This project is described in a presentation at ASEE 2020 "Best of First-Year Programs Division" session.Background and IntroductionHands-on team-based open-ended design projects in freshman engineering courses have been shown to significantly improve student retention due to the benefits of active hands-on learning, self-directed acquisition of knowledge, development of skills and confidence necessary to succeed in engineering and a growing sense of community. Open-ended design projects can range from highly structured to theme-based to free choice. Combining entrepreneurial thinking and maker technology, student-driven free-choice open-ended design projects allow students to generate their own idea, take ownership of their design project, and results in significant gains in creativity and entrepreneurial intentions. This card describes a free-choice open-ended design project that supports student autonomy, one of the three basic psychological needs from self-determination theory (SDT). SDT postulates that individuals will adopt more internalized/autonomous forms of motivations, resulting in more optimal learning outcomes, when three basic psychological needs are satisfied: autonomy, a sense of choice and control; relatedness, a sense of positive and supportive connections to others; and competence, a sense of mastery and self-efficacy. The introduction to engineering course is a freshman level 2-credit 15-week lecture and lab course consisting of a 50-minute lecture and a 2-hour 50-minute lab each week. Most students enroll in this course during their first semester in college. The course aims to provide students with an introduction to engineering, introduces the broad topics of the engineering design process, engineering modeling and drawing, teamwork, technical communication, project management and an entrepreneurial mindset. In addition, technical knowledge such as computer-aided design including 3D printing and programming a microcontroller is introduced to help students with their two multidisciplinary design projects, i.e., a well-defined project during the first half of the semester (See Card "Project: Autonomous Mail Delivery System") and an open-ended project during the second half. The course is a required course for students majoring in aerospace engineering, chemical engineering, electrical engineering and mechanical engineering. Project Description and ImplementationThis card provides all of the materials needed to implement a nine-week long team-based open-ended multi-disciplinary design project in an introduction to engineering course. Students, in teams of four, work on their project in class during lecture and lab for nine weeks. There are two lecture periods dedicated to introduce the project before students work on the project during the labs. The project description and grading are in the "Project Description" folder. The project uses the following "theme" statement: "Design an automated solution for a space such as a home, campus building including dorm, office, retail, restaurant, hospital, library, and factory. Your design should add value in an economic, environmental, and/or societal sense. For example, your design might help reduce costs, increase efficiency, reduce pollution/waste, and/or improve accessibility, among other things. Your design must incorporate an Arduino or other microcontroller." Research results from SDT (See paper in the "Publications" folder) showed that, compared to other project definitions which further place constraints on scope and materials, this autonomy-supportive version of the project statement results in more positive student motivational responses. Another interesting finding from the research suggests that the provision of more choice and control seems to have a more dramatic positive impact on women compared to men. The schedule of the project is shown below along with brief descriptions: Week 1 (Lecture 1): Pain Point Investigation and Information Collection (worksheet, group discussion)Week 2 (Lecture 2): Information Synthesis and Opportunity Identification (worksheet, group discussion) Week 3 (Lab 1): Problem Definition, Brainstorming and Solution Prototyping (worksheet, group discussion, hands-on building) Week 4 (Lab 2): Design Decision and Project Management (worksheet, group discussion) Week 5 (Lab 3): Proposal Presentation (oral presentation) Week 6/7/8 (Lab 4/5/6): Prototype Construction & Testing (hands-on building) Week 9 (Lab 7): Final Presentation and prototype demonstration (video, oral presentation and demo) The two lectures help students identify pain points, and collect and synthesize information. Ideally, they should be given at least two weeks before the start of the project so that students have plenty of time to decide which project to work on. The worksheets used in the two lectures are in the "Lecture Worksheets" folder. Lab 1 and Lab 2 give students the opportunity to go through the engineering design process: define the problem, gather information, generate alternative concepts, evaluate the alternatives, select the most promising concept, plan and manage the project. The problem definition and planning documents used are in the "Supplemental Lab Materials" folder. During the three project construction labs, a lab agenda is used to help students track their progress. It is in the "Supplemental Lab Materials" folder. Students are asked to complete a business model canvas for their project (assigned during the second construction lab, instructions and template are in the "Supplemental Lab Materials" folder). They are also asked to write a testing plan for their prototype (assigned during the last construction lab, instructions and template in the "Supplemental Lab Materials" folder). Students have to submit five project deliverables. Instructions, due dates and grading rubrics are in the "Project Deliverables" folder. Evaluation and Future WorkIn the SDT research conducted, for every week of the nine-week project, students were given a Situational Motivation Scale (SIMS) survey, which is an instrument to measure different types of motivations on a continuum ranging from autonomous (internal) to controlled (external) motivations. This continuum includes intrinsic motivation, a deeply internalized state of engagement based on interest, enjoyment, satisfaction and passion; identified regulation, a state in which actions are based on an internal sense of self and perceived value, importance, or usefulness of a task; external regulation, a state of compliance with external pressure, prompted by contingent reward or punishment avoidance, and amotivation, state of impersonal or non-intentional action due to learners finding no value and no desirable outcomes in a learning activity. This survey provides useful diagnostic information and practical insights into course design to support more positive forms of student motivational responses. The survey reveals, for example, that the open-ended design project focusing on automation described in this card seems to result in higher external motivation signals and lower internal motivation signals for chemical engineering students. How to come up with remedies to reach this population is an urgent next step in the project design. The weekly motivation survey also shows a dip in positive motivations during Week 2. How to modify the activity to better support positive student motivation is another future improvement. Furthermore, given that the SIMS profile from this project shows both higher average amotivation and external regulation values compared to the “truly autonomous” motivation profile, identifying strategies to further motivate students to adopt more positive forms of motivation is one more important future work. A Basic Needs Satisfaction Scale (BNSS) survey was given at the end of the semester, which measures the degree to which three basic psychological needs of autonomy, relatedness and competence are satisfied. Survey results show that competency may play a role in shaping the motivational responses of students. Therefore, if you do plan to implement an open-ended automation project like the one described in this card, make sure to give students a tutorial and sufficient practice on Arduino, sensors and actuators to make students feel confident in their ability to completing the project. Tutorial and examples on using Arduino, sensors and motors can be found in the Card "Project: Autonomous Mail Delivery System". Both the Situational Motivation Scale (SIMS) survey and the Basic Needs Satisfaction Scale (BNSS) survey can be found in the "Surveys" folder.

This project describes a board game that was developed to teach first-year engineering students about concepts associated with an entrepreneurial mindset. It was implemented at Rowan University in a class of 36 students. Students play in groups of 4-5 students with the goal of moving their game piece to the center of the game board by going through 4 stages of an entrepreneur’s journey — “brainstorming stage,” “prototype stage,” “market stage,” and “sales stage.” As they move their game piece through each stage, the teams are asked questions about engineering curriculum knowledge, resources on campus, and legal/ethical issues. They are also presented with risk/reward cards where they have to decide how many of their existing points they would like to wager on an entrepreneurial related scenario. In the implementation of the board game at Rowan, students played the game for about 30-40 minutes of class time followed by a group discussion using a Recall, Summarize, Question, Comment, Critique worksheet (RSQCC). This worksheet allows students to dive a bit further into their experience and really connect back between the game and the material being covered in class as part of entrepreneurial mindset instruction. This board game helps students be less intimidated with business related concepts that they might otherwise avoid as part of their engineering degree program. Any faculty member that is looking for a different and novel approach for introducing concepts associated with an entrepreneurial mindset can use this board game.

