abroad programs to provide more structured opportunities forexperiential learning, critical reflection, and actionable skill development. Emphasizing theapplication of ICC in engineering-specific contexts can better prepare students to navigatediverse teams and design solutions that address the needs of varied communities. These findingshighlight the potential for structured study abroad programs to equip engineering students withthe intercultural skills necessary for success in an increasingly globalized workforce, whereculturally sensitive problem-solving is crucial for addressing complex challenges.Keywords: Study abroad, engineering, STEM, reflection, intercultural competence 1. Background1.1 Intercultural Competence (ICC) in Higher
, administering automatically graded computer-based tests reduces the amount ofmanual grading work that they have to complete, freeing up time that can be spent with studentsor on refining course content. For students, computer-based tests may allow them to receiveimmediate feedback that can be used for improvement.To facilitate computer-based testing, several institutions have deployed computer-based testingcenters (CBTC) to handle exam administration. CBTCs reduce the cost of testing for facultybecause they offload many of the logistics associated with administering quizzes and exams: (1)proctoring is handled by dedicated CBTC staff, freeing up course instructors and other coursestaff to focus on teaching and supporting student learning; (2) students
currently widely accessible to students—into anacademic assignment focused on creative thinking, students can gain formal, facilitatedexperience in seeing both the opportunities and limitations of such tools.1. IntroductionCreativity is a crucial skill for engineering students to learn and practice so that they mightstrengthen their ability to develop novel and impactful engineering solutions and processes [1].This ability to be creative [2]—i.e., to have an idea and bring it to be—is beneficial in a varietyof disciplines and professional contexts. Engineering programs can provide students with theopportunity to practice being creative by offering standalone courses in creativity and innovationas well as through incorporating creativity techniques
engineering programs who are accredited by theAccreditation Board for Engineering and Technology (ABET). ABET Outcome 5 of the sevenstudent outcomes states that graduating engineering students should attain, “an ability to functioneffectively on a team whose members together provide leadership, create a collaborative andinclusive environment, establish goals, plan tasks, and meet objectives [1].” Therefore, it isimperative for the University of Pittsburgh engineering programs to engage their students ineffective teamwork throughout their undergraduate education.Teamwork is important in interdisciplinary projects as it brings diverse ideas, skills, andapproaches together. Likewise, different students have different skills, and their personal trialsand
StudentsIntroductionUndergraduate engineering students experience stressful life events before and during theircollegiate years that impact their wellbeing. The nature and extent of the events can result insignificant and sustained stress that has lasting deleterious effects. Jensen and Cross [1] foundthat undergraduate engineering students experience high levels of stress, anxiety, and depression,suggesting a potential mental health crisis in higher education institutions. Asghar et al. [2]established that stress in undergraduate engineering dampens students' motivation for learningdue to heavy academic workload, while also indicating that further work is needed to determinethe prevalence and impact of these experiences.In engineering, negative academic experiences add
introductory Engineering courses.1 IntroductionMetacognition refers to the self-regulation process that learners can use to measure their ownunderstanding and, thus, how effectively they are studying. Researchers have identified twolevels of metacognition: knowledge and regulation. The level of Knowledge entails knowingfacts about oneself and the demands of the task, procedural knowledge on strategies pertain-ing to the task, and knowing which strategies to apply in different situations. Regulationrefers to students’ ability to plan, monitor, and evaluate the effectiveness of their strategiesas well as debug when facing difficulties[4, 11].Metacognition skills have been shown to help students perform better academically[2, 3, 5, 6].Moreover, lack
SAFO - aframework for teaching introductory systems thinking in first-year STEM education. We refine arubric useful for assessing systems thinking, and present initial results from applying this rubricto structured case work involving collaborative problem-solving. Finally, we discuss thepotential of applying SAFO as a research tool to compare variations of interdisciplinarity andcomplexity in collaborative problem-solving in STEM.IntroductionSystems thinking is a higher order thinking skill important for addressing complex, real-worldproblems in STEM [1-3]. Systems thinking can be assessed in a multitude of ways, includingrubrics, open- and close-ended tools, scenarios, mapping and coding schemes, and more,depending on the focus and field of
