-efficacy (i.e., thinks she can succeed).19 Knowing the relation of self-efficacy with motivation, engineering educators havefocused intensely on it. Researchers have devised ways to measure self-efficacy in engineeringstudents14 and have successfully conducted interventions that have increased self-efficacy levelsof female engineering students.15 These interventions have increased self-efficacy by engagingfemale engineering students in mastery-orientated classes15 and curriculum design.20 A mastery-orientated classroom emphasizes learning new skills by focusing on the processes they involve.For example, Baker and colleagues, 2007, developed a course that embedded “tinkering”activities and applied technical skills. Class content that
belonging and self-efficacy items were adapted from a study on the self-efficacy of women engineering students and a dissertation (Marra et al., 2009; Jordan, 2014). Identity, teamwork self-efficacy, and community involvement items were adapted from a study that investigated how underrepresented students’ self-efficacy and identity impact their science career commitment (Chemers et al, 2011). Items about college life experience were adapted from the National Survey of Student Engagement (Kuh et al., 2011). The six factors we measured are as follows: ● Self-efficacy: Confidence in the participant’s own ability to complete a degree and succeed in an engineering or computing career. ● Sense of belonging: Feeling part of the engineering or
in making—in tinkering, infiguring things out, in playing with materials and tools” [8, p.528]. Recent studies found thatstudents involved in hand-on design and making exhibited increased motivation, self-efficacy,expectations of success, and interdisciplinary awareness [9-12]. Further work is underway todevelop scales that measure belonging in makerspaces [13] and maker identity [14]. Finally,research has begun to uncover barriers to equity in makerspaces, including ways in which theyare gendered [15-17] and the learning strategies employed by women who make [18]. This study aims to better understand how much and under what conditions students aretransformed through hands-on experience designing and making`. We examine a
interventions and scale up across the College of Engineering. Page 1 of 8The ApproachAlthough we arrived at a set of scalable and cost-effective interventions through iterativeexperimentation in the classroom, each of the interventions are grounded in three well-understoodaffective learning categories—belongingness, self-efficacy, and metacognition.Extensive measurements show a correlation between student persistence and feeling connected toothers—their sense of belongingness [19] – [21]. Students who feel disconnected from their peers,major, or institution will often leave; this is particularly true for women, transfer students, andunderrepresented minorities [22], [23]. While many studies measure
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
Society for Engineering Education, 2020 Connecting Middle School Students’ Personal Interests, Self-efficacy, andPerceptions of Engineering to Develop a Desire to Pursue Engineering Career Pathways (Work in Progress)AbstractWith the increased exposure to science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM)through activities in-school and out-of-school K-12 learning environments and representation inmedia outlets, students who attend our summer engineering intervention tend to articulate a moreholistic understanding of the role of engineers within society. However, despite this increasedexposure and a diverse understanding, students from diverse backgrounds (e.g.,racially/ethnically diverse and women) still pursue
develop self-efficacy beliefs in design, modeland scaffold engineering design mindsets, and apply design concepts in engineering design. Theresearch questions we intend to address include: 1. What is the influence of the toy design workshop on students' self-efficacy? 2. What is the influence of the toy design workshop on students' application of engineering design concepts during design?Theoretical frameworkSelf-efficacy in Engineering DesignEngineering design self-efficacy is the degree to which students believe they can excel at tasksrelated to design and making3. Social cognitive theory and previous research has suggested thatstudents’ self-efficacy beliefs are under the influence of mastery experiences
success of our program is to use entry and exit surveys to gauge thechange in students’ perceptions of their abilities and learning environment. In particular, we areinterested in the difference between URM students’ and non-URM students’ perceptions of theirabilities and the learning environments in these courses.In the present study, our overarching research question is: Do underrepresented students andnon-underrepresented students show a statistically significant difference in their perceptions oftheir abilities and learning environment as measured by self-efficacy, intimidation byprogramming, and feelings of inclusion?This paper presents entry and exit survey results from three semesters (Fall 2017, Winter 2018,and Fall 2018) of two
