ELE 2025 Detailed Program Schedule and Abstracts (Preliminary)

Erik Lagace (University of Rhode Island)

I am a Biomedical Engineering and Spanish student at the University of Rhode Island doing a 5 year dual BS/BA International Engineering Program with a mandatory year of studying and interning abroad. I studied abroad at the University of Navarra TECNUN campus in San Sebastán, Spain, and I interned at a startup called Deneb Medical which is developing a spinal laser surgery robot. At Deneb Medical, I assisted with regulatory affairs regarding the FDA, helped develop FMEA with the risk analysis team, and developed medical imaging segmentation models in Python for CT scans and MRI. This international experience has been enriching both professionally and personally.

International connections open doors that otherwise never could have been opened. Connections made at my internship are significant, reciprocal, and have interesting implications for the future. The same holds true for the diverse group of friends I made along the way. While these relationships were informal, many of them were in my field, which opens the door for future international collaboration. In fact, meeting under casual circumstances may be even better; the preexisting trust and familiarity lays a strong foundation for a professional relationship, should we decide to later reconnect. While I don’t know what will come of these connections, their potential is undeniable. International relationships are something rare and meaningful, built with care over time. We live in an increasingly globalized world, so being able to cast a wide social and professional net that goes beyond the borders of just one small part of this big world is instrumental and enriching for the future of engineering. On a more personal level, the broader perspectives obtained by studying another language and in a different country gives confidence, flexibility, and openness. These traits make for a much stronger engineer in the workplace, and a better person everywhere else. There are plenty of other avenues for gaining these characteristics, but by doing it through immersing oneself in an unfamiliar culture gives these qualities some nuance. I’m not only open just because I’m a naturally curious person, I’m more open because it’s necessary to learn and understand how people think differently in another culture, which is essential for social integration. I’m not flexible just because I’ve always gone with the flow, but because I had to be—living in an unpredictable environment meant adaptation was essential for survival and function. With more mental openness and flexibility comes confidence. I’ve proven to myself that I can not only survive in unfamiliar situations but also adapt and find my own way. Studying a language gives direct access to its culture, giving a deeper understanding and appreciation. This higher depth of knowledge gives us opportunity for reflection, which is where true personal growth happens. Gaining that level of understanding and appreciation is, in my opinion, where the real joy and value is in learning, and in this case language is a primary factor in attaining it.

Vrishab Dhavale (University of Rhode Island)

I am a student pursuing a 5 year dual degree international engineering program at the University of Rhode Island, with a B.S in Biomedical Engineering and a B.A in French. This past year, I had the privilege of studying abroad at one of the most prestigious engineering universities in France; Université de Technologie de Compiègne. Following the six months of studying abroad, I am currently interning at Zimmer Biomet Robotics in Montpellier, France; one of the global leaders in Medical Robotics. Being immersed in an international environment with people from diverse backgrounds helped in developing communication skills, cultivating new problem-solving approaches, broadening perspectives, and not to forget, enhancing adaptability.

The international engineering experience provided me a platform to completely indulge myself into a new culture, new language, and exposure to fellow engineers from different parts of the world that directly influenced my decision-making abilities, helped me assess situations from a broader perspective, and provided an opportunity to sharpen my overall skill set. We worked together to learn from one another, strengthening networking skills and exchanging invaluable cultural experiences. What was impressive and eye catching was the different opinions and strategies each individual has, partially influenced by their upbringing and culture. This type of immersive learning extends beyond textbooks, enriching academic growth with personal transformation and global networking.To add to all these traits and qualities shared, experiences like these aid in solidifying identity and finding purpose within oneself. Moving to a new country with different cultural norms, etiquette, and traditions exposes oneself to unfamiliar and sometimes uncomfortable situations, which complements the process of character development. Often, people confuse discomfort with difficulty, when in reality, it is a sign of evolution.

There are multiple barriers broken by diversifying engineering practices, such as inclusivity, adaptability, and stereotypes, encouraging people from different backgrounds to pursue engineering. Ultimately, integrating international education and language acquisition into engineering studies prepares students to thrive in a multicultural workforce and contribute effectively to global technological advancement.

Katharine Aaronson (University of Rhode Island) and Michaella Junge (University of Rhode Island)

In recent years, the USA has seen increasing globalization of business and technology and a notable diversification of its population. However, studies indicate engineers are not prepared for these changes, lacking the non-technical, or soft, skills necessary for communicating with diverse groups. Of the 26 vital soft skills highlighted by The Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology (ABET), 24, including communication, multilingualism, and international awareness, are not being fulfilled. Universities, like the University of Rhode Island (URI), are now utilizing study abroad programs to potentially solve this dilemma. Associated literature highlights cultural immersion as a transformative process, not only developing the soft skills necessary for working in a multicultural world, but also generating self-reflection tendencies, a stronger sense of self, and the ability to recognize bias.

As members of URI’s International Engineering Program (IEP), we studied abroad for one year, with one semester of study at a university in Spain or Germany and six months in an internship. Through our experiences, we learned the challenges of cultural immersion while also making significant, personal advances in communication skills, confidence, and empathy.

