my.fit.edumy.fit.edu/~jbrenner/keen/2019-12-24_keen annual_re… · web view2019/12/24 ·...

Reframing Making to IntegrateEntrepreneurially-Minded Learning

Annual Report on Phase-I of the GrantFrom the Kern Family Foundation

January 15, 2020

Principal InvestigatorDr. Marco Carvalho, Dean of COES

Co-Principal InvestigatorDr. Chiradeep Sen, Mechanical Engineering

KEEN Core Team at Florida TechDr. Chiradeep Sen, Mechanical Engineering

Dr. Robert Weaver, Ocean EngineeringDr. Rodrigo Mesa-Arango, Civil Engineering

Dr. Kastro Hamed, STEM EducationDr. Kimberly Demoret, Aerospace Engineering

Dr. James Brenner, Chemical Engineering

Florida Institute of TechnologyMelbourne, FL, 32901

Contents1 Summary of Deliverables and Tasks....................................................................................................1

1.1 Status of Project Deliverables......................................................................................................1

1.2 Status of Phase-1 Tasks................................................................................................................1

2 Dashboard: Summary of Activities and Outcomes in Phase-1.............................................................2

2.1 Makerspace Visits (Part of Deliverable 1)....................................................................................2

2.2 Other Schools Considered for Visits (Part of Deliverable 1).........................................................2

2.3 Establishing the KEEN Maker Subnet (Part of Deliverable 2).......................................................2

2.4 Faculty Engagement (Part of Deliverable 5).................................................................................2

2.5 Attendance to KEEN Events (Part of Network Engagement Supported by Grant).......................3

2.6 Attendance to Non-KEEN Events (Part of Network Engagement Supported by Grant)...............3

3 Deliverable 1: Landscape of Making within KEEN Partner Schools......................................................4

3.1 Findings from the Survey.............................................................................................................4

3.1.1 The Data Collection Instrument...........................................................................................4

3.1.2 Data.....................................................................................................................................4

3.1.3 Results and Analysis.............................................................................................................4

3.2 Findings from the School Visits....................................................................................................6

3.2.1 The Data Collection Process.................................................................................................6

3.2.2 Data.....................................................................................................................................6

3.2.3 Results and Analysis.............................................................................................................6

3.3 Findings from the Literature Review............................................................................................8

4 Deliverable 2: Enrolling Partner Schools in the KEEN Making Subnet..................................................9

4.1 School Assessment and Selection Process...................................................................................9

4.1.1 Data Collection.....................................................................................................................9

4.1.2 School Selection...................................................................................................................9

4.2 The KEEN Maker Subnet of Schools.............................................................................................9

5 Deliverable 5: Faculty Engagement and Student Impact...................................................................11

5.1 Faculty Re-Engagement Meeting...............................................................................................11

5.2 EML Module Development Workshops.....................................................................................11

5.3 The Graduated Incentive Plan....................................................................................................11

Appendices................................................................................................................................................12

Appendix-A. EML and Making Space Questionnaire...............................................................................12

i

Appendix-B. Survey Data on Making Space Usage.................................................................................21

Appendix-C. Observation Protocol for School Site Visits........................................................................23

Appendix-D. School Evaluation Rubric................................................................................................25

Appendix-E. School Visits Data...............................................................................................................29

Appendix-F. KEEN Card Decks Related to Making..................................................................................30

Appendix-G. Evidence of Partner Schools’ Responses........................................................................36

Bibliography...............................................................................................................................................41

ii

1 Summary of Deliverables and Tasks 1.1 Status of Project Deliverables Based on the project award document received from the Kern Family Foundation (KFF), the following deliverables are due at the following phases of the project, as indicated.

Deliverables Phase/Status1. Provide a landscape analysis of makerspaces across KEEN Completed2. Enroll three KEEN partner schools to collaborate with grantee Completed3. Co-create and deploy a set of six tools to embed EM in makerspaces Phase-24. Test the tools across the KEEN partner schools, and improve the tools Phase-25. Train 50 engineering faculty to develop modules, impact 1,600 students Phase 1-3, ongoing6. Package and deploy the tools to a broader audience Phase-3

This document provides detail report on deliverables # 1, 2, and 5, which were addressed in Phase-1.

1.2 Status of Phase-1 TasksThe following list provides the tasks in Phase-1 promised in the proposal document submitted by Florida Tech to KFF, and their current status.

Task Status Remarks1. Development of exploration team Completed KEEN Core Team established2. Exploration and investigation Completed Lit. review and initial surveys completed3. Screening potential subnet schools Completed Schools shortlisted for visitation4. Maker space visits Completed 10 schools visited5. Engage potential network schools Completed 5 schools invited to join subnet6. Finalize selection of subnet Completed 5 schools expressed interest to join subnet 7. Report on evidence (this report) On schedule Due: Jan. 15, 2020

1

2 Dashboard: Summary of Activities and Outcomes in Phase-1

This section provides a snapshot of the activities performed in Phase-1 and their outcome. These items are discussed in greater detail in the later sections. Supporting evidence for these activities are provided in the appendices at the end of the document.

2.1 Makerspace Visits (Part of Deliverable 1)The following schools were visited by the Core Team at Florida Tech, mentioned in the cover page. More about the landscape analysis on makerspaces, including school visits, can be found in Section 3.

University visited Visitor Time1. University of Denver Demoret May, 20192. George Fox University Brenner May, 2019 3. University of Dayton Demoret June, 20194. Bucknell University Brenner July, 2019 5. Olin College Mesa July, 20196. Rochester Inst. of Tech Sen July, 20197. Marquette University Hamed July, 20198. Lawrence Tech Brenner Aug, 2019 9. Milwaukee School of E Weaver Aug, 201910. Georgia Tech Brenner, Sen Aug, 2019

2.2 Other Schools Considered for Visits (Part of Deliverable 1)Survey responses were solicited from the ten schools listed above, plus the schools listed below. Based on the response, the schools listed below were not selected for visits.

1. Rowan University2. Villanova University3. St. Louis University4. Oregon Institute of Technology5. Oregon Tech Portland Metro6. Western New England University7. Wichita State University

8. Arizona State9. Rose-Hulman Institute of Technology10. George Washington University11. Georgia Tech (no data)12. Clarkson University (no data)13. Tulane University (no data)

2.3 Establishing the KEEN Maker Subnet (Part of Deliverable 2)The following five schools were shortlisted, in order of preference, and invited to join the KEEN Making Subnet. All five schools responded positively to the invite. More about this task can be found in Section 3.3.

University invited Outcome1. Bucknell University Expressed interest to join subnet2. University of Denver Expressed interest to join subnet3. George Fox University Expressed interest to join subnet4. Lawrence Technological University Expressed interest to join subnet5. Milwaukee School of Engineering Expressed interest to join subnet

2

2.4 Faculty Engagement (Part of Deliverable 5)A faculty re-engagement meeting was organized by COES on August 15, 2019. Approximately 50 faculty members attended. Following this meeting, two workshops were offered by the Core Team to train the faculty in developing EML modules for their courses. A total of fifteen faculty members attended those workshops, and are currently developing their modules under the mentorship of the Core Team. The modules will be rolled out in Sp-20 or Fa-20, based on the teaching schedule of the courses. More information about this effort is presented in Section 5.

2.5 Attendance to KEEN Events (Part of Network Engagement Supported by Grant)

The following travels were promised in the proposal. The tables below show their current status.

Event Time Location Florida Tech Attendees1. KEEN National Conf., 2019 Jan., 2019 Dallas, TX DeTroia, Brenner2. KEEN Leader Meeting, 2019 Jul., 2019 Atlanta, GA Sen, Archambault3. KEEN Workshop: Teaching with Impact Jul., 2019 Milwaukee, WI Hamed4. KEEN Workshop: Teaching with Impact Aug., 2019 Milwaukee, WI Weaver5. KEEN Workshop: Teaching with Impact Aug., 2019 Milwaukee, WI Demoret6. KEEN Workshop: EML and Research Nov., 2019 Washington, DC Sen, Mesa7. KEEN National Conf., 2020 Jan., 2020 Dallas, TX Scheduled: 15 attendees1

2.6 Attendance to Non-KEEN Events (Part of Network Engagement Supported by Grant)

The table below shows the current status of travel to non-KEEN events that were promised in the proposal.

Event Time Location Florida Tech Attendees1. ASEE Annual Conf., 2019 June, 2019 Tampa, FL Morkos2. ASME IDETC Conference, 2019 Aug., 2019 Anaheim, CA Sen, Morkos3. ISAM Conference, 2019 Oct., 2019 New Haven, CT Demoret4. ASEE Annual Con., 2020 Jun., 2020 Canada Scheduled: Demoret

1 The following 15 attendees will attend the KEEN National Conference, 2020. All attendees are faculty members, unless otherwise stated.Using coupon code: Chiradeep Sen, Rodrigo Mesa-Arango, Kastro Hamed, Kimberly Demoret, Maria SagastumeAs presenter: James BrennerSupported by the grant: Philip Chan, Siddhartha Bhattacharyya, Khaled Slhoub, Hamidreza Najafi, Troy Nguyen, Mark Archambault (Associate Dean, COES), Anthony DeTroia (Staff: Machine Shop), and Martin Gallagher (Staff: Digital Scholarship Lab)

3

3 Deliverable 1: Landscape of Making within KEEN Partner Schools

3.1 Findings from the SurveySeveral Making Spaces at KEEN partner schools were approached to better understand the making landscape and elucidate the connection between Making Spaces and Entrepreneurially Minded Learning (EML). A questionnaire instrument was developed to collect data from Making Spaces on EML activities and their operations. The next subsections summarize the development of the data-collection instrument and the main results observed from the data.

3.1.1 The Data Collection InstrumentThis subsection describes the construction process of an online questionnaire, developed to collect data from Making Spaces at KEEN partner schools. Multiple prototypes of questionnaires were generated with the following three objectives: (i) capturing EML and Making concepts deemed important from our literature review and our institutional expertise, (ii) minimizing response time, and (iii) minimizing the number of intrusive questions (detailed budgets, proprietary information, etc.). Objectives (ii) and (iii) must be properly addressed as they are critical to improve the quality and quantity of the data that can be used to support objective (i). The development and administration of the survey followed the Delphi model.

After multiple iterations, the final questionnaire design (Appendix-A) was implemented to collect metrics on the following two major areas at the Making Spaces: The 3Cs (i.e., curiosity, connections, and creating value), and operational attributes (i.e., accessibility and availability, penetration of in formal courses, investments, assets, and utilization).

We used the Qualtrics XM platform to create and distribute the online version of the questionnaire. Making Spaces were approached through personal calls, visits, and emails. A link to the survey was sent to the persons interest to participate, and follow-up calls/emails were performed to finalize pending surveys. More details on the data collected are presented next.

