “Gender, achievement, andpersistence in an undergraduate computer science program,” ACM SIGMIS Database: theDATABASE for Advances in Information Systems, vol. 37, no. 4, pp. 42–57, Nov. 2006, doi:https://doi.org/10.1145/1185335.1185344.[14] G.Y. Lin, “Self-efficacy beliefs and their sources in undergraduate computing disciplines,”Journal of Educational Computing Research, vol. 53, no. 4, pp. 540–561, Nov. 2015, doi:https://doi.org/10.1177/0735633115608440.[15
thebasics of engineering computational thinking [15] [16] [17]. Other institutions use a direct-to-major admission strategy and vary in how much computing is introduced in the first year.Regardless of admission type, white males continue to receive most of the engineering degrees inthe United States [18]. Factors including technology access, pre-university course access,classroom dynamics, societal stereotypes, social support, cultural relevancy, academic advising,and self-efficacy affect how women and underrepresented minorities prepare for and experiencethe first-year engineering classroom [5] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24]. Computational thinkinginteracts with these existing factors.The participants that we discuss in detail in the Results and
inclusion of neurodivergent students requiresus to move beyond the implementation of accessibility measures and adopt a strengths-basedapproach to acknowledge and cultivate the unique abilities and diverse thinking styles that thesestudents possess. While there is scant literature on the implementation of a strengths-basedapproach toward neurodiversity in the context of engineering or other STEM fields, a review ofthe existing literature finds that this approach is promising to enhance the wellbeing andacademic outcomes of neurodivergent students. One study found that a neurodiversity view wasassociated with expressions of greater career ambition and academic self-esteem [10], while thepost-program survey responses of participants in a strengths
principles of UMBC’s programs; andthe University of Pittsburgh’s SSOE has adapted (i.e., adjusted) many of the programs andstrategies that are the hallmark of UMBC Meyerhoff and PROMISE programs. The goal of thisdescriptive paper is to highlight key replicable factors and/or principles that support sustainedsuccess of URM academic programs developed at UMBC. Employing content analysis methods,we illustrate the alignment of these principles within our institution to create a baseline by whichthe success of the University of Pittsburgh’s SSOE program (hereafter referred to as PittSTRIVE) can be assessed.Supporting the Academic Success of URM in STEM: Evidence Based TheoriesFundamental to the measured success of all academic programs, regardless of
challenges General student challenges Typical challenges experienced by undergraduates Non-traditional students These students had different demographics and needs Supports provided by the program Financial support Financial supports critical for focused participation in higher education; opens academic doors Social activities Transfer students have different personal needs On-campus housing Peer mentor support Mentors are champions who support and value Coordinator support students Confidence Participation in a program supports student self
FoK play in enhancing students’ self-efficacy, whichultimately influences their desires and abilities to complete and succeed in engineering programs.We are also beginning an international collaboration investigating the role of socioeconomicclass for teaching and learning about engineering design and community engagement.The next steps in research on FoK must go beyond simply “recognizing” them to consider howthey can be converted into social and cultural capital.16 Possible steps include mentoringprograms between universities and community colleges to help LIFG students transitionsuccessfully and a university outreach program to assist LIFGs in enhancing their résumés byhighlighting their FoKs and their relevance for engineering and
the twenty-year existence has been to inspire 6 th and 8th grade girlswho are making critical middle school and high school curriculum choices to choose rigorousmathematics and science courses with an eye towards a STEM related career. As a means ofensuring best program practices, research is consistently conducted on the program. Previousresearch has yielded innovative curriculum developments, demographic/gender informedengineering self-efficacy knowledge and findings on the inclusion of cross-cutting concepts inout-of-school activities.Yet previous observations, surveys and interviews has also led to a pivot in considering thecontextual thread that weaves the program’s activities together. Observations, interviews andsurveys pointed to a
; Kanagui-Munoz, 2015; Navarro, Flores, Lee, &Gonzalez, 2014). The key predictive elements in SCCT include self-efficacy (confidence inone’s ability to successfully perform a task), outcome expectations (beliefs about theconsequences of performing specific behaviors), and contextual factors (environmental supportsand barriers). Regarding the latter, contextual factors, SCCT posits that these factors can eitherenhance or constrain educational and career progress (Lent, Brown & Hackett, 2000). To date,limited attention has been given to examining the impact of barriers such as institutionalstructures and STEM departmental climate on the mental health of women in STEM and in turnon STEM persistence. The advancement of women in STEM hinges on
