instructional modules with pre-and post-game activities. The ongoing development of this digital game underscores its capacityto foster critical thinking, cooperative decision-making, and stakeholder engagement, preparingstudents to navigate complex real-world infrastructure challenges in their professional careers.AcknowledgementsThis material is based upon work supported by the Kern Family Foundation. Any opinions,findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the author(s)and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Kern Family Foundation.References[1] College Factual, “2023 Structural Engineering Degree Guide.” Accessed: Feb. 04, 2024. [Online]. Available: https://www.collegefactual.com
investigating the terms used in classrooms and syllabi, as research articles are just oneavenue for showcasing design projects for disabled audiences.References[1] M. Aoyama, “Persona-Scenario-Goal Methodology for User-Centered Requirements Engineering,” in 15th IEEE International Requirements Engineering Conference (RE 2007), Oct. 2007, pp. 185–194. doi: 10.1109/RE.2007.50.[2] S. Costanza-Chock, “Design Justice: towards an intersectional feminist framework for design theory and practice,” presented at the Design Research Society Conference 2018, Jun. 2018. doi: 10.21606/drs.2018.679.[3] L. De Couvreur and R. Goossens, “Design for (every)one : co-creation as a bridge between universal design and rehabilitation engineering,” CoDesign
potential of VR in semiconductor workforce development.References[1] Sweller, J. 1988. Cognitive load during problem solving: Effects on learning. CognitiveScience, 12(2), 257–285. https://doi.org/10.1016/0364-0213(88)90023-7[2] Andersen, S. A. W., Konge, L., & Sørensen, M. S. 2018. The effect of distributed virtualreality simulation training on cognitive load during subsequent dissection training. MedicalTeacher, 40(7), 684–689. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 0142159X.2018.1465182[3] Chen, Y.-C., Chang, Y.-S., & Chuang, M.-J. (2022). Virtual reality application influencescognitive load-mediated creativity components and creative performance in engineering design.Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 38(1), 6–18. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal
of students in correlation with their group.Figure 2. Average of each exam based on group and semester.In the analysis of course evaluations, we focused on three key questions that provided the mostrelevant feedback regarding the active learning modules: (1) “Please identify the instructor’sstrengths that contributed to your learning in the course,” (2) “What additional constructivefeedback can you offer the instructor that might help improve the course?”, and (3) “Whatconstructive suggestion(s) do you have for improving the course materials, organization, andassignments?” Student comments included both positive and negative perspectives. For example,a positive comment noted, I think having more active videos would help the students interact
://doi.org/10.1002/j.2168-9830.2004.tb00809.x.[4] N. S. Foundation, NSF 23-563: Historically Black Colleges and Universities Undergraduate Program (HBCU-UP). Directorate for STEM Education, Division of Equity for Excellence in STEM, 2023.[5] E. Litzler, C. C. Samuelson, and J. A. Lorah, "Breaking it Down: Engineering Student STEM Confidence at the Intersection of Race/Ethnicity and Gender," Research in Higher Education, vol. 55, no. 8, pp. 810-832, 2014/12/01 2014, doi: 10.1007/s11162-014-9333- z.[6] A. T. Arroyo and M. Gasman, "An HBCU-Based Educational Approach for Black College Student Success: Toward a Framework with Implications for All Institutions," American Journal of Education, vol. 121, no
tracked whether each standard was assigned to a courseand/or to a category. We also noted whether each standard was (1) entirely different from, (2)loosely similar to, (3) very similar to, or (4) identical to a CSTA standard. For all but the‘different’ category, we noted to which CSTA standard(s) the state standard was similar. We thenmapped these categories to a score, so that ‘different’ standards were assigned 1.0, identical Similarity Level Score Identical 4.0 Very similar 3.0 Loosely similar 2.0 Different 1.0Table 1