3.1.2 DataA total of 22 Making Spaces – spanning 16 KEEN schools – contributed to the study. The main statistics from the data collected through this survey are presented in Appendix-B. The general findings obtained from the collected data are discussed next.

3.1.3 Results and AnalysisThis section discusses the main findings and observations for selected variables in the collected data.

Making Spaces Promote Student Curiosity Through Innovation and Technical Support. On average, 72.24% of the work-hours at the surveyed Making Spaces are devoted to developing student-driven concepts and unique designs. These concepts and designs instigate student curiosity as they come from their own ideas, designs, and materialization approaches. Furthermore, 57.05% of staff work-hours is devoted to guide students towards success in their project designs, which support the embodiment of their curiosity.

Making Spaces Encourage Student Connections through Multidisciplinary Linkages. 95.24% of the surveyed Making Spaces encourage students to connect with those from other majors or disciplines. Multidisciplinary connections expose students to different ideas and approaches to address engineering challenges. The fact that most Making Spaces promote such connections provides confidence that the Making culture is interested

4

in opening student minds, encouraging them to connect concepts across disciplines, and enriching their overall entrepreneurial thinking process.

Instructors Can Enhance Connections as They Mainly Ensemble Teams for Projects. On average, 48.55% of the projects conducted at Making Spaces are related to teams assigned by instructors. Therefore, instructors have unique opportunities to enhance student interconnectivity by promoting multidisciplinary and diverse teams. Other efforts are individual (29.40%) or self-organized teams (25.60%).

Making Spaces Support Value Creation by Showcasing Projects Outside Universities. 95.00% of the surveyed Making Spaces feature their creations outside of the university. Showcasing projects in non-university settings promotes value creation as students can appreciate the impact of their creations on broader communities of stakeholders. This interaction trains students to be more sensible on the needs in their markets/communities. The venues used for creation dissemination include faculty-led companies, media publications, academic articles, symposiums, conferences, news, products, local industries, fairs, forums, videos, virtual reality, student competitions, pitch competitions, student expos, websites, and recruitment conferences.

Making Spaces Create Value by Securing More Intellectual Properties. 21.43% of the Making Spaces in the database indicate that they have secured intellectual properties based on products designed at their facilities. On average, 3 intellectual properties are secured by making spaces but one facility reports numbers as high as 30. Making Spaces can be more impactful outside regular university settings by connecting creations with intellectual properties that have commercialization potential. Involving students in this process can prompt value-creation as they can learn from designing and prototyping impactful products.

Making Spaces Have Peak Utilization Times. Making spaces are mostly utilized in specific weeks/terms of the year, e.g. the weeks before showcase of Senior Design. On average, about 201 unique students per week use the surveyed Making Spaces during an average busy week of the semester, with a space hosting as many as 800 students per week. Utilization is significantly reduced during an average quiet/non-busy week of the semester, i.e., off-peak utilization is in average 85.53 unique students per week (in average 42.60% times the number of students during the peak session).

Most Making Spaces Promote Independent and Extended Utilization. Most of the surveyed Making Spaces encourage student independence by allowing unsupervised utilization (66.67% in the data), and most Making Spaces are flexible to adjust their operation to student schedules by providing availability outside regular hours (61.90% in the data). Interestingly, many making spaces do not follow these guidelines. The determinants behind these behaviors deserve future investigation.

Making Spaces Have Potential to Serve the Larger Spectrum of Engineering Majors. For most of the surveyed Making Spaces, a reduced number of engineering majors collectively account for the top 75% of the overall Making Space usage. For example, only 1 major accounts for such utilization level in 20.00% of the surveyed Making Spaces. In average 3 engineering majors account for the top 75% of the overall Making Space usage. Mechanical Engineering is widely mentioned as a top-75% Making Space utilizer (90.00% of the surveyed facilities). Then, Electrical and Biomedical engineering appear as top-75% utilizers in 50% and 40% of the Making Spaces respectively. The engineering majors with lower penetration in the to-75% Making Space utilization include Software (15.00%), Industrial (15.00%), Engineering Materials and Science (10.00%), Architectural (5.00%), and Ocean Engineering (0.00%).

Making Spaces Have High Impact on Engineering Design, Introduction, and Entrepreneurship Courses. Design-related courses widely account for the top 75% of the Making Space utilization, i.e., 58.04% of the courses mentioned in the survey are related to engineering design, 44.44% of them being related to Senior

5

Design (i.e., 25.80% of all the courses mentioned in the survey). Additionally, introductory courses share 25.81% of the top-75% utilization courses, and entrepreneurial courses account for 12.90% of them, which shows the connection of Making Spaces with engineering design and EML.

Making Space Operations. For general information, we found that the average annual budget reported in the survey is $24,250, which is about 13.80% of an average annualized NSF award size2; on average, a maximum of 33.63 students can utilize the facilities at a time (the highest Making Space capacity was 100 students at a time); and in average 53.95% of the Making Space users work in class projects, 28.89% in personal projects, and 21.32% in research projects.

3.2 Findings from the School VisitsSeveral KEEN partner schools were visited to have a broader idea on the penetration of Making Space and EML concepts. This section describes the process to followed to collect metrics for EML-Making landscape assessment and the main results observed from the data.

3.2.1 The Data Collection ProcessSite visits were conducted in Summer 2019 for 1-2 days in average, and covered 11 diverse KEEN schools throughout the country. An observation protocol (Appendix-C) was designed to help keep the data collection during the site visits focused on the objective of the visits.

The Florida Tech team conducted regular meetings to design a rubric (Appendix-D) to understand the big picture of the EML and Making Space landscape through site visits at KEEN Partner Schools. After multiple iterations, the final rubric design was agreed and applied to guide the discussion during our site visits.

After site visits, our Florida Tech team conducted a sequence of meetings to comment on the elements observed from the rubrics plus any other relevant information, contrasts those findings with those observed at other schools, and provide commonly agreed numerical scores for each rubric element.

3.2.2 DataAppendix-E summarizes the main statistics related to the scores assigned to each school against the rubric criteria. General findings for the complete group of schools are discussed next. Scores were standardized from 0.00% (lowest) to 100.00% (highest).

3.2.3 Results and AnalysisThis section discusses the main findings and observations for selected variables in the collected data. In order to make the analysis more intuitive, the following Likert scale is employed to transform scores (in parenthesis) into the following levels: Very High (100.00% to 80.00%), High (80.00% to 60.00%), Medium (60.00% to 40.00%), Low (40.00% to 20.00%), and Very Low (20.00% to 0.00%).

The Level of Buy-In into Making is Very High for the Administration/Staff and Medium-To-High for the Faculty. The administration and staff demonstrate a Very High level of support into Making. The average level of buy-in into making was 82.83% for the administration and 81.82% for the staff. The support of faculty into making is High (60.61%), but noticeably below the level of support from the Administration/Staff. This might happen because administration could be more interested in showcasing making activities to recruit and maintain students, while making-related staff might certainly support Making as it constitutes the core of their permanent job. On the other hand, faculty buy-in might not be as high as the other two sectors perhaps because faculty activities on teaching/research/services might not perfectly align with the scope of the Making Spaces.

2 Estimated as $175,700 for FY 2019 NSF (2018): https://www.nsf.gov/about/budget/fy2019/pdf/fy2019budget.pdf6

https://www.nsf.gov/about/budget/fy2019/pdf/fy2019budget.pdf

The Level of Integration of Making into University Activities beyond Senior Design is High. Making spaces are widely recognized as a tool to support Senior Design activities at engineering programs. However, we observed multiple examples of Making beyond Senior Design in our visits. The average score for the “Evidence of examples of Making” was 78.79% among visited schools. Institutions extend the scope of their Making Spaces to academic activities related to engineering design courses, introductory courses, entrepreneurial courses, personal projects, among others.

High Level of Equipment Availability for Students. The visited universities have a wide variety of equipment available for students to operate. In many cases, the equipment can be operated without supervision after proper training and approval. The average score for “Examples of Making integration into the university” was 73.74%.

High Level of Connection between Universities and Industry Thorough Making Activities. In average, Making activities occur within industry-funded spaces or industry-supported projects. The scope of such partnerships ranges from sponsoring student employees and faculty projects, to just sponsoring senior design projects, i.e., no integrated partnership. The average score for “Level of connection between university and industry” was 72.73%.

Administrations Highly Support the Implementation of KEEN Concepts and the Faculty Has Medium Level of Engagement to Teach Them. In average, the position of the administration towards KEEN concepts at the visited institutions ranges from embracing EM and EML by the university administration and codifying it in the university/college mission and/or mindset, to institutions with a more moderate level of implementation where the administration still approves EM and EML, and even credits faculty for time spent on KEEN related teaching and research. On the other hand, the level of engagement on the faculty to actively teach EM concepts is medium, i.e., closer to faculty including EM in individual courses but not programmatically integrating it. Nonetheless, faculty at some institutions have integrated EM across programs, starting at the freshman level through senior design. The average score for the metric “Administration actively supports implementation of KEEN concepts, i.e., EM/EML.” was 69.70% and 58.59% for “Engagement of faculty in EM teaching”.

High Level of Past Experience with Maker-Space Academic Content Development. In average, the experience of the visited institutions with respect to making content development is High and ranges from few individual faculty members developing maker space content without clear articulation in the curriculum, to complete courses built around the use of making spaces that fully integrate making in curriculum. The average score for “Past experience with Maker-Space academic content development” was 68.69%.

The Visited Institutions are Highly Recognized into Making Activities. In average, the way the visited schools excel in Making ranges from nurturing Making on campus and utilizing the state of the art methods designed at other universities, to university that are recognized by peers as Making leaders with extended evidence of research literature on making and learning. The average score for “University Recognition/Excellence into Making” was 67.68%.

High Number of Spaces with Unique Vocation Available to Students. In average, the number of unique spaces with specific vocation available to students ranges from 2 to 4 or more. Specific themes include 3D printing, AR, VR, machining, ideation, and electrical, among others. There is predominance of institutions with unique spaces focusing on a variety of equipment and Making techniques rather than having only one unique Making space with limited equipment. The average score for “Number of spaces with unique vocation available to students” was 64.64%.

7

High Level of Engagement with KEEN. On average, there is high level of engagement with KEEN at the visited institutions, which ranges from some CARDs uploaded by the faculty, a small group of faculty members with accounts on KEEN website, and some attendance to workshops, to school that are active in the KEEN network, host workshops, and faculty regularly contribute CARDs. The average score for the metric “Engagement with KEEN” was 62.63%.

Low Level of Virtual/Augmented Reality at the Institutions. In average, few or no universities from the set of institutions visited demonstrate Virtual/Augmented Reality (VR/AR) capabilities. Many of them do not currently have AR/VR Making Spaces available on campus. The average score for “Level of activity of VR / AR of the university” was 38.38%.

