, Columbus, OH W1A-1 Session W1Acognitive depletion [11]. Stereotype threat undermines Survey CRSS) did not consist of questions adopted directlyacademic achievement in two ways. First, it induces anxiety to SVS but a confirmatory factor analysis was completed tothat may impair academic performance. Second, in the relate questions to the SVS (the process is described below).long- term, it causes students to devalue their academic The SVS is a unidimensional scale designed to measure theinterests and eventually leads to dis-identification with
self-regulation in terms of cognitive, 1. Where would a “world-class” engineering students want metacognitive, and affective measures, this work in progress to be in the topic areas covered in class? focuses on reporting out initial results in how students talk 2. Where are you currently on each of these items? about their motivation and how that impacts academic, 3. What do you need to do to move from where you are to personal, and professional choices. Here, we define where you would need to be to become a “world-class” motivation loosely as the impetus that drives a person to do engineering student? something. Each
Engineering Experience (FYEE) Conference August 6 – 8, 2017, Daytona Beach, FL W1A-1 Session W1A ENGINEERING IDENTITY TABLE 1The first year surveys administered to the GE students MEAN RESPONSE FOR UNDECIDED STUDENTS RESPONDING “NEGATIVELY”include validated measures of constructs related to Beginning of Fall End of Fall End of Springengineering identity and belonging created by the first year Q1
implemented in fall 2017. Finally, future cohorts identity: Definitions, factors, and interventions affectingare anticipated to be larger, which may allow for insight into development, and means of measurement”, European journal ofthe efficacy of identity formation efforts on population engineering education, 2017, 1-23.subgroups. [9] Arnett, J. J, "Are college students adults? Their conceptions of the transition to adulthood", Journal of adult development 1, 4, 1994, CONCLUSIONS 213-224
understand the conditions that mayencourage engineering students to be more entrepreneurial and innovative. Among Epicenter’s severalresearch projects is an ongoing longitudinal survey study of the development of engineering students’career goals around innovation and engineering, referred to as the Engineering Majors Survey (EMS -2016). The EMS study follows a nationally representative sample of engineering students from theirundergraduate experiences through graduation and into the workplace (Gilmartin et al. 2017). Withinthis survey are measures of engineering task self-efficacy and innovation self-efficacy, as well as 39background learning experiences and extra-curricular activities spanning high school throughundergraduate education, which form
students have been conducted in the context of team discourse and studentachievement5, engineering design projects6, and developing validated self-efficacy instruments forengineers7. Moreover, there is evidence in literature on measuring self-efficacy of engineeringstudents in the context of programming8-9. Askar et al., examines factors related to self-efficacyfor Java programming in first year engineering students. These factors include gender, computerexperience, general computing skills, frequency of computer use, and family computer usage.Findings from this study confirm the link between students’ self-efficacy beliefs and their choiceof subject. It was also found that computer engineering students had higher self-efficacy beliefscompared to
, Science, & Arts and M-Engin which supports the engineering studentsin the College of Engineering. In this study we limit our focus to the experiences of engineeringstudents in the M-Engin program. Specific elements of the M-Engin program include: a summertransition program in which students gain exposure to the engineering curriculum, academiccoaching, study skill building, as well as career and professional development. Our studyexplores the relationship between students’ perceptions of the M-Engin program’s benefits andtheir engineering major confidence (a measure of self-efficacy) after their first year in college.We hypothesize that perceived program benefits of the M-Engin program will be positivelyrelated to women’s engineering major
program for high school students— NM PREP Academy—had a measurable effecton student confidence (a subcomponent of self-efficacy) and content knowledge. We also aimedto gain a greater understanding of how similar short-term intervention programs could be used toincrease interest, participation, and persistence in STEM-related careers, as well as to understandwhich specific portions of the program were most closely related to the students’ gains in eitherknowledge or confidence. Our research questions were as follows:1. Did the confidence and/or content knowledge of the students change as a result of engagement in the pre-engineering program?2. Was there a relation between changes in student confidence and knowledge?3. Was there a relation
learning program to college choice. The remaining two questions are open-ended and allow students to describe their favorite ENGR 102 HS design and build project andcomments about their teacher. Many of the Likert scale questions for the online survey wereobtained from the on-campus course evaluations handed out to undergraduates in the ENGR 102course and deal with the quality of instruction and content. Additional questions, those dealingwith self-efficacy, were selected from the Longitudinal Assessment of Engineering Self-Efficacy(LAESE) instrument measuring student self-efficacy [36]. The LAESE instrument is a validatedinstrument that was developed with NSF funding as part of the Assessing Women in Engineering(AWE) project and can be found at
