MSLQ X X X X X X X XThe GRIT survey was developed by Angela Duckworth and consists of 12 Likert Scale questions[2]. Grit, defined as “perseverance and passion for long term goals”, was recognized as a trait byDuckworth [3].The LAESE survey was developed at Penn State University with support from the NationalScience Foundation. The LAESE was designed to measure the self-efficacy of undergraduateengineering students by using 31 Likert scale questions. Self-Efficacy aspects of studentsmeasured by the survey include outcomes expected from studying engineering, the process ofselecting a major, expectations about workload, coping strategies in challenging situations, careerexploration, and the
tested. A keydistinguishing feature of expectancy of success is that relates to beliefs about a future potentialoutcome. It is this future component that theoretically distinguishes expectancies of successfrom self-concept of ability which is perception of current competence. Expectancies of successare also theoretically distinguished from self-efficacy, an individual’s beliefs about his or herability to perform a task at a designated capability level 10. However, researchers have argued Page 14.348.3these three constructs are difficult to differentiate empirically 11-14 and are often operationalizedin such a way as to be equivalent. 12, 15
questions, attainment of the broader objectives is more difficult to measure. In addition, measuring many of these objectives, in particular, creativity and persistence in overcoming obstacles, is not just about measuring a final score, but it is about understanding the students’ learning process along the way. To address this need and better understand the success of achieving the educational objectives of the design course, a weekly reflection that included both multiple choice and free response questions was implemented in an introductory design course. There were 114 students enrolled, and the course consisted of both lectures, as well as labs (which were broken into sections with 24 students maximum). The reflection questions
academic transition to university witha series of optional, easy-to-access, and inexpensive-to-deliver resources implemented within thecontext of a core first-year course. Ultimately, a series of online interactive videos (“universitylearning screencasts”) were developed and deployed starting in 2018.To assess the impacts of these screencast resources, a mixed methods study design was adopted.Several approaches to measure changes in student metacognition were used, including theMetacognitive Awareness Inventory, a qualitative interview process, a beliefs questionnaire, andcorrelation between utilization and course performance. Other aspects of effectiveness of thescreencasts were assessed through exploration of student perceptions and usage
difficult courses. In the secondphase, we plan to integrate the factors identified in the first phase into an online survey withmultiple-response questions, aiming to measure how predominant are these factors in alarger population of engineering students. Then, in the third phase, this online survey willbe used to collect data at the same engineering school were the focus groups wereconducted. Finally, the fourth phase of the study will integrate the quantitative results of thesurvey with the grounded theory model to develop a theory that more accurately describeshow different factors influence students’ perspectives on course difficulty, besidesrevealing whether these factors are associated to meaningful learning.Figure 1. Mixed methods-grounded
programs overtime.Among the numerous studies on women and minority students and why they fail to achievedegrees in STEM fields, the focus is on the students’ characteristics, but less attention is focusedon institutional characteristics and peer perceptions. When young women entering technicalcareers were asked what social factors concerned them about the climate of STEM fields, theresponses indicated the traditionally high indicators of “discrimination,” “prejudice/hostility,”and “lack of acceptance.”3Another limiting factor for women and minority students to achieving degrees in STEM fields istheir individual perception of their ability to succeed in a given situation, known as self efficacy,influences their thoughts, feelings, motivation, and
dormitory and for thefirst four weeks of the summer students were required to take their meals “to-go” in the diningcommons. Beginning in July the mask mandates and in-person dining restrictions were lifted.In this assessment report, SOAR’s history as a diversity-focused cohort program and COVID-19both contributed to the context which shaped the data collection. Consequently, the findings andresults are also situated in this context.3. MethodsThroughout the course of the internship program, assessment was conducted through quantitativeand qualitative measures. The data collection methods were guided by ethnographic case studymethodology. Informed by ethnographic data collection approaches, the qualitative datacollection methods included interviews
