ASEE Connections

March 2016




In This Issue: Products & Programs
ASEE Promotion:

ASEE's Exclusive New "Engineering Education Suppliers Guide"
A new online resource designed specifically to help engineering educators locate products and services for the classroom and research.
Learn More



The graphic below compares the national aggregate of three engineering disciplines with the highest percentage of women students at the bachelor’s degree level with three that have the lowest percentage. The data were drawn from responses to ASEE’s Profiles in Engineering and Engineering Technology Colleges survey, which covers 22 disciplines. Some similar disciplines with similar female participate rates were combined: biological engineering and agricultural engineering was combined with biomedical engineering; computer science (inside engineering), computer engineering, and electrical engineering were also combined.

These results beg an important question: Why do some engineering disciplines do a much better job attracting females than do others? – Brian L. Yoder, ASEE Director of Assessment, Evaluation and Institutional Research





International students studying STEM subjects at American universities will now be eligible to remain in the U.S. for three additional years to receive on-the-job training, according to a new rule published by the federal government earlier this month for the STEM Optional Practical Training (OPT) program. That’s a seven-month extension of the old rule, devised in 2008, which it replaces, the New York Times reports. The new rule takes effect on May 10. The government was forced to vacate the previous rule and create a new one, this time for public comment, because of a lawsuit filed last year by a technology workers’ union in Washington State. John Miano, a lawyer representing the Washington Alliance of Technology Workers, wasn’t impressed with the change, telling the Times: “They are just trying to double down on what they’re doing before. ‘O.K., you didn’t like 29 months? We’ll make it 36 months.’” The union is still pursuing its suit, which claims that the program is illegal. The next hearing is scheduled for May. The Times notes that the new rule states that “a STEM OPT student would not replace a full- or part-time, temporary or permanent U.S. worker,” and would be offered a salary “commensurate” with that of an American employee. The Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency told the paper that it’s tried to tighten the training programs, mandate oversight of employers and ensure that students come from accredited schools to avoid fraud.



When it comes to digital security, the U.S. public is . . . yes, you guessed it, pretty much equally divided. A recent NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll asked respondents about the ongoing court battle pitting the U.S. Justice Department against consumer electronics giant Apple. The FBI wants Apple to help it unlock an iPhone that belonged to one of the two terrorists who attacked a local government facility in San Bernadino, Calif., last December, killing 14 people and injuring another 22. Both attackers, a husband and wife, were killed by police. The government argues Apple should create encryption-busting software to assist investigators who want access the phone because it’s a matter of national security. Apple counters that if it aids the FBI, the tool it creates might later be used by hackers to steal the data of millions of consumers. The poll of 1,200 registered voters found that 47 percent of those interviewed sided with Apple, while 42 percent agreed with the Justice Department. The poll’s margin of error was 2.83 percent. The issue of digital security and surveillance is also one that splits Congress — though not along its usual partisan fault lines. Whether and how much tech companies should abet security and law-enforcement agencies are questions that also create intra-party rifts.




Made to Measure

An end to grade grubbing? Novel assignments help engineering students gain confidence and competence by focusing on what they need to learn—not their GPAs.

By Mary Lord

Inspiration can strike at the darnedest times. For Matthew Siniawski, associate professor of mechanical engineering at Loyola Marymount University in Los Angeles, the aha! moment arrived while reviewing his daughter’s kindergarten report card at a parent-teacher conference. Instead of comments or scores, the document listed the various skills pupils should develop over the year, with checkmarks indicating which ones his child had met, excelled at, or still needed to reach.

“Wow, this is really kind of informative!” Siniawski recalls thinking. He looked for a higher-education equivalent of this increasingly popular K-12 assessment model, but found little. Thus began his quest to introduce standards-based grading (SBG) to undergraduate engineering education—an odyssey that started with a revamped sophomore-level mechanics and materials course in 2011 and recently resulted in a two-year, $249,000 National Science Foundation grant to establish and evaluate such systems with three other investigators from vastly different engineering schools. Early evidence suggests this new assessment method spurs motivation, confidence, and professional abilities along with deeper learning and fewer complaints about grades, say the researchers, who plan to hold a workshop on the topic at the ASEE annual conference in New Orleans in June.

