session ends with bioreactor shutdown and clean-up.Throughout the process, students complete a detailed batch record adhering to SOPs.Post-Laboratory DayStudents critically evaluate the data, discuss their findings, and prepare the final formal report,addressing the outlined objectives.Material and MethodsThis section outlines the general experimental setup and procedure, based on the methodsdetailed in [7]. Additional information on required chemicals, solutions, standard operatingprocedures, and batch record templates is available upon request. A 5 L small-scale fermentationsystem is used to carry out the fermentation experiment and is schematically shown in Figure 1[7]. The system consists of the following components: a vessel (Eppendorf
Leadership Skill in Engineering StudentsAbstract In an increasingly complex and interconnected world, empathy is emerging inliterature as a vital leadership skill for engineers. Traditionally viewed primarily through atechnical lens, engineering roles now demand a more holistic approach that integratesemotional intelligence with technical expertise. Empathy, often overlooked in engineeringeducation, stands as a critical attribute for effective leadership and collaborative problem-solving. Engineers entering the workforce today may find themselves working on diverseteams in multinational companies for customers they have never met in person, and beexpected to deliver excellent work under tight deadlines. Under
mindset important?The Kern Entrepreneurial Engineering Network (KEEN) foundation has set as its objective toestablish an entrepreneurial mindset within engineering programs. This entrepreneurial mindsetencourages engineering students to combine the technical skills learned in their traditionalengineering coursework with a mindset to “create extraordinary value for others.” This mindsetis comprised of three critical factors, including: Curiosity, Connections and Creating value. [1]Curiosity focuses on the rapidly changing environment in which we live. It is important forengineers to have an “insatiable” curiosity reflected in constantly questioning and wonderingabout the world around them. Curiosity is evidenced through Demonstration and
information modeling (BIM). Theparadigm shift demands a higher level of competencies in sustainability and BIM,which generates a profound impact on college education in design andconstruction related fields. This study explores the effective use of collaborativeproject-based learning to enhance students’ understanding of sustainability andBIM implementation in facilitating green building design.In the fall of 2014, the faculty in the Construction Management (CM) program atCalifornia State University, Fresno (Fresno State) closely examined two existingcourses (CM-132 and CM-177) through a joint course project. CM-132encapsulates BIM principles, modeling skills, and implementation of BIM tofacilitate high performance building design and construction
comfortable offering detailed feedback [3].2 MethodThis paper presents a continued study (Part II) on how design review can be used in practice formechanical engineering, instructor observations of lessons learned, and graduate teachingassistant (TA) observations from lab sessions. An earlier cohort of students in ME 347 haveused the same design review process, but students had a new design challenge in Project 1:create a custom design for a manufacturing company who wants an action character or fidget toythat has moving parts which are marketed toward college students.The method used in the study is an anonymous Qualtrics survey. The main constructsinvestigated in the survey include student mindset, benefits of design review, impact on
on a variety of roles; in educational games, avatars typically represent either the student’sself or a virtual teacher/tutor43. We categorized our avatars as either player characters, guides(fulfilling the role of teacher/tutor), or non-player characters. Technically, guides would benon-player characters but we separated out this sub-category because when an avatar is a guide,they serve as an expert to the player and we view this as a significant relationship that representsthe avatar as a holder of knowledge.For the intern-created projects, we were also able to link demographic information (see Table 1)about the creators to each of the lessons. We were able to identify if they were created bywomen, men, or a team consisting of both men and
course, a primary objective was to identify anddesign a set of experiments that provided hands-on exploration in the major fields ofengineering and the engineering design process, which would also work well in a remotelearning setting. A related objective was to identify and source a set of equipment tosupport these experiments with minimal travel to a college campus, withoutcompromising the caliber of technical skillset typically gained in a lab with acomprehensive set of equipment. In addition to exposure and exploration in the majorengineering disciplines, emphasis was placed on fostering general experimentation skillssuch as how to design an experiment, familiarity with lab instrumentation, how toproperly plot, analyze, and interpret data
