Suppose you concretely quantified a student's degree of CURIOSITY. How might their learning, their engineering solutions, their career (and life) change if their curiosity were, say, doubled? Certainly, there would be upsides and downsides. Thinking might be less linear, less patterned, perhaps even controversial. But controlled, directed, and productive curiosity is at the root of discovery. The good news is that research shows that CURIOSITY can be increased. Curiosity is invaluable for uncovering essential and unexpected information that shapes engineering solutions to their maximum potential. Indeed, that's the aspirational goal of partner institutions in KEEN.This card is about understanding CURIOSITY in depth and within an entrepreneurial mindset. The KEEN Framework provides a starting point for two student outcomes related to curiosity. Students should:Demonstrate constant curiosity about the changing world around us.Explore a contrarian view of accepted solutions. Turning the CURIOSITY outcomes into questions is also helpful. Students achieving these outcomes will ask: • "What changes affect our future?" • "How can we __________ differently? better?" These are likely elements of an entrepreneurial mindset but they are not intended to be a complete description of curiosity. Rather, within KEEN, these form a "starter set" for curiosity-related outcomes. To reach these outcomes, design exercises so that students: • Investigate trends, • Generate their own questions, • Challenge assumptions, • Investigate areas of their own choosing, • Assume the role of a “futurist,” supporting predictions, • Act on their curiosity, • Consider multiple points of view, • Create a positive atmosphere of constructive criticism, • Offer considered, pertinent feedback to peers and authorities, • Examine data that supports unpopular solutions.If curiosity is going to become part of a mindset, part of a disposition, then the goal of educational interventions is to exercise situational curiosity to increase a student’s dispositional curiosity.To dive deeper, research literature describes characteristics of curiosity itself, including:Epistemic vs. Diversive CuriosityEpistemic curiosity investigates underlying reasons, asking "Why?" while diverse curiosity considers possibilities, asking "What if?". For example, see Berlyne or Litman, et. al. in the research folder.Situational vs. Dispositional CuriositySituational curiosity is generated from surrounding circumstances while dispositional curiosity describes an attitudinal propensity to be curious. For example, see Kashdan and Roberts in the research folder.Reductive vs. Inductive CuriosityReductive curiosity is motivated by "wanting" while inductive curiosity is characterized by "liking" new information. For example, see Litman below.See the folders below for the following:An expanded description of the curiosity-related outcomesResearch references and perspectives on curiosityOne short example of "curiosity" in curriculumA collection of websites and cards that you can use to promote "curiosity" connected to your educational goalsTools for Curiosity

For engineers to succeed in a world with rapidly changing needs and tools, they need a sense of curiosity. Faculty who instill a spirit of curiosity equip students to create extraordinary results.

"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.

Explore what curiosity means with the entrepreneurial mindset, how lives and careers are changed for the better, and more. Use this curated set of cards in your classroom!

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!

Faculty discuss how themes and ideas from "Curious" relate to pedagogy and how to implement activities in the classroom to stimulate the curiosity of our students.

Not sure where to start with entrepreneurially minded learning (EML)? This set of cards (linked below) provides take & go resources that canvass the 3C's - Curiosity, Connections, and Creating Value - as well as Opportunity Recognition. Explore project-based learning (PBL), social and global biases, customer discovery, jigsaw activities, universal design, and more. These techniques can be connected to EML - and you can learn how through the cards below. Included are Exemplar cards that span all 3C's and Opportunity Recognition. There is one Exemplar card for each year to provide further help in using and adapting activities for your students.And there's a bonus card in the last folder: How Analogies Fit in a Framework for Supporting the Entrepreneurial Mindset. If you want to access these resources, please make sure you are logged in or have joined the community.

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.

I knew what I wanted to be: A philanthropist, a leader, an entrepreneur. In other words, an engineer.

