theAdvanced Clean Cars II (ACC II) rule, setting forth an ambitious goal for all passenger cars,trucks, and SUVs sold in the state to be zero-emission vehicles by 2035. Continuing its decades-long role as a leader in environmental regulation, California paved the way for the rest of thenation to embrace such standards, with an additional twelve states adopting ACC II to date.Legislative and regulatory enthusiasm for electric vehicles reaches far beyond CARB’s rule asthe Bipartisan Infrastructure Law (BIL) and Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) allocated over $7.5billion to EV infrastructure and another $43 billion to projects ranging from batterymanufacturing to workforce transition for auto workers[1]. However, the goals set out by ACC IIwill require
educational outcomes.IntroductionPedagogical strategies have undergone significant evolution in recent years, continually seekingto enhance student well-being and optimize learning experiences [1], [2], [3]. Traditionalassessment methods, however, remain a major source of stress and anxiety for students,negatively impacting both their academic performance and overall mental health [4]. Theseconventional evaluation practices often involve tests, quizzes, and assignments that areannounced in advance, giving students time to prepare. However, this structure has beencriticized for failing to measure the extent of student learning [5]. Factors such as poor timemanagement skills and the pressure to compete with classmates exacerbate these issues, leadingto
. MR instruction was able to facilitate an interactive,collaborative, problem-based approach to learning in courses. Implications for Engineeringeducation, grounded in the original literature-based theory, are described.Key words: mixed reality, virtual reality, holograms, digital twins, active learning, educationaltechnology, remote learning, chemical engineering, electrical engineering, computer science,laboratory equipment, laboratory instruction, formative assessment.1. IntroductionDuring the COVID-19 pandemic, when remote instruction was mandated by institutions of highereducation, laboratory experiences, which are traditionally a practical, in-person activity, wereoffered virtually. There were many ways in which different institutions
in the United States is expected to yield benefits to society, justifying theinvestment of public funds. Finkelstein et al. [1] describe this as a “unique American tradition[of] service and engagement with the greater society.” The scholarship of engagement in Boyer’smodel [2] aligns with this mission. Community engagement can take a variety of forms,including integration into classroom teaching (e.g., service-learning), mentoring co-curricularactivities (e.g., learning through service), outreach (often into K-12 schools and via publicinformation), and research. Community engaged research (CER) is defined as “the collaborativegeneration, refinement, conservation, and exchange of reciprocally beneficial and societallyrelevant knowledge that
diversity, innovation, and the long-term sustainability of STEM fields. Despitegradual progress, mechanical engineering continues to be one of the most male-dominateddisciplines, with women comprising only 8.8% of professionals in the field [1]. This genderdisparity begins early in the educational pipeline, where women account for just 18% of first-year engineering students in the United States, despite demonstrating comparable orsuperior performance in mathematics and science compared to their male peers [2].Two primary factors influence female participation in engineering: recruitment andretention. Recruitment challenges stem from societal stereotypes, limited early exposure toengineering careers, and fewer opportunities for hands-on STEM
, institutions, and policymakers. Byidentifying and synthesizing recurring themes, this framework will guide future research andpolicy development, ensuring the responsible and effective integration of GenAI tools inengineering education.IntroductionSince the introduction of generative pre-trained transformers and other generative artificialintelligence (GenAI) tools, the use of GenAI tools has grown significantly. While ArtificialIntelligence (AI) has been around for decades, GenAI has emerged more recently. The launch ofOpenAI’s generative pre-trained transformer model—more widely known as GPT— made thesetools widely accessible to almost anyone [1]. As a result, people across different fields havefound a range of uses for these tools, including in
their growing presence, such courses oftenlack clearly defined characteristics and practical design frameworks. Consequently, severalchallenges persist—such as insufficient integration of comprehensive engineering elements,misalignment between course content and industry needs, rigid teaching methods, and limitedstudent engagement.This study addresses two key research questions: (1) What are the core characteristics ofgeneral engineering courses designed for postgraduate students pursuing professionalengineering degrees? (2) How can these courses be effectively designed to embody anddeliver these core characteristics? To answer these questions, the paper first conducts aliterature review to identify the defining features of such courses. Based
