theory.16 Self-efficacy is defined as one’sability to complete a task by taking necessary actions towards that goal.16,17 Self-efficacy haveshown signs of connection between student’s performance and persistence.18 Self-efficacy isfurther described as an amalgamation of these four traits which ultimately lead to completion of atask or a goal:171. Previous performance experiences or achievements2. Past experiences of enjoying the participation or work3. Peer/societal persuasions towards something4. Physiological scenariosThese four traits adds up to define a student’s self-efficacy. The term self-efficacy was introducedin the year of 1997.13 Various non-engineering fields have reported to use self-efficacy foranalyzing social skills, behavior
available only in the “gray”literature of think tanks, where validity is often assessed through critical readings by peers afterpublication, with responses issued from other think tanks. Compounding this difficulty is the factthat Louisiana carefully controlled the data from charter schools, releasing it only to a smallnumber of favored researchers, in violation of public records laws. The courts only sorted thisout in fall 2014.33Those who had privileged access to data touted success of charter schools: increasedstandardized test scores, increased graduation rates, and increased diversity (interpreted as ahigher number of white students enrolled).34,35 However, critics have pointed out methodologicalflaws in these studies, to the point where one
infusion of innovation and entrepreneurship (I&E) into undergraduateengineering education.1 Epicenter’s mission is to develop programs and initiatives thatempower U.S. undergraduate engineering students to bring their ideas to life for the benefit ofour economy and society. To do this, Epicenter helps undergraduate engineers connect theirtechnical skills with the ability to develop innovative technologies that solve importantproblems, while fostering an entrepreneurial mindset and skillset. Epicenter’s three coreinitiatives focus on students, faculty, and research.Students: The University Innovation Fellows ProgramThe University Innovation Fellows (UIF) program for undergraduate engineering students andtheir peers gives students the training
, research posters, and research articles. YSP participants were challenged to read journal articles, collaboratively write a scientific article based on a group experiment (making ice cream without an ice cream maker), as well as prepare an abstract, poster, and talk focused on their own research project. In addition to the weekly communication course, participants from all of the Center’s summer research programs—including YSP students—attended a weekly seminar series. Topics varied slightly from year to year. For example, the summer 2014 seminar series included the following topics: responsible conduct of research, ethics of animal research, neuroethics, industry, communicating to lay audiences, and applying to graduate school. In 2014, a new
extensive international experience background best exemplified this: … sometimes that need for authenticity, puts you in some awkward and culturally inappropriate situations. But there is something to be said about trying to just not be a tourist, and I think the experiences that I’ve had [were more authentic]. And when you’ve lived in a place for six Page 26.186.15 months, you’re not just a tourist anymore.Other students underscored the lack of local interaction that their peers had while on the sameinternational experience. For example, a high scoring student said, I know people that have done programs where
found to be more concerned with embarrassment, and having an uncertainfuture (Nelson, 2012; Nelson et al., 2013). A University of Alabama dissertation researchexamined “first generation to attend college” students and found no significant difference in fearof failure, procrastination and self-efficacy when compared to their non-first generation peers(Stuart, 2013). However, when the population was sorted by gender, female students from bothfirst generation college attendance and non first generation showed significantly more fear offailure. Ironically, in this same study female students from both groups received higher firstsemester GPAs than their male counterparts.2.5 External versus Internal: Examining Environmental FactorsPerceived
minds of local citizens and their level of trust and confidence inengineering and engineering-dominated organizations such as the Army Corps of Engineers.26Different opinions were voiced in class, including why rebuild at all in areas below sea level?However, about half of the students were silent and did not engage in these discussions. Thestudents were perhaps uncomfortable with uncertainty and the lack of clear, correct answers; oruncomfortable sharing their personal opinions when they were uncertain if their peers agreed ordisagreed. Some students voiced open skepticism, wondering why we were even looking at amap of residency disaggregated by race and in reference to sea level in New Orleans.In-class Discussion: Social JusticeA full class
shall at all times strive to servethe public interest,” and “shall be guided in all their relations by the highest standards of honestyand integrity” [1]. Design challenges push students to pay attention to the public interests anddifferent perspectives of community members, government officials, etc., as they work tounderstand and solve design problems. In addition, design challenges require both teamwork andindividual participation. This allows students to practice working with peers, similar to workingwithin a community of professionals. This can aid students in understanding the values andfunctions of their fields as well as the required knowledge they need.BackgroundPast research has demonstrated the benefits of early design experiences
having all learning be teacher-directed.The newer, and/or more professionally isolated teachers expressed gratitude that they had achance to observe expert teachers during the first PD session. All the teachers appreciatedtalking with peers across disciplines about teaching and being given a successful methodologyfor integrating app development into their curriculum. Five teachers reported that their teachingwill be forever changed by what they learned and observed in the PD. Some representativequotes include: • “I learned how to be organized especially when teaching something completely foreign. Also to look at all the different learners and tailor my approach. There was something in it for each level of computing knowledge. I
voluntarily joined the course. While in the training, they also had theopportunity to ask questions and create a community with other peers and faculty. This furthermotivated them to practice outside of class. Informed consent forms were collected on day oneand, after the students completed their final assessment and exit survey, a gift card and t-shirtwere issued to those with no more than two absences at the end of the course. The finalassessment was the PSVT-R [7] also. In Fall 2016, the authors invested in the videos created bySorby [5] which discussed the workbook chapter’s content. The videos were presented at thebeginning of each chapter and the authors learned from the students that this material facilitatedthe understanding of the modules to