From August to October, 2019, James Madison University faculty read and discussed Warren Berger's book, "A More Beautiful Question," as part of an effort to imagine possibilities to drive curiosity amongst our engineering students, faculty, and staff. With a project-rich curriculum, we've identified curiosity as being the gateway mindset to academic and career successes.Using the book's premise as motivation, we thought of various ways to create question-driven and impactful interventions. While curricular nudges are easy, classroom behaviors are typically compartmentalized by students (or faculty) as important only to the classroom -- we decided to look elsewhere for influential change. This card presents three of our simple and inexpensive question-based approaches:1. Environmental application: Hallway questions2. Messaging application: Instagram strategy3. Inclusiveness application: Higher ed roundtable More information on each of these three approaches is detailed below.1. Hallway QuestionsA. Goal: Create small physical space modifications to drive curiosityB. Strategy: We added photograph-based artwork across our discovery, design, and research floor. We created a series of fifty 4x4 inch glass photos to adorn our hallway walls, half were amended with questions or quotes to drive curiosity. Most photos were of Madison Engineering students in action. The photos amended with questions did not include identifiable students in order to eliminate any association, positive or negative, between them and the question; instead photos with unusual/odd images were chosen as a visual layer to drive curiosity. Questions were inspired/modified from "A More Beautiful Question", grouped into three categories (Why?, How?, What If?), and included: Why? Why does this situation exist?Why does this matter?Why should we settle for the current situation?Why does it present a problem, or create an opportunity, and for whom?Why has no one addressed this need or addressed this problem before?Why am I evading inquiry?Why should I believe you when you tell me something can't be done?Why am I in engineering school and how does my work reflect that?How? How might this look if we stepped into other shoes, or looked at it from a different perspective?How do I decide which of my ideas is the one I’ll pursue?How do I begin to test that idea to see what works and what doesn’t?How do we know what’s true or false? What evidence counts?How do I learn from failure?How can we make a better experiment?How might we pry off the lid and stir the paint?How do we figure out what’s wrong and fix it?What if? What if it were different?What if we could start with a blank page?What if we could not fail?What if we start with what we already have?What if we made one small change?What if Madison Engineering didn’t exist?What if we delighted our partners?What future do I want to create? How do I work my way backwards to get there?C. Outcomes: The photos were positioned on the hallway walls using a random pattern generator. The appended files include JPEGs of all images created, as well as some hallway views. Early comments have been positive, including "The photos express the great community of engineers we have here." and "It's good to see students like me at work. It makes me feel like I belong." We have yet to hear/observe if there is any direct impact on curiosity, though.__________________________2. Instagram StrategyA. Goal: To transform our Department's Instagram channel from another one designed for passive consumption to one that could stimulate expansive imagining.B. Strategy: We continue to use Instagram to promote students and faculty at work across a range of projects. Instead of typical photo captions, we lead our posts with questions, either indirectly or directly related to the image. The combination offers up a bit of insight into why, how, and what if behind our special engineering program at JMU. Some example question-driven captions we have used over the past three months include:Why do a curricular deep dive and redesign every decade? Because we should, so we do. Day 1 of 2, all minds on board, new S-curve ahead. #MADEbetterWhy do we gather our freshmen for 2 days of “camp” prior to the launch of the year? Because our students’ success matters. #ReMADE2019Why do we ask our students to paint a professional mask on Day 2? High impact engineering careers begin with knowing yourself. #MADEmask #smallbutawesomeWhy do we give our students the freedom to discover their engineering passions? Because each of them is unique, their