Culture in US Higher Education: Navigating Experiences of Exclusion in the Academy. Routledge, 2022.[17] J. Maloy, M. B. Kwapisz, and B. E. Hughes, “Factors influencing retention of transgender and gender nonconforming students in undergraduate stem majors,” CBE—Life Sciences Education, vol. 21, no. 1, p. ar13, 2022. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.21-05-0136[18] E. Kersey and M. Voigt, “Finding community and overcoming barriers: Experiences of queer and transgender postsecondary students in mathematics and other STEM fields,” Mathematics Education Research Journal, pp. 733–756, 12 2021. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13394-020-00356-5[19] J. A. Miles and S. E. Naumann, “Science self-efficacy in
theprogram. The third action, supporting students' self-actualization and actively motivating them, isimportant because it helps students to develop a sense of agency and self-efficacy. This can beachieved through encouragement, positive feedback, and support for their personal andprofessional growth. The fourth action, contributing to the development of the student's professional andacademic network, is critical because it can help students build valuable connections andopportunities for their future careers. This could include introducing students to relevantprofessionals in their field, helping them network at conferences or other events, or providingguidance on how to build a strong professional brand. Finally, the fifth
] analyzed the “low-choice culture” of engineering curricula, particularly incontrast to other fields of study. In the context of new research demonstrating the value of selfdetermination or autonomy for students in motivating learning, enhancing self-efficacy, andsupporting persistence, the relative inflexibility of engineering curricula stood out starkly. Withinindividual courses, studies have shown the “power of choice” to positively influence studentoutcomes, for example, when students may choose from among a menu of design projects[45, 46], and recommendations have been made for the design of self-determination supportiveengineering-student learning experiences [47, 48]. However, Forbes, et al.,’s statistical analysis ofthe curricula at 46
communicate to students that accuracy and efficiency are valued over meaning-making. This can serve as an incentive to high-performing students and a disincentive to lower performing students and students with lower self-efficacy. In displaying content-centered courtesy and civic virtue, faculty prepare resources and provide feedback on progress; with few truly low-stakes opportunities for feedback, these reinforce the primacy of accurate and efficient knowledge acquisition. Ruinous Faculty display short-sighted learner-centered altruism and courtesy behaviors, empathy expressing care for students in ways that lower their expectations out of concern
● I am confident with Calculus ● I enjoy math ● I can apply my math skills to computing and engineering projectsThe pre- and post-bootcamp survey included the same ratings. Ten (n=10) out of seventeenstudents (59%) participated in the survey. The participation in surveys decreased 23 percentagepoints compared to the 2019 bootcamp which was held face-to-face. Table 2 shows the mean(M) and standard deviation (sd) for each item’s rating.By looking at Delta we observe that the average change in attitude represents mostly small-to-moderate increases in students’ ratings of their self-efficacy from before (pre-) to after (post-) thebootcamp. Deltas are greatest for students’ confidence with trigonometry (M = 1.05, sd = 0.21
an energy audit of [our] campus, working on a bookabout sustainable agriculture in the Lehigh valley, working on a traffic calming solution for [local]street. All within arms length with measurable and visible impact on student life (especially if youwere a student who volunteered at [campus organic farm], like I did!)” Another respondent invokedsustainability as a way of explaining the program to others: “I try to explain that it is a degreefocused on policy and critical thinking in engineering and sustainability with a technicalbackground.”Responses about the perceived strengths of the program also surfaced an emergent theme of“professional preparation” (8 responses). While this theme was not unexpected as a response tosurvey questions
modified the curriculum to the needs of scholars.Week 1 instruction focused on algebraic concepts and dimensional analysis. Week 2 addressedcalculus concepts. The course received excellent evaluations from students and data analysisshowed measurable gains in knowledge as assessed by pre- and post-tests. All but one student inCohort 1 achieved growth during Math Boot Camp. The mean post-test score across all threecohorts was 81/100 (SD = 15), versus a mean pre-test mean of 52/100 (SD = 29). Using a pairedt-‐test, we found that growth was statistically significant, t(26) = 6.376, p < 0.0001. Besidesmaking virtually all students feel like they had improved their mathematics skills, students alsoreported that they had increased confidence in other
