53 Matching Results
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.
CARD
By Scott Hummel, Scott Hummel Susan Boerchers Susan Boerchers
Lafayette’s Meta Mindset provides a graphical construct and heuristic model for the process of entrepreneurial thinking. The Mindset highlights the (often lonely and even frightening) journey common to all entrepreneurial endeavors to create new social or commercial value. This journey is fueled by curiosity, is always iterative, requires management of a wide range of risks, encourages collaboration, and is never a “sure win.” Lafayette’s Meta Mindset invites faculty to deliberately create opportunities for students to practice this journey: building skills to recognize opportunities, managing risks, seeking effective collaborators, and understanding the intrinsic and extrinsic value of thinking like an entrepreneur. Practicing the entrepreneurial journey is scalable - from individual assignments, projects, and courses to lifelong endeavors. Continually practicing the journey empowers students to connect their personal development to a broad, entrepreneurial mindset. These experiences encourage students to engage their curiosity, move beyond fear of failure, and create value from unexpected opportunities. Meta Mindset offers a way for students to use each learning experience, no matter the scale, scope or subject matter, to prepare for larger challenges and opportunities they will face in their own lives by using each experience to refine their own abilities to think entrepreneurially. What does the journey look like? The Meta Mindset begins with an inspiration - the belief that something is possible, despite having not been previously achieved. Certainly, a person who is inspired to try to create something new has to consider the limits of their understanding of the challenge. To transform an inspiration into value creation, a disciplined process is necessary with the intent of discovery and taking deliberate risks. Creativity, collaboration, and a range of skills are critical in developing solutions and overcoming challenges in the creative process. The Meta Mindset contextualizes how these elements interact and shows that value creation is not just measured extrinsically, but also intrinsically. The concept of intrinsic value in the absence of extrinsic value is well appreciated by creative individuals who recognize the benefit of learning from failure. The mindset highlights any entrepreneurial process - from developing new ideas for strengthening society to product innovation. The Mindset is equally applicable to an individual as it is to a complex organization - from a local non-profit to a multi-national corporation. Indeed, some organizations and corporations are known for their innovation. The disposition, behaviors, and motivation of these organizations may well be represented by the approach depicted by Meta Mindset where curiosity is the fuel that ultimately delivers value. What we are excited about at LafayetteThe Meta Mindset has the potential to change the way both students and faculty members view education. Imbuing this kind of mindset cannot be achieved by simply describing the process in a classroom. An “immersion” is necessary for students to experience the journey alongside their professors and the College at large. Each encounter with the journey, no matter the context, reinforces the applicability of the process and has intrinsic value that becomes, simply, how we approach our lives.
EXEMPLAR CARD
By Cheryl Bodnar, Cheryl Bodnar Cory Hixson Cory Hixson
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.
CARD
By Brent Sebold, Brent Sebold David Howell, David Howell John Lovitt, John Lovitt Michael Johnson, Michael Johnson Nassif Rayess, Nassif Rayess plus 1 more
KEEN Talks are short talks (about 10 minutes) focused on action, impact, and a personal story. For context, think TED Talks geared for KEEN and entrepreneurially minded learning. The talks will be delivered by Brent Sebold (ASU), Nassif Rayess (Detroit Mercy), David Howell (MSOE), and John Lovitt (Wichita State). At the conclusion of the talks, Patsy Brackin (RHIT) will moderating a panel discussion and live Q&A with the speakers.
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 engineering entrepreneurship 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 entrepreneurship 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.
CARD
By Kimberly Demoret Kimberly Demoret
A lecture and assignment describes the entrepreneurial mindset and other issues to consider when defining capstone topics. "Connections" are discussed in the context of Steven Johnson's book, "Where Good Ideas Come From: The Natural History of Innovation". Students must write an assignment that references the Strategyzer value proposition canvas. Several relevant videos are in the slides and folder below.These materials were used in the Aerospace Capstone Design program, where some projects are defined by students.
