HarrisKarthik Ramachandran, Georgia Institute of Technology ©American Society for Engineering Education, 2023 Measuring Engineering Students’ Entrepreneurial Self-Efficacy in an Entrepreneurship Education ProgramAbstract In this research paper, we developed and examined an Entrepreneurial Self-Efficacy forEngineering Students (ESE-E) instrument. Entrepreneurial self-efficacy refers to individuals’perceived capabilities to perform entrepreneurial tasks and produce entrepreneurial-relatedoutcomes. It is critical to develop and test the measurement of entrepreneurial self-efficacy withthe engineering student population. Further, entrepreneurship education programs are increasingand play a crucial
self-efficacy with engineering students1 IntroductionIn this research paper, we re-evaluate structural aspects of validity for two instruments, the CurrentStatistics Self-Efficacy (CSSE) scale and the Statistical Reasoning Assessment (SRA) [1, 2]. The CSSE isa self-report measure of statistics self-efficacy while the SRA is a scored and criterion-based assessment ofstatistical reasoning skills and misconceptions. Both instruments were developed by statistics educationresearchers and have been consistently used to measure learning and interventions in collegiate statisticseducation. Our re-evaluation is part of a broader study of the effect of using a reflection-based homeworkgrading system in a biomedical engineering statistics course [3, 4
disparities between engineers’ practices and their micro- and macroethics. Dr. Stransky is passionate about developing innovative educational interventions that measurably enhance students’ skills and competencies. https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4247-4322 ©American Society for Engineering Education, 2024 Exploratory Factor Analysis of Students’ Entrepreneurial Self-efficacy: Implications for Survey ValidationINTRODUCTIONHuman skills can take on a variety of forms as they evolve. These various functional domainsrequire unique knowledge and abilities. Given no one can embody all knowledge and abilities,one's perceptions of their efficacy in various activity domains vary one’s efficacy belief
-avoidance (α = 0.878). These values indicate acceptable to high internalconsistency for the scales in the current study.Self-efficacy for learning performanceThe Self-Efficacy for Learning Performance (SLP) subscale from the Motivated Strategies forLearning Questionnaire (MSLQ) [35] was used to assess students' self-efficacy in this study.This 8-item subscale measures students' confidence in their ability to successfully completeacademic tasks and achieve success in the course. Participants rated each item on a 5-point Likertscale, ranging from 1 (never or only rarely true of me) to 5 (always or almost always true of me).Higher scores indicate a stronger belief in their capacity to succeed academically. Example itemsinclude, “I believe I will
engineering students. One hundred and fiftystudents enrolled in a foundational engineering course at a public university in the southeasternUnited States completed measures with established evidence of validity of goal orientation,resilience, and self-efficacy. Hierarchical regression analysis revealed that resilience and masterygoals significantly predicted self-efficacy, while performance goals showed marginalsignificance. Mediation analysis indicated resilience partially mediated the relationship betweenmastery goals and self-efficacy. Practical implications for fostering resilience and mastery-focused strategies in engineering education are discussed, along with directions for futureresearch.IntroductionStudents’ academic performance and success
scores for all eight items were averaged to calculate the mean self-efficacystrength scores. Lower scores were indicative of weaker self-efficacy percepts, while higherscores were indicative of stronger self-efficacy percepts. The computed Cronbach’s α was.89, reflecting adequate internal consistency.Outcome Expectation (OE). Ten measures were used to determine participants’ OE, inspiredby Lent et al. (2003). Participants were required to answer their level of understanding withstatements that contained positive outcomes resulting from obtaining a Bachelor of Sciencedegree in engineering (e.g., “graduating with a BS degree in engineering will likely allow meto earn an attractive salary”). Their answers were ranked from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5
Paper ID #39089Work in Progress: PEERSIST – A Formation of Engineers Framework forUnderstanding Self-Efficacy and Persistence among Transfer StudentsCody D. JenkinsMs. Thien Ngoc Y. Ta, Arizona State University Thien Ta is a doctoral student of Engineering Education Systems and Design at Arizona State University. She obtained her B.S., and M.S. in Mechanical Engineering. She has taught for Cao Thang technical college for seven years in Vietnam. She is currentlyDr. Ryan James Milcarek, Arizona State University Ryan Milcarek obtained his B.S., M.S. and Ph.D. in the Mechanical & Aerospace Engineering Department at
, interests, goals, and actions, that confidenceand competence are directly proportional—are insufficient, particularly with minoritized youth.Under some circumstances, students can develop a sense of self-efficacy that is not aligned withtheir actual proficiency. Those circumstances include distrust of adults in the school, awarenessof low-quality instruction, and lack of access to high-quality STEM courses. In this study,overinflated mathematics self-efficacy has negative repercussions. While intuitively low self-efficacy does not support persistence in STEM, prior research has found that high mathematicsself-efficacy (measured in high school) was associated with enrollment in a four-year institutionfor young Black women; however, this mathematics
