academic competency but also comfortability, self-efficacy,and awareness [6]. Early exposure to different STEM career paths increases the chance of astudent choosing STEM as their career destination. More specifically, Dou et al. found thatinformal STEM experiences including “science consumption” through STEM activities at homeand conversations with family and friends about science “were predictive of STEM identity incollege” [7]. Further, research shows that social capital is key to broadening participation inSTEM; Saw suggests that a student’s social capital is “derived from families, peers, teachers, andprofessional networks” and supports their academic performance in STEM subjects as well astheir career trajectory in STEM pathways [8
, graduate research, etc.) aims to prepare graduate students fora workforce – in academia, industry, government, or nonprofits – that requires transdisciplinaryproblem solving both locally and globally.Results of Cohort 1 are reported here since the data set includes all three time points, specificallypre-survey to follow-up survey. When comparing Cohort 1 trainee baseline and follow-upresults, all four subscales within the Research Self-efficacy scale showed statistically significantincreases. Cohort 1 trainees reported statistically significant positive changes inConceptualization (mean change=15.6; p<0.001), Implementation (mean change=14.2; p<0.01),Early Task (mean change=9.8; p<0.05), and Presenting the Results (mean change=15.5;p<
self-efficacy, motivation, and the presence of mentors androle models can influence occupational and academic behavior, pursuits, and success forconstruction-education. Their research suggested that students with a person of influence havehigher self-efficacy and motivation toward successful performance in their constructioneducation [5]. While our study focuses on whether a Structural Engineer faculty member can bea mentor and/or role model for students, it does not determine if the faculty member is theprimary person of influence.There are multiple options on how to incorporate mentoring within the architecture, engineering,and construction (A/E/C) related majors. One mentoring model is the P5BL pedagogicalapproach which stands for Problem
engineeringliterate students, and as argued by others [11]-[12], can be seamlessly integrated into thecurriculum to support young children’s learning development. Additionally, some prior researchsuggests that practicing and prospective educators may have difficulty planning, designing, andimplementing lessons and activities that develop and promote children’s HoM as engineers [12]-[13]. This may be due to several reasons such as lack of readiness to teach engineering [14], lowengineering self-efficacy and low teacher efficacy related to engineering pedagogical contentknowledge [15], lack of engineering pedagogical content knowledge [16], and misconceptionsregarding the field of engineering [17].Out-of-school learning environments may be an alternative
iterative or parallel prototyping strategy impacted students’ use ofCAD during a design competition in an introductory mechanical engineering course. The resultsin this paper build from prior work that investigated how the two prototyping approachesaffected competition performance, engineering design self-efficacy, solution space exploration,and design satisfaction [11], [12]. This paper specifically addresses how the prototypingstrategies impacted design complexity and CAD software feature use and is compared tocompetition performance. In this work, CAD features refer to the specific operations that adesigner specifies within the software space to create a model. The overarching aims of thisresearch are to understand how novice engineers are using
-efficacy in tutoring engineering and engineeringtechnology students [14]. The results showed WATTS had a positive impact on tutors, andsubsequent research has supported this with statistically significant data demonstrating itspositive impact on peer tutor self-efficacy and application of knowledge transfer skills [15].During this iteration of the research, the student lab reports also had noticeable improvements,and the team received a STEM Education Innovation & Research Institute at IUPUI seed grant todetermine if this impact could be replicated at other institutions.The data supported the idea that WATTS impacts student writing and could be replicated. Toassess additional data and obtain a robust data set to measure the impacts of WATTS
other underrepresented groups in engineering degrees, whoexperience more difficulties to feel welcome in college settings as future engineers [4].Prior work has shown that several factors can influence an individual’s well-being and mentalhealth, including social factors, motivation, and academic discipline, among others [1]. Otherconcepts that have been explored are self-sufficiency, sense of belonging, and social self-efficacy[1]. Studies have also examined the relationships among self-reported stress, anxiety, anddepression; engineering identity; and perceptions of inclusion of undergraduate engineeringstudents [3].In this context, it has become critical to determine the predictive factors of student well-beingand how well-being affects
