be measurable through improved undergraduate student evaluations, and2) publications and conference presentations by the instructional team for the benefit of the broaderengineering education community. 4OutcomesProgram Outcomes are classified according to short-, intermediate-, and long-term targets. In theshort-term, the individual participants should develop increased self-efficacy about their teaching,as well as an awareness of how their leadership skills can be enhanced through effective teach-ing.In the intermediate-term, our goal is to improve trends in undergraduate student feedback andfaculty satisfaction with GTA performance. An accompanying goal is that GTAs on the campuswill exhibit
]found that college students who were high-achieving usually had access to a summer bridgeprogram prior to entering their first year.In the second area, increasing interest in the major [13], [14], improving student sense of belonging[15], [16], [17], increasing student sense of preparedness [17], [18], increasing student self-efficacy [17], [19], and networking with students [20], [21], [22], and faculty [15], [23] can beconsidered as sub-goals. Finally, recruiting students to the majors [13], [14] and enhancingdiversity in the major [15], [24] are considered sub-goals for the third category.This paper presents a detailed report of a Summer Bridge Program (SBP) as a part of an ongoingNational Science Foundation (NSF)-supported project, which
the teachers and theuniversity students related to engineering habits of mind, awareness of engineering as aprofessional field, and development of self-efficacy related to engineering topics.Data Collected: Consistent with a mixed methods approach [28], we collected multiple sources ofdata to evaluate our RET program, including a STEM teaching efficacy instrument, video andobservation of classroom lessons, engineering-based lesson plans, laboratory notebooks, and anend-of-summer reflection survey.STEM teaching and learning outcomes were measured by the MISO T-STEM instrument, whichwas intended to characterize participant attitudes on entering the program and identify areas ofgrowth due to program participation. The T-STEM (Teacher Efficacy
Barriers to LearningAnalytics Adoption in Higher Education. Lester, J., Klein, C., Rangwala, H. & Johri, A. (Eds.).Learning Analytics in Higher Education: Current Innovations, Future Potential, and PracticalApplications. Routledge, NY, pp. 1-19.Karim, S., & Kandy, M. (2011). Time management skills impact on self-efficacy and academicperformance. Journal of American Science, 7(12), 720-726.Kearns, H., & Gardiner, M. (2007). Is it time well spent? The relationship between timemanagement behaviours, perceived effectiveness and work-related morale and distress in auniversity context. Higher Education Research & Development, 26(2), 235-247.Khatib, A. (2014). Time management and its relation to students' stress, gender and
the emotional experience of shame presentswithin a real student, outside of theory. This IPA study, true to the methodology, is intended tomake connections of theory concerning engineering education, gender identity and shame withthe real ways that shame is experienced within the student [19]. The five themes presented abovepresent a picture of the interaction between engineering culture and the individual student.Nicole’s experience of shame follows a cognitive path that is valuable for those in theengineering community who wish to see students succeed. Navigation of shame experiences isclosely linked within the literature to student’s self-efficacy [22-25]. Students who continuallyexperience pervasive shame within their academic and
characterize STEM careers as unworthy of literate andcreative individuals [2]. Does she have a good point? During the last two decades substantial efforthas been expended towards reconciling developing students with what can be broadly defined asSTEM identities. Considerable recent research broadly on STEM identities [e.g. 3-21], includingseparate considerations of science, engineering and math identities, has focused on the identitiesof groups and intersectionalities underrepresented in STEM disciplines and careers. But, someresearch also suggests that merely inserting a STEM label, e.g. science or scientist, into adiscussion unleashes implicit biases of gender, race and ethnicity in middle school children [14].Surveys to assess self-efficacy and
implementation withnumerous student cohorts. The methods used for tracking and comparing student sentiment,confidence, beliefs, skill development, and technical skill performance include: (1)demographics, (2) assessments of conceptual knowledge (i.e., two concept inventories and threefaculty-developed proficiency exams), (3) a survey that assesses design self-efficacy and othercourse-specific assessments, (4) written design skills tests that measure design problem framingability, and (5) student observations and interviews. These assessment methods are distributedand administered throughout the four-year degree program. This paper outlines and describesthese assessment tools and methods and how they are used to measure outcomes. The analysis ofsome of