. Thisforces students to (re-)enter the same harmful environments with the expectation of developingenough “grit” to “persist” [13]. These efforts place the responsibility on the most minoritized,with no focus on those from dominant identities who create/enable these environments. Creatingand sustaining more equitable and inclusive environments requires improving everyone’scultural competence (not just increasing sense of belonging and self-efficacy in those who aremost harmed).As more computing departments develop interventions to increase diversity, equity, andinclusion that target all students [2], [14], an instrument for measuring their impact beyondenrollment, retention, and graduation rates is needed. This work details the development andtesting
Paper ID #41956Defining Measurement Constructs for Assessing Learning in MakerspacesMr. Leonardo Pollettini Marcos, Purdue University Leonardo Pollettini Marcos is a 3rd-year PhD student at Purdue University’s engineering education program. He completed a bachelor’s and a master’s degree in Materials Engineering at the Federal University of Sao Carlos, Brazil. His research interests are in assessment instruments and engineering accreditation processes.Dr. Julie S. Linsey, Georgia Institute of Technology Dr. Julie S. Linsey is a Professor in the George W. Woodruff School of Mechanical Engineering at the Georgia Institute
Paper ID #38149Engineering CAReS: Measuring Basic Psychological Needs in theEngineering WorkplaceProf. Denise Wilson, University of Washington Denise Wilson is a professor of electrical and computer engineering at the University of Washington, Seattle. Her research interests are split between technical research in sensors and sensor systems and engineering education with an emphasis on the role of self-efficacy, belonging, and other non-cognitive aspects of the engineering classroom and engineering workplace.Dr. Jennifer J. VanAntwerp, Calvin University Jennifer J. VanAntwerp is Professor of Engineering at Calvin University
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 quantitative design and analysis and their applications in STEM education, large-scale assessment data (e.g., PISA), and engineering students’ perception of faculty en- couragement and
and a possible solution,(Conradty, Sotiriou & Bogner, 2020). Self-report measures of design self-efficacy also tend toreflect subject domains such as science (self-efficacy for designing experiments; Hushman &Marley, 2015) and the arts (designing in a visual arts environment; Catterall & Peppler, 2007).Notably, we did not find a self-report measure for problem-finding, ingenuity, or inventivenessthat could be used in elementary and middle school settings.1 Models of the invention process are analogous to the pedagogical guidance provided in models of the engineeringdesign process or the scientific method.Rationale for the Study Using Inventive Mindset measure data from 252 elementary and middle school agedchildren, Garner
. In addition, some PhDstudents have extensive prior teaching experiences while others have none.While a career in academia typically requires research, teaching, and service, most doctoraldegrees in the United States are conferred at research intensive universities, where researchaccomplishments are prioritized over instructional training for future faculty members [4].However, as some engineering PhD students wish to pursue a more teaching-focused career at aprimarily undergraduate institution, these future faculty members eventually find they did not feeladequately prepared for their career [5].Further investigation on the self-efficacy regarding instruction for engineering PhD students isneeded. Specifically, there is a need to better
profession.DiscussionWe developed a questionnaire to measure student attitudes toward and perceptions ofengineering using items adapted from two previously vetted questionnaires. The instrument’sreliability and validity were confirmed through item analysis and an iterative EFA in which weexplored four models, with the number of factors ranging from three to six. Most adequate wasthe 6-factor structure, which assesses students’: (1) academic self-confidence and self-efficacy;(2) sense of belonging in engineering; (3) attitudes toward persisting and succeeding inengineering; (4) understanding of the broad nature of engineering; and perceptions of theimportance of (5) non-technical and (6) technical skills in engineering.Although the scree plot (Figure 1
further alignsthis dimension with Organization (FMPS), Self-oriented perfectionism (MPS), Other-orientedperfectionism (MPS) and High Standards (SAPS). In contrast, failure-avoiding perfectionism isassociated with the fear of making mistakes, often leading to self-criticism. It is conceptually linkedto Concerns over mistakes (FMPS), Doubting of actions (FMPS), Parental Expectations (FMPS),Parental Criticism (FMPS), Socially prescribed perfectionism (MPS), and Discrepancy (SAPS). Byapplying the Excellence-seeking and Failure-avoiding framework to engineering, we observe thatperfectionism can be characterized by persistence and self-efficacy [33], as well as its influence onperformance [34]. Engineering students, compared to other fields, exhibit
of Southern Weekly,” Fem. Media Stud., vol. ahead-of-print, no. ahead-of-print, pp. 1–24, 2024, doi: 10.1080/14680777.2024.2434628.[30] R. Aghatabay, A. Vaezi, S. S. M. Mahmoodabad, M. Rahimi, H. Fallahzadeh, and S.Alizadeh, “Investigating identity‐related weak developmental assets and their barriers in Iranianfemale adolescents: Self‐worth, self‐efficacy, and personal power,” Psychol. Sch., vol. 60, no. 8,pp. 3019–3039, 2023, doi: 10.1002/pits.22910.[31] ’Ulya Nurul Makiyah, L. ‘Adilah Hayya, and D. S. N. Qisthina, “Politik RepresentasiIdentitas Perempuan dalam Media: Wacana Kritis Pemberitaan KDRT di suara.com,” Acad. J.Da’wa Commun., vol. 5, no. 1, pp. 65–84, 2024, doi: 10.22515/ajdc.v5i1.8158.