program for WomenComputing Students at a Commuter College and Measuring Its Effectiveness." In 2022 ASEEAnnual Conference & Exposition. 2022.[4] M. Bong and E. M. Skaalvik, “Academic Self-Concept and Self-Efficacy: How Different AreThey Really?”, Educational Psychology Review, 15(1), 1–40, 2003.https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1021302408382[5] Haktanir A, Watson JC, Ermis-Demirtas H, et al. “Resilience, Academic Self-Concept, andCollege Adjustment Among First-Year Students. Journal of College Student Retention:Research, Theory & Practice.” 2021;23(1):161-178. doi:10.1177/1521025118810666[6] A. Sullivan, “Academic self-concept, gender and single-sex schooling”, British EducationalResearch Journal, 35(2), 259–288, 2009. https://doi.org/10.1080
reflect students’ lived experiences?RQ2: How can serious games like Next Stop provide an opportunity for students to experiencecomplex transportation engineering and urban design collaborative problem solving?RQ3: What is the role of playful experiences in engaging students into difficult conversationsabout complex engineering problems that affect their communities?We intend to conduct interviews with bilingual students about their experiences with the gameand how they identify as an engineer through self-efficacy STEM student measures [28]. Thesedata sources will help us explore the ways that games can shift students into the mindset of anengineer and how best to meet the educational materials needs of multilingual students. We willalso video
students to be more reflective in later courses?IntroductionThis work in progress paper assesses whether a first-year ePortfolio experience promotes betterreflection in subsequent engineering courses. While reflection is vital to promote learning,historically, reflection receives less attention in engineering education when compared to otherfields [1]. Yet, cultivating more reflective engineers yields several important benefits includingbuilding self-efficacy and empowering student agency. Through continued practice, engineeringstudents can develop a habit of reflective thinking which increases students’ ability to transferknowledge across contexts. The adoption of ePortfolios is becoming an increasingly popularstrategy to improve student learning
toresources such as incubators (Karataş-Özkan & Chell, 2015; Parker et al., 2017; Poggesi et al.,2020). More recently, Wheadon and Duval-Couetil (2018) created a “capital framework” thatoutlines categories of barriers that control access, participation, and persistence in technologyentrepreneurship. This framework moves beyond social and financial capital, to explore howhuman capital (e.g. education) and cognitive capital (e.g., self-efficacy) are also factors inviewing oneself as a technology entrepreneur.Women currently face negative stereotypes about their competence in STEM fields as well assimilar stereotypes about their entrepreneurial abilities (Gupta et al., 2009), leading scholars todescribe technology entrepreneurship as "doubly
such influence can be the major a student is pursuing[19]. Along with varying by year of study, another study showed that the motivation of studentsis not stagnant but evolves throughout their time studying, with some motivation factorsbecoming more important than others [3]. There are multiple questionnaires that investigate themotivation of students, for this study the MSLQ is utilized.The MSLQ is a self-assessment questionnaire utilizing a Likert scale, rating a list of questions ona scale of “not true to me” to “very true to me.” This study specifically views five motivationfactors, which are gathered using this questionnaire: cognitive value, self-regulation, anxiety,intrinsic value, and self-efficacy. Cognitive value describes the
between team dynamics. The findings in this study also have limitations at the team forming stage. While UDO scoreswere used a criteria in different ways, it wasn’t the only criteria for team forming. Traditionalcriteria used in the course were given priority and UDO was used as a last criteria in formingteams. This could have significant implications to the interpretation of findings. A trulyexperimental setup was not feasible for a course offered at such a large scale. Furthermore, teameffectiveness can also vary with different factors in the course such as different instructors, priorexperience of students with teamwork, self-efficacy in course content, personality difference, andteam player disposition. These confounding factors need to be
understanding thatmay be necessary for success in senior design without more prior exposure. Finally, it has beenreported that involvement in makerspaces, whether in a voluntary or class required settingsignificantly helped students' motivation and confidence (engineering design self-efficacyscores) [7]. This course was therefore intended to provide increased exposure to a variety ofmaker skills with an anticipated boost in self-efficacy leading to greater success in theirformation as engineers.Additional pedagogical foundation for this approach is to be found. There is experience with thepositive results from robotics competitions across many ages and formats. For example, theTrinity College Fire-Fighting Home Robot Contest promotes skills of design
-related fields, and further courses inall areas of STEM build on foundational programming knowledge taught in CS1. Accordingly,previous research has largely focused on assessing CS1 courses using relatively traditionalapproaches such as concept inventories [5], retention rates [6], or student perceptions of thecourse [7]. In addition to quantitative evaluations, there have been efforts to qualitatively evaluatestudent experiences in CS1-style courses, such as their self-efficacy [8] or struggles [9].Unfortunately, there is considerably less research on the development of knowledge and skillsrelevant to professional programmers, such as code quality, and the existing research seems toindicate that these skills are not priorities in CS1 courses [10