. Brien, C. F. Bauer, and R. Champoux, "Assessing the self efficacy and spatial ability of engineering students from multiple disciplines," in Proceedings Frontiers in Education 35th Annual Conference, 2005, pp. S2C-15.[11] N. Veurink and A. Hamlin, "Spatial Visualization Skills: Impact on Confidence and Success in an Engineering Curriculum," presented at the 2011 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition, Vancouver, BC, 2011. Available: https://peer.asee.org/18591[12] M.-T. Wang and J. Degol, "Motivational pathways to STEM career choices: Using expectancy–value perspective to understand individual and gender differences in STEM fields," Developmental Review, vol. 33, no. 4, pp. 304-340, 2013.[13] D. B. Clark, E. E
meaning ofparticipation, motivation, and self-efficacy [9], while others argued that engagement is aconstruct with its defined boundaries and dimensions [10]. In general, the literature shows threeaspects of engagement, namely behavioral, emotional, and cognitive [1], [8], [9], [11].Behavioral engagement is based on academic and social participation such as credits earned,homework completion rates, attendance in class, events attended, participation in extracurricularactivities, etc. [12], [13]. Emotional engagement is based on affective measures of interactions inschool, both in positive and negative manners. These interactions can happen with parents,teachers, peers, school, etc. [13]. Cognitive engagement is based on the willingness to put
software-only applications in a language like Java or in a visual programming language like Scratch.For the past several years, we have offered a novel introductory C programming course toelectrical engineering students at the University of Maryland [21-23]. This course includedpartner-based programming assignments emphasizing computer-controlled hardware-drivenprojects and a final multi-week group project utilizing Raspberry Pi (RPi) computers. Thisproject looked at students’ self-efficacy beliefs and outcome expectations as compared tostudents who took a traditional programming course and the PDL students left their course with asuperior self-image regarding their fitness as engineers and an improved understanding of therole of computer
mechanicalengineering majors and faculty immersing them in projects with practicing engineers, in whichstudents’ sense of belonging, engineering identities, and their persistence in the major werestudied 11. Solomon et al. reported that there is a visible gap in computing education research thatdoes not capture the intersectionality of being a Black woman in computing 12. Schar et al.explored the classroom belonging experiences with students in their first engineering-specifcclass, and found that belonging had two separate sources: academic belonging and socialbelonging 13. Al-Qudah et al. embedded small interventions in a course for engineering pre-majors to improve their sense of belonging and self-efficacy 14.It is the hope that we can build upon prior work
these fields.Lack of Confidence: Many female students are faced with the constant battle of self-doubt. Are they reallycapable of being in STEM? Do they belong with the other students? Universities have alreadystarted to look at these problems. A study was performed focusing on achievement goals andhow they affect women in engineering as well as their perspectives on courses and experiencecompared to male students. The achievement goal theory is that those with low competenceperceptions usually take on the avoidance achievement goals that avoid failure rather than focuson success. The two types of competence perceptions investigated were self-efficacy andperceived ability. The study was conducted to see if women in a freshmen engineering
thathuman beings develop their identities in stages [11][12][13][14]). Even at the early stages ofmiddle-school education, the self-efficacy and professional identities of girls were enhancedthrough their engagement in art-modified STEM projects [15] A framework was developed byKegan (1982) and proposed that six stages of identity formation (incorporation, impulsion,imperial, interpersonal, institutional, and interindividual) represented the longitudinaldevelopment of the self from childhood to adult life [16]. The most powerful factors that influencesthe process of socialization and career identity development are role models, mentors, and theaccumulation of individual experiences that shape professional identity through both consciousand
in the subject domain.MethodsWhile the data analysis is ongoing, the survey questions had a 4-Likert scale to measurestudents’ perceptions. Most survey questions utilized a 4-item Likert scale from StronglyDisagree, Disagree, Agree, to Strongly Agree. Multiple items asked students about theclassrooms’ environment, activities and interactions as well as self-efficacy. 42 of the 46undergraduate chemical engineering students consented to participate in the study. A closed-ended survey was administered to participants with a 52% response rate.Preliminary Results74% of the responding students indicated the homework and in-class worksheets were mostconducive to their learning while reading the textbook was perceived by 60% of the respondentsas the