We aim to parallel our personal experiences while studying abroad to bring awareness to the difficulties of cultural immersion. Attendees will have to navigate their way through interactions they may encounter while traveling to an intergalactic engineering conference. The presentation will begin with an introduction from us, briefly explaining our experiences to understand the background of our audience. Next, the audience will partake in an introductory activity, introducing the audience to the theme of an interplanetary conference. Here, a few audience members will be asked to volunteer and participate in two interactions: 1) ordering coffee when the barista does not speak English, and 2) checking into a hotel where you are faced with implicit bias from the concierge. Following this demonstration, we will hold a discussion to analyze the scenarios as a group and contextualize them using our experiences and the findings discussed in the first paragraph. The main activity for this workshop was inspired by activities we completed in our language classes.

Andrew J. Guswa (Smith College)

In their 2015 proposal to broaden engineering, Bucciarelli and Drew (2015) propose to take exemplary engineering content and study it from liberal arts perspectives alongside technical analysis. A similar idea had been implemented previously in the area of structural engineering by Prof. David Billington in his classes and books, such as The Tower and the Bridge (Billington, 1983). Billington moves beyond a collection of anecdotes and presents an approach for the evaluation of bridges, towers, and long-span roofs from scientific, social and symbolic perspectives with corresponding goals of efficiency, economy, and elegance.

We can expand this concept to water infrastructure, with the recognition that successful designs will incorporate understanding of social, cultural, and economic context along with technical and geographic knowledge. But what are exemplary works? How are they distinguished from the adequate? What are the appropriate categories and metrics for evaluation? How could a framework for assessment go beyond meeting technical standards efficiently and economically? For example, a goal from the social perspective might be that the design process was democratic, i.e., incorporating perspectives of many stakeholders. Cultural goals might reflect the beliefs and values of the community served with respect to resilience or localness. This presentation offers some emerging thoughts in response to these questions and solicits feedback and conversation on the subject.

Billington, D. P., 1983. The Tower and the Bridge, The New Art of Structural Engineering, Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ.

Bucciarelli, L. L., and Drew, D. E., 2015. Liberal studies in engineering – a design plan, Engineering Studies, 7 (2-3), https://doi.org/10.1080/19378629.2015.1077253

Jenna Pitera (Union College) and Stephanie Curley (Union College)

Science literacy is an interdisciplinary skill that students do not often acquire during high school, and therefore lack in their transition into college level work. Understanding and appraising scientific articles is becoming an increasingly vital skill in a complex and ever-changing science and information landscape. Undergraduates in the Biomedical Engineering program at Union College have demonstrated meaningful growth through interdisciplinary collaboration between technical coursework and information literacy. This intersection between scientific and research literacy allows students to apply general information literacy skills to complex scientific literature and topics. However, classroom observation and research consultation environments indicated that students were challenged by the foundations of critical article appraisal and peer review. The most difficulty was found in students' inability to quickly identify, prioritize and appraise the elements of a scientific article during their literature reviews.

Stephanie Curley, Mary H. ‘80 and Richard K. Templeton ‘80 Assistant Professor of Electrical, Computer, and Biomedical Engineering and Jenna Pitera, Instruction Librarian, identified critical gaps in students' research literacy and developed an innovative partnership that enhanced students' abilities to locate scientific articles, understand impact factor metrics, select appropriate research sources, develop focused proposals, and properly cite resources. This collaboration exemplifies how engineering education benefits from humanities integration, as students gained not only technical knowledge but also essential research skills required for professional practice. The program's most powerful interdisciplinary moment came when Ms. Pitera shared her personal experience as a cancer vaccine clinical trial patient, allowing students to connect their theoretical understanding of course material with real-world applications and human experiences. This approach demonstrates how exposure to perspectives from humanities and social sciences helps engineering students develop empathy, communication skills, and a deeper understanding of the societal context in which their technical work exists—ultimately creating more well-rounded engineers who can navigate complex human-centered challenges in their professional careers.

Ashraf Ghaly (Union College)

The United Nations (UN) member states adopted in 2015 a shared blueprint for peace and prosperity for the people of all nations. This sustainable development plan is designed to achieve its goals by 2030. At the heart of this plan are 17 monumental goals addressing extremely hard and persisting issues that plagued humanity for decades. At the top of these goals are eradicating poverty and hunger; providing quality education, clean water, sanitation, and affordable clean energy; reducing inequalities; promoting responsible consumption; and furthering economic growth, sustainable communities, peace, and justice.

The UN embarked on this challenge in 2015 with the strong belief that it could meet its goals in a timely fashion. To mark annual achievements, a progress report was issued every year starting in 2016 where highlights of accomplishments and setbacks were reported. The latest report, issued in 2024, showed the enormous obstacles that were faced in implementing the program and the factors that hindered planned progress. The report acknowledged that achieving the expected outcomes in the envisioned timeframe could be illusive. The latest report urged the world to redouble its efforts, and emphasized the immense potential for success through strong commitment to the utilization of available technologies, resources, and knowledge.

The world in general, and developing countries in particular, cannot afford allowing the opportunity to improve their communities to slip away. Wars and conflicts in many places in the world are diverting precious resources that could have been used for the betterment of humanity. The United Nations does not have an enforcement mechanism and entirely relies on the commitment of member states to get things done. Students were immersed into deep thinking regarding questions related to the implementation of the UN’s vision. The tasks seemed to be monumental, but all understood that failure was not an option. This presentation makes the argument that there is no way to confront global grand challenges other than to cooperate toward the common goal of lifting the entire human community.