-dictive power on performance outcomes. Finally, we call for continued empirical research on theefficacy of LLM-based technologies in STEM education and propose future research directions inexploring their impact on teaching and learning.1 IntroductionThe introduction of OpenAI’s ChatGPT in November 2022 [1] triggered an unprecedented surgeof interest in applications of artificial intelligence (AI) based on Large Language Models (LLMs)and their underlying transformer architecture.In particular, LLMs appear to be exceptional in applications that involve human interaction, infor-mation retrieval, and summation, making them an attractive prospect for improving the effective-ness and accessibility of education in the digital age [2, 3, 4]. However
International Organization for Standardization (ISO), “standards are thedistilled wisdom of people with expertise in their subject matter and who know the needs of theorganizations they represent—people such as manufacturers, sellers, buyers, customers, tradeassociations, users, or regulators” [1]. Similarly, Thompson defines standards as an agreed wayof doing something consistently to ensure safety and quality [2]. Codes, on the other hand, aresets of guidelines that define standards for the planning, construction, and maintenance ofstructures. These are typically categorized into safety standards and product standards [3].Specifications provide detailed requirements for components, products, systems, and services,ensuring they meet the necessary
pursuits include engineering education research, adaptive, blended, and flipped learning, open courseware development, composite materials mechanics, and examining the future of higher education. His research has received funding from the National Science Foundation, Air Force Office of Scientific Research, Florida Department of Transportation, and Wright Patterson Air Force Base. Supported by the National Science Foundation, Kaw has led a national collaboration to develop, implement, refine, and assess online resources for open courseware in Numerical Methods (http://nm.MathForCollege.com). These resources gather over 1 million page views annually and 1.6 million YouTube lecture views, attracting more than 90,000
State University (WSU) modelfor engineering mathematics. The WSU approach to engineering mathematics uses anapplication-oriented, hands-on approach which focuses on only the math topics used in coreengineering courses and is taught by engineering faculty [1].Traditionally the course structure at our university includes lectures, studio and lab. The lectureis one hour per week and introduces mathematical concepts as well as describing their relevanceto engineering problems. The studio time is two hours per week and offers collaborativeproblem-solving sessions where students practice applying mathematical concepts to engineeringscenarios. The lab sessions are two hours per week. The labs provide hands-on experience withexperiments and
-12 STEM education, advance engineering workforce development, and foster inclusive practices in engineering education.Adesikeola Olateru-Olagbegi, University of North Dakota ©American Society for Engineering Education, 2025 Exploring Teachers’ Lived Experiences with Culturally Relevant Engineering Design: An Instrumental Multiple Case Study (Work in Progress)PurposeThe Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS) [1] emphasize connecting science andengineering to local contexts so that standards are relevant for all students. Yet many teachers lacksufficient training or self-efficacy (SE) with implementing engineering education, leading tosuperficial or
Flipped Classroom Applications in Engineering EducationThe flipped classroom model has emerged as a transformative approach in engineering education,addressing limitations of traditional teaching methods 1. By shifting theoretical content delivery topre-class activities and dedicating class time to active learning, this model fosters deeperengagement, better conceptual understanding, and enhanced collaborative skills. Studies haveshown its effectiveness across various engineering disciplines, including mechanical engineeringcourses such as statics 2 , rigid body dynamics 3 , and thermodynamics 4 . Bishop and Verlegerhighlighted that flipped classrooms promote active learning, enabling students to tackle problem-solving and design challenges
theprocess of analyzing the polarity of qualitative feedback, categorizing comments as positive,negative, or neutral, Sentiment Analysis can provide a more efficient and scalable way tointerpret and utilize open-ended student responses. This paper explores the application ofSentiment Analysis to course evaluations, specifically using a pre-trained model namedDistilRoBERTa to analyze student comments and derive meaningful insights about teachingeffectiveness and course quality. 1 The goal of this research is to develop a methodology that allows for a quantitativeassessment of the sentiment expressed in qualitative course evaluations, thereby complementingtraditional quantitative ratings. By
socioeconomic factors [1].Title I students often experience a deficit in resources and exposure to post-secondary educationpreparation; the lack of exposure can leave students unaware of the college process as well asunprepared for future careers and classes [1]. This can lead Title I students to being heavilydisadvantaged regarding college readiness when compared to higher-income schools.Understanding the difference between low and high SES will give us a better perspective on theeffects of low income vs. poor educational structure.Research has found that exposing more Title I students to engineering can boost their confidence[2]. Understanding students’ perceptions on engineering from Title I and non-Title I (low andhigh SES) will show how effective
