One Size Does Not Fit All: Impact Of Varied Freshman Design Experiences On Engineering Self Efficacy

Abstract

This paper presents results of a two year pilot program in freshman design. The program's goal was to create a variety of project-based learning, or PBL, freshman experiences in design and complex problem solving as a means of energizing a fundamentals-focused math and science freshman curriculum. A second goal was to develop students' self-efficacy in a range of abilities associated with engineering including design, problem solving, innovation, communication, teamwork, application of fundamental engineering and math concepts, teamwork, and being able to consider social impacts in technology in design. A third goal was to examine impact of different types of subjects by gender. The final goal was to discern if any gains in self-efficacy were sustained over time. An engineering self efficacy survey tool was developed for this study, with an expanded set of engineering self efficacy measures, that permit a more nuanced portrait of the impact of different types of engineering curricular experiences on student self efficacy. While preliminary, student responses to the survey showed that hands on, rigorous, engineering design experiences leading to original design prototyping led to greater impact on men students' self efficacy than other types of design subjects. Student responses also showed that, while women students were energized by participation in PBL subjects, with more choosing engineering as a major compared to non-PBL women, the impact of women's self efficacy was only in design-innovation, compared to PBL men whose self efficacy was impacted in nearly all areas. Perhaps most interesting of all were the changes in student self efficacy by midsophomore year for all students whether they participated in freshman design subjects or not. By mid-sophomore year, student self efficacy decreased from end of freshman year levels for all students, regardless of gender, for all ability measures. By taking a longitudinal approach to the study, and implementing the survey tool over 3 periods (pre freshman, post freshman, and mid sophomore year) with the same student groups, the results also illustrate that gains in self efficacy, after an engaging freshman experience, are not permanent, nor do gains only increase over time. Rather, the value of self efficacy measures of engineering students, if implemented over several periods, is that they can reveal the roller coaster ride of students' engineering self confidence in response to positive and negative curricular experiences.

Individual Design Experiences Improve Students’ Self-Efficacy on Team-Based Engineering Design Projects

“…Chachra et al [38] found that tinkering and technical selfefficacy did not appear to change over the duration of a team-based engineering course, which they attributed to students taking on tasks that played to pre-existing strengths, which in some cases, reinforce gender stereotypes about performance -i.e., females took on writing tasks, males took on technical "building" tasks. Gendered task orientation may be a possible explanation for results; this finding coheres with a study by Masi [25] who found that hands-on prototyping during team-based engineering design projects had a significant impact on the selfefficacy of first-year male engineering but not female engineering students. However, other explanations for why students engage (or not) in different tasks on team-based design projects may exist [30], [33], [34].…”

“…Although logical, not all prior research supports the idea that more time spent by students on building prototypes has a direct positive correlation with engineering self-efficacy [31], [32]; in fact, Hirshfield and Chachra [33] found that fourth-year students do not have significantly high self-efficacy than first-year students. In other studies, first year engineering students' GPA [31] and individual course grades [25] were more predictive of self-efficacy than time spent prototyping or engaged in design tasks. Overall, previous research indicates student self-efficacy in engineering is malleable and multifarious psychological construct, influenced by multiple factors including course context, student demographics, types of learning opportunities, experiences with failure, relevant prior knowledge, and the emotions students experience during learning [32]- [34].…”

“…By contrast, students with low self-efficacy may perceive that they aren't capable of learning the knowledge and skills necessary to be successful and/or will fail even if they work hard on a task. Research on self-efficacy [25]- [29] indicates that task orientation plays an important role in academic motivation and persistence. Hirshfield and Chachra [30], for instance, suggested that students with low engineering selfefficacy may not take on more technical tasks in design projects.…”

“…Although several studies have indicated improvement in student self-efficacy as a result of mastery experiences (e.g., hands-on design tasks) [21], [31], others have shown that simply providing mastery experiences will not necessarily result in enhanced, sustained student selfefficacy. For instance, more time spent on design projects does not necessarily lead to monotonic increases in self-efficacy for all students [32] and student self-efficacy can change over time with subsequent learning experiences [25]. Although logical, not all prior research supports the idea that more time spent by students on building prototypes has a direct positive correlation with engineering self-efficacy [31], [32]; in fact, Hirshfield and Chachra [33] found that fourth-year students do not have significantly high self-efficacy than first-year students.…”

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

“…By contrast, students with low self-efficacy may perceive that they can't learn the knowledge and skills necessary to be successful and/or will fail even if they work hard on a task. Research on self-efficacy [30,31,32] indicates that it plays an important role in academic motivation and persistence. Hirshfield and Chachra [34], for instance, suggested that student with low engineering self-efficacy may not take on more technical tasks in design projects.…”