hybrid continuous-episodic chapter management, growth and successprogram. The NRP programmatic structure serves as robust system to prepare Hispanics STEMprofessionals for the STEM workforce and ensure organizational mission fulfillment.Additionally, this study serves as an example of best practices for other peer chapter-based nationalengineering diversity organizations. The experience report is organized as follows. In Section 2,SHPE’s decade-long chapter continuous programming chronology is detailed from the EOYR toNRP version 3. The program’s strategic approach and corresponding required components arediscussed. Participation outcomes and lessons learned from the different iterations of the programsare discussed in Section 3. An outlook on
elementary and early childhood science methods courses, and has developed engineering education courses for middle school pre-service teachers and practicing ele- mentary teachers. She has provided science and engineering professional development to multiple schools and school systems in Maryland, and has significantly contributed to the writing of many integrated STEM units of instruction used by teachers and school systems. Her research has examined factors that support and those that hinder elementary teachers as they learn to teach engineering, and currently focuses on how children learn to engineer and in the process, learn to fail and productively persist. She is the Director of the Integrated STEM Instructional
, etc.) arerelevant to a broad range of sectors and organizational forms.2.1 Reporting in CompaniesReporting to managers, who themselves report to more senior managers, takes place within aformal, bureaucratic structure of work. Summarizing social theorist Max Weber’s classicconcepts of bureaucratic organizations, Gorman and Mosseri [2] write: In the prototypical bureaucratic organization, work is divided into well‐defined, nonoverlapping jobs that remain fixed for substantial periods of time. The performance of work is governed by written rules specifying the appropriate way to handle different categories of situations, so that workers' individual discretion is limited. Each role reports to a superior one in a
Science.Dr. Jon A. Leydens, Colorado School of Mines Jon A. Leydens is Professor of Engineering Education Research in the Division of Humanities, Arts, and Social Sciences at the Colorado School of Mines, USA. Dr. Leydens’ research and teaching interests are in engineering education, communication, and social justice. Dr. Leydens is author or co-author of 40 peer-reviewed papers, co-author of Engineering and Sustainable Community Development (Morgan and Claypool, 2010), and editor of Sociotechnical Communication in Engineering (Routledge, 2014). In 2016, Dr. Leydens won the Exemplar in Engineering Ethics Education Award from the National Academy of Engineering, along with CSM colleagues Juan C. Lucena and Kathryn Johnson
who pioneered thefunds of knowledge approach is nearly absent in our review because a large portion of their workwas conducted on elementary students. Thus, we consider primary sources, sources that helpanswer our research questions. A detail explanation of the types of sources that we excluded fromthis study are outlined in the next sub-section.4. Finding and cataloging sourcesIn the fall of 2015, papers indexed in the following five electronic databases were searched 1)Engineering Village, 2) Scopus, 3) Academic Search (EBSCO), 4) Educational Full Text (EBSCO)and 5) the ASEE PEER database. Table 2 outlines the exact search strings that were used in allfive of the electronic databases. For each database, we indicated that the search string
context.While one participant was walking through the user story of their partner’s concept, the otherparticipant was given Post-It notes to write down issues or questions that arose. These wereexplained to the participant as “parts of the concept that were confusing or strange, that somehowseemed inappropriate to the user, or didn’t work correctly.”2. Listing and grouping concernsAfter the user story, the concerns that were noted were shared with the other participant, and anyadditional concerns were added onto new Post-It notes. The participants were then asked to sortthese concerns as they applied to the five properties of a concept, identified above (i.e., form,function, temporal, use/user, and system). A brief definition of each property (Table 2
learned. In an online environment that is asynchronous, learnersdo not have the constraints of time and place. By leveraging online technologies, studentlearning should be designed with transfer of same information to all learners. For the freshmanstudent, online learning is most suitable for factual type learning or less challenging learningactivities [12].F2F would be recommended for intensively challenging, high-benefit learning activities. Forexample, the hands-on laboratory experiments in EE110 solidify key concepts learned from themultimedia content: online videos, text readings, assigned homework and frequent onlinequizzes. Through peer collaboration, students can help each other work through the labs as wellas learning how to troubleshoot
. I’m nervous that they’re gonna be like,man, she doesn’t know anything. But otherwise, no, [I’m not nervous]. I think just because it'shands-on, I feel prepared for it, you know, like as far as my technical writing skills and my teamwork skills and my people skills and that kind of stuff.[Now that I’ve been at work for 3 months] Mostly my responsibilities are just doing whateveranybody tells me to do, so that can range anywhere from working on [specific softwarepackage], which is something that I actually know how to do personally … or working on areport or attaching wires or testing some sort of a component. I’m not having to learn a whole lotyet, but for the stuff that I’m doing, I feel completely prepared for it. [...] I read up on
specific as using a new design tool or performing aspecific task (e.g., a weighted decision matrix); documenting and/or considering a new criterion,constraint, or focus area (e.g., users, marketability); or adhering to new project managementstructure (e.g., a set of milestones/deadlines).In some cases, these approaches were restrictive initially. For example, Hannah felt that thedocumentation aspect detracted from her technical design work, which was where she believedinnovation was occurring. We have this big design document... It's a 15 or 16 page document that we had to write about the project partner… So, obviously, we wanted to record what went on. Each failure, why it went wrong, things like that. But a lot of it was like
competitions. We found differences between the teams in recruiting,team structure and organization, student leadership, faculty advisors, expectations forcommitment, integration into academic structure (capstone), and focus on competition success.In spite of the differences in team organization and goals, both teams missed opportunities forstudents to acquire and practice important professional skills. Neither team providedopportunities for formal learning about leadership and management, nor experience andmentorship for working with a diverse group of peers (e.g. diversity from race, gender, socio-economic status, or major discipline). The most egregious missed opportunity within these teamswas, and is for many teams, the vast number of students who