This course uses the Question Formulation Technique in an introductory Circuits analysis course. At St Thomas this technique was implemented in a course of 30 first and second year students. A fundamental assumption of the QFT is that students learn and retain knowledge better when, fueled by curiosity, they ask their own questions, and use them to drive their learning.A total of four QFT research projects were assigned to students working in groups of four to six. Each project was launched with an in-class discussion, and the majority of the research work was done by students outside of class. Students were given between one and two weeks to research the answers to the questions asked in each research project. The topics covered in the research projects include basic circuit laws, linearity and superposition, sinusoidal steady-state AC circuit response, and operational amplifiers.The main deliverable for the project was a paper summarizing the research questions and answering those questions with documented references. The students also needed to reflect on the questions they raised, the answers they found, and the overall QFT-based research process. QFT technique could be applied to any course.

In an educational setting it is vital that we as educators are able to assess our learning outcomes and effectively measure student progress towards those objectives. With that being said, what can educators do when they trying to instill a characteristic that they don’t know how to asses? The entrepreneurial engineering community is tackling this issue head on, as the increasing popularity of injecting an entrepreneurial mindset into the engineering curriculum has brought some of these “hard-to-assess” traits into the spotlight. While the KEEN framework has provided a valuable communication tool around which to organize discussion and facilitate action incorporating the entrepreneurial mindset into engineering curricula, it has also raised significant questions around assessment of the framework elements. The constructs captured by the framework are beyond the scope of what engineering faculty are accustomed to teaching and assessing. The abstracted and conceptually overlapping nature of the framework elements further worsens this discomfort. Having a fully vetted example of how the framework might be digested into defined, assessable pieces would be of tremendous value to the network. The purpose of this work is, therefore, to address the need for applied assessment of the KEEN Entrepreneurial Mindset and to explore how the Association of American Colleges and Universities (AAC&U) VALUE Rubrics might fill these gaps. The first goal for this work was to review the applicability of VALUE rubrics. The guiding research question for this phase was: Are the VALUE Rubrics applicable in regards to assessing the Entrepreneurial Mindset that KEEN promotes? Secondly, after this initial review, the rubric components deemed most applicable were extracted and the goal shifted to answering the question: How might the components of the VALUE Rubrics be reorganized around the elements of the KEEN Framework? Finally, after a thorough review of the resulting rubrics, the question again shifted to: How might these reorganized rubrics be modified and/or appended to better evaluate the KEEN Framework?A set of three rubrics has been developed based on a modification of the sixteen VALUE rubrics, reframed to fit the KEEN Framework. As previously stated, there are gaps in each of the three rubrics, some with more than others. Work is still needed to distribute, revise, and polish the text of the rubric rows, as well as to evaluate gaps in the rubric coverage. Additionally, while direct application of these exemplars is not the intended use case, there are some faculty who may opt to do so. Significant work remains in terms of validation of the rubrics. While they have been developed from highly reliable and validated source material, some revalidation is necessary to ensure good reliability and applicability of the rubrics as redesigned. This work was initially presented at ASEE 2019, as part of the ENT division.

This CardDeck provides a link to each of the 18 e-learning modules created by the University of New Haven that help develop an entrepreneurial mindset in students. The modules are designed to be integrated into existing engineering and computer science courses. Our efforts, as part of KEEN, are aimed at fostering an entrepreneurial mindset in engineering students. An entrepreneurial mindset applies to all aspects of life, beginning with curiosity about our changing world, integrating information from various resources to gain insight, and identifying unexpected opportunities to create value. We believe that an engineer equipped with an entrepreneurial mindset will be able to create extraordinary value within any type of organization. Development of 18 e-learning modules supporting entrepreneurially minded learning is part of this effort. The University of New Haven, a KEEN partner institution for over 7 years, aims to instill an entrepreneurial mindset in its engineering students by integrating the 18 e-learning modules into existing engineering and computer science courses. The e-learning modules are interactive, structured in a way that will allow integration into regular courses or utilization as supplementary resources, and each are accompanied with a teaching guide. The modules are generic enough to allow their deployment in various courses and majors.The length of each module is 3-9 hours of online student work. Online student work includes the amount of time a student is expected to spend reviewing material in a module as well as the average time needed to complete module assignments, activities or exercises.The development and implementation of the e-Learning Modules has taken placed over the past several years. Several papers and conference presentations document that effort and we invite you to read them - including 2 related papers at the most recent ASEE 2020 conference. Please scroll down to the resources section for direct links to the papers. E-Learning Modules Overview Videos You can see about a two-minute video in the following links to learn more about each module. Adapting a Business to a Changing Climate Applying Systems Thinking to Complex Problems Building Relationships with Corporations and Communities Building, Sustaining and Leading Effective Teams and Establishing Performance Goals Defining and Protecting Intellectual Property Determining Market Risks Developing a Business Plan that Addresses Stakeholder Interests, Market Potential and Economics Developing Customer Awareness and Quickly Testing Concepts Through Customer Engagement Cost of Production and Market Conditions Financing a Business Generating New Ideas Based on Societal Needs and Business Opportunities Innovating to Solve Problems under Organizational Constraints Innovative Client-Centered Solutions Through Design Thinking Learning from Failure Resolving Ethical Issues Role of Product in Value Creation The Elevator Pitch: Advocating for Your Good Ideas Thinking Creatively to Drive Innovation

This is a sophomore level course in a sequence of EML core courses offered at Lawrence Technology University. Four sections are taught each semester. Each semester 65-80 students participate in the design studio. In this project based course, students work on teams of 3-4 and work through each step of the design process around a design theme. The current theme is “Accessibility in the Workplace.” Students identify opportunities to solve problems for real customers at a local non-profit. An emphasis is placed on creating solutions based on customers’ needs. Finally, students design, build, and test working prototypes that create value for these customers. This course meets twice a week for 2.5 hours each class period. This class works well for sections of about 20 students each that are able to meet in a dedicated studio that functions as a classroom as well as a maker space. It is important to have tools and resources to allow for multiple levels of prototyping throughout the semester. In addition to building a prototype, the teams must manage a long term project, account for cost and market implications, and communicate to all stakeholders. Assessments are in the form of written, verbal, and public presentation formats. In the studio based format, the content needed for each stage of the design process is spread progressively through the course and delivered at the appropriate points in the design process when students are ready to apply the concepts.