3.3 Findings from the Literature ReviewA comprehensive review of surveys on making education was conducted on the following topics:

1. What are the benefits, implications, and challenges of 3D printing?2. What are the effects of makerspace education on creative thinking?3. How do makers think and what motivates them?4. How do making environments influence the conversion of thought into design?5. What should be in each type of making environment?6. What are the business aspects of and financial sustainability for each making environment?7. How can courses, summer camps, and workshops be used for training of student makers?

Student makers need to be directed toward the journal and patent literature. Curiosity can be assessed via how thorough a survey of both refereed and non-refereed information sources students compile. Asking students to explain how they integrated their information sources into their design is a convenient way to document connections. Gravel et al. (34374) details how makers integrate information via a sequence of ideation, design, tinkering, and fabrication.

Kwon et al. (34336) comprehensively studied the motivations of makers. The positive impact of community participation and the relationships developed between makers of different skill levels was expected. Kwon found that makers’ motivation positively impacted the quantity of what they made, but interestingly not the craftsmanship. Deruelle and Metzger (34345), in "Preventing Isolation by Collaborative Innovation", show significant psychological benefits associated with maker environment communities, particularly for intelligent but shy students.

The positive and negative effects of fun on making were the subject of multiple papers (34419, 34420, and 34383). Negative effects included concern over breaking, lack of tool knowledge, visualization challenges, finding creative inspiration, need for individualization/ownership, self-imposed quality standards, and an overemphasis on product quality. Positive effects of fun on making include achievement in successful materials/tool usage, competence, moments of discovery, and sharing of creations. Adult-specific positive effects include pleasure and focus on process.

Maltese et al. (34388) focused on persistence in making. Negative outcomes associated with making included quitting after prototyping failure, frustration, and disappointment, but also included ones that could be improved upon through proper instructor control such as achieving the correct balance between sufficient structure to succeed vs. stifling of creativity via too much structure, too fast a pace of instruction, and materials/tools failure. Positive outcomes included learning through mistakes, persistence, sense of accomplishment, and self-confidence. Students experienced frustration when working with wood glue, wiring, soldering, 3D printing, wearable sensors construction, and computer programming. Having too many or too

8

few deadlines, as well as presentation/competition performance anxiety were also cited. Female makers emphasize the importance of personal protective equipment, credentialing so that they are taken more seriously, structured help seeking, and a sense of approachability (34323).

The maker movement will "influence entrepreneurship by 1) attracting more individuals into product design, 2) generating dense but diverse networks, 3) creating new ideas and innovative thinking, and 4) by lowering the costs for prototyping, making early sales and acquiring outside funding more realistic" (34366). Like health clubs, makerspaces have > $100 K in shared tools, yet only require a fee of $50-100 per month (34366). FabLabs are distinguished from other makerspaces by following the FabLab Charter (34423, 34365, http://fabfoundation.org/what-qualifies-as-a-fab-lab/). Makerspaces maintain financial sustainability via 1) charitable donations and grants, 2) embedding into an educational institution, 3) training courses, 4) user fees, and 5) mobile makerspaces to attract new customers via MakerFaires. However, Make Magazine, the main sponsor of MakerFaires, underwent bankruptcy reorganization in 2019. The rate of equipment obsolescence threatens the business model of making environments.

American makers are deficient in Arduino programming, software programming, and CAD compared to their European colleagues (34344). Beginning student makers compensate for their lack of competence by downloading Arduino computer code and CAD drawings, but must overcomeing these deficiencies to achieve competence (34323).

A series of what KEEN is now calling “card decks” for making has also been prepared. Appendix-F presents a list of tables summarizing the card decks related to making within the Network. The goal of these card decks is to make it easy for faculty to quickly navigate to EML-rich making activities specific to their disciplines. An introduction to these making card decks was presented at the 2020 KEEN National Conference, and ultimately posted on making-related subnets.

4 Deliverable 2: Enrolling Partner Schools in the KEEN Making Subnet

4.1 School Assessment and Selection ProcessA systematic process was used to evaluate the schools’ potential of partnering effectively in the project efforts in Phase-2 and Phase-3.

4.1.1 Data Collection1. A survey was used to assess the schools’ alignment with the project (Appendix-A and Appendix-B).2. The makerspace visits were conducted using a predesigned protocol and questionnaire (Appendix-C).3. The makerspace visits were summarized as reports by respective visiting faculty.

4.1.2 School Selection 1. The survey results, written reports, and visit experiences were all considered, in assessing schools.2. A rubric was designed to assess the schools’ potential as partners (Appendix-D and Appendix-E).3. The rubric was filled out using debate and consensus within the core team.4. Some of the questions on the rubric were constraints, while some were criteria.5. Relative scoring between schools was given more importance than absolute scoring.

The rubric scores were not used as a basis for forming opinions. Instead, they helped with an objective comparison between schools, and to triangulate our perceptions with numeric data.

9

4.2 The KEEN Maker Subnet of SchoolsBased on the abovementioned process, five schools were selected as potential partners, and were invited to join the KEEN making subnet. All five schools have responded positively to the invites. However, the project budget has provision for supporting three schools. At present, the Core Team is collecting more data about the schools at the KEEN National Conference, and deliberating the final selection of schools.

University invited Outcome1. Bucknell University Expressed interest to join subnet2. University of Denver Expressed interest to join subnet3. George Fox University Expressed interest to join subnet4. Lawrence Technological University Expressed interest to join subnet5. Milwaukee School of Engineering Expressed interest to join subnet

10

5 Deliverable 5: Faculty Engagement and Student ImpactOne mission of the current institutional grant is to re-engage the COES faculty with the principles of EML, and to spread the awareness about KEEN’s leadership in perpetuating EML in engineering education, so that faculty members actively include and practice EML in their teachings, and engage with faculty colleagues within the KEEN partner schools. Since the conclusion of the previous institutional grant, time has passed. During this period, the organizational structure at Florida Tech has undergone some restructuring, and the faculty body has changed due to attrition and hiring. Thus, a re-engagement effort is needed. To this end, a two-step approach was taken in Phase-1, including a faculty re-engagement meeting, and a series of workshops for developing EML modules in courses.

5.1 Faculty Re-Engagement MeetingA KEEN Faculty Re-engagement meeting was organized by the College of Engineering and Science (COES), on Aug. 15, 2019. Approximately 50 COES faculty from various programs attended by invite. The new and younger faculty were specifically targeted, and the faculty formerly engaged with KEEN (KIC Team 1 and 2) were invited. The Core Team presented Florida Tech’s relationship with KEEN and specifically, the goals and activities of the current grant. EML module development workshops to be held by the Core Team were announced, and an outline of the Graduated Incentive Plan (GIP) was shared.

5.2 EML Module Development WorkshopsTwo workshops to train the COES faculty in developing EML modules were organized in Fa19. Fifteen COES faculty attended. The Core Team presented motivation and techniques of building EML modules, and the process of reporting them as KEEN cards. Resources for the attendees to start building their modules were shared. The faculty attendees started building their modules after the workshops. Post workshop, the attendees were paired up with mentors from the Core Team, who will guide the attendees with developing their EML modules. The modules will be rolled out in Sp-20 or Fa-20, based on the teaching schedule of the courses.

1. Workshop-1 (Oct. 18, nine attendees): Philip Chan (Computer Science), Aldo Fabregas (Systems Engineering), Hamidreza Najafi (Mechanical Engineering), Troy Nguyen (Construction Management), Ashok Pandit (Civil Engineering), Prasanta Sahoo (Ocean Engineering), Ersoy Subasi (Systems Engineering), Munevver Subasi (Mathematical Sciences), Nakin Suksawang (Civil Engineering).

2. Workshop-2 (Nov. 1, six attendees): Siddhartha Bhattacharyya (Computer Science), Khaled Shloub (Computer Science), Vipuil Kishore (Biomedical Engineering), Christopher Bashur (Biomedical Engineering), Linxia Gu (Biomedical Engineering), and David Fleming (Aerospace Engineering).

5.3 The Graduated Incentive PlanThe following Graduated Incentive Plan (GIP) structure has been approved by the PI and announced to the faculty body, as an incentive to re-engage with the KEEN efforts and EML module development. Members of the Core Team are not eligible for these incentives.

1. Level 1: Create an account on KEEN website service credit + opportunity to apply for KEEN events2. Level 2: Convert existing modules to cards $500 + Level 13. Level 3: Workshop + new non-making module + implement + card $1,250 + Level 14. Level 4: Workshop + making-related module + implement + card $1,500 + Level 1

11

AppendicesAppendix-A. EML and Making Space Questionnaire

12

Appendix-B. Survey Data on Making Space UsageTable 1. Summary Statistics from Making Space Usage Survey

Variable Mean. Std.D. Min. Median Max. CountPercentage of work-hours at the Making Space devoted to developing student-driven concepts or unique designs.

72.24 30.05 10.00 82.00 100.00 21

Percentage of work-hours devoted by the Making Space staff to guide students toward success in their project design.

57.05 32.14 0.00 55.00 100.00 21

Making Spaces that encourage students to connect with those from other majors or disciplines.

0.95 0.22 0.00 1.00 1.00 21

Percentage of projects related to individual efforts.

29.40 24.31 0.00 20.00 83.00 20

Percentage of projects related to teams assigned by instructors.

48.55 24.18 5.00 50.00 90.00 20

Percentage of projects related to self-organized teams.

25.60 24.66 0.00 20.00 95.00 20

Making Spaces that feature creations outside the university (like media reports, conferences, etc.)

0.95 0.22 0.00 1.00 1.00 20

Number of intellectual properties that have been secured based on products designed in the Making Space.

3.00 8.11 0.00 0.00 30.00 14

Number of unique students that use the Making Space in an average busy week of the semester.

200.79 221.68 8.00 100.00 800.00 19

Number of unique students that use the Making Space in an average quiet / non-busy week of the semester.

85.53 122.92 1.00 30.00 400.00 19

Making Spaces where students can use the facilities without supervision.

0.67 0.48 0.00 1.00 1.00 21

Making Spaces that can be used by students outside regular hours.

