through P3). Also, students who reported better interactions withteammates (B.5) had a stronger sense of self-efficacy in engineering classes in a statisticallysignificant way. Except for interactions with teammates, all behavior metrics were positively andsignificantly linked to the EI dimension that measured how much they were perceived as a goodengineer by their professors and peers. Similarly, when a student was perceived as a goodengineer by their peers, he or she tended to do a better job keeping the team on track (B.2), at asignificance level of 0.001. Results were detailed in Appendix Table A.4.Teamwork behaviors were linked to team conflicts in modest ways. Students who ratedthemselves lower on interactions with teammates tended to
identity development in middle school students experiencing engineering curricula[4], scaffolding knowledge at this level is an important aspect of continuing to build students’interest in studying engineering [5]. Such experiences help to improve student self-efficacy andattitudes toward STEM and facilitate students’ understanding of engineering during a crucialperiod of integrated scientific inquiry and engagement. The Science, Technology, Engineering,and Mathematics Innovation and Design (STEM-ID) Curricula developed at the Georgia TechCenter for Education Integrating Science, Mathematics and Computing (CEISMC) integratefoundational mathematics and science in an engineering context through challenges thatintroduce students to advanced
dataset. This dataset incorporated condition-base scaling to account for the six operational modes within the data (Figure 3), as each mode could have its own nominal sensor values and failure points. Studentswere instructed to write a report showing their models’ performance: Figure 4 shows onestudent’s visualization of their RNN model, measuring the predicted RUL value to the test data’sRUL value for five engine units. The model’s performance accounted for 30% of their grade,compared to a baseline linear regression model with no data processing. Figure 4. Final Project RNN Model Performance (From Student’s Final Project)Results of pre and post course surveysA self-efficacy survey was selected as the primary
. Scholarship recipients will be linked throughcohort teaming sessions with campus resources, local industry partners and experts, and facultymentors, to propose, critique, select, develop, and implement commercially viable technologyproducts. The novel approach to engineering education developed through this project will serveto enrich the creative potential of new graduates in technical fields and expand small businesscreation and employment, both of importance to growth regions where there may be fewer largecorporate employers. Key dimensions of those who exhibit entrepreneurial thinking include agrowth mindset, a regular practice of creativity, and high personal self‐efficacy. Withentrepreneurism seen as an enabling force to overcome employment and
examine the resistance toadvocacy efforts, which hinders increased representation, participation, and belonging inengineering. We did not initially plan to explain why individuals resist advocacy efforts, yet ourongoing research into self-efficacy and self-advocacy around HC messages in engineeringpositioned us to examine individuals’ resistance to advocacy. Our previous HC research hasfocused on women [9], undergraduate and graduate students [7], and faculty members [17] inengineering who utilize their self-efficacy to understand and cope with negative HC messages.Since this past research focused on individuals’ strategies, we have not considered theexperiences of individuals who are resistant to self-advocacy, or advocacy for others
greater sense of belonging to discipline, self-efficacy, and career readiness; particularly for under-represented minority (URM) students [3].However, such active-learning experiences are usually offered late in their engineering degree(e.g., senior-capstone projects) rather than early and often throughout the curriculum. Mostredesign efforts to address this issue typically focus on single, or multiple but disjointed gatewaycourses [4]. An example of a critical path in the Electrical and Electronic Engineering (EEE)department at Sacramento State is shown in Figure 1.Figure-1: Example curriculum path in the EEE major, showing long engineering pre-requisite chains called critical-paths. Courses shown in Bold, shaded, are redesigned as a part of the
engineering education with a focus on emerging technology systems in thecontext of applications and societal impact. We do this through a program of faculty-mentoredmultidisciplinary research, professional development, and exposure to real-world issues thatreflect the impact of nanotechnology on society, the business community, human health, and theenvironment. This approach also supports self-efficacy, multidisciplinary team-building,understanding the broader impacts of technology, and building the skills necessary for researchand lifelong learning.Overall, the key goals are:1. To provide an exciting and productive research experience for each fellow.2. To create a small cohort of students, who share common goals, that supports the developmentof
