within which is the requirement to offer an introductory first year engineering course. This course was planned to be taught in the Fall of 2024, and initially, only three students interested in engineering registered for the course. The decision was made to open the course to other first year students from any discipline, thereby combining the introductory engineering course with one section of a Humanities First Year Community (FYC) course. The instructor was then asked to prepare for the combined course accommodating both course objectives as much as possible. A literature search showed the need for a framework or course design merging engineering with humanities for first-year students. Having some
, behavioral regulation, and emotional regulation. The team effectiveness and teamregulation was scored on a scale from 1 to 3 on the rubrics, reflecting the extent to whichstudents demonstrated these attributes. For the intercultural goals setting, a rubric was used withcategories for goal setting, progress and reflection, and application and future planning, scoredon a 1 to 4 scale. After the reflections were scored, we calculated the descriptive statistics forteam effectiveness (TE), team regulation (TR) and intercultural competence (IC). Mean standarddeviation and median for each of the three was calculated. The median score for team regulationwas used to group the high and low categories. Further a matrix was created for teameffectiveness and
project along with the plan for the second and third year of the project, with thegoal of having a completely modularized first-year engineering course structure by the start ofthe third year.Background:A First Year Engineering (FYE) 1.0 program is one of the more popular models used byinstitutions of higher education around the U.S. for introducing students to the field ofengineering and facilitating the transition into their chosen discipline [1]. The primarycomponent of most of these programs is an introductory engineering course or sequence thatcontains a variety of topics important for general engineering practice and matriculation in anengineering degree program, such as design, communication (i.e., written, oral, and visual),global
the Monarch Accelerator Program to Engineering(MAP2E) program. The MAP2E Program was developed to assist students who desire to becomeengineers but may need additional assistance in math and science. and it allows students todevelop their math and science skills while creating a pathway to personal or professionalenriching skills. Furthermore, the MAP2E program allows students to develop their math andscience skills and create parallel pathways to personal or professionally enriching skills. Forinstance, a student may hope to one day start their own engineering firm. A businessadministration pathway would allow students to become engineers while learning accounting,economics, and financial planning skills, enhancing their career prospects.As
, academic advisorsjoin the class and the instructor-of-record to help students understand their degree plans, selectappropriate courses for the following semester, and plan their academic trajectory. The activeinvolvement of academic advisors ensures that students receive timely and relevant guidance,which is particularly important for those still uncertain about their major.One of the course’s unique features is its integration of faculty presentations from across the sixdepartments within the Southern Polytechnic College of Engineering and EngineeringTechnology without an increase in the effective workload of any faculty member. During theremaining twelve weeks of the course, students see presentations about the programs offeredwithin the
achieve their planned academic or employment next steps, and describes thepathways as participants' progress to post-program, as key information for programadvertisements to potential participants and to the program sponsors.Table 1 below identifies some of the objectives of the AACRE program, the tracked outcomesused to evaluate them, and quantitative or qualitative metric used to objectively measure them:Table 1: Program evaluation metrics developed from objectives and tracked outcomes Program Objective Outcome Tracked Evaluation Metric Develop participants Participant self efficacy at a Likert-scale participant engineering technical and soft variety of ABET-informed self
between first- and fourth-yearengineering students that has positive implications for both the mentors and mentees. There issubstantial evidence that near-peer mentoring of and by engineering students helps both menteesand mentors. Students must gain many skills beyond technical knowledge to become competentpracticing engineers. ABET names seven outcomes defining the skills, knowledge, and behaviorsthat engineering students must acquire to be ready to enter the workforce. Among these are anability to “communicate effectively with a range of audiences” and “function effectively on ateam whose members together provide leadership, create a collaborative and inclusiveenvironment, establish goals, plan tasks, and meet objectives.” [1].Employers also
