More Like this

1. Measuring and promoting empathic formation in a multidisciplinary engineering design course

   Hess, Justin L.; Sanders, Elizabeth; Fila, Nicholas D. (January 2022, ASEE annual conference exposition proceedings)

   Empathy is an important skill and disposition in engineering education but measuring and assessing empathy in specific engineering contexts is a novel domain of research. In this study, we iterated on a measure of empathy in engineering design. In this refined instrument, we measured and compared responses to the same set of survey items in different configurations. In the first configuration, we measured Cognitive Empathy and Affective Empathy across three design phases. In the second configuration, we retained the focus on Cognitive Empathy and Affective Empathy and variation across three design phases, but we also differentiated between self- and other- orientated empathy. An example construct in this second configuration is Imagine-Other Cognitive Empathy in Needfinding. To provide evidence of the trustworthiness of constructs, we computed Cronbach’s alpha as a measure of internal consistency reliability and identified Spearman correlations with four extant empathy constructs as a means of external validity. All constructs in the first configuration were reliable but several constructs in the second configuration were unreliable. However, many constructs in both configurations exhibited moderate to large correlations with four existing constructs. We found students exhibited significant changes in Cognitive Empathy in Needfinding, but students did not exhibit changes in affective or cognitive empathy in other design phases. However, by employing the second configuration, we found that students demonstrated significant and positive changes in Imagine-Other Cognitive Empathy in two design phases (Concept Generation and Solution Evaluation) while exhibiting no changes in Imagine-Self Cognitive Empathy. We also analyzed students’ written responses to an open-ended question pre/post-course. This analysis revealed that, after participating in this course, students: (1) situated users as the primary rationale for design work, (2) understood addressing users’ needs as critical to design work, and (3) exhibited broadened definitions about who (or what) constitutes a user. This work provides instructors with a means to assess students’ empathy with and for users in design and to more purposefully target students’ empathic development whilst accounting for engineering design phases. 

   more » « less
2. Efficacy of Humanities-Driven Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics Curriculum on Integrating Empathy into Technology Design

   Carrell, J; Cruz, J; Herbert, A; Rivero, I; Lazarus, E; Nuñez, E; Tabassum, N; Fan, X (June 2024, American Society for Engineering Education)

   There have recently been calls to consider the development of student empathy within engineering coursework. We argue that this goal may be reached by infusing more traditional engineering coursework with humanities. Our Humanities-Driven Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (HDSTEM) curriculum uses a humanities format as a context to discuss science and engineering advancement. The foundation of an HDSTEM curriculum is that it would reassert the importance of humans and human impact in science and engineering, while recognizing the social, political, and cultural catalysts and outcomes of technological innovation. Therefore, we hypothesize that through an HDSTEM curriculum, students will not only develop technically accurate solutions to problems posed in an engineering curriculum but will also question their ideas' impact on society. For this project, we draw on the case of an HDSTEM course, “World War II and Technology,” taught at Texas Tech University (TTU) and Rochester Institute of Technology (RIT). Specifically, we will present the analysis of linking specific problem-solving exercises and assignments that embed empathy with the delivery of the courses following an HDSTEM instruction modality. The problem-solving exercises and assignments incorporate the traditional Six Sigma define, measure, analyze, implement, and control (DMAIC) process. In these assignments, students were asked to reverse engineer technical, scientific, and logistical problems seen during World War II. In a more straightforward means to elicit empathy, students were assigned an additional empathize step with the DMAIC (EDMAIC) during two of these assignments. The empathize step was generic, asking students to take the perspective of the creators, users, and others affected by the problem and consider the societal needs and constraints of the time. Students completed four of these assignments (2 DMAICs bookending 2 (EDMAICs) throughout the course. Combining HDSTEM instruction modality and empathy problem-solving assignments, preliminary discourse analysis of assignments, which looks deeply at the language students used to create empathetic dispositions/identities within their work, revealed that students integrated empathy into technology design at various levels at both TTU and RIT. These disposition levels in empathy were observed and subjectively quantified using common rubrics. These outcomes result even from delivery at pre- and post-pandemic timeframes and at two institutions (i.e., the course was offered at TTU in the fall of 2019 and at RIT in the fall of 2022). In this consideration, the HDSTEM curriculum and empathy-embedded assignments have shown a cultivation of empathetic disposition among students. Further, based on these differing implementations, we will also present and comment on the experience of implementing the TTU course treatment at a new institution, RIT, to serve as a protocol in the future. These courses will be offered again in the fall of 2023 year to offer a comprehensive comparison between first-time (or one-off) in contrast to a sustained delivery of an HDSTEM curriculum. 

   more » « less
3. Board 370: Research Initiation in Engineering Formation: Literature Review and Research Plan for an Engineering Specific Empathy Scale

   https://doi.org/10.18260/1-2--46954  

   Vaughn, Emmabeth; Skau, Lily; Bouton, Bobette (June 2024, ASEE Conferences)

