Search

Self-efficacy in engineering is important because individuals with low self-efficacy have lower levels of achievement and persistence in engineering majors. To examine self-efficacy among community college engineering students, an instrument to specifically measure two important aspects of engineering, tinkering and technical self-efficacy, was given to 94 students. Items on the instrument measured students' self-perception of abilities in engineering. These items were identified by members of the American Association of Engineering Education as critical to success in engineering. The items included such statements as "I can think outside the box" (Tinkering Scale), and "I can communicate ideas and concepts to others" (Technical Scale). Out of a possible 120 points, the mean score for the Technical Scale was 86.8 and 91.9 for the Tinkering Scale. Low self-efficacy was reported for items on the Tinkering Scale in trouble shooting and generating solutions to problems as well as understanding mechanisms and technical drawings. Low self-efficacy was reported for items on the Technical Scale in mathematical calculations, statistical modeling, and several areas of technical knowledge. On the Technical Scale, high self-efficacy was reported for items describing written and oral communication skills, logical and practical thinking, and tool use. High self-efficacy on the Tinkering Scale was reported for items describing persistence, curiosity about how things work, thinking outside the box and imagination, working well and building with hands, and a sense of how things work.

A lack of qualified teachers and low enrollment in the geosciences exist at both secondary and tertiary levels in the United States. Consequently, it is unlikely that students will be able to achieve scientific literacy without an increase in both of these populations. To address these problems, we pose research questions, highlight sociocultural theories, and provide examples of other science education research as possible avenues by which to explore these related problems. We argue that such research studies are necessary to inform science education policy and advance national scientific literacy.

A sample of 180 students was given the Personal Attributes Questionnaire. Nonscience females were more often classified as feminine, while more females in science were classified as androgenous. No difference was found in the number of biological and physical science majors classified as feminine. (MNS)

Examines the variables that influence females' success in science by experimenting with the outcomes of measures of formal reasoning ability. Concludes that women turn away from science for reasons that have little or nothing to do with their reasoning ability. (YP)

Investigated factors accounting for differences in numbers of men/women (N=180) at the doctoral level in science. Examined mathematical, spatial, attitudinal, and personality characteristics of male/female biology/physical science majors and nonmajors. Results (including few differences between males/females in sciences) and implications are discussed. (JM)