, anonparametric one-way ANOVA test was completed using SPSS in order to compare thecategories. The effect size for this study was calculated using Cohen’s D. For the secondresearch question, the average number of attempts for each student was compared to each of thefive components of the MUSIC model by calculating the Pearson correlation coefficients usingSPSS[19]. Data was then compiled into RADAR plots in order to evaluate the relationshipbetween academic motivation and the number of attempts needed to complete a quest. Data wascategorized as being from three categories: all students, the top 20 performing students, and thebottom 20 performing students as measured by the average number of attempts. The differencein populations was analyzed using an
]. Learning mathematics andscience in engaging contexts, as in this project, through inquiry-based modeling and simulationof their individual and family’s health biometrics, supported by familial collaboration, has thepotential to reduce students’ math anxiety and impact their self-efficacy toward STEM careers. The underlying motivation for this project is to boost the decision-making processes thatinfluence middle school Hispanic students’ confidence in pursuing technology rich STEM careerchoices through positive interaction with user-friendly math and sciences technologies andassociated data collection, analysis, and modeling. Equity and inclusivity in education requiresincreasing diverse minority students’ access to technology rich educational
research questions: How is entrepreneurship taught? What content should beprovided to students? How should we evaluate results? In sum, there is a double gap to addressin entrepreneurship education: 1) What is the value of entrepreneurship beyond creatingbusinesses? 2) How should it be taught and measured? Both questions are deeply intertwined andwill require the integration of findings both in entrepreneurship literature and also incontemporary learning theory.Mäkimurto-Koivumaa and Belt (2016) propose a competency model for entrepreneurshipeducation in non-business programs. In their analysis, engineering competencies that go beyondthe traditional basic sciences are consistent with recent conceptualizations of the entrepreneurialmindset. For
impact on the student's understanding and engagement with the EMCcourse. II. BackgroundA. Overview of existing EMC coursesThe field of EMC is a critical aspect of modern electronic design and plays a crucial role inensuring the safe and reliable operation of advanced electronic systems. As a result, EMC coursesare now an integral part of curricula in electrical engineering, computer engineering, and otherrelated fields.Existing EMC courses in universities and colleges cover a wide range of topics including anoverview of the concepts and principles of EMC and EMI, design considerations, measurement,and methods for mitigating EMC problems. These courses give students a thorough understandingof the
].Other research presents a more balanced picture in terms of preference over constructed-responseexams, where students falling in one camp versus the other is attributed to their opposing viewson answer guessing, selecting versus constructing answers, and perceived ability to demonstrateknowledge [8].A key question is that of validity of multiple-choice exams in measuring performance.Educational psychology demonstrates that it is theoretically possible to construct multiple-choicequestions that measure many of the same cognitive abilities as constructed response ones [5, 6].However, these studies also stress the need for empirical testing and validation. In this regard,existing work has reported a range of results, with some concluding that they
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
physiological state, and extrinsic utility value.computer programming in an introductory engineeringdesign course were compared to their homework Index Terms – Self-efficacy, reflection, first-year design.assignment and test grades in engineering graphics andcomputer programming. The graphics unit consisted of INTRODUCTIONfour weeks of manual drafting followed by three weeks of Students’ perceptions of their abilities in fundamentalcomputer-aided drawing (CAD) with Autodesk Inventor. engineering skills such as graphics and computerThe programming unit, lasting six weeks, consisted of programming may be influenced by their familiarity withreview and expansion of
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