0.62 0.50 0.00 1.00 1.00 21

Number of engineering majors that collectively account for the top 75% of the overall Making Space usage

3.14 1.77 0.00 3.00 6.00 21

Engineering majors that collectively account for the top 75% of the overall Making Space usageMechanical Engineering 0.90 0.31 0.00 1.00 1.00 20Electrical Engineering 0.50 0.51 0.00 0.50 1.00 20Biomedical Engineering 0.40 0.50 0.00 0.00 1.00 20Aerospace Engineering 0.30 0.47 0.00 0.00 1.00 20Civil Engineering 0.30 0.47 0.00 0.00 1.00 20Computer Engineering 0.25 0.44 0.00 0.00 1.00 20Chemical Engineering 0.20 0.41 0.00 0.00 1.00 20Software Engineering 0.15 0.37 0.00 0.00 1.00 20Industrial Engineering 0.15 0.37 0.00 0.00 1.00 20

21

Variable Mean. Std.D. Min. Median Max. CountMaterial Science and Engineering 0.10 0.31 0.00 0.00 1.00 20Architectural Engineering 0.05 0.22 0.00 0.00 1.00 20Ocean Engineering 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 20Average annual budget of the Making Space for operations over the past five years / since inception (thousand dollars).

24.25 26.67 0.00 17.50 100.00 16

Maximum number of students that can use the Making Space at a time.

33.63 25.85 4.00 25.00 100.00 19

Percentage of users working in the Making Space on class projects

53.95 17.68 10.00 60.00 90.00 19

Percentage of users working in the Making Space on personal projects

28.89 23.24 0.00 25.00 100.00 18

Percentage of users working in the Making Space on research projects

21.32 18.40 0.00 20.00 60.00 19

22

Appendix-C. Observation Protocol for School Site Visits

KEEN Site Visit Observation Protocol

Draft #1

Kastro, Beshoy, Robert, Gallagar, and all

Campus being visited: ________________________________________________

Florida Tech Visitors: _________________________________________________

Date of Visit:_________________________________

Point of Contact on visited campus; _____________________________

Colleagues we interacted with during visit: ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

1. How many maker spaces do they have? __________________________2. What types of equipment do they have? 3-D printers? Augmented reality? Virtual Reality?3. What relevant (Fabrication labs, etc.) do they have?_____________________________4. Who uses the facilities (in Q2, 3) above?5. What has been the average annual spending on new equipment over the past five years (or) since

inception?6. Are there formal training opportunities for potential facility users? If so who provides it? Is there a

budget for that? 7. Are there plans to increase the number and or contents of maker spaces on your campus?8. How are your maker spaces managed?9. How is student usage tracked, measured, and reported and to whom?10. What engineering majors make the most use of the facility?11. Do any of your courses require students to use the maker spaces to complete assignments and

projects? If so, which ones? 12. Can students use the making space for non-course related interests?13. What is the maximum number of students that can use the facility at a time?14. What are the 5 most used equipment in the facility? From most used to least used…15. What kinds of student/student and student/mentor interactions do the Maker spaces on your campus

support? –(The following 5 questions were taken from the KEEN proposal) elaborate on this one.)_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

16. What do students gain through making experiences?17. What do students accomplish in making spaces that would not be feasible without maker spaces?18. Are there specific themes/ use cases?19. What direct vs. indirect learning occurs in making spaces?20. What value added does utilizing maker spaces provide that may not be gained without maker spaces?21. How does the utilization of your maker spaces enhance students’ 3Cs?

23

22. How is EML integrated in your maker spaces?23. How is EML integrated in any of your courses?

24

Appendix-D. School Evaluation Rubric

All metrics were scored on a sliding scale from 1 (poor) to 10 (excellent)

COHORT SELECTION RUBRICName of InstitutionUniversity assessed

Person that visited

1. Likelihood of success- How likely do you think it is that this school would be successful

1 Poor 5 Average 10 Excellent

2. Number of spaces- How many different maker spaces do the students have access to


Only one unique making space with limited equipment

2-4 making spaces that with multiple making techniques (3D printing, AR, VR, machining, ideation, electrical) available to the students

4 or more unique spaces focusing on a variety of equipment and making techniques (3D printing, AR, VR, machining, ideation, electrical)available to the students

3. Willingness- How willing are the faculty and admin to work with us


At most the KEEN member representative from university is willing to partner

Multiple KEEN member Faculty and some staff willing to get involved working on a partnership project focused on making and EML

Faculty, Administration, and staff all eager and willing to put in the time and effort required to become involved working on a partnership project focused on making and EML

4. Level of Interest- How interested are faculty and admin to being involved in the project


At most the KEEN member representative from university is willing to partner

Multiple KEEN member Faculty and some staff willing to get involved working on a partnership project focused on making and EML

Faculty, Administration, and staff all eager and willing to put in the time and effort required to become involved working on a partnership project focused on making and EML

5. Heterogeneous to the other members (Florida Tech as the metric)- How different is the university from Florida Tech ( # students, size, funding, approach to education)


25

The university shares all qualities with Florida Tech

The university shares some qualities with Florida Tech

The university stands out in its uniqueness to Florida Tech based on student population, size, approach to education, level of funding

6. Admin buy in to making culture- To what level does the Admin actively support implementation of Making


Admin is not involved in making and faculty are left to implement on their own

Admin approves of making supports making spaces within colleges / programs

Making is embraced by the University Admin and codified in university/college mission and/or mindset

7. Faculty buy-in to making culture- To what level does the faculty actively support / implement of Making


Faculty is not involved in making

Faculty engage in making related teaching and research

Making is embraced by the University faculty and codified in university/college mission and/or mindset

8. Staff buy-in to making culture- To what level does the staff actively support / implement of Making


Staff is not involved in making and faculty are left to implement on their own

Staff approves of making even credits faculty for time spent on KEEN related teaching and research

Making is embraced by the University Staff and Staff offer making training codified in university/college mission and/or mindset

9. EML ingrained in the admin- To what level does the Admin actively support implementation of KEEN


Admin is not involved in EM or EML and faculty are left to implement on their own

Admin approves of EM and EML even credits faculty for time spent on KEEN related teaching and research

EM and EML is embraced by the University Admin and codified in university/college mission and/or mindset

10. EM for the Faculty- Is the faculty actively engaged in teaching the EM

26


Faculty do not teach EM

Faculty include EM in individual courses, but not integrated programmatically

Faculty have integrated EM across programs, starting at the freshman level through senior design

11. Engagement with KEEN - What is the level of engagement with KEEN


Faculty have not submitted cards, and rarely attend conferences and workshops

Some faculty have updated CARDs, a small group of faculty with faculty accounts on Network site workshops but not hosted

The school is active in the KEEN network, faculty regularly contribute CARDs, and host workshops.

12. Examples of Making integration into the university - Were there clear examples of Making visible during visit


No clear example of making was visible beyond senior design

At least one example of making was visible during the visit beyond senior design

Multiple examples of making were observed during the visit beyond senior design.

13. Excellence in Making - Does the school excel in Making


Only use of making spaces by senior design programs

Making is nurtured on campus, utilizing the state of the art methods designed at other universities

The university is recognized by peers as a making leader. Research into making and learning has been published

14. Available Equipment to students - Provide a gauge of the number of different equipment available to the students (once trained and approved) - [AR/VR, 3D printing (different types of printing materials), laser cutters, machining, wood working, ideation, electrical, computing]


Equipment is limited in type and student access

Students have access to only a few of the types of

University has a wide variety of equipment available for students to

27

is limited to supervised use only

equipment listed unsupervised

use unsupervised on course related AND non-course related projects

15. VR / AR - Level of activity in VR/AR of the university


No VR/AR on campus

University has VR/AR capabilities in a mixed use lab

University has at least 1 dedicated VR/AR space with a leader who is recognized in the field as an expert

16. Past experience with Maker space content development - Gauge the experience the university has with making content development


Making is not a part of coursework except for senior design / capstone

A few Individual faculty have developed maker space content, but content not implemented in curriculum

courses built around the use of making spaces, and integrates making in curriculum

17. Business incubators / consortium - Level of connection between university and industry


No industry involvement in making or curriculum

Industry sponsors senior design projects, no integrated industry partnership

University maker spaces are funded and utilized by industry partners for research and development. Sponsoring student employees and faculty projects.

28

Appendix-E. School Visits Data

Table 2. Summary Statistics for School Visits Data.

Variable Mean. Std.D. Min. Max.Administration buy-in to making culture 82.83% 17.47% 44.44

%88.89%

Staff buy-in to making culture 81.82% 16.68% 44.44%

77.78%

Examples of Making integration into the university 78.79% 18.89% 33.33%

77.78%

Available Equipment to students 73.74% 21.24% 22.22%

77.78%

Level of connection between university and industry 72.73% 21.29% 33.33%

66.67%

Administration actively supports implementation of KEEN concepts, i.e., EM/EML.

69.70% 22.27% 33.33%

77.78%

Experience with Maker-Space academic content development 68.69% 24.75% 33.33%

66.67%

University Recognition/Excellence into Making 67.68% 24.07% 22.22%

66.67%

Number of spaces with unique vocation available to students 64.65% 22.12% 33.33%

66.67%

Engagement with KEEN 62.63% 32.31% 11.11%

66.67%

Faculty buy-in to making culture 60.61% 24.02% 22.22%

55.56%

Engagement of faculty in EM teaching 58.59% 18.65% 33.33%

55.56%

Level of activity of VR / AR of the university 38.38% 34.56% 0.00% 33.33%

29

Appendix-F. KEEN Card Decks Related to Making

Summary of KEEN Cards Relevant to Education in Making Environments

Field of Endeavor or Major/Course/Year

Professor (Universities; ref. #'s) with KEEN Cards

3D Printing Facilities/Courses

Stewart, Roszelle, & Caston (Denver; 101); Eberle (Bucknell; 102); Zhen (ASU; 103); Harlow (Lehigh; 104); Hoover and Breitbart (Olin; 105); Naito (Lehigh; 106-107); Aukes (ASU; 209); Karcher (Bucknell, 231); Franchetti, Toole, and Rapino (Toledo; 249)

Laser Cutter Aukes (ASU; 209)

VR/AR & Other VisualizationAlagic, Bagwill, Sakic-Lazic, and Crandell (Saint Louis; 146); Ji (WPI; 150); Beal, Cole, & Siegel (Bucknell; 158); Zimmers (Lehigh; 205); Bieryla and Levison (Portland, 253)

Brenner Engineering Instrumentation and/or Making Courses (most similar to BME instrumentation or ECE microcontroller courses, but with more motor controls, mass balances, MEMS, and process control)

Cheville, Vigeant, and Siegel (Bucknell; 26); Meyer & Nasir (Lawrence Tech; 110-116); Dougherty (Villanova; 119-120); Nepal (ASU; 121-122); Holland (James Madison; 123); Lee (Santa Clara; 132); Chiu (Rose-Hulman; 139); Pai (Ga. Tech; 140); Gettens (Western New England; 141); Rust (Western New England; 142); Weaver (Detroit Mercy; 143); Benner (Western New England; 124); Page (New Haven; 152-153); Elmer (Villanova; 165); Ersay (Lehigh; 182); Kleim, Peña, and Reitmeier (ASU; 3rd card191); Holland (James Madison; 123); Kleim and Muthuswamy (ASU; 217); Morano (Lawrence Tech; 222); Hill-Munoz (St. Thomas; 229); Sills (Bucknell; 243); Liu (St. Thomas; 245); Gaver, Davis, Raymond, Russell, Foster, and Barrios (all of Tulane; 250); Roszelle, Martins, Ogmen, Roney, Holston, Gordon, and Caston (Denver; 251); Carvalho, Sen, Weaver, Hamed, Mesa-Arango, Brenner, and Demoret (Florida Tech; 252)

