Self-Efficacy in Senior Design: Effects of Time and Team

Much of traditional curriculum is designed around individual assessment, but throughout their career most engineers are more likely to be assessed as part of a team. Having studied selfefficacy and learning styles in sophomore students for several semesters and noticing trends that may be explained by their early stage in career (e.g., lack of confidence in conceptual problems), we began to consider the status of our graduating senior students. Are they entering the workforce with high self-efficacy and a command of chemical engineering theory and design principles? Using a modified version of the Carberry et al. instrument for design self-efficacy, we tracked student self-efficacy throughout their senior design experience. Three self-efficacy surveys were administered: one early in the term while students were working on an individual project, one in the mid-semester while students were balancing an individual project with a team project, and a final one at the end-of-semester when only a final team project remained. This three project structure, two individual and one team, allowed us to examine both the design experiences and team effects on student self-efficacy. A wide number of self-efficacy gains suggest that students’ self-efficacy is positively affected by our senior design class. Patterns of self-efficacy gains indicate that there may be a timedependent variable that affects the development of students’ self-efficacy. A higher number of observed self-efficacy gains between surveys 1 and 2 suggests that the steeper learning curve during the first half of the course may allow for high gains in self-efficacy. Students are thrust in a course that expects expert level results, but have very little design experience prior. This simple fact may have a greater influence on self-efficacy than team dynamics as fewer gains were observed between survey 2 and 3. Between surveys 1 and 2, and surveys 2 and 3, students gained confidence in conducting design, and evaluating and testing a design. The continual increase in self-efficacy toward these items throughout the term promotes the value of both individual and team projects in assisting with the development of self-efficacy. Between surveys 2 and 3 (project focus was at this point entirely team-based), students’ self-efficacy with respect to selecting the best possible design showed statistically significant gains. Student confidence in making important decisions such as design selection may increase when discussed among and validated by a team. A better understanding of students’ self-efficacy maturation during the senior design experience will allow for development of an improved senior design course, and closer inspection of prerequisite courses may allow for development of a more integrated and effective curriculum. Overview of Work and Methods At our institution, senior design is a one-semester course consisting of three projects: two individual and one team. This enables a unique opportunity to track student self-efficacy, described as belief in their own individual capability, and the potential influence of team dynamics on that self-efficacy. That is, do students with positive team experiences see greater gains in self-efficacy than students with poor team dynamics and cohesion? Using a modified version of Carberry et al.’s senior design self-efficacy tool, we examined potential correlations between self-efficacy, team dynamics/cohesion, and team performance. Students were given three self-efficacy surveys, one early in the term, one mid-term, and one late in the term, corresponding to times where they were working on an individual project only, both on an individual project and group project, and just on a group project. Because we have had low participation in past studies, we were hesitant to use the full Carberry instrument that contains 36 items (nine items in the context of four self-concepts: self-efficacy, motivation, outcome expectancy, and anxiety). We also wanted to include our own questions regarding future career plans, ability to recall previous coursework, and attitude toward design and associated skills. Because there is no requirement or incentive to complete the survey, it is in our interest to make it as quick to complete and simple as possible. For that reason, we reduced the Carberry instrument to no more than two self-concepts (self-efficacy for all three surveys, and anxiety in surveys 2 and 3). The course uses Comprehensive Assessment of Team Member Effectiveness (CATME) to capture and assess team dynamics. CATME provides summary and analysis of teams and individuals based on a set of algorithms, and in certain cases flags individuals as “exceptional conditions” such as those demonstrating underconfidence, overconfidence, high performance, low performance, and potential conflict with a team member. A matched pairs ANOVA, followed by Tukey test, and Kruskal-Wallis, followed by a SteelDwass test, were