, prototyping anditerating each lesson with a recruited student audience before revising and publishing.Background: Design Thinking (DT) is now a transdisciplinary field that has diverged inimportant ways from its origins in, among other disciplines, engineering design (ED) in the late20th century [1]. Crucially, most DT practitioners today have adapted: ethnographic methods tounderstand stakeholder needs and anticipate unintended consequences of technologies;discoveries in the brain sciences to enhance creativity and team effectiveness; and techniquesfrom across design disciplines to navigate ambiguity and complexity. Several other OERs existthat introduce design thinking, e.g. [2] and [3]. The published lessons introduced in this projectand paper
engineering, thus building a sustainable and resilient society while using appropriate ways to reduce, reuse, and recycle. He is also actively involved in engineering education research and strives for effective pedagogy practices and student success. ©American Society for Engineering Education, 2025 GIFTS: Intro to Civil & Environmental Engineering - First-year Engineering Course designed for Student Engagement and BelongingIntroductionThis GIFTS (Great Ideas For Teaching (and Talking With) Students) paper examines thedesign and implementation of a 1-credit Intro to Civil & Environmental Engineeringcourse (CEE 101), and its impact on student engagement, belonging, and retention. Ijoined Juniata
activity provides students with a real-world scenariowhere they must use a people-first, human-centered engineering problem-solving approach tosolve a scenario that affects people of all backgrounds [1]. This activity introduces the careerreadiness competencies required of successful engineers and crucial in engineering design. Thesecompetencies are identified by the National Association of Colleges and Employers (NACE) aswell as by the ABET engineering program accreditation organization [2-3]. Through this activity,we stress the importance of being a well-rounded engineer and how lacking technical or socialcompetencies can lead to unintentional engineering design failures that exclude critical groups andpopulations. Examples include products only
Landscapes in Engineering EducationAbstractIn this paper, the four authors consider our roles as engineering educators teaching courses thatemphasize engineering practice as a sociotechnical endeavor. [1] [2] Situated in differentinstitutions and schools, we reflect on commonalities and differences in our approaches tosociotechnical education, particularly incorporating scholarship that illuminates the complexrelationship between science, technology and society into engineering and humanities courses.We draw heavily from disciplines such as science and technology studies, engineering studies,and the history of science and technology, among others. [3] [4] We also reflect on how ourvaried institutional homes have influenced how we approach
technicalunderstanding and create a broader social space for engineering education.IntroductionAs the artifacts and processes of engineering disciplines become more deeply entrenched insociety, the professional obligations of an engineer become more complex and intersectional.Subsequently, in academic engineering settings, the discussion of “engineering ethics” withinundergraduate education has morphed into a broader goal for sociotechnical education, whichinforms students of the collective social responsibilities held by engineers and the ways in whichan engineer’s discipline shapes and is shaped by society [1]. In the context of data science (DS)undergraduate programs, responsible data science curriculum integrates engineering ethics andsociotechnical
ReflectionIn this work-in-progress paper, we suggest that the evaluation of undergraduate research experiences canbe adapted to serve as a useful tool for supporting student learning. Specifically, we argue thatundergraduate research can foster transformative learning, but one key element of this experientiallearning–reflection–can be difficult to integrate into the programs[1], [2]. Indeed, even for programs thatforeground experiential learning, such as service-learning and study abroad, it can be difficult to integratereflection effectively[3]. Yet the National Science Foundation’s (NSF) Research Experience forUndergraduates (REU) programs do require a process that, surprisingly, could serve as a tool for doingthis work: program evaluation. In a
leads the Applied Research, Evaluation, & Engagement area of Duke University’s Social Science Research Institute.Dr. Yerika A Jimenez, Duke University Dr. Yerika Jimenez is a postdoctoral researcher at Duke University working with the Alliance for Identity-Inclusive Computing Education (AiiCE). Her current research focuses on two primary areas: 1) understanding how to facilitate difficult conversations about diversity, inclusion, and equity (DEI) in computing and 2) understanding how upper elementary students (4th and 5th grades) learn how to debug in block-based programming environments. Specifically, she studies their debugging behaviors, challenges, skills, and ability to articulate their debugging process
