academic/personal growth and understanding of engineering careers.Participants reported increased interest in and understanding of research practices and futurecareers. One “Learned so much more about the field I am going into and the different types ofwork I can expect in my future.” Another described growth in research interest, career potential,and opportunities for future study: “Ultimately, it [the internship] opened my interests and eyes to a different type of engineering that I did not expect. Also, with seeing how helpful this opportunity was I have become more excited to transfer and get more involved with this project or other projects.”Emerging self-efficacy [19]-[23] as an engineer is evident in the
the competitive climate experienced in STEM classes, increased reports of loss of confidenceincluding among high-performing female students who switch out of STEM, and problemsfinancing college. Seymour also notes that students with socio-economic disadvantages are atrisk of leaving their institution following just one DFWI grade in a severe STEM gateway courseeven when their grades in other courses place them in good academic standing [4]. This body ofliterature suggests that for many students, particularly women, minoritized individuals, andstudents from disadvantaged backgrounds, issues related to competitive/individualistic climate,lack of fit, lack of interest, and loss of self-efficacy can be significant drivers of attrition
].The second possibility for expanding access offers depth over breadth. Stacking multiple high-impact practices has been demonstrated to hold potential as a multiplier effect [13,4,14-15].Where experiencing a single high-impact practice is good, experiencing more than one can beeven better. In this study we ask, To what extent does stacking additional high-impact practiceson top of course-based PBL provide additional benefits for students? We examine this potentialvalue in terms of the range of benefits previously associated with PBL: developing professionalskills and mindsets, as well as building content mastery; improving self-efficacy and ownershipover learning; and career preparedness. We then extend these well-established impacts of PBLby
-curricular training fellowship offers the skill-building, cohort-based peer-support, 8+ semesters of time, and life experiences to help address this challenge.The rise in entrepreneurship education at the university level is rooted in student and faculty desireto teach abstract and applied STEM knowledge in a deeper way that delivers value for real-worldstakeholders. Students learn dynamism and adaptability while simultaneously obtaining thefundamentals [1]. While entrepreneurship education typically rose out of business school roots,engineering programs increasingly look to integrate those activities in their curricula due to naturalsynergies around the design process [2], customer/product fit, student demand for purpose-drivenwork, self-efficacy
’ college teaching self-efficacy," CBE—Life Sciences Education, vol. 17, no. 1, p. ar14, 2018/03/01 2018, doi: 10.1187/cbe.17-02- 0039.[3] E. E. Shortlidge and S. L. Eddy, "The trade-off between graduate student research and teaching: A myth?," PLOS ONE, vol. 13, no. 6, p. e0199576, 2018, doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0199576.[4] N. Davidson and C. H. Major, "Boundary crossings: Cooperative learning, collaborative learning, and problem-based learning," Journal on excellence in college teaching, vol. 25, 2014.
importantinstitutional yardsticks, included high measures of student engagement and positive outcomes thatwere influenced by measured factors likes self-efficacy, academic achievement, completion,retention, and career preparation. The grading in the course is based on a combination of“objective” and “subjective” evaluations. The objective part involves regular presentations ofwork in progress (35% of the overall grade) and a paper/Final report and final presentation (25%),each based on work performed and published articles on the subject matter. The more subjectivecomponents are 20% of the overall grade and 20% for peer evaluations of participation in smallgroup discussions based mostly on completed work, cited articles and Class-Design ExpoPresentations
in anxiety levels from aninitial mean of 11.97 to 9.78 by the end of the semester (p < 0.001). Additionally, masterystudents showed significant improvements in self-efficacy in mastery, vicarious experience, andsocial persuasion (p = 0.005, 0.012, 0.018), which was not observed in the traditional group. Wecompared students' placement scores between two groups and found no significant difference inpreparedness (p-value=0.49). Despite the expectation that constant revisiting of topics in masterygraded sections would enhance retention and performance, there was no significant difference inperformance at the end of the semester (p-value=0.86). However, the final grade distributionsbetween the two groups indicated a considerable difference
, andcollaborative learning. Owolabi et al [1] described experimental-centric pedagogy as aninstructional approach emphasizing hands-on, experiential learning to enhance studentengagement and understanding. It involves active participation in experiments, problem-solving,and real-world applications, aiming to foster critical thinking, creativity, and practical skills. Thisis one of the emerging active learning strategies that have received national and internationalrecognition for its impact on learner’s motivation, self-efficacy, and cognitive development [2],[3], [4].Science, technology, engineering, and mathematics education requires a deep understanding of thephysical and natural aspects of existence, living organisms, and intricate biological processes