organization spaces. The hosting groups underwent the processoutlined in Figure 1 to identify their summer program locations: schools or facilities, teachers,volunteers, or recruited to lead programs. The GGEE program held a 10 to 12-hour virtual trainingseries of two hours a session, that was live and recorded over the Zoom conferencing platform toprepare and support teachers in the program concepts and structure through constructing some ofthe activities themselves. During the training, the teachers were introduced to the engineeringundergraduate student mentors with whom they facilitate the programs and were familiarized withthe curriculum delivered as assignments through Microsoft Teams. During the two-hour sessions,the GGEE team led the teachers
learning, more awareness of methods of grading, and more time spent in deepthinking on these issues, faculty were less convinced that their current methods were directed inproductive areas. We also performed a follow-up survey approximately 3 months following theworkshop, after a lunch-and-learn 30 minute session that was created as a follow-up and to coveraspects of specifications grading [3]. The positive results exhibited in Figure 6 were shown to bestable – faculty still evinced gains in their perceived grading efficiency, knowledge and timespent (1.04, 0.42 and 0.71 on the Likert scale, respectively), which represent large, lastingrelative changes in these attitudes and skills.Summary and ConclusionsThe following conclusions are made: 1. We
surveyed again in January of 2015. Red barsIn general, laboratory courses require resources and indicate engineering labs taught by chemicalinstructor effort significantly beyond those required engineering departments, and white barsfor traditional lecture-based courses, particularly indicate general engineering labs or Page 26.1337.3when employed with freshmen class sizes. engineering labs that could not be confirmed toFurthermore, freshmen enter our departments with a be exclusively chemical engineering related.wide range of technical and hands-on skills and need additional training
exercises. A series of experiments in systemidentification augment a pre-requisite, junior-level dynamic systems modeling and analysiscourse (EML 4312), a pre-requisite to the laboratory course (EML 4301L) in the mechanicalengineering curriculum. Experiments in control systems are used to augment a senior-levelcontrol of machinery course (EML 4313), a co-requisite course to the laboratory course asillustrated in Figure 1. Laboratory equipment is utilized by the one-credit, senior-level laboratorycourse (EML 4301L) in system dynamics and control that bridges the junior-level, three-creditcourse in dynamic systems to the senior-level, three-credit course in control systems. Figure 1: Course Relationship DiagramThe
course stands out for its collaborative approach, as previously described in [Author (s),2024]. Students are organized into triads, considering their previous academic performance tocreate a balanced combination of skills. In a nontraditional format, the course blends theorywith practice, focusing on teamwork, analyzing real construction case studies, and presentingweekly topics such as proposal analysis, construction execution, cost analysis, and projectmanagement.The course's practical sessions involve: − studying the construction processes that are relevant to the projects, − exploring the possibility of implementing new technologies, and − analyzing technical and administrative data from real projects tendered publicly.The course
completed prior to and again at the end of theprogram. Students were emailed a link to the survey after they had accepted their lab placement,but prior to the program’s start. At the end of the program, after completing their oralpresentations, students were given the link to the anonymous, online survey followed by an emailreminder.Knowledge of the types of skills needed in performing STEM research and several illustrativeexamples of self-efficacy surveys12 for diverse domains initially led to the consideration of thefollowing 12 items for the STEM research self-efficacy survey. 1. Identify a research problem 2. Ability to conduct literature search and obtain scientific/technical papers 3. Comprehend scientific/technical papers 4
capstone design, including their experiences with mentors, thechallenges they faced, their beliefs about what they learned, and their perceived level ofpreparation for the future. Interviews were audio recorded, transcribed verbatim, and analyzedusing an open coding process.Preliminary findings suggest that students perceive a wide range of both technical andprofessional learning gains, many of which align with intended course outcomes. Overall, sixsalient themes emerged in students’ discussion of their learning: 1) development of anengineering identity; 2) knowledge of the design process; 3) connections to the “real world”; 4)project management; 5) self-directed learning; and 6) teamwork skills. While several of theseoutcomes intersect with those
? Significant/ Fair/Margina Insignificant/ Unable to Total# Question Exceptional Good - 4 Average - 3 l-2 Poor - 1 Rate Responses Mean -5 Overall1 Workshop Rating 19 10 3 1 0 0 33 4.15Overall workshop rating was 95 out of 100.Evidence-based LearningBesides the technical content revisions, another challenge faced by the educators is how to forma friendly learning environment for computing courses
