biomedicalengineering. After cleaning up with attention checks, we have in total 158 Japanese engineeringstudents (7 female, 149 male, mean age = 19.96) and 209 American engineering students (80female, 128 male, 1 other, mean age = 24.3) who have completed the survey. Amongst theAmerican participants were White American: 56%, African American: 10%, Latino American:14% , Asian American: 27%, Native Americans: 2 and Pacific Islander: 1. Based on a singlesubjective socioeconomic status measure (0 - worst off to 10 - best off), we retrieved the subjectivesocioeconomic status, which was comparable between Japanese participants (mean = 6.39, SD =1.94) and American participants (mean = 6.35, SD = 1.72). The participants took the survey in2020 after the COVID-19
for analysis. All results were cross-sectional.InstrumentsThe instrument used to collect data for this study was a survey which asked students to reporttheir perceptions of various items related to peer support, engagement, belonging, peerharassment, task value, self-efficacy, TA and faculty support, and TA and faculty interactions aswell as multiple demographic items. The survey also included five short answer questions whichasked students to identify their primary expectations for faculty support (one question), TAsupport (one question), and peer support (three questions). Two of these short answer questionswere included in this analysis.The four Likert scale items used to measure peer support (Table 2) included elements ofinformational
arcade game [19]. Fig. 12. Pictures of Student Projects or Presentations for Final DayFor professional development, students were polled in the areas covered by the program beforeand after the program on a Likert scale to evaluate students’ self-efficacy. The results indicatesignificant improvement for various abilities such as: resume building, networking,communication, usage of campus resources, awareness of career paths, academic capabilities,and self-awareness in their areas of improvement to remain competitive for jobs.The number of weeks can be tuned by organizers depending on the pace, content, studentcommitment, school system, etc.Students participating in the virtual program were eager to explore both technical andprofessional
with COVID-19 guidelines of BISD. Videoand audio data were collected for the focus groups. Each focus group followed a semi-structuredformat where mentors ask a pre-defined sequence of questions regarding Making andManufacturing, diving deeper into questions based on participants’ responses. We asked threetypes of questions to initiate the discussion on the Making and Manufacturing, along withidentity-focused questions to gauge students’ self-efficacy. Qualitative data analysis wasconducted on transcribed video data and notes. Qualitative coding followed a grounded theoryapproach as employed by Charmaz and Strauss [62]. The coding procedure was conducted by ateam of three coders. After completion of open coding by a single coder, the other 2
is Power Award” [3].Post-event media coverage and following through with opportunities are the primary wayshackathons can create material benefits towards these issues and for participants [3]. Therefore,eliminating single winners can reduce solutionist mindsets and increase self-efficacy for moreparticipants, ideally increasing access to resources to those who may also be impactedstakeholders. Experiential prizes over monetary ones sponsored by corporations, nonprofits, andfoundations can also help further dialogue and offer opportunities such as presenting at aconference that may be inaccessible otherwise [3]. With increased awareness on the topic oftenbeing a large takeaway, it is crucial for hosting institutions with more influence to
material is consistent with their future career (Wigfield, 1994; Wigfield &Eccles, 2000). The interest component is based on how students perceive course topics andinstructional methods, interesting (Hidi & Ann Renninger, 2006; Renninger, Hidi, Krapp, &Renninger, 2014). Further, the success component is formed on expectancy for success(Wigfield, 1994; Wigfield & Eccles, 2000). This component reflects students’ self-efficacy aboutthe coursework (Bandura, 1986). The caring component is based on students believes thatinstructors care about their success and well-being (Noddings, 1992).Motivation can be perceived as a student’s intention and engagement in learning as student’saction (Christenson, Reschly, & Wylie, 2012). In other
,” Research in Higher Education, Vol. 46, No. 8, December 2005, pp. 883-928.11. E. Seymour, H. Hewitt, Talking about Leaving: Why Undergraduates Leave the Sciences, Boulder, Colo., Westview Press, 1997.12. R. Marra, K. Rogers; D. Shen, B. Bogue, "A Multi-Year, Multi-Institution Study of Women Engineering Student Self-Efficacy”, Journal of Engineering Education, Vol. 98, 2009, pp. 1 – 12.13. Humphreys, Sheila, and Robert Freeland. "Retention in engineering: A study of freshman cohorts." Regents of the University of California, Berkeley, CA (1992).14. Brainard, Suzanne G., and Linda Carlin. "A six-year longitudinal study of undergraduate women in engineering and science." Journal of Engineering Education, 87 (1998