-item online survey adapted from the Longitudinal Assessmentof Engineering Self-Efficacy (LAESE) instrument developed as part of the NSF-fundedAssessing Women in Engineering (AWE) project (Assessing Women in Engineering (AWE)Project, 2007).The LAESE was designed to measure undergraduate students’ self-efficacy related to succeedingin the engineering curriculum, as well as feelings of inclusion in the academic environment,ability to cope with setbacks or challenges related to the college environment, and expectationsabout engineering career success and math outcomes. The original use of the instrument wasfocused on self-efficacy among undergraduate women engineering students, and specifically onthe relationship of self-efficacy and the other
in which undergraduates can participate. The question is how might such initiativeshelp create an integrative learning experience for undergraduate education? What constitutes anintegrative learning experience? And how might impact on students be measured?BackgroundPerceived self-efficacy is defined as a person’s belief in his or her abilities to successfullycomplete a task or reach a goal. The choices that people make are directly governed by theirperception of their self-efficacy – people will gravitate towards activities and situations that theyare confident they will succeed in and avoid situations that require skills and abilities that theymight lack.According to Bandura, students who have the opportunity to successfully complete a real
Significant Differences in Student Affective ExperienceAbstractThis study looks at differences in non-intellective measures expressed by two engineeringstudent populations, one at a large public university in the pacific northwest and the other a smallprivate aerospace institution in the southeast. Both student populations are in their first year ofstudy in their respective engineering majors. Previously validated, Likert scale items were usedto measure self-efficacy, task value, peer support, two forms of faculty support, and two forms ofbelonging using a survey instrument. Students at the small private university reported that theirinstitution was friendlier and had a greater sense of togetherness than the public institution.However, no significant
Theories of Engineering Abilityscale, which is an 8-item Likert-type scale measuring the degree that engineering ability is moreof an innate, fixed trait, or consisting of skills that can be improved with training and practice. Wealso created a measure, which we call the Implicit Theories of Advanced ManufacturingCompetencies scale, that is intended to measure learners’ beliefs about the malleability of thecompetencies associated with advanced manufacturing.Self-efficacy within the course modules will be measured by the self-efficacy scale on Pintrichand colleagues’ (1991) Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire (MSLQ). An additionalscale that was developed by the authors of this paper includes a domain-specific measure of self-efficacy
-theft anxiety level in college students. This study performed several analyses ona developed questionnaire to ensure validity and reliability. After examining all proposedhypotheses, it was found that electronic devices self-efficacy and electronic devices usage havesignificant impact on identity-theft anxiety level of the students. The data also support arelationship between information security awareness of the students and their identity-theftanxiety level. This research also showed that gender, employment status, race, and age havemoderating effects on all hypotheses. The outcome of this study indicated that moreinformation should be provided to students regarding how to take proactive measures inusing their electronic devices in order to
college. This study presented assessment data from a NSFI-Corps site program at a Southwestern university to understand the impact of the program onundergraduate and graduate engineering students’ knowledge, perceptions, and practice ofentrepreneurship. In the four-cohort assessment data, participants indicated significantlyincreased confidence in value proposition, self-efficacy in entrepreneurship, and customerdiscovery, while maintaining high interest in entrepreneurship. Furthermore, the data indicatedthat participants with a GO decision (to continue pursuing their technology) had significantlyhigher perception on the current status of technology and business model than did participantswith a no-GO/unsure decision. In addition, this study
women, and how those stereotypic beliefs are related to engagement in computingacross time. Our research took place over the course of a year, and involved two time points of datacollection. During the first time point, we measured women’s stereotypic beliefs about gender aptitudein computing, as well as their self-conceptions in computing (i.e. self-efficacy, belonging, andidentification with computing). One year later, we measured women’s self-conceptions again, as well aswhether women had participated in collaborative learning activities during the past year. We thengauged the link between stereotype endorsement and self-conceptions, and whether that link wassevered among women who had participated in collaborative learning. We expected that