Page 26.1744.11 to pursue careers in STEM- related areas. Studies suggest that gender differences in terms of interest in science, technology, engineering, and math can begin at an early age22. In many cases, females tend to feel they are neither competent enough nor have the ability to study disciplines that are traditionally male dominated. As a result, females end up having a negative attitude towards the STEM fields of study. This attitude towards the STEM study areas are further exaggerated when considering the fact that there are a limited number of female mentors, roll models, or peers to improve self- efficacy in this area. The Women in Technology Discussion Panel and Symposium is instrumental in stimulating interest
need to hire female math and science instructors and teachers and parents need workshops to help them envision a broader future for their girls.Demetry and Sontgerathi11 reported on the long-lasting effects on perceptions of engineering andengineering self-efficacy for a two-week summer camp held at Worcester Polytechnic Institutefor rising seventh-grade girls. They found that girls who attended the camp and who sustainedtheir contact with the program (e.g. returning to the program as a staff member) had morepositive and accurate perceptions of engineering. Multiple interventions were important – girlswho participated in multiple STEM programs or events had stronger long-term outcomes.Participants in the camp did show
with theleadership of both women and men in positions of power.Thematic analysis of interviews reveals that the gender equality so far achieved by thedepartment has been a result of very deliberate structural changes, (e.g. hiring processes), and astrong representation of proactive department members with high levels of self-efficacy—theyare both aware of gender issues and believe in their ability to enact change. Different butcomplementary actions, from changing the way the admissions office recruits admissionscandidates to broadening the faculty hiring searches, have compounded over time to produce thecurrent state of near parity in the undergraduate population. These actions may not have beencoordinated, but, taken together, resulted in a
than a survey.When the total number of themes identified per student on the post survey were compared to theLikert-type response items, two weak correlations were found: student ratings of importance ofethical issues to engineering (Spearman’s rho 0.184, two-tailed sig. 0.002) and average self-efficacy (preparation/ confidence across 4 items; Spearman’s rho 0.140, two-tailed sig. 0.017).However, there were not correlations with students’ rating of the importance of the considerationof societal issues to engineering (Spearman’s rho .083, sig. .156) or the level they felt prepared toface ethical issues in their future work (Spearman’s rho 0.90, two-tailed sig. 0.125). It wasexpected that if students’ believed ethics was important they would have
average, higherGPAs and are more likely to graduate in engineering than students who do not participate in co-ops [8], [11]. Furthermore, co-op students experience positive gains in employment outcomes,including positive mentoring relationships, socialization into the engineering profession, andhigher post-graduation starting salaries than students who do not participate in co-ops [7], [8],[12], [13]. Studies measuring outcomes related to co-op participation consistently affirm thevalue of this experience.Qualitative studies of students’ perceived co-op experiences also confirm the positive effects ofco-ops. One study of underrepresented minority engineering students who completed either co-ops or internships found that these students reported
’ communication and teamwork skills4. It can also enhance students’ intrapersonal skills by promoting self-efficacy, character building, and resilience5. All of these traits are commonly cited desired attributes of a global engineer working in a multi-disciplinary world, and are reflected in engineering accreditation requirements today6-8. Project-based learning in particular can simulate an industry-like environment for students, to facilitate the development of the skills required for practicing professional engineers. In project-based learning, students are formally instructed to ensure they have the foundation of knowledge needed to work on and complete the project assigned9,10. Emphasis is
director at-large (2013-15) positions.Dr. Lori D. Lindley, Gannon University Lori D. Lindley is an Associate Professor in the Department of Psychology and Counseling, and the Associate Dean of the College of Humanities, Education, and Social Sciences. She earned her B.A. in Psychology from the University of Notre Dame, and her M.S. and Ph.D. in Counseling Psychology from Iowa State University. She serves on the editorial boards of the Journal of Vocational Behavior and the Journal of Career Assessment. Her research is on women’s career development, specifically self-efficacy and career barriers.Dr. Elisa M. Konieczko, Gannon University Elisa M. Konieczko, Professor of Biology at Gannon University, received her