are investigatingwhy student’s interests change. In this paper, we will outline our structured interview protocoland its ties to applicable research. Through a structured interview protocol, we plan to answer thefollowing research questions: 1) Why are students interested in STEM declaring in non-STEMmajors? 2) What experiences in their first year are influencing their major declaration decision?In this paper, we describe our institutional issues and how it informed our interview protocol..The protocol is developed to capture student interests and motivations for STEM fields, explorecommunity developments impact on their first year, and investigate the effectiveness ofpre-college courses/preparations. Through this protocol, we will identify
grade Milestone 1: Title of the project and a summary (2-3 paragraphs) 5 Oct 17 Project Outline & Planning explaining the project and plans (50 points) Milestone 2: Structure (Layout) for your poster and a brief 2.5 Oct 31 Poster Layout & Presentation presentation to your peers during the class (25 Points) Milestone 3: Submit the first draft of
Reflection Identifying Resources & Getting Involved on Campus 5 Professional Skills 4 Engineering Major Exploration & Course Planning 3 Implicit Bias Training 2 Teamwork 2 Time management 2 Career Pathways 1 Engaging with Cultural Events 1 Furthermore, the Scholars shared their understanding of the role that they will play intheir undergraduate
indicated plans totransfer out and 1 withdrew. Below is a table that summarizes the outcome from both decisionperiods. Table 2: 2023 Cohort Progression Decisions Progression Decision Number of Students Progressed to major 14 Non-placement extension 4 Placement extension 2 Plan to transfer out 2 Transfer out 2 Must leave College of Engineering 6 Withdrew/dropped from
taking steps to find research opportunities. Of the 20 participants,15 indicated that they have “applied to or are planning to apply to a research experience” for theSpring 2025 and/or Summer 2025 semesters. In addition, three students have alreadysuccessfully secured a research position for this academic year.Figure 1. Change in student attitudes over time (before the start of the program, at the endof the program and after first fall semester) about interest in trying research.Figure 2. Change in student attitudes over time (before the start of the program, at the endof the program and after first fall semester) about ability to find research opportunities.Figure 3. Change in student attitudes over time (before the start of the program, at the
, their major,figuring out their path to graduation, and emphasizing the importance of ethics and justice,diversity, equity, and inclusion in engineering.Academic Advising General academic advising on courses with a primary focus on the importance of each student planning out their flowcharts for their individual path to graduation given the uniqueness of incoming transfer credit for each student; a discussion on concentrations in the major; senior projects; and how to get involved in researchPeer Review Flowcharts and Career Panel After students completed their flowcharts, they were prepared for more in depth discussion on flowcharts that FTFY students typically learn via word of mouth, including: which classes to avoid
program lies in our curricular redesign plan which combines all first-year physics, math and engineering lectures and laboratory instruction in a single, year-longstudio-style course that accounts for twenty-one of the thirty-two credit hours completed by first-year engineering students. The redesigned curriculum satisfies ABET and HLC accreditationrequirements while also keeping our students on the usual 4-year trajectory for an engineeringdegree. The studio teaching approach in physics instruction, or “studio physics”, was pioneeredby the Rensselaer Physics Education Group in the 1990s as an innovative method to improvestudent engagement and conceptual understanding in physics [38]. This approach integratestraditional lectures with laboratory
students in Fall 2023, teaching approximately 1300 students each year. Matthew recently defended his dissertation in February 2025 and plans to pursue a career in academia teaching first-year engineering students starting Fall 2025.Jessica Bowers, Auburn University Jessica Bowers serves as the Manager for Career Development Content and Strategy in the Samuel Ginn College of Engineering (SGCOE) at Auburn University. She holds a Master’s degree in College Student Personnel from the University of Tennessee, Knoxville. With over a decade of experience providing student academic and career advising support, Jessica joined the SGCOE to support the launch of the college’s first Office of Career Development and Corporate
) course to all first-year students in Fall 2023, teaching approximately 1300 students each year. Matthew recently defended his dissertation in February 2025 and plans to pursue a career in academia teaching first-year engineering students starting Fall 2025.Lucila Marcela Carias Duron, Auburn University Lucila M. Carias earned her B.S. in Chemical Engineering from Universidad Centroamericana ”Jose Simeon Ca˜nas” in El Salvador in 2018. She continued her academic journey with a Master’s in Process Engineering from the same university in 2021 and a Master’s in Integrated Management Systems from Nebrija University, Spain, in 2020. Lucila has four years of professional experience in the flexible packaging and recycling