multiple entrepreneurial situations including idea generation, problemsolving, and opportunity recognition. While educators are still working on the best method ofdeveloping and measuring creativity, it is possible to gauge an individual’s creative self-efficacy,which Tierney and Farmer defined as ‘the belief that one has the ability to produce creativeoutcomes’ (p . 1138)7. For this study, permission was granted to use Tierney & Farmer’s Creative Self-EfficacyMeasure7. The measure contains three items (with a Cronbach’s alpha, internal consistencyreliability, coefficient of α=.574) on a 7 point Likert scale (1= very strongly disagree through 7=very strongly agree). The scale has been used in numerous research studies and
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
of course content, andpsychological stressors.3. Research MethodologyThe research approach is to conduct an Ecological Momentary Assessment (EMA) study, whichinvolves frequent self-reporting of participants' behaviors and affect in real-time at periodicintervals [9]. Also known as "experience sampling", this approach utilizes electronic polling (viatext message) to collect students' affect and self-efficacy in real-time on a recurring schedule andaround examination times. Polling can improve student participation and serve as an effectivefeedback loop [10-12].Validated psychometric test instruments were utilized to measure affect, self-efficacy,motivation, and engineering identity. Since changes in affect may serve as the earliest
did not present any significantcorrelations with efficacy. However, the number of high school preparatory courses (e.g.calculus, physics) was significantly correlated with the third measurement of academic self-efficacy (0.476, p = 0.006). The positive correlation signifies that students who took morepreparatory courses achieved higher levels of academic self-efficacy by the end of the semester.Additional significant correlations are found in Table 6.Students who experienced an increase in academic self-efficacy throughout the semester reportedsignificantly higher results for two outcome variables: perceived quality (p = 0.017) andsatisfaction (p = 0.034). Additionally, students who reported an increase in academic self-efficacy throughout
engineering technology for elementary students Abstract Mentoring is being prevalently used in higher education. Traditionally, these programsare unidirectional that includes forward knowledge transfer. The internal mechanism of howto form an effective mentoring relationship between mentors and mentees is unclear. This pilotstudy focused on Person-Environment (P-E) fit perspective and zeroed in on how the mentor-mentee relationship affect mentees’ self-efficacy. We conducted semi-structured interviews withthree mentees to explore how P-E fit affected their self-efficacy. This qualitative study is a pilotstudy, future data collection and analysis will continue
in engineering and preparing practicing teachers and engineering students tointroduce middle school students to the engineering design process. This paper describes theTEK8 university-school partnership and presents results from a preliminary study conducted toexamine the partnership’s effectiveness for preparing teachers and engineering students tointerest middle school students in engineering. Data were collected using interviews,observations, and a teacher self-efficacy survey. The survey was appropriated to focus onteachers’ and engineering students’ self-efficacy to interest middle school students inengineering. Methods of analysis included discourse analysis, the constant comparative method,and the nonparametric 1-tailed Wilcoxon
self-efficacy: Substantive implications and measurement dilemmas. Presented at the annual meeting of the Educational Research Exchange, Texas A & M University.Hyde, J. S. (2007). Women in science: Gender similarities in abilities and sociocultural forces. Why Aren't More Women in Science?: Top Researchers Debate the Evidence., 131–145. https://doi.org/10.1037/11546-011Kurup, P. M., Li, X., Powell, G., & Brown, M. (2019). Building future primary teachers' capacity in STEM: Based on a platform of beliefs, understandings and intentions. International Journal of STEM Education, 6(1), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594019-0164-5Lee, M.-H., Hsu, C.-Y., & Chang, C.-Y. (2018). Identifying
engineering has been disputed in the literature. To provide furtherdata to answer this question, portions of the Purdue Spatial Visualization Test (PSVT)were administered to freshman engineering and undeclared students from a College ofEngineering and Physical Science (CEPS). In addition, a self efficacy test, which wasdeveloped to assess the self confidence of students related to spatial tasks, was alsoadministered. The data analysis showed that those students who remained in CEPS fromtheir freshman to sophomore year (either change majors within CEPS or stayed in thesame major) performed better on the PSVT than those students who changed colleges orwithdrew from the university. For the self efficacy measure, a similar effect was found;however, this
