in a First- Year Engineering CourseIntroductionRetention of undergraduate engineering students has been of significant concern at manyuniversities as the percentage of students who begin in engineering programs and successfullycomplete their degree has remained stagnant at approximately 50% for the past several decades[1]. Retention of first- and second-year students is a particularly pressing issue; these studentstypically have the largest drop-out rates from STEM majors [2]. Several authors have attemptedto understand why students leave engineering and other STEM programs and have found that alack of belonging in engineering [3], academic reasons [3], and a lack of connection and qualityrelationships with peers and
, and ODEs.By leveraging modern computational tools such as Julia, Large Language Models(LLMs), and Wolfram Alpha Pro, the course shifts the focus from tedious handcalculations to conceptual mastery and real-world application. Three engineeringprojects reinforce this approach: (1) numerically integrating drone IMU accelerationdata to estimate velocity and position while correcting acceleration bias, (2)optimizing motion through gradient descent and equality constraints in applicationssuch as basketball trajectories and gymnast posture, and (3) modeling and designingcontrollers for a planar BallBot using state-variable models andLaplace-transform-based feedback control. Student evaluations indicate strong engagement: 85% of students reported
nuanced understanding of how self-efficacy, outcome expectations, career interest, and career intention interact as central constructs[1], [2]. Brown and Lent’s framework [3] also emphasizes the role of personal factors, includingpersonality traits, prior experiences, gender, and race/ethnicity, alongside contextual factors,such as socioeconomic status and prior education, in shaping career and educational outcomes.These elements interact to shape self-efficacy beliefs, outcome expectations, and career interests,highlighting the complex influences that guide career development.In particular, Brown and Lent [3] highlight the critical role of gender in career outcomes, oftenmediated through social learning experiences. Gender-specific opportunities
in helpingstudents recognize their responsibility to create inclusive engineering solutions while developingspecific strategies for preventing, detecting, and mitigating bias in their future engineeringpractice.MotivationEngineering education plays a crucial role in shaping future professionals who will design anddevelop technologies that impact society. Students entering engineering programs often view thefield primarily through a technical lens, focusing on problem-solving and innovation withoutfully considering the social implications of design decisions [1]. However, research shows thatunconscious bias in design processes can lead to products that exclude or potentially harmcertain populations [2] [3]. For example, early automobile crash
diverse set of identities and characteristics across the entire deck. Studentsdraw cards randomly and then complete the project or classroom activity with the person ontheir card as the intended user for their design. Initial student feedback suggests that using thiscard deck to complete their project increased students’ experience designing for persons unlikethemselves — a key element of the engineering profession.MotivationMany incoming first-year engineering students cite a desire to help people as one of the reasonsthey chose to major in an engineering discipline [1]. Additionally, first-year engineering coursesoften aim to introduce students to the idea of human-centered design. Teaching human-centereddesign in the first year takes on
well as biology [1,2], students can feelunderqualified in the depth and breadth of topics, or ‘othered’ compared to their peers. This isoften observed especially in first-year students or those transferring from other fields [3,4].Introduction to Bioengineering (BIOE 120, Table 1) is a 1 credit hour course offered to non-bioengineering majors at the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign. Students in this coursewish to learn more about the field yet come from a variety of backgrounds, resulting in differinglevels of knowledge and academic experience. As survey-style courses take a broad approachand often offer fewer credit hours, it can be difficult to teach technical concepts, especially tostudents who lack prerequisite courses [5,6
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
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
, 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
support for their first semester and math, chemistry, and statics/physics support for thesecond. Second year students still completing this coursework can also take part.While our initial sample size is small with two cohorts of 77 students, we are excited to reportpromising initial results. In the 2023 cohort, one-third of the students progressed into their majorin their first year, three more progressed into their major at the end of the Fall 2024 semester, and5 students received progression extensions. In the 2024 cohort, all students maintained orincreased their math placement. Forty-three percent placed into Calculus 1 and 10 students wereable to start General Chemistry.IntroductionStudents entering an engineering program underprepared for
contributing to the academic success of mid-range engineering studentsThis is a works-in-progress submission. In engineering, the expectation is that students oftenhave a 3.0 GPA or above to be eligible for internships and scholarships and are on track for acareer in the field. The present study seeks to examine how students can use forms of communitycultural wealth [1] to enhance their engineering identity and self-efficacy and increase thesupport of community and resources to increase their GPA performance and persistence inengineering. Using an assets-based approach to examine how students achieve academic success,this study will examine the effect participation in an academic program aimed at student successhad on mid-range