confidence entering their first year of an engineering or computerscience program. We are continuing to track student progress throughout their first year toevaluate the long-term impact of the program, particularly the accuracy of our process in placingstudents in the correct math classes during their first year and whether accurate placement leadsto greater retention in engineering and computer science majors. We plan to interview studentsbased on their responses, particularly those who felt that their placement was incorrect, tounderstand why students felt that it was incorrect so that we can continue to improve ourplacement process and its accuracy. We are also interested in students’ math confidence levelsthroughout their first year, as well as
Challenge improvedstudents’ self-efficacy in their engineering abilities and hands-on skills. Moreover, studentsenjoyed the Tech Challenge and felt psychologically safe working with their teams and mentors.As future work, we plan to gather additional data from students who did not participate in thebridge program and data later in their engineering studies to further understand the bridgeprogram’s impact. We plan to continue offering similar summer bridge programs in the future tosupport students’ success in transitioning into an engineering program at a 4-year university andhope that this example can be adapted for other institutions looking to offer similaropportunities.AcknowledgementThe authors would like to thank the student mentors and staff
theinterview.This work involved human subjects in its research. Approval of all ethical and experimentalprocedures and protocols was granted by the Institutional Review Board (IRB-2024-237).Data Collection – Semi-structured InterviewsData for this study were collected using semi-structured interviews designed to explore students’experiences with microelectronics in the course. This approach provided a flexible framework,encouraging participants to share detailed reflections on their prior exposure to microelectronics,their evolving interest in the subject, and their future engagement plans. The semi-structuredformat allowed interviewers to ask follow-up questions, tailoring discussions to the uniqueexperiences and perspectives of each participant. This
and analyze the information based on parameters defined for the evaluation.• Consult: Gather information from different stakeholders and people with expertise in particular areas. Use surveys, focus groups, interviews, open meetings, and/or other appropriate means.• Design (and/or Redesign): Create the curricular plan, map goals and learning objectives to course content; and develop course content proposed teaching approach, assessment strategies, exercises, activities, and other learning experiences.• Implement: Execute the plan and create the proposed curricular modules.Task Force Considerations The success of first-year COE students at Penn State remains a top priority. To ensurethat all students have equal
introduce students to foundational engineeringmindsets. It emphasizes belonging through culture, the course, the engineering discipline, and theuniversity itself. This paper discusses the pedagogical approach, activities, assessment methods,and future evaluation plans, along with reflections from the instructor team andrecommendations for similar curriculum initiatives. Our institution is an open-access, research-intensive HSI on the US-Mexico border withapproximately 84% Hispanic students. Anyone with a high school diploma or GED who appliesto the university at the undergraduate level is accepted, creating opportunities for all while alsoposing unique challenges in the classroom. For instance, many of our students enter engineeringwith
-hour-and-50-minute session emphasizing teamwork and hands- Sessions on application of course topics.Semester-Long Project: Students collaborated in randomly assigned teams of 4–6 memberswithin their lab sections throughout the semester. The semester-long project required teams tointegrate concepts from lectures and lab activities to achieve several key objectives: identifyingsystem requirements, developing UML models for a given case study, creating security andorganizational planning documents, and implementing a database that met the identifiedrequirements. This collaborative approach emphasized the application of theoretical knowledgeto practical challenges, fostering both technical and teamwork skills. Given the team
Market Research from the University of Barcelona, Spain. Industrial Civil Engineer from the Universidad del B´ıo-B´ıo. She has three diplomas in the areas of coaching, digital marketing and equality and empowerment of women. Her professional experience is linked to higher education as a project engineer and university management in the public and private area. Teacher at different universities in matters of entrepreneurship, business plans and marketing. She currently works as a teacher and academic secretary at the Faculty of Engineering of the Andr´es Bello University. The areas of research interest are the impact, relationship and integration of the gender perspective within communications and marketing in the
