Student Preparedness for Chemical Engineering Curricula.” Chemical Engineering Education, 52(3): 181-191 (2018).[17] Cicciarelli, B.A., Sherer, E.A., Martin, B.A., and Orr, M.K., "From Assessment to Research: Evolution of the Study of a Two-Day Intervention for ChemE Sophomores.” 2020 ASEE Virtual Annual Conference, June 2020: Paper ID #30669.[18] Mamaril, N.A., Usher, E.L., Li, C.R., Economy, D.R. and Kennedy, M.S. “Measuring Undergraduate Students’ Engineering Self‐Efficacy: A Validation Study,” Journal of Engineering Education, 105(2), 366-395 (2016).[19] LAESE survey instrument developed as part of Assessing Women in Engineering (AWE) project: www.aweonline.org; NSF Grant #0120642. Marra, R.M. and Bogue, B., 2006
section included questions designed to assess participants’ self-efficacywith teaching engineering using 2 constructs: content knowledge self-efficacy and engagementself-efficacy. Content knowledge self-efficacy measured participants’ self-efficacy as it relates toknowledge about engineering, while engagement self-efficacy measured participants self-efficacy with engaging students in engineering practices [9],[10].A total of 41 students enrolled in 5 different VolsTeach courses completed the survey. The mostcommon majors among the survey participants were mathematics (41%) and biology (20%),although many STEM fields, including engineering, were represented. 61% of the participantswere either third or fourth year students, while 39% were first or
outcomes [14, 15]. In somecases, self-efficacy is seen as a significant predictor of academic outcomes [16-18]. However,just as in other areas, a universal measure of self-efficacy is not appropriate to determine ethicsself-efficacy [19, 20]. Some domain specific self-efficacy scales include general engineering [21]and software engineering [22]. This work presents a survey instrument that attempts to measureethical self-efficacy.Whereas a general self-efficacy instrument would contain questions such as, “I can alwaysmanage to solve difficult problems if I try hard enough” or “I can solve most problems if I investthe necessary effort” [23], an instrument related to the design domain would include questionssuch as “I can identify a design need
Efficacy Scale (TSES) survey is a set of questionnaires developed byTschannen-Moran at College of William and Mary and Woolfolk Hoy at the Ohio State University[4]. It is designed to help people gain a better understanding of the kinds of things that createdifficulties for teachers in their school activities. Similarly, teachers are asked to indicate theopinion about each question by marking from 1 to 9. There are two forms of this survey. The longform has 24 questions and the short form has 12 questions. These questions measure efficacy inStudent Engagement, Instruction Strategies, and Classroom Management. TSES has been used inmany teachers’ self-efficacy studies. 2.2 Bandura’s Instrument Teacher Self-efficacy Scale Bandura’s instrument on
students' engineering social cognitions (self-efficacy and outcomeexpectations), this paper investigates students' confidence in their ability to learn andtheir instructor's ability to teach across 6 engineering courses. A group of 6 facultyformed a learning community focused on improved teaching strategies for their classes.The faculty chose selected strategies and implemented them in their classes. Surveysasked students to rank their confidence level in "their ability to learn" the specific classmaterial and the instructor's "ability to teach" the class material using a sliding bar scalefrom 0-100. Surveys were conducted before and after the improvements to the teachingstrategies at both the beginning and end of the semesters. The results of the
employed instruments for self-efficacyand engineering identity, and conducted interviews with focus groups. To measure the impact,qualitative and quantitative methods are used. This content analysis helped the project teamidentify challenges, difficulties, and gains of adopting this approach to the engineering programand provide an appraisal of student outcomes, including cognitive and affective responses. In thisposter, the project team will share their results from Fall 2021 semester.Major ActivitiesTo understand the impacts of the intervention on self-efficacy and engineering identity,contemporary industry-relevant problems were designed, introduced to the targeted course,instruments for self-efficacy and engineering identity were developed and
engineeringstudents at two Midwest universities, the University of Illinois at Urbana Champaign and theUniversity of Illinois at Chicago. The goal is to gain a comprehensive understanding of theinformation sources and decision-making strategies used by these students, with the hope ofimproving the major selection process for all students.Theoretical FrameworkThe study is rooted in the Social Cognitive Career Theory (SCCT), which posits that students'evolving career interests are shaped by their self-efficacy expectations. This theory has beensupported by multiple research studies, which have established a positive correlation betweenself-efficacy and career interests. [2][3][4]. SCCT asserts that self-efficacy acts as a driving forcefor career choice.To