Faculty have fretted about gauging students’ progress ever since Yale’s president rolled out what may have been the world’s first university grading system in 1785. As the standards movement took hold in K-12 classrooms over the past two decades, teachers began retooling lessons around specific learning outcomes and measuring proficiency levels. Yet except for a handful of pioneers—notably Alverno College and the University of Wisconsin—that have ditched grades or created degree programs based on competencies rather than credit hours, most of higher education still clings to the traditional formula: Sum the scores from multiple exercises and then calculate the final mark on a predetermined scale.

Trouble is, the resulting letter or numerical grade reveals nothing about whether students nailed the objectives outlined in the syllabus, only that they performed at a certain level on separate assignments. “A teacher never gets a handle on what students do well on, and what they don’t do well on,” explains Heidi Diefes-Dux, a professor of engineering education at Purdue University who teaches a large first-year introductory course and is one of the NSF study’s co-investigators. Students, she adds, are equally at sea, knowing only that they flamed out on a homework assignment but not what it was supposed to teach them.

SBG flips the focus from scores to skills, with ample time to build them. Instructors begin by defining what they want students to learn and be able to do—such as follow the engineering design process or create a MATLAB plot that includes clear labeling. All activities, labs, group projects, and assessments are then mapped to those objectives, with a rubric outlining what approaching, meeting, or exceeding them entails. This allows instructors to provide targeted, meaningful feedback while producing a fairer, more transparent grading process that encourages learning, regardless of the class’s overall performance. Students get a clear idea of what they’re supposed to glean from each assignment and what quality work looks like. They can go at their own pace without fear of tanking their GPA if circuits or another core concept doesn’t instantly click. And since individual performance is measured over time, differences in levels of preparation cease to be a factor. In essence, students shift from obsessing about earning A’s to understanding the material.

This method of “backwards course design” can help instructors “get a handle on those design and project grades that tend to be more subjective,” says SBG co-investigator Sara Atwood, an assistant professor of engineering and physics at Elizabethtown College in Pennsylvania, who developed an SBG system for the year-long introduction to engineering design sequence in 2012. Learning objectives focused on such skills as CAD, fabrication techniques, and effective written and oral communication, with weekly exercises and individual quizzes to assess progress, culminating in a final group project each semester. “There was a lot of conversation about student outcomes, but we hadn’t made that link explicit to students,” she explains.

SBG “forces you to develop assignments that are relevant to the learning process and make sure things match what you’re trying to measure,” agrees Siniawski, who teaches a variety of courses, including introduction to engineering, machine design, and senior capstone. He recently tweaked the syllabus and now gives out detailed grading rubrics, so students are clear about what learning goals are being assessed. He also counts only the most recent grade received for each outcome over the semester, allowing students to recoup from initial stumbles. “We give them more time to learn something and demonstrate mastery,” says Siniawski. “Isn’t that what we want?” That question cuts to what could be an underlying philosophy of SBG: The point of teaching—and therefore grading—is to develop talent, not to distinguish high from low achievers. As Thomas Guskey, a University of Kentucky education professor, elaborates in a 2011 paper, educators who aim to develop talent first clarify what they want the class to master and then “do everything possible to ensure that all students learn those things well.”

Kylee Burgess, a second-year engineering student at Arizona State University’s Polytechnic School, “definitely felt the difference” between her conventional, lecture-based classes and assistant professor Adam Carberry’s SBG use-inspired design course this past fall. In traditionally graded sections, she thinks, “How can I get this assignment done, just to have it over with and get the best grade on it?” By contrast, with SBG, “even if your project doesn’t go as planned, you’re not going to fail the class or make your GPA a disaster.” Nina Lepp, a Loyola Marymount senior majoring in mechanical engineering who took Siniawski’s first- and second-year design courses and now has him for her capstone project, “liked the clarity of knowing what was expected of me.” The abilities and confidence that SBG nurtured, she adds, “solidified” her decision to study engineering.

Research suggests that switching to this nontraditional form of assessment can bring the same benefits to engineering education that have been documented in K-12 settings. In a 2014 ASEE paper examining the impact of SBG, Carberry, Siniawski, and Atwood reported that cornerstone design students perceived significant growth in their ability to conduct a variety of engineering design tasks. The open-ended, applied nature of project-based courses make them “great fits” for this system, the authors concluded. A 2012 study by Siniawski, Carberry, and Loyola Marymount computer science professor John David Dionisio found that 89 percent of students thought SBG was more conducive to learning than traditional summative scores, and 86 percent preferred it.