Emily Monroe (Dartmouth College)

As 3D printing becomes more accessible in schools, libraries, and homes across the U.S., so too has the misuse of this technology—specifically in the creation of machine gun conversion devices (MCDs) and other illicit firearm components, known as privately made firearms (PMFs) or “ghost guns” colloquially. Faculty and staff at the Thayer School of Engineering at Dartmouth are collaborating with community, law enforcement, and industry partners to develop a system of printers, slicers, solid modeling software, and curriculum to address this increase in illegal firearm manufacturing with a solution that can make 3D printing of an alternative product (e.g., toys or custom prosthetics) more appealing and accessible to those who currently print or are at risk of entering into the printing of ghost guns of MCDs.

As part of this collaboration, students are matched with projects spanning research to identify online part repositories, to a capstone project demonstrating feasibility of a “gun free” verification system to block the printing of known gun parts. To better understand how to engage, support, and enable students in future projects to further refine the system that prevents 3D printing of illegal gun parts, we will use qualitative research techniques including interviews, observation, and grounded theory with the small group of students (n=8) who have completed project-based learning through the end of the summer of 2025. Our study aims to observe, analyze, and synthesize the needs and desires of these students. The results of this study will inform the design and implementation of future student projects related to 3D printed firearms, with the ultimate aim of helping engineering students make an impact on the overall gun violence epidemic through well-designed project-based learning experiences.This research will be conducted over the summer of 2025 and reported on in the fall of 2025 in advance of the capstone course in the fall term at Dartmouth.

Katie Kuder (Seattle University)

Seattle University's Project Center, established in 1987, connects student teams with industry, nonprofit, and community partners to solve real-world problems through yearlong senior design projects. Community enhancement projects are often facilitated through the Sundborg Center for Community Engagement, which has established relationships with local businesses. A recent example of this approach is the multi-year collaboration with the Black Farmers Collective, a nonprofit organization committed to food justice, Black leadership, and sustainable agriculture. At their Yes Farm site in Seattle’s Yesler Terrace neighborhood, Civil Engineering (CE) and Electrical and Computer Engineering (ECE) students worked on three distinct but complementary projects to enhance the farm’s accessibility, sustainability, and operational capacity.

The first project addressed the farm’s lack of electrical infrastructure by designing a renewable off-grid solar energy system to power fans, pumps, and lighting within the greenhouse. Using tools such as HOMER Pro and System Advisor Model (SAM), the ECE team developed a load profile and conducted a shading analysis to optimize solar panel placement. The design includes a photovoltaic array with battery storage and a backup generator, all within a $15,000 budget and in compliance with local electrical codes.

The second project focused on improving water resource management. The 2023 CE team designed a retrofit for the farm’s rainwater collection and irrigation systems, enabling more efficient water storage and usage. The team conducted aerial and ground surveys, assessed current infrastructure, and proposed three alternatives, ultimately delivering a 30% design including layout plans, profiles, and cost estimates. The selected alternative was developed in collaboration with the Black Farmers Collective to best meet the farm’s evolving agricultural needs.

The third project tackled mobility and accessibility challenges at Yes Farm’s entrance. A steep, unpaved slope limited access for community members with disabilities and created safety concerns. The 2025 team designed an ADA-compliant access ramp using sustainable materials and soil condition assessments to ensure structural integrity and cost-effectiveness. Final deliverables include construction-ready drawings and permitting documentation to advance the project toward implementation.

Together, these projects illustrate the impact of sustained university-community partnerships. By integrating technical skills with social responsibility, Seattle University students contribute meaningfully to urban agriculture, environmental justice, and inclusive community spaces, while gaining invaluable experience through real-world problem solving.

Kristen Sanford (Lafayette College)

This poster showcases the work of the Center for Infrastructure Transformation and Education (CIT-E, pronounced “city”), a cross-institutional community of practice (CoP) comprising more than 200 infrastructure engineering educators engaged in transformation efforts in undergraduate infrastructure education. CIT-E was founded in 2013 through an NSF grant focused on developing a model “Introduction to Infrastructure” course. Throughout the grant period, faculty from a wide variety of institutions worked to co-develop the course outcomes and then co-create, peer-review, and publish the course materials. These materials are freely available to anyone who wants to use them, and the collaborative engagement resulted in a strong community of practice. Since these initial efforts, the CIT-E community has continued to grow and to meet regularly through formal virtual workshops and both formal and informal in-person gatherings. Since 2020, the community has engaged in developing pedagogical skills and knowledge to recontextualize infrastructure education by addressing equity and justice impacts of civil infrastructure in concert with its planning and engineering.

Building capacity in CIT-E to empower faculty to effect systemic change in infrastructure education requires engaging social scientists, humanists, and others with expertise outside of the traditional civil/construction/environmental engineering community. The authors for this poster (one of whom will be attending the Symposium) recently completed work for an NSF IUSE grant that laid the foundation for more broadly impacting students through engaging more faculty in co-creating course materials, professional development, and community-building. In addition to information about the freely available course materials, this poster will share results of a systematic literature review, some of our lessons learned with regard to how communities of practice can effect change, and a proof-of-concept group concept mapping activity. Most importantly, the authors seek to engage faculty who might wish to be part of our community of practice, particularly those with backgrounds in disciplines other than or in addition to engineering.

Ari Epstein (Massachusetts Institute of Technology) and Miguel Torres (University of Puerto Rico at Ponce)

For the past several years, instructors at Diné College (Navajo Nation), the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and the University of Puerto Rico-Ponce have conducted an engineering/design class taken simultaneously by students at all three institutions. The class, which originates in the MIT

Terrascope first-year learning community, is strongly team-oriented and project-based, and individual design teams include students from all three institutions. The instructional team is highly interdisciplinary, and upper-level undergraduates also play important roles in facilitating the class. Working across cultural differences, time zones, and institutional characteristics has provided additional challenge to both students and staff, but instructors and students alike have judged this extra effort and complexity to be worth the additional learning gains in ability to collaborate with partners who have very different outlooks, approaches and life experiences. We present this class as an evolving work in progress, highlighting some lessons learned along the way and suggestions for others who might like to engage in similar efforts.