such asCalculus, and increase their sense of belonging, preparedness, and self-efficacy. To understandstudent perspectives and experiences, we utilized Participatory Action Research (PAR) toconstruct a series of formative assessments prioritizing the views and participation of the RAMPstudents themselves. PAR was selected as a research and assessment strategy due to its emphasison student participation and empowerment linked with action for positive change. Onlinesurveys and four focus groups involved the students in topics geared towards developing apsychologically safe space for sharing experiences, providing feedback on program activities,and reflecting on personal goals, values, and aspirations. Based on our findings, we identify
developed by the research team to assess the effect of the course on self-efficacy as well as their interests in STEM, design, and robotics; while the university-administered evaluation is the standardized course evaluation that are conducted for all coursesacross campus. The objective of the university-administered evaluation is to gather feedbackfrom students regarding their learning experiences, the effectiveness of the instructor, and theoverall quality of the course. The evaluation serves as a valuable tool for the instructor andadministrators to assess teaching methods, identify areas for improvement, and make informeddecisions about curriculum development and faculty performance. The anonymous university-administered course evaluation was
students,” Journal of Indian Academy of Forensic Medicine, vol. 35, no. 4, pp. 321-324, 2013.[24] R. Mireles-Rios, J. A. Becchio, and S. Roshandel, “Teacher evaluations and contextualized self-efficacy: Classroom management, instructional strategies and student engagement,” Journal of School Administration Research and Development, vol. 4, no. 1, pp. 6-17, 2019.[25] E. Gandhi-Lee, H. Skaza, E. Marti, P. G. Schrader, and M. Orgill, “Faculty Perceptions of Student Recruitment and Retention in STEM Fields,” European Journal of STEM Education, vol. 2, no. 1, pp. 2, 2017.[26] E. Dean, “Factors promoting retention of adult nontraditional students in the community college,” Doctoral dissertation, Carson
. Walker, “Impacts of a summer bridge program in engineering on student retention and graduation,” J. STEM Educ., vol. 19, no. 2, pp. 26– 32, 2018.[36] J. M. Barth, S. T. Dunlap, A. C. Bolland, D. M. McCallum, and V. L. Acoff, “Variability in STEM summer bridge programs: Associations with belonging and STEM self- efficacy,” Front. Educ., vol. 6, no. June, pp. 1–12, Jun. 2021, doi: 10.3389/feduc.2021.667589.
science, students, and teaching,” Science Education, vol. 102, no. 4, pp. 771–795, 2018, doi: 10.1002/sce.21343.[25] J. Watkins, D. Hammer, J. Radoff, L. Z. Jaber, and A. M. Phillips, “Positioning as not- understanding: The value of showing uncertainty for engaging in science,” Journal of Research in Science Teaching, vol. 55, no. 4, pp. 573–599, 2018, doi: 10.1002/tea.21431.[26] J. E. Dowd, I. Araujo, and E. Mazur, “Making sense of confusion: Relating performance, confidence, and self-efficacy to expressions of confusion in an introductory physics class,” Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res., vol. 11, no. 1, p. 010107, Mar. 2015, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevSTPER.11.010107.[27] P. K. Lai, A. Portolese, and M. J. Jacobson, “Does
Paper ID #44099How Should Teaching Assistants Teach? Differences in Student Perspectivesby Gender, Race/Ethnicity, and Country of OriginDr. Denise Wilson, University of Washington Denise Wilson is a professor and associate chair of diversity, equity, and inclusion in electrical and computer engineering at the University of Washington, Seattle. Her research interests in engineering education focus on the role of self-efficacy, belonging, and instructional support on engagement and motivation in the classroom while her engineering workplace research focuses on the role of relatedness, autonomy, and competence needs on
harnesses AI and NLP to design accessible educational tools for underrepresented college STEM students. He holds his Bachelor’s and Master’s degree in ECE from The Ohio State University and UW, respectively.Dr. Denise Wilson, University of Washington Denise Wilson is a professor of electrical and computer 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 on the student experience. Her research interests and publication record are split among workforce, engineering education, and sensors research. She is committed to supporting progress toward gender parity in engineering and enabling equitable