To better serve the engineering entrepreneurship community, we sought to develop a "master" entrepreneurial mindset (EM) concept map that captured faculty insights as to what properties are relevant to the term "entrepreneurial mindset". Development ProcessThe "master" EM concept map was developed from content included in the EM concept maps of 26 faculty members that attended a concept map workshop at the 2019 KEEN National Conference. Terms from the faculty concept maps were abstracted and literature was used to provide additional concepts that were missing from the original maps. Concepts were then grouped into categories using an iterative process similar to thematic analysis to allow development of a working copy of the "master" EM concept map. This working copy of the EM map had only hierarchies present and no cross-links to avoid researchers' biases influencing the relationships the maps should portray. The working copy of the EM concept map was shown to seven faculty experts in the Engineering Entrepreneurship field for review and comment. Changes suggested and cross-links identified were then incorporated into the final "master" EM concept map."Master" EM Concept Map OverviewThe "master" EM concept map (attached below) captures the "who", "what", "why", and "how" aspects of an entrepreneurial mindset within the context of engineering education. The "who" branch focuses on what type of individuals may exhibit an entrepreneurial mindset such as entrepreneurs or intrapreneurs, the organizations within which these individuals may work, and the processes they may use to enact their EM. The "what" branch captures knowledge, skills, and attributes that are associated with having an EM. The "why" branch focuses on providing insight as to the motivation behind individuals developing an EM or enacting an EM. It includes elements like creating value and stakeholders relevant to work in this area. Finally, the "how" branch is very useful to educators since it documents ways through which students may develop an EM while mainly being in an academic setting. Examples include both formal and informal education experiences as well as personal experiences.Curiosity: The "master" EM concept map provides an opportunity for faculty to explore deeper what is meant by EM and how it manifests itself within academic environments. It can also be a starting point for faculty to explore motivations associated with an EM and use this knowledge as the basis for course and lesson planning. Faculty can consider asking their students to make a map of EM and then compare to the "master" concept map included to see where their students are in the development of an understanding of this complex construct.Connections: The "master" EM employs connections through its use of cross-links to reinforce the relationships that exist between different facets associated with an EM. It provides an opportunity for faculty to understand the framing of different aspects of an EM and how they could be related through academic courses or activities.Creating Value: The "master" EM concept map provides significant value to the engineering entrepreneurship community as it provides a snapshot of faculty's perception of EM as there has been much debate in the literature over how to define this complex construct. It will also serve as a reference tool that faculty can use in their own course planning or as an assessment tool for faculty that might be interested in measuring their students' perception of EM.Details for Implementation and UseThe "master" EM concept map can be used in a variety of settings and with different target populations ranging from first-year undergraduate students to post-docs. The flexibility of concept mapping as a course activity or assessment tool allows for it to be modified depending on the faculty's instructional environment. For instance, in class, concept maps can be constructed individually using sheets of papers and post-it notes or in a remote/digital setting, concept maps can be built using a variety of online technologies that are freely available such as CmapTools. Concept maps can be used anytime throughout a class or activity but have been most often used as a pre/post assessment. In these implementations, they should be used with a significant length of time in between the assessments since it can take time for students to integrate knowledge and be able to display it in this manner.This card includes a copy of the ASEE paper discussing the design and development of the "master" EM concept map and more examples of how concept maps could be implemented in EM modules or courses. The card also has an image of the final "master" concept map as this may be an easier reference tool than to look at the paper itself. The "master" concept map is meant to serve as a reference for faculty so that when they go about scoring / assessing their students' concept maps they have a broad understanding of what terms should be present in the map and the linkages that should exist between these concepts.

The Situational Motivation Scale tool, which is known as SIMS, is a vetted tool which measures student interest and self regulation on specific tasks. Doug Dunston facilitated a "professor-as-the-engineering-student" experience in which University of St. Thomas faculty self-assessed motivation and regulation on an engineering task of their choosing. The experience of assessing motivation, and by extension curiosity, led several engineering faculty to use this tool to assess and increase student intrinsic motivation and self regulation on specific tasks. Assessment of the tool includes a visual representation of motivation and regulation. An umbrella IRB study allowed for faculty to better understand student curiosity and adjust in real time without compromising student anonymity.