Summer 3D Printing or Arduino Short Course

Meyer & Nasir (Lawrence Tech; 114); Dougherty (Villanova; 119-120); Samani (169);

Robots & MechatronicsStafford (WPI; 154); Mynderse (Lawrence Tech; 194); Marvi (ASU; 206); Brown, Sabatino, Hummel, and Boerchers (Lafayette; 213)

Making for Computer Scientists A. Marchiori (Bucknell; 227)

30

Summary of KEEN Cards Relevant to EML Relevant to the Maker Initiative



Inventions Sabancu (WPI; 170) & Olson, Melton, and Schumacher (KFF; 170)

KEEN Outcomes & Activities

Trollinger, Dillon, Welch, and Ralston (Portland; 172); Young, Johnson, and Misko (KFF; 173); Hylton, Mikesell, LeBlanc, and Yoder (Ohio Northern; 174); Estell (Ohio Northern; 186), Ochs (Lehigh; 186), Young (KFF; 186), and Brackin (Rose-Hulman; 186); Cheville, Vigeant, and Siegel (Bucknell; 26); Morano (Lawrence Tech; 222); Kirkvold (James Madison; 225); Jablonski (Bucknell; 262)

PersistenceLi, Gobel, Carnasciali, Baggili, Erdil, and Harichandran (New Haven; 176)

Prototype Assessment Peña and Lande (ASU; 200)

IncentivesHenthorn (Rose-Hulman; 108), Gipson (James Madison; 108), Devasher (Rose-Hulman; 108); Henthorn, Devasher, and Weatherman (Rose-Hulman; 210)

CredentialsHentham (Rose-Hulman; 108), Gipson (James Madison; 108), Devasher (Rose-Hulman; 108), Cheville, Vigeant, and Siegel (Bucknell; 26);

Tool SimulationSebold, Mayled, and Zeinolabedinzadeh (ASU; 109); Bilsky (Lehigh; 201)

Student Perspective Shankar (Bucknell; 256)

Design Your Education & Life Trollinger, Dillon, and van de Grift (Portland; 264)

31

Summary of KEEN Cards Relevant to Prerequisites & Related Topics for Making



ECE Microcontrollers, &/or Embedded Systems

Nepal (ASU; 121-122); Holland (James Madison; 123); Khan, LeBlanc, and Al-Olimat (Ohio Northern; 125); Rahnamai (Western New England; 151); Clavijo (Stevens Tech; 159-162); Jupina (Villanova; 166); Butler (Lehigh; 208); Pearce (Michigan Tech: 219);

ECE Circuits

Khan, LeBlanc, and Al-Olimat (Ohio Northern; 125); Zewde (Wichita State; 155); Frey (Lehigh; 179); Ersay (Lehigh; 182); Holland (James Madison; 123); Dillon (Portland; 207);Khan, LeBlanc, and Al-Olimat (Ohio Northern); Zewde (Wichita State); Frey (Lehigh); Ersay (Lehigh); Holland (James Madison); Dillon (Portland); Thomas (Bucknell; 224); Thomas (Bucknell, 226); Khan (Ohio Northern; 240)

ECE Printed Circuit Boards (PCB's)Nepal (ASU; 121-122); Holland (James Madison; 123); Ludwig (WPI; 163); Taha (Dayton; 216)

Other SensorsPoor and Welch (Portland; 148); Zhao (Western New England; 149); Read-Daly and Baptista Abreu (Elizabethtown; 183); Thomas (Bucknell; 224);

ControlsClancy (WPI BME; 171); Brown, Sabatino, Hummel, and Boerchers (Lafayette ME; 213); Pearce (Michigan Tech: 219); Chauhan (Western New England; 228)

CADBeal, Cole, & Siegel (Bucknell; 158); Brooking (Wichita State; 178); Zimmers (Lehigh; 205); Levert (New Haven; 259)

Nano, MEMS, Electrochem, & Drug Delivery (not Biomaterials & Tissue Engg.)

Letfullin (Rose-Hulman; 130); Abel, Coburn, and Dodson (WPI; 131); Lee (Santa Clara; 133-134); Alagic, Bagwill, Sakic-Lazic, and Crandell (Saint Louis; 147); Zhao (Western New England; 149); Staehle (Rowan; 167); Wile (Ohio Northern; 177); McIntosh (Lehigh; 203); Tatic-Lucic (Lehigh; 214); Zhang (Milwaukee SOE; 218)

LabView Benner (Western New England; 124)

Python Page (New Haven; 152); Dunston & Koerner (St. Thomas; 180)

C++ Page (New Haven; 153)

Flowsheets, P&ID's, & Plumbing Jablonski (Bucknell; 232)

32

KEEN Cards of Mechanical/Aerospace Engineers Interested in Maker Topics



Capstone DesignECE Microcontrollers, &/or Embedded Systems

Demoret (FIT AEE; 156); Wakabayashi & Cohen (Bucknell Interdisciplinary; 157); Estell (Ohio Northern; 186), Ochs (Lehigh; 186), Young (KFF; 186), and Brackin (Rose-Hulman interdisciplinary; 186); Breitbart (Olin many disciplines; 193); Perkins and Fehrman-Cory (Dayton; 198); Peña and Lande (ASU; 200); Hanegman (Iron Range/Minnesota State-Mankato; 234), Zhao (New Haven; 235); Mynderse, Gerhart, Vejdani, Yee, Liu, Fletcher, and Jing (Lawrence Tech; 261)Nepal (ASU; 121-122); Holland (James Madison; 123); Khan, LeBlanc, and Al-Olimat (Ohio Northern; 125); Rahnamai (Western New England; 151); Clavijo (Stevens Tech; 159-162); Jupina (Villanova; 166); Butler (Lehigh; 208); Pearce (Michigan Tech: 219)

Robots & MechatronicsECE Circuits Stafford (WPI; 154); Mynderse (Lawrence Tech; 194); Marvi (ASU; 206); Brown, Sabatino, Hummel, and Boerchers (Lafayette; 213)Khan, LeBlanc, and Al-Olimat (Ohio Northern); Zewde (Wichita State); Frey (Lehigh); Ersay (Lehigh); Holland (James Madison); Dillon (Portland);

ControlsECE Printed Circuit Boards (PCB's)

Clancy (WPI BME; 171); Brown, Sabatino, Hummel, and Boerchers (Lafayette ME; 213); Chauhan (Western New England; 228); dos Santos (Milwaukee SOE; 255)Nepal (ASU; 121-122); Holland (James Madison; 123); Ludwig (WPI; 163); Taha (Dayton; 216)

ManufacturingOther Sensors Song (ASU; 199); Niknam (Western New England; 246)Poor and Welch (Portland; 148); Zhao (Western New England; 149); Read-Daly and Baptista Abreu (Elizabethtown; 183);

Fluid Mechanics Weaver (Detroit Mercy; 143)

CADControls Beal, Cole, & Siegel (Bucknell; 158); Brooking (Wichita State; 178); Zimmers (Lehigh; 205)Clancy (WPI BME; 171); Brown, Sabatino, Hummel, and Boerchers (Lafayette ME; 213); Pearce (Michigan Tech: 219)

MEE/AEE 1st Yr. CourseCAD Sen (FIT; 302); Brooking (Wichita State; 178); Read-Daly and Baptista Abreu (Elizabethtown; 183); Bodnar, Mallouk, and Streiner (Rowan, 237); Read-Daily, Batista Abreu, and de Goede (all of Elizabethtown College; 242); Hoffbeck and Dillon (Portland; 260)Beal, Cole, & Siegel (Bucknell; 158); Brooking (Wichita State; 178); Zimmers (Lehigh; 205)

Design of Experiments Anvaryazdi (New Haven; 233);

Mechanical Properties of MaterialsNano, MEMS, Electrochem, & Drug Delivery (not

Mehta (Ohio Northern; 236)Letfullin (Rose-Hulman; 130); Abel, Coburn, and Dodson (WPI; 131); Lee (Santa Clara; 133-134); Alagic, Bagwill, Sakic-Lazic, and Crandell (Saint Louis; 147); Zhao (Western

33

Biomaterials & Tissue Engg.) New England; 149); Staehle (Rowan; 167); Wile (Ohio Northern; 177); McIntosh (Lehigh; 203); Tatic-Lucic (Lehigh; 214); Zhang (Milwaukee SOE; 218)

Mechanism Analysis & Design Zhu (Arizona State; 238); Roszelle (Denver; 258)

Machine DesignLabView Benishek and Johnson (KFF; 248) & Ma (Saint Louis; 248)Benner (Western New England; 124)

Heat TransferPython Russell (Tulane; 254)Page (New Haven; 152); Dunston & Koerner (St. Thomas; 180)


34

KEEN Cards of Electrical Engineers, Computer Engineers, and Computer Scientists Relevant to Education in Making Environments



ECE Microcontrollers, &/or Embedded Systems

Nepal (ASU; 121-122); Holland (James Madison; 123); Khan, LeBlanc, and Al-Olimat (Ohio Northern; 125); Rahnamai (Western New England; 151); Clavijo (Stevens Tech; 159-162); Jupina (Villanova; 166); Butler (Lehigh; 208); Pearce (Michigan Tech: 219); Zhao (New Haven; 235); Khorbotly (Valparaiso; 239)

ECE CircuitsKhan, LeBlanc, and Al-Olimat (Ohio Northern; 125); Zewde (Wichita State; 155); Frey (Lehigh; 179); Ersay (Lehigh; 182); Holland (James Madison; 123); Dillon (Portland; 207); Khan (Ohio Northern; 240)

ECE Printed Circuit Boards (PCB's)Nepal (ASU; 121-122); Holland (James Madison; 123); Ludwig (WPI; 163); Taha (Dayton; 216)

ECE Sensor Networks Clavijo (Stevens Tech; 159)

Other SensorsPoor and Welch (Portland; 148); Zhao (Western New England; 149); Read-Daly and Baptista Abreu (Elizabethtown; 183)

LabView Benner (Western New England; 124)

Matlab Ji (WPI; 150)

Python Page (New Haven; 152); Dunston & Koerner (St. Thomas; 180)


Other Computer Programming Rangarajan (Lehigh ChE; 181)

Making for Computer Scientists A. Marchiori (Bucknell; 227)

First Year ECE Courses Thompson (Bucknell; 241)

Video Recording Lamparter and Pask (Bucknell; 244)

36

KEEN Cards of Biomedical Engineers Relevant to Education in Making Environments



BME Design Integration Kleim and Peña (ASU; 190);

BME Sr. Design Meyer & Nasir (Lawrence Tech; 112); Staehle (Rowan; 168)

BME Instrumentation

Meyer & Nasir (Lawrence Tech; 110, 111, 113); Lee (Santa Clara; 132); Chiu (Rose-Hulman; 139); Pai (Ga. Tech; 140); Gettens (Western New England; 141); Rust (Western New England; 142); Kleim, Peña, and Reitmeier (ASU; 191); Kleim and Muthuswamy (ASU; 217)

Biomaterials & Tissue Engg. Perry (Lehigh; 136-138); Jedlicka & Cheng (185); Zhang (Lehigh; 202);

BME Biomechanics w/Arduino Meyer & Nasir (Lawrence Tech; 117-118); Zustiak (Saint Louis; 164)

BME 1st Yr. DesignMeyer & Nasir (Lawrence Tech; 115); Perry (Lehigh; 138); Elmer (Villanova; 165); Kleim, Peña, and Reitmeier (ASU; 188)

37

Appendix-G. Evidence of Partner Schools’ ResponsesThis section shows evidence for email correspondences, indicating that the partner schools have agreed to join the KEEN making subnet.