phase, we now conduct weekly reviews of rules notebooksto understand patterns of misunderstanding, using these and other observations to responsively developlater class activities. In the conceptualization and investigation phases, during which we offer students previously gener-ated code examples, learning activities now include guided questions pointing students to explore specificconcepts (e.g., syntax, data structures, error messages) as well as to report on their understanding of thoseconcepts in open ended responses. Our future work will continue to study the results of applying this pedagogical strategy. We willcollect more data, including surveying students to measure self-efficacy and other indicators of studentaffect and collect
financial difficulty. Prior research has acknowledged that HC socializes students to conform to thestatus quo [21]. Within this largely middle-class, straight, White, able-bodied, and malediscipline, the status quo perpetuates gendered values (HC), such as masculinity,objectivity, and autonomy through messages embedded in institutional and instructionalways [32].HC in engineering Individuals process and respond to HC by recognizing it (awareness), processingit (emotions), deciding what they can do about it (self-efficacy), and acting (self-advocacy) [2], [4]–[7], [9], [11], [12]. Previous research characterized individuals’responses to HC into three categories: 1) minimal/no action, 2) negotiating self, and 3)changing the environment
Arbor. Her dissertation studied the effects of instruction in engineering classrooms on women’s socioemotional outcomes including sense of belonging, engineering self-efficacy, and desire to remain in engineering.Donald L. Gillian-Daniel Don Gillian-Daniel (he/him) engages higher education and disciplinary and professional society audi- ences in learning how to use more equitable and inclusive professional practices (e.g., teaching, advising, research mentoring, colleagueship, and leadership). He has worked locally, nationally, and internation- ally, and consulted with universities, National Science Foundation-funded initiatives, as well as national non-profits. Don is the inaugural director of Professional
, respectively). Strong effect sizes of .86 and .64were seen for lower- and upper-division students, respectively. Participants also indicatedsignificantly higher leadership interest (p < 0.001) and self-efficacy (p = 0.001), per Table 3.Moreover, effect sizes were high, ranging from .63 to .95. Further exploration of the resultsidentified how increases in identity varied by participant characteristics. Correlation analysiscompared change in leader identity with absolute measures in other outcomes (i.e., interest andself-efficacy). This analysis found two significant relationships for upper-division students;leadership interest (r (50) = -.454, p = 0.001) and self-efficacy (r (50) = -.535, p < 0.001) wereboth negatively correlated with identity
introduction to hardware applications. Oncethey have gained facility in the programming language, they then apply this knowledge tohardware applications. In an alternative approach being piloted during this study, students areintroduced to programming and algorithmic thinking via the hardware applications; the material isintroduced concurrently instead of sequentially.Findings from pre and post-surveys indicate that students taught using both approaches had similarimprovements in self-efficacy to code and build projects with basic circuitry. In addition, moststudents appreciated the approach used in their class; if taught with a hardware-first approach, theythought a hardware-first approach provides greater learning, and if taught with a software
his bachelor’s and master’s degrees from the University of Texas R´ıo Grande Valley, formerly University of Texas Rio Grande Valley. He also holds a doctorate degree in School Improvement from Texas State University. ©American Society for Engineering Education, 2023 Keeping Calm and Staying Balanced: Exploring the Academic Pressures Faced by Engineering Students to Attain High Grades and their Impact on Mental HealthStudies reveal that grades have a short-term impact on students’ self-efficacy, motivation, anddecision making. Earning high grades has become a focal point for engineering students to securethree types of opportunities: internships, post-graduation employment
can increase the enrollment of students in Engineering. In addition, women’s self-beliefsplay a significant role in choosing their Engineering career. While compared to their maleengineering students, women’s self-perception of their performance and skills in Engineering arelower which could contribute to decreased desire in choosing and remaining in Engineering.Similarly, themes on the shared experience of Engineering identity (Huff, Smith, Jesiek,Zoltowski, & Oakes, 2019)showcase that stable career patterns are associated with higherdegrees of self-efficacy. According to (Byrnes, 1998) self-efficacy beliefs directly impactdecision-making behaviors in a way that college students with higher self-efficacy abilities aremore prone to
(EL), synchronized to the lab, where students study theacademic background underlying the leadership capabilities prior to the related Leadership Lab anddiscuss and reflect on the lessons learned following a given lab, and 3) one from a number ofelective courses that fulfill a Design and Innovation Leadership Requirement (D&ILR), whichfocuses on the engineering design process and the roles of teamwork and leadership therein.Incorporating alumni outcomes measurement in a longitudinal assessment planEarly in its history, GEL began periodically conducting pre-/post- program assessments rooted inmeasurement of students' self-efficacy beliefs [15] pertinent to learning objectives underlying theCapabilities of Effective Engineering Leaders (see