Context This card describes course modules that were developed to introduce the global challenges facing society in the 21st century. These modules are linked below in the first folder and they are stored on a Canvas site that anyone can access. The modules are currently used in a 3-credit 7.5-week Massive Open Online Course (MOOC) offered through Arizona State University's (ASU) Earned Admissions (EA) program (now part of ASU Universal Learner Courses (ULC)), a program that offers both college credits at scale and a pathway for students to earn admissions into ASU. The on-ground version of this course is currently offered over a 15 week semester to students in the Grand Challenges Scholars Program (GCSP) at ASU, , recognized by the National Academy of Engineering, and most of these scholars take this course during their first year and it counts toward the multidisciplinary competency of the program. While these modules are interrelated, they have been packaged to also stand alone to allow for easy adoption, adaptation, and implementation by faculty members in their own courses and/or programs, in both face-to-face settings and in an online environment. Each module as well as the specific material within it can be used independently from the others. Course Modules Introduction These modules are centered on the NAE's Grand Challenges for Engineering and they help students develop an interdisciplinary systems perspective on global challenges related to the Grand Challenges themes of sustainability, health, security, and joy of living. One of the modules provides an overview of the global challenges and four subsequent modules each focuses on one of these four theme areas. To show variations of the challenges and solutions, within each theme area, different scales are discussed, including developing communities, developed communities, and global scale; or personal level, national level, and global scale. These modules aim to increase students' awareness of the social complexities involved in meeting the needs of local and global challenges through engineering and technology. Many different types of activities were designed based on best practices to engage students and incorporated in these modules to provide students with opportunities to actively consider and evaluate the reciprocal relationship between engineering solutions or technologies and aspects of society including economics, politics, ethics, environment, culture, and human behavior. Examples of these activities include mind mapping activities, simulation-based role play, design activity, pros and cons lists, game, case studies, etc. Besides activities and discussions, different types of video material are also included in these modules. These video material consists of instructor-led video lectures, application videos with voiceover animations, video clips and/or static images, expert talks that feature research faculty members and industry professionals from across the nation discussing challenges related to their fields and their current research and industry-related work to address these challenges, and video montages of interviews conducted with various experts and NAE GCSP alumni on various topics. Besides modules that allow students to broadly explore the global challenges in different theme areas, one of the remaining modules focuses on a research assignment that provides students with the opportunity to learn about examples of current research efforts related to one of the theme areas that they are most passionate about. Students are also introduced to a few frameworks which they can apply to analyze the potential societal impact of these research efforts from multiple perspectives. In addition to developing an interdisciplinary systems perspective about the challenges and their solutions from these aforementioned modules, students also start to develop an entrepreneurial mindset needed to tackle these challenges. One of the modules describes an open ended Entrepreneurially-Minded Learning (EML) based project that invites students to find their passion, exercise their entrepreneurial mindset, and develop a future solution to fulfill a need or opportunity related to the NAE’s vision for Engineering in the 21st century: Continuation of life on the planet, making our world more sustainable, secure, healthy, and joyful. In this project, students identify an opportunity to create added value for society, develop a futuristic solution, and research current technologies and trends to show that their solution will be technically feasible in the future. Students also consider various nontechnical aspects such as social, cultural, global, legal, economic, and political factors when developing their solution. When considering these societal factors, they identify the challenges they may face in developing and implementing a solution that will be technically feasible and economically viable while also creating value for society. They are also asked to imagine the impact their solutions would have on society if they were to be developed. This project can be implemented in both an online environment and a face-to-face setting. It can be done by students individually or as a group (suggested group size: 3-4 students). Various assignments are included to help students work through the design and development process and their work is showcased in a project poster. To help students make sense of their learning using the dynamic, active learning, discussion-based, guided self-exploratory material, digital portfolios are introduced in one of the modules, and they provide students with opportunities to reflect on their learning, connect their knowledge and experiences, infuse that knowledge and experience with meaning, and intertwine it with their own personal identities, interests, and values. Last but not least, there is one module that focuses on the competencies, skills, and/or mindset that is needed to tackle the challenges. It introduces the NAE GCSP competencies and shows examples of ways to achieve each of them. There are also discussions and assignments that ask students to reflect on their interests and goals, and determine the next steps they will take toward achieving them. In video montages, experts and GCSP alumni also share their perspectives about competencies, skills, and/or mindset that they feel are important and offer suggestions for students that are working to achieve these competencies to realize the goals for engineering in the 21st century. List of Course Modules The complete list of modules and sub-modules can be found below. 1. Module - Goals for engineering in the 21st century in an interdisciplinary, global context o Vision for engineering and specific goals o Developing solutions to interdisciplinary societal challenges o Customer discovery, needs analysis, and opportunity identification · 2. Module - Developing solutions to make our lives more sustainable o Introduction to sustainability o Sustainability challenges and solutions in developing communities o Sustainability challenges and solutions in developed communities o Global sustainability challenges · 3. Module - Developing solutions to make our lives healthier o Introduction to health o Global differences in health o Health challenges and solutions in developed communities o Health challenges and solutions in developing communities · 4. Module - Developing solutions to make our lives more secure o Introduction to security o Personal security challenges and solutions o National security challenges and solutions o Global security challenges and solutions · 5. Module - Developing solutions to make our lives more joyful o Introduction to joy of living o Education-related challenges and solutions o Challenges and solutions in joy of living o Challenges and solutions related to engineering the tools of scientific discovery and exploration 6. Module - Impact of engineering solutions o Societal impact of technology frameworks · 7. Module - How can you make an impact? o Realizing the goals for engineering in the 21st century: competencies o Taking action · 8. Module - Future solutions project o Future solutions project overview o Assignment: needs analysis part 1 o Assignment: needs analysis part 2 o Assignment: developing a solution o Assignment: identifying technology development milestones o Assignment: project poster · 9. Module - Research assignment · 10. Module - Professional portfolio o Professional portfolio o Digital portfolio reflections · 11. Module - Additional resources o Gathering information How the Course Modules are Used in the 7.5-week MOOC The first 7 modules listed above are each covered in a week when they are used in the MOOC that was previously mentioned. Within the MOOC, the Future Solutions project is conducted over the entire duration of the 7.5 week course. It is introduced at the end of week 1 and students work on one project assignment during each of the subsequent weeks. The project poster is submitted at the end of the course. The research assignment listed in the 9th module is introduced at the beginning of week 6 (Module - Impact of engineering solutions) and is submitted at the end of the same week. The digital portfolio mentioned in the Module - Professional portfolio is introduced and set up by students before the start of week 1. They then complete a reflection at the end of each of the theme modules (Modules 2-5) and complete a final reflection and showcase their accomplishments at the end of the course. Link to EM EM is introduced and its importance in tackling the challenges presented is addressed in one of the modules and it is also instilled throughout all other modules. More specifically, these course modules cover the three C's in the following ways. Curiosity Students are encouraged to view the challenges presented as opportunities. There are discussions about stakeholders and target customers, the importance of customer discovery, how to solicit voice of the customers in order to identify specific customer needs, how to organize customer needs and extrapolate customer needs in larger contexts for opportunity identification. These concepts and techniques are practiced in the Future Solutions project. Besides the project, many of the activities and discussions also provide students with opportunities to explore the role the customers play in the development of technologies to address the challenges. One such example is the case study about PlayPumps, which are merry-go-round type devices that pump water as children play on them. The solution was implemented in South African countries without proper sociocultural considerations of the communities and this has led to the failure of the solution. Another example is the You Decide! activity where students are asked to rank nanotechnologies based the importance and usefulness to them and again to their assigned characters. This activity helps students better understand how people's value shapes the development and implementation of technologies. Some of these activities also help students explore a contrarian view of accepted solutions, by critically considering the many non-technical challenges that these solutions might face during their development and implementation and possible negative impact they could have on society from multiple perspectives. Examples of these challenges include economic barriers, public opinion, ethical concerns, to name a few. And social relationships, economics, politics, environment, are among some of the examples of ways these technologies might impact society negativelyConnections Throughout the modules, an interdisciplinary systems approach is emphasized as students explore the challenges and consider potential technological solutions that address them. Students are encouraged to view technologies as part of larger systems, and consider both technical elements and non-technical elements that interact with these technologies. Students are encouraged to consider and make connections between technologies and aspects of society including people and different organizations, economics, politics, ethics, environment, culture, and human behavior, and integrate information from these multiple perspectives as they develop technologies. Students practice this in their Future Solutions projects as well as many activities and discussions. Some example activities that help students make connections include the Climate Policy activity, the Energy Economics activity, the National Security Role Play activity, and the Advanced Technology Mind Map activity, etc.. For example, in the Climate Policy activity, students make connections between technologies and public policy to help them understand the role public policy plays in the diffusion of innovations. The Energy Economics game provides students with an opportunity to make connections between various factors including tariffs, tax credit, political conflicts, weather events, infrastructure degradation, technology advancements, and the success of various technologies in the energy market. In the National Security Role Play activity, students play the role of a governor who makes a series of decisions about the actions they would take in response to a security threat affecting multiple states. As students make decisions, they factor in interactions and connections between engineers, businesses, local, state, and national government, humanitarian aid organizations, media, citizens, and others that are necessary not only to detect and mitigate the current threat situation but also to prevent possible future threats. The Advanced Technology Mind Map activity asks students to critically consider the implication of the development and implementation of an advanced technology and use a mind map to show its connection and interaction with various aspects of society. Besides making connections between technology and various aspects of society, students also make connections between the themes introduced in the modules, including sustainability, health, security, and joy of living, recognizing that many of the challenges are related to more than one theme area and thus efforts from multiple disciplines must be integrated in addressing them. Creating Value These course modules emphasize the importance of considering the impact of technologies on society from multiple perspectives, including sociocultural, economic, environmental, global, political, etc., and introduces multiple frameworks that help students analyze/predict the societal impact of technologies. Students consider and articulate the value proposition of their Future Solutions project and identify multiple ways their future technology would create value for their stakeholders, target customers, and society. In the Research Assignment, students also analyze the potential societal impact of examples of current research efforts that address challenges within a theme area they are most passionate about from multiple perspectives.ASEE Papers about this workThe paper that discusses the design and development of the course modules and insights gained from the initial offering of the MOOC was presented in the F341A Multidisciplinary Learning Experiences Session at the 2020 ASEE Annual Conference. An additional paper assessing the use and effectiveness of these open access course modules shared with faculty via an online platform was presented at the 2021 ASEE Virtual Annual Conference. These papers can be found in the folders section of this card. What is Included in this Card Included in the folders below is the link to the Course Modules description page (enrollment instructions are found on this page) and two ASEE papers that describe the design, development, and initial offering of the MOOC in which these course modules are currently used at ASU, and the use and effectiveness of the open access course modules available on the online platform. Connection to other work These course modules were developed by faculty and staff at ASU as part of a GCSP "Toolkit" to benefit students at other institutions as well as ASU. Other opportunities and resources developed as a part of this toolkit include a Grand Challenges focused Speaker Series, a three week project-based Entrepreneurial Experience for undergraduate students in GCSP, and Industry workshop(s) focused on understanding and communicating the value of entrepreneurially minded GCSP students in addressing challenges faced by Industry. See Related Cards sections for links to cards about the toolkit and its components.