participate in the program from the same cohorts. The study investigatesthe relationship between self-efficacy, pre-college academic preparedness measures and theeffect of these factors on early college success outcomes (e.g., term GPA) for URM students whoparticipated in STP as well as URM students who did not participate.LITERATURE REVIEWSelf-efficacy is defined as confidence in one’s ability to perform specific tasks or courses ofaction necessary to attain a specific goal or function in a specific capacity. (Bandura, 1997).When measuring self-efficacy respondents are asked to rate their level of confidence forattaining a specific goal. A student’s self-efficacy has an influence on the decisions that he/shemakes regarding their demonstrated efforts
to understand andembrace, but once we did, we knew there was no going back” 30. This acknowledgement ofstudents’ emotional experiences changes the direction for reform efforts from the narrow scopeof pedagogy and curricular support to a broader conversation that includes student engagementand the development of a supportive community. Efforts to understand student self-efficacy haveincluded studies of identity, or whether students think of themselves as engineers 31,32, anddefining what is meant by “continuing motivation,” other than simply staying in a degreeprogram 33.Some efforts should concentrate, then, on creating supportive environments within engineeringto help retain students, while others focus on developing courses and projects
space, the teams were able to use them efficiently and createand test multiple prototypes in a short period of time and make the necessary adjustment to theirdesign such that it better meets the identified requirements. As shown in Figure 3, theperformance of the final prototypes for both teams was tested using press test method and it wasobserved that both designs increase the weight-bearing limit of the patient as much as 12-15pounds. Figure 2: Prototyping in the maker space Figure 3: The final prototype was tested using press test methodSurvey InstrumentThe Engineering Design Self-Efficacy tool (Carberry et al, 2010) was used to measure anychanges in the students
online at http://caeeaps.stanford.edu/phpESP/admin/manage.php.[20] LAESE (Longitudinal Assessment of Engineering Self-Efficacy) survey versions 3.0 (copyright 2006) and 3.1 (copyright 2007), which are products of AWE (Assessing Women and Men in Engineering), available online at www.aweonline.org.[21] DeVellis, R. F. (1991). Scale Development: Theory and Applications. Newbury Park, California: Sage Publications.[22] Armstrong, J.B., and Impara, J.C. (1991). The impact of an environmental education program on knowledge and attitude. Journal of Environmental Education, 22(4):36-40.[23] Barrow, L. H., and Morrisey, J. T. (1987). Ninth-grade students' attitudes toward energy: A comparison between Maine and New Brunswick. Journal of
gap, we explore a sample of 5,819 undergraduate engineering students froma survey administered in 2015 to a nationally representative set of twenty-seven U.S. engineering schools. Weidentify how individual background measures, occupational learning experiences, and socio-cognitive measuressuch as self-efficacy beliefs, outcome expectations, and interest in innovation and entrepreneurship affect students’entrepreneurial career focus. Based on career focus, the sample is split into “Starters” and “Joiners” where Startersare students who wish to start a new venture and Joiners are those who wish to join an existing venture. Resultsshow the demographic, behavioral, and socio-cognitive characteristics of each group. Findings suggest that
. Educational environments whichleverage these interests may be better able to attract and retain female students 9.Figure 1. Percentage of degrees awarded to women in engineering disciplines. Adapted from Yoder, B.L. (2014). Engineering bythe numbers. Retrieved from American Society for Engineering Education's College Profiles website:https://www.asee.org/papers-and-publications/publications/14_11-47.pdf.Tinkering Self-EfficacySelf-efficacy is an individual’s self-perceived ability to accomplish a goal or task 12. Self-efficacy is a domain specific measure—for example being confident in my ability to jump acertain distance says nothing of my confidence for gardening—with predictive relationships torelevant outcomes like motivation, effort, and
-item “embracing” subscale of the CEI-II, measuring “a willingness toembrace the novel, uncertain, and unpredictable nature of everyday life” (p. 955). Respondentsindicate how they “generally feel and behave” on each item on a five-point Likert-type scalefrom 1=“Very slightly or not at all” to 5=“Extremely”. The variable “mindful attitude” is createdby averaging the four CEI-II items for each respondent. The mindful attitude items are only onthe EMS 2.0 survey.3.1.3 Measuring Innovation Self-Efficacy (ISE) and Engineering Task Self-Efficacy (ETSE)We measure both Innovation Self-Efficacy (ISE) and Engineering Task Self-Efficacy (ETSE) inthe EMS. All self-efficacy items were measured on a 5-point Likert-type scale from 0=“Notconfident” to 4