from the program. However, it is challenging to keep students engaged and attentive inthis age and time using traditional teaching mediums such as boards and slide decks.1 Theabstract and sometimes intimidating nature of engineering concepts—such as thermodynamics,material balances, or reaction kinetics—requires teaching approaches that are accessible,impactful, engaging, and frankly exciting.In this context, student engagement is more than a matter of participation; it directly correlateswith how well students internalize and apply the material. Traditional lecture methods canstruggle to keep students actively involved, especially in large classes where individualinteraction is limited.2,3 Without opportunities for hands-on exploration or
, and societalneeds influence the design and application of robotics in both countries. Understanding thesedifferences provides insight into the emerging global direction of HRI and how robot design andfunction might evolve to meet human needs in different cultural contexts.Based on this gap, we developed a new interdisciplinary course to address the following: 1. Advancement of HRI: By focusing on next-generation service robots, this program addresses the growing demand for robots that can work alongside humans in real-world environments like healthcare, manufacturing, and logistics. The students’ exposure to HRI, a key aspect of robotics, directly contributes to the development of robots that can effectively
K-20 STEM Outreach while a National Science Foundation Fellow with the GK-12 Outreach Program at NCSU where she began Energy Clubs, an out-of-school-time program for third, fourth and fifth graders to introduce them to renewable energy. ©American Society for Engineering Education, 2025 Campus and Community Decarbonization – Campus as a Living Classroom of Transformative Energy PerformanceBackgroundIn the USA and Canada, hundreds of municipalities [1] and corporations [2], along with thousandsof universities and colleges, have the goal to decarbonize their entire operations by no later than2050. This goal is also commonly
the value of contributing to an interdisciplinaryresearch team that is outside of the students’ core discipline.Engineering Education marries multiple disciplines, resulting in an inherently interdisciplinaryfield [1]. While literature demonstrates the benefits of interdisciplinary research teams, includingrobust diversity of thought and enhanced potential solutions [1], [2], there can also be challenges.Research teams in engineering education must work across disciplinary backgrounds to solvecomplex problems, and individuals on these teams contribute different technical knowledge andapproaches to problem solving. Collaborations between scholars from varying disciplines withdifferent research approaches and methodologies can result in delays
Paper ID #48187research interests are in tissue engineering and regenerative medicine. Specifically, the work of herresearch group focuses on three general areas: (1) design and evaluation of biomaterials for therapeuticpurposes; (2) application of materials for engineering tissue systems; and (3) advanced engineeringstrategies for developing in vitro models and culture systems. Dr. Gomillion is committed to the integrationof her biomedical interests with education research endeavors, with a specific focus on evaluating classroominnovations for improving biomedical engineering student learning and exploring factors that facilitatesuccess for diverse graduate students. ©American Society for Engineering Education, 2025
, requiringfewer components and less programming expertise. While single-axis trackers do illustratehow tracking can boost efficiency [1], they offer less educational value compared to dual-axissystems. Dual-axis technology not only delivers a more comprehensive learning experiencebut also encompasses the essential knowledge needed for building simpler trackingimplementations like single-axis. Consequently, mastering a dual-axis setup inherently equipsstudents with the skills to explore new concepts of tracking systems. On the other hand, fixedsolar panel installations are even easier to set up, making them cost-effective and accessible[2]. Still, they lack any active tracking mechanism, meaning they fall short of deliveringhands-on experience with real
regarding over-reliance on AI. Thefindings will provide insights into how AI can be used effectively in engineeringeducation to develop critical thinking skills and offer practical recommendations forincorporating AI into engineering design curricula.1. IntroductionArtificial intelligence (AI) is transforming engineering practice by enabling rapid designoptimization and data-driven decision-making. In engineering education, AI tools offeropportunities to enhance critical thinking—a vital skill for navigating complex designchallenges. For this study, key terms are defined as follows: ● Engineering Education: The pedagogical framework for training students in engineering disciplines, emphasizing technical knowledge and cognitive skills like
opportunities for all students requires an extremely high level of professionalskill and judgment from teachers [1], [2], [3]. Fragmentation in teacher education, fieldexperiences, and university learning is common for future teachers learning professional practice[4]. Broader systemic issues of educational inequity disproportionately exclude students fromminoritized backgrounds from high-quality STEM learning environments [2], [5]. This demandfor rigorous and rich STEM teaching is occurring while teachers, teaching, and teacher educationhave come under intense scrutiny, thus providing a moment of opportunity for dramatic re-envisioning of how we support practicing teachers and the education of the next generation ofSTEM teachers. In this paper, we