]. Inengineering, where cultural norms, values, and practices converge to shape a unique discourse,the process of identity formation becomes particularly significant. Marginalized students,including those coming from underrepresented racial and ethnic backgrounds, LGBTQ+communities, and low-income households, often navigate complex dynamics of identity withinengineering spaces [6, 7, 16, 17]. The formation of one's engineering identity can profoundlyimpact marginalized students, influencing their sense of belonging, self-efficacy, and academicpersistence. Moreover, the negotiation of multiple identities, including race, gender, sexuality,and socioeconomic status, within the predominantly white, middle and upper class, male, andWesternized focus of
, while later modules build in complexity to focus on integrating these newfoundskills and knowledge. Within each week’s module, learning also builds towards articulatedlearning goals made known to learners via a Canvas Overview and Wrap-up, agendas during in-class activities, and (light) assignment rubrics. The repeated weekly structure creates a familiartempo that fosters both learner and student-teacher self-efficacy, guiding learners while theybuild up their engineering project portfolios. We provide examples of the Canvas LearningManagement System artifacts in the figures below. Figure 1: Canvas depiction of the full course module structure of two First Year Design offerings, as designed by student- teachers: Intro to Cybersecurity (Left
Diekman et al. [77], “STEM careers are perceived as less likely than careers inother fields to fulfil communal goals (e.g., Working with or helping other people)” andindeed, found that “STEM careers, relative to other careers, were perceived to impedecommunal goals” and that “communal-goal endorsement negatively predicted interest inSTEM careers, even when controlling for past experience and self-efficacy in science andmathematics”; pointing out the agentic (as opposed to the communal) value of STEM.Ramsey [78] took on a study to test for the value systems of students and faculty staffmembers of a science department in a university, and found that all participants involved(students and faculty) “perceived agentic traits as more important for
elementary schools isworthwhile for students and society at large, its implementation is not a trivial matter. One of thechallenges is that most elementary teachers have not had pre-service coursework or in-serviceprofessional learning experiences related to engineering education, and many elementaryteachers lack self confidence or self efficacy with respect to teaching engineering.10-13 Anotherchallenge has to do with the use of fail words and ideas about what failure means in theelementary context. What it means to fail in engineering is different than what it means to fail ineducation.9 In most elementary school environments the concept of failure and the fail wordsthemselves have very negative connotations. A simple online search of “failing
. Chemical Engr. Male 41 11 7 Female 14 14 19 Total 55 25 26Our research team wrote survey questions to measure the frequency and severity of overt andcovert sexism, gender biases, microaggressions, and other factors of a chilly cultural climatetoward women, as found in our literature review. Examples and key definitions were provided toparticipants in each survey question (see Figure 1 and Figure 2). The survey questions were vettedthrough a pilot study consisting of five male and five female aerospace students. Faculty at thestudied university
measurements" to the little character, person, or community doggy as she's making his house that informs the design during the Doggies activity. challenge, process, or solution. (F13R3, min 16-17) The characters or persons can be real or imaginary, but they must be a “user” of the design and not just a reflection of personal preference.Secondary Analysis of Qualitative DataFollowing the extensive retrospective analysis of Round 3 data completed by the full REACH-ECE research team, a secondary analysis of the Round 1 and Round 2 video data was conducted.The first two authors of the present paper led a
of students is essential for promotingstructural change in STEM disciplines at schools and institutions of higher education.The following paragraphs detail suggestions discussed by all of our panelists regarding necessarychanges in the areas of K-12 education, undergraduate college, graduate school, and theworkforce to promote gender equity.K-12 education: Improving gender equality in engineering starts in elementary, middle, and highschool as this is where people start to get interested in STEM and learn foundational science andmath concepts. By the time these girls enter middle school, they already have lower STEMidentities, self-efficacy, and career aspirations than their male classmates [30]. The panelistsidentified two areas of
. Current and past implementations of the course indicate thatstudents gain the most from the course when they engage in both the MOOC and the hands-onbuild and launch section, but still gain a great deal of understanding and self-efficacy from theonline course alone. When taking part in the hands-on portion, students become more curiousand ask insightful questions they had not thought of during the earlier sections, indicatingqualitatively an increase in student interest in further pursuing rocketry. These results arecurrently being studied more quantitatively in implementation of the course at the universitylevel.The instructional design is structured as first learning the theoretical concepts via video lessons,and then applying the hands-on kits