the field of engineering. Manyengineering students enter their majors with minimal knowledge of the discipline. Additionally,many current high school students report being interested in STEM-related fields, but areunprepared for this endeavor [1]. To help address this issue, the authors launched “TheEngineering Student Experience Podcast" in 2019 to enhance awareness of engineering as amajor and a career option. In a study conducted by Nissenson et al. (2020), the first five episodeswere evaluated by engineering students enrolled in California State Polytechnic UniversityPomona’s College of Engineering’s First Year Experience course, “EGR 1000: Engineering,Society, and You” [2]. After listening to the episodes, students completed surveys that
seeks to provide insights into what motivates these individuals to remain employed at asingle workplace for over three years or to leave within the first year. The research utilizedsurvey responses from two cohorts of international graduate students, collected in Fall 2023(referred to as Cohort 1) and Spring 2024 (referred to as Cohort 2). A total of 50 participants (25from each cohort) completed questionnaires addressing two key topics: (a) factors that wouldencourage them to stay with the same organization for more than three years, and (b) factors thatwould lead them to leave within one year of employment. The collected data was categorizedinto different tables by counting the occurrences of each factor. This data was then plotted
of the new course based on the experiencegained and the assessment data collected in the previous offering. Also, several examples of thesmart products designed by student teams are discussed. The course contains active learning andproject-based learning components. A smart flowerpot device was integrated into the lectures asan active learning platform. For project management, students are introduced to the Agilemethod, which is widely used in software development companies and is the leading softwareengineering methodology for IoT development.1. IntroductionPhysical objects (things), such as thermostats and doorbell cameras, connected to the Internetallow remote network access to these devices creating the so called Internet of Things
, ensuring that students are equipped with the skills necessary to thrivein an AI-driven world. This growing integration of AI tools into curricula promises to driveinnovation in teaching methods, assessment, and the broader educational ecosystem, preparingfuture engineers to navigate and contribute to an AI-powered landscape.Recent studies highlight the growing integration of Artificial Intelligence (AI) tools inengineering education, reflecting both their potential and challenges. For instance, Subramanianand Vidalis [1] explore AI-powered tools, including generative models like ChatGPT, thatfacilitate interactive, personalized learning experiences in engineering classrooms shortly afterthey are becoming readily available to the public. They
-classroom engineering project experiences through student organizations andcompetitions have been offered at universities across the world for many decades. Whileinstructor-led “traditional” teaching approach in engineering classrooms is essential fordeveloping analytical rigor among students, it may be insufficient for preparing them to solvecomplicated socio-technical problems that engineers often face in the real world [1]. As a result,project experience in college helps to develop systems-level thinking abilities that engineers needto solve open-ended problems [1]. Overall, this type of project experience has led to a higherself-perception of development of soft skills such as problem solving, creativity, critical thinking,integrity, teamwork
before final grades were posted to draw insights from both experiences. The survey resultsshowed that students in year 1 of the study evaluated themselves significantly higher (p-value =0.03, α = 0.05) on their competency of the learning objectives compared to the students in year 2.However, neither cohort of students performed significantly better (p-value = 0.23, α = 0.05) inthe class compared to before modifications were implemented. No significant studentperformance difference was found between the two modalities indicating that both are equallyeffective course structures. However, the condensed 8-week course seemed to pose uniquechallenges for some students. The suggested course structures give students flexibility and theability to remain
,evaluating, planning). A way to develop MRSs is open-ended reflection that encouragesstudents’ critical thinking of their learning processes. Embedding reflection in engineeringcoursework is challenging. This study had two purposes, to examine (1) changes in the MRSsthat students used in reflections across two semesters and (2) differences in students’ MRSswhen instructors were new to versus their second year of reflection implementation. At a largemidwestern university, this study took place in two sequential courses with two cohorts ofstudents who participated in written reflections alongside engineering coursework. Cohort 1 wastaught by two instructors new to implementation, while Cohort 2 was taught by the sameinstructors in their second year of
Paper ID #46672Investigating the capabilities and limitations of ChatGPT to perform programmingassignments from an introductory R programming courseDr. Lucie Guertault, North Carolina State University at Raleigh ©American Society for Engineering Education, 2025 Investigating the capabilities and limitations of ChatGPT to perform programming assignments from an introductory R programming course 1. IntroductionLarge language models (LLMs) are generative artificial intelligence (AI) tools capable ofperforming various natural language processing tasks such as generating text and engaging inconversations with