Tuijl and van der Molen(2015) maintained that male and female STEM role models are particularly important forchildren. Holmes, Gore, Smith, and Lloyd (2017) studied children ages 8-18 and found anincrease in STEM interest for students who have a parent working in a STEM occupation. Theysuggest that those without a parent working in a STEM field are left with teachers and schoolguidance counselors to promote STEM careers in order to foster an interest.Grounded in Bandura’s (1977) social cognitive theory, social cognitive career theory (SCCT)focuses on three primary mechanisms that drive career decisions: self-efficacy, outcomeexpectations, and goals (Lent, Brown and Hackett, 1994). Self-efficacy is defined as perceivedcapability to perform a
) The relationship between mathematics self-efficacy and achievement in mathematics. Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, 1, 953-957.Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84(2), 191-215.Barker, F.J. (2010). The effects of an engineering-mathematics course on freshmen students’ mathematics self-efficacy. (unpublished master’s thesis). Washington State University, Pullman, WA.Bourne, A.L., Ciarallo, F.W., Klingbeil, N.W. (2015) Measuring the impact of a mathematics intervention on student mathematics self-efficacy: Development and application of revised measurement tool. Proceedings 122nd ASEE Annual Conference and Exposition, Seattle WA, June 2015.Bourne, A.L
overarching goals that are the focus of all Creative Design sections.Areas of common measurement included; (1) Creative Self-Efficacy and Creative Role-Identity,(2) Ideation Capacity and (3) Creativity in Engineering Design (Artifacts).Creative self-efficacy is one’s belief that they are able to design creative products6. Researchcompleted by Tierney and Farmer reported that creative self-efficacy is a predictor of creativedesign performance. The Creative Self-Efficacy and Creative Role-Identity Scale was identifiedas an appropriate instrument to measure student growth through a pretest/posttest researchdesign.7 Surveys completed in Fall 2016 and Spring 2017 indicated that students from educationschool majors (n=33) have the lowest reported average
persistence in engineering as part of the CAEE’s (2007) Academic PathwaysStudy (APS), which identified 21 variables for persistence in engineering. The instrument’soverall goal was to collect data utilizing relevant questions from each survey instrument onindividuals’ experiences and perceptions during their K-14 and academic careers and to create acomprehensive picture of the culture-sharing group – in this case, the young women that hadpersisted in the research site’s College of Engineering.The MSLQ questions were used to identify within the results a measure of motivationalorientation for college engineering students (Pintrich et al., 1991) and examine women’s feelingsof self-efficacy to determine if patterns existed among the women in the
will have adirect and positive effect on grade performance.2.0 Study OverviewThis study is intended as a pilot study of the measures of social belonging in an engineeringclassroom. Data were collected from an introductory level solid mechanics class at a privateuniversity in the United States. Most student respondents were beginning their engineeringacademic careers, mostly as sophomore students taking their first-ever engineering specificcourse. The instrument used to measure engineering self-efficacy was developed by our researchteam. The instruments used to measure social belonging, engineering identity and interpersonalcloseness have strong research pedigrees but have never been used in this novel combination.2.1 Measuring Social Belonging
Appendix A.2.Innovation Self-Efficacy (ISE.5) – This self-efficacy construct involves specific behaviors thatcharacterize innovative people and is designed to measure a students’ confidence in his/herability to innovate. The included items are adapted from Dyer, Gregersen, and Christensen(2008). The original Dyer items were piloted and factor-analyzed as part of the EMS surveydevelopment process. The emergent five factors corresponded to Dyer’s innovative behaviordomains of questioning, observing, experimenting, and idea networking, as well as the relateddomain of associative thinking. These items each have a Likert scale of (0-4), have an acceptableCronbach 𝛼 (.78), and have been averaged to form the ISE.5 construct variable (Schar,Gilmartin
exploration as a theme, and the other used micro controllers as thefoundation for activities. The goals of this research are as follows: 1. Develop effectivecurricula for improving student self-efficacy in CT, 2. Develop a reliable and effective wayof measuring student self-efficacy in CT, and 3. Enforce the notion that CT is not problemsolving (PS), but a component of cognition.Background and Related Work“Computational thinking involves solving problems, designing systems, and understandinghuman behavior, by drawing on the concepts fundamental to computer science”26. However,computational thinking (CT) is not intended to be equated to computer science; rather theessence of CT comes from thinking like a computer scientist when faced with problems
(3), 175-213.19. Mamaril, N. A., Usher, E. L., Li, C. R., Economy, D. R., & Kennedy, M. S. (2016). Measuring undergraduate students' engineering self-efficacy: A validation study. Journal of Engineering Education, 105(2), 366-395. doi: 10.1002/jee.2012120. Kier, M. W., Blanchard, M. R., Osborne, J. W., & Albert, J. L. (2013). The development of the STEM career interest survey (STEM-CIS). Research in Science Education, 44(3), 461-481. doi: 10.1007/s11165-013-9389-321. Jackson, A., Mentzer, N., Kramer, R., & Zhang, J. (2017, June). Enhancing student motivation and efficacy through soft robot design. Paper presented at the 2017 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition, Columbus, OH.