Figure 1: Email from Lawrence Tech, indicating willingness to join the subnet

38

Figure 2: Email from George Fox University, indicating willingness to join the subnet

39

Figure 3: Email from University of Denver, indicating willingness to join the subnet

40

Figure 4: Email from Milwaukee School of Engineering, indicating willingness to join the subnet

41

Figure 5: Email from Bucknell University, indicating willingness to join the subnet

42

Bibliography34374. Gravel, B. E.; Tucker-Raymond, E.; Kohberger, K.; Browne, K. Navigating worlds of information: STEM literacy practices of experienced makers. International Journal of Technology and Design Education 2018, 28, 921-938.

34336. Kwon, B.; Lee, J. What makes a maker: the motivation for the maker movement in ICT. Information Technology for Development 2017, 23, 318-335.

34345. Deruelle,V.; Metzger,J.-L. Preventing Isolation by Collaborative Innovation. Travail Humain 2015, 78(1), 67-80.

34419. A. Weibert, A. Marshall, K. Aal, K. Schubert, J. Rode, Sewing interest in E-textiles: analyzing making from a gendered perspective, in: Paper Presented at the Proceedings of the 2014 Conference on Designing Interactive Systems, 2014.

34420. J. Tanenbaum, A. Williams, A. Desjardins, K. Tanenbaum, Democratizing technology: pleasure, utility and expressiveness in DIY and maker practice, in: Paper presented at the CHI ’13, Paris, France, 2013.

34383. Chu, S.L.; Angello, G.; Saenz, M.; Quek, F. Fun in Making: Understanding the experience of fun and learning through curriculum-based Making in the elementary school classroom, Entertainment Computing, 2017, 18, 31-40.

34388. Maltese, A.V.; Simpson, A.; Anderson, A. Failing to learn: The impact of failures during making activities, Thinking Skills and Creativity, Dec. 2018, 30, 116-124.

34323. Bosqué, C. What are you printing? Ambivalent emancipation by 3D printing. Rapid Prototyping Journal 2015, 21, 572-581.

34366. van Holm, E. J. Makerspaces and Local Economic Development. Economic Development Quarterly 2017, 31, 164-173.

34365. de Boer, J. The business case of FryskLab, Europe's first mobile library FabLab. Library Hi Tech 2015, 33, 505-518.

34344. Santos, G.; Murmura, F.; Bravi, L. Fabrication laboratories: The development of new business models with new digital technologies. Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management 2018, 29, 1332-1357.

26. Alan Cheville, Margot Vigeant, and Nathan Siegel, Bucknell University, "BFAB for Faculty - Fostering Value Creation Through Making, Pedagogy, and Community", https://engineeringunleashed.com/cards/cardview.aspx?CardGuid=9ca3c8c7-e0a9-4b42-bd3b- 13e26ed355c3

101. Benjamin Stewart, Breight Roszelle, and Michael Caston*, University of Denver, "[Workshop] Maker Spaces - Enhance the Entrepreneurial Mindset Through Hands-on Projects and Exploration", https://engineeringunleashed.com/cards/cardview.aspx?CardGuid=03436730-6500-4700-9f46-81e6ce0af346

102. Erin Eberle, Bucknell University, "BFAB For Faculty - Utilizing Campus MakerSpaces for Course Project", https://engineeringunleashed.com/cards/cardview.aspx?CardGuid=72bf202f-524c-44f1-abf1-cc9cf77b63de

43

103. Xiangfan Zhen, Arizona State University, "Additive Manufacturing of High Precision Products", https://engineeringunleashed.com/cards/cardview.aspx?CardGuid=0b1f06c0-f3a1-433d-8ab2-151a372cf5f2

104. Gary Harlow, Lehigh, "Can Additive Manufacturing be Validated?", https://engineeringunleashed.com/cards/cardview.aspx?CardGuid=e85f6523-03c9-48a5-b0d5-ad876dc9c129

105. Aaron Hoover and Sharon Breitbart, Olin College, "Making The Shop at Olin College", https://engineeringunleashed.com/cards/cardview.aspx?CardGuid=4550a785-ee2b-4086-beaa-262c807793ec

106. Clay Naito, Lehigh, "3D Printed Trusses", https://engineeringunleashed.com/cards/cardview.aspx?CardGuid=0cc982df-8879-4a01-811a-d92630ea87f9

107. Clay Naito, Lehigh, "3D Printed Structural Design",https://engineeringunleashed.com/cards/cardview.aspx?CardGuid=bc0d9b84-53cc-4124-8760-73458076b267

108. Dave Henthorn, Rose-Hulman Institute of Technology; Kyle Gipson, James Madison University; Rebecca Devasher, Rose-Hulman Institute of Technology; Rose-Hulman Institute of Technology, "Credentials and Badges", https://engineeringunleashed.com/cards/cardview.aspx?CardGuid=e2857f96-f3f1-40cf-b460-ecfb146c4ebe

109. Brent Sebold, Linda Mayled, and Saeed Zeinolabedinzadeh*, Arizona State University, "Live Virtual Demo in The Class Using Computer Simulation Tools", https://engineeringunleashed.com/cards/cardview.aspx?CardGuid=d00fba5f-3dc5-4a41-ab9f-70b53a411d47

110. Eric Meyer and Mansoor Nasir, Lawrence Technological University, "How to include EML in technical courses with "Quantified Self" themed modules", https://engineeringunleashed.com/cards/cardview.aspx?CardGuid=0af1523d-f63a-4bcc-977a-b389fa4b65b6

111. Eric Meyer and Mansoor Nasir, Lawrence Technological University, "Hands-on activities for Prototyping and Ideation in Biomedical Engineering", https://engineeringunleashed.com/cards/cardview.aspx?CardGuid=5396bdbd-cc02-46b5-a1ac-c9462e24fb58

112. Eric Meyer and Mansoor Nasir, Lawrence Technological University, "QS4EML Course Module for "Medical Device Design'", https://engineeringunleashed.com/cards/cardview.aspx?CardGuid=8a0f3301-6557-44c2-bcea-33d5f910a6fb

113. Eric Meyer and Mansoor Nasir, Lawrence Technological University, QS4EML Course Modules for "Bioinstrumentation", https://engineeringunleashed.com/cards/cardview.aspx?CardGuid=8a0f3301-6557-44c2-bcea-33d5f910a6fb

114. Eric Meyer and Mansoor Nasir, Lawrence Technological University, "Using Maker Projects to Spark Interest in STEM", https://engineeringunleashed.com/cards/cardview.aspx?CardGuid=32da43e0-f766-40cb-8d63-c7027c90e619

44

115. Eric Meyer, Lawrence Technological University, QS4EML Course Module for "Introduction to Biomedical Engineering'", https://engineeringunleashed.com/cards/cardview.aspx?CardGuid=8a0f3301-6557-44c2-bcea-33d5f910a6fb

116. Eric Meyer, Lawrence Technological University, QS4EML Course Modules for "BME Best Practices"https://engineeringunleashed.com/cards/cardview.aspx?CardGuid=2531d7da-a343-496a-ac2a-c5c4e619756f

117. Eric Meyer, Lawrence Technological University, QS4EML Course Module for "Biomechanics", https://engineeringunleashed.com/cards/cardview.aspx?CardGuid=4c25386b-8ef8-4c96-a8bb-3d202232c47e

118. Eric Meyer, Lawrence Technological University, "QS4EML Course Modules for "Engineering in Orthopedics" elective", https://engineeringunleashed.com/cards/cardview.aspx?CardGuid=3dcdb482-a05d-4fbf-bd58-eeedcd15adcd

119. Edmund Dougherty, Villanova University, "Arduino Workshop and Hackathon", https://engineeringunleashed.com/cards/cardview.aspx?CardGuid=596a3fd2-1055-4d98-9de6-9f25e9d5d571

120. Edmund Dougherty, Villanova University, "Raspberry Pi Workshop and Hackathon", https://engineeringunleashed.com/cards/cardview.aspx?CardGuid=7cc71ae8-e276-410c-8212-adecea1917e6

121. Kundon Nepal, University of St. Thomas, "ENGR 331 Designing with Microprocessors",https://engineeringunleashed.com/cards/cardview.aspx?CardGuid=d9dbcad9-51a1-4205-ac19-d7067dafee77

122. Kundon Nepal, University of St. Thomas, "Creating Value using Embedded Systems", https://engineeringunleashed.com/cards/cardview.aspx?CardGuid=8be4166e-d8d5-4a62-b02d-19068dae52fa

123. Keith Holland, James Madison University, "Circuits and Instrumentation", https://engineeringunleashed.com/cards/cardview.aspx?CardGuid=363b253b-8b6e-4bf7-a563-381a3974fda8

124. Jingru Benner, Western New England University, "Pair Programming with LabView", https://engineeringunleashed.com/cards/cardview.aspx?CardGuid=cd90ae6a-cfc0-48d7-8a0c-00c7be8e20e3

125. Ajmal Khan, Heath LeBlanc, and Khalid Al-Olimat, all of Ohio Northern University, "Electric Circuits spark an entrepreneurial mindset", https://engineeringunleashed.com/cards/cardview.aspx?CardGuid=ba411850-2d5f-4d3d-8e66-bb947e5efc75

126. Marilyn Freeman, Clarkson University, "ES 260 Materials Science and Engineering", https://engineeringunleashed.com/cards/cardview.aspx?CardGuid=07e6b588-6751-4c3c-8f58-a364110838b4