of EBIPs including both situational and individualinfluences. Situational barriers include lack of pedagogical training, perceived time for effectiveimplementation, and institutional support and incentives [3]. For example, there can besituational barriers like disciplinary differences or institutional influences that promote ordiscourage the use of EBIPs in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM)courses [1, 4]. Further, engineering faculty have reported concern about the time required forboth preparation and implementing EBIPs in class. In contrast, individual barriers includeinstructional beliefs, values, goals, self-efficacy, motivations, and awareness [4, 5]. For one,many educational theories and research studies can be
framework & the 3C’s Assignments Curiosity quiz, discussion, Weeks 2-3 of AU semester and MS Teams posts + Direct Assessments listed below Self-assessment Survey on self-efficacy on 14 Beginning of AU semester, EM learning objectives end of AU semester, end of SP semester Meetings with teams Framing the discussion in From week 5 of AU semester terms of EM and the 3C’s until the end of SP semester when relevant Direct
study following over 23,000 students from 2009 to 2016.The data were analyzed using multiple regression analyses to correlate high school,demographic, academic achievement factors from the 2009 and 2012 data collection waves to astudent’s likelihood of attending college and majoring in a STEM field. The high school levelfactors that were found to be significant predictors for college STEM major declaration includethe student’s family background, high school STEM GPA, and measures for math/scienceidentity. The findings are mixed and suggest further research is needed, particularly indisaggregating the math/science self-efficacy, identity, and utility measures, as well as ininvestigating potential differences in major choice by field separately
Nvivo: 1000 most frequently used words with minimum length of ten.3.5 Deductive Thematic AnalysisDeductive thematic analysis was conducted by applying the conceptualization of motivation to learnresulting from three factors: self-efficacy, seeing value, and a supportive environment [3, 4]Self-efficacy describes one’s confidence in the ability to complete a performance-based task. Severalparticipants emphasized an increase in self-efficacy by referencing skill development, and by respondingwith a capacity to apply new tools and strategies. Example quotes are provided here: • The PhotoVoice did bring a nice mix of image, essay, and engineering. I will use this in all my research projects.” • “PhotoVoice is a great new assessment
these experiments were visualized in real-time.To measure the key constructs associated with students’ success (motivation, epistemic andperceptual curiosity, and self-efficacy), data collection was done pre-and post-implementation ofthe experiments using the Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire (MSLQ) developed byPintrich, Smith, García, and McKeachie, in 1991. Also, the Classroom Observation Protocol forUndergraduate STEM (COPUS) was employed to characterize the simultaneous activities ofinstructors and learners during class sessions. More so, students’ understanding of the course andthe application of knowledge gained were evaluated using signature assignments.Data analysis was conducted using Statistical Package for Social
. Three research questions are asked:RQ1: How does student STEM SC relate to their design performance in parametricbuilding design? In this study, “design performance” refers to the ability of students to generatesolutions that have good performance in quantitative metrics such as low energy usage. Previousresearch shows that student self-efficacy and performance are positively related both outside ofSTEM [11] and in STEM [12]. However, this study evaluates performance specifically in abuilding design exercise with quantitative goals that are simulated within a parametric designtool. This relationship can reflect potential student effectiveness in technical building design, butit does not fully reflect student behavior. The extent of their
IntroductionThere is substantial evidence that most K-12 science and math teachers who aim to incorporateengineering design processes into their courses acquire these skills through extracurricularprofessional development (PD) programs or self-directed learning [1-4]. Research has shownthat PD programs are valuable in increasing teachers' engineering self-efficacy and thelikelihood of implementing engineering processes in the classroom [5-7]. These programs offerflexibility in introducing engineering design to teachers in diverse formats (e.g., in-person versusvirtual) [8], using various theoretical frameworks [9]. They often provide participation incentivessuch as stipends [9, 10]. However, despite the value of these PD programs, teachers areusually