a complete evidence-based practice paper. Engineering education aims to equipstudents with essential skills including intentional learning, curiosity, and effective collaboration[1], [2], [3] in addition to extensive training in mathematics, sciences, and engineering-specifictopics. The goal is to provide a strong technical foundation and introduce essential skills forprofessional and personal development by integrating core courses with concepts fromengineering education [2]. These essential skills help students address pressing 21st-centurychallenges, such as sustainability [4], [5], as they navigate the growing complexities of modernindustries in their careers. Curiosity, intentional learning and effective collaboration go
, which requires a more flexible approach to allow students to better engage with thefield of engineering and to allow curricula to adapt to the ever-changing landscape ofengineering practice and technology. The significant curricular change involves taking thecurrent 6 credit hours of first year engineering courses and breaking them into a set of 1 credit(or less) modules from which students can select. This paper discusses in detail the first year ofthe project which has involved implementing changes to the current courses to prepare for thechange to the modular format along with getting buy-in from the administration and facultywithin the college. The paper also discusses outcomes from the changes implemented during thefirst year of the
teamwork experiences. Building on prior work suggestingenhanced performance in diverse teams, this study extends the scope to address team harmony andinterpersonal relationships. Results are expected to provide actionable insights into optimizing teamcomposition in engineering education, enhancing student experiences, and fostering inclusive learningenvironments.1. IntroductionIn today's engineering education, diversity and inclusion play a pivotal role in shaping a progressive andinnovative academic landscape. Embracing individuals from different cultural, social, and economicbackgrounds enriches classroom interactions and drives creativity. Engineering programs aim to providestudents of all genders, ethnicities, and socioeconomic statuses with
compete for prizes andrecognition such as for innovative design, fabrication achievements and best presentation. Thecompetition event is a high energy celebratory experience open to the public (Fig. 1).Figure 1. An MAE 3 Undergraduate Tutor (left) with students (right) and their robotat the course-wide final robot competition.Through a process of continuous improvement, the popular course has maintained a mixedreputation among students as “being a lot of work!” and as a valuable high impact learningexperience. Students often share with instructors that the course experience provided a solidfoundation in essential hands-on engineering skills and prepared them for advanced coursework,engineering clubs, capstone design and technical careers. The
-awareness, academic success and retention,motivation, and access for students who are academically talented but may face additionalbarriers related to accessing resources, materials, courses, and programs for preparing students forpostsecondary education. In recognition of the need for, and effectiveness of, summer bridgeprograms, they are prevalent throughout postsecondary institutions, and their effectiveness andchallenges have been studied [1].Summer bridge programs can motivate students while preparing them for their future studies.Research has been done to study how a summer bridge program impacts students’motivation-related perceptions, and how those perceptions vary across different groups ofstudents [2]. A two-week residential summer bridge
” [1]. Thisfollow-up will offer an additional three years of data related to course content, course materials,student demographics, and grades. Student’s progress and performance in future math coursesand performance in continuing in engineering courses will be evaluated over 2019-2022.Notably, the last two years evaluated in this study (2021 – 2022) represent a fully in-personexperience compared to the hybrid cohort of 2020.The first-year engineering math curriculum at Clemson University was designed to help studentsunderstand the relevance of basic math skills in engineering and strengthen mastery ofprerequisite math learning outcomes to improve preparedness for engineering. While engineeringprograms and professional industries expect
sometimes face barriers to earning adegree. These barriers may include departmental, institutional, and national policies and thefrequency of institutional-level engagement with students [1]. One pathway includes Pre-Engineering programs, which provide essential competencies and information for students totransition to an engineering bachelor's program, considerably impacting their careers. The Pre-Engineering program helps students improve their math and science foundations, providingacademic support that can prevent them from not completing their bachelor's degree, repeatingmath subjects, or not enrolling in advanced engineering courses. School administratorsfrequently assess Pre-Engineering programs by measures such as student enrollment
in courses and curricula ontheir own campuses. The paper originally was submitted in January 2025. In revising, we haveadded an Appendix that discusses conditions in April 2025, which represent an abrupt change innational conditions related to DEIJ topics as compared to Fall 2024 when the teaching activitieswere conducted.IntroductionEngineering programs continue to adapt to changing stakeholder demands for better integrationof diversity, equity, inclusion, and justice (DEIJ) into both classrooms and curricula. Forexample, ABET’s approved new Criterion 5 will require programs to offer curricula “thatensure[s] awareness of diversity, equity, and inclusion for professional practice consistent withthe institution’s mission” [1] (note that this
Engineering. Brian is co-founder and Deputy Editor in Chief of Biomedical Engineering Education. Brian’s educational scholarship encompasses active learning, collaborative and inclusive pedagogies, and alternative grading. His science and engineering research interests include cardiovascular physiology, cellular mechanobiology, and nanotechnology-based biomaterials. ©American Society for Engineering Education, 2025 WIP: A Peer-Taught Course to Lower Barriers to Undergraduate Research ExperiencesIntroductionFirst-year engineering students experience challenges as they work to build a sense ofcommunity [1]. During the period of adjusting to the university environment, students
