Literature from neuroscience and educational psychology are continuously underscoring the importance of emotion in learning, which brings considerable implications for education. While some areas, such as design thinking, have embraced empathy as a technique for better connecting design with user need, empathy as a construct still remains ambiguous. In addition, many course design theories and frameworks focus heavily, if not exclusively, on cognitive processes; apprenticeships of the head and hands. Educators hoping to intentionally and systematically engage in empathetic strategies, or apprenticeships of the heart, have little guidance from traditional course design models for doing so. The special session will introduce one tangible method to engage in and integrate empathy into course design.

This panel session combines principles from graduate student socialization and intergenerational mentorship to provide a unique opportunity for early career scholars and pioneers in engineering education to interact face-to-face. Pioneers will serve as panelists and give their personal tips and reflections on networking and mentorship. Session attendees will then meet with the pioneers in a roundtable format, to ask questions, seek advice, and get feedback. This work builds on the National Science Foundation-funded Engineering Education Pioneers Project, which documented the stories of more than 40 engineering education pioneers through online profiles. The intended audience for this panel includes graduate students, junior faculty, and other individuals interested in the engineering education community. Expected benefits include better understanding, increased belonging, and new or enhanced interest in engineering education. Future efforts associated with this session include understanding the impact of such exposure to the pioneers on attendees and exploring the possibility of offering this event at future engineering education conferences.

This paper presents a new model of mentoring engineering graduate students called faculty apprenticeship, which is aimed at helping prepare graduate students to become effective teachers. Engineering education scholars have pointed out that graduate school usually falls short in preparing engineering graduate students for a career as faculty. Moreover, graduate students lack deliberate opportunities to practice and gain genuine teaching experience. Students who are appointed as teaching assistants (TAs) do not always get opportunities to teach and are mostly restricted to supporting the instructor as necessary. With an increasing focus on developing strategies to better prepare graduate students for their teaching role in academia, we address this challenge through the model of faculty apprenticeship. The faculty apprentice approach was implemented in the school of engineering education at a large Midwestern university. In this paper, we present the rationale of the faculty apprentice approach, which is located within the conceptual frameworks of the mentoring and apprenticeship models. We look at the experiences of two professors and two graduate students who served as instructors and faculty apprentices respectively throughout several semesters. The data is collected in the form of reflections and is examined through a qualitative constructivist lens to inform engineering educators on the mutual benefits of this approach. The results that emerged from the combined experiences of faculty and students provide a reasonable argument on how the faculty apprentice approach benefits both faculty and students. The results also present the process involved in successfully running the model. We believe the faculty apprentice approach is compatible and complementary with current efforts being taken by engineering colleges towards professional development of graduate students. The intention of this paper is to spark interest among instructors and provide information to transfer this approach from engineering education to other engineering disciplines.

At FIE 2002, 13 engineering educators assembled to address a variety of topics and predict the “Future of Engineering Education.” Last year at FIE 2017, a follow-up panel assessed our progress in several key areas: the role of active and cooperative learning, the state of the University and forces driving change, promotion and tenure (the faculty reward system), strategies and methods for delivering engineering education, enhancing student performance, the impact of research in engineering education, diversity and inclusion, and the role of schools of engineering education. This year, we will continue the discussion of several of these issues, and ask “Where are the New Frontiers for Engineering Education?” Our goal is to stimulate discussion among faculty at the forefront of new approaches to instruction and outreach. We will also discuss the changing nature of the institutions where engineering education occurs, and speculate on the future of the university.

At FIE 2002, 13 engineering educators assembled to address a variety of topics and predict the “Future of Engineering Education.” Larry Shuman organized and moderated the session [1]. Topics included the changing demographics and economics of the country, technological advances, the engineering pipeline, the state of the University and forces driving change, engineering as a liberal art, the accreditation process and faculty reward system, the role of technology in delivering engineering education, educating for higher levels of performance, research in engineering education, research applications, and outcomes assessment. This panel includes five of the original authors and some new contributors who are active in FIE. We will examine the predictions made in 2002, and ask where we were right, where we were wrong, what has come to pass, what is still in progress, and what concerns have faded from view. Many of the issues previously discussed are still hot topics 15 years later.

