Background Self-efficacy has been shown to be positively related to undergraduate engi-

No abstract

Background Engineering self‐efficacy, or the belief in one's own capabilities to complete engineering tasks, has been shown to predict greater motivation, academic performance, and retention of engineering students. Investigating the types of experiences that influence engineering students' self‐efficacy can reveal ways to support students in their undergraduate engineering programs. Purpose/Hypothesis(es) The purpose of this study was to qualitatively examine how undergraduate engineering students describe the sources of their engineering self‐efficacy and whether patterns in students' responses differed by gender. Design/Method Participants (N = 654) were undergraduate engineering students attending two public, land‐grant universities in the U.S. Open‐ended survey questions were used to identify the events, social experiences, and emotions that students described as relevant to their engineering self‐efficacy. Chi‐square analyses were used to investigate whether response patterns varied by gender. Results Students described enactive performances as their most salient source of self‐efficacy, but interesting insights also emerged about how engineering students draw from social and emotional experiences when developing their self‐efficacy. Women more often referred to social sources of self‐efficacy and reported fewer positive emotions than did men. Conclusion Findings suggest ways that educators can provide more targeted opportunities for students to develop their self‐efficacy in engineering.

Many stakeholders have called for education reform and particularly regarding the outdated manner in which we generally educate engineers. As a result, understanding dissemination and implementation tactics of research-based instructional strategies (RBIS) has emerged as a critical topic within engineering education research. Additionally funding agencies such as the NSF, have encouraged interdisciplinary projects where STEM faculty work with education experts to apply innovations in teaching. However, how to make these joint ventures successful is less well understood. For example, collaboration in engineering education research typically focuses on student teams or how professional engineering teams learn to work together. Fewer studies articulate how to motivate engineering faculty to interact across engineering disciplines, let alone, with non-engineering faculty such as educational experts. Therefore, the research team sought to understand, how can we develop a culture of collaboration among STEM faculty around the issue of implementing teaching innovation including RBIS's? The specific guiding research question for the current study is how do faculty in STEM describe their experience participating in the Strategic Instructional Innovations Program (SIIP) -a program designed to promote and support the implementation of teaching innovation?This qualitative study employs an exploratory phenomenological approach, using semistructured interviews with 12 STEM faculty across academic ranks. The participants worked on a collaborative team project(s) to implement teaching innovations at a Midwestern large researchintensive, predominantly white institution (PWI). The project durations ranged from one to three years for sustainable implementation of teaching innovations. The semi-structured interviews covered the participant's previous teaching experience prior to joining the SIIP community, a description of their current role in the community including what did and did not work well, and a description of their vision for the community in the future. Consistent with phenomenological research, the interviews were evaluated holistically to allow essential themes of the experience to emerge.Preliminary results of the phenomenological analysis suggest three emergent themes. First, the participants specified the entry point for implementing instructional innovation. That is to say, the departmental culture was emphasized as a key structural support to ensure the sustainability of the implemented innovation. The second emergent theme articulated by the participants, was the recognition of individual skills and abilities within the SIIP community. Specifically, the expanded peer interaction fostered an environment for complimentary skills to thrive. For example, some of the STEM faculty were more comfortable than others with flipping their classroom, particularly with large service courses with over 100 students, and were able to share best practices or personal success stories. Finally, most participants acknowledg...

No abstract