studied acrosseducation and psychology literature. As an example, Australian high school students’ academicself-efficacy is a significant predictor of academic resilience.27 Similarly, low-income Blackcollege students with high academic confidence who were also able to “bounce back” fromacademic challenges and setbacks in college (i.e., students labeled as “buoyant believers”)achieve greater academic success, as measured by grade-point average.29Using findings from the aforementioned study of low-income Black students, Strayhorn createdthe ‘buoyant believers’ framework. The framework positions students in four categoriesrepresenting the intersection of various degrees of academic self-efficacy and resilience. Thefour categories include (a
other courses includingvideo content and be less resistant to this form of instruction.To get insight into the effects of the courses focus on learning and applying design theory, aninstrument was used to measure participant engineering design self-efficacy. The instrumentwas designed and validated by Carberry et al [20]. The tool measures individual’s self-efficacytowards engineering design tasks. Self-efficacy is an individual’s belief in their ability tocomplete a specific task [21]. This instrument examines four aspects of an individual’s self-efficacy: 1) Confidence, 2) Motivation, 3) Expectation of Success and 4) Anxiety towardscompleting engineering design [20]. The instrument was administered at the beginning and endof the Hybrid2
). After the completion of the summer program, teachers completed a post-survey (n =7-8 ) ontheir self-efficacy for teaching engineering during the Fall to measure any perceived changes inbeliefs as a result of the summer program. The results of the pre-post survey are found in Table3.Table 3: Teachers reported self-efficacies in teaching engineering pre-post summerprogram. Strongly Moderately Slightly Slightly Moderately Strongly Disagree Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Agree 1. I can discuss PRE how given 20% 10% 20% 0% 40% 10% N=10
evaluation instruments were built from psychometrically sound instrumentsand scales that include the Career Interest Questionnaire and Modified STEM Semantics Survey(Tyler-Wood et al., 2010), Entrepreneurial Self-Efficacy and Intention (Wilson et al., 2007),Student Attitudes toward STEM Survey (Mahoney, 2010); STEM Semantics Survey (Tyler-Wood et al., 2010), Sources of Self-Efficacy Scale (Britner & Pajares, 2006), and a 21st CenturySkills Assessment/Rubric. Specifically, the process evaluation was designed to measure both quality and intensity ofSTEM-Inc activities in order to monitor the short-term and formative results of activities andservices, validate program components, and determine whether activities were of sufficientquality and
engineering careers and on developing theircontent knowledge in select grade-appropriate science and mathematics content areas. Pre-posttesting was conducted with sixty-five students of diverse backgrounds in grades six through eightto measure their self-reported engineering-related self-efficacy, knowledge of engineering careers,and motivation to pursue future engineering classes and careers. In addition, interviews wereconducted to examine any changes in middle school camp participants’ affective characteristics ofmotivation, self-efficacy, and self-determination.Introduction The attraction and retention of students in science, technology, engineering, andmathematics (STEM) disciplines along the full length of their education is a national
state finals in Spring, 2016. Allteachers were invited to participate. Components of this survey relevant for the current workinclude demographics, information about teachers’ backgrounds, and also several constructs:self-efficacy for teaching engineering, self-efficacy for teaching entrepreneurship, and teacherperceptions of the program’s effects on students. Some of these constructs were assessed throughvalidated instruments, while others were measured with internally developed items. Teaching Engineering Self-Efficacy Scale Self-efficacy for teaching engineering was measured with the Teaching Engineering Self-Efficacy Scale (TESS), which was developed and validated by Yoon Yoon et al., 201411. Theseauthors “define teaching