), Salvadorian (onestudent), and Mixed (one student). Additionally, 17% of respondents noted they were of Hispanicor Latino origin or descent. Of the total sample, 52% identified as Male, 45% identified asFemale, and 2% as Non-Binary, with 1 student preferring to not identify their gender for thestudy.A. Data Collection Data collection for the study took place at two points in time, pre and post intervention.Pre-intervention data collection included a student demographic survey recording studentrace/ethnicity, gender, etc. Measures of science interest (Science Motivation Questionnaire II;[18]), career decision self-efficacy (Career Decision-Making and Self-Efficacy Brief Decisionalscale; [15]), and knowledge of engineering technician careers
psychosocial construct values forFeelings of Inclusion, Coping Self-Efficacy, and Belonging Relative to Community are nearlyidentical (standard deviation of .04 or less) from spring of 2020 through spring of 2022. The labfocused skill efficacy for Design and Experimental skills, also maintained steady average valueswith a standard deviation of .04 or less. These values imply, that for the students who completedthe survey, the sudden switch to a virtual format was successful in supporting these constructs.Table 2. Constructs measured in surveys to date Construct Average value of mean per semester (S.D
active learning activities. Finally, they were asked about the barriers that theyfaced when trying to implement active learning in their classrooms. Instructor and student surveys were aligned so that we could learn how student andinstructor perceptions are comparable for each individual class. The student survey asked abouttheir instructor’s use of active learning and if their instructor used different strategies forimplementing active learning. Additionally, we measured the student response to active learningincluding their affective and behavioral responses. Finally, we asked questions about theirfeelings of belongingness in their STEM classes as well as their self-efficacy in these courses.Preliminary Findings To understand
for the games included in the curriculum. Figure 1. Example of the hardware settingTheoretical FrameworkWe developed a conceptual framework for the PICABOO hardware curriculum that reflected ourteam’s shared vision for the structure and the outcomes of our curriculum. Specifically, we aimto promote engineering identity and persistence by gamifying the learning experience to fostersituational interest [7] and to support students’ self-efficacy for engineering [8]. Additionally,educators' self-efficacy also influences their confidence in teaching hardware concepts [9]. Therelationships between these theoretical foundations are illustrated in Fig. 2 and are incorporatedinto the design and development of the modules
. Dr. Hsu received his PhD in Educational Psychology from Texas A&M University and has a background of statistics education. He works closely with researchers in STEM to pursue high quality of STEM education for future researchers. He is currently participating in an NSF-funded grant (#1923452) to spearhead research into middle school students’ digital literacies and assessment. Recently, Dr. Hsu has received a seed grant at UML to investigate how undergradu- ate engineering students’ digital inequalities and self-directed learning characteristics (e.g., self-efficacy) affect their learning outcomes in a virtual laboratory environment during the COVID-19 pandemic. Dr. Hsu’s research interests include advanced
on nine semesters of Fab Friday programming, a total of 107 Fab Friday participantscompleted the Fab Friday Student Satisfaction Survey designed to provide recommendations forprogrammatic improvement. We measured three major areas: skill building, learning computerscience, and teamwork. In addition, we administered the Glynn et al. (2011) Science MotivationQuestionnaire (SMQ) [9]. The SMQ provides scores on 5 domains: Career motivation (anextrinsic motivation for learning CS to secure a good career), Grade motivation (an extrinsicmotivation for learning CS in order to achieve good grades), Self-determination (an individual’sbeliefs in their personal control over learning CS), Self-efficacy (an individual’s confidence intheir ability to learn
accreditation cycle. Baltimore, MD: ABET. 11. Coelho, G.L.D.H., Hanel, P.H.P, & Wolf, L.J. (2018). The Very Efficient Assessment of Need for Cognition: Developing a Six-Item Version. Assessment, online first, 1-16. 12. Cropley, D. H. (2015). Creativity in Engineering: Novel solutions to complex problems, San Diego, CA: Academic Press. 13. Cropley, D. H. and Cropley, A. J. (2016). Promoting creativity through assessment: A formative CAA tool for teachers, Educational Technology Magazine, 56:6, pp. 17-24 14. Karwowski, Maciej & Lebuda, Izabela & Wisniewska, Ewa. (2018). Measuring Creative Self-efficacy and Creative Personal Identity. The Journal of Creativity and Problem Solving. 28. 45-57. 15
a lack of preparedness of elementary teachers to confidentlyteach science and engineering. Smith [8] reported 77% of elementary teachers felt well preparedto teach reading/language arts compared to 31% for science and only 3% for engineering.Coppola [9] found engaging teacher candidates (TCs) in engineering mini-units withschool-based field experience significantly improved engineering pedagogical contentknowledge and dispositional self-efficacy. Web and LoFaro [10] found that TCs’ self-efficacy forteaching engineering was increased by including experiences in various courses rather thanshort-term exposure in a single methods course.Overview of the ChangeMaker K-12 ModelChangeMaker K-12 learning path is divided into a series of four