CARD
By Alexia Leonard, Alexia Leonard Deborah Grzybowski, Deborah Grzybowski Denver Tang, Denver Tang kai zhao kai zhao
"Curiosity is a function of overcoming fear. Fear of being wrong. Fear of being right. Fear of being different. If you don’t have the guts to think about bad ideas, you’ll never have the opportunity to execute brilliant ones." UnknownWe know EML is about more than one thing (there are at least three Cs). For teachers striving to help student make progress in more than one aspect of EML, how do we assess these multiple aspects? In other words, how do we decide what to measure, what tools are available, and how do we go about using various tools to generate meaningful assessment results? This card shares the assessment of curiosity using the 5-Dimensional Curiosity Scale (Kashdan, et al., 2018) and practical lessons learned which is part of a larger study of EML integrated curriculum. We learned these lessons through developing and implementing a comprehensive plan to assess EML in a first-year engineering course at The Ohio State University.BACKGROUNDOur 20-month project seeks to integrate EML in ENGR 1182, the second course in a two-semester Fundamentals of Engineering sequence. At Ohio State all incoming freshman engineering students must take a common first-year sequence through the Department of Engineering Education. The course is offered in multiple sections, and each section has a capacity of 72 students. For our assessment, we collected data from 8 sections that implemented the newly developed EML curriculum and 8 sections taught in the traditional fashion. We have the following purposes for the assessment:1. To assess students' entrepreneurial mindset and attainment of EM related learning objectives.2. To assess and compare traditional first-year engineering learning in the EML sections and the traditional sections.3. To evaluate the outcomes of integrating EML into a first year engineering course.This card is part of a sequence of cards developed to share the overall study, outcomes, and lessons learned. The main card with the overall study plan can be found here. We used the Five-Dimensional Curiosity Scale (Kashdan, et al., 2018) to measure students’ curiosity in the pre- and post-survey. The Scale comprises 25 items that can be categorized into five dimensions: joyous exploration, deprivation sensitivity, social tolerance, social curiosity, and thrill seeking. We also report on Connections, Creating Value, and Content Knowledge in the course of this study.CONCLUSIONSThis work models ways that students in large courses can engage in real-world problems at scale without compromising technical proficiency and diversity of student experiences. Based on the results presented in the summary attached below (3Cs-5DC&ContentKnowledge&Connections&CreatingValue_Summary.pdf), we have found evidence to suggest that the integration of EML concepts into a first-year engineering course significantly improved student performance with respect to technical learning objectives, increased willingness to take risks, and increased social curiosity (as measured by Kashdans’ 5 Dimensions of Curiosity instrument)– all while creating aptitude in EML-related competencies of creating connections and creating value. The increase in technical learning for the EML version of the course (ITS), was especially surprising given the short exposure time these students had to working directly with the Arduino microcontroller.
CARD
By Meg West, Meg West Rachel Kajfez Rachel Kajfez
With this work, we aimed to assess student development of an entrepreneurial mindset using the 3Cs (creating value, curiosity, and connections) individually. To do this, we assess each of the 3Cs directly and indirectly. This card is a presentation of the direct assessment of creating value we have created. In the future, we will provide links to other cards that present the other 3Cs assessments as needed. The Assessment The creating value direct assessment consists of a prompt and a rubric. The prompt asks students to do the following: Brainstorm and identify a communication platform to be used by an engineering teamIdentify value categories (e.g. economic, social, environmental, etc.)Identify stakeholders (e.g. engineering team, communication platform owners, etc.)Identify the value for each stakeholder in each corresponding value category Students are asked to complete each step individually using the provided Excel spreadsheet. Steps 2 through 4 are completed within a matrix format, see the example below. The rubric assesses student ability to complete each component of the prompt (steps 1 through 4) on a 4-point mastery scale (accomplished – 3, emerging – 2, developing – 1, inadequate – 0). Each component of the prompt is mapped to the EM learning outcomes creating by The Ohio State University (see Learning Objectives section below). Use Of Assessment This assessment is used to track students' ability to create value over time. We will implement the assessment in both first-year design courses and capstone courses at our institution. This will allow us to track progress longitudinally and will give us insights into the effectiveness of EML integration into these courses. We have also integrated this assessment into TA training to gauge and develop their understanding of creating value before entering the classroom to aid students in EML activities.
EXEMPLAR CARD
By Cheryl Li, Cheryl Li Jean Nocito Gobel, Jean Nocito Gobel Maria-Isabel Carnasciali, Maria-Isabel Carnasciali Nadiye Erdil, Nadiye Erdil Ronald Harichandran Ronald Harichandran
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.