The FIE conference has throughout its history emphasized work at the frontiers of education. This pre-conference workshop reflects a policy shift at the National Science Foundation, Department of Education, and Department of Defense, and others who have adopted the I-Corps™ model to extend the longevity and the value of initially funded projects. This cutting-edge workshop introduces the core features of the Lean Startup process; namely, (1) search for a sustainable and scalable model using the Business Model Canvas, (2) Customer discovery, and (3) Agile engineering (i.e., iterate and increment towards an appropriate product, program or service) - all of which have been identified as essential for maximizing the longevity and impact of research projects and products. SMART START resonates with the conference theme - Educating Our Future, Honoring Our History - honoring the tradition of excellence in engineering innovation while exploring a new paradigm that strives to build impact into earlier stages of research. The workshop will provide participants (a) a framework to think about how to discover customer requirements, (b) how to sustain and scale STEM education innovations, (c) exposure to the NSF I-Corps™ program, and (d) an opportunity to connect and engage with peers interested in the increasing the impact of their research.

According to change literature, the multiplicity of levels and structures that exist within an organization makes organizational change a difficult process. Similarly, many challenges face any attempt to foster change in engineering education, due to the various layers that make up the field. Looking at the evolution of engineering education research (EER) as a field and the individual pathways of engineering education researchers, EER scholars have discussed a model for engineering education reform that draws from Palmer's Movement Approach to change. This special session introduces Palmer's approach as a framework to look at reforms that have already occurred, and envision possible paths for action toward desired changes.

Currently there is a lot of emphasis on engineering education research and innovation. In 2014 NSF funded a pilot implementation of the NSF Innovation Corps for Learning (I-Corps™ L) and additional cohorts have been conducted and are planned. The 7-week I-Corps™ L program uses established strategies for start-ups to scale up and move teaching and learning innovations into broad practice. Participating teams go through a hypothesis-testing, scientific method of discovery to gather important insights and identify issues associated with their projects. Unfortunately, the reach of the program is limited as a maximum of 24 teams can participate in each course offering. This special session provides an opportunity for a broad cross-section of researchers and educators to gain exposure to the Lean Start Up approach and its applicability to STEM education ecosystem. The focus of the session is to introduce the core features of the Lean Start Up process: search for a sustainable and scalable model using the Business Model Canvas, Customer Discovery, and Agile Engineering (i.e., iterate and increment towards an appropriate `product').

Currently there is a lot of emphasis on engineering education research (EER) and engineering education innovation (EEI). In the EER domain, several universities have established or are considering establishing engineering education research centers and PhD programs. In the EEI domain, the National Academy of Engineering launched the Frontiers of Engineering Education (FOEE) symposium and NSF recast CCLI as TUES, and more recently IUSE (Improving Undergraduate STEM Education). In 2014 NSF funded a pilot implementation of the NSF Innovation Corps for Learning (I-Corps™ L) and additional cohorts have been conducted and are planned. The growth of interest in the scholarship of teaching and learning (SoTL) has great potential to contribute to EER and EEI as indicated by the response to the ASEE Virtual Communities of Practice (VCP) project. Faculty and graduate students interested in engineering education research and innovation (EER&I) are widely distributed and often isolated in their department and institution. Many are eager to meet and interact with colleagues who have similar interests. This session provides the opportunity to for people who have been involved in engineering education research and innovation to reconnect, and to welcome new folks into this emerging community.

