More Like this

1. Work in Progress: Exploring Innovation Self-Efficacy in Neurodiverse Engineering Students.

   Bolhari, A. ( July 2023 , 2023 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition, Baltimore, Maryland.)

   It is critical to incorporate inclusive practices in the engineering curriculum which prepares neurodiverse students to achieve their full potential in the workforce. This work-in-progress paper seeks to capitalize on the unique strengths of marginalized neurodiverse engineering students. In this study, the innovation self-efficacy of engineering students who self-identify as neurodiverse is explored before and after a curricular intervention, which has been shown to have the potential to enhance innovation self-efficacy, in an environmental engineering target course. A previously validated Likert-type survey was used, which included the Very Brief Innovation Self-Efficacy scale, the Innovation Interests scale, and the Career Goals: Innovative Work scale. Among the 47 responses on the pre-survey, 13% of the students self-identified as neurodiverse and an additional 19% indicated that they were maybe neurodiverse. This included a much higher percentage of female than male students in the course (23% vs. 5% neurodiverse). There were no significant differences in the pre-survey or post-survey in the innovation self- efficacy and innovation interest among students who self-identified as neurodiverse, maybe neurodiverse, and not neurodiverse. Career goals based on the innovative work scale differed in the pre-survey among the three groups, being lowest among students who self-identified as maybe neurodiverse; there were no differences among the groups in the post-survey. It appeared that there were gains in the innovation self-efficacy between the pre and post-survey among the students who self-identified as neurodiverse and maybe neurodiverse but these differences were not statistically significant. A limitation of the study was the lack of ability to pair the data for individual students and a low number of neurodiverse students in the dataset. This preliminary work calls attention to the need to consider neurodiverse students in our instructional practices. In the future, we hope the research will expand our understanding of a neurodiverse-friendly curricular design in preparation for engineering students with autism spectrum disorder and other types of neurodiversity for the workforce, as well as assisting engineering educators in the adoption of practices that have the tendency to enhance innovation self-efficacy in neurodiverse students. 

   more » « less
2. The Continued Development and Validity Testing of an Engineering Design Value-Expectancy Scale (EDVES) for High School Students

   Youssef, S. ( August 2022 , ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition)

   As more institutions create first year engineering programs that teach an engineering design process, there is a growing desire to prepare students for this coursework in the high school setting. When exposing such a broad population to these ideas, a primary question arises regarding student attitudes toward engineering and how these attitudes develop over time. That is, how does this exposure to engineering design influence student attitudes toward engineering? Moreover, answering this question will allow educators to better understand what motivates students to learn, how much their motivation impacts their overall mastery of these skills, and how these aspects of engineering self-efficacy and engineering design may differ between those who are on a pre-engineering track and those who are not. To begin answering this question, high school students enrolled in the Olathe City school system of Olathe, Kansas completed Engineering Problem-Framing Design Activities (EPDAs) in participating science courses (AP physics, physics, advanced biotechnology, chemistry, honors chemistry, biology, honors biology, and physical science specifically) of the traditional science and engineering academy curriculums offered by the district. Student engineering self-efficacy and motivation was also measured at the beginning and end of their coursework. This was conducted via a new instrument, the Engineering Design Value-Expectancy Scale (EDVES), which includes 38 items across three primary subscales: expectancy of success in, perceived value of, and identification with engineering and design. The development of this tool was presented and discussed in a previous study where the EDVES instrument was analyzed for validity among first-year undergraduate engineering students. In this work, the responses of high school students on the EDVES were analyzed to establish validity in this new population and to begin exploring trends in student responses based on their sub-population. Validity testing was completed via Cook’s validation evidence model with respect to scoring, generalization, and extrapolation evidence. The pre-course EDVES responses obtained were used to complete validation and trend analysis (note that post-course data was not readily available at the time of analysis). 

   more » « less
3. Towards Development of an Engineering Design Value-expectancy Scale (EDVES)

   Hylton, J. Blake ; Herak, Patrick ; France, Todd ; Youssef, Sherri ( January 2021 , 2021 ASEE Virtual Annual Conference)

   null (Ed.)

   As high school programs are increasingly incorporating engineering content into their curricula, a question is raised as to the impacts of those programs on student attitudes towards engineering, in particular engineering design. From a collegiate perspective, there is a related question as to how first-year engineering programs at the college level should adapt to a greater percentage of incoming students with prior conceptions about engineering design and how to efficaciously uncover what those conceptions may be. Further, there is a broader question within engineering design as to how various design experiences, especially introductory experiences, may influence student attitudes towards the subject and towards engineering more broadly. Student attitudes is a broad and well-studied area and a wide array of instruments have been shown to be valid and reliable assessments of various aspects of student motivation, self-efficacy, and interests. In terms of career interests, the STEM Career Interest Survey (STEM-CIS) has been widely used in grade school settings to gauge student intentions to pursue STEM careers, with a subscale focused on engineering. In self-efficacy and motivation, the Value-Expectancy STEM Assessment Scale (VESAS) is a STEM-focused adaptation of the broader Values, Interest, and Expectations Scale (VIES), which in turns builds upon Eccles’ Value-Expectancy model of self-efficacy. When it comes to engineering design, there have been a few attempts to develop more focused instruments, such as Carberry’s Design Self-Efficacy Instrument. For the purposes of this work, evaluating novice and beginning designer attitudes about engineering design, the available instruments were not found to assess the desired attributes. Design-focused instruments such as Carberry’s were too narrowly focused on the stages of the design process, many of which required a certain a priori knowledge to effectively evaluate. Broader instruments such as the VESAS were too focused on working and studying engineering, rather than doing or identifying with engineering. A new instrument, the Engineering Design Value-Expectancy Scale (EDVES) was developed to meet this need. In its current form the EDVES includes 38 items across several subscales covering expectancy of success in, perceived value of, and identification with engineering and design. This work presents the EDVES and discusses the development process of the instrument. It presents validity evidence following the Cook validation evidence model, including scoring, generalization, and extrapolation validity evidence. This validation study was conducted using pre- and post-course deployment with 192 first-year engineering students enrolled in a foundational engineering design course. 