abilities. The Public Expo also stands out as asignificant strength. The main challenges include ensuring uniformity in team teaching,addressing organizational issues in open-ended projects, and managing coordination and trainingacross multiple programs.BackgroundMultidisciplinarity in undergraduate engineering design capstone projects has been identified tobe important [1,2], even 30 years ago [3], and there are an increasing number of initiativesreported [4,5]. But still, it has not been widely or sustainably practiced in engineering schools[2], and many institutions struggle to create these opportunities within their curricula [1]. Someof the identified obstacles are curricular and knowledge differences across departments,university structure
Program: Building Student Engagement and Competency through Design, Aligned Courses, and Flexibility.OverviewThis work-in-progress paper describes the curriculum revision in the Biomedical Engineering(BME) program at the University of Miami, a mid-sized, private university. This revision aims toincrease student competency by emphasizing industry-relevant skills, while increasing studentengagement through improved flexibility and engagement with real-world problems.Original CurriculumThe original BME curriculum includes a set of core courses (see Table 1) and four tracks –Biomaterials and Tissue, Electrical, Mechanical, and Pre-med. Each track provides depth in onearea of biomedical engineering (see Table 2). Students were required
otherfactors that may increase self-efficacy and ultimately resiliency of the students in this programand beyond.IntroductionDuring the COVID-19 pandemic, engineering students faced significant academic challenges asuniversities transitioned quickly to remote learning. The abrupt shift disrupted hands-on labs,group projects, and practical experiences important to an engineering education and manyengineering courses [1, 2]. With the loss of access to physical lab spaces, equipment, and campusfacilities, instructors sought creative solutions for achieving course goals and ABET learningoutcomes remotely. Faculty and students had to learn to adapt to these new learning modes,tools, and technology quickly, which was challenging since few instructors or
[1] for a customer based on their job title may guidedesigners to view the customer’s needs through their employment, though the actual customermay value other aspects of their identity more highly. Similarly, when designing for and withdisabled customers, designers need to be aware of terminology, as referring to a customer as“differently abled” versus “wheelchair user” may lead to different perceptions of customer’sneeds. Engineering design educators also must be aware of the terminology used when teachingstudents about designing for disabled customers. In this paper, we explore the terminology usedin design engineering education research in the context of designing for and with disabledcustomers.Designing for disabled customers is an
during short in-class breaks. These questions serve to re-engage studentsafter brief pauses in instruction, fostering a more interactive and personable classroomenvironment.Previous research has demonstrated that students appreciate these trivia questions, whichcontribute positively to their perception of the instructor and the overall classroom experience[1]. However, existing work has primarily focused on a single instructor within a publicuniversity setting, leaving a gap in understanding whether the observed benefits are transferableacross different instructors and university demographics.In this study, we aim to address this gap by examining the transferability of the benefits of ITquestions across two different educational contexts
structures to later carry outexperimental work.e. Experimental tests that can correlate to the finite element analyses mentioned above. Inaddition, damping properties are also determined.Hands-on laboratories including finite element analyses and experimental tests are highlyencouraged by ABET [1] and are commonly performed by R&D departments in the industry todevelop new products. In the past there have been other ASEE works related to the topicspresented here [2],[3].2. Classification of composite materialsA composite material is produced combining two different constituent materials with the purposeof creating a material that will have some advantages over readily available materials. There areseveral types of composite materials.o Single
learning strategy use and success among students traditionally underrepresented in postsecondary education.Mr. Michael Keith Brewster, West Virginia University ©American Society for Engineering Education, 2025 NSF IUSE - Teaching Engineering Students How to Solve Story Problems: Confidence of Judgement During Problem SolvingIntroductionProblem-solving is at the heart of engineering. Broadly speaking, problem-solving has beendefined as “a goal-directed sequence of cognitive operations” that is essential for everydaysituations [1-2]. In engineering programs, students are trained to become proficient problem-solvers.Engineers tackle a variety of problems, and story problems, also known as word problems