- fort. A graduate of Purdue University (PhD 2016), his research focuses primarily on reducing barriers to the learning process in college students. Topics of interest include computer science pedagogy, collabo- rative learning in college students, and human-centered design. Of particular interest are the development and application of instructional practices that provide benefits secondary to learning (i.e., in addition to learning), such as those that facilitate in learners increased self-efficacy, increased retention/graduation rate, increased matriculation into the workforce, and/or development of professional identity.Mr. William Rigoberto Mercado, University of South Carolina I am an undergraduate at the University
as an ITprofessional [4]. To address these needs, cooperative learning pedagogies have beenimplemented in higher education settings to promote proficiency in problem-solving skills,communication, and teamwork [5], [6]. Cooperative learning implemented through small grouplearning has been largely successful in STEM courses in promoting academic achievement andstudent perceptions of self-efficacy [7], [8]. A prominent model used to characterize teamdevelopment in various settings is the Tuckman model. It lends itself well to cooperativelearning and proposes a series of stages that teams must overcome to function effectively [9].Courses should ideally be structured in a manner that implements the tenets of cooperativelearning [5] while allowing
can increase students’ interest in engineering and their self-efficacy insolving engineering problems.“Engineering Design and Management” course is the focus of this article. It introducesfundamental concepts and principles used in the implementation and management of engineeringdesign projects or processes. Topics include an introduction to engineering design, problemdefinition/formulation, information and communication, professional/social context, conceptgeneration, project planning, engineering economics, and design decision-making.2. Methodologya. Teaching methodology for the instructors:All instructors follow the same textbooks and have the same list of topics. Each instructor haslisted his/her course evaluation methods shown below
from our exploratory study, it has some limitations, whichopens up several directions for future work. First, we used the three-component measure ofattitudes towards sustainability proposed in [31] in our study; however, students’ sustainablebehaviors could be influenced by other individual differences such as personality, motivation,and self-efficacy [8], [10]. Therefore, future work must extend our findings towards the study ofother individual differences beyond trait empathy and attitudes, behaviors, and intentionstowards sustainability. This direction of research could also investigate the potential influence ofgender in influencing sustainable design behavior [39]–[41]. Second, we introduced thesustainable design workshop in the last
that can contribute to its rise and fall.Though not explicitly measured in previous quantitative studies in construction, sense ofbelonging is linked to several other factors, such as classroom environment, self-efficacy, peerrecognition, family and friends support and others [7], [12]. One result obtained in the presentstudy that stands out due to its difference between male and female students is the question aboutstudents’ perceptions of having to constantly prove themselves for peer recognition, with womenindicating a higher agreement than male students. This echoes some of the participants fromMoore and Gloeckner [16], which mentioned having to prove themselves especially for malestudents.Our findings related to females perceiving gender
and the extent to which they view themselves as a “STEM person”. Slightly modified version of the Chemistry Motivation Questionnaire (Glynn & Koballa, 2005), which includes 30 items that measure the following six student factors: Intrinsic Motivation, Extrinsic Motivation, Self-Efficacy, Self-Determination, Goal-Orientation, Anxiety-Related Motivation. The Sense of Belongingness scale [8], which is part of the National Survey of Student Engagement, used by Higher Education Research Institute at UCLA and the Center for Post-Secondary Research and Planning at Indiana University. This instrument operationalizes "belongingness" in a number of different contexts, including
and are part of a 35high school program. After the spatial visualization application course was completed the meanscore for the participant group improved by 6.3% and students who were classified in the at risklow performing group and had a pre-test of 70% or lower improved on their post-test score by15.6%. Additionally, female students improved their post-test score on average by 10.7%.Importantly, student self efficacy improved after treatment completion, as was demonstrated inthe student evaluation survey responses. Due to the positive results found in the qualitative andquantitative data from this small evaluation, additional schools will be encouraged to use thespatial visualization application in the future, particularly for students
research programs, tend tohave stronger retention rates (Fakayode et al., 2014).Similarly, scholarship on Hispanic-Serving Institutions (HSIs) has advanced the concept of servingness asa measure of HSIs’ supportive institutional climate (Garcia, Nuñez & Sansone, 2019). Researchers alsoposit that engineering students at HSIs benefit from having professors who show interest in students, peerswho are more like family members, and a sense of self-efficacy that they gain from a supportive institutionalculture (Fleming & Smith, 2013). Additionally, undergraduates at HSIs benefit from co-curricularexperiences such as research opportunities, as well as tutoring and other types of engagement on campus(Garcia & Hurtado, 2011). Garcia and Hurtado