Ping-Chuan Wang (SUNY New Paltz)

This paper presents the design, evolution, and impact of a cross-disciplinary robotics mentorship program developed at the State of University of New York (SUNY) at New Paltz to foster the soft skill development of undergraduate engineering students through collaboration with education majors and high school students. Initiated in Fall 2019 as a two-semester pilot project, the program integrates three annual cohorts into a dynamic, cross-disciplinary mentoring model that brings together engineering students, adolescent mathematics teacher candidates, and high school students from an after-school robotics club. The primary objective is to cultivate the development of essential engineering soft skills through a collaborative framework. Engineering mentors provided technical guidance, while education mentors contributed pedagogical expertise, jointly engaging with high school mentees to deliver workshops on CAD design, microcontrollers, coding, and other STEM topics.

The mentorship model is structured around alternating sessions of internal planning and external workshop delivery to the high school robotics club, fostering a community of practice among the three stakeholder groups. After each workshop, feedback loops among the three participant groups to reinforce learning and pedagogical effectiveness. The program has undergone three iterative phases over a three-year period, which engaged a total of 25 university student mentors (12 engineering and 13 education), and evolved through iterations based on participant feedback and contextual changes. For example, the pilot phase, disrupted by the COVID-19 pandemic, focused on delivering technical workshops for high school students and demonstrated initial gains in mentors’ presentation, teamwork, and leadership skills. The second phase, aligned with the launch of the high school’s Dream-Think-Create (DTC) Challenge, emphasized mentorship of beginner high school students through hands-on engineering projects. Revisions included co-designing workshop materials, conducting pedagogy seminars for engineering mentors, and organizing on-campus showcases for exposure and engagement. These modifications led to increased mentor self-efficacy and further improvements in soft skill outcomes, particularly in adaptability, creative thinking, and problem-solving.

Data from post-project questionnaires and interviews demonstrated strong perceived growth in key soft skills. While all participants expressed appreciation for the experience and reported various gains, four areas emerged as most impacted: teamwork; presentation, leadership, and adaptability. The integration of cross-disciplinary perspectives played a pivotal role, as both engineering and education mentors noted benefiting from one another’s expertise. The results affirm that a structured, immersive, and cross-disciplinary mentorship experience can significantly enhance soft skills development in engineering students. The initial friction between disciplines, particularly during internal meetings where differing perspectives, expertise, and problem-solving approaches surfaced, acted as a catalyst for deeper collaboration and personal growth. While the study acknowledges limitations related to self-reported data and a relatively small sample size, it highlights the promise of mentorship-driven models for engineering education.

In this presentation, we discuss the design considerations, implementation, and assessment of this engineering-education cross-disciplinary mentorship model, along with the future directions for institutionalizing the model into early engineering curricula and expanding its reach across multiple school partnerships to assess broader applicability and impact.

Smitesh Bakrania, Rowan University

Engineering does not exist in isolation; it is deeply intertwined with history, culture, politics, and society. The course How It Worked leverages a liberal education framework to examine historical engineering innovations, emphasizing their broader societal impacts. By analyzing engineering breakthroughs through a multidisciplinary lens, students explore not only how technologies functioned but also why they emerged, who they affected, and what value they created within their historical contexts.

Structured around key historical moments-from ancient shipwrecked treasures and the agricultural revolution to the rise of new materials, electricity, engines, and space exploration-this course fosters interdisciplinary thinking. Students investigate technological advancements such as the development of steel and aluminum, the chemical innovations that shaped industries, and the evolution of transportation from early engines to automobiles and flight. Guest lectures and discussions on ethical considerations, including the societal impact of technological change, further enrich the learning experience.

A key component of the course is the hands-on final project, where students select a historical innovation, research its origins and impact, and construct a physical model to demonstrate how it worked. This experiential approach bridges theory and practice, allowing students to engage with historical technologies in a tangible way while honing their ability to communicate complex engineering concepts.

This presentation will showcase how How It Worked bridges engineering and the liberal arts, equipping students with the ability to critically analyze technology's role in shaping civilizations. Attendees will gain insights into the course's pedagogical structure, student engagement strategies, and examples of student projects, demonstrating how integrating historical perspectives and hands-on learning into engineering curricula fosters critical thinking, creativity, and ethical awareness. By blending liberal education principles with engineering education, How It Worked provides a model for developing future engineers who are not only technically proficient but also socially and historically aware.

Ryan Hearty (Johns Hopkins University), Adelheid Voskuhl (University of Pennsylvania), and Jenna Tonn (Boston College)

Our presentation engages the relationship among notions of the Liberal Arts, including how they have evolved since their first recurring uses in the European Late Middle Ages, and current ethical debates about self-driving cars. We draw on interdisciplinary frameworks from the history of science and technology to better understand distinctions and commonalities between the liberal arts, engineering, and technology. To anchor this discussion, we focus on a real world example, usefully invoked in the undergraduate classroom: the history of the car as an engineered artifact.