. Scholarship recipients will be linked throughcohort teaming sessions with campus resources, local industry partners and experts, and facultymentors, to propose, critique, select, develop, and implement commercially viable technologyproducts. The novel approach to engineering education developed through this project will serveto enrich the creative potential of new graduates in technical fields and expand small businesscreation and employment, both of importance to growth regions where there may be fewer largecorporate employers. Key dimensions of those who exhibit entrepreneurial thinking include agrowth mindset, a regular practice of creativity, and high personal self‐efficacy. Withentrepreneurism seen as an enabling force to overcome employment and
engineering education with a focus on emerging technology systems in thecontext of applications and societal impact. We do this through a program of faculty-mentoredmultidisciplinary research, professional development, and exposure to real-world issues thatreflect the impact of nanotechnology on society, the business community, human health, and theenvironment. This approach also supports self-efficacy, multidisciplinary team-building,understanding the broader impacts of technology, and building the skills necessary for researchand lifelong learning.Overall, the key goals are:1. To provide an exciting and productive research experience for each fellow.2. To create a small cohort of students, who share common goals, that supports the developmentof
increases persistence in STEM fields, particularly among URM students[28]–[30], and increases students’ sense of self-efficacy [30]–[33], science identity [34],academic skills [32], and views of the nature of science [33], with distinct benefits forunderrepresented populations [31], [35], [36].These benefits are more substantial for research projects that last multiple years [37], which isfacilitated when students can engage in early research experiences. CUREs are common vehiclesfor introducing early stage students to research [37]. Because they are often highly structured –incorporating journal clubs, lectures, and group work – CUREs provide more support forstudents who have less experience and improved opportunities to develop conceptual skills
of the engineering workforce [1], [2]. AcES has endeavored to attract, support andretain through graduation talented, but underprepared (non-calculus-ready) first-time, full-timeengineering and computing undergraduate students from underrepresented populations byimplementing established, research-based student success and retention strategies. During theseven (7) years of NSF funding, this program has served 71 students and supported 28 studentswith renewable S-STEM scholarships.Past research used surveys and individual and focus group interviews to measure AcES scholars’feelings of institutional inclusion, engineering self-efficacy and identity, and assessment of theirown development of academic and professional success skills [1], [2
to interactwith peers and creates a hostile climate for women and other minorities, who are more likely tocommunicate and work collaboratively. Participants of ROLE are not alienated from thesecontexts and the following assertions in Table 1 prove the need to develop self-efficacy to beable to navigate Engineering: Table 1. Participants’ opinions on navigating Engineering Strongly Undecided Disagree/Strongly Assertions Agree/ Agree Disagree I am able to work effectively on my own. 94% - 6% I am able to manage my time effectively. 81% 13% 6% I am
studentsfrom these schools are underrepresented minority students with financial need.The objective of PtoBP: to have Scholars show higher retention/persistence rates. Specifically, to have a90% second-year retention rate, and a 90% five-year graduation rate; and to have at least half of thePtoBP Scholars intern in power engineering and work in power engineering.Key Program FeaturesPtoBP dovetails well with BFCIT’s EE program, that strives to provide support to its students who tendto be low-income students from underrepresented groups. To that end, the EE program incorporatesactivities and infrastructure that promote conditions for student success in STEM fields such as: mathcompetency [1, 2, 3], self-efficacy [2, 4], met financial need [5, 6
longitudinal changes in the self-efficacy of undergraduatestudents studying engineering. The LAESE undergraduate instrument has been tested andvalidated on male and female engineering students. The LAESE questions will be administeredeach fall to determine if self-efficacy increases as they progress through school.The second section was based on the questions in the Clance Imposter Phenomenon Scale [54].The Clance Impostor Phenomenon Scale was designed to measure the concept that individualsare successful by external standards but have an illusion of personal incompetence. Thequestions assess components of the phenomenon such as ideas about self-doubt and achievingsuccess by chance.The third section asked questions about the student’s advisors