effect on different aspects of team dynamics, including: 1) interpersonalcohesiveness, 2) psychological safety, 3) team satisfaction, and 4) team conflict. The course investigatedwill be an introductory engineering analysis course offered to first-year engineering students in the First-Year Program (FYP) at the school hosting this study. The authors plan mainly to answer the followingresearch question: does the diversity composition of the team affect the overall team harmony and howteam members interact together?In this course, students get divided into teams of three at the beginning of the semester and work on asemester-long project, with the same team, until the end of the semester. The authors used CATME todivide the students into teams
within the content area of civil infrastructure.Civil infrastructure plays a fundamental role in helping to ameliorate or further exacerbate socialinequities. To make more equitable decisions in how we plan, design, operate, and manage ourinfrastructure, engineers need to better understand the fundamental and ubiquitous role ofinfrastructure in society. At the same time, engineers need to better communicate to the publicthe technical and economic challenges and tradeoffs inherent in infrastructure decision-making.This interdependent learning - among communities and engineers - will result in a morecomplete understanding of the complexity of these interrelationships. Offering undergraduatecourses that address equity and infrastructure to students
outside the classroom (e.g. in other courses, in professional life). (1-5 slider scale) 17.How useful do you think using AI based tools are to assist you in writing. (1-5 slider scale) 18.How confident are you in your ability to use AI based tools to assist you writing scientific related documents? (1-5 slider scale) 19.Have you contributed to an educational open access resource related to science and engineering? (yes/no) 20.(if yes) I plan to contribute to open access research consistently in the future. (5 pt. Likert Scale – Strongly Disagree to Strongly Agree) 21.(if no) Why not? (open ended text) 22.I would be interested in contributing to an open access resource related to science and
personas rather thanpersonal judgment, ensuring a data-driven approach to prioritization. This method allowed theworkshop to focus on actionable solutions grounded in real student experiences. Thus, helpingthem identify the most significant student challenges. Furthermore, Activity 4 integratedindividual ranks from Activity 3 into a collective prioritizing, involving five primary pain pointsidentified and ranked jointly. This guaranteed consensus on the most pressing concerns toaddress during the session. Finally, Activity 5 focused on formulating solutions for the primaryidentified demands utilizing the ToC framework. A structured approach facilitated theformulation of plans to tackle the most pressing difficulties faced by PENG students. Fig
methods, and student mentoring strategies. They collaborated todesign all aspects of the course. The faculty member supported the peer instructor by beingpresent at each class and by meeting at least once a week to reflect and debrief on the previousweek’s class and to plan future class activities. The undergraduate instructor then led class andoffice hours sessions, graded student work, and supported students through their courseexperiences.The course learning objectives were based on skills needed to successfully join a research lab.The four course learning objectives were (1) to recognize what undergraduate research is, howundergraduate research works, and identify the value of undergraduate research; (2) to gain adeeper understanding of lab
[21]. In future phases,the research team plans to conduct interviews and focus groups with current program participantsto validate and expand the blueprint. Additionally, the data informing this study are primarilyself-reported by mentors and staff, introducing the potential for bias in interpretation.To advance this work beyond its current WIP status, the research team will conduct additionalrounds of blueprint development that include direct feedback from current first-year students.These data will support further refinement of the blueprint and allow for more robust analysis ofthe connections between specific program features and retention outcomes. The team also plansto develop a streamlined, integrated platform for mentor reporting and
Paper ID #47096Fruitful Endeavors: Continuous Peer Feedback to Develop Positive TeamDynamicsBrian Patrick O’Connell, Northeastern University Dr. O’Connell is an associate teaching professor in the First-Year Engineering program at Northeastern University. He studied at the University of Massachusetts at Amherst in 2006 then worked in industry as a Mechanical Engineer working on ruggedized submarine optronic systems. He returned to academia in 2011 at Tufts University planning to work towards more advanced R&D but fell for engineering education and educational technologies. His research now focuses on developing