, Dr. Tequila Harris, and Dr. Jenny Serpa.References[1] Society of Women Engineers, “SWE Research Update: Women in Engineering by the Numbers (Nov. 2019) - All Together,” 2019. https://alltogether.swe.org/2019/11/swe-research-update-women-in-engineering-by-the-numbers-nov- 2019/#_edn3 (accessed Sep. 17, 2021).[2] B. L. Yoder, “Engineering by the Numbers,” American Society of Engineering Education, 2011.[3] L. O. Flowers, “Course-Based Undergraduate Research Experiences at HBCUs,” J. Educ. Soc. Policy, vol. 8, no. 1, p. 33, 2021, doi: 10.30845/jesp.v8n1p4.[4] A. Carpi, D. M. Ronan, H. M. Falconer, and N. H. Lents, “Cultivating minority scientists: Undergraduate research increases self-efficacy and career ambitions for
professional skills,” Int. J. Eng. Educ., vol. 29, no. 1, pp. 85–98, 2013.[18] P. L. Yorio and F. Ye, “A meta-analysis on the effects of service-learning on the social, personal, and cognitive outcomes of learning,” Acad. Manag. Learn. Educ., vol. 11, no. 1, pp. 9–27, 2012, doi: 10.5465/amle.2010.0072.[19] L. Dent, P. Maloney, and T. Karp, “Self-Efficacy Development among Students Enrolled in an Engineering Service-Learning Section,” Int. J. Serv. Learn. Eng. Humanit. Eng. Soc. Entrep., vol. 13, no. 2, pp. 25–44, 2018, doi: 10.24908/ijsle.v13i2.11483.[20] Litterati, “Litterati - The Global Team Cleaning The Earth,” 2021. https://www.litterati.org/ (accessed Jun. 21, 2021).[21] J. M. Wolfand, K. A. Bieryla, C
, doi: 10.1111/jcal.12130.[9] C. J. Fong et al., “Meta-Analyzing the Factor Structure of the Learning and Study Strategies Inventory,” The Journal of Experimental Education, pp. 1–21, Jan. 2022, doi: 10.1080/00220973.2021.2021842.[10] M. K. Khalil, S. E. Williams, and H. G. Hawkins, “The Use of Learning and Study Strategies Inventory (LASSI) to Investigate Differences Between Low vs High Academically Performing Medical Students,” Medical Science Educator, vol. 30, no. 1, p. 287, Mar. 2020, doi: 10.1007/s40670-019-00897-w.[11] J. Broadbent, “Academic success is about self-efficacy rather than frequency of use of the learning management system,” Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, vol. 32
. High. Educ., vol. 33, no. 5, pp. 297–315, Mar. 2009, doi: 10.1007/s10755-008-9084-x.[10] S. Kobayashi, B. W. W. Grout, and C. Ø. Rump, “Interaction and learning in PhD supervision – a qualitative study of supervision with multiple supervisors,” vol. 8, no. 14, pp. 13–25, Mar. 2013.[11] N. C. Overall, K. L. Deane, and E. R. Peterson, “Promoting doctoral students’ research self-efficacy: combining academic guidance with autonomy support,” High. Educ. Res. Dev., vol. 30, no. 6, pp. 791–805, Oct. 2011, doi: 10.1080/07294360.2010.535508.[12] K. G. Rice, H. Suh, X. Yang, E. Choe, and D. E. Davis, “The advising alliance for international and domestic graduate students: Measurement invariance and implications for academic
]. In turn, the nature of this engagement mayimpact children’s levels of self-efficacy in a task or concept, subsequently influencing theirinterest or perseverance in learning [13].Failure, Frustration and LearningSan Juan and Murai [21] note that frustration and failure are not synonymous. Rather, they arerelated constructs, with failure or perceptions of failure often developing into emotionalresponses such as frustration or dissatisfaction [22]. While both frustration and failure are oftenviewed as negative emotions or responses [23], [24], both can be catalysts for motivation orframed to support more positive cognitive-affective states [25], [26]. Experiences withfrustration while learning can shape an individual’s level of motivation and
underrepresented populations in engineering whohad an interest in STEM fields and would benefit most from hands-on experience and student-ledinquiry. The goal was to increase self-efficacy in vulnerable populations. Teachers identified apossible participant pool of 50 students. 24 students decided to participate, 88% fromunderrepresented populations. In the first week, students met on AMSA’s campus to developteam-work capacity and plan what prosthetic prototype they would like to 3D print to respond toan issue or problem they identified within the field of prosthetics. In the second week, they wentto the university’s campus and 3D printed their design. They also created posters and developedtheir final presentation for friends and family. The
previous EFA,indicating that the Framing Agency Survey provides data that are valid for uses like instructionalrefinement and further studies into the role that framing agency plays in the professionalformation of engineers. However, such studies will require a larger dataset, as well as analysisexamining the structure of the survey that includes measures of relevant constructs, such asengineering identity, engineering self-efficacy, and persistence intentions. Our ongoing researchaims to develop full structural models that include demographic covariates to permitinvestigation of varied impacts on privileged and minoritized students.AcknowledgmentsThis material is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation under Grant No.1751369