The Innovation Corps for Learning (I-Corps-L) is a pilot initiative from the National Science Foundation (NSF) and the American Society for Engineering Education (ASEE) to study whether the NSF I-Corps model can help to propagate and scale educational innovations. The NSF I-Corps guides teams based on established strategies for business start-ups, using Blank's Lean LaunchPad and Osterwalder's Business Model Canvas and associated tools, to build entrepreneurial skills that will encourage mainstream application of their emerging technologies. The overriding goal is improving student learning and success rates in key STEM courses by helping to accelerate the process of bringing effective educational innovations to scale. The project goal of I-Corps-L is to investigate the potential of the I-Corps model for fostering an entrepreneurial mindset within the education community to impact the way innovations are designed and implemented. This Work in Progress describes the features of the I-Corps-L pilot and provides preliminary indications of its applicability for propagating, scaling and sustaining education innovations. Addressing the persistent challenge in STEM education to adopt evidence-based instructional practices is an urgent need as many approaches have been tried yet the rate and extent of adoption are very low.

In this paper, five major shifts in engineering education are identified. During the engineering science revolution, curricula moved from hands-on practice to mathematical modeling and scientific analyses. The first shift was initiated by engineering faculty members from Europe; accelerated during World War II, when physicists contributed multiple engineering breakthroughs; codified in the Grinter report; and kick-started by Sputnik. Did accreditation hinder curricular innovations? Were engineering graduates ready for practice? Spurred by these questions, the Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology (ABET) required engineering programs to formulate outcomes, systematically assess achievement, and continuously improve student learning. The last three shifts are in progress. Since the engineering science revolution may have marginalized design, a distinctive feature of engineering, faculty members refocused attention on capstone and first-year engineering design courses. However, this third shift has not affected the two years in between. Fourth, research on learning and education continues to influence engineering education. Examples include learning outcomes and teaching approaches, such as cooperative learning and inquiry that increase student engagement. In shift five, technologies (e.g., the Internet, intelligent tutors, personal computers, and simulations) have been predicted to transform education for over 50 years; however, broad transformation has not yet been observed. Together, these five shifts characterize changes in engineering education over the past 100 years.

Innovation according to Denning and Dunham (2010) is “the adoption of a new practice in a community.” I argue that our innovations need to be based on good learning theory and good instructional practice. The Johnson and Johnson conceptual model of cooperative learning is an excellent example of a widely adopted evidence-based practice. I identified cooperative learning as important for engineering education in about 1974, tried it in my classes and did some systematic research on it with David and Roger Johnson, introduced it to the engineering education community in 1981 (FIE conference and JEE paper), and it took over 25 years for it to become widespread practice. My point in presenting this story is I don't think we can afford to wait 25 or more years for the current innovations to make it into practice. This paper summarizes the history of the emergence of cooperative learning in engineering education; documents the development of the theoretical, empirical, and practical support; maps the milestones and lessons learned; and provides insights and guidance for engineering education researchers and innovators especially concerning increasing the rate of adoption of evidence-based promising practices.

Currently there is a lot of emphasis on engineering education research (EER) and engineering education innovation (EEI). In the EER domain, several universities have established or are considering establishing engineering education research centers and PhD programs. In the EEI domain, the National Academy of Engineering launched the Frontiers of Engineering Education (FOEE) symposium and NSF recast CCLI as TUES. The growth of interest in the scholarship of teaching and learning (SoTL) has great potential to contribute to EER and EEI. A recent NSF Webinar series is featuring SoTL. The aim of this special session is to provide an opportunity for representatives of these three communities to network with one another, to welcome representatives from emerging programs, and to provide guidance to colleagues who are considering establishing initiatives in these areas. We will set up a space on the Collaboratory for Engineering Education Research (CLEERhub.org) where we will post the program descriptions (and links). We will encourage participants to use CLEERhub.org as a means for following up after the session.

The purpose of this workshop is to introduce participants to the integration and alignment of content (or curriculum), assessment, and pedagogy (or instruction) for learning module, course, and program design and provide some essential methods for designing courses and curricula in this way. Rather than treat each of these areas separately, this workshop strives to help participants consider all three elements together in a systematic way. The workshop framing is an engineering design approach, that is to say, it begins with requirements or specifications, emphasizes metrics, and then evolves into preparation of prototypes that meet the requirements. Participants interested in developing rationale, and learning and practicing a model of how to align course content with assessment and pedagogy that they can use to inform the design or re-design of engineering courses are encouraged to attend.