   Engineers are societal caregivers, solving problems for the betterment of society. However, both practitioners and students of engineering struggle to make concrete connections between empathy and their role as engineers. While general empathy scales exist, these scales do not describe empathy in specific engineering scenarios and other helping professions have unique empathy scales. To address both the empathetic nature of the engineering discipline and the lack of discipline specific empathy understanding, our research team has set out to create an engineering empathy scale (EES) funded by the National Science Foundation. Our research is guided by two research questions: How is empathy conceptually perceived, experienced, and shown in engineering specific situations? and Can engineering specific situations be used to measure empathy in engineering students, faculty, and practitioners? In this article, we present a systematic literature review of empathy in engineering and engineering education. Based on our selection criteria, we found 48 peer reviewed articles. Three themes of the articles emerged focusing on empathy in engineering: teaching and learning, design, and the role of empathy in engineering. We analyzed the articles to determine what areas of connection to the constructs of empathy and the current model of empathy in engineering are supported and which need more research to support. Lastly, we present our research plan to create and validate the EES, which will be aided by this literature review. 

   more » « less
4. How Engineering Students Learn and are Impacted by Empathy Training: A Multi-year Study of an Empathy Program Focused on Disability and Technology

   https://doi.org/10.1007/s43683-025-00179-5  

   Schearer, Eric; LaMack, Cameron; LaMack, Hannah (March 2025, Biomedical Engineering Education)

   Abstract PurposeMeasurable results of efforts to teach empathy to engineering students are sparse and somewhat mixed. This study’s objectives are (O1) to understand how empathy training affects students’ professional development relative to other educational experiences, (O2) to track empathy changes due to training over multiple years, and (O3) to understand how and what students learn in empathy training environments. MethodsStudents in a multiple-semester empathy course completed surveys ranking the career development impact of the empathy program against other college experiences (O1), rating learning of specific empathy skills (O2), and ranking program elements’ impact on empathy skills (O3). Intervention and control groups completed the Interpersonal Reactivity Index and Jefferson Scale of Empathy at four time points (O2). Cohort students participated in post-program interviews (O1, O3). ResultsO1: Empathy training impacted career development more than several typical college activities but less than courses in major. O2: Students reported gains in four taught empathy skills. Cohort students showed significant increases in the Jefferson Scale while the control group did not. There were no significant changes in Interpersonal Reactivity Index scores. O3: interactive exercises had a significant effect on students’ learning all empathy skills while interactions with people with disabilities had significant effect on learning to encounter others with genuineness. Students valued building a safe in-class community facilitating their success in experiential environments. ConclusionsThis study highlights empathy skills’ importance in engineering students’ development, shows gains in empathy with training, and uncovers key factors in students’ learning experience that can be incorporated into engineering curricula. 

   more » « less
5. Intersections of Design Thinking and Perceptions of Success for Electrical, Computer, and Software Engineering Students

   https://doi.org/10.18260/1-2--33010  

   Rodriguez, Sarah; Doran, Erin; Hengesteg, Paul (June 2019, 2019 ASEE Annual Conference)

   Engineering design thinking has become an important part of the educational discussion for both researchers and practitioners. Colleges and universities seek to graduate engineering students who can engage in the complex nature of combining both technical performance with design thinking skills. Prior research has shown that design thinking can be a solution for solving complicated technical and social issues in a holistic, adaptive way. However, little is known about how students make sense of their design thinking experiences and reconcile that into their perceptions of what it means to be a successful engineer. As part of a five-year National Science Foundation REvolutionizing Engineering and Computer Science Departments (NSF-RED) grant, this study highlights the experiences of students engaged in a course which has been redesigned to enhance student development through design thinking pedagogy. This case study sought to understand how electrical, computer, and software engineering students engage with design thinking and how that engagement shapes their perceptions of what success looks like. The case study was informed through observations of lecture and lab classroom contexts, interviews with students, and a review of relevant course documents. Participants met the following criteria: (a) were over the age of 18, (b) majoring in CES engineering, and (c) were currently enrolled in one of two courses currently undergoing redesign: a second-year electrical engineering course called Circuits or a second-year computer engineering course called Embedded Systems. Preliminary findings reveal that students engaged in the design thinking course described a disconnect between design thinking elements of the course and their perceptions of what it meant to be a successful electrical, computer, or software engineer. Although design thinking concepts focused on empathy-building and customer needs, it was often difficult for engineering students to see beyond the technical content of their course and conceptualize elements of design thinking as essential to their successful performance as engineers. This study bears significance to practitioners and researchers interested in (re)designing curriculum to meet the growing needs of innovation for today’s customer’s. Implications for policy and practice will be discussed to enhance the way that engineering programs, curricula, and workforce training are created. 

   more » « less