We start with an outline of the classical and medieval canon of fields known as artes liberalis (then carrying the meaning of “knowledge worthy of a free man”) as a way of illustrating the historical specificity of today's debates about the liberal arts, engineering, and technology. Through the early modern period and the ages of global imperialism and industrialization, the term’s meaning underwent considerable change, while also retaining some stability. The term, for example, usually goes hand in hand with a form of educational exclusiveness. Use of the word nowadays is very typical for American English, less so outside of the U.S.

We connect this notion of the liberal arts as a historically contingent concept to how we view engineering and technology as always already integrated into the liberal arts through an example we have used to engage undergraduates. In the classroom, we work to situate automobiles within the context of automobility (Sheller and Urry, 2000), a process by which the car has been co-constructed with society. To do this, we emphasize deep reading in the history of science and technology which critically analyzes the car as an artifact for thinking about the past, present, and future of engineering. Cars are simple objects – a steel chassis with a combustion engine that takes advantage of the remarkable chemical and thermodynamical qualities of gasoline. During the early twentieth-century, they started to be mass produced and marketed to consumers as status symbols. They also co-evolved with non-technical systems, such as the street, urban/suburban living, local, state, and federal transportation policies and environmental legislation, the petroleum and gas industry, and corporate organization. Automobiles are an important inspiration for the arts. Cars and car culture have been represented through cultural forms like painting, music, and film. These cultural productions express how an engineered object represents the human experience. For instance, Diego Rivera’s Detroit Industry Murals (1932/1933), The Eagle’s song “Hotel California” (1976/1977) and the films Ferris Bueller’s Day Off (1986) and the Fast & the Furious franchise (2001-present) use car culture to express values related to labor, youth, freedom, desire, democracy, patriotism, family, and rebellion, and Hollywoodian Americanness (Seiler 2008).

This liberal-arts informed inquiry helps to make sense of what is old and what is new about our interest (and our students’ interest) in the ethics of self-driving cars. Learning how to connect these histories, anchor them in the variety of human experiences and artistic expressions, and think pointedly about their future is part of the liberal arts

Lizette Chevalier (ABET) and Amanda Taylor (ABET)

As technology continues to shape nearly every aspect of modern life, engineering education must respond by preparing graduates who are not only technically proficient, but also socially conscious, ethically grounded, and effective communicators. This session explores how ABET accreditation supports faculty efforts to cultivate holistic engineers by integrating liberal arts values—such as communication, ethical reasoning, and societal awareness—into the core of engineering programs.

Dr. Lizette Chevalier, Chair of ABET’s Engineering Accreditation Commission, will draw from her leadership and academic experience to discuss the importance of shaping engineers who can thrive in multidisciplinary environments and navigate the ethical and cultural complexities of real-world challenges. Rather than focusing solely on compliance, she will highlight how ABET Criteria 3 (Student Outcomes), 4 (Continuous Improvement), and 5 (Curriculum) create space for innovation and intentional curricular design that reflects broader human concerns.

Dr. Amanda Taylor, a media and communication scholar, will explore how foundational liberal arts principles—such as clear communication, critical thinking, and contextual understanding—enhance engineering education and student development. She will show how integrating these elements into technical programs not only fulfills ABET requirements but also enriches student learning, helping future engineers engage thoughtfully with both their disciplines and the communities they serve.

Together, the presenters will showcase examples from ABET-accredited programs where faculty have infused the humanities and social sciences into engineering education through design experiences, community-based projects, and communication-intensive assignments. The session will also touch on how assessment and continuous improvement practices can be used to advance these goals while supporting equity, inclusion, and institutional mission alignment.
Attendees will leave with practical insights on how ABET criteria can be used as tools—not constraints—to foster interdisciplinary collaboration, strengthen the liberal arts-engineering connection, and ultimately graduate engineers who are better prepared to lead in a complex, interconnected world.

Sponsored by the Feigenbaum Forum on Innovation and Creativity, the keynote address will be delivered Dr. Sian Leo Proctor whose pioneering work bridges the worlds of science, space exploration, humanity, and creative expression. Her talk at ELE 2025 is titled EarthLight: Exploring the Intersection of Art, Science, and Engineering for Earth and Beyond

Vicki May (Dartmouth College)

The Thayer School of Engineering (Thayer) is a single, integrated department of engineering that is part of a liberal arts college (Dartmouth). Thayer engineering students are required to take 25 science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) courses, 8 courses in the humanities, arts, and social sciences, 3 language courses, and 2 writing courses. Thayer students take more non-STEM courses than students at almost all other engineering schools. We believe this breadth allows our students to better identify and solve a wider range of societal problems and to have a positive impact on the world. But how do we ensure that students are building connections across the courses they are taking and the concepts they are learning and that they are fully taking advantage of the opportunity to learn through a range of interdisciplinary courses? In 2023, a working group was formed to review the engineering curriculum and its impact. One of the outcomes of this review was the desire to better help students build interdisciplinary connections across engineering but also across the liberal arts and to evaluate the effectiveness of this interdisciplinary approach to engineering. Research questions that emerged are:

1. How might we help students build connections across engineering and the liberal arts? Is taking courses across departments sufficient? Or is taking interdisciplinary courses better? Should students reflect on their learning and how it is connected? We have not historically required students to build connections nor reflect on their learning across different courses but are considering requiring a reflection statement as part of the major planning process.
2. What are the benefits of interdisciplinary learning? Do we see evidence of interdisciplinary approaches in capstone projects? Do alumni report using interdisciplinary skills and having an impact on the world?
3. Are we better able to attract and retain students from diverse backgrounds through an interdisciplinary approach? In 2016 and again in 2024 more of our students who graduated identified as a woman than as a man and for many years we've had a higher percentage of students identifying as women than the national average - is this due, at least in part, to our interdisciplinary approach?