SBG seems particularly well-suited to supporting international and nontraditional students. Elizabethtown senior Martin Fevre, a soccer standout concentrating in mechanical engineering, credits SBG’s individual feedback and emphasis on presentation skills with improving his ability to write and speak English—which he barely could do upon arriving from France in 2012. His focus has shifted from “you need to get this done” to “you need to know this,” and he’s now keen to attend grad school. “I spend a lot more time doing weekly assignments—mostly homework—and a lot less time [studying for] for quizzes and exams,” says Fevre. At the end of the semester, “you can go through all the learning objectives of the course and see how far you’ve come.”

If SBG seems like more work for instructors, it is, acknowledges SBG investigator Carberry, who teaches back-to-back foundational courses in ASU’s second-year engineering design sequence. “But it benefits the students,” he adds. “The [traditional] grading system complements a pedagogy [in which] students leave the class wondering what they’re learning.”

In revamping the intro course, Carberry identified “a small set of skills” for students to develop over the semester, such as the ability to create a theoretical model, and then developed a zero-to-4-point scale to show what aspects they were struggling with. Three mini-projects culminate in a design project, giving students “opportunities to practice, apply, try, and fail—and not have it affect their final grade too much,” says Carberry. This year, he implemented a rubric for each assignment, pinpointing what a top score of 4 would require. “If you don’t learn from mistakes, yeah, then your grade will suffer in the end,” he cautions newbies, adding that most end up doing quite well.

Randi Taylor, a 2015 graduate now earning a Ph.D. in mechanical engineering at the University of Maryland, College Park, offers proof that SBG can work. The mother of four entered ASU’s engineering program with a bachelor’s in linguistics from Rice University and seven years as a social worker. Walking into her first class as a second-year student, she felt sick to her stomach. “I felt like I was coming in with bigger deficits than others had, not being familiar with the terminology or the design process,” recalls Taylor, adding that all the formulas were new and electrical concepts “didn’t make a bit of sense.” Then, during a project to build a multimeter, things suddenly clicked. “Oh, my gosh! I actually understand what’s going on,” she realized. When her team “just crashed and burned” on another project—their robot worked fine outside but never inside the maze because its sensors were in the wrong place—she discovered that setbacks in one area didn’t mean overall failure. “It was a learning experience throughout; I had documentation of what I could do,” says Taylor, who earned an A+ in the class. Rather than dread the required electrical class that followed, she decided, “OK, I’m just going to learn a lot this semester. That was a turning point for me.”

Like the engineering design process, there’s no one correct way to implement SBG. Diefes-Dux’s expectations for students learning MATLAB, for example, include being able to create plots suitable for technical presentation, meaning with a reasonable title and axes appropriately labeled. In computer-assisted design, Elizabethtown’s Atwood wants her 50 freshmen to know how to create a part, dimension it properly, put multiple pieces together, and do a drawing with certain characteristics. Students can retake a quiz on any skill, with final projects such as reorganizing a laundry closet or designing a community garden counting the most. “It helps students to spend time where they need to,” she says. Atwood also has upped the writing—“something we really have to work on,” she says—starting with documenting the taking apart of a toaster in the first lab and encompassing four presentations plus one-minute talks about what engineering is. ASU’s Carberry gives only one quiz a year and no final, preferring written and oral reports. To promote critical inquiry versus “plug and chug,” he gives students a document with six equations—but only two or three are needed to solve the problems.

Loyola Marymount’s Siniawski modified the syllabus of his senior capstone design course around a few learning outcomes, each with several core competencies. He includes whatever ABET student outcomes an assignment covers, and gives out grading rubrics showing how each ability or skill is being assessed. The same skills—for instance, the ability to analyze—crop up in different assignments, providing snapshots of each student’s progress. The course grade is based on the most recent grade for the outcome. “It eliminates the time pressure and doesn’t penalize the slower learner,” says Siniawski. Instructors from industry who teach the senior capstone course say SBG “is exactly what we do” as professional engineers, “so it’s really relevant to what students need to know in the workplace,” he concludes.

For Purdue’s Diefes-Dux, the impetus for SBG grew out of a first-year engineering course decision to go completely paperless, forcing faculty to figure out how they could explain grades to students without “scribbling” on their papers. “It was a practical issue but also an opportunity to change the grading system,” she says. “We’ve always had learning objectives in front of the class, but we hadn’t been assessing them.” SBG’s progress is measured in “baby steps,” starting with meatier homework problems, deep discussion about defining objectives, and setting proficiency benchmarks.