, M.R. Blais, N.M. Briere, C. Senecal, and E.F. Vallieres, “The Academic Motivation Scale: A measure of intrinsic, extrinsic, and amotivation in education,” Educational and Psychological Measurement, vol. 52, no. 4, pp. 1003-1017, 1992. [6] A. Bandura, “Human agency in social cognitive theory.” American Psychologist, vol. 44, no. 9, pp. 1175-1184, 1989. [7] D.H. Schunk, “Self-efficacy and academic motivation,” Educational Psychologist, vol. 26, nos. 3 & 4, pp. 207-231, 1991. [8] T.R. Mitchell and D.M. Nebeker, “Expectancy theory predictions of academic effort and performance,” Journal of Applied Psychology, vol. 57, no. 1, pp. 61-67, 1973. [9] V.H. Vroom, Work and motivation. New York, NY: John Wiley and Sons, 1964.[10
students’ perceptions of ways of thinking in engineering student and practice. 36th ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education (FIE) Conference. Oct. 28-31, San Diego, CA. S2G, 1-6.11. Besterfield-Sacre, M., M. Moreno, L.J. Shuman, C.J. Atman. 1999. Comparing Entering Freshman Engineers: Institutional Differences in Student Attitudes. Proceedings of the American Society for Engineering Education Conference, South Carolina. Session 1430.12. Fuertes, J.N, M.L. Miville, J.J. Mohr, W.E. Sedlacek, D. Gretchen. 2000. Factor structure and short form of the Miville-Guzman Universality-Diversity Scale. Measurement & Evaluation in Counseling and Development. 33(3), 157-170.13. Miville, M.L., P. Holloway, C. Gelso, R. Pannu, W. Liu, P. Touradji
professional competences [13]. By exposing students tocomplex, real-world and ill-structured problems in collaborative learning environment, PBL enablesstudents not only to learn professional knowledge and engineering skills, but also to gain themembership in an engineering community and develop their sense of belongings as future engineers[2][13][14]. With positive peer perspectives on the values of professional competences provided byteam members, students could reach higher levels of engineering identity and better learningoutcomes in PBL environment [15]. Compared with traditional learning methods, PBL significantlyincreased engineering students’ self-efficacy and enable students to create engineering identity viaworking in engineering project
students,Bottesi, et al. [25] found that anxiety and intolerance of uncertainty can lead to negative beliefsand outcomes expectations that can affect student performance [see also: 26]. A study ofengineering students [20] found that low stress levels and positive outcome expectationsincreased students’ self-efficacy, a factor that, in turn, significantly predicted academicachievement. Related studies identified stress as a key predictor for low student engagement andpersistence [27] as even students with high ability in science often leave STEM majors due tosignificant accompanying pressure and accompanying physical and psychological distress [28,29].Minority students can be disproportionately impacted by such emotional experiences due to
Progress: Fellowship Year 2 The GC WSC Fellowship Program is currently in its second year with a new cohort ofstudents. The organizers aimed to create a more formalized method to evaluate the program’simpact on student participants. A survey was created to measure students’ research identity andself-efficacy pre- and post- program involvement. (Appendix I) This assessment tool wasdeveloped from the University’s Expanding Course-Based Undergraduate Research Experiences(ECURE) Impact Assessment and adapted to fit the needs of this program. [21] Questions aim toexplore 1) participants’ previous research and research communication experiences, 2) theiridentity as a researcher, 3) their research self-efficacy, 4) their perception of water
-college/[4] C.V Caldwell and R. Hughes, “Engineering Living Learning Community Experience: A Model for Improving First-Year Retention and Academic Performance of Black Students” ASEE Conference, Virtual, July 2021.[5] K. Inkelas, M. Soldner, S. Longerbeam, and J. Leonard, “Differences in Student Outcomes by Types of Living–Learning Programs: The Development of an Empirical Typology,” Journal of Research in Higher Education, vol. 49, pp. 495-512, 2008.[6] C. Caldwell and R. Hughes, "An Engineering Summer Bridge Program Utilizing a Safe Space to Increase Math Self-Efficacy" First Year Engineering Experience (FYEE) Conference, Virtual, August 2021[7] C.A. Bodnar, R.M. Clark, M. Besterfield-Sacre, Development and Assessment of an
, studies in college student retention, which address students who remain at the sameinstitution where they start until they complete a program,4 have found retention is influenced by Page 14.919.2individual and institutional factors such as student background; ethnicity; high school grades andSAT scores; socioeconomic status; participation in social activities; faculty; size of theinstitution; and attachment to the institution.11,12,13 For instance, Bean’s13 study defines self-efficacy as students’ beliefs in their abilities to survive and adapt to the academic environment.He states that students who believe they can achieve their goals increase