A first-year engineering course at the University of New Haven was redesigned to add the benefits of learning in the makerspace into an existing design and customer-awareness term project. This card focuses on the specific training materials used to introduce students to the makerspace equipment at a first-year student level. Three 100-minute class periods were used, with one of the following technologies introduced during each class period alongside EM objectives: 3D Printer -> Rapid Prototyping for Risk ManagementArduino -> Resiliency and Learning from FailureLaser Cutter + Hand Tools -> Exploring Creativity and AssumptionsThe 3D-Printing class introduces the history of the technology, pros/cons of using 3D printers, and then walks through an introduction to Inventor. Students pass-around example of 3D printed success and failures for various design features, and discuss how rapid prototyping can minimize risk and cost for a project to quickly enable stakeholder feedback. The class period ends with students learning how to transfer a design to a 3D printable file for the Makerbot printers available on our campus, and the faculty member beginning a print of a design. The Arduino class starts with a brief overview of microprocessor technology and basic coding structures, but the bulk of a class is a hands-on 3-part lab in which students use the Arduino to code various LED light patterns, buttons, and a photoresistor. Students practice developing resiliency to failure as the guidelines are intentionally vague and students often ask multiple questions to prompt just-in-time logic pedagogy and teamwork development as they try to accomplish the tasks as a team. The lasercutter + hand tools class introduces the idea of rapid prototypes with cheap materials by asking students to create a ring-toss game. Left to their imaginations with only 5 minutes, students often reach for a popsicle stick to mount upright and a pipecleaner to bend into a circle. After first creating with craft supplies and discussing various design decisions made (what size rings? how many poles? any game rules? why horizontal and not vertical?), students are taught how to use hand-tools to create a more-refined prototype out of wood. The class ends by introducing the science and pros/cons of laser-cutting, specifically highlighting how the technology could be used if they wanted to mass-produce or engrave designs on their prototypes. This card includes the materials for each makerspace classroom training, including the powerpoint slides and lesson plans, as well as various hand-outs that may be useful to your students as they work with makerspace technologies.The partner-card focusing on the EM-infused makerspace project itself (designing a customer-focused prototype of a puzzle with makerspace technology) is available at #DIY Puzzle: Makerspace Technology for Rapid Prototyping, available here.

Summary: This activity is designed for capstone and other in-depth design classes where students tend to jump in to building projects which don’t create meaningful value for their client. This activity outlines how to have students develop hypotheses about how their project will create value, then interview users and clients, using the data they collect to test and refine their value propositions. While this activity works amazingly well to get students to think divergently about projects, and even pivot the direction they are pursuing, doing it well is quite time consuming so it is really only appropriate for long-term projects such as those found in capstone design courses.Background: Studies of how most students (who are novice designers) approach design finds they tend to want to jump in to building something, even if what they want to build doesn’t really meet the needs of their client or create lasting value. This activity is designed to interfere with this “design freezing” mindset and is appropriate for capstone and other longer-term design projects where students want to jump right into building a design project without first understanding how their work will create value for the client. Rather than a pre-packaged method, complete with exercises to hand out the goal of this card is give you some ideas to address how to to get teams to focus more explicitly on creating value. Please modify or adapt these materials to suit your needs.Caution: If your course has teams create products to tight specifications dictated by a client, this method may not be suitable. Rather it is appropriate in the case that a client has blinders on due to the fact that they are deeply embedded in the problem space or looks at a project through the lens of their own experience. Duration & Approach: This long-term (4-8 week) activity is designed to help student design teams explore a project idea from multiple perspectives before investing time, energy, and resources in creating a solution. To create value in a design project, students should be able to think divergently and thoroughly explore the problem space before they can begin to converge on a design that creates value. The issue that often arises is that students lack the experience to really understand the boundaries of the design space in which they will work. Since many students have little real-world experience a key aspect of design is to see a project from others’ perspectives. The approach outlined here has student teams identify project stakeholders then go into the community and conduct interviews to explore how the project they will eventually build creates value for various users. This approach is adapted from Steve Blank’s lean startup model.To understand how their project addresses (or fails to address) stakeholder needs, students first create a handwritten representation of their project called a stakeholder-feature model. This diagram has a team hypothesize what features will create value and which stakeholders the features will have value for. Using this diagram students use a semi-structured interview protocol to identify and test the (often unstated) hypotheses that are built in to the stakeholder-feature model. Students pair up to conduct interviews with potential stakeholders, and use the interview data to refine their model and identify how their project does or does not create value for their identified stakeholder.Benefits & Resources: The benefit to this approach is that students create hypotheses about how their project creates value and then test these hypotheses by interact directly from users of their design. The hypotheses are initially derived from the stakeholder-feature diagram but as students conduct interviews new hypotheses should emerge. The evidence they gather has been very effective in getting students to “unfreeze” their design thinking and pivot the direction of their project. Since this experience is uncommon in undergraduate engineering courses it also helps distinguish graduates. The largest drawback is that each interview is conducted by two students and takes about an hour on average, not including the time needed to find and contact interviewees. Thus there is a significant opportunity cost in terms of time in the course. While it is not focused on explicitly in this exercise, much of the information students will discover exists independently and could be discovered through reports by market research firms. Other information is in the broader literature and students who have strong research skills may be able to forego some of the interviews. In the author’s experience, however, while time effective library research is not as effective as talking to people. Note also that some programs may envision their graduates working in established firms where customer discovery is not as important. In this case the skills developed in discovering value in order to create it may not be seen as important and this exercise not have a workable cost-benefit ratio in terms of student time commitment.

This is a learning module for an introductory transportation engineering course for junior-level civil engineering students. The topic of this learning module is the timing of a signalized intersection, more specifically, how the duration of the yellow interval is calculated. Through storytelling, class discussion, and an individual research project, students analyze the theories and assumptions (together with their implications) behind the yellow duration calculation, investigate contrarian proposals to current practice, and explore additional possible solutions.Module OverviewThis learning module includes lectures, homework, and an individual research project. The materials are available in the Folder's section. In the description below, connections will be made to the Entrepreneurial Mindset (The 3C's) and the Engineering Skill Set through color-coded inline comments wherever applicable. References to files are marked with square bracket [ ].Lectures A technical lecture on dilemma zone concepts and the yellow interval formula published by the Institute for Transportation Engineers (ITE) is first delivered to students through LIVE (face-to-face or remote) instruction at the beginning of the module. The lecture features 1) storytelling of personal encounters of running the yellow light {CURIOSITY}, 2) guided discussions on relevant formulas {DESIGN}, and 3) stage-setting for the research project {CURIOSITY}. Please see the notes in the [Slides] file for lecture tips. The background story (multiple [Background] articles) of the research project can be found in folder "Research Project". A prerequisite concept of this lecture is the Stopping Sight Distance calculation. This lecture generally takes about 30 - 45 minutes.A second lecture on EM is delivered after students have submitted a draft of their research paper. The purpose of this lecture is to introduce EM concepts and EM@FSE indicators (see Assessing EM below), and to walk students through the assessment rubric of the research project. The [Poster] of KEEN Framework is used for this lecture. This lecture generally takes about 30 - 45 minutes.HomeworkThe homework is designed for students to apply the concepts and formulae introduced in the first lecture to solve transportation engineering problems related to yellow interval and dilemma zone in a simplified setting {DESIGN}. A sample problem is provided in [Homework].Research ProjectThe goal of this project is to further examine the theories and the calculation of yellow interval, to develop a deeper understanding of the assumptions employed, and to explore possible modifications. Students are asked to explore a few recent [Reference] articles challenging the ITE yellow interval formula {CONNECTION}, and write a report explaining the theories and assumptions behind the formula {CURIOSITY}{CONNECTION} and exploring possible modifications {OPPORTUNITY}{DESIGN}. The [Project Description] explains learning objectives, provides a general structure for the student report, and lays out all deliverables and the required elements. Assessing EMAs part of the KEEN efforts in the Fulton Schools of Engineering (FSE) at Arizona State University (ASU), the [EM@FSE Indicators] are adopted to assess EM outcomes. A more detailed explanation of these EM@FSE indicators and how they relate to [ABET+EM@FSE Outcomes] can be found in [EM@FSE Indicators Explained].Following the EM@FSE indicators, two sets of [Grading Rubric] for the research project are developed (see folder "Research Project"). The first set is for the research paper (both the draft and the final submission) itself. This set of rubrics include four categories: general report writing, synthesizing technical information {CONNECTION}, exploration of different ideas {CURIOSITY}{CONNECTION}{DESIGN}{OPPORTUNITY}, and addressing feedback. The second set is for the peer review report. It should be noted that students are asked to comment on other students' proposed solutions as part of the peer review. The peer review rubric specifically asks students to suspend initial judgement of new ideas, and to provide meaningful and constructive feedback to help the student author revise and improve her arguments for her proposed ideas {CURIOSITY}{CONNECTION}{DESIGN}{OPPORTUNITY}.It should also be noted that the language of the the grading rubrics are customized for this course. Comments are left in the rubric documents, referencing to the [EM@FSE Indicators].

