2026 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition

This complete evidence-based practice paper describes the redesign of a first-year engineering course grounded in design thinking to provide a more cohesive, hands-on learning experience. Supporting students’ engagement and confidence in engineering design during their first year is critical to persistence and long-term success in engineering programs. Even in courses that include project-based learning, fragmentation between modules or instructional approaches can limit students’ opportunities to connect technical content with design decision-making. The revised course structure emphasizes iterative, team-based projects that integrate technical analysis with design application, addressing a curricular gap in development students’ understanding of the engineering design process.
A committee, comprised of faculty members from each of the departments within the college, identified four course “competencies”, blending a need for technical rigor with immersion in the engineering design-thinking protocols. Learning objectives within the four competency areas were developed using Bloom’s revised taxonomy ​(Heer, 2012; Krathwohl, 2010)​ and were mapped, when applicable, to student outcomes from ABET ​(Criteria for Accrediting Engineering Programs, 2019-2020, 2020)​ creating the following course content: Engineering Profession and Social Responsibility (7-objectives); Engineering Design (10-objectives); Teamwork and Communication (7-objectives); and Technical Skills (6-objectives).

Components of the competency area “engineering professionalism and social responsibility” align with a university mission to ensure social responsibility discussions were embedded in discipline-specific coursework. The need for empathy in engineering education, specifically as part of technical work rather than a separate discussion, is also noted in the field ​(Strobel et al., 2013)​. The competency area “technical skills” was included to ensure that students were exposed to a core-concept in each engineering discipline offered by the university and to act as a kind of “integrated STEM” model to ensure technical rigor in the course ​(Grubbs & Strimel, 2015)​.

Remodeled lesson plans including content, assessments, and pedagogy for the course were developed using Wiggins and McTighe’s “Backwards Design” ​(Wiggins & McTighe, n.d.)​. This led to a course where the engineering design process was reinforced multiple times through scaffolded and discipline-specific design briefs related to a humanitarian engineering design-project and a student selected conceptual design project.
Course assessment surveys were used to capture students’ perspectives on engagement, confidence, perceived importance of learning objectives, and overall feedback. The data collected included both Likert-scale (quantitative) items and open-ended (qualitative) questions. Quantitative data were analyzed descriptively (mean, median, IQR), with additional reliability testing (Cronbach’s alpha) to assess internal consistency. Qualitative responses were inductively coded to identify emerging themes and provide contextual insights.
An 11-question post-survey on a 5-point Likert scale was used to evaluate student engagement. A Cronbach’s a=0.92 indicates high internal consistency of data across all questions leading to an average engagement of 3.9±0.8 (n=125). Students reported particularly strong engagement with practical elements of the course, such as participating in class activities and a sense of accomplishment upon completion of projects. Items measuring students’ initiative, reflection, and collaboration were strongly associated with overall engagement, reinforcing that hands-on, team-based learning experiences were key drivers of engagement.

A 17-item course structure, delivery, and outcome evaluation on a 10-scale demonstrated excellent reliability (Cronbach’s α = 0.94), validating the scale’s consistency. The highest-rated aspects centered on hands-on activities and project-based learning. For example, students overwhelmingly agreed that “the hands-on activities enhanced my understanding” (Mean = 8.65, Median = 9.0) and that they felt well-prepared for future design work (Mean = 8.44, Median = 9.0). Similarly, projects were noted for their strong alignment with course objectives.

Pre- and post-surveys on perceived importance of course learning objectives were evaluated on a 10-point scale. Increases in mean values for the pre- to post-survey competencies were Social Responsibility 3.49±0.97 to 4.40±0.69; Engineering Design 3.63±0.97 to 4.42±0.68; Teamwork and Communication 3.85±1.00 to 4.53±0.63; and Technical Skills 3.52±1.07 to 4.24±0.87 (post). Increases in mean values for each competency were statistically significant (p-values < 6 X 10-19).

When asked about the most valuable aspects of the course, students repeatedly praised the hands-on projects, teamwork experience, and opportunities to develop critical design and problem-solving skills. These student-praised items all match learning objectives from the core competencies developed by the initial redesign committee. Results indicate that a cohesive, design-centered approach supports student engagement and confidence across technical and professional competencies. The redesign effectively integrates hands-on, project-based, team-based learning with engineering analysis; highlighting the value of iterative, team-based design in the first-year engineering curriculum.