diversity. We developed an instrument for measuringstudents’ latent diversity from a review of the existing literature as well as interviews withundergraduate students. A detailed description of this process can be found in [7]. This surveymeasured students’ epistemic beliefs, innovation self-efficacy beliefs, STEM role identityconstructs, motivation, personality, and background factors such as race/ethnicity, genderidentity, sexual orientation, ZIP code, and parent(s) level of education. Students responded toitems measuring their attitudes and beliefs on a 7-point anchored numeric scale. We administered3,855 paper and pencil surveys to 32 ABET accredited institutions to understand students’ latentdiversity. These schools were recruited from a list
, 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 global issues such as those pertaining to sustainability.Dr. Sandra D. Eksioglu, Clemson University Sandra D. Eksioglu is an Associate Professor of Industrial Engineering Department at Clemson Univer- sity. She received her Ph.D. in Industrial and Systems Engineering at the University of Florida in 2002. Sandra’s research interests are in operations research with applications in supply chain, transportation systems, and energy systems.Joanna Wright, University of Washington
on pedagogy (Fundamental)IntroductionResearch experiences for teachers (RET) programs can provide K-12 teachers with valuable andimpactful professional development opportunities, increase teachers’ self-efficacy and allowthem to gain further mastery in their subject so that they can better translate that knowledge totheir students. At a fundamental level, these types of programs are abbreviated apprenticeships inwhich the teacher trains to become a scientist. After all, if teachers are expected to teach theirstudents how to do science, then they themselves must know how to do science [1].While RET programs exist at universities across the country, the exact structures of the programsand the nature of the actual research experience vary
photos from opening or closing day that include parents? Emphasize human and Offer single sex social context and Include parents programming teaming Build self-efficacy in Provide role models and Facilitate multiple engineering peer support
aspects involving both student outcomes and teacher outcomes.For students, we assessed student growth, such as interest, self-efficacy and confidence incomputing. For teachers, we assessed teachers’ learning and adoption of inquiry-based practices,basic App Inventor computing skills, and observed how and to what extent they incorporatedApp Inventor programming and project app development into their courses. We also assessed theoverall impact of their project participation.MethodsThe project underwent both formative and summative evaluation throughout, all conducted by anexternal evaluation team (second and third authors) and reported regularly to the project leads(first and fourth author). Data collection included several components: • Annual
, studies of students’ self-efficacy in engineering contexts providevaluable insights into how students’ perceived abilities to accomplish particular tasks mayinfluence important student outcomes; however, these studies do not fully account for other aspectsof students experiences and identities including attitudes toward subject material, motivation,background experiences, social identities like race and gender, and other salient and interwovenstudent attitudes, beliefs, and mindsets. Accounting for multiple and overlapping measures canprovide additional explanatory power to understand student outcomes, but this approach alsobrings methodological challenges in analyzing complex data with multiple correlated dimensions.One newer statistical
level engineering courses.In this study, first semester cGPA was found to be related to students’ CAT scores. In general,students with higher CAT scores performed better at the end of their first semester in college.ConclusionAlthough this study found a relation between CAT scores and first semester cumulative GPA,the investigators recognize that critical thinking skills, although important, are not the onlydeterminants of students’ success in college. Other factors such as students’ self-efficacy andtheir motivation play a role in students’ academic performance and success in college.AcknowledgementsThis material is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation (NSF) underGrant number DUE-1504730. Any opinions, findings, and
semester that ratedconfidence to determine self efficacy improvement. A similar method could be of use in thefuture to build upon the current survey questions that aimed to gauge student understandingthrough rating their level of knowledge. Self efficacy would be a similar, but perhaps moremeaningful measurement, as students would be able to more accurately self-report this on asurvey. It would also provide a great deal more insight to have numbers that can be compared,and thus provide a more accurate sense of video influence on student learning.In addition to the more qualitative, opinion based data provided by the survey, it may be helpfulto incorporate assessments that more directly illustrate how the videos improve understanding ofconcepts
planned and cyclicallyadapted to the attainment of personal goals” [16, p. 14]; Self-Regulation Theory structuresattention prior to, during, and after performance into three phases. As in design, these phases arecyclical, where information and thoughts shape behavior proactively and reactively [21].Forethought encompasses activities and thought in preparation for a task, such as planning, goalsetting, and non-cognitive factors like self-efficacy. In performance, attention is given to thequality of execution by self-control and focusing strategies, as well as record keeping. The finalphase, self-reflection, includes judgment and reaction elements that assess and explain outcomes,as well as shape future attempts.Self-regulation has been recommended