Essays, Week #4 and #8As with all classes at my university, the students were required to complete a generic courseevaluation on the final day of class. The appendix contains a summary sheet of the evaluationresponses. The survey consisted of seventeen Likert 1- to 5- scale questions. The questionsranged from “1. The instructor made the course objective clear” to “17. Please indicate theoverall teaching effectiveness of the instructor.” Response rate was 67%, 20 out of 30 studentson the final roster. Fifteen of the scaled questions scored between 4 and 5 (that is, “agree” and“strongly agree”). Two of seventeen questions (twelve and thirteen) scored less than 4 at 3.6.Both of these questions had to do with paper grading—“12. helpfulness of
. While this format may align with institutional norms, itcompresses conceptual instruction time and limits opportunities for scaffolded problem-solvingduring lecture. Additionally, in an effort to streamline curricula, some programs incorporatecontent typically reserved for other engineering courses, such as engineering graphics, intoStatics, thereby expanding its scope well beyond the course’s intended learning outcomes. Thiscurricular overloading imposes additional cognitive and logistical strain on a course alreadyrecognized for its abstract reasoning demands. In some formats, lab sessions are split betweenStatics content and unrelated technical tasks, further diluting time for applied problem-solving.The instructional misalignment becomes
applications. To evaluate the impact of the redesigned CS 101 course, a CS1assessment was developed to measure students’ understanding of programming fundamentals,pseudocode interpretation, and Python-specific skills. Future work will focus on incorporatinggroup activities into lab sessions, expanding mini-project offerings, and refining the assessmenttools to further align with the needs of engineering students.1 IntroductionIntroductory computer science (CS) courses, commonly known as CS1 [1], serve a critical role inequipping students with important computational skills, including error handling strategies [2, 3],code-writing proficiency and syntactic accuracy [4, 5], and the development of viable mentalmodels for problem-solving [6, 7, 8]. While
addressing these challenges. Front-end design deals withthe highly open-ended nature of the design process such as problem framing, need finding, and ideation. Given thisopen-endedness, it can be particularly hard to implement in K-12 settings. This NSF-funded project seeks to supportteachers in engaging secondary students in front-end design where they explore and define problems; and thengenerate and review design ideas that combine scientific, technical engineering, social and contextualconsiderations. The project takes a design-based research approach in developing curriculum and a web-basedplatform. The platform enables collaborative content generation, sharing, sketching tools, and scaffolding for ideageneration. We present preliminary results
located in a southeastern metropolitan area ofthe United States known for its strong focus on STEM education. The instructor, who was intheir second year of teaching, led a single section of the introductory Foundations of Engineeringcourse. This course was divided into three block sessions, each lasting approximately 90 minutes[7].Table 1. Students’ demographic information. Category Subcategory Frequency Gender Male 74 Female 69 Ethnicity/Race White 37
entrepreneurship equips students with practicalskills beyond technical expertise and broadens their professional readiness. This structure is inspired byprograms like North Carolina State’s A2i initiative [8], which successfully integrates real-worldcompetencies into academic training. 2Figure 1: Overview of the Personalized Learning Model (PLM) for STEM graduate education being developed anddeployed to innovate graduate education. (Here, we depict three separate streams from the onset of ourprogram; however, other STEM programs may look different.)The model incorporates pedagogical strategies focused on active learning and Scaffolding Instruction
project teams.Key Findings:1. Student Contributions • Most participants played significant roles in their respective projects, particularly in design and construction. • Leadership opportunities were effectively utilized by one student, highlighting the potential for skill development in team management.2. Collaboration and Communication • Communication posed no significant challenges for the group. • Only one student perceived collaboration as problematic, suggesting a generally cohesive team dynamic.3. Challenges • Technical Issues: The most significant challenge identified by participants was in lack of technical skills required to complete the project. • Time Management: Some students also found this aspect
experience inconnecting, programming, and tuning Proportional-Integral-Derivative (PID) controllers usingthe Opto-22 platform. Based on student feedback, the introduction of this system has led toimprovements in their understanding of process control concepts and in their perceivedpreparedness for industry.In this paper, we present instructions for creating a PLC teaching module, covering everythingfrom physical assembly to phrasing laboratory assignments. We report on data from studentsurveys and feedback sessions, which reflect the effectiveness of this laboratory experience onstudent confidence in applying process control concepts in an industrial setting and theirperceived preparedness for industry roles. Finally, we discuss the broader