We are early in this study so have more questions than answers but hope to share our current strategies and insights and get feedback from others as to what they have tried.

Robert Chasnov (Cedarville University)

Cedarville University has a rich history as a Liberal Arts, mostly undergraduate, faith-based university located among the corn and soybean fields of southwest Ohio. Though it began as a Bible College to prepare men for the ministry, it added professional programs such as education (1910), business (1963), nursing (1982), and engineering (1990). The General Education (GE) component of programs being offered at Cedarville includes a required bible minor alongside a hefty collection of courses from communication, humanities, math, science, and the social sciences. Discussion will include how we help our students to recognize the importance of their GE courses as supportive of their passion to serve in highly technical fields. Accreditation and approval from ABET, Inc., the Higher Learning Commission (HLC), and the Ohio Department of Higher Education (ODHE) will also be presented.

Jeffrey Tang (James Madison University)

James Madison University (JMU) in Harrisonburg, Virginia began in the early 20th century as a teacher’s college for women and has maintained its core values as a liberal arts institution since become a coeducational university in 1977. Growth of more technically focused majors has been strong during the dozen years in which the College of Integrated Science and Engineering (CISE) has existed. A strong interest in maintaining a liberal arts foundation in such technical majors can be achieved in a variety of ways, and this presentation will look at the different approaches taken by three majors in CISE.

One of the college’s oldest majors, Computer Science (CS), takes what could be considered to be the classical approach to integrating the liberal arts. As with all students at JMU, CS majors must complete the university’s robust, 41-credit general education sequence. This includes courses in a wide range of knowledge areas, featuring required courses in critical thinking and communication, as well as foundational elements in math/logic, the natural and social sciences, the humanities, and the arts. Additionally, CS majors may take an elective course on social and ethical issues in computing. The relatively light liberal arts requirements belie the broad-minded culture in the CS program, which has its origins in the mathematics department. The relatively small curriculum (~50 credits) makes it easy for students to double-major, and the department encourages students to branch out beyond technical fields. Thus, a long-standing culture promotes the liberal arts in CS, even in the absence of extensive curricular requirements.

The Engineering program began at JMU in 2008, intentionally designed to be a multi-disciplinary engineering degree with a focus on sustainable design. At 129 credits, it leaves students little room for exposure to the liberal arts outside of the General Education requirement. However, it was designed from the outset to incorporate many of the “soft skills” long recognized as being critical to the success of engineering professionals. Project-based courses throughout the curriculum expose JMU Engineering majors to human elements throughout, and instruction often explicitly includes more human-focused aspects of technology. Humanist elements are thus interwoven throughout the Engineering curriculum, even as the major focuses primarily on technical excellence.

The truly unique Integrated Science and Technology (ISAT) major began in the mid-1990s as a response to industry in Virginia complains that the STEM graduates produced by the Commonwealth’s universities didn’t meet their requirements for more practical and flexible technology professionals. Created as an extremely interdisciplinary program from the outset, ISAT gives its majors a broad foundation in science and technology fundamentals, with upper-division courses narrowing according to highly applied problem areas such as energy, biotechnology, and manufacturing. Notably, the program faculty includes several STS- and ethics-related members whose expertise is less technical and more humanist. The program represents one of the more robust approaches to interweaving scientific, technical, and liberal arts elements into a single degree program.

Jenn Rossmann (Lafayette College) and Kristen Sanford (Lafayette College)

Infrastructure – comprising the structures and networks that underpin and enable modern life – is frequently taken for granted. Its form is not preordained, but reflects social construction and decision-making. At Lafayette College, we developed and teach two first year seminar courses offering integrative introductions to the way our infrastructure “has politics,” containing embedded social values in ways that often reinforce existing societal inequities. We challenge our students to consider how historical and current approaches to planning, engineering, and public policy are culturally embedded and the physical and social consequences of these approaches. We center this learning on sociotechnical thinking applied to real-world examples. For example, students investigate community and individual impacts of red-lining and racial covenants, siting of highways and other infrastructure such as landfills, and provision of green space. Though both classes are taught by engineers (one civil, one mechanical), they are open to first-semester students from all majors. Both classes are designed to meet the learning outcomes of Lafayette’s First Year Seminar program, including process writing and information literacy. The reading lists and assignments for each are designed to encourage interdisciplinary thinking about sociotechnical systems. In both classes, students perform local infrastructure explorations inspired by Shannon Mattern’s work, reporting their findings and interpretations. One of these seminars is informed by the instructor’s facilitation of a cross-institution faculty community of practice to reframe infrastructure education in its social context; the other seminar was conceived as an introduction to STS methodologies and speculative design. In both cases, students engage with what it means for infrastructure to promote equity and justice. We describe student outcomes from multiple course offerings of each course. These outcomes include enhanced understanding of the interdependence of society and technology, appreciation of the workings of “unseen” technologies, and motivation to create alternative future systems. We will discuss the sustainability and transferability of these approaches.