between authentic engineering learning and student engagement [35],professional identity or learning interest [36] , student-perceived learning outcomes [37], reasonableassumptions and problem-solving abilities [32], engineering learning self-efficacy [38] and so on.RESEARCH PURPOSEThe current study was situated in the engineering learning in communities of practice. Communities ofpractice were seen as an effectively collaborative learning situations with a group of learners sharingprofessional knowledge and common career enthusiasm. In our previous study, we found community ofpractice is an important engineering learning context and engineering learning happening in communitiesof practice usually focused on solving the authentic engineering
Paper ID #42246Scoping Review of Instruments for Measuring Doctoral Students’ MentoringRelationships with Advisors or MentorsTerkuma Stanley Asongo, University of Massachusetts, Lowell I hold a degree in science education from the University of Agriculture Makurdi in Nigeria. Following that, I completed coursework for a master’s program in research, measurement, and evaluation at the University of Nigeria, Nsukka. I also earned a master’s degree in biomedical science from the Moscow Institute of Physics and Technology. Currently, I am pursuing a Ph.D. in research and evaluation at the University of Massachusetts Lowell
ways goals differentially impact students, I decided to investigate if, among 2engineering students, there were differences in how these goal orientations impacted Latina,Latino, and White engineering students’ self-efficacy and persistence beliefs. The aim of thiscomparison is to highlight the implications of using a theory and its related survey measures thatwere designed from the perspective of one group of students (i.e., White students).PurposeI take a Quantitative Critical Race Theory (QuantCrit) lens to situate and interpret my researchfindings specifically by answering the following research questions: RQ1. Given that AGT was developed
knowledge as its subdimensions [71]. Motivational CQ is thedrive to learn about and engage in culturally diverse settings broken down into intrinsic,extrinsic, and self-efficacy components [71]. Behavioral CQ is the ability to adapt one's verbaland nonverbal behavior to suit different cultural contexts, with subdimensions related to verbal,non-verbal, and speech acts [71]. The ECQS’s expanded structure and accessible format make itparticularly suitable for this study's focus on graduate research contexts. Empirical evidence ofvalidity of the ECQS, using data from 286 participants across 30 countries, demonstrated goodmodel fit through confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). The analysis provided evidence ofconvergent validity and discriminant validity
supportprocess[2]. Outcomes include improvements in student self-efficacy and ultimately in studentpersistence to remain in the major[3]. The Mediation Model of Research Experiences (MMRE)empirically established engineering self-efficacy, teamwork self-efficacy, and identity as anengineer as mediating, person-centered motivational psychological, processes that transmit theeffect of programmatic support activities into an increased commitment to an engineeringcareer[4]–[8]. For the current work, we speculate that students with low measures of engineeringself-efficacy, teamwork self-efficacy, or engineering identity are good candidates for proactiveadvising intervention. Additional measures of non-cognitive and affective attributes may alsoprovide
in our courses to see students' attitudes towardengineering and analyze the engineering course progress.As the assessment team (authors), we develop new learning models and assessment methodsspecifically tailored to the LED program. These methods allow us to measure the effectivenessof the program in promoting engineering understanding and attitudes among students. Byanalyzing the results of our assessments, we provide instructors and researchers with valuableinsights into how the LED program can be improved and how it compares to other engineeringeducation programs. We are particularly interested in examining the influence of the LEDprogram on students' self-determination, motivation, and self-efficacy, as these factors haveshown to be
.[13] P. Yantraprakorn, P. Darasawang, and P. Wiriyakarun, “Enhancing self-efficacy through scaffolding,” Proceedings from FLLT, 2013.[14] A. Bandura, “Self-efficacy: toward a unifying theory of behavioral change.,” Psychological review, vol. 84, no. 2, p. 191, 1977.[15] R. M. Klassen and E. L. Usher, “Self-efficacy in educational settings: Recent research and emerging directions,” The decade ahead: Theoretical perspectives on motivation and achievement, vol. 16, pp. 1–33, 2010.[16] M. J. Scott and G. Ghinea, “Measuring enrichment: the assembly and validation of an instrument to assess student self-beliefs in CS1,” in Proceedings of the tenth annual conference on International computing education research, 2014, pp. 123