. 1 2. Introduction:The landscape of engineering education is undergoing a transformative shift, driven by the needfor approaches that prioritize active engagement, critical thinking, and practical application ofknowledge. Traditional lecture-based instruction, while foundational, often limits opportunities forstudents to actively participate in the learning process, leading to gaps in conceptual understandingand retention. In response, innovative pedagogies such as the flipped classroom, project-basedlearning (PBL), Kolb Experiential Learning Theory (ELT) and peer learning have emerged, eachoffering unique advantages in fostering student-centered learning.The flipped classroom model emphasizes pre
messages for people like themselves.Keywords: Design-Based research; Multilingual/Multidialectal Learning, Engineeringcommunication, Pre-college, Climate technology designIntroduction Across geographies and time, young people have been active participants in vocalizingcomplex global challenges that impact their communities [1] and [2]. From youth civil rightsactivists in the Southern United States in the 1950s and 60s leaving school during the school dayto protest racial injustices [3] to Greta Thunberg sounding the alarm and engaging in civildisobedience to raise awareness about climate change [4] and [5]. Although youth have beenhistorically active and are sometimes taught climate science and engineering in schools whileexperiencing
EngineeringIntroductionThis collaborative project, funded by the NSF’s EDU Racial Equity Program, aims to shift theway faculty understand racial equity in engineering education. Rather than treating“underrepresentation” as the result of an inherent deficit in people of color, this project exploresthe ways the invisible and normalized nature of Whiteness in engineering has led to systemicbarriers for students and faculty of color. We find that these barriers are consistently ignored,making it difficult to identify, challenge, and (re)imagine racial equity in engineering. In order tochallenge the hegemonic discourse of Whiteness, engineering faculty must develop the ability tosee and name these invisible forces. Our milestones for achieving this goal include: 1
Publishing for Two-Year College Faculty and StudentsThe Journal of Advanced Technological Education Special Project (J ATE) was a one-year pilotfunded through NSF’s DUE ATE program whose goal was to build a community of peer-reviewed published authors from technical and community colleges. The “publish or perish”academic aphorism of the 4-year university tenure system does not cross over to communitycolleges, and community college faculty face many barriers to pursuing scholarship [1], [2]. Twoof this project’s objectives that directly impact two-year college faculty were 1) providing newwriters with professional development interactions with experienced writing coaches to supportthem in writing and publishing their work in a peer
frequent turnover.Background Post-World War II, the higher education landscape evolved in several ways. The growthand importance of higher education was already felt before the war, and there was resistancefrom elite universities and presidents who believed higher education was a rite of passage for theelite who were gifted and had merit. Higher education became an important priority to improvethe quality of life and expand opportunities for the middle class, hence the growth of statecolleges and universities along with community or junior colleges. When students were lessacademically prepared for a traditional baccalaureate degree, students used junior colleges aspreparation venues [1]. Elite colleges were sometimes supportive of the
through Design (RtD) canconnect research and engineering educational practice. The following scenarios offer grounding: ● Scenario 1: Two educators, inspired by recent work on ungrading, decide to pursue ungrading for courses they teach. Through conversation, they realize their collective experiences could inform others who might be interested in themselves pursuing ungrading. As a result, the educators come together to analyze their approaches in four different courses (two each), identify insights about how to adapt ungrading to different contexts, and organize the insights into a framework that could guide other interested educators. ● Scenario 2: An educator becomes interested in the potential for
, Hispanic American, Native American Indian, Alaskan Native, Native Hawaiian, andNative Pacific Islander faculty. These inequities limit opportunities for individuals and hinder theinnovation and inclusivity of STEM fields.Such barriers are deeply rooted in structural inequities, including “epistemic exclusion”—themarginalization of scholarship and scholars that challenge disciplinary norms or focus on equityand inclusion [1], [2]. Hiring and evaluation processes often emphasize narrow productivitymetrics, such as publication counts, grant funding, and citation indices, which privilege dominantgroups and discourage bold, innovative research [3], [4]. These practices reinforce institutionalbiases and reduce opportunities for all scholars to thrive in
a model for ongoingtechnical support.IntroductionThe broader goals of this project have been to enhance program evaluation within and acrossNSF-funded ERCs (and other large, STEM-focused research centers) by: 1) expandingdissemination and providing validity testing of a collaborative evaluation survey, 2) developing acomplementary set of qualitative tools (e.g., interview, focus group, observation protocols, etc.),3) facilitating an evaluator’s toolbox to guide and support center evaluation leads, and 4)providing updated information to available resources (e.g., drafting new content for the NSFEngineering Research Centers’ Best Practice Manual). Over the duration of the grant, this workhas been completed while aligning with each of the four