educational journey should be personalized. #MADEunique #stayunique #ReMADE2019Why do our @jmuengineering upperclassmen form a tunnel to help us welcome each of our incoming students by name? Because each of them is truly important to us. Welcome Engineers of 2023! #MADEwelcome #smallisbeautifulHow might we know if our Re:MADE Camp helps our students build an engineering community before Day 1? When the Selfie Booth is commandeered by groups instead of individuals, something good is happening. #MADEcommunity #successtrajectoryWhy do our freshmen get their first project in Week 1? Because they joined us to make a difference — so every day is a project day @jmuengineering ! #MADEprojectready#wesweatpurpleHow do you get a great engineering internship? Focus on the 3 Rs: reputation, relationships, and reality. Great advice from student panelists at today’s #MADEsummers2019event on internships #peerwisdomHow do you get the 3 Rs? 1. Reputation: Do more than is expected, 2. Relationships: Ask questions rooted in curiosity, 3. Reality: Spend time on stuff that matters — Project rich learning is huge differentiator. #projectadvantaged #MADEprojectreadyWhat’s the surest path to becoming an amazing engineer? Hang out with people on the same journey. @jmu_swe meetup in our courtyard to rally new students to the cause of awesomeness. #MADEgreat #peoplelikeusdothingslikethisC. Outcomes: Go to our Instagram feed: @jmuengineering to see examples. We have built our network of followers by 25% and likes are up on average 41% over the past three months.__________________________3. Higher Education RoundtableA. Goal: Bring new voices to the conversation around a next generation engineering educationB. Strategy: Starting in September, all planned visitors to our engineering department trigger a Roundtable Discussion on the Future of Higher Education. For these sessions we match the visitors with a nearly equal number of engineering faculty and engineering students, and engage them all in a one-hour conversation on higher education with special focus on engineering. Each group has a different mix around the table, but the questions have stayed the same. All conversations are audio-recorded, and these files are archived for later access by engineering faculty. Recordings do not identify the speakers, affording a reasonable level of anonymity. Most of the session have been capped at eight people around the table (e.g. four visitors, two students, two faculty). Each group is lightly facilitated by an engineering faculty familiar with the method, but mostly guided by the questions presented on a card within a notebook handed to each participant upon arrival. Our questions include:From your experience, what do you think need to change in education?From your experience, describe the best learning opportunity you have been a part of.How do you imagine students best engage in learning in the 21st century?How do you imaging learning evolves from high to college to professional?How do you imagine JMU and Madison Engineering might position its engineering program best for learning in the 21st century?How do you imagine education might change to more effectively engage a diverse community of learners?What do you imagine the role of teachers should be in the 21st century?C. Outcomes: We had four Roundtables in October, featuring: (1) two Silicon Valley entrepreneurs and their high school daughter, (2) an alum, (3) two visiting faculty, and (4) a management team from industry. Each had 2-3 engineering faculty, so to date 10 of our faculty have been involved. Also, each had 2-3 engineering students, to date 9 have been involved. While everyone has the above questions on a card, all sessions have meandered beyond the prepared set -- no group has gone through all the above by the end of the session time. In general, the smaller groups and those with an engineering guest have proven to be more linear in conversation and the question set is an especially helpful tool for them. We have captured all four sessions and archived the audio files in a protected server for faculty review. These sessions are being used to stretch our thinking around our interest in a holistic creation of a second generation learning landscape for JMU Engineering -- curriculum, environments, students, teachers, pedagogies, etc. are all fair game. With only four sessions to date, it is already clear of the benefit of hearing from people not usually at the "curriculum committee" meetings; we are expanding the Roundtable to groups of our students in the Spring.