the responses from anyparticipant who had not completed at least 90% of the survey items. We then imported the datainto SPSS for further conditioning, including replacing missing values with the series mean andreverse coding the responses to any items that were negatively stated. Once our data set wascomplete, we calculated the composite scores for our subscale measures of growth mindset, goalorientation, knowledge of engineering as a profession, motivation, and belongingness. Wecalculated the subscale composite scores by averaging the participant responses to the associateditems. Once completed, we used a combination of responses to single items and compositescores for analysis.ResultsOur first research question asked: what are students
Transfer: Measures of Effectiveness in Helping Community College Students to Complete Bachelor’s Degrees (Signature Report No. 13)," National Student Clearinghouse Research Center, Herndon, VA, 2017, 2022 update.[4] "Community college enrollment crisis?: Historical trends in community college enrollment," American Association of Community Colleges, Washington, DC, 2019.[5] J. Causey, A. Gardner, H. Kim, S. Lee, A. Pevitz, M. Ryu, A. Scheetz and D. Shapiro, "COVID-19 Transfer, Mobility, and Progress: First Two Years of the Pandemic Report. Ninth in the Series," National Student Clearinghouse, Herndon, VA, 2022.[6] "Current Term Enrollment Estimates: Fall 2022 Expanded Edition," National Student Clearinghouse Research Center, 2023
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
related problems. For students specifically, makerspaces provide opportunities for hands‐on experience in problem solving, design, prototyping, and manufacturing. Given the collaborative‐learning nature of makerspaces, and how prevalently they’re used by students, the question posed is how does makerspace involvement impact student performance. In this longitudinal study, student performance is qualified by experimental measurements of idea generation ability and engineering design self‐efficacy (EDSE). Method The data presented here is a part of a 5‐year longitudinal study (removed). In this paper we focus impact to idea generation. The participants of this study were freshman and senior undergraduate students from
Loyola University Chicago and is currently holds the Walter P. Krolikowski, SJ Endowed Chair in the School of Education at Loyola University Chicago. He is an Associate Editor of the Journal of Counseling Psychology and his research interests span four related areas: multiculturalism, vocational psychology, social justice engagement, and applied psychological measurement. American c Society for Engineering Education, 2021 Exploring the validity of the engineering design self-efficacy scale for secondary school students (Research to Practice)Introduction and BackgroundPre-college engineering education efforts and associated research has seen a
been buildingrelationships with advising staff and curriculum committees across the university, ensuring thiscourse would meet engineering/science elective requirements for various undergraduateprograms.To understand how students are impacted by the final design project, we defined and measured anumber of constructs, including self-efficacy, maker identity, and engineering identity. Self-efficacy refers to the strength of an individual’s belief in their capabilities to complete tasks andachieve a planned outcome (Bandura, 1997). We quantified students’ self-efficacy in two areas: 1) self-efficacy for tinkering with circuits (Tinkering SE), and 2) self-efficacy for designing new electronic systems (Design SE).Higher self-efficacy
EI1 0.818 EI2 0.699 EI 0.839 0.566 EI3 0.73 EI4 0.757Notes: IEC: impact of entrepreneurship competition; EM: entrepreneurial motivation; ESE: entrepreneurial self-efficacy; EI: entrepreneurial intention.Construct Validity and ReliabilityConstruct validity and reliability were also examined in confirmatory factor analysis.Convergent and discriminant validity can be used to measure construct validity. Theaverage variance extracted (AVE) value for each construct is above the cut-off valueof 0.5 (see Table 4), as
differences in SME self-efficacy: Women appear to have lower SME self-efficacythan their male peers, by a moderate amount.A number of studies have compared the self-efficacy of men and women in SME fields4, 10, 11, 17-19,24, 27, 32, 33 . Of these, three4, 31, 33 did not find significant gender differences in SME self-efficacy; theother seven did find such differences, favoring men. These 10 studies are described below,starting with the multi-institutional studies.Besterfield-Sacre32 employed a validated instrument to survey 13 attitudes of 1st year engineeringstudents at 17 institutions. Of these 13 attitudes, 5 were measures of self-efficacy. These measuresand the associated results over the first year are: 1. Basic engineering