2023 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition

Introduction
This complete theory paper is a literature review that will outline the introduction of experiential learning in undergraduate engineering education between 1995-2020 with a specific focus on first-year engineering students. While experiential learning has long been considered part of engineering education since the mid-1950s [1] systematic review articles have been limited in their scope and coverage years. One of the most comprehensive studies documenting experiential learning in engineering education was published in 1976 by Harrisberger, et al. [2]. The current literature review paper explores and documents experiential learning in the field of engineering within an inclusive period between 1995-2020.

The review started by looking at critical developments between the early 1970s to late 1980s, both in North America and Europe that facilitated the spread of engineering education research across higher education institutions (HEIs). We projected that by 1995, critical developments [to be outlined in detail] had already spread and impacted curricular, pedagogical, and institutional changes in engineering education across HEIs.

Definition of Experiential Learning
Engineering education’s experiential learning was premised on “learning by doing,” drawn in part from Dewey’s educational philosophy [3]. Experiential learning can be defined as “the change in an individual that results from reflection on a direct experience…” [4]. Learning is an individual experience and it represents a knowledge or skill acquired by an individual in formal schooling or informal settings. The knowledge or skill acquired through experiential learning changes the individual’s way of thinking, feeling, perceiving, and behaving [5].

Systematic Literature Review Methodology
Our review follows three crucial steps as outlined by the work of Borrego, Foster, and Froyd [6] on systematic literature reviews in engineering education. The steps include (a) identifying research questions, (b) defining inclusion criteria, and (c) finding and cataloging sources with four crucial review stages as suggested by the PRISMA flowchart [7].
a.) Identifying Research Questions
We aim to explore an overarching question: How has experiential learning been implemented within undergraduate engineering education for the last 25 years (1995-2020)?
The PICO (population-intervention-comparison-outcome) framework from the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) [8] was used to clarify relevant parameters for the research questions.
b.) Defining Inclusion Criteria
We defined and adopted three types of inclusion criteria. Firstly, conducting journal and database selection. We selected four highly rated engineering education journals like Journal of Engineering Education (JEE), European Journal of Engineering Education (EJEE), two major journal databases and other prominent journals like Educational Research Review, all published in English only. Secondly, we used the combinations of experiential learning AND/OR experiential education only for our search parameters. Thirdly, we followed the PRISMA flowchart with four critical steps (search, screening, appraisal, and synthesis) to search, screen, appraise 3, 072 studies until we reduced the number of studies to 220 for synthesis.

Results and Discussion
How has experiential learning been implemented within undergraduate engineering education for the last 25 years (1995-2020)?

Experiential Learning as a Teaching Strategy, Course or Curriculum. After identifying key words in the background, introduction, purpose of the study, research questions, and design or method sections of 220 studies to find out how experiential learning was implemented, we found that experiential learning was delivered as: (i) a teaching strategy (N=165, 75%); (ii) as a stand-alone course (N=41, 19%); and (iii) as an overarching theme in a whole new curriculum (N=14, 6%) [further details will be discussed].

[First-year] Students at the Heart of Experiential Learning. One of the most important findings was that experiential learning studies in engineering education were primarily designed and implemented to involve first-year students (N=45, 20%) and in combination with upper-year students (N=39, 18%), and the rest as mixed combinations of undergraduate and graduate students, faculty, and other HEIs. The worry and “concern for attrition in engineering students has motivated many engineering schools to revise their undergraduate curricula and, particularly, to take a closer look at what students learn in their first-year” [9]. These experiential learning studies on first-year students were also conducted to understand and address the nature of the preparation and composition of students entering engineering.

Key Insights for Successful Implementation: Relevance and Significance for Educators and Researchers. We identified seven key elements with corresponding insights that described successful implementation of experiential learning that might serve as consideration for future implementation for engineering educators and researchers. We defined ‘successful implementation’ of the 220 studies synthesized in this review as studies that indicated: a) students’ satisfaction with the teaching strategy, b) students’ achievements in their academic outcomes, and c) reinforced learning experiences and reflections according to surveys and interviews with students, instructors, and community and industry partners. These seven key insights include: 1.) Relevance and collaboration with stakeholders, students, academe, industry, and society, 2.) Students engagement and ownership, 3.) Scaffolding and integration across levels, 4.) Importance of assessment, 5.) Importance of reflection, 6.) Faculty support, enthusiasm, and commitment, and 7.) The use of technology as a pedagogy.

In a proper forum, we will discuss the details of each key insight and the rest of the findings to bring unique perspectives to our evolving understanding of experiential learning and its relevance in first-year engineering education.