thebottom notes the contribution of the Figure 1: How Self-Efficacy Theory Nests intoChronosystem (Time). Bioecology Theory In a qualitative approach this framework allows a shift in perspective. Bandura [13]presents the sources of self-efficacy as individual influences working together in developing aperson's ability to develop confidence, the top 4-part circle in Figure 2. Measuring sources ofself-efficacy in student academic development in STEM disciplines are found in work by Loo etal. [28], Usher et al. [29], and Mamaril et al. [30]. Their work quantitatively describes theamount of influence self-efficacy sources have in student confidence in their ability to besuccessful with challenging STEM
identifying as URM,we sought to answer the following research question: What impact does use of the career-forward curriculum have on self-efficacy, identity as an engineer and commitment to anengineering career, and in particular, for students identifying as female or URM?For our purposes it is important to clearly define how the terms persistence and commitment areconceptualized and measured, both of which are consistent with the Mediation Model ofResearch Experience (MMRE) [5], which served as the theoretical framework. Commitment isdefined as the student’s willingness to persist towards a specific long-term goal, in this case anengineering career and was measured as an outcome variable through a set of items that loadeddirectly to the construct
environment as an intern/co-op”(Atwood et.al, 2021). However, only 41.5% of historically marginalized populations completedan internship (Atwood et.al, 2021) by graduation. Similarly, only 47.6% of first-generationstudents completed an internship (Atwood et.al, 2021). Lack of internship or co-op can lead tounderemployment and significantly less lifetime earnings. Lack of internship also could beattributed to the student’s lack of social capital. According to NACE, first-generation studentsreceive lower salary offers compared to their continuing-generation counterparts (Eismann,2016). Additionally, self-efficacy is crucial for the individual’s ability to complete a task(Huang, 2003).MethodsHaving explicit instruction around communication skills
otherwise need to provide. All supervisors saidthey would participate in the program again.Program supportsWhile we intended to measure any changes in self-efficacy and belonging in research betweenthe CREATE-U and non-CREATE U students, few summer research students completed bothpre- and post-surveys. There were similar changes in research self-efficacy between the twogroups, but a larger range of change in research belonging (Figure 4). This could possibly beinfluenced by CREATE-U students being different from the more common identities in their labplacement in ways that affected their experience of belonging (e.g. gender, cultural background).Figure 4: Pre-post survey results on self-efficacy in research and belonging in research fromCREATE-U (n
the focus on the educational interface [6]. Kahu’s frameworkof student engagement identifies four main factors that influence a student’s experience with theintervention and the success of the intervention. These are self-efficacy, emotions, belonging, andwellbeing. These factors are not independent of each other e.g. self-efficacy is related to self-confidencein one’s academic abilities and also affects, emotions, belonging, and wellbeing of the student and theirperception towards a particular field of study. Belonging is also key as it brings down psychologicalbarriers for a young woman when she sees herself associated with the institution.This study is dual faceted with the intent to instill confidence in students, and expose students to
redesign process of theengineering camps. As we continue to strive to support Black and Latinx females, the diversityof our camp counselors will seek to align to our camp attendees. We will continue to enrich theexperiences of the attendees by exposing them to STEM undergraduate and graduate studentsthat connect to their ethnic and cultural background. The goal is for undergraduate and graduatestudents to facilitate the informal learning experiences for the summer camp participants. Theintentional hiring of camp counselors will also be matched by intentional professionaldevelopment that will give a baseline understanding of the facilitation of the camp content toalso address increase self-efficacy, value, and STEM and Engineering identity
questions regarding school leaders’readiness, self-efficacy, attitudes and beliefs which measure how leaders establish a STEMenvironment; administrators have power which is why they have a significant effect on STEMprogram success. It also would help to have science teachers who hold PhDs to bring researchskills to the classroom[49].ConclusionThis paper discusses three broad but effective components of a secondary-school STEMframework: Demographics, Career Planning, and School Atmosphere. The identified factors,while not a complete core, provide a solid external framework for developing an effective STEMprogram without regard to curriculum, standards or focus. While the literature on workforcecompetencies and leveraging skillsets related to STEM