For students, the new grading system can be confusing at times, says ASU grad Taylor. “Things didn’t always add up.” For example, a 2 on one assignment and 3 on another didn’t average to a grade of 2.5. “Students are sort of frustrated that every class uses something different,” says Carberry, who creates visuals to help students compare traditional and standards-based grades. Siniawski’s newbies typically ask if an early poor mark will “count” toward their final grade. “Keep working,” he reassures. “Your next grade will override it.”

SBG can be a labor saver for faculty in some respects. Because he’s already assessing student outcomes, it takes Carberry no more than 10 minutes to extract, cut, and paste data for an ABET report. Siniawski finds SBG a boon when writing job recommendations, since he can pull details on the specific areas in which a student excelled. Another plus: Fewer students ask him why they got a B and not an A on an assignment. “The conversation changes from ‘why did you take this point off’ to ‘gosh, I don’t know this very well,’” confirms Diefes-Dux.

For SBG enthusiasts, such merits outweigh the work required to convert those standards-based grades to the university’s transcript standard. Diefes-Dux does so by tallying points generated from the assessment of learning objectives for the two projects, 10 homework assignments, and three exams her students complete. Carberry must award letter grades, but counts the final project—building an exhibit for the local science museum—as 50 percent of the total, helping him streamline grading.

Challenges abound, however. These include a dearth of trained graders among teaching assistants, whose turnover is high. Diefes-Dux finds herself “writing a rubric of some kind every year” and wrestles with how to state clear objectives and train staff with the needed precision. Then there are course-management systems, which at some schools can make it hard for instructors and students alike to track trends in performance.

SBG proponents hope their research will persuade other engineering faculty to adopt the practice. Siniawski believes the NSF grant will “add a lot of credibility” to the team’s efforts to expand the assessment model to other colleagues. Ideally, says Diefes-Dux, the whole campus would embrace SBG, so students could see how they were doing across all their classes.

Impossible? Consider how rapidly such innovations as flipped classrooms and massive, open online courses (MOOCs) have spread. Meanwhile, engineering educators looking for proof of concept might find Loyola Marymount senior Nina Lepp’s experience persuasive. Still months from graduation, she already has landed a job in propulsion design at Boeing, not far from her Seattle home. “You carry yourself very well,” the interviewer told her. Lepp attributes that to the multiple presentations required in Siniawski’s course, where what counted was steady progress—not how she performed each time.




Real-World Solutions

An interdisciplinary Penn State program combines fieldwork, engineering, and enterpreneurship to build sustainable enterprises and improve lives in developing countries.

By Khanjan Mehta, Sarah Zappe, Mary Lynn Brannon, and Yu Zhao

Our article describes the genesis, philosophies, pedagogies, learning outcomes, and impacts of an academic program designed to address global development challenges while preparing students for careers in social innovation and global sustainable development. The Humanitarian Engineering and Social Entrepreneurship (HESE) Program at Penn State engages students and faculty in the rigorous research, design, field-testing, and launch of technology-based social enterprises in several low- and middle-income countries. Ventures range from low-cost greenhouses and solar food dryers to telemedicine systems and inexpensive biomedical devices. Through a series of five courses, HESE teams systematically advance ventures over multiple years with aspirations for large-scale commercialization and dissemination. Alongside the social enterprises, students work on original publishable research that strengthens ventures by ensuring they use an evidence-based and data-driven approach.

While half the students in HESE are engineering majors, the rest come from every other college across campus. Over half are women, a compelling number for engineering and entrepreneurship, both fields with poor gender equity. Venture teams espouse empathy, equity, and collaboration to break down disciplinary and cultural silos, and develop scalable and sustainable solutions. Sustainability, in this context, refers to the notion that solutions must be technologically appropriate, socially acceptable, environmentally benign, and economically sustainable. Ideas, presentations, and prototypes do not solve problems; the real challenge is implementation, assessment, and fast-paced pivoting. A wide range of political, cultural, social, economic, and human factors need to be overcome before a technology product has a tangible, measurable social impact. The real challenge lies in getting the job done in a harmonious manner. HESE’s focus on execution and sustainable impact drives the courses, pedagogies, and program operations.