modelintegrated elements from Lent's Social Cognitive Career Theory (SCCT) [7] and Tinto'sDeparture model [8] into a hybrid structure aimed at boosting success metrics among LIATS.Figure 1 reproduces the structure of interventions underpinned by the L-CAS model [9]. Figure 1: LIAT college access and success model [9].L-CAS activities followed a longitudinal path consonant with student development, withobjectives ranging from boosting their sense of belonging and self-efficacy beliefs to propellingthem into actions and immersing them into real-life contexts [10]. Context scenarios targeted thedevelopment of collaborations and interactions in communities of practice that led students todevelop practical skills for becoming future
education andbuild capacity for student success. This project will use a data-driven and evidence-based approachto identify the barriers to the success of underrepresented minority students and to generate newknowledge on the best practices for increasing students’ retention and graduation rates, self-efficacy, professional development, and workforce preparedness. Three objectives underpin thisoverall goal. The first is to develop and implement a Summer Research Internship Programtogether with community college partners. The second is to establish an HSI Engineering SuccessCenter to provide students with academic resources, networking opportunities with industry, andcareer development tools. The third is to develop resources for the professional
recruitment procedures, we asked faculty members to fill out a pre-survey regardingtheir attitudes towards student development, their self-efficacy for supporting student success, theirpedagogical choices, and their perceptions of barriers to implementing the intervention alongsideits efficacy. Six engineering faculty completed the survey, all of whom were willing to implementthe intervention in their course. Unfortunately, the lack of response from uninterested facultyprevents us from characterizing the differences between this population and those willing toimplement the intervention. These differences remain a subject of future research. Due to the smallsample size (n = 6) tests of statistical significance were considered inappropriate and no
joining MechE and EE majors [6]. Girls,however, are not participating in pre-college robotics at the same rate as boys [7]. An analysis of pre-college extracurricular activities and their mapping to engineering majors showed that traditionaldisciplines, such as MechE and EE, had more students tinkering with electrical or mechanicalcomponents outside of school prior to entering college[8]. When girls are not part of extracurricularrobotics programs, they miss vital opportunities to develop tinkering self-efficacy. If we can attract moregirls to participate in pre-college robotics, we may open a pathway for these students to developattitudes and self-beliefs that lead them to join majors with lower representation of women [6].Critical Engineering
Motivation and Learning, K. A. Renninger and S. E. Hidi, Eds. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2019, pp. 617–644.[10] L. T. Hu, and P. M. Bentler, “Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives,” Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 1-55, 1999.[11] M. Guan, and J. So, “Influence of social identity on self-efficacy beliefs through perceived social support: A social identity theory perspective,” Comm. Studies, vol. 67, no. 5, pp. 588–604, Oct. 2016.[12] C. S. Hulleman et al., “Making connections: Replicating and extending the utility value intervention in the classroom,” J. of Ed. Psych., vol
them as diversity tokens. They emphasized the importance of social and structuralsupport to promote self-efficacy and retention for women of color. The bearings of thoseidentities cut across other interactional experiences, such as teamwork, in which students wereexpected to assert themselves and navigate unfamiliar team dynamics.Teamwork was often studied through the lens of student behaviors. Using an educationalanthropologist approach, Tonso (2006a) studied how the campus culture (categorized by studenttypes – nerds, Greeks, and academic achievers) influenced teamwork in an engineering collegeof a state-funded university in the Midwest. By observing team behaviors in situ, Tonso foundthat non-design engineering classes promote social
, 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<
, such as involvement in makerspaces, can lead to increases inengineering self-efficacy and can provide opportunities for students’ to be recognized asengineers, potentially promoting the development of their engineering identity. However,participation in makerspaces is not necessarily equal across all student groups, with the potentialfor white, man-dominated cultures of engineering to be replicated in makerspaces, preventingstudents from marginalized groups from feeling welcome or participating. Earningmicrocredentials and digital badges in makerspaces has the potential to encourage participationand provide a means for recognition. The goal of this two-year project (funded by NSF’s PFE:Research Initiation in Engineering Formation program) is