results indicate that enrichment programs increase student awareness of and interest inSTEM careers. (Kwon, 2017) STEM focused summer camps have also demonstratedsignificant increases in student’s attitudes towards mathematics. (Wang & Frye, 2019) TheBroadening Access to Science Education Camp conducted a four-year investigation of theimpact of summer STEM camp on the interest in the pursuit of STEM careers. (Phelan, Harding,& Harper-Leatherman, 2017) Their findings state that 95% of participants applied to college, ofwhich 87% intended to pursue a career in a STEM related field. They also report increasedscience self-efficacy and understanding of science related careers. The STEM identities ofunderrepresented students grew positively
increased during the last decade.The results indicate that enrichment programs increase student awareness of and interest inSTEM careers. (Kwon, 2017) STEM focused summer camps have also demonstratedsignificant increases in student’s attitudes towards mathematics. (Wang & Frye, 2019) TheBroadening Access to Science Education Camp conducted a four-year investigation of theimpact of summer STEM camp on the interest in the pursuit of STEM careers. (Phelan, Harding,& Harper-Leatherman, 2017) Their findings state that 95% of participants applied to college, ofwhich 87% intended to pursue a career in a STEM related field. They also report increasedscience self-efficacy and understanding of science related careers. The STEM identities
task and innovation self-efficacy,” paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Society for Engineering Education, Columbus, Ohio, June 2017.[20] S. Correll, “Reducing gender biases in modern workplaces: A small wins approach to organizational change,” Gender & Society, vol. 31, no. 6, pp. 725–50, 2017.[21] J. Acker, “Hierarchies, jobs, bodies: A theory of gendered organizations,” Gender & Society, vol. 4, no. 2, pp. 139–58, 1990.[22] R. M. Kanter, Men and Women of the Corporation. New York: Basic Books, 1977.[23] V. Ray, “A theory of racialized organizations,” American Sociological Review, vol. 84, no. 1, pp. 26-53, 2019.[24] N. DiTomaso, C. Post, D. R. Smith, G. F. Farris, and R. Cordero, “Effects
/adaptability to change iii. Self-awareness and knowledge (capability/learning style assessment, affective domain, confidence and self-efficacy) iv. Networking, relationship building v. Creativity 12 b. Thinking Tools (Strategies for Seeking Out and Organizing Knowledge) i. Systems thinking/big picture view; synthesis and problem definition ii. Understanding of human behavior (individually and in groups) iii. Structured reflection iv. Making analogies v. Communication (broadly defined—writing, reading
Downtown) were an interdisciplinary major (Biochemistry and Molecular Biology) and anew chemistry concentration (Medicinal Chemistry). Although new facilities had been allocatedto the new Engineering Department, these facilities did not have furniture or equipment. Theywere an empty canvas upon which to build the new department. Regarding the curriculum, therewere two first year course titles on the books – EGR 111 (Introduction to Engineering Thinkingand Problem Solving) and EGR 112 (Introduction to Engineering Measurement and Analysis).No operating budget existed for the new department, so five-year planning started as thefounding chair was on site (fall 2017). The new Department of Engineering resided and stillresides within the School of Arts
suspect. Eliminating them from consideration does not alter the generalfindings. Finally, effect sizes were calculated (r values in Tables A3 to A8). These“measure…the closeness of association of the points in a scatter plot to a linear regression line”[27] and are associated with a scale categorizing the closeness of association (e.g., noassociation, very weak, weak, etc.) [27, 28]. While findings are discussed using p values, acommon practice in presentation of pre- and post-instruction measures of educationalinterventions, it is the r values that were used to interpret the patterns and arrive at the study’sconclusions.Persistence and graduation rates of native students and those who transferred to the institutionwho had completed one of the
hidden, such as our research on majority measurement bias in studies ofpersistence [47], Riley and Pawley’s [48] work critiquing myths of gender and race inengineering education, and Foor, Walden, and Trytten’s [49] ethnography of one female multi-minority student which provides “a microphone for the voices of the marginalized to be heard”(p. 113). The powerful lens of intersectionality contributes to the growing field of engineeringstudies, which considers how social categories (such as age, race/ethnicity, class, gender, abilityand sexual identity) are enacted in engineering [50]. Our other work on SVEs examined theintersection between first-generation, engineering, and military identities [51]. The current studyextends other research on the