The KEEN Framework is an adoptable, adaptable guide to entrepreneurially minded learning. With it, faculty can create educational materials and teaching concepts that equip engineering students with an entrepreneurial mindset. This conceptual framework connects engineering skillset with entrepreneurial mindset, providing the building blocks for entrepreneurially minded learning. Why is this important? We believe this is how to educate the engineering we need. This is the engineer we need: One with an Entrepreneurial Mindset that is coupled with Engineering Thought and Action, Expressed Through Collaboration and Communication, and founded on Character. Engineers with an entrepreneurial mindset transform the world. Educators have a role in developing this mindset in the rising generation of engineers. This card contains the framework and resources connected to its use. Click the Cite button at the top of this card to reference the KEEN Framework in your work.

This card (and associated paper) supports the integration of curiosity, creating connections, and creating value (the 3Cs) of the entrepreneurial mindset in an electric circuits course with a lab component. We describe how a few key modifications that are reinforced continuously throughout the course can transform the course to support the 3Cs. Each of the 3Cs is targeted by a specific approach. Look at the Course Structure section for copies of the syllabus and course schedule to see how the entrepreneurially minded learning (EML) activities fit in the scope of the course.Curiosity is targeted through the formulation of exploratory questions and deeper exploration of those questions. For each lecture topic, a question has been generated by the instructor designed to stimulate student thought and to show students examples of good questions designed for deeper exploration of the topics. The first couple of minutes of class is spent discussing how the question is graded across five dimensions: grammar, clarity, relevance, topic orientation and potential for depth of exploration. Students submit their own sets of exploratory questions three times throughout the course. A single point formative assessment rubric has been created to provide students feedback on their questions. A brief research paper is assigned that requires students to formulate an exploratory question, identify at least one credible and relevant source to use to explore the topic of the question, identify new questions that arise during the research process, and report their findings. It is important for students to demonstrate they are aware of what they do not know by formulating follow-up questions during the research. Doing so demonstrates an ability for students to engage in effective self-study, which supports life-long learning. Students complete the short report with an assessment of their sources found during the research process. Look at the Curiosity-Related Activities section below for copies of the exploratory question rubric and brief research paper assignment. The conference presentation provided in the 2019 ASEE Conference Paper Link and Presentation section provides examples of questions scored on the rubric that are shared with students.Connections is targeted by circuit analogies related to more familiar topics. Connecting new topics to established student knowledge is a well-researched pedagogical approach firmly grounded in the science of learning. A dozen novel circuit analogies are provided in the paper (and even more are in the presentation) that are used in the course. An analogy reflection assignment is given that allows students to select either one of the analogies given throughout the course or to create their own analogy that connects the circuit content to a life experience or other topic. In either case, students are required to describe the underlying deep structure that is shared between the source and target of the analogy. It has been shown that students who partake in the exercise of identifying deep structure between analogs are more capable of transferring knowledge to novel situations. Look at the 2019 ASEE Conference Paper Link and Presentation section below for the presentation that provides the images used with the analogies that are presented to students. Also, look at the Connections-Related Activities sections for a copy of the analogy reflection assignment.Creating value is targeted through a circuit design-build-test project that requires a value proposition. Students are organized into interdisciplinary groups to design and build a temperature sensing circuit that utilizes a thermistor and meets certain design constraints but is open-ended in terms of the application, or need. Students are required to identify an important need or application for their temperature sensing circuit. They must justify the need through relevant market data and submit the idea for the need in a problem framing deliverable. Students also submit an individual design solution along with the problem framing document for formative feedback. The final proposal for the project has a value proposition section in which students summarize the value created by their design. Two suppliers must be identified and a cost comparison must be submitted in the final proposal. For more details on the design-build-test project, look at the Creating Value-Related Activities section for a copy of the project handout and rubric used for grading the final reports.

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.

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.

These case studies are intended to be integrated into existing technical baccalaureate engineering programs to enhance student understanding of how technical concepts coupled with curiosity, making connections, and focusing on creating values can lead to new products and businesses.

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

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 project was described in a presentation at ASEE 2019 in the Entrepreneurship & Engineering Innovation Division Technical Session 2Background/IntroductionProduct archaeology is the study and dissection of products in order to arrive at a deeper understanding of the global, societal, economic, and environmental impacts of the design. Engineers research various products, investigating the technical aspects of the design as well as the sociocultural implications that are attached to them. Over the course of a four week project, first-year students perform a “dig” on a consumer product (e.g., bluetooth speakers, coffee mugs, flashlights, shampoo, paper towels, etc). Much like an archaeological dig is a process, so is product archaeology for engineers. Therefore, each week students complete a phase of the product archeology process: preparation, excavation, evaluation, and explanation. PreparationArchaeologists do not just go around digging in any old spot looking for something interesting. Instead, they do some background research and look for places that seem especially interesting or likely to yield worthwhile findings. Similarly, during the preparation phase, students conduct research on the background and history of the product, noting interesting developments or important events that provide a historical context for the product today. This phase will require that information be integrated and cited from credible sources (connections), including those found in the University library. Excavation/Experimentation:Once initial research is done and students know what to look for and where to look, they can begin to dig. During the excavation phase, students conduct experiments with their products and explore the form, function, and other important aspects of the design. With a curious mind, students design describe at least 3 experiments they will conduct on their products to explore differences and determine which is “optimal” for their purposes. Here, students will look at differences between designs and begin thinking about why they might be that way. Evaluation:Once the products have been dissected and students have explored the nuances of the product and its components, they need to make some evaluations. Much like an archaeologist uses the information about the excavated artifact to make conclusions about what they found (e.g., the size and dimension of a bone leads to the conclusion that it was a tooth and not a femur), students will evaluate the processes involved in the creation and manufacturing of this product. Importantly, students will also consider alternatives to what their teams determined as they explore this phase. Explanation:In the explanation phase, it all comes together. Archaeologists use the research they conduct alongside the artifacts they uncover in the field to explain their findings and provide rationale for their interpretations (e.g., determining an animal’s diet based on teeth, body size, condition of environment, etc.). Here, students engage in a similar process and provide explanations for their findings, while also using the benefit of hindsight to make recommendations for creating value through future improvement and innovation. The attachments to this card include a schedule, possible products to conduct the "dig" on, assignment sheets, an example student paper, and a link to the ASEE paper published based on this work. Note: we are open to feedback about this card and project! Please let us know what you think in the comments section!

For engineers to succeed in a world in which data is exponentially increasing, they will need to connect the unconnected. They must be able to see the landscape and map the intersection of ideas. That is the power of connections.