about the important role that effort plays in success [37].There are three main cognitive motivational theories: goal theory, expectancy value theory, andattribution theory that apply to students.In goal theory, motivation is induced by the discrepancy between their current condition asstudents and their future condition (i.e., goal) of being a practicing professional. Self-efficacy, orone’s ability to succeed in a specific situation, plays a significant role in goal theory. A student’sgoals should be challenging but not be perceived as beyond their capability. If individuals mustexpend a great amount of time and effort to accomplish a goal, then they are more likely tochoose an activity that they feel capable of performing successfully and
camps arepositioned to reduce these challenges by offering girl participants more opportunities to directlycontribute to STEM related components of the project.Prior research has provided insight into girls’ attitudes towards STEM and methods forencouraging their persistence (Microsoft, 2018; Mosatche, Matloff-Nieves, Kekelis, & Lawner,2013; Dasgupta & Stout, 2014; McGrath, 2004, Hughes, 2013, Seron, 2016). Although thestudies identified the need to improve self-efficacy and a sense of belonging with efforts such asproviding female role models and opportunities for teamwork, these studies did not address girls’perception of belonging in STEM teamwork activities. SEEK insights suggest differentperceptions exist between girls and boys
-4.2 Other 0.3 0 -0.3Analysis of Survey DataStudent survey data demonstrate many positive impacts including changing student self-perception,self-efficacy, and career and educational plans. Faculty survey data indicate positive outcome rangingfrom improved ability to supervise and advise students in research, improved teaching skills andcredibility, and new research opportunities.Staff survey results indicate interest in working with the faculty and students from diverse backgroundsand no presence of bias. Staff indicate a variety of benefits from expanding their own research 17portfolios to learning about the ability of faculty
experience cannotbe required, but it is encouraged. SIIRE workshops focus on performing research and on how tocommunicate research. In addition, SIIRE supports students as they perform their graduatestudies, which often includes a thesis.Borrego et al. [20] apply social cognitive career theory to examine the underpinnings of whyengineering students choose graduate school. They developed constructs aligned with socialcognitive career theory such as self-efficacy, outcome expectations, supports, barriers and choiceactions. These constructs present a more holistic view of the many factors involved in makingthe choice to attend graduate school. For example, Borrego et al. [20] used self-efficacy torepresent “a person’s beliefs about their ability to
], [15]. Despite thelarge body of research supporting the PSI, some criticisms can also be made. Namely, self-assessment of personal abilities is inherently affected by self-esteem, or an individual’s feelingsabout their own value and capabilities. Poor appraisals can be associated with low self-esteemrather than low self-efficacy, which could be the case for an individual who scores low on PSIbut is known by an instructor to be a good self-motivated student who succeeds a problem-solving. Similarly, a known bad student at problem-solving could score high on PSI due to anover-inflated evaluation of their own abilities.3. Engineering Modified Problem Solving InventoryThe Heppner and Peterson [6] PSI was developed to measure adults’ individual
., & Tice, D. M. (1994), Losing control: How and why people fail at self- regulation. San Diego, CA, US: Academic Press.[8] Feldmann, S. C., and Martinez-Pons, M., (1995), The relationship of self-efficacy, self-regulation, and collaborative verbal behavior with grades, Preliminary Findings, Psychological Reports, 77:971-978.[9] Tangney, J. P., Baumeister, R. F., & Boone, A. L. (2004). High Self-Control Predicts Good Adjustment, Less Pathology, Better Grades, and Interpersonal Success. Journal of Personality, 72(2), 271-322.[10] McCrae, R. R., and John, O. P., (1992), An introduction to the ve-factor model and its applications, Journal of Personality, 60(2):175-215.[11] Trapmann, S., Hell, B. Hirn, J-O. W
during the design process help accelerate or impede a student’s designlearning? Anything that questions the student’s model of the design process forces a rectifying ofthe mental model and learning happens; through iterations the student can continually refine thecognitive mental model as measure of design competency [13]. In project-based learningenvironments, ambiguity abounds and in a state that lacks certainty students often fumble at whattheir next step is, using their own developing judgment and sense of self efficacy to moveforward.We hypothesize that both the breadth and frequency of iterative steps in the design process givestudents more learning moments to apply their model of the design process, helping to rectifymisconceptions and