2026 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition

This paper will explore the development of a new course created in collaboration with a DoD/DoW-sponsored workforce development program which utilized embedded active learning activities within lectures.

A national network for microelectronics research identified a curriculum gap in the topic of “leap ahead technology”. Thus, it was decided a new course on this topic was to be created in collaboration with a DoD/DoW-funded workforce development program and the authors of this paper. The first question to answer in creating this course was: what is “leap ahead” technology? Through collaboration with experts in academia and industry, determining a widely accepted leap ahead technology was the first step. From this, we were able to expand into technologies that have yet to reach commercial success and analyze why they may or may not be future leap ahead technologies, using existing and past technologies as a framework. The first clear leap ahead technology was the transistor, and for a second example the slightly more niche but commercially successful vertical-cavity surface-emitting laser (VCSEL) was selected. These were presented as case studies across four lectures at the beginning of the course. Later class topics explored new and emerging technologies for students to analyze, with these case studies acting as a framework for successful leap ahead technologies.

The core learning objective of this course was to have students gain the ability critically analyze new and emerging technologies in the semiconductor field. Thus, an interactive lecturing approach was selected where both lecturing and active learning activities happen in a single class period. 80-minute lectures were selected over 50-minute lectures due to the incorporation of active learning. Each class was approximately 40-50 minutes of lecture to build the student’s foundational background, and 30-40 minutes of active learning to engage with the topics discussed and practice critical analysis. Multiple active learning activities were utilized to best match the content being explored in lecture, adjust to the time availability after the lecture concluded, and give variety for the students to not become complacent with a specific assignment or activity.

Instructor takeaways from the first implementation of this integrated lecture/active learning style includes the following: active learning components were useful for student engagement, attendance, and understanding of material. However, when the lecture precedes the active component, many students would show up part-way through the lecture. Additionally, lectures were variable in length depending on questions and presentation speed, requiring flexibility in the active learning component. Future applications of this approach may find it useful to begin the course with an active learning component, so students are primed to ask questions during the lecture, enforce strong attendance from the beginning of the class period, and move the flexibility requirement to the lecture component which can easier adapt to variable times than the active learning components which may need to completely change to fit in different time frames. Ultimately, the integration of active learning components alongside the lecture was a benefit for both the instructors and students.