127. Zuyi Huang, Villanova University, "Implementation of EML in the Course of Intro Material Science", https://engineeringunleashed.com/cards/cardview.aspx?CardGuid=80360725-9e88-4fdd-94d7-8296a07d4ee3

128. John Dupont, Lehigh University, "Advanced Methods of Materials Selection", https://engineeringunleashed.com/cards/cardview.aspx?CardGuid=3837e479-2286-4fc2-b589-733593f1a7d2

129. John DuPont, Lehigh University, "Modern Material Databases and Design Rules",

45

https://engineeringunleashed.com/cards/cardview.aspx?CardGuid=87011d55-e582-4515-8174-04a8d35d80da

130. Renot Letfullin, Rose-Hulman Institute of Technology, "Nanotechnology, Entrepreneurship and Ethics", https://engineeringunleashed.com/cards/cardview.aspx?CardGuid=961afe82-b86f-4508-a41d-fb8d2975cf0f

131. Curtis Abel, Jeannine Coburn, and Leslie Dodson, Worcester Polytechnic Institute, "Technology and Ethics in Drug Delivery", https://engineeringunleashed.com/cards/cardview.aspx?CardGuid=6b26ebb7-e289-4dac-839c-e5b97511c855

132. Hohyun Lee, Santa Clara University, "Economic biomedical diagnostic device",https://engineeringunleashed.com/cards/cardview.aspx?CardGuid=639df124-8453-43fe-af25-eb9fe5390dbc

133. Hohyun Lee, Santa Clara University, "Invent a Product with a Hydrophilic Surface",https://engineeringunleashed.com/cards/cardview.aspx?CardGuid=ced99c6d-0156-4ef3-9e38-d37419760db1

134. Hohyun Lee, Santa Clara University, "Microfabrication for Microfluidics",https://engineeringunleashed.com/cards/cardview.aspx?CardGuid=b47a7079-891e-4fec-9e26-456a58dac9ab

135. Hohyun Lee, Santa Clara University, "Economic Biomedical Diagnostic Device", https://engineeringunleashed.com/cards/cardview.aspx?CardGuid=639df124-8453-43fe-af25-eb9fe5390dbc

136. Susan Perry, Lehigh University, "Actin Remodeling in Cariovascular Physiology", https://engineeringunleashed.com/cards/cardview.aspx?CardGuid=039ece91-0b04-46ac-9d4b-8a3efdab0d79

137. Susan Perry, Lehigh University, "Introduction to the 3C's in Elements of Bioengineering - Design & Fabrication of an Artificial Heart Valve", https://engineeringunleashed.com/cards/cardview.aspx?CardGuid=7e63b8d1-780e-4693-b5e9-19d680cba7dd

138. Susan Perry, Lehigh University, "Neural Prosthetic Devices 101 - An Exercise for 1st year Bioengineering Majors",https://engineeringunleashed.com/cards/cardview.aspx?CardGuid=9d7fda7b-39b8-408f-b5a5-487783b21322

139. Alan Chiu, Rose-Hulman Institute of Technology, "Entrepreneurial Mindset in Biomedical Instrumentation", https://engineeringunleashed.com/cards/cardview.aspx?CardGuid=d88c2a08-cb0c-4968-8dd9-47997e24169f

140. Balakrishna Pai, Georgia Institute of Technology, "Hands-on Experimentation to Develop Strategies for Solving Real World Biomedical Problems", https://engineeringunleashed.com/cards/cardview.aspx?CardGuid=3335fdc4-961d-41f5-ab09-b07e7cdaedc3

141. Robert Gettens, Western New England University, "Medical Device Deep Dive", https://engineeringunleashed.com/cards/cardview.aspx?CardGuid=35b8daf4-8ac2-4857-835a-8edbbe306b44

142. Mike Rust, Western New England University, "Is there a global market for blood glucose monitors? "https://engineeringunleashed.com/cards/cardview.aspx?CardGuid=0adb727d-1429-400e-b1b5-5f7fb50ddd77

46

143. Jonathan Weaver, University of Detroit Mercy, "Case Study: Fluid Mechanics: Reynolds Number and Laminar/Turbulent Flow", https://engineeringunleashed.com/cards/cardview.aspx?CardGuid=1a07fd8e-8090-49ce-b1d9-1653d1a765fb

144. Dave Henthorn and Kimberly Henthorn, Rose-Hulman Institute of Technology, "Material and Energy Balances", https://engineeringunleashed.com/cards/cardview.aspx?CardGuid=aa87ca1f-071e-4ffa-ab1d-c8c1e03b5ce1

145. Chiradeep Sen, Florida Tech, "Incorporating EM in a Freshman Engineering Course", https://engineeringunleashed.com/cards/cardview.aspx?CardGuid=04cac34f-4429-42ca-a403-1e19ff44e0f2

146. Asmira Alagic, Christy Bagwill, Daria Sakic-Lazic, and Douglas Crandell*, Saint Louis University, "Viewing Molecular Structures with Augmented Reality Apps", https://engineeringunleashed.com/cards/cardview.aspx?CardGuid=86e2f7b2-c4a7-49d9-b766-701db2055a90

147. Asmira Alagic*, Christy Bagwill, Daria Sakic-Lazic, and Douglas Crandell, Saint Louis University, " An Electrochemistry Inquiry-Based Project", https://engineeringunleashed.com/cards/cardview.aspx?CardGuid=abd6a9f8-2a9d-4cb0-bbe5-230524f250ec

148. Cara Poor and Jeffrey Welch, University of Portland, " Low Oxygen Levels in Rivers", https://engineeringunleashed.com/cards/cardview.aspx?CardGuid=6df9d59f-1969-480b-bafa-906c898834e9

149. Jingzhou Zhao, Western New England Univeristy, "Sensor Design Module", https://engineeringunleashed.com/cards/cardview.aspx?CardGuid=78e8cdbc-639c-4286-ad97-93ac304c6938

150. Songbai Ji, Worcester Polytechnic University, "Using 3D Stereo Images to Motivate Interest in Learning MATLAB", https://engineeringunleashed.com/cards/cardview.aspx?CardGuid=e10cc424-a9ca-4a68-a0dd-4fa0904a9cea

151. Kourosh Rahnamai, Western New England University, "Real-Time Hardware in Loop Project Based Learning PjBL", https://engineeringunleashed.com/cards/cardview.aspx?CardGuid=fc6a0628-c73f-4033-b7ba-0308fbca18bb

152. Liberty Page, University of New Haven, "Application Programming Interface Group Project - Script Programming in Python", https://engineeringunleashed.com/cards/cardview.aspx?CardGuid=0eab5735-2a2d-4c37-a02d-bb4f454967a5

153. Liberty Page, University of New Haven, "Game Disruptor Programming Group Project Intermediate Programming C++ ", https://engineeringunleashed.com/cards/cardview.aspx?CardGuid=5b989314-746c-4ce7-8744-571ceb854bb2

154. Ken Stafford, Worcester Polytechnic Institute, "Introduction to Designing and Building Autonomous Robots", https://engineeringunleashed.com/cards/cardview.aspx?CardGuid=97eae426-1e1c-4144-b3a7-ed1ec89ead3c

47

155. Tewodros Zewde, Wichita State University, "Interdisciplinary Challenge - Circuit", https://engineeringunleashed.com/cards/cardview.aspx?CardGuid=da837d12-41c2-470f-9bd8-827ddb5d99ea

156. Kimberly Demoret, Florida Institute of Technology, "Capstone Topics: Defining the Need and Creating Value", https://engineeringunleashed.com/cards/cardview.aspx?CardGuid=d48a1471-7b05-4a89-b22f-ed3805eeb45b

157. Katsuyuki Wakabayashi and Shane Cohen, Bucknell University, "Interdisciplinary Senior Design: Leveraging Internal Faculty and Staff Resources for Collaborative Instruction in Engineering", https://engineeringunleashed.com/cards/cardview.aspx?CardGuid=ad068015-9afd-4c55-a90f-8b6d76a796f7

158. Craig Beal, Julia Cole, and Nathan Siegel, Bucknell University, "Ground Vehicle Design and Build in a First Year Engineering Graphics Course", https://engineeringunleashed.com/cards/cardview.aspx?CardGuid=ed4c8761-d972-41b9-a2e3-d26a2378e00d

159. Sandra Clavijo, Stevens Institute of Technology, "Working with Sensor Networks", https://engineeringunleashed.com/cards/cardview.aspx?CardGuid=cb69c905-5f27-4213-89f7-0fda504c6f33

160. Sandra Clavijo, Stevens Institute of Technology, "Sense Angular Speed - Activity 1", https://engineeringunleashed.com/cards/cardview.aspx?CardGuid=46664614-6df7-4b50-95c7-86576ea3f757

161. Sandra Clavijo, Stevens Institute of Technology, "Jigsaw Activity: Design of experiments for measuring accuracy, resolution, and robustness", https://engineeringunleashed.com/cards/cardview.aspx?CardGuid=fdaa171b-9a3f-4039-93aa-b7d4149101aa

162. Sandra Clavijo, Stevens Institute of Technology, "Analog Near Real-time Sensing", https://engineeringunleashed.com/cards/cardview.aspx?CardGuid=436b09f7-3437-4018-afda-8d684b1f17ce

163. Reinhold Ludwig,Worcester Polytechnic Institute, "Scaling an Interface Board from Low to High Frequency Operation", https://engineeringunleashed.com/cards/cardview.aspx?CardGuid=749c10aa-e721-40d6-a956-e2bd0daaff5e

164. Silviya Zustiak, Saint Louis University, "Gallery Walk activity on Orthopedic Implants for a Biomaterials class", https://engineeringunleashed.com/cards/cardview.aspx?CardGuid=0e8129f5-0f74-4bda-8c96-f8d45e722eb2

165. Jacob Elmer, Villanova University, "DIY BioSensor - Prototyping in a Freshman Design Course", https://engineeringunleashed.com/cards/cardview.aspx?CardGuid=ae684722-6ada-47c5-9dc1-17c2e2ac0be5

166. Mark Jupina, Villanova University, "Entrepreneurial Exercises in a Digital Electronics Course", https://engineeringunleashed.com/cards/cardview.aspx?CardGuid=ac2f012a-c2cc-4301-98f5-f4cf4888235a

167. Mary Staehle, Rowan University, "Sweet! The skin is like cotton candy? Enhancing heat transfer with increased surface area." https://engineeringunleashed.com/cards/cardview.aspx?CardGuid=72fe9f4c-49ec-4eb7-8a06-1a8a09ce456c