following the COVID-19 pandemic) andremote (during the pandemic) learning settings in mechanical and electrical and computerengineering. Variables representing expectancy, value, and predictors of expectancy and valuewere integrated into hierarchical linear models to understand their influence on cognitiveengagement and to explore whether or not the expectancy-value model was stable over time inthe engineering education context. Consistent with expectancy-value theory, our results indicatedthat expectancy (measured by self-efficacy) and value (as measured by intrinsic and utility value)positively and significantly predicted cognitive engagement for all time periods. Previousacademic achievements as measured by overall GPA was also consistent across
differences in these relationships by studentrace and gender. The model includes engineering identity as directly predicted by self-efficacy,interest, and sense of belonging. Sense of belonging is likewise predicted by self-efficacy andinterest, generating additional indirect influences on engineering identity. Finally, a sense ofbelonging is further predicted by cross-racial and cross-gender belonging experiences. The strongrelationships between measures provide insight into the potential for interventions to improveengineering identity in early career engineering students. Future work to analyze the longitudinalchange in measures and identity in association with the intervention will further demonstratevariable relationships. Results provide
belongingintervention, programming self-efficacy, and course grade for first-year engineering students.Improving the retention of undergraduate students in engineering pathways requires clearframeworks that include predictors and influences on continued enrollment in engineering courses.The persistence of Black, Latiné, or Indigenous (BLI) students remains lower than their peers anddisproportionate to the U.S. population [1]. The persistence of engineering students remains amajor concern with BLI students demonstrating disproportionate attrition in comparison to Whiteand Asian peers. This increased attrition from engineering pathways is often related to systematicexclusion and marginalization in engineering environments [2]-[5]. While some progress has
design was used where schools were assignedto either treatment or control conditions. Students in treatment schools accessed algebra-for-engineering modules, STEM-professional role model videos, and field trips, while students incontrol schools accessed role model videos and field trips only. Surveys measuring math self-efficacy, and STEM interest, outcome expectations, and choice goals were completed byparticipants in both conditions at the beginning and end of two separate program years, 2021-22and 2022-23. Across both years, quantitative results suggest some positive effects of BOASTparticipation, particularly for STEM choice goals, but benefits depend upon student participationlevels. Qualitative data offer student voice around prior
specific questions and aspects of the engineering design process,brainstorming ideas, and actively engaging in research as a team. Observations have revealedstrong student engagement in course activities and evidence of faculty following the ARG model.4.3 EDSE InstrumentThe EDSE instrument is a 36-item questionnaire designed to measure students' self-conceptstoward engineering design tasks. It assesses four areas related to engineering identity developmentusing a scale of 0 to 100 (0 = low level; 50 = moderate level; 100 = high level). The areas assessedinclude: self-efficacy, motivation, expectancy, and anxiety. In each area the following engineeringdesign tasks were assessed: conducting engineering design, identifying a design need, researchinga
Design at the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign. Part of our mandate is to support the integration of Human-Centered Design [12]–[17] concepts within the College of Engineering. This study is motivated by the design question,“How might we develop assessment tools to measure student learning of human-centeredengineering design over a four-year undergraduate degree?” To this end, self-efficacy has beenselected as an indicator of learning progress. While not a perfect analog for learning [18], self-efficacy has been shown to track with achievement in a variety of contexts including engineeringeducation [19]–[23]. For our purposes, self-assessment provides an accessible way to collect datawithout significant effort or cognitive load from our