knowledge about the Kern Entrepreneurial Engineering Network (KEEN) framework [1] for Entrepreneurial Minded Learning (EML), and how this framework has worked for engineering students, and realizing that this framework can also work for any discipline, the instructor prepared the course based on the KEEN framework, and each of the individual course’s learning objectives. The unintended interdisciplinary nature of such a course, blending engineering and humanities presented an opportunity for the instructor to select a community-based approach with active learning and information literacy. A community based approach was chosen based on the course theme
part of the MAP2E program, students participated in a one-week summer transition programto help students build their engineering identity and develop core competencies [1-3]. During theacademic year, students became part of an Impact Learning Community (ILC), where they tookengineering, math, and science courses together. The ILC also includes weekly meetings, groupmeetings, intrusive advising practices, field trips, guest speakers, and a study center with tutoringand supplemental instruction. This work in progress paper will present reflections from our firstsemester.IntroductionOld Dominion University (ODU) has a non-selective admissions policy for STEM majors,meaning that any student wishing to major in engineering can be admitted. Students
the course, a survey was sent out toengineering first-year students who completed ENGR 1100 to find out what engineeringcompetencies they felt strongest and weakest in and what topics could be implemented to suit first-year engineering students better. 71% of students responded to the survey that their weakestengineering competency was technical communication. Technical communication is a key skill that students across many disciplines should beexposed to throughout their undergraduate and graduate careers. Engineers must communicatetheir designs and findings effectively to their teams, bosses, companies, and/or funding agencies[1]. A lapse in engineering communication can lead to detrimental consequences, such as thecollapse of the
incomingstudents. Summer bridge programs have been widely recognized as effective interventions forimproving retention and success rates [1], particularly among underrepresented andunderprepared students in STEM fields (e.g., [2], [3], [4]). These programs typically offer acombination of academic instruction, advising, and mentorship, which collectively help studentsbuild a strong foundation for their college education (e.g., [2]). Research has shown thatparticipation in summer bridge programs can lead to higher GPAs, increased retention rates, anda greater likelihood of graduating with a STEM degree [5].Research shows that bridge programs providing targeted academic preparation and mentorshipare critical for increasing retention and success rates among
a broad spectrum of learning preferences. ©American Society for Engineering Education, 2025 Work-In-Progress: Belonging in Engineering? A Grouping Strategy Comparison1. Introduction and PurposeThis work-in-progress paper investigates how grouping teams by specific characteristics couldaffect feelings of belonging in engineering. A national (US) focus on broadening theparticipation in engineering endeavors to move beyond the commonly reported bachelor’sdegrees proportions awarded to women and to minorities of all genders [1]. For instance, ASEE-reporting institutions in 2020 noted the bachelor’s degrees awarded, without regard to majortype, were 23.5% female and 29.2
in the first year of an engineering curriculum reinforcestheir foundational nature. As first-year students enter university with a wide range ofbackgrounds, it can be difficult to create an immersive and engaging introductory experience thatreinforces these foundational skills without relying on a deeper understanding of technicalmaterial. In fact, for some students, introductory projects with roots in highly technical materialmay be alienating, damaging to student confidence, and ultimately detrimental to measures ofacademic success and degree persistence. It has been shown that student confidence in their ownacademic ability is affected by self and peer performance [1],[2] and the first year of a student’suniversity experience impacts
students. This study generated practical and actionablefindings that will help four-year engineering institutions develop or modify intensive transitionprograms to improve the academic performance and retention of first-year engineering students.Keywords: first-time college students, engineering, summer bridge program, and academicsuccessIntroduction and BackgroundResearch indicates that retention rates for STEM students are influenced by several factors,including negative experiences in first-year classes, financial challenges, a sense of notbelonging, limited faculty-student and peer interactions, and the demanding nature of thecurriculum [1, 2, 3]. The majority of students who leave STEM do so within their first two years.Muller [4] reports
(WIP) paper, we propose investigating why students who initiallyindicate interest in STEM are not enrolling in a STEM major using a detailed interview protocoland an analysis of enrollment data.At our small liberal-arts college, students declare a major in their second year. However, in thesummer preceding their arrival they declare academic interests and are matched to advisors in thedisciplines they self-selected. Throughout their first year, students take a common first-yearseminar, a first-year writing course (of their selection), and STEM students take 1-3 introductorySTEM courses. Several years of data shows that a large proportion of the students who initiallyexpressed interest in STEM declare a non-STEM major in their second year. We
WIP: Introducing Research in Summer Bridge ProgramsIntroductionA challenging issue for most engineering degree programs is the relatively high rate (~50%) thatundergraduate students leave or switch from engineering majors before graduating [1], [2], [3],[4]. Previous work shows that a significant portion of STEM students (~35%) switch majors orleave the university between the first and second year in their degree [2], [5], [6]. These attritionnumbers are even higher for students from historically underrepresented groups [7], [8]. As aresult, it is most helpful to implement intervention strategies that help engineering studentspersist beyond their second year.One proven method to increase retention and graduation rates of historically