Year EngineeringStudents” in 2018 IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference (FIE), San Jose, CA, USA, 2018, pp.1-8, doi: 10.1109/FIE.2018.8659311.[13] M.L. Riggs, J. Warka, B. Babasa, R. Betancourt, S. Hooker. “Development and validation ofself-efficacy and outcome expectancy scales for job-related applications,” Educational andPsychological Measurement, vol. 54, no. 3, pp. 793–802, 1994, doi:10.1177/0013164494054003026[14] A.R. Carberry, H.S. Lee, M.W. Ohland. “Measuring engineering design self-efficacy,”Journal of Engineering Education, vol. 99, no. 1, pp. 71-79, 2010, doi: 10.1002/j.2168-9830.2010.tb01043.x.[15] D.B. Yarbrough, L.M. Shulha, R.K. Hopson, F.A. Caruthers, The program evaluationstandards: A guide for evaluators and evaluation
bondswith the community at an early age.Role models and their representationsThe feeling of isolation, balancing an engineering career with family life, academicdissatisfaction, and lack of minority role models on campuses can reduce representation. Thereis a need for equitable access of students to role models of similar gender and race. Most femalesindicated that encouragement and validation from someone like them can help build theirengineering confidence and level of self-efficacy. College administrators should seek diversefaculty to reflect the student body and to encourage/motivate an increase in femalerepresentation.Quality Teachers with engineering knowledgeThe participating students emphasized the need for early exposure to engineering via
provides a platform for students to identify real-worldchallenges and devise innovative solutions, fostering a sense of self-efficacy. Students’ sense ofbelonging, psychological safety, and decision-making processes about their future often alignwith their interests and curiosity, but anxiety can negatively influence these perceptions. Anxietycan affect children’s strategic behavior by discouraging them from choosing advanced strategiesand methods or even considering such options in the first place. Prior research efforts ininvention education have focused on intent to persist in STEM, attitudes towards STEM,inventor identity, teamwork, and collaboration skills, but further research is needed to explorehow to cultivate confidence and minimize
young BLV children. The library ran its programin fall 2022 and 2023 (for 14 and 19 students, respectively) as a semester-long (50-hour)experience held after-school and on weekends. The library developed project ideas incollaboration with a nearby school for the blind.MethodsSite leads collaborated with the research team to collect pre/post surveys and audio reflectionsfrom interns and feedback from site leaders and clients. Interns participated in a focus group atthe end of their internship experience. To date, the survey has adapted measures from validatedinstruments including the Fit of Personal Interests and Perceptions of Engineering Survey (F-PIPES) [12], Engineering Design Self-Efficacy Instrument [13], Short Instrument for
. Michalsky, “Peer mentoring in mathematics: Effects on self- efficacy and achievement” Journal of Educational Psychology, 109(6), 767-778, 2017. Dual-Form Mentoring Model: Near-peer mentoring 4. C.M. Eddy & K.A. Hogan, “Peer mentoring in a university first-year science course: impact on academic performance and perceived experiences.” Journal of College Science Teaching, 49(2), 38-44, 2019. combined with reverse mentorship was employed. Near- 5. D. Yomtov, S. Plunkett, & R. Efrat “Can Peer Mentors Improve First-Year Experiences of University Students?” Journal
I courses in Spring 2024. We arecollecting qualitative data on students’ game play as well as embedded surveys tapping thefollowing outcomes, such as usability, value beliefs, self-efficacy, personal relevance, culturalrelevance, situational interest, engagement and math knowledge. Overall, formative evaluationprocesses are integrated into the research methodology to continually enhance the effectivenessof the games. A diverse array of measurement strategies is employed to assess the impact ofMath Masters (M&M) on various facets of students' academic experience. These includequantitative and qualitative methods designed to gauge improvements in math knowledge,motivation, academic achievement, and persistence in engineering and other
students that impact their academic success. Noncognitive factors can include academicbehaviors, academic perseverance, academic mindsets, learning strategies, and social skills [5].The PMI is administered at the University of Illinois Chicago to first year students prior tostarting their first semester (prematriculation) and has been found to correlate to academicsuccess of students [4]. Questions related to Time Management, Self-Efficacy, Sense ofBelonging, Help Seeking and Managing Stress were adapted to survey the graduate students. Inaddition, mentoring by the academic supervisor is also important for PhD graduate students. Inthis case, measures in effective mentoring of faculty were adapted to ask about the mentoring byacademic supervisors