identity currently evidencedin the ASEE body of literature. The CTI layers, written in italics, are followed by relevantthemes pulled from ASEE conference papers. • Personal: self-efficacy and self-confidence in engineering students [7] • Enactment: the development of professional / authentic skills [8] • Relational: creating interpersonal bonds [9] • Communal, specifically community and sense of belonging [2], [9], [10].Pertaining to the programmatic goals of student academic success and retention, the authors wereable to identify relevant literature to guide in the design of the program. Relevant literature fellinto three categories: relating mentorship programs to favorable academic outcomes, specificallyincreases in student GPA
Student Attitudes Toward and Understanding of Engineering,” 2017 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition Proceedings. [12] N. A. Mamaril, E. L. Usher, C. R. Li, D. R. Economy, and M. S. Kennedy, “Measuring Undergraduate Students' Engineering Self-Efficacy: A Validation Study,” Journal of Engineering Education, vol. 105, no. 2, pp. 366–395, 2016. Appendix A INTERVIEW GUIDE○ Introductions ■ Ourselves ■ This project○ Get-to-know-you ■ What year in school are you? ■ Where are you from? ■ What factors contributed to you coming to UIUC? ■ Why did you choose ECE? ● What do you hope to do with your degree after you graduate
/34579[4] Engineering. Bucks County Community College. (2021). Retrieved from Engineering Area | Bucks County Community College[5] 2020 Best online community colleges in Pennsylvania. (2020). Retrieved from 2020 Best Online Community Colleges in Pennsylvania - OnlineU[6] Delahanty, C. (2020). Creative Self-Efficacy of Undergraduate Women Engineering Majors: A Mixed Methods Study (p. xvi, 188 pages) [Drexel University]. https://doi.org/10.17918/00000005[7] Aghayere, A., Buonincontro, J. K., Genis, V., Friedman G., Kim, Y. E., and Reisman F. (2012). Enhancing creative strengths in engineering technology students through curriculum and pedagogy modification. Retrieved from http://www.indiana.edu/~ciec/Proceedings_2012/Papers/ETD-351
relaxation, improved concentration, self-confidence, improvedefficiency, good interpersonal relationship, increased attentiveness, lowered irritability levels, andan optimistic outlook in life” [15, p. 218]. Additionally, in related research on mindfulness,engineering education researchers have explored relationships between mindfulness, innovation,and self-efficacy [18], [19].Other relevant specific populationsWhile not conducted specifically with university students, there is a third body of research onanother specific population that has relevance for engineering education. Veterans chooseengineering majors at a rate of 1.5 times than that of non-engineering majors [20], and often havedifferent mental health challenges than the general student
, reflection papers, peerevaluations, and course surveys. More specifically, the aim of this work is to explore the efficacyof the project in meeting a variety of learning outcomes, including enhancing 21st century skillsin audiovisual communication, and deepening the students’ knowledge of ocean engineeringconcepts. Finally, this paper shares lessons learned and provides recommendations for futureimplementations of this course project.IntroductionExperiential learning has gained ample traction in engineering education for its efficacy inmotivating students [1], increasing understanding of content [2], strengthening innovativethinking [3] and boosting self-efficacy [4], among other benefits. A wide range of pedagogiesfall under the umbrella of
doctoral degrees in Civil En- gineering from North Carolina State University in the USA. Her disciplinary research interests lie in the area of sustainability in asphalt pavements using material considerations, green technologies, and efficient pavement preservation techniques. Her doctoral work focused on improving the performance of recycled asphalt pavements using warm mix asphalt additives. As a postdoctoral scholar at North Carolina State University, she worked on several NCDOT sponsored research projects including developing specifica- tions for crack sealant application and performing field measurements of asphalt emulsion application in tack coats and chip seals. Her undergraduate teaching experience includes
: o How are the student learning activities perceived by teachers (in terms of overall quality and perceived usefulness in building STEM interest, skills, and knowledge)? o Are the teacher professional development workshops associated with improvements in teachers’ confidence delivering STEM content in the classroom? o Are the student activities associated with improvements in student outcomes (including students’ self-efficacy, outcome expectations, and interest in STEM)? Inputs Activities Outputs Outcomes • NASA funding Developing Teaching Teaching Modules
students are consistent within the gamifiedplatform provides further insight to how engineering students engage with gamified assignments.While the present study demonstrates the effectiveness of gamification as both a learningmanagement system and motivational tool, additional research should be conducted prior to afull endorsement of gamified homework as a valuable tool for improving inclusivity amongengineering classrooms.References[1] G. M. D’Lima, A. Winsler, and A. Kitsantas, “Ethnic and gender differences in first-year college students’ goal orientation, Self-Efficacy, and extrinsic and intrinsic motivation,” J. Educ. Res., vol. 107, no. 5, pp. 341–356, Mar. 2014.[2] S. Harris, J. Malbin, and J. Warshof, NEW FORMULAS FOR