Showing engineering students the significance and utility of bio-inspired (or biomimicry) design is easy, but teaching them how to do bio-inspired design is much more difficult. When not scaffolded, students tend to create bio-inspired concepts that are pure science fiction or closely resemble biological imitation, meaning the concepts look or act like the biological system observable characteristics. This card shares an instructional technique for teaching bio-inspired design to engineering students based on the concept-knowledge (C-K) theory of design that scaffolds the discovery and knowledge transfer processes involved in using natural designs to inspire engineering solutions. The hallmark of this technique is the BID canvas (formerly called the C-K map template) that visually structures the thought processes or mindset of bio-inspired design. We have found conclusive evidence of learning impact of design theory based bio-inspired design pedagogy. It has been shown with statistical significance to help students create bio-inspired concepts that are of higher quality than other methods as published in the ASEE 2019 manuscript linked below. With scaffolding, students tend to successfully abstract biological system principles to create concepts that more closely resemble biological inspiration, meaning learning from nature to innovate rather than copying, that are also feasible. This technique has been successfully integrated within a second-year engineering design course, but could be adapted to a capstone design course or an engineering science course with a project. Materials: The Instructional Resource folder contains the complete set of documents needed to adopt this technique for teaching bio-inspired design. They are the following: - A 100 min. lecture (could be split into two 50 min. lectures) in 3 file formats that includes two learning activities - A blank BID canvas and instructions for filling it in - A partially filled in BID canvas for the Flectofin example - A rubric for evaluating BID canvases - An example assignment- Four student work examplesThe Papers / Posters folder contains multiple published manuscripts on our C-K based approach. Context: This technique is used in a second-year engineering design course. These students are in the first semester of the engineering design sequence of the curriculum and are learning the engineering design process while applying the tools and methods to a course project. The topic of bio-inspired design is taught during the concept generation phase of the design process. All students receive a lecture on bio-inspired design in a single 100 minute class period. The lecture has three parts: (1) design by analogy, (2) fundamentals of bio-inspired design with many examples, and (3) the C-K instructional approach with individual and group active learning activities. All assignments in the course tie to a year-long course project of developing a human powered vehicle for a client in the community that has cerebral palsy, including the bio-inspired design assignment. To integrate bio-inspired design into the human powered vehicle design project, each member of a team applies bio-inspired design to a different sub-system (e.g., propulsion, steering, braking) of their design to showcase a variety of design problems and analogies that enable bio-inspired design. All students complete the BID canvas three times, twice in class as part of learning activities to understand the process of bio-inspired design and again in their assignment to scaffold application to the human powered vehicle.Connections to the KEEN Framework:Curiosity: The process of bio-inspired design requires identification of biological inspiration sources using a search technique or database, intuitive knowledge, or communicating with experts. Once a set of inspiring biological organisms or phenomena are identified, they are studied further to facilitate knowledge transfer to the problem task. Engaging in bio-inspired design evokes reductive curiosity (wanting to know) and situational curiosity. As the process continues, the type of curiosity changes. Analysis of biological systems leads to a deeper understanding of the inspiration sources which can then result in abstractions for analogy mapping. The final step is to generate concepts and select those that can be moved forward to the embodiment phase of the traditional engineering design process. It is in the feedback loop of transfer and apply–investigating a biological inspiration source and applying the learned knowledge by generating new concepts–that the discovery of innovative bio-inspired solutions occurs. These later process steps evoke the epistemic curiosity (asking why) and diverse curiosity (asking what if). Connections: Making connections is a necessity in bio-inspired design. Specifically, the investigation of the intersection of seemingly disparate ideas from biology and a technical domain such as engineering. Incorporating other STEM disciplines into complex engineering problems will create a new context for undergraduate students to apply knowledge that they already have. Most students that go into engineering have high school level training in biology. Adding bio-inspired design into the engineering curriculum encourages students to utilize and build off their prior knowledge, which fosters making connections and recognizing interrelationships across STEM disciplines. Moreover, requiring knowledge transfer across domains as well as organizing that knowledge into logical constructs helps to develop future flexibility and adaptive expertise that will facilitate innovation and efficiency. Having to retrieve and transfer knowledge from domains outside of engineering forces students to adapt to unfamiliar languages and content formats (which addresses non-technical skills) in order to apply the biological information intelligently to engineering problems (which addresses technical skills). C-K theory is known for integrating multiple domains of information and facilitating innovation through connection building. Innovation is the direct result of moving between the two spaces by using the addition of new and existing concepts to expand knowledge, and using knowledge to expand concepts. Knowledge is therefore not restricted to being a solution space, but rather is leveraged to improve understanding of the innovative designs. C-K theory thus provides a framework for a designer to navigate the unknown, to build and test connections between the K and C spaces, and to converge on a solution grounded in theory combined with new knowledge.Creating Value: Bio-inspired design is a disruptive approach to innovation and can lead to the discovery of of non-conventional solutions to problems that are often more efficient, economic and elegant. Biological systems often have solved similar problems in an opposite way to traditional engineering approaches. This allows the identification of unexpected opportunities to create extraordinary value across the engineering landscape.Bio-inspired design touches on many areas of engineering including electrical, mechanical, materials, biomedical, chemical, manufacturing and systems, which makes it applicable in a wide range of engineering programs and courses, from discipline-specific to general ones.

In this semester long project, students design a bridge, dam, and water tower for specific locations. Students comment on the technical, economic, and societal considerations in regards to the various sub-disciplines of civil engineering. Villanova implemented this project in a Mechanics course with 60 students. The project consists of six worksheets; each requiring individual work, group discussion, and instructor facilitation for 25 minutes of class. The bridge design challenges students to create an infrastructure for Philadelphia, and the water tower must store and supply water for a rural village of 500 people in a randomly selected developing country. Student groups are tasked with developing a summary design, construction, and maintenance plan for each infrastructure challenge. This project could be implemented by anyone looking to bring real engineering constraints from the developing world into a Mechanics or Statics course.