research workshops, field trips to local companies, and lesson plan design. Compared tothe first year, the research mentors were more experienced in assigning research topics andworking more closely with PSTs in the second year of the program. This paper provides detailson the commonality and changes in the second year’s implementation, in comparison to the firstyear. Some follow up activities from the first cohort is also reported. Overall, PST participantsfound the research experience with their mentors beneficial not only to them, but also to theirfuture students according to our findings from interviews. 1. Introduction The Industries of the Future (IotF), comprising artificial intelligence (AI), quantuminformation science (QIS
/computationalanalysis courses, and industry stakeholders. The engineering backgrounds on the panel werevaried and representative of the engineering profession. The Delphi technique is a method todrive consensus among a group of experts or panelists. It involves a questionnaire to which theanonymous participants respond [1]. The researchers process the responses, which are sent backto the participants anonymously in subsequent rounds to drive consensus [1]. This studyinvolved three rounds, which is frequently or typically used [2-4].Delphi Panel. The Delphi panel for this research was primarily recruited from the publicationsuncovered during the initial literature search on engineering judgment. We contacted the authorsof these publications via email and
; ConstructionAbstractArchitectural Engineering and Construction (AE/C) students’ self-efficacy and interest can beincreased by showing engineering impacts on the real-world. Classroom access to real-worldexamples can be challenging, but virtual and augmented reality (VR/AR) can enable access.Virtual/Augmented-Reality-Based-Discipline Exploration Rotations (VADERs) modules usedreal-world engineering examples to engage students in understanding the five subdisciplines ofAE/C. To maximize the benefit of VR/AR, students’ immersion in these learning experiences isnecessary. The purpose of this study was to determine the extent to which students experienced aflow state (absorption and fluency) in VADERs. VADER-1 was implemented in first-year AE/Cintroductory courses at three
, Physics, and Computing CoursesIntroductionFirst-year students enter college with diverse backgrounds and varying levels of preparedness fortheir higher education journey. These prior experiences and skills, encompassing both academicand social competencies, significantly influence their overall college experience.Pre-academic skills play a crucial role in facilitating the transition to college, especially in STEMfields where students are required to pass introductory course credits. Students with strongacademic foundations typically adjust more easily to college coursework compared to those withweaker skills.1 Academic resources such as tutoring, advising, faculty interaction, and libraryservices can mitigate the challenges associated with this
STEM disciplines, with directimplications for engineering education.MethodsInclusion & Exclusion CriteriaTable 1 presents the criteria applied to determine whether papers were suitable for inclusion.Studies were required to focus on STEM instructors’ adoption of active learning in highereducation, explicitly report research methods and findings, and address challenges orstrategies associated with implementing active learning.Table 1. Inclusion & Exclusion Criteria Criteria Inclusion Exclusion Electronic Electronically available title and No abstract available citation abstract Language Reported in English Reported in any language
ME 4010 System Dynamics II. Equations (1) and (2) present the governing equation and its corresponding transfer function of the temperature control system. y (t ) + y (t ) = Ku (t − td ) (1) 𝐾 (2) G(s) = 𝜏𝑠+1 𝑒 −𝑡𝑑 𝑠 Where y(t) is the output and u(t) is the input. K is steady state gain, τ is the time constant and td is the time delay of the input. Fig.1 presents a comparison between the experimental and simulated step responses for K=0.752, τ=211 s, and 𝑡𝑑 = 30 s. Fig. 1 Comparison of experimental
. Additionally, using scaffolding techniques helpslearners progressively develop programming skills. However, determining the appropriate size ofeach conceptual unit depends on factors such as the learners' aptitude and experience.In this paper, we present a data-driven approach to designing auto-graded activities in our online,interactive STEM textbooks, focusing on effectively breaking down complex concepts intosmaller, more achievable steps for learners. We analyzed two types of activities: 1) activities onchallenging topics as reflected by high struggle rates and 2) activities on introductory topics withlower struggle rates, but where students still needed assistance based on their feedback andincorrect submissions as they began learning programming
research advisors, andadministrators alike to help inform policy, student support, and best practices.Keywords: veterans, GI Bill, graduate students, diversity, exploratory factor analysis.IntroductionEnacted in the 1940s, the Servicemen’s Readjustment Act and its successors—commonlyreferred to as to the GI Bill—increased student veteran enrollments in college and contributed toincreased diversity, perspectives, programs on campus [1]. Since then, the succession of GI Billsenacted since 1944 has facilitated over one million veterans attending college [1] and contributedsubstantially to the development of the U.S. skilled technical workforce. Despite historicallyhigh military student enrollments in college today [1], student veterans and service