-grained interpretation of results thatmay be transferable to other institutions.Introduction and BackgroundMany engineering educational researchers have worked with large-scale datasets of students’ aca-demic records to better understand influential factors on students’ performance [1, 2, 3, 4]. Suchdatasets enable robust statistical analyses that uncover generalizable trends across diverse studentpopulations, providing valuable insights into the systemic influences on student outcomes, as wellas to identify students who may need additional support to achieve the academic success of whichthey are capable. These studies have shed light on critical factors such as high school preparation(e.g., [5]) and first-year experiences (e.g., [6]), which
doctoral studentschanging research labs during their academic programs in engineering graduate education.Recent research has demonstrated over 70% of engineering doctoral students contemplateleaving their programs without a doctoral degree [1]. Depending on the discipline, 40-60% ofengineering doctoral students actually depart due to conflicts with advisors and peers, financialor academic difficulties, and personal or family concerns [2]. Some students remain in theirdoctoral programs by changing research labs, advisors, programs, or even universities [3], [4].While changing research labs can help retain partially trained and qualified students, theassociated individual costs, programmatic barriers, and advisor conflicts complicate the
networkthat was “smart” and dynamic. The inspiration for the digital twin was the Edibon AFT-B FluidFlow in Pipes (Figure 1). Table 1 presents the comparison of the physical equipment, proof-of-concept and the Mixed Reality Labs. The CHEG MR digital twin has been expanded in scopeover the proof-of-concept and provides extended capability over the physical equipment. Onemajor addition is the inclusion of ten fluids (see Table 1). Other benefits of the MR environment are: 1. Social interaction. It provides the abilityfor social interaction, thus facilitating teamwork. 2. Remote learning capability. The MRenvironment is being developed to enable remote learning where the students can interact withone another via their personalized avatars as in
recent years,initially spurred by technological advances, but further catalyzed by the COVID-19 pandemic[1], [2], [3]. In-person capstone courses traditionally rely on physical proximity, both for sponsorengagement and for hands-on prototyping. Transitioning these experiences to fully online modesintroduce challenges around synchronous/asynchronous communication, sponsor management,and alignment with ABET standards [4], [5]. Additionally, remote environments can exacerbatedifficulties that students already face in team-based design, including the management of diverseschedules, uneven participation, and unclear communication. Belanger et al. [6] further highlightthat students in remote design collaborations frequently struggle with technology
, leadingto poor performance [1], [2]. Misunderstandings of foundational concepts such as Kirchhoff's Laws,Ohm's Law, and voltage often persist despite prior coursework in physics or math [3].The Circuit Teaching with Real-World Analogies (CTRWA) framework was developed to addressthese issues [4]. CTRWA systematically applies analogies to help students relate circuit conceptsto familiar real-world systems, such as comparing voltage to water pressure or using a running trackanalogy for Kirchhoff’s Voltage Law (KVL). This paper evaluates the preliminary effectiveness ofCTRWA in improving understanding, addressing misconceptions, and building student confidence.MethodologyThe inventory of Circuit Teaching with Real-World Analogies (CTRWA) was developed
to programming.Two validated scales were used to assess changes in both computer programming andengineering self-efficacy: 1.Computer Programming Self-Efficacy Scale (CPSES): Measures programming confidence across constructs such as independence, persistence, and complex task handling [9]. 2.Longitudinal Assessment of Engineering Self-Efficacy (LAESE):Assesses confidence in engineering-related tasks, career expectations, and sense of belonging [10].The instruments were administered as pre- and post-surveys to capture baseline andpost-intervention self-efficacy data. The CPSES and LAESE surveys both used a 7-point Likertscale ranging from “not confident at all” to “absolutely confident.Preliminary
, called LEGACY, which targeted one of the communities most underrepresented incomputing (Black young women), providing them with physical, academic, and social resourcesto overcome the lack of preparatory privilege, while building awareness of CS and realizing theirpotential for participation in CS and other STEM-related occupations.IntroductionCareers in Computer Science (CS)-related areas represent many of the best-paid jobs in thenation. Yet, Black Americans comprise less than 5% of the workforce at the most popular U.S.software companies, with Black American women occupying less than 1% of those positions [1].LEGACY stands as a groundbreaking program that educates young Black female high schoolstudents in CS in a way that is unique to Alabama