of covariance (ANCOVA) wasperformed to investigate the difference in students’ cognitive empathy between the two groups,with pre-test empathy scores as the covariate.Results Experimental group exhibited an average post-test score of 5.09 with a standard deviationof 1.23 with a noticeable improvement from their pre-test mean score of 4.60 with a standarddeviation of 1.18. The control group showed a lower post-test average of 4.26 with a standarddeviation of 1.38, while decreased from their pre-test average of 4.37 with a standard deviation of1.14. The ANCOVA result underscored the evidence of improved student empathy as the groupdifferences in post-test cognitive empathy scores were statistically significant, with an F(1, 40) =39.80, p
, management, andpreservation. Proficiency in one or more of these areas in conjunction with domain knowledgewithin a core STEM discipline is rapidly becoming a key need for education and workforcedevelopment. To meet the need for STEM professionals with proficiency in data science, theNSF-sponsored DIFUSE project at Dartmouth has focused on integrating data science intoSTEM disciplines to enhance undergraduate student learning and preparation for the STEMworkforce. The interdisciplinary approach, described in [1], develops data science modules foruse in the classroom in introductory STEM and social science courses ranging from psychologyand environmental studies to astronomy and engineering; to date, we have developed anddisseminated over 20 such
financial, academic, and social barriers faced by low-income,academically talented students, the program emphasizes pathways into and through STEMdisciplines such as computer science, mathematics, and physics. The initiative is dedicated tosupporting underrepresented groups, including women, minorities, and first-generation collegestudents, with the goal of increasing retention, graduation rates, and career readiness. Thispartnership creates a comprehensive pipeline from MCC and TCC to CCSU, blending academicpreparation, social integration, and professional development into a holistic support system forstudent success [1, 2].Program Goals and ObjectivesThe CSMP program was developed to address critical challenges in STEM education,particularly for
, which focuses on the instructor’s delivery andconsiders the students merely the receiving end of the knowledge, active learning emphasize thestudents’ role in the process, and encourages them to think and learn actively, instead of justlistening. Bonwell and Eison in 1991 [1] defined that instructional activities involving students indoing things and thinking about what they are doing as techniques to promote active learning. Abroad range of activities can be considered active learning techniques under this definition [2].Some are simple and easy implement. For instance, the students may engage in ”think-pair-share”[3], where the instructor raises a question, ask the students to think about it, and then they arepaired with peers to discuss
institution’s College of Engineering.Background and MotivationMiddle and upper-level engineering courses are vital for students to master specializedknowledge and skills necessary for their chosen fields. Despite their importance, research onteaching methods in these courses has been limited [1]. These courses are recognized asparticularly challenging and require innovative teaching strategies to enhance student learning[2]. This project, funded by NSF (DUE2215989) addresses these gaps by exploring effectiveinstructional practices and fostering a sustainable community of practice to disseminate thesemethods across engineering departments.The project’s motivation stems from the need to align instructional practices with student-centered teaching which
teachers must find ways to expose studentsto engineering in ways that are accessible and age-appropriate. In order to attract more studentsto engineering as a field of study and career path, it is important to offer outreach programs thatare both educational and inspirational. [1], [2], [5] The activity discussed in this paper introducesstudents to fundamental engineering concepts through the design, implementation andoptimization of a smart nightlight. The activity is designed to be customizable for students ingrades 4 through 12 and further tailored to the learning skills and available time of theparticipating groups. Furthermore, the activity emphasizes hands-on learning while integratingengineering principles such as the engineering design
interactions among group members. IntroductionEngineering education strives to transform the field of engineering by integrating research andpractice. These efforts often involve groups of individuals from fields such as engineering,engineering education, sociology, and psychology and from different roles within a university(e.g., faculty, administration, student support staff) [1], [2], [3]. Each of these group membersbring their own approaches to the generation, expression, and application of knowledge. Thesedifferences in thinking are key to the success of engineering education; however, they can createtensions that prevent many groups from achieving their core goals. These tensions are oftenassociated