Michele Grimm (University at Albany)

Traditional fields of engineering often present students with a needs statement at the beginning of a design process - often in a way that may mimic a marketing department identifying the goal for the design a company's next version or new category of widget. Biomedical engineering programs have for many years have recognized the benefit - and necessity - of having students participate in the initial needs finding process so that they can better understand the needs and criteria for success of the intended users. These students also quickly recognize that they should not assume that they - as typically 20-something engineering students - can independently identify the needs for a device or system that will be utilized by a clinician, provide enabling technology for an individual with disabilities, or be deployed in an economically challenged portion of the world. This understanding - and the ability to formally interact with potential users from diverse life experiences and backgrounds - should not be limited to biomedical engineering. The creation of a pair of two mechanical engineering-related programs at UAlbany provided a unique opportunity to include a required course that teaches students how to consider the needs of a diverse set of users in their design process. As a bonus, the course was structured to satisfy one of the SUNY-wide general education requirements related to diversity, equity, inclusion and justice (DEIJ).

"Design for Society" (EGR 100) is being offered for the first time in Summer 2025. There are no prerequisites, and the goal is to have students from a wide range of programs enroll in order to expand and enhance the discussion beyond engineers. This course first introduces students to the design process - including the opportunity to interact with targeted users during the definition of needs and the validation of the design. It then explores how the design of devices and systems is influenced by the backgrounds and experiences of designers, and how engaging with diverse groups -- particularly those intended as users or beneficiaries --enhances design outcomes. The course delves into how personal factors such as race, class, gender, age, and disability shape our design frameworks - as well as how failure to consider differences in those factors has caused design failures. Students learn techniques such as ethnography, culturally responsive interviews, and reflection to better integrate varied perspectives into the design process. They work in teams to conceptually address a design problem, and they are challenged to identify how their initial assessment of the needs or their preferred solution may change if they specifically consider individuals with disabilities, a different age range, or in developing countries.

This presentation will discuss the course structure and how the socially-aware perspective can enhance the engineering design process. It will also present lessons learned during the Summer 2025 offering.

Yunn-Shan Ma (Rochester Institute of Technology)

This session shares how a series of interdisciplinary orchestra projects—made up entirely of non-music majors—turned into something far beyond what we expected. While designed as performance-based experiences, the students involved, most from STEM and computing fields, ended up learning about structure, storytelling, and cultural nuance through music in ways that blended intentional instruction with the kind of unexpected learning that happens along the way.

In projects like AR Fantasia, This Is What We Call Home, and Her Voice, Her Home, students explored music by women composers, immigrant voices, and lesser-known works by canonic composers. The orchestra was part of a course, but much of the most meaningful learning happened outside the syllabus. As they prepared for performances, students began noticing musical details—contrast, pacing, mood—and tried to express those ideas to classmates working on AR/VR or illustration elements. Without being formally taught, they were engaging in music analysis and learning how to communicate musical structure and emotion across disciplines. These were moments of both explicit learning—through rehearsals, feedback, and collaboration—and implicit learning, where understanding developed through the process itself.

One example stands out: after performing Holst’s Japanese Suite, many students were surprised to learn it even existed—most only knew The Planets. That discovery led to conversations about why some works get lost over time and how (and why) Western composers have historically represented other cultures. When paired with works by Asian composers, students began noticing differences in musical detail and perspective, all through quiet reflection shaped by what they had just performed. Some students even took it further on their own, researching composers’ backgrounds and uncovered stories of migration, gender barriers, and identity—connecting musical choices to bigger human themes.

After concert cycles, their surveys and reflections showed growth well beyond performance skills. Students left with sharper ears, new questions, and a better sense of how music, identity, and technology can intersect in meaningful ways. This session will share student reflections, examples from performances, and ideas for how ensemble work—especially when shaped by diverse repertoire and interdisciplinary collaboration—can open up space for both liberal arts learning and STEM-relevant skills, in ways we didn’t always plan but are worth noticing.

Erhardt Graeff (Olin College of Engineering)

Many undergraduate engineers begin their education with a desire to make a positive impact on the world. Yet their moral ambition and belief in the relationship between public welfare and professional responsibility often diminish over time-a phenomenon sociologist Erin Cech attributes to a "culture of disengagement" in engineering education. While recent attention to technology ethics has spurred new research, curricula, and professional codes, there remains a pressing need to more holistically support the ethical commitments and civic engagement that our complex world demands of engineers.

This presentation argues for emphasizing civic virtue as a framework for reorienting engineering education toward civic-mindedness and public welfare. In her book Technology and the Virtues, philosopher Shannon Vallor proposes a framework of "technomoral" virtues to help individuals navigate the ethical challenges of an increasingly interconnected and uncertain world. For engineers, these virtues offer a richer and more integrated ethical foundation than traditional models of professional conduct or risk mitigation-and they align with the long-standing goals of liberal education. I focus on four technomoral virtues in particular-humility, care, courage, and civility-which I argue are essential to preparing engineers for responsible civic participation and ethical practice.

Crucially, this work should not require a wholesale reinvention of engineering education. Many pedagogical practices already used at the intersection of liberal and engineering education are well-suited to cultivating civic virtue. Critical reflection, democratic pedagogy, community engagement, and experiential learning provide meaningful opportunities for students to wrestle with ethical complexity, practice empathy, and connect their technical work to broader social and political contexts. What's needed is more intentional and sustained use of such practices in and across courses to support students in developing durable ethical dispositions.

I will share insights from my own teaching and advising, including examples from capstone design courses and community-engaged design projects that have prompted students to critically examine the real-world consequences of their work and rethink their roles as engineers. I will also propose specific strategies for embedding technomoral virtues into existing curricula, drawing on best practices in virtue and character education.