Publications where the primary focus of Publications where the primary focus of the the research was K-12 students, faculty, research was undergraduate or graduate students practicing clinicians or non-college or university students Research was conducted in the United States or Research specific to a university outside of the in Canada United States or Canada Focus of publication is empathy, component of Focus of publication is not empathy, and if it empathy described by the framework, or which includes empathy is more about measuring mention how to develop/foster/imbue empathy empathy than its development or learning Include
effectiveness within four categories, learning achievement, self-efficacy, satisfaction, and climate. Compared to traditional TVLE where the participants are allstudents; our participants range from pre-college to college students, faculty, and staff. AlthoughTVLE was created with students’ learning in mind, the framework applies to all educationalvirtual environments where learning is an integral outcome part of programming.ParticipantsThe research reflects the experiences of four practitioners at the University of Cincinnati Collegeof Engineering and Applied Science (CEAS), a historically white tier-1 research institution. Thepractitioners voluntarily agreed to participate in this research study and to have their recordedexperiences included as part
, Oxford, UK, pp. 4424–4429.[11] W. C. Lee, H. M. Matusovich, and P. R. Brown, “Measuring underrepresented student perceptions of inclusion within engineering departments and universities,” Int. J. Eng. Educ., vol. 30, no. 1, pp. 150–165, 2014.[12] D. S. A. Hofacker, “Diversity and Inclusion in the Engineering Workplace: A Call for Majority Intentionality to Increase Career Self-Efficacy,” p. 10, 2014.Appendix A : Semi-structured interview format and questions[Land acknowledgement, introduction, safe space acknowledgement, review of consent form andinterview recording]Demographic Question:1. What is your gender identity?2. How would you describe your background/race/ethnicity?Interview Questions3. Please describe your role in
Attrition Reason Women Leave Engineering [15, p. 7] Input Output 1. Lack of self-confidence and engineering self-efficacy Black Box[10] 2. Lack of pre-college experience and knowledge in engineering 3. Curricular focus, pedagogy, and climate in engineering 4. Lack of female peers and role models 5. Gender and societal issues Dropout
–something also mentioned frequently in the survey responses– which is arguably the most powerful reason to avoid something. 16 Preliminary Takeaways Pull factors • Women tend to pursue engineering when they experience positive feelings about their abilities (self-efficacy) and have positive role-models and programs that foster their individual growth Push factors • Women tend to struggle with their choice to pursue engineering when they feel like family members are not supportive or that engineering may hinder their future family goals
assigned texts and interactions with each other and projectleaders in a workshop environment. The assigned texts opened up discussions of studentexpectations about entering the professional world; students were also taught fundamentalinterview techniques and given the opportunity to practice them with each other. This dualfocus—philosophical and practical—was intended to enrich students’ ability to thoughtfullyinterview the alumni and promote self-efficacy. Each student met with project leaders threetimes: for an introductory meeting to explain the concept of Vision Venture and to learn about thestudents’ personal goals for their participation; for a workshop discussion of assigned readingsand a lesson on semi-structured interview skills; and for
an after-school program, engage parents, and provide gender and ethnic-matchedmentors and role models in hopes to positively impact participant self-efficacy (Mitcham et al., 2012).With buy-in from the principal, solicitation emails were provided to principals about the Algebra by 7thGrade. The university-based team developed recruitment activities that ranged from attending introductionof teacher nights, attending school-wide math nights already planned, and pizza dinners for targetedfamilies. The top three schools were invited to participate in the inaugural Ab7G. They were given firstpriority for enrollment and each school was given 10 seats until the priority deadline. After the priority
thebasics of engineering computational thinking [15] [16] [17]. Other institutions use a direct-to-major admission strategy and vary in how much computing is introduced in the first year.Regardless of admission type, white males continue to receive most of the engineering degrees inthe United States [18]. Factors including technology access, pre-university course access,classroom dynamics, societal stereotypes, social support, cultural relevancy, academic advising,and self-efficacy affect how women and underrepresented minorities prepare for and experiencethe first-year engineering classroom [5] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24]. Computational thinkinginteracts with these existing factors.The participants that we discuss in detail in the Results and