2019 ASEE Annual Conference &Amp; Exposition Proceedings
DOI: 10.18260/1-2--31957
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

A Framework for Quantifying Student Self-Confidence and Task Choice in Engineering Design-related Activities

Abstract: where she worked on computational and experimental methods in spinal biomechanics. Since 2006, her research efforts have focused on the development and mechanical evaluation of medical and rehabilitation devices, particularly orthopaedic, neurosurgical, and pediatric devices. She teaches courses in design, biomechanics, and mechanics at University of Delaware and is heavily involved in K12 engineering education efforts at the local, state, and national levels.

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1

Citation Types

0
1
0

Publication Types

Select...
1

Relationship

1
0

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 1 publication
(1 citation statement)
references
References 33 publications
0
1
0
Order By: Relevance
“…A cohort-based, sequential exploratory mixed methods study design was used to determine whether the IDE experience improved student self-efficacy for hands-on prototyping tasks. Self-efficacy was assessed pre-and post-course with a validated instrument developed and previously reported by our team [12]. We created this instrument by combining items from APPLES [51] and a previously unvalidated tinkering instrument [52], and then checked the validity of the instrument using confirmatory factor analysis based on student responses from a larger data set (n=602).…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…A cohort-based, sequential exploratory mixed methods study design was used to determine whether the IDE experience improved student self-efficacy for hands-on prototyping tasks. Self-efficacy was assessed pre-and post-course with a validated instrument developed and previously reported by our team [12]. We created this instrument by combining items from APPLES [51] and a previously unvalidated tinkering instrument [52], and then checked the validity of the instrument using confirmatory factor analysis based on student responses from a larger data set (n=602).…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%