With support from the Leonhard Center for the Enhancement of Engineering Education, a mixed-methods study incorporating surveys, focus groups, and students’ responses to a course blog was utilized to examine the effectiveness of the HESE program. Results confirm that HESE coursework develops students’ competencies in global awareness and engagement, multidisciplinary teamwork, and social entrepreneurship. The learning gains and improved self-efficacy are further confirmed by the entrepreneurial and research outcomes. Over the past decade, HESE ventures have collectively affected the lives of a few million people across several countries. For example, a flagship HESE venture at the water-food-energy nexus involves affordable greenhouses that have been commercialized in Kenya, Cameroon, Sierra Leone, and Mozambique, with similar efforts underway in Zambia, Cambodia, Burkina Faso, and elsewhere. A pre-primary telemedicine social enterprise, Mashavu: Networked Health Solutions, has seven full-time employees who have provided health services to over 40,000 people and educated about 120,000 more in central Kenya over the past four years. Fieldwork has led to more than 110 peer-reviewed journal articles and conference proceedings, the majority with undergraduates as lead authors.

HESE is transformative for most students as it exposes them to situations, opportunities, and career paths they never imagined. HESE students pursue a wide range of nontraditional careers, from launching such social ventures as providing low-cost feminine hygiene products and energy monitoring to repairing of obstetric fistulas by qualified surgeons, improving rural supply chains, and consulting with the World Food Program and Clinton Health Access Initiative. We are delighted to share the internal workings of the HESE program because a critical mass of similar academic programs can alter the perception of such efforts from a “save the world mission,” with students going to poor countries to save people, to a rigorous, multidisciplinary, integrative discipline that inspires students and faculty to work shoulder-to-shoulder with partners to build sustainable and scalable enterprises that deliver social impact.

Khanjan Mehta is director of the Humanitarian Engineering and Social Entrepreneurship program at Pennsylvania State University. Sarah Zappe is director of Assessment and Instructional Support at Penn State’s Leonhard Center for the Enhancement of Engineering Education, where Mary Lynn Brannon (now retired) was an instructional support specialist. Yu Zhao recently received her Ph.D. in educational psychology from Penn State. This article is excerpted from “An Educational and Entrepreneurial Ecosystem to Actualize Technology-Based Social Ventures,” which appears in Advances in Engineering Education’s forthcoming special issue on engineering entrepreneurship education.





Job–hunting? Here are a few current openings:


1. Associate Dean for Research - 1 opportunity


2. Engineering Education - 2 opportunities


3. Manufacturing Engineering - 1 opportunity


Visit here for details:






The American Society for Engineering Education (ASEE), with financial support from the Teagle Foundation and expert guidance by leading education consultant Sheila Tobias, has launched a website highlighting case studies that examine the benefits of greater integration between the liberal arts and engineering. The site is at: The content is free and open to the public. Learn more.


ASEE Board Elections are underway. The postmark deadline for paper ballots has been extended to March 31, 2016. Members are encouraged to vote electronically at (Note: You must be logged in to vote electronically.)


Engineering & Engineering Technology Chairs Conclave: Join us at the ASEE Annual Conference in New Orleans, LA on June 26, 2016 for the inaugural Chairs Conclave, an exclusive forum for Engineering and Engineering Technology Chairs to exchange ideas, share experiences, talk through challenges, and build working relationships. This full day event, designed by Chairs, for Chairs, includes presentations on relevant topics including financial development and managing external connections, and facilitated opportunities for group discussion and brainstorming. Learn more and view the full agenda here. Register today—space is limited!

New Navigation Section - Papers Management:: The new section contains upcoming deadlines, guidelines, call for papers, and kits for authors, program chairs, reviewers, and moderators. Find it here.



July 20-22, 2016 Bucknell University: For the 15th consecutive year, the faculty from Bucknell University is offering this hands-on workshop for engineering and science faculty, and graduate students. Details and application materials are available at Contact Michael Prince at with additional questions.




Do you have a comment or suggestion for Connections?

Please let us know. Email us at: Thanks.

This newsletter was sent to you by:

American Society for Engineering Education
1818 N Street, N.W.
Suite 600
Washington, DC 20036


Managing Editor: Tom Grose
Information for Advertisers


To unsubscribe from this newsletter, please reply to with "Unsubscribe" in the subject line - please include the email address that you would like removed from the mailing list.


American Society for Engineering Education (ASEE)

This email was sent to [email address suppressed]. If you are no longer interested you can unsubscribe instantly.