2026 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition

Community-centered design approaches within engineering education (e.g., sustainable community development, community engagement) enable students to learn about the sociotechnical nature of engineering. However, limited research explores how students' understanding of the relationship between engineering design and community evolves throughout a course. This WIP paper adds to this research in the context of a one semester Engineering for Society course at a public university. The course fulfills a core university requirement in Creativity and Creative Development and is open to all students, resulting in a diverse participant pool with a range of academic majors.
The research question this qualitative study seeks to answer is: Throughout the course, how do students' conceptions of the relationship between engineering design and community change? The study design involves the analysis of student artifacts at three points in time: (1) course beginning, (2) after a case study activity early in the semester that illustrates the consequences of designs that fail to meaningfully engage community stakeholders, and (3) following a community-based design challenge near the end of the course. The artifacts, which serve as graded course assignments, are concept maps (with written descriptions) in which students identify and connect elements they believe are essential for engineers solving community problems. At Points 2 and 3, students are asked to compare their evolving maps and reflect on changes in their thinking. Field notes from classroom sessions during the case study activity and community-based design challenge provide additional context on student engagement and discussion patterns.
At the time of this abstract submission, we have completed the consent process, with 23 of 24 enrolled students (96%) consenting to participate. We have also collected and analyzed concept maps, descriptions, and field notes from Points 1 and 2. What remains is collecting and analyzing artifact and field note data from Point 3.
Of the 23 participants, 20 submitted a concept map and description at Point 1; 17 did so at Point 2. At both points, participants included technical considerations (e.g., cost, safety, constraints) at similar frequencies (e.g., 70% of Point 1 and 82% of Point 2 concept maps/descriptions included cost). Participants’ Point 2 concept maps expanded to include more human-centered elements. For example, participants who suggested that people or the community could be impacted by a problem or solution rose from 35% (Point 1) to 65% (Point 2). Those who suggested that people or the community could provide input regarding problem definition or solution design rose from 5% (Point 1) to 47% (Point 2). Further, “community” was included as a major node within six Point 2 concept maps, but no Point 1 maps. We anticipate that the participants’ Point 3 ideas may be even more robust with respect to incorporating the sociotechnical nature of engineering design.
This research contributes to engineering pedagogy by demonstrating how specific curricular interventions can foster students' development of community-engaged design mindsets. It also builds on others’ work about how reflective concept mapping can be used as a tool for learning, assessment, and research.