CARD
By Jessica Kuczenski, Jessica Kuczenski Michael Johnson Michael Johnson
We will be capturing all cards related to Design in Engineering Education Division presentations at the 2020 ASEE Virtual Conference using this CardDeck.  Scroll down to the folders below to view all the links.  To add your card to this deck, please comment at the bottom of this card and link to your card by typing # and then entering in the title of your card. As an example, if your card is called "My Best ASEE Card" then please comment below with #My Best ASEE Card. Jes Kuczenski has already tagged one of his personal cards as an example.
CARD
By Jason Forsyth, Jason Forsyth Michael Johnson Michael Johnson
We will be capturing all cards related to Entrepreneurship & Engineering Innovation Division presentations at the 2020 ASEE Virtual Conference using this CardDeck. Scroll down to the folders below to view all the links. To add your card to this deck, please comment at the bottom of this card and link to your card by typing # and then entering the title of your card. As an example, if your card is called "My Best ASEE Card" then please comment below with #My Best ASEE Card. Jason Forsyth has already tagged one of his personal cards as an example.
EXEMPLAR CARD
By Cheryl Bodnar, Cheryl Bodnar Elise Barrella Elise Barrella
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.
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 Admission (EA) program, 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 National Academy of Engineering's (NAE) Grand Challenges Scholars Program (GCSP) at ASU 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 Paper The 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. The paper 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 the ASEE paper that describes the design, development, and initial offering of the MOOC in which these course modules are currently used at ASU.
EXEMPLAR CARD
By Brittany Nelson-Cheeseman, Brittany Nelson-Cheeseman Deborah Besser, Deborah Besser Doug Dunston, Doug Dunston Kundan Nepal Kundan Nepal
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.
EXEMPLAR CARD
By Stephanie Gillespie Stephanie Gillespie
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.
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].
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.
EXEMPLAR CARD
By David Dinehart David Dinehart
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.
CARD
By Michael Johnson, Michael Johnson Thor Misko Thor Misko
Trying to share something from ASEE or are entering a card into the ASEE Best Card Competition? Use this card as a guide.Start by writing for other faculty. Why should they care? What is the big idea or concept that you are sharing? Next, share how this card connects to entrepreneurial mindset. You can check boxes related to the 3C's of entrepreneurial mindset (curiosity, connections, and creating value) within your card, but adding this to the description allows you to elaborate on how you are instilling this mindset. After that, provide details of your paper or poster. Do you have a session description? Is there other supplemental context that others should know? (look at the example cards linked below for how others have done this)That leads to the final tip: tease out resources that are linked below by referencing them within the description. This gives other faculty an incentive to scroll down and download the resources you are sharing. The evaluation rubric is linked below.Here are the details for the 2020 ASEE Best Card Competition:ASEE Best Card Competition sponsored by Engineering UnleashedWin $500, a trophy, recognition in ASEE Prism, and promotion of your resources to more than 10,000 engineering faculty, department heads, and deans. This exclusive opportunity is open to those presenting posters or papers at ASEE's Virtual Conference. This national competition will take approximately one hour to enter and allows you to share relevant resources with a broad community of faculty on EngineeringUnleashed.com. Here’s how to participate: Log in to EngineeringUnleashed.com Publish your entry as a card Include your session title, a link to your paper/poster, and any other supplemental resources you want to share on the card. (Use this card as a guide)Share your card on the 2020 ASEE Best Card Competition Forum on or before June 30, 2020 All cards submitted will be reviewed by the awards committee, and winners will be announced on August 14. Cards will be reviewed using this rubric. One grand-prize winner will receive $500 and a trophy. Two honorable mentions will receive $250 and a plaque. All three will be highlighted in an issue of ASEE Prism and promoted to the entire EngineeringUnleashed.com community. Comment below with any questions.
CARD
By Michael Johnson Michael Johnson
I created this card to categorize and link to KEEN'zine articles that highlight specific elements of each of the 3C's. Articles may show up in multiple folders, so keep an eye out for that as you click through and read. Please use the comment section below to ask any questions that come up when reading the articles. Also, if I missed tagging an article, please comment and let me know through the comments. Happy reading!