.[11] Walter R Boot, Neil Charness, Sara J Czaja, Joseph Sharit, Wendy A Rogers, Arthur D Fisk, Tracy Mitzner, Chin Chin Lee, and Sankaran Nair. Computer proficiency questionnaire: assessing low and high computer proficient seniors. The Gerontologist, 55(3):404–411, 2015.[12] Center for Digital Dannelse. The digital competence wheel. https://digital-competence.eu, 2016. Accessed: 02-06-2024.[13] Francisco G Barbeite and Elizabeth M Weiss. Computer self-efficacy and anxiety scales for an internet sample: testing measurement equivalence of existing measures and development of new scales. Computers in human behavior, 20(1):1–15, 2004.[14] Kelly S Steelman and Kay L Tislar. Measurement of tech anxiety in older and younger
to selectedstudents. In addition to the scholarship funds, S-STEM programs offer additional activities andresources [1]-[4]. For example, Southern Methodist University provided their S-STEM studentswith weekly seminars and block scheduling which positively impacted the students and theirability to excel academically. While various academic and support resources are included in theimplementation of the S-STEM Program discussed here, this paper’s focus is the impact ofweekly lunches on our students.Student retention is typically influenced by feelings of self-efficacy and inclusion in engineeringspaces [5]-[6]. Reasons for attrition include classroom and academic climate, grades andconceptual understanding, self-efficacy and self-confidence
female mentors, and female engineeringprofessors. Given each survey question resulted in strong positive statistical significance, theresearchers are encouraged to continue and expand this effort.It should be noted that the researchers recognize the sample size is small, and thus, it is notpossible to draw definitive conclusions based on these results. Further analysis is planned tomeasure the impact of this activity on academic performance and retention. Additionally, self-efficacy surveys were given in the engineering course and during the INSPIRE workshop. Thisdata will provide more depth to the analysis of the impact of the workshop experience.References[1] National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics (NCSES). 2023. Diversity and
academic climate, grades and conceptual understanding, self-efficacy and self-confidence, high school preparation, interest and career goals, and race and gender.” [5]There have been repeated calls to reimagine engineering education to better prepare students forthe 21st century (e.g. [6]). Institutions across the country have redesigned their introductorycourse experiences in engineering in recent years. This includes, for instance, Oregon StateUniversity [7], James Madison University [8], Norwich University [9], Portland State University[10], Temple University [11], Clarkson University [12], and University of California, Irvine [13],among others. However, this is not a US-specific phenomenon, with institutions in othercountries reporting similar
Sensor Networks in Health Care 72 2013 System STEM Outreach: Assessing Computational Thinking and 49 2017 Problem Solving Cloud Computing in Computer Science and Engineering 30 2012 Education Survey of Cybersecurity Education through Gamification 24 2016 The Impact of STEM Experiences on Student Self-Efficacy 22 2016 in Computational Thinking Gamification-Based Cyber-Enabled Learning Environment 20 2016 of Software Testing Exploring Computing Identity and Persistence Across 18 2019 Multiple Groups Using Structural Equation
report, we hope to include various measures of success forthis project that will aid in better understanding how short summer camps can be leveraged toincrease student knowledge of STEM integration and student interest in future STEM careers.The project team will conduct both a process and outcome evaluation. We will evaluateattendance at the camp and the community educator training as a measure of process evaluationto measure dose delivered and received. We will also measure fidelity of implementation of thecurriculum. For the outcome evaluation, we will measure community educator geospatialtechnological content knowledge and self-efficacy. We also aim to incorporate communityeducator definitions of success in their own camps as an evaluative
the effects of learningstyle and personality on online learning system use and outcomes. In Baherimoghadam et al.,2021 [20], authors examined the effect of learning style and self-efficacy on satisfaction of e-learning in Generation Z dental students. The study defined learning style as “a combination ofcognitive, emotional, and physiological characteristics [which] might indicate how a student canlearn,” and used the Solomon and Felder learning styles index to measure different learningstyles which has four characteristics, including processing, perception, input, and understanding.Using SPSS to analyze their results, the authors found that active processing and globalunderstanding learning style characteristics had significant relationships
variables that SCCT is built upon. The first is self-efficacy beliefs. That is,how a person perceives their ability to do something. These beliefs are dynamic and can changefrom activity to activity as well as over time. The next variable is outcome expectations. Aperson is more likely to do something if they believe the outcome will be positive (for them, forsociety, or in whatever sense they choose). The last one is personal goals, and it relates to bothself-efficacy and outcome expectations. Personal goals are often what drives people to pursue acertain academic path and are usually grounded in what they believe they can do (self-efficacybelief) and the intention of a positive outcome (outcome expectations).Research of the application of SCCT to