contemporary engineer – one who isnot only technically excellent but also innovative and aware of the inescapable humanisticaspects of working in complex socio-technical systems [1-4]. This vision of the “UGA engineer”has informed the curricula development for the College’s eight undergraduate programs. In theMechanical Engineering program, this vision led to the implementation of a design sequence thatincludes a compulsory, 3 credit hour, sophomore class that focuses on engineering and society(Engineered Systems in Society: MCHE 2990). In this paper, we describe the development of aset of four empathy modules that we have created as a core and integrated element of this courseand preliminary observations from their implementation in fall 2015. We
StudentOutcomes c, d, e, g, and k 7. Specific course objectives related to these Student Outcomes are asfollows: 1. Students will be able to follow a structured process to design, prototype and test a solution to meet the customer requirements. (ABET Student Outcomes: c, d, e, k 7) 2. Students will be able to generate feasible alternative solutions and select the best solution. (ABET Student Outcomes: c, e, k 7) 3. Students will be proficient in communicating the results of their design work in written and oral formats. (ABET Student Outcome: g 7)Project Description To achieve the aforementioned objectives and outcomes, students are presented withvarious engineering problems to solve through a team design effort. For
general education program.Jennifer Gutzman, University of Wisconsin - MilwaukeeLoren G Peterson, University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee ©American Society for Engineering Education, 2025 Implementation of an I-Corps Inspired 3-Day Bootcamp for Graduate Students to Plan their Academic CareersAbstractA Customer/Career Discovery Bootcamp was designed and delivered to graduate (PhD andmasters) students at the University of Wisconsin, Milwaukee. It was then adapted and deployedat Michigan Technological University. The innovative 1½ - 3 day bootcamp consisted of three3-4 hour sessions plus time to conduct discovery interviews for the graduate students. TheBootcamp content incorporates proven curricula from
Page 26.1110.2(described more fully below) include: (1) Arduino-based air quality monitoring; (2)Arduino-based water quality monitoring; (3) Arduino-based GPS wildlife (dog) tracking;(4) hydroelectric power generation; (5) helium balloon-based aerial photography, and an(6) open source research submarine. This paper has two key sections. First, we describe the idea of Commons-based PeerProduction. It is likely that many readers in Engineering or those with an interest inMaking, Makerspaces or Maker-networks will not be familiar with this concept, except ifwe say that collaborative editing of Wikipedia is a well known example of thisphenomenon. It is also the foundation that the “Maker” phenomenon is grounded upon.In this section we also
-economic status, first-generation status, rural). It is worth noting that while several womenexpressed interest in the program, they were unfortunately unable to participate due to varyingexternal factors, and all four participants identified as men. Recruitment for future cohorts willexplicitly focus on gender diversity and representation.Figure 1. Summary of Partnerships and RolesProgram Design The program design focused on work-integrated learning and community engagement.The students engaged in these through their coursework, community design project, internship,and other planned program activities. An outline of the semester-long schedule focused on the community engagement andwork-integrated learning activities can be seen below
classroom environments. Dr. Menekse is the recipient of the 2014 William Elgin Wickenden Award by the American Society for Engineering Education. He is also selected as an NSF SIARM fellow for the advanced research methods for STEM education research. Dr. Menekse received four Seed-for-Success Awards (in 2017, 2018, 2019, and 2021) from Purdue University’s Excellence in Research Awards programs in recognition of obtaining four external grants of $1 million or more during each year. His research has been generously funded by grants from the Institute of Education Sciences (IES), the U.S. Department of Defense (DoD), Purdue Research Foundation (PRF), and the National Science Foundation (NSF).Mahdi Hosseini, Northwestern
Figure 1. Bioengineering cross- vs. uni-disciplinary team comparison.students described conflictsthat can be generalized, as follows: (1) Task conflict: Management of work expectations acrossthe disciplines and (2) Relationship conflict: Exhibition of clique behavior within disciplines.Since the unidisciplinary BIOE students would not have to manage work expectations or havenew students introduced to their established groups, similar conflicts were not reported. Whileunmanaged conflict is not a goal of teaming, coping with conflict can lead to more enduringsolutions and use of more resources when creating a solution17, 18. Therefore, it is noteworthythat the crossdisciplinary BIOE students reported growth in their ability to cope with