used with a significance level of 0.05 for all numeric variables. For categorical data, Pearson’s Chi-squared test was used, and in cases where the contingency table contained values that were less than five, the Fisher’s Exact test. Results and Discussion: Student Self-Efficacy For this study cycle, our sample size was 78 students. On many survey items, we observe that student self-efficacy increased during the term. Table 1 summarizes the gains in student efficacy between surveys 1 and 2 (*), and 2 and 3 (^). Items 1 through 9 represent self-efficacy items included on all three surveys, items 10 through 16 are general perception items included on all three surveys, and items 17 through 25 are anxiety items included on just surveys 2 and 3. For all self-efficacy items, the change in response between surveys was in the direction of increased self-efficacy. All statistical significance is in the direction of increased confidence/agreement/decreased anxiety, except for in the case of item 10, the only perception item to show a significant difference (in the direction of decreasing agreement). The mean difference of the matched pairs student responses is also provided. Because changes in individual student responses are of interest (matched pairs), this number is more meaningful than the mean responses on survey items. It is important to highlight that of the 78 students enrolled, 53 students completed surveys 1 and 2, and 23 students completed surveys 2 and 3. Additionally, it is important to keep in mind when considering the numerical averages of student responses that the act of taking such an average assumes interval variables. Table 1. Items on self-efficacy and perceptions instrument administered in senior design. An asterisk (*) indicates items where a statistically significant difference in matched pairs response was observed between Survey 1 and 2 (S1-S2), and a caret (^) represents items for which a statistically significant difference was observed between Survey 2 and 3 (S2-S3). Items 17 to 25 were administered only on Surveys 2 and 3. A positive mean difference in a response refers to an average increase in matched pairs responses to the item on a 5-point Likert scale, and a negative mean difference refers to an average decrease. Question # Question Text Mean Difference in Response S1-S2 (N = 53) S2-S3 (N = 23) Self-Efficacy (certainty in ability to do...) Items on All Surveys 1 = cannot 2 = might be able 3 = moderate 4 = considerably certain 5 = highly certain 1 *^ Rate your degree of confidence in performing the following task: conduct engineering design. 0.25 0.30 2 * Rate your degree of confidence in performing the following task: identify a design need. 0.23 0.26 3 Rate your degree of confidence in performing the following task: research a design need. 0.13 0 4 * Rate your degree of confidence in performing the following task: develop design solutions. 0.35 0.17 5 ^ Rate your degree of confidence in performing the following task: select the best possible design. 0.21 0.61 6 Rate your degree of confidence in performing the following task: develop a simulation for a design. 0.19 0.22 7 *^ Rate your degree of confidence in performing the following task: evaluate and test a design. 0.27 0.43 8 * Rate your degree of confidence in performing the following task: communicate a design. 0.29 0.04 9 * Rate your degree of confidence in performing the following task: redesign. 0.29 0.22 General Perceptions (agreement with the following...) 1 = strongly disagree 2 = disagree 3 = neutral 4 = strongly agree 5 = strongly disagree 10 ^ Design skills are important for chemical engineers. 0 -0.22 11 It is important to know the theory (governing equations and principles) behind engineering design. -0.15 0.09 12 I will use engineering design principles in my career. -0.11 0.09 13 I intend to pursue a career in chemical engineering. 0.07 -0.09 14 I have been able to recall the theory I learned in previous courses and apply it to the design. 0.04 -0.09 15 I have had difficulty recalling the appropriate theory from previous courses that is needed to proceed with the design. -0.21 0 16 I intend to pursue a career that deviates from chemical engineering. -0.04 -0.09 Anxiety Items (anxiety in performing the following...) on Surveys 2 and 3 1 = none 2 = little 3 = moderate 4 = considerable 5 = high 17 ^ Rate your degree of anxiety in performing the following tasks: conduct engineering design N/A -0.30 18 ^ Rate your degree of anxiety in performing the following tasks: identify a design need. N/A -0.35 19 Rate your degree of anxiety in performing the following tasks: research a design need. N/A -0.22 20 Rate your degree of anxiety in performing the following tasks: develop design solutions. N/A -0.30 21 ^ Rate your degree of anxiety in performing the following tasks: select the best possible design. N/A -0.57 22 Rate your degree of anxiety in performing the following tasks: develop a simulation for a design. N/A -0.22 23 ^ Rate your degree of anxiety