report using the search term “STEM outreach”[2].Despite efforts to recruit more underrepresented students to engineering, overly difficultengineering tasks and courses can serve as a barrier to recruiting students to the engineeringworkforce. Research shows that negative STEM experiences such as “weed out” courses, orcourses that are purposefully difficult, cause low STEM persistence in first-generation collegestudents [3]. A separate study on outreach events geared towards female elementary schoolstudents stated that decreases in STEM self-efficacy occur around young elementary age [4]. Tomitigate negative experiences, there is a need to focus on creating positive STEM experienceswhich can increase student engagement and increase the likelihood
/978-94-6091-821-6.Magnusson, S., Krajcik, J. & Borko, H. (1999). Nature, sources, and development of pedagogical content knowledge for science teaching: Examing pedagogical content knowledge, Eds.: Gess-Newsome, J., Lederman, N. G., Kluwer Academic Publishers, Doordrecht, Hollanda, 95-132.Maine Department of Education [MDE] (2019). Standards & instruction–science & engineering. https://www.maine.gov/doe/learning/content/scienceandtech.Marquis, S. D. (2015). Investigating the influence of professional development on teacher perceptions of engineering self-efficacy. Ph.D. Thesis, The University of Southern Maine, Portland, USA.Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education [MDESE] (2016). 2016
, professionaland honor societies, scientific research [3], or identity-based organizations [8].In engineering education literature, experiential education has also been studied for its potentialto support professional formation via engineering identity development [9]. Engineering identity,a concept that describes how students understand themselves as engineers, has been argued to bea significant indicator of educational and professional persistence [10], [11]. Literature hasconnected a stronger engineering identity with higher retention rates, improved climateperceptions, and better experiences for underrepresented groups in engineering [12]. Scholarshave studied how engineering identity connects with self-efficacy, or individuals’ beliefs abouttheir own
utilization and application of their STEM knowledge. Networking with their peers - bothwithin their program and the national network - amplifies the experience and has the potential tocontribute to future career development. Participants, in the work itself, are given the opportunityto take ownership in the development of curriculum development and classroom management,building potential for self-efficacy development. Finally, the three interconnected strands holdmany connections to the Actua Future Skills Framework; “delivering results” requiresintellectual development, “working with others” draws from networking skills and institutionalknowledge; and future readiness draws from the three strands and makes connections to theparticipant’s future
increases persistence in STEM fields, particularly among URM students[28]–[30], and increases students’ sense of self-efficacy [30]–[33], science identity [34],academic skills [32], and views of the nature of science [33], with distinct benefits forunderrepresented populations [31], [35], [36].These benefits are more substantial for research projects that last multiple years [37], which isfacilitated when students can engage in early research experiences. CUREs are common vehiclesfor introducing early stage students to research [37]. Because they are often highly structured –incorporating journal clubs, lectures, and group work – CUREs provide more support forstudents who have less experience and improved opportunities to develop conceptual skills
scope of aproblem—a skill highly desired for its potential in innovation and entrepreneurship—fills a uniquecurricular gap. The survey of learning experiences showed statistically significant differencesbetween pre- and post-course scores in self-efficacies, which suggests that students sawimprovement in the ratings of their learning in five target areas: (A) background research skills,(B) critical thinking and ideation, (C) project management and teamwork, (D) technicalcommunication skills, and (E) interest in medical engineering.1. Introduction Current engineering education has well-established curricula that covers domain knowledge,mathematic skills, and engineering tools. Although education content and format have evolved,the general
]. Metacognitive and self-regulation strategies can help students be moreeffective learners. The affective element of learning refers to student attitudes and mindsets thatcan influence their thinking and behaviors, ultimately impacting their learning and academicperformance.Learning and persistence in higher education, and engineering education specifically, areinfluenced by many internal and external factors [5], [6], [7]. For example, Geisinger and Raman[7] identify six factors driving students to leave engineering: classroom and academic climate,grades and conceptual understanding, self-efficacy and self-confidence, high school preparation,interest and career goals, and race and gender. The first three items are fundamental to theclassroom experience
comfortable they felt about certain topics or situations on aLikert scale of 1-5. The content domains were then mapped and correlated to the dimensions ofglobal competence from the PISA framework, shown in Table 1.Table 1: Mapping Content Domains to Global Competency Dimensions from the PISA global competencyframework Q# Content Domain Dimension of Global Competence 1 Self-efficacy regarding global issues 1 2 Awareness of global issues 1 3 Perspective-taking 2 4 Respect for people from other