The MSLQ survey used in the previous study was an adapted version of Pintrich’s MSLQconsisting of only five factors of motivation; cognition, intrinsic value, self-regulation,presentation anxiety, and self-efficacy. This is abbreviated compared to the original MSLQdesigned by Pintrich and his team which measured a total of fifteen factors of motivation. Whilethis approach is designed to target factors that are illustrated by Pintrich to influence the successof students in STEM fields, it is also important to understand and identify possibleinterdependency of the five factors in the adapted version. In this paper, we seek to study the dependency of earlier listed motivation factors to establishunderstanding at a finer resolution –to the
) completed measures of SCCT’scentral person (e.g., self-efficacy) and contextual (e.g., social support) variables. Findingsindicated that the set of SCCT variables accounted for a large proportion of the variancein academic goals, regardless of student sex or university type. Implications for futureresearch and for practical efforts to attract and retain women and students of color withinengineering are discussed.IntroductionSocial cognitive career theory4 (SCCT) is aimed at explaining the processes throughwhich people develop basic academic and career-related interests, translate their interestsinto choices, and achieve performances of varying quality in their educational andoccupational pursuits. Among its predictions, SCCT maintains that people
and perceptions regarding engineering.Additionally, changes in teachers’ self-efficacy of teaching engineering and students’ attitudesabout science and engineering were measured. This article discusses the value of elementaryengineering education in rural communities.Keywords: Engineering education; professional development; elementary; rural schoolsIntroduction Science education in elementary (K-6) curriculum is often lacking and leads towidespread lack of preparation and misconceptions about fundamental science ideas in middleand high school students.1 Researchers have documented that elementary classroom scienceinstruction is typically limited and of low quality.2,3,4,5 Further, results from a 2013 nationalsurvey indicated that
SketchTivity?A Drawing Self-Efficacy Instrument was used to measure the pre and post self-efficacy of studentswho practiced using SketchTivity[25]. The instrument consisted of 13 items and the average ofdrawing self-efficacy score was calculated for each student.B. ParticipantsThe participants in this study consisted of undergraduate and graduate students enrolled in fourcourses at three different institutions. Out of a total of 138 students enrolled in three courses atthree institutions, 137 students responded to Q1 and Q2; 109, 88, and 65 participants respondedTable 1: Demographics of the participants Participant demographcis Percentage Men 76.09% Women 18.84% First-generation 10.14
1980s.THE SMART goal framework, published by George Doren, states that goals should be Specific,Measurable, Attainable, Realistic, and Timely [17]. This overlaps with Latham and Locke’s goal-setting theory but is much more detailed and seems to diverge from their suggestion that goals bedifficult, rather than stating that goals should be both attainable and realistic instead of lofty ordifficult. If we are to follow Bandura’s self-efficacy model, students need “mastery experiences,”which should be somewhat challenging but attainable. The ideal degree of difficulty is likelyindividualistic, but the experience itself can be small or large.Several papers have noted the effect of goal setting on students and engineers [16-22]. However,only two papers
one’s capacity to organize and execute the courses of action required to produce givenattainments” (p. 3) [22]. Bandura identified four primary sources of self-efficacy: masteryexperiences, vicarious experience, verbal persuasion and physiological states [23]. Self-efficacybeliefs have been understood to be strong predictors of behavior [24].Self-efficacy beliefs are not inherent or global traits of an individual; rather, they are “active andlearned systems of belief held in context” (p. 754) [25]. Thus, an instructor may feel high levelsof teacher self-efficacy in particular teaching tasks or domains and lower levels of teacher self-efficacy in others. Scales used for measuring teacher self-efficacy ask teachers to rate their levelof
. M. Allen, “Essential Functions of Academic Advising: What Students Want and What Students Get,” NACADA Journal, vol. 26, no. 1, pp. 56-66, 2006.[5] B. J. Zimmerman, A. Bandura and M. Martinez-Pons, “Self-Motivation for Academic Attainment: The Role of Self-Efficacy Beliefs and Personal Goal Setting,” American Educational Research Journal, vol. 29, no. 3, pp. 663-676, 1992.[6] N. A. Mamaril, E. L. Usher, C. R. Li, D. R. Economy, and M. S. Kennedy, “Measuring Undergraduate Students’ Engineering Self-Efficacy: A Validation Study,” Journal of Engineering Education, vol. 105, no. 2, pp. 366-395, 2016.[7] B. W. Smith, J. Dalen, K. Wiggens, E. Tooley, P. Christopher, and J. Bernard, “The Brief Resilience Scale: Assessing the