   more » « less
4. Refining a Taxonomy for Categorizing the Quality of Engineering Student Questions

   Goldberg, S ; Venters C ; Masnick, A ( July 2021 , 2021 ASEE Annual Conference and Exposition)

   The ability to identify one’s own confusion and to ask a question that resolves it is an essential metacognitive skill that supports self-regulation (Winne, 2005). Yet, while students receive substantial training in how to answer questions, little classroom time is spent training students how to ask good questions. Past research has shown that students are able to pose more high-quality questions after being instructed in a taxonomy for classifying the quality of their questions (Marbach‐Ad & Sokolove, 2000). As pilot data collection in preparation for a larger study funded through NSF-DUE, we provided engineering statics students training in writing high-quality questions to address their own confusions. The training emphasized the value of question-asking in learning and how to categorize questions using a simple taxonomy based on prior work (Harper et al., 2003). The taxonomy specifies five question levels: 1) an unspecific question, 2) a definition question, 3) a question about how to do something, 4) a why question, and 5) a question that extends knowledge to a new circumstance. At the end of each class period during a semester-long statics course, students were prompted to write and categorize a question that they believed would help them clarify their current point of greatest confusion. Through regular practice writing and categorizing such questions, we hoped to improve students' abilities to ask questions that require higher-level thinking. We collected data from 35 students in courses at two institutions. Over the course of the semester, students had the opportunity to write and categorize twenty of their own questions. After the semester, the faculty member categorized student questions using the taxonomy to assess the appropriateness of the taxonomy and whether students used it accurately. Analysis of the pilot data indicates three issues to be addressed: 1) Student compliance in writing and categorizing their questions varied. 2) Some students had difficulty correctly coding their questions using the taxonomy. 3) Some student questions could not be clearly characterized using the taxonomy, even for faculty raters. We will address each of these issues with appropriate refinements in our next round of data collection: 1) Students may have been overwhelmed with the request to write a question after each class period. In the future, we will require students to write and categorize at least one question per week, with more frequent questions encouraged. 2) To improve student use of the taxonomy in future data collection, students will receive more practice with the taxonomy when it is introduced and more feedback on their categorization of questions during the semester. 3) We are reformulating our taxonomy to accommodate questions that may straddle more than one category, such as a question about how to extend a mathematical operation to a new situation (which could be categorized as either a level 3 or 5). We are hopeful that these changes will improve accuracy and compliance, enabling us to use the intervention as a means to promote metacognitive regulation and measure changes as a result, which is the intent of the larger scope of the project. 

   more » « less
5. Hands-On Statics to Improve Conceptual Understanding and Representational Competence

   Davishahl, E. ; Singleton, L. ; Haskell, T. ; Rupe, K. ( June 2022 , Proceedings ASEE annual conference)

   Mechanics instructors frequently employ hands-on learning with goals such as demonstrating physical phenomena, aiding visualization, addressing misconceptions, exposing students to “real-world” problems, and promoting an engaging classroom environment. This paper presents results from a study exploring the importance of the “hands-on” aspect of a hands-on modeling curriculum we have been developing that spans several topics in statics. The curriculum integrates deep conceptual exploration with analysis procedure tutorials and aims to scaffold students’ development of representational competence, the ability to use multiple representations of a concept as appropriate for learning, problem solving, and communication. We conducted this study over two subsequent terms in an online statics course taught in the context of remote learning amidst the COVID-19 pandemic. The intervention section used a take-home adaptation of the original classroom curriculum. This adaptation consisted of eight activity worksheets with a supplied kit of manipulatives and model-building supplies students could use to construct and explore concrete representations of figures and diagrams used in the worksheets. In contrast, the control section used activity worksheets nearly identical to those used in the hands-on curriculum, but without the associated modeling parts kit. We only made minor revisions to the worksheets to remove reference to the models. The control and intervention sections were otherwise identical in how they were taught by the same instructor. We compare learning outcomes between the two sections as measured via pre-post administration of a test of 3D vector concepts and representations called the Test of Representational Competence with Vectors (TRCV). We also compare end of course scores on the Concept Assessment Test in Statics (CATS) and final exam scores. In addition, we analyze student responses on two “multiple choice plus explain” concept questions paired with each of five activities covering the topics of 3D moments, 3D particle equilibrium, rigid body equilibrium (2D and 3D), and frame analysis (2D). The mean pre/post gain across all ten questions was higher for the intervention section, with the largest differences observed on questions relating to 3D rigid body equilibrium. Students in the intervention section also made larger gains on the TRCV and scored better on the final exam compared to the control section, but these results are not statistically significant perhaps due to the small study population. There were no appreciable differences in end-of-course CATS scores. We also present student feedback on the activity worksheets that was slightly more positive for the versions with the models. 

   more » « less