This CardDeck links to a variety of innovation challenges developed by Saint Louis University. The goal of the innovation challenges is to promote the entrepreneurial mindset through multiple exposures to innovation process in a competitive, multidisciplinary, team-based, creative environment. Just as everyone is encouraged to exercise everyday to keep the body fit, innovation challenges are designed to keep the mind fit. It’s a mind workout. The Innovation Challenges help participants to exercise their creative side, work in multidisciplinary teams, and experience the team dynamics. They learn to tackle a novel situation under intense competitive time pressure, while networking with others outside their disciplines, and most importantly, fine-tuning their entrepreneurial skills.In this CardDeck, each of the challenges are linked in folders below. At the bottom of this card you will find a link to the entire pdf and ibook that features all the challenges in one place.Note: The pdf does not contain rich media like videos and scrolling images. All assets have been uploaded to the individual cards and can be downloaded/viewed.

Are you teaching a first year engineering course, or the engineering design process? Are you looking for an assessment tool for the design process? Do you want to implement 'connections' out of the 3C's in your course? This card describes the use of concept maps as a tool to assess first year students' understanding of the engineering design process in a design-based introduction to engineering course at Arizona State University. It requires students to identify and make connections of various design process related topics and demonstrate their comprehensive understanding of the design process. Even though this card describes the use of the tool in a specific context, i.e., the assessment of engineering design process knowledge, its use can be extended to help students make connections of any other topics within a course, or across curricula, either as an instructional tool or assessment tool. Background Information The engineering design process has become one of the essential topics for first year engineering courses. Many such courses now incorporate design activities for students to practice applying the design process in either simulated or real world situations. The assessment of design process knowledge is usually done through the evaluation of design deliverables, or close or open-ended questions. Traditional assessment methods exhibit many flaws, for example, some of them may not be individual or process based, and others are only connected to lower levels of Bloom's Taxonomy. Concept maps, i.e., graphical node-arc representations that depict relationships among concepts, on the other hand, used as an assessment tool, is open-ended and it requires students to internalize the knowledge, identify key concepts that are relevant, and document relationships between the concepts, demonstrating knowledge of the engineering design process at multiple levels of Bloom’s Taxonomy. Context This tool was utilized in the freshman-level 2-credit 15-week introduction to engineering course taught during the Fall 2019 semester at Arizona State University, three times throughout the semester to study changes in students' understanding of the design process. Each time, students were instructed to create a concept map that demonstrates their understanding of the design process. More specifically, students must identify key phases (steps) of the design process, as well as any relevant information and details related to each phase, including goals, key tasks, strategies and tools involved, and possible outcomes. And they must use a concept map to show connections of different (specific) concepts identified. The first assessment was done at the beginning of the first class period and it was not graded. The goal of the first assessment was to learn about their understanding of the design process before engaging in any course activities. The other two were each done during a 50-min lecture as in-class assessments and both were included in their final course grades. The second one was done during the middle of the semester after the introduction of the design process and completion of a two-week team-based design challenge where students applied the first few phases of the design process to create a conceptual design. While the last assessment was done at the end of the semester after a 10-week large hands-on team-based multidisciplinary systems-design project. In the first folder included below, a description of the course, including its format, outcomes, and a list of weekly topics can be found. In that folder, a link to another card describing the two-week design challenge, and a link to another ASEE paper describing the 10-week design project can also be found. In the second folder below. detailed instructions provided to students for the assessment, along with the grading rubrics can also be found. Outcome Through the analyses of the concept maps generated by students, it was learned that there is no difference in students’ understanding at the start of this course regardless of whether they had prior knowledge and experiences about engineering design or not; and through this course, the two-week design challenge in particular, students’ understanding of the design process in all aspects has greatly improved; and students’ understanding was further improved after the ten-week design challenge in areas of ‘customer involvement throughout the design process’, ‘research/information gathering’, ‘model/analysis’, and the ‘iterative characteristic’ of the design process.The concept maps generated by students were also categorized based on their complexity and the inter-connectedness of concepts included. It was learned that at the end of the course, 83% students were able to successfully make connections of various engineering design process concepts introduced during the semester. In the third folder included below, four examples of concept maps generated by students can be found. Link to EMConnections Throughout the semester, many specific concepts and tools are introduced that are related to the engineering design process. Students should not leave the course with many small pieces of information, without having a complete picture of how they relate to each other. This tool provides an excellent opportunity for students to think deeply about how the specific concepts are related to each other, through the construction of a complete picture around a central topic. For example, 'design criteria' is one of the concepts introduced in the course about the design process. Instead of just knowing that 'design criteria need to be identified' in the design process, this tool requires students to think about what specific goals, tasks, and outcomes in the design process are related to 'design criteria', and when does the 'design criteria' matter. For example, it can be connected to the 'define the problem', 'brainstorm', 'evaluate design options', 'test design' phases in the design process as well as other specific topics including 'customer wants', 'AHP (Analytic Hierarchy Process)', 'decision matrix', 'test procedure', etc. There is also an important connection between 'design criteria' and 'customer'. Through this example, it can been seen that this tool helps facilitate the development of connected thinking. ASEE Paper The paper that is the focus of this card was presented in the Best of First Year Programs: Best Paper Session at the 2019 ASEE Annual Conference. The paper can be viewed at: https://www.asee.org/public/conferences/140/papers/27035/view. It is also included as a link under the folders section of this card.Materials Included In the folder, the following documents are included:- course information including weekly topics - slide that shows the engineering design process introduced in the course - link to the card describing the team-based design challenge - link to the 2018 ASEE paper that describes the team-based multidisciplinary systems design project - assessment instructions- assessment rubrics - example student work

This activity encourages students to find a close contact in their world who would benefit from assistive technology. Grandparents, a parent with a physical condition or someone that they know living with a disability make good clients. The idea is that the student feels close enough to reach out personally for an interview and have in depth discussions about the person's particular needs and desires in a device that would assist them with activities of daily living. The student works over a series of interviews to determine: What the problem is and current problems with available technologyWays an engineering solution could help improve their activities of daily livingIterate design by seeking feedback and constructive criticism on design ideas Who: This is for any class teaching students about customer discovery or product development. What: In the first phase of interviews students work one-on-one with their client to develop an empathy map to better understand the client's unique needs and desires. They determine the specific pain points and the Jobs to be Done by the device they hope to design. In the second phase of this project, students work in virtual classrooms via Zoom breakout rooms to get feedback from local nurses, occupational therapists, physical therapists and people with work experience helping their clientele. They use this feedback from the professionals to refine their ideas. If the class schedule allows, students can continue progress on the project by executing one of three things: Iterate and refine their ideas and complete a final design sketch (conclusion of this card)Develop a CAD model of the prototype and present this to client/working professionals: CADRapid prototype their final design using low-cost materials: Prototyping BONUS: Also included is a participatory design activity (see .PPT below) where students worked in teams of 3-4 to practice coming up with interview questions for specific clients that were assigned to them. This activity was done in Zoom breakout rooms with a 10 minute report out at the end of the class. Timeline of the Module: In-Class: Have students compile interview questions, in class activity or a Google Slides participatory design activity (30 minutes)Week 2: Students conduct 1st set of interviews of their client to determine basic user needsHomework #1: Have students complete the empathy map and write a job story for their clientIn-class: Have students create an engineering sketch on plain white paper, share designs with classmates and explain features/functions (30 minutes)Homework #2: Share design with client and talk about improvements likes/don't like about initial designIn-class: Have students complete another iteration of design (15 minutes)In-class: Share with clinical professionals using Zoom and breakout rooms, 1 professional per group of 4 engineers to practice discussing design ideas and getting feedback (60 minute class period)Homework #3: Get feedback from client, write a reflection on feedback and their experience in the end-user focused design process with a final sketch presented in the writing sample

