• Lectures
  1. 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.
  2. 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.

• Homework
  The 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 Project
  The 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 EM

As 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}.

The following EM@FSE indicators are targeted.

a. Critically observes surroundings to recognize opportunity
b. Explores multiple solution paths
c. Gathers data to support and refute ideas
d. Suspends initial judgement on new ideas
g. Applies technical skills/knowledge to the development of a technology/product
h. Modifies an idea/product based on feedback
i. Focuses on understanding the value proposition of a discovery
m. Articulates the idea to diverse audiences
n. Persuades why a discovery adds value from multiple perspectives (technological, societal, financial, environmental, etc.)
q. Integrates/synthesizes different kinds of knowledge

The readers are referred to the folder "Research Project" and the files therein for course / module specific learning objectives.

• Storytelling is a crucial part of the first lecture.  This is often when students get intrigued and start to become curious about the topic.  There will usually be some excellent stories of running yellow lights from students that will still be talked about long after the class has ended.
• The timing of the second lecture can be flexible.  In the author's opinion, it would be more effective to wait until students are halfway into the project to introduce the KEEN framework, if students are new to EM.  Students will be better able to relate the EM concepts to the class activities that they have already performed. To an audience who have been exposed to EM before, then maybe at the beginning of the semester would be a better option to refresh students' memories and to tie in with additional course content / activities that are related to EM.
• Homework problems can also be given as a hands-on in-class activity.
• Peer review is an integral part of the research project.  The peer review process forces students to read and understand the grading rubric, and leads to students reflecting on their own research paper.  This is also where critical thinking starts to pick up.