User experience and motivation with engineering design challenges in general chemistry laboratory

Abstract

Our career-forward approach to general chemistry laboratory for engineers involves the use of design challenges (DCs), an innovation that employs authentic professional context and practice to transform traditional tasks into developmentally appropriate career experiences. These challenges are scaled-down engineering problems related to the US National Academy of Engineering’s Grand Challenges that engage students in collaborative problem solving via the modeling process. With task features aligned with professional engineering practice, DCs are hypothesized to support student motivation for the task as well as for the profession. As an evaluation of our curriculum design process, we use expectancy–value theory to test our hypotheses by investigating the association between students’ task value beliefs and self-confidence with their user experience, gender and URM status. Using stepwise multiple regression analysis, the results reveal that students find value in completing a DC (F(5,2430) = 534.96, p < .001) and are self-confident (F(8,2427) = 154.86, p < .001) when they feel like an engineer, are satisfied, perceive collaboration, are provided help from a teaching assistant, and the tasks are not too difficult. We highlight that although female and URM students felt less self-confidence in completing a DC, these feelings were moderated by their perceptions of feeling like an engineer and collaboration in the learning process (F(10,2425) = 127.06, p < .001). When female students felt like they were engineers (gender x feel like an engineer), their self-confidence increased (β = .288) and when URM students perceived tasks as collaborative (URM status x collaboration), their self-confidence increased (β = .302). Given the lack of representation for certain groups in engineering, this study suggests that providing an opportunity for collaboration and promoting a sense of professional identity afford a more inclusive learning experience.

A structural model of student experiences in a career‐forward chemistry laboratory curriculum

“…The fidelity of implementation was an additional limitation. Though the curriculum underwent rounds of usability testing before this field test (Crippen et al, 2018; Crippen et al, 2021; Payne et al, 2019), trained graduate teaching assistants were responsible for the course and these individuals were not involved in the curriculum development process or prior testing. This implies the possibility that each section had a unique experience, one that was not intended and that may have been inconsistent with that of the others.…”

Promoting First-Semester Persistence of Engineering Majors with Design Experiences in General Chemistry Laboratory

“…The multi-phase career-forward curriculum combined aspects of problem-based learning with those of an engineering career (Table 2). Challenges were constructed using an iterative designbased approach that prioritized student feedback [35]- [37] and were each carried out over threelaboratory sessions in three-phases; Design, Conduct, and Analyze and Interpret (Figure 2). During the Design Phase, teams define the problem, including constraints and criteria, then perform experiments to obtain preliminary data that is used to propose an initial design.…”

“…Finally, during the Analyze and Interpret Phase, teams propose a final design as part of a technical memo, including any further experiments they deem necessary. The phases represent the design process and are based upon ABET Student Outcomes (criteria b) (see [35]- [37] for a more in-depth description with examples). The semester consisted of one condensed Challenge that was completed in the first single laboratory session then three-full Challenges.…”

“…Quality Assurance checklists and signatures ensure conversations with the teaching assistant and accountability [36].…”