This full-length research study investigated first-year engineering students “trust in generative artificial intelligence (GenAl) before and after course instruction. Pre-and post-surveys were conducted with questions on students” experience with GenAl tools as well as trust in GenAl. The trust questions had students evaluate the likelihood of GenAl generating a correct response to various prompts such as “explain the unit circle” (correct response likely) to “solving this system of equations …” (correct response unlikely for tools available in Fall 2023). Within-subjects analyses indicated that lessons in the course significantly increased trust in ChatGPT for correct-response-likely items. In addition, the lessons significantly decreased students “trust in ChatGPT for correct-response-unlikely items. There were no significant interactions between prior experience level and change in trust. These results show that guided exposure to GenAl helped first-year engineering students begin to understand capabilities and limitations of GenAl. These results are promising because student trust in GenAl output will directly impact decisions to engage with it for different tasks. More work is needed to optimize instruction and understand students” use of the tool beyond the classroom integration, including their full ethical decision-making process, but the malleability of trust at this level is an indication that engineering educators can impact student perspectives of GenAl.

This research work in progress research paper examines student perceptions after completing an exploratory learning lesson before instruction on an introductory programming concept. During exploratory learning activities, students explore a novel concept prior to instruction-the reverse of typical instruct-then-practice methods. Exploratory learning before instruction can help students activate prior knowledge, become aware of their knowledge gaps, and discern important problem features to improve conceptual understanding. Students in a first-year engineering course (N=402) learned about Python error messages in one of two conditions. In the explore-first condition, students completed a collaborative activity prior to instruction. In the instruct-first condition, students received instruction prior to the activity. Following the activity and instruction, students completed a survey to assess their perceptions of the activities. Survey items (e.g. cognitive load, self-efficacy, belonging, knowledge gaps) were chosen as potential factors that could explain learning outcomes between the two conditions. In prior work, we found higher posttest scores in the instruct-first compared to explore-first condition, contrary to the majority of previous studies. Cognitive load and knowledge gaps were higher in the explore-first condition than the instruct-first condition. Self-efficacy and competence were lower in the explore-first condition. No other significant differences were found. Exploring before instruction might disrupt learning and perceived efficacy and competence if the activity is too challenging, or if the instruction does not fully resolve gaps in students' knowledge.

This WIP paper presents new research on exploratory learning, an educational technique that reverses the order of standard lecture-based instruction techniques. In exploratory learning, students are presented with a novel activity first, followed by instruction. Exploratory learning has been observed to benefit student learning in foundational math and science courses such as calculus, physics, and statistics; however, it has yet to be applied to engineering topics such as programming. In two studies, we tested the effectiveness of exploratory learning in the programming unit of a first-year undergraduate engineering course. We designed a new activity to help students learn about different python error types, ensuring that it would be suitable for exploration. Then we implemented two different orders (the traditional instruct-first versus exploratory learning's explore-first) across the six sections of the course. In Study 1 ($N$=406), we did not detect a difference between the instruct-first and explore-first conditions. In Study 2 (N=411), we added more scaffolding to the activity. Students who received the traditional order of instruction followed by the activity scored significantly higher on the assessment. These findings contradict the exploratory learning benefits typically shown, shedding light on potential boundary conditions to this effect.

Spaced retrieval practice is an evidence-based learning technique that has the potential to improve student learning and memory in undergraduate courses. However, studies in STEM courses are limited, and results from available studies are inconsistent [1]. This paper presents such a study in an introductory physics course for engineering students, answering the following research question: Does spaced retrieval practice improve engineering student learning in physics? Students answered quiz questions that were administered in massed and spaced conditions throughout the semester, and then took a criterial test at the end of the semester. Results showed that spacing significantly improved student performance, with a mean gain of 3.4% in the spaced condition over the massed condition. This result is particularly interesting because a null effect of spacing was previously obtained in a similar physics course taken by non-engineering students [2]. Potential implications are discussed.