This module introduces students to customer discovery principles and gathering requirements of an engineering project. Here, the entrepreneurial mindset is developed by learning about the importance of having curiosity about the problem you're trying to solve as well as discovering the needs and making connections to the greater context of your customers situation. In this module these skills are developed through introductory online lecture content, a follow-up quiz, and in-class value identification and customer active learning activities.The customer discovery skills are then practiced through completion of a requirements document assignment focused on developing customer archetypes, customer needs, and initial tasks for a project. This module is typically used during the first quarter of a course, at the very beginning of a senior capstone project with an outside project sponsor. There is 1 week of pre-work online lecture, 1 in-class period, and one homework assignment. All of these are spread over about 3 weeks. This module could be adapted for larger scale project based courses at any level. It is primarily designed for on-ground but could easily be adapted for online delivery.

Students have difficulty making the connection between probability distributions and how they can be used to represent actual data. This activity is created to allow students to use their knowledge of sampling strategies to collect screen time data from cell phones for a specifically defined population and to use Minitab software to make predictions about the population. This activity is an opportunity to introduce students to several aspects of Minitab functionality. The students must first use Minitab to determine how much data they require. Once they acquire the data, they use the Graphical Summary in Minitab to review the data collected both graphically and numerically. If the data cannot be assumed to be normally distributed, the students use Minitab to find a better fitting probability distribution. Students then use the parameters of the proposed distribution to find the percentages of the population expected to fall in usage rate classifications such as less than 30 minutes per day or more than 3 hours per day.As a final task, students estimate the cost of their cell phone usage considering the tuition they pay.

What if every engineering graduate approached their work by focusing first on CREATING VALUE? Engineering solutions would inherently become more impactful to the beneficiaries, presumably collections of individuals, customers, citizens, and society as a whole. What if CREATING VALUE became a graduate's mental habit, part of their perceived locus of control, and an instinctual driver? Indeed, that's the aspirational goal of partner institutions in KEEN.This card is about understanding CREATING VALUE in depth and within the context of an entrepreneurial mindset. The KEEN Framework provides a starting point for two student outcomes related to creating value. Students should:Identify unexpected opportunities to create extraordinary value,Persist through and learn from failure. Alternately, the CREATING VALUE outcomes might be phrased as questions. Students achieving these outcomes will ask:"Do my solutions merely solve an apparent problem, missing an opportunity?""What solutions would be most valuable? In other words, how is 'value' contextualized? To whom, and does my solution satisfy a long-term need?""What can I learn from my setbacks and mistakes? What should I have done differently? What will I do differently next time?"Because the term "creating value" has such broad meaning, this list is not intended to provide a complete definition. Rather, within KEEN, the following forms a "starter set" for creating-value-related outcomes.To reach these outcomes, design exercises so that students:Become observers of unmet needs, empathetic ethnographersHabitually reframe problems as opportunitiesAsk questions that reveal authentic demandDevelop archetype users of engineering solutionsOffer solutions to problems, testing novel ideas with others to obtain formative feedbackCreate value from underutilized resourcesExtend existing solutions to new situations If habitually creating value is going to become part of a mindset, part of a disposition, then the goal of educational interventions is to create mental habits, akin to mental muscle-memory, that has an inclination to identify the value proposition of proposed work.To dive deeper, here's a sampling of directions that you might take CREATING VALUE:For Your Toolbox: A Process That Helps Establish a Mindset to First Focus on Creating ValueThe practice of specific skills can help establish a mindset, and a mindsets shapes the potential application of those skills. As heard recently "We don’t think ourselves into a new way of acting, we act ourselves into a new way of thinking." In the card titled Creating Value Means Going Beyond Problem Solving, author Bill Kline offers a tool that gets students thinking about features of a product or system, and about stakeholders, even unexpected ones. The process leads to a comparison of the features in terms of value, i.e. preferred by stakeholders. The process start focuses students on the essential ideas and conversations. With practice, the ideas are likely to become integral to the way engineers think about their role as an engineer, part of a mindset.Action Required: Creating and Delivering ValueWhen interviewed about her writing, the late, wise-cracking American detective author, Sue Grafton, offered a truism that equally applies to entrepreneurial thinking. She said, "Ideas are easy. It's the execution of ideas that really separates the sheep from the goats." In other words, actual value creation implies complete follow through, including execution of a process to deliver value. You might want to explore this idea in through a chapter of The Coming Jobs War by the CEO of Gallup organization, Jim Clifton. The author's opinions on the topic of delivering value are captured in the chapter controversially titled "Why Entrepreneurs Matter More Than Innovators." An Interesting Classroom Conversation: The Meaning of "Value"You can't talk very long or very deeply about "creating value," without addressing what "value" means. One definition is the ratio of benefits to sacrifice (in dollar, time, effort, etc.) But who determines benefits? Embracing the discussion leads to a rich discussion of perspectives, some conflicting or in tension. If you decide to lead a discussion about value, try highlighting at least two perspectives an let students explore that tension. Here are a few suggested questions to kick off the conversation with students:Extrinsic Value: A Market-based DeterminationQ: How do you determine what is valuable to others? Is value based upon what someone is willing to pay?Q: More specifically, how could we determine the value of things that are less utilitarian, say art and culture? Is the value of a work of art only based upon what the market will bear?Q: More pointedly, is the determination of value solely the purview of the customer (stakeholder, market)?Q: What are the benefits and drawback of a market-based view of value?Intrinsic Value: From The Heart of Ethics and PhilosophyYour students might enjoy a discussion that has caused debate among philosophers for millennia. What has intrinsic value? It's an important question for engineers, especially as they emphasize creating value, were the determination of value involves judgment about what is good. Student discussions are likely most valuable when they afford the opportunity to introduce philosophy, ethics and research data.Q: As professionals, we are constantly making decisions about our engineering solutions. How do we decide what is good for an individual? Good for society?Q: Since antiquity, people have offered the ingredients for human flourishing and well-being. Recent examples include the Subjective Well Being indicator, the Gallup organization's measurement of five elements of well-being, and the area of research dubbed "Happiness Economics." Let's try to assess the impact on well-being to our particular topic in engineering. When thinking about the value of our work on [e.g. wireless communications] , would you discuss how it is connected to human flourishing and well-being?Perception is Quirky: Value in Behavioral EconomicsBehavioral economics differs from traditional economic theory by introducing the human element of economic decision making. Economic decisions are not entirely based upon a traditional utilitarian value, but rather, are influenced by identifiable psychological behaviors, often associated with a contextualized relative perception of value. Behavioral economists suggest that people employ a mental-computational engine that's constantly performing a rough estimate of the return-on-investment for a large majority of daily decisions for routine and non-routine situations. The results are routinely skewed based on context and biases. It's quirky and whether illogical or not, influences value (of the extrinsic type described above).See the folders below for the following:(more coming soon)An expanded description of the creating-value-related outcomesResearch references and perspectives on creating valueOne short example of "creating value" in curriculumA collection of websites and other cards that you can use to promote "creating value" within your educational goals