, 2003. Retrieved from http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/ 10400419.2003.9651403[9] E. Perignat and J. Katz-Buonincontro, J. STEAM in practice and research: An integrative literature review. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 31, 31–43, 2019. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2018.10.002[10] Comisión Nacional de Acreditación. (2007). Criterios de evaluación para carreras de ingeniería. 07 de Marzo, 7, 1–21, 2007.[11] Abet Criteria for Accrediting Engineering Programs, 2018 – 2019. Retrieved from https://www.abet.org/[12] S. R. Daly, E. A. Mosyjowski, and C. M. Seifert. Teaching creativity in engineering courses. Journal of Engineering Education, 103(3), 417-449, 2014.[13] M. G. Holguín, A. F. Tavera, and M. B. López
–79.[4] S. Breen and A. O’Shea, ‘Threshold Concepts and Undergraduate Mathematics Teaching’, PRIMUS, vol. 26, no. 9, pp. 837–847, Oct. 2016, doi: 10.1080/10511970.2016.1191573.[5] K. Pettersson, ‘The Threshold Concept of a Function – A Case Study of a Student’s Development of Her Understanding’, Sweden: MADIF-8, 2012.[6] K. Pettersson, E. Stadler, and T. Tambour, ‘Development of students’ understanding of the threshold concept of function’, in Proc. 8th Congress of the European Society for Research in Mathematics Education CERME8, Antalaya, Turkey, Feb. 2013.[7] A. O’Shea, S. Breen, and B. Jaworski, ‘The Development of a Function Concept Inventory’, Int. J. Res. Undergrad. Math. Ed., vol. 2, no. 3, pp. 279–296, Oct. 2016, doi
analysis reveals a notable differencebetween students' cumulative GPA, encompassing grades earned at their previous institution(s),and their GPA earned solely at one state university in California post-transfer. The cumulative GPAis, on average, 0.3 points higher than the GPA earned after transferring. This disparity stronglysuggests that students transferred a greater number of non-engineering courses, where they hadachieved higher grades, thus contributing to the higher cumulative GPA. The lower GPA earned atthe university after transfer likely reflects the more lower-division engineering coursework withinthe engineering major, as well as the potential challenges of adjusting to a new academicenvironment. The pattern of transfer credit loss
challenging. This trend may be linked to the collaborative nature of the activity,where students worked in groups of two to three. Group collaboration likely enhanced peer supportand facilitated collective problem-solving, however potentially lowering the perceived difficulty.Additionally, it is important to note that, when students took the survey, they had not yet beenconfirmed if they had successfully identified all the embedded mistakes or if they hadappropriately resolved the issue(s), which could have influenced their perceptions. Nevertheless, Question 1 Figure 2: Survey results for question 1the troubleshooting exercise could be made more challenging by converting it
reflective essays.References1 Atkins, L., Martinez Moreno, J. E., Patil, L., Andrews, K. J., Wu, M. S., Dutta, D., Hug, B., and Bresler, L., “Fostering Innovative Skills Within the Classroom: A Qualitative Analysis from Interviews with 60 Innovators,” ASEE Annual Conference Proceedings, Seattle, WA, 20152 Froehle, K., Dickman, L., Phillips, A. R., Murzi, H., and Paretti, M., “Understanding Lifelong Learning and Skills Development: Lessons Learned from Practicing Civil Engineers,” Journal of Civil Engineering Education, ASCE, June 20223 Spearman, L., “Keeping It Real: Using Interviews with Professionals as Realistic Previews of the Sports Industry,” Journal of Hospitality, Leisure, Sport, and Tourism
, 2015. https://doi.org/10.1002/jee.20107 [3] Anon. “TOM Communities”. tomglobal.org. Accessed Jan 15, 2025. [Online]. Available: https://tomglobal.org/communities [4] Anon. “Volunteer Chapters”. makersmakingchange.com. Accessed Jan 15, 2025. [Online]. Available: https://www.makersmakingchange.com/s/chapters [5] S. Logan, H. Feldner, K. Bogart, B. Goodwin, S. Ross, M. Catenaet al., "Toy-based technologies for children with disabilities simultaneously supporting self-directed mobility, participation, and function: a tech report", Frontiers in Robotics and AI, vol. 4, 2017. https://doi.org/10.3389/frobt.2017.00007 [6] Anon. “GoBabyGo!”. udel.edu. Accessed Apr 25, 2025. [Online]. Available: https://sites. udel.edu/gobabygo