and graduation rates in STEM (science, technology, engineering, and mathematics) arecritical to the innovation economy and to address complex global problems through research anddevelopment. However, on many university campuses nationwide, success rates in attainingSTEM credentials are typically lower than non-STEM fields, with many students leaving beforecompleting their degree. Additional barriers are faced by low income and commuter students,especially those that live at home [1]. While a strong sense of belonging is known to increaseacademic persistence, this sense of connection can be more difficult to achieve on a commutercampus, where students are physically on campus for limited times and their support networks,including family and
University of Iowa (1997) and a Doctorate in Education from Northeastern University (2022) where she completed her dissertation about elementary STEAM education before and after COVID-19. She also worked as a professional engineer in the athletic footwear and medical device industries for 10 years before joining the faculty at Northeastern University in 2006. ©American Society for Engineering Education, 2025 Engineering PLUS: An NSF Eddie Bernice Johnson INCLUDES AllianceResearch shows that teams with gender and racial diversity are highly effective when innovationand problem-solving are critical goals [1]. Despite a wealth of best practices published over thepast several decades on how to broaden
participantsfelt confident in developing rubrics and providing productive feedback on students' lab reportswith the use of the guides. Respondents suggested extended workshop time, greater variety inactivities, and more diverse examples and samples to provide a broader context. During the opendiscussion, participants raised issues with scaffolding approaches, faculty time, TA support, andgenerative AI as an assessment tool. Overall, the workshop helped establish a sense ofcommunity among participants across the nation, enhancing their interest in lab writing andteaching.1. IntroductionEngineering students often excel in laboratory experiments but face significant challenges in labreport writing [1]-[3]. At the same time, lab instructors, despite being
versus veteran students is intentionalto ensure the focus on students who happen to be veterans rather than on veterans who happen tobe students. However, the existing biases and perceptions by faculty and students to include theveterans themselves can affect the interaction with veterans within the classroom, and eventuallyhow prepared they are to enter the civil workforce (learning outcomes). As presented in recentpapers, the generalized perceptions can be either positive or negative without a desire to do sowith intent [1]. Informing faculty of these possible perceptions is critical based on the highnumbers of current and future student veterans due to the Post 9/11 GI Bill and the veterans’desire to pursue their educational goals once they
four years across their tenures at bothinstitutions. In addition, any unclaimed scholarships at the 4-year-university are offered tolow-income transfer students from other community colleges [18].Based on Tinto’s model of student retention [19], the scholarship program aims to enhancestudents’ access, retention, and success by ensuring that students are academically and sociallyconnected and integrated through co-curricular activities [16,20,21]. Figure 1 highlights thespecific program activities provided to scholarship students throughout their tenure in theprogram.Figure 1. Scholarship program activitiesDuring the academic year, scholarship students receive individualized support through facultyadvising and peer mentoring. The faculty and
2025 [1]. The NSF'scomprehensive 2023 report on diversity in STEM further highlights persistent disparities,particularly for women and underrepresented minorities [2]. These findings underscore theimportance of preparing graduate students to create inclusive learning environments that supportsuccess for all students. Rates of leaving the STEM fields are estimated at approximately 50%[3], with persistence in the fields reportedly stagnating in the 2010s [4]. Attrition continues fromundergraduate through the graduate level (Satterfield et al., 2018) and faculty roles [5]. Evenbeyond attrition, changing career paths within the STEM fields presents a compellingphenomenon and indicates lower potential motivation and persistence at the undergraduate
allows for the centralization of a variety of student resources within the School and at theuniversity, a cohesive strategy to address the wellness of students, and a singular point of contactfor students [1]. The goal of the Office is to both further the welcoming and community focusedenvironment in the School of ECE and establish programs and initiatives to aid student growthand well-being. A lot of the responsibilities and roles of the office are not novel, but traditionallyspread across multiple positions with different primary responsibilities at the school/major level.The centralization into one Office and position is unique and serves both the undergraduate andgraduate student population in the School. The ECE School is large and is
engineering, developing innovative ways of merging engineering fundamentals and research applications. ©American Society for Engineering Education, 2025 WIP: Promoting Undergraduate Student Success through Faculty MentoringIntroductionAs previous studies recognize, the transition from school to college often requires a supportsystem for students[1]. In engineering education, mentoring plays a crucial role in student successby providing personalized guidance and fostering a sense of community[2]. Mentors typicallyassist with academic challenges, decision-making, and personal development. While mostresearch focuses on mentoring for research activities, there is also a need for general