.” Ultimately,perceived norms are shaped by an individual’s perception of other’s attitudes toward thebehavior and social expectations about the consequences of the behavior – critical components ofintention.The third component, perceived behavior control, encompasses individuals’ perceptions of theircapacity or control over executing a specific behavior. This concept aligns with the notion ofself-efficacy [36], where actions are contingent upon one’s belief in their capability to performthem, as acknowledged the authors: “It can be seen that our definition of perceived behavioralcontrol…is very similar to Bandura’s conception of self-efficacy” [4, p. 155]. In this manner, theRAA connects to behavioral theories commonly employed in engineering
, "Design thinking as an approach for innovation in healthcare: Systematic review and research avenues," (in English), BMJ Innovations, vol. 7, no. 2, pp. 491-498, 2021, https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjinnov-2020-000428.[11] R. F. DeVellis, Scale development: Theory and applications, 3rd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 2003.[12] A. Jackson, "Validity evidence for the general engineering self-efficacy and engineering skills self-efficacy scales with secondary students," in Proceedings of the 2018 ASEE Illinois-Indiana Section Conference, West Lafayette, IN, 2018, https://doi.org/10.5703/1288284316863.[13] K. A. Douglas and Ş. Purzer, "Validity: Meaning and relevancy in assessment for engineering
requested to prioritize these factors based on theextent to which they influenced their self-efficacy beliefs. Analysis of student responsesconcerning the factors affecting confidence in success in this first-year engineering courserevealed nine categories of prominent factors: understanding or learning the material; drive ormotivation toward success; teaming issues; computing abilities; the availability of help andability to access it; issues surrounding doing assignments; student problem-solving abilities;enjoyment, interest, and satisfaction associated with the course and its material; and gradesearned in the course.In a Connecticut university, a survey was conducted on Introduction to Psychology students fromdifferent majors, including
education, vol. 6, p. 184, 2015. 11. N. McDonald, A. Akinsiku, J. Hunter-Cevera, M. Sanchez, K. Kephart, M. Berczynski, and H. M. Mentis,“Responsible computing: A longitudinal study of a peer-led ethics learning framework,” ACM Transactions on Computing Education (TOCE), vol. 22, no. 4, pp. 1–21, 2022. 12. G. C. Graber and C. D. Pionke, “A team-taught interdisciplinary approach to engineering ethics,” Science and engineering ethics, vol. 12, pp. 313–320, 2006. 13. A. R. Carberry, H.-S. Lee, and M. W. Ohland, “Measuring engineering design self-efficacy,” Journal of Engineering Education, vol. 99, no. 1, pp. 71–79, 2010.14. P. R. Pintrich and D. H. Schunk, “Motivation in education: Theory, research, and
-Atlantic private college. This exploratory study includes the perceptionsof two engineering faculty members and one educational support staff using mastery-basedteaching and assessment in a project-based engineering program. A semi-structured interviewwith multiple open-ended questions were used to prompt participants to share their experienceswith assessment in relation to their self-efficacy around teaching and their perceptions ofassessment in relation to their students’ failure mindset, metacognition (awareness of learningprocesses), and agency (ownership of learning). Directed content and thematic analysis wereused to identify codes and develop themes in relation to how participants described certainfeatures of assessment in their engineering
for(b). The 2021 and the 2022 cohort maintained the student motivation to figure out how to learnthe most difficult course materials. On the contrary, the 2022 cohort even exhibited an increasein the mean for (b) at T2, which is the end of the first term. The course was able to foster agreater sense of self-efficacy for students post-pandemic.Moreover, across the years, students in subsequent years (during and post-pandemic) exhibitedhigher motivation levels in comparison to the 2019 pre-pandemic cohort at T1, T2, and T3respectively. Table 3 lists comparisons across the years including means, standard deviations,sample sizes and p-values. Using 2019 pre-pandemic cohort as a baseline for comparison, at theend of the first term T2, the 2020
difficult in nature. Research has shown that self-efficacy increases dramatically withcross-disciplinary learning in project-based teams [8]. We observed a similar increase in self-efficacy. When asked to comment on one significant impact of the program students will takeaway – working as a member of a team was a common topic. Below are the take-aways by yearrelated to what students learned with respect to working together, building confidence and/or theimportance of having diverse people working together to solve complex sustainability problems.2021 • The skills needed to work in a team setting when long distance (over zoom). • I thought that working with a diverse group of people and applying the SUSTAIN skills provided an awesome