module was organizedwith the intent to provide a new set of vocabulary in parallel with new opportunities for praxis.Engineering educators are positioned to nurture professional identity development, and indeed,the process of “identifying with a community of practice” is central to learning itself [9].Godwin [10] identifies several components of engineering identity development: individualinterest and affinity, self-efficacy, performance, recognition. In ENGINEERING 101, eachstudent produced a course portfolio in which the student curated showcase examples of theircourse production and narrated individual reflections on the assignments and methods employedtherein, their learning, and a statement of who they are across identities that hold
examinationsthat are not the same and where allowable resources are different (Ryan, 2016).Suppose the author was to comment on possible reasons for the high number of A grades in theonline group. In that case, one could "possibly" point to the general higher self-efficacy ofacademically bright students in an online environment. More of them (Giancola and Kahlenberg,2016) belong to the upper-income quartiles and can afford better resources and environment toflourish in the online environment.Individual grade components (tests, homework, projects) also show no statistically significant orpragmatic differences between the two groups except for the homework assignments. The onlineflipped class students scored 13% more than the F2F flipped classroom, which
.[3] N. D. Fleming, "I'm different; not dumb. Modes of presentation (VARK) in the tertiaryclassroom,” Research and Development in Higher Education, Proceedings of the 1995 AnnualConference of the Higher Education and Research Development Society of Australasia(HERDSA), HERDSA, vol 18, 1995, pp. 308-13.[4] J.-M. J. Booth, T. E. Doyle and D. M. Musson, "Influence of learning preference on self-efficacy and performance in mixed-modality firstyear engineering design," Proceedings of theCanadian Engineering Education Association (CEEA), 2013.[5] G. B. Dadi, P. M. Goodrum, T. R. B. Taylor and W. F. Maloney, "Effectiveness ofcommunication of spatial engineering information through 3D CAD and 3D printed models,"Visualization in Engineering, vol. 2
internationally), knowledge production, philanthropy, socialentrepreneurship, voluntary simplicity, self-efficacy and independence and occupationexperiences [13, 14,15,16,17,18, 19]. These studies found that study abroad experiences have astrong influence on multiple markers of personal and professional growth, however, this impactvaries based on the amount of time elapsed since the experience [20].Higher education institutions have been settings elevated goals of facilitating high-impactlearning experiences such as study abroad programs. During 2018-19, the number of U.S.students who studied abroad for credit grew by 1.6 percent that represented about 1.8 percent ofall U.S. students enrolled at institutions of higher education in the United States [21
surveyed before and after completing the project on their knowledge and beliefson innovation and entrepreneurship. The survey instruments are adapted from the pre- and post-self-efficacy survey developed by Weaver and Rayess [15] to identify shifts in entrepreneurialmindset and are in Appendix A. Some questions from the 2018 survey were removed for 2019survey because they were not aligned with the learning outcomes of the project. These werequestions related to understanding how capital is raised and knowledge of the different types ofintellectual property. The responses for those questions were not used in this analysis.The results from these surveys are contained in Figure 1 along with symbolic notations if theone-tailed paired samples t-tests
completing the lab assignment(Cohen’s d = −0.004).Figure 4: Comparison of pre and post-test results on a relevant content test for students who didand did not use Gridlock.Students were also administered a self-efficacy survey that asked questions in three categories: 1.Confidence in ability, with questions such as ”Do you feel that you have the skills necessary tosucceed in engineering”; 2. Feelings of belonging, with questions such as ”Do you feel that youthink in the same way as other students in your engineering department”; and 3. Feelings ofalienation, with questions such as ”Do you feel alienated from engineering at your university”.Students then rated on a scale of 1 to 7, 1 being strongly disagree and 7 being strongly agree.Table 2 shows
readiness toteach online in terms of the core competencies and self-efficacy. It is critical faculty havepedagogical, technical, and administrative competencies for readiness to teach online. Competencerefers to a state of being well qualified to perform an activity, task, or job function [11]. Facultyneed to be adequately trained and prepared to effectively teach online to achieve faculty andstudent satisfaction. With the increasing demand for online instruction resulting in more adjunct(part-time) faculty, professional development must keep pace with the trend of an increasednumber of faculty [12]. Challenges of isolation and lack of development of faculty whotelecommute or perform their job remotely must be overcome. Inability to assess the