At a time when engineering faces urgent questions about its public purpose and societal impact, we must embrace the full ethical and civic potential of undergraduate engineering education. Cultivating civic virtue can help students sustain their hope of doing good through engineering-and equip them to do so more responsibly, thoughtfully, and justly.

Eugene Korsunskiy (Dartmouth College)

One of the newest undergraduate courses in Dartmouth's Engineering Sciences department is ENGS15.09 - Design Ethics. This course-which was co-created by an engineering professor and a philosophy professor-integrates philosophical theorizing with design practice, exploring the moral, social, and environmental responsibilities of designers in engineering design, product design, UI/UX design, and related fields. It is an example of a fruitful collaboration between engineering education and the liberal arts, and thus a particularly appropriate case study to share at this year's Engineering and Society symposium. Attendees will learn about the structure and content of this course, explore its curricular framework, and see an in-depth classroom exercise that they will be able to take with them and use at their own campuses.

More details:

The course is divided into three parts. In the first part, students learn about several foundational ethical frameworks (consequentialism, deontology, virtue ethics, etc.), exploring how they might inform the analysis of designed artifacts. In the second part, students delve into real-world case studies through a series of case studies and expert interviews, thinking about how the ethical frameworks they learned manifest themselves (or don't) in the world of professional practice. In the final part of the course, students bring together everything they learned on an independent research project and presentation, in which they practice crafting a compelling argument that raises an ethical issue in the product(s) of an existing tech organization.

Through readings, group discussions, short lectures, case studies, guest speakers, and hands-on projects, students learn to critically analyze and apply ethical principles in the context of design. Along the way, they develop not only a deeper understanding of the role of design in shaping our world, but also the skills needed to become more thoughtful and responsible designers.

We are looking forward to sharing the Design Ethics course with ELE attendees.

Shannon Clancy (Elizabethtown College)

Social and contextual practices and divergent thinking are important within engineering to address complex and ambiguous problems, such as issues related to climate change, health, artificial intelligence, and others in a hyperconnected world. However, engineering education frequently underemphasizes or even omits social and contextual practices in favor of technical, decontextualized, close-ended problems and convergent analyses. I use the word “underemphasized to describe how dominant skills and knowledge, also known as practices, and messaging within engineering education are frequently technical and objective in nature. Technical practices are important and valuable, but they are often the primary focus of engineering work and culture in the plethora of other necessary and important practices and messages engineers need to address societal problems, often emphases not equally valued, taught, or practiced.

I believe social and contextual practices are incredibly beneficial to further engineering education and developing engineering students to create more useful and effective solutions to societal problems. Social and contextual practices may be referred to using many distinct terms (e.g., sociotechnical, macroethics, social impact, social justice, etc.). Depending on the discipline, positionality and education of the scholars, and audience for the work, the degree to which what impacts are considered (e.g., one generic type of person vs. multiple different types of marginalized people vs. society as a whole) as well as goals and outcomes desired (e.g., inclusion vs. equity) varies. Regardless, scholars within social and contextual practices bring to light how engineering students need to consider a wide range of contexts and impacts to create more useful and effective solutions when making decisions.

In this podium presentation, I plan to discuss these different terms used and their impacts on Engineering and Society from an initial scoping literature review in STEM education, engineering education research, science, technology, and society, and other relevant fields conducted during my dissertation. Additionally, I would like to discuss with the audience what terms they use, others not presented, and what different framings may teach us – particularly in thinking about how we as educators, researchers, and engineers can learn from a variety of literature in differing fields and build solidarity in making change to reimagine what is included as engineering work and its implications for ourselves and our students.

Presenters:

Our ABET special workshop brings together voices from multiple stages of the academic and professional journey:

• Dr. Makayla Headley (Clemson University), a recent chemical engineering graduate from the University of Maryland, Baltimore County and incoming Ph.D. student in Engineering and Science Education at Clemson University, will share her path from technical specialization to discovering a passion for how students learn best—especially those traditionally underrepresented in STEM fields. Her story highlights the importance of mentorship, supportive environments, and fostering student confidence.
• Dr. Lizette Chevalier (ABET), Chair of ABET’s Engineering Accreditation Commission and professor in environmental modeling, will reflect on how accreditation criteria encourage programs to integrate communication skills, ethical awareness, and societal considerations into engineering curricula. She will discuss how these frameworks empower faculty to design meaningful learning experiences that go beyond technical proficiency.
• Dr. Amanda Taylor (ABET), Sr. Director of Global Communication and Marketing at ABET and intersectional, critical feminist scholar, will emphasize how liberal arts foundations such as storytelling, inclusive communication and ethical reflection contribute to preparing engineers who are well-rounded and socially conscious.

Title:
Integration and Impact: Enhancing Engineering Education Through Liberal Arts and Human-Centered Approaches

Abstract:

This workshop offers a lively, thoughtful exploration of how liberal arts values—such as ethical reasoning, communication, critical thinking, and respect for diverse perspectives—can deepen and enrich engineering education. By connecting personal experiences, leadership insights, and systemic frameworks, the session examines how engineering programs can prepare students to be thoughtful, responsible, and adaptable contributors to society.

This session blends panel discussion with interactive elements, inviting participants to consider how to foster collaboration between engineering and liberal arts disciplines to create respectful and human-centered learning environments. Attendees will gain practical ideas for using accreditation as a catalyst for curricular innovation and for nurturing engineering students who can thoughtfully engage with complex societal challenges.

We encourage participation from faculty, administrators, and students across engineering, humanities, social sciences, and education, eager to build partnerships that enrich both technical and humanistic learning.