)developed by Pintrich, Smith, García, and McKeachie in 1991 was used to measure keyconstructs associated with students' success, such as motivation, epistemic and perceptualcuriosity, and self-efficacy. Signature assignments were developed to measure student successoutcomes from adopting the pedagogy. The results of the MSLQ administered to 44 studentsimpacted by the pedagogy reveal a significant increase in the students' key constructs associatedwith success. The pedagogy reveals better knowledge gain and classroom engagement than thetraditional teaching approach.IntroductionHistorically, concepts in engineering fields have been taught using traditional methods ofinstruction [1]. In this method, the instructor is the sole provider of knowledge
Paper ID #37589Active Project: Supporting Young Children’s Computational ThinkingSkills Using a Mixed-Reality EnvironmentDr. Jaejin Hwang, Northern Illinois University Dr. Jaejin Hwang, is an Associate Professor of Industrial and Systems Engineering at NIU. His expertise lies in physical ergonomics and occupational biomechanics and exposure assessment. His representative works include the design of VR/AR user interfaces to minimize the physical and cognitive demands of users. He specializes in the measurements of bodily movement as well as muscle activity and intensity to assess the responses to physical and environmental
paper evaluates the effectiveness of strategies geared toward encouragingcreativity and innovation in conjunction with the engineering design process during a one-weekcivil engineering summer course. The evaluation methodology used three assessment tools toevaluate creativity and innovation: class surveys, student artifacts, and instructor feedback. First,pre-and post-course surveys were administered to measure the effectiveness of the pedagogy onstudents’ understanding of creativity and innovation in relation to engineering design.Additionally, an analytic scoring rubric was used to assess creativity, innovation, andengineering design process application in student artifacts. Instructor feedback was also analyzedto illustrate the student’s
makerspacescan be found in the news as the source of the next manufacturing revolution [6].Makerspaces as a locus for design learning is a topic that has received extensive attention. Thetheory of maker education relates to many educational frameworks, including Piaget’sconstructivism theory [7], the Situated Learning Model [8], and Community of Practice [9], allof which have been applied to understand learning in a makerspace [10]. The style of learningand appropriate frameworks depend highly on the type, location, and use of a makerspace.Experience working in a makerspace improves creativity [11], collaboration in diverse teams[12], design self-efficacy [13], and technical skills used in industry [12]. Agency is an importantcomponent of a makerspace
education [2, 13].Previous studies have found that hands-on, design-oriented activities can increase students'engagement and interest in engineering [13, 23]. Several studies have examined the effectivenessof hands-on engineering technology summer camps in increasing the representation ofunderrepresented students in STEM majors. A recent study found that participation in a hands-onengineering technology summer camp was associated with increased interest in pursuing anengineering degree among underrepresented high school students [24]. Another study by DeanHughes [25] found that underrepresented high school students who participated in a hands-onengineering technology summer camp had higher levels of self-efficacy in engineering and weremore likely
earlier study showed a strong positivecorrelation between instructor review and peer review in a biomedical engineering laboratory,suggesting peer review could be an effective form of feedback [1]. Peer review also resulted in theperceived improvement of students’ ability to critique. Additionally, the use of co-created rubricsis an inclusive teaching practice that can improve confidence and self-efficacy. It speeds up futuredetailed feedback, as the students and instructors have a similar understanding about the elementsof the rubric and may enhance self-regulated learning [2]. Finally, standards-based grading shiftsthe primary objective to individual learning and achievement, removes distraction from low-importance errors and reduces the
. Freire studied theconcept of empowerment in school environments and educational settings 50 years ago[19]. Hefound that an educational system can either liberate marginalized students or maintain systems ofoppression that fail to give students a voice and opportunity to control their educational destiny.Intrapersonal student empowerment is predicted by equitable power use, positive teacher-studentrelationships, and a sense of community in the classroom[20]. Empowering students entailsbuilding their self-efficacy, agency in their learning, and resilience in schools[21].Inclusive refers to classrooms or school settings where educators are aware of and responsive tothe ways that students are marginalized by our current education system and
-college STEM students.OverviewUnderrepresented groups in STEM gives a benefit to pre-college STEM education initiativesusing PBL as a tool for at learning and scientific innovation. Mentorship provides opportunityfor accessibility, increase self-efficacy and STEM degree completion of learners. In STEMprofessions, the mentorship practices allow for a transformative STEM interdisciplinary mindsetfor industry careers. For students in the STEM fields, mentoring is essential for matriculation,retention, and graduation. Mentoring in STEM promotes the formation of a STEM identity andoffers knowledge of industry trends, technical expertise, and professional networking. Mentoringprovides STEM students with setting goals and expectations, building