48

168. Mary Staehle, Rowan University, "You know that's for a human, right? A holistic introduction to biomedical device design " https://engineeringunleashed.com/cards/cardview.aspx?CardGuid=6dc21fe4-6510-407d-b07c-4d458130d3cc

169. Jeannice Samani, Unknown Affiliation, "Fifth Wave (TM) STEM Prep Institute", https://engineeringunleashed.com/cards/cardview.aspx?CardGuid=5774a678-ccd1-4f50-9bd6-cd8878832354

170. Ahmet Can Sabancu, Worcester Polytechnic Institute; Alayna Olson, KFF; Doug Melton, KFF; Laura Schumacher, KFF, "Fifty Inventions That Shaped the Modern Economy", https://engineeringunleashed.com/cards/cardview.aspx?CardGuid=3855555f-938a-4405-932f-bf7833594bdc

171. Sam Clancy, Worcester Polytechnic Institute, "Underdamped Step Response: Medical/Health Example ", https://engineeringunleashed.com/cards/cardview.aspx?CardGuid=ad2833b7-00cb-475b-be0d-9b0b86914f3b

172. Danielle Trollinger, Heather Dillon*, Jeffrey Welch, and Nicole Ralston, University of Portland,"Curriculum Assessment Structure based on KEEN Student Outcomes", https://engineeringunleashed.com/cards/cardview.aspx?CardGuid=72a0c887-1ffc-4d76-ba92-5616a2d30bc5

173. Jennifer Young, Michael Johnson, and Thor Misko, all of KFF, "KEEN Partner Activities", https://engineeringunleashed.com/cards/cardview.aspx?CardGuid=67c30651-3811-4a6b-9f7a-1146130c5637 using the now discontinued Google Sheets to illustrate the connections

174. Blake Hylton, David Mikesell, Heath LeBlanc, and J.D. Yoder, Ohio Northern University, "Expanded KEEN Student Outcomes (aka e-KSOs)", https://engineeringunleashed.com/cards/cardview.aspx?CardGuid=257ee008-99fc-4fa8-b0e6-65a55c283d3c

175. Charles Kim and Margot Vigeant, "Making robots in a mechanics course", https://engineeringunleashed.com/cards/cardview.aspx?CardGuid=9bffd283-6073-48e9-b6cd-399a2afe3bf2

176. Cheryl Li, Jean Nocito Gobel, Maria-Isabel Carnasciali*, Meghan Baggili, Nadiye Erdil, and Ronald Harichandran, University of New Haven, "Learning from Failure", https://engineeringunleashed.com/cards/cardview.aspx?CardGuid=6192c834-23de-4c99-a386-78edde1faf1c

177. Bradley Wile, Ohio Northern University, "Catalysis: Making a Commodity", https://engineeringunleashed.com/cards/cardview.aspx?CardGuid=8f891f17-95eb-40f8-a636-961c46a9c0c0

178. Gary Brooking, Wichita State University, "CAD with a Purpose", https://engineeringunleashed.com/cards/cardview.aspx?CardGuid=92d2956b-a948-47fd-8351-2ac00c05cc36

179. Doug Frey, Lehigh University, "Circuit Design Challenge", https://engineeringunleashed.com/cards/cardview.aspx?CardGuid=4c63b5c6-a04e-462c-90a6-570e4f2a195f

180. Doug Dunston and Lucas Koerner*, University of St. Thomas, "Visualizing Electricity and Magnetism with Python Notebooks", https://engineeringunleashed.com/cards/cardview.aspx?CardGuid=baa2fdbd-8342-4bc9-bb4f-09a7753b842c

49

181. Srinivas Rangarajan, Lehigh University, "Using computer code as an enquiry based learning tool to introduce chemical engineering concepts", https://engineeringunleashed.com/cards/cardview.aspx?CardGuid=0d09cee4-bdee-49dc-b362-ccdb035bf469

182. Seyhan Ersay, Lehigh Univeristy, "Online Circuit Design Application", https://engineeringunleashed.com/cards/cardview.aspx?CardGuid=f782a07e-6dae-4609-ad96-864484aa1819

183. Brenda Read-Daly and Jean Baptista Abreu, Elizabethtown College, "Energy Efficiency Assessment of Windows Using Temperature Sensors - First-Year Engineering Students Project", https://engineeringunleashed.com/cards/cardview.aspx?CardGuid=cefd6685-b143-457d-a751-c1725cc9d93a

184. Laura Moyer, Lehigh University, "Determining Proper Materials for Practical Use", https://engineeringunleashed.com/cards/cardview.aspx?CardGuid=30c23cf1-6332-49b1-b738-8143ac75783f

185. Sabrina Jedlicka and Xuanhong Cheng*, Lehigh University, "Implants--history, state of the art and future directions", https://engineeringunleashed.com/cards/cardview.aspx?CardGuid=6a4594ae-627a-4d80-915b-97c01acb2bbb

186. John Estell, Ohio Northern University; John Ochs, Lehigh University; Jennifer Young, KFF; and Patsy Brackin, Rose-Hulman Institute of Technology, "2018 Capstone Conference and KEEN",https://engineeringunleashed.com/cards/cardview.aspx?CardGuid=52fc0d3c-efd4-41d6-8f88-029d0c0b97ae

187. Kemal Tuzla, Lehigh University, "Active Learning With Pilot Scale Unit Operations", https://engineeringunleashed.com/cards/cardview.aspx?CardGuid=99ff4fb3-c94a-4e6d-94d5-a2af4567e1db

188. Jeff Kleim*, Kristen Peña, and Layla Reitmeier, all of Arizona State University, "BME 100 Introduction to Biomedical Engineering", https://engineeringunleashed.com/cards/cardview.aspx?CardGuid=816aa1b2-bbec-45b3-8d75-877317d4ad66

189. Jeff Kleim, Kristen Peña, and Layla Reitmeier, all of Arizona State University, "BME 100 Introduction to Biomedical Engineering", https://engineeringunleashed.com/cards/cardview.aspx?CardGuid=816aa1b2-bbec-45b3-8d75-877317d4ad66

190. Jeff Kleim and Kristen Peña, both of Arizona State University, "Full Integration: Biomedical Engineering Design Spine - EM@ASU Case Study", https://engineeringunleashed.com/cards/cardview.aspx?CardGuid=b25f47bb-77da-42c1-b0d2-9b59cba232dc

191. Jeff Kleim, Kristen Peña, and Layla Reitmeier, all of Arizona State University, "BME 394: Entrepreneurship for Engineers", https://engineeringunleashed.com/cards/cardview.aspx?CardGuid=b051a129-e142-49ab-bf5a-8d24d0e43158

192. Keith Holland, James Madison University, "Circuits and Instrumentation", https://engineeringunleashed.com/cards/cardview.aspx?CardGuid=363b253b-8b6e-4bf7-a563-381a3974fda8

193. Sharon Breitbart, Olin College, "Senior Capstone Programs at Olin", https://engineeringunleashed.com/cards/cardview.aspx?CardGuid=0be646ce-0299-481b-897a-23ec34f7c394

50

194. James Mynderse, Lawrence Technological University, "Automatic Bridge Inspection (a Mechatronic Design PBL)", https://engineeringunleashed.com/cards/cardview.aspx?CardGuid=4a2e6a78-48dc-45d0-8f71-884658aac9ce

195. Cory Hixson, Colorado Christian University, "A Multi-Disciplinary Course in Engineering Product Development and Marketing", https://engineeringunleashed.com/cards/cardview.aspx?CardGuid=d9b3c61c-0d19-41d8-b27b-9068f01cdee4

196. Alan Chiu, Rose-Hulman Institute of Technology, "Entrepreneurial Mindset in Biomedical Instrumentation", https://engineeringunleashed.com/cards/cardview.aspx?CardGuid=d88c2a08-cb0c-4968-8dd9-47997e24169f

197. Michael Caplan, Arizona State University, "Real-world applications in Biomedical Engineering classes (e.g., for Biomedical Transport Phenomena)", https://engineeringunleashed.com/cards/cardview.aspx?CardGuid=389d3b47-69ff-4703-818e-479615b306a5

198. David Perkins and Emily Fehrman-Cory, University of Dayton, "Learning Project Management and Engineering Design in a Multidisciplinary Capstone Design Lab", https://engineeringunleashed.com/cards/cardview.aspx?CardGuid=aecaffff-009c-4c00-9fa3-be1223e71b18

199. Kenan Song, Arizona State University, "Inclusion of EM in Manufacturing", https://engineeringunleashed.com/cards/cardview.aspx?CardGuid=2bfd62a0-03a6-4d0d-9375-13afa8797b2f

200. Kristen Peña and Micah Lande, Arizona State University, "Scaffolded Prototyping Milestones", https://engineeringunleashed.com/cards/cardview.aspx?CardGuid=0fbca141-edd2-40de-a72d-a2584a6bad2d

201. Matthew Bilsky, Lehigh University, "Modeling of a DC Motor to Save Humanoid Robotics", https://engineeringunleashed.com/cards/cardview.aspx?CardGuid=9c60b26d-3d93-4ecd-a35d-357ee5c6e372

202. Xioahui Zhang, Lehigh University, "Engineering physiology – artificial heart valve lab", https://engineeringunleashed.com/cards/cardview.aspx?CardGuid=8834f7b9-b2d5-4218-9078-748759e0a3cb

203. Steven McIntosh, Lehigh University, "Electrochemical Engineering", https://engineeringunleashed.com/cards/cardview.aspx?CardGuid=aa5bad38-babe-4ade-bb3e-258e2f4d97b9

204. Steven McIntosh, Lehigh University, "Chemical Engineering Thermodynamics",https://engineeringunleashed.com/cards/cardview.aspx?CardGuid=72c707fe-168b-41c7-9b8b-a1605c1e78c0

205. Emory Zimmers, Lehigh University, "Utilization of Computer Graphics for Design Innovation", https://engineeringunleashed.com/cards/cardview.aspx?CardGuid=23348b4f-4aca-4bdf-b3e8-00f9deab92a4

206. Hamidrez Marvi, Arizona State University, "Bio-inspired Robotics with Entrepreneurial Mindset", https://engineeringunleashed.com/cards/cardview.aspx?CardGuid=3027ebef-23d9-42d6-a513-8fe744e7f111

51

207. Heather Dillon, University of Portland, "Design of a Cross-Curricular Circuits Laboratory Experiment" https://engineeringunleashed.com/cards/cardview.aspx?CardGuid=2fe8fc95-5f76-4132-a5cd-5d4d25cc4f3f

208. Lawrence Butler, Lehigh University, "Applied Engineering Computer Methods", https://engineeringunleashed.com/cards/cardview.aspx?CardGuid=6488f58f-401d-4fe2-beaa-32695c9793bb

209. Daniel Aukes, Arizona State University, "Foldable Robotics", https://engineeringunleashed.com