undergraduate students who have engaged in engineering research.The ultimate goal of our work, after multiple rounds of revisions, is to develop a surveyinstrument to measure undergraduate engineering students’ researcher identities, with the aim ofproviding faculty mentors with a tool that can help inform and shape students’ researchexperiences. AcknowledgementsWe would like to express gratitude to Dr. Samantha Brunhaver who met with us to discuss thiswork and offered valuable guidance. We thank the participants and researchers who were part ofthe original study.References[1] A. Hunter, S. L. Laursen, and E. Seymour, “Becoming a scientist: The role of undergraduateresearch in students’ cognitive, personal, and
spaces lack, this means of redefinition allows forinformed choices regarding the ways to invoke different epistemologies based on theirunderstanding of their sexual orientation and gender identity, comprehension of engineering, andwho they are as an individual.References [1] D. Riley, “Rigor/Us: Building Boundaries and Disciplining Diversity with Standards of Merit,” Eng. Stud., vol. 9, no. 3, pp. 249–265, 2017. [2] S. Stryker and P. J. Burke, “The past, present, and future of identity theory,” Soc. Psychol. Q., vol. 63, no. 4, pp. 284–297, Dec. 2000. [3] T. W. Smith, “Social identity and socio-demographic structure,” Int. J. Public Opin. Res., vol. 19, no. 3, pp. 380–390, 2007. [4] E. A. Cech and T. J. Waidzunas
Failure of Discovery Learning, Problem-Based Learning, Experiential Learning and Inquiry-Based Learning,” Educ. Psychol., vol. 41(2), pp. 75–86, 2006.[2] M. T. H. Chi et al., “Translating the ICAP Theory of Cognitive Engagement Into Practice,” Cogn. Sci., vol. 42, no. 6, pp. 1777–1832, 2018, doi: 10.1111/cogs.12626.[3] S. Freeman et al., “Active learning increases student performance in science, engineering, and mathematics,” Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A., vol. 111, no. 23, pp. 8410–8415, 2014, doi: 10.1073/pnas.1319030111.[4] J. Hattie, Visible learning: A synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to achievement. 2008.[5] K. Loibl, I. Roll, and N. Rummel, “Towards a Theory of When and How Problem
thingiverse and/or makerworld, for anyone to be able to recreate and make their own device.Additionally, several more workshops will be designed to highlight the type of products that canbe made through the process of vacuum forming. Finaly, I’d like to reach out to several localschool districts and work with them to host several workshops with their students and providethem with their own vacuum form device so that they may continue to educate youngers studentsabout the world of engineering and sustainability.5. AcknowledgementsWe would like to acknowledge the Texas State Undergraduate Research Quanta ServicesFellowship for the funding to do the research.6. References[1] Richards, R. F., & Meng, F. S., & Van Wie, B. J., & Spadoni, F. L
: https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-23-106059.pdf[5] Congressional Budget Office, “An Analysis of the Navy’s Fiscal Year 2023 ShipbuildingPlan | Congressional Budget Office.” Accessed: Jul. 08, 2023. [Online]. Available:https://www.cbo.gov/publication/58745[6] Grey et al., “Submerge, Learn, Succeed: Enhancing K-12 STEM Education ThroughExperiential Pedagogy in Naval Engineering,” in 2024 IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference(FIE), Washington, D.C.: Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Oct. 2024.[7] A. Grey, A. Hain, V. Maier-Speredelozzi, S. Santos, A. Smith, and J. Vercosa,“Engagement in Practice: Lessons Learned from Developing K-12 Programming in NavalEngineering,” in 2025 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition, Montreal
ContractGrading in Computer Science Education | Proceedings of the 55th ACM Technical Symposiumon Computer Science Education V. 1,” in SIGCSE 2024: Proceedings of the 55th ACMTechnical Symposium on Computer Science Education V. 1, Portland, OR, 20-23 2024.Accessed: Apr. 30, 2025. [Online]. Available:https://dl.acm.org/doi/abs/10.1145/3626252.3630929[8] S. E. Wilson, E. Grob-French, P. Maddy, and N. Noyes, “Incorporating Service Learningin an Engineering Programming Course to Promote Teamwork,” in 2024 ASEE Midwest SectionConference, Lawrence, KS, Sep. 2024.[9] S. E. Wilson, “Mechatronics Resources for K-12 Teachers, Scouting, 4-H, and others.”Accessed: Apr. 29, 2025. [Online]. Available: https://wilsonlab.ku.edu/mechatronics-resources-k-12
homeschooled in 2019 [2]. In addition, a study by Phillips [3] found thathomeschooled children are less likely to choose a major in a STEM field as compared to non-homeschooled students. Two reasons parents provide for homeschooling is dissatisfaction withacademic instruction (73%) and a desire to provide a nontraditional approach to their child(ren)’seducation (54%) [2]. Though homeschool parents play an integral role in supporting theirchild(ren)’s development as an engineering learner [4], they outsource many opportunities toengage in engineering learning to the local community (e.g., library, museum, cooperatives) oronline courses and private tutors [5-6]. This may be explained by parents’ misconceptions of theengineering profession [7
engineering mindset report: A vision for change in undergraduate engineering and engineering technology education,” Jun. 2024. [Online]. Available: https://mindset.asee.org/[2] S. Hidi and K. A. Renninger, “The four-phase model of interest development,” Educational Psychologist, vol. 41, no. 2, pp. 111–127, Jun. 2006, doi: 10.1207/s15326985ep4102_4.[3] L. Linnenbrink-Garcia et al., “Measuring situational interest in academic domains,” Educational and Psychological Measurement, vol. 70, no. 4, pp. 647–671, Aug. 2010, doi: 10.1177/0013164409355699.[4] Z. Guo and L. K. Fryer, “What really elicits learners’ situational interest in learning activities: A scoping review of six most commonly researched types of situational interest sources
- relevant-and-rigorous-all-students (accessed Feb. 15, 2025).6. “School and District Profiles,” profiles.doe.mass.edu. https://profiles.doe.mass.edu7. “Facts & Figures,” WPI. https://www.wpi.edu/about/facts8. E. R. Hollins, “Teacher Preparation For Quality Teaching,” Journal of Teacher Education,vol. 62, no. 4, pp. 395–407, Sep. 2011, doi: https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487111409415.9. D. M. Sobel, C. Gutierrez, S. Zion, and W. Blanchett, “Deepening culturally responsiveunderstandings within a teacher preparation program: it’s a process,” Teacher Development, vol.15, no. 4, pp. 435–452, Nov. 2011, doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/13664530.2011.635526.10. “ArcGIS Dashboards,” Arcgis.com, 2024.https://www.arcgis.com/apps/dashboards
expectations. The presentedmodel represents the statistical confidence compared to real-world values, with additionalexperiments providing insights on parameter interactions. Via introduction of the RCSS, aquantitative metric is presented for displaying how cost effective the selected number of tutorswere at supporting the filling of knowledge gaps within the course.AcknowledgmentsThis material is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation under Grant No.EES-1953606. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in thismaterial are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the NSF.References[1] R. L. Axtell et al., ‘Population growth and collapse in a multiagent model of the Kayenta
team-based, first-year engineering design course associated with improved teaming skills during senior capstone engineering design,” Advances in Engineering Education, vol. 11, no. 3, 2023, doi: 10.18260/3-1-1153-36046.[6] C. Pfluger, S. Rivera-Jimenez, and A. Hauser, “A Comparative Study of Collaborative and Inclusive Skills Development in Capstone Design Teams at Three Different Engineering Institutions,” 2022 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition Proceedings, doi: 10.18260/1-2--41585.[7] K. L. Tonso, “Teams that Work: Campus Culture, Engineer Identity, and Social Interactions,” Journal of Engineering Education, vol. 95, no. 1, pp. 25–37, Jan. 2006, doi: 10.1002/j.2168-9830.2006.tb00875.x.[8
as final grades, this toolhas proven to be an invaluable educational resource for this course.References[1] L. Rubin and C. Hebert, “Model for Active Learning: Collaborative Peer Teaching,” College Teaching, vol. 46, no. 1, pp. 26–30, Jan. 1998, doi: 10.1080/87567559809596229.[2] M. Hernández-de-Menéndez, A. Vallejo Guevara, J. C. Tudón Martínez, D. Hernández Alcántara, and R. Morales-Menendez, “Active learning in engineering education. A review of fundamentals, best practices and experiences,” International Journal on Interactive Design and Manufacturing, vol. 13, no. 3, pp. 909–922, Sep. 2019, doi: 10.1007/S12008-019-00557-8/FIGURES/2.[3] S. Senthamarai, “Interactive teaching strategies,” Journal of
, US Army Headquarters, Washington DC, and as the Operations Officer in the 420th Engineer Brigade in Bryan, TX.Dr. James Ledlie Klosky P.E., United States Military Academy Led Klosky is a Professor of Civil Engineering at the United States Military Academy at West Point and a past winner of ASEE’s National Teaching Medal. He is a licensed professional engineer and the Dean’s Executive Agent for Design and Construction at WeMatthew Glavin, United States Military Academy Matthew T. Glavin is an Instructor of Civil Engineering at the United States Military Academy at West Point and an active duty Army Engineer Officer. He is a graduate of West Point (B.S. in Civil Engineering), Missouri S&T (M.S. in Engineering
could apply to manycommunities. Figure 1 shows their conversation centering on requirements related to funding andinfrastructure beginning 42 minutes into the session.Figure 1: Team 1’s talk during their initial discussion of requirements, with color coding todraw attention to how they use, share, and distribute their agency in framing the problem.This discussion is characterized by both its tentativeness, with abundant use of modal verbsshowing possibility and potential control, but also some caution, marked by lower agencyconstruction using modal verbs of obligation. The students consistently share their agencythrough common use of the first person plural pronoun, “we,” and by referencing thecommunity, problem context, and stakeholders (“they
applicabilityAcknowledgmentThis material is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation Grant #2308531and #2308532 titled “Collaborative Research: Track 4: Developing Equity-Minded EngineeringPractitioners (DEEP)”. We acknowledge the UIUC DEEP research team for their development ofthe COI instrument and for training Morgan State University coders in its application. Anyopinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of theauthor(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation.References[1] S. D. Castle et al., "Systemic advantage has a meaningful relationship with grade outcomes instudents’ early STEM courses at six research universities," in Proc. Int. J. STEM Educ. Conf., vol
forsatisfactory work equivalent to a “high 80’s” grade in a traditional grading system. Full credit isawarded for “satisfactory” work and no credit is given for work that does not meet that standard.Students are allowed unlimited revision to the first of each type of deliverable, but the timeframe is limited to one week. To encourage quality, timely work, students are only allowed torevise two subsequent deliverables.The impact of specifications grading on learning is measured both qualitatively andquantitatively. Student attitudes and behaviors are documented to determine whether the use ofspecifications grading improves teamwork and yields a shift from grade-centric to learning-centric behaviors. The quality of major deliverables is measured using
, while Cortez & Schmelzenbach[9] shows their potential in MATLAB coding assistance. Further educational applications includeAI's integration into academic advising [10], engineering education [11], and cognitive flexibilitydevelopment for smart city initiatives [12]. While some industry applications, such as Fernandeset al.'s [13] DAVE system, demonstrate custom GPT-powered solutions for BIM environments,our study uniquely focuses on teaching students to develop and deploy their own custom AIchatbots. Through our approach, students learn to create chatbots that can be deployed on theirown websites and easily shared with stakeholders, without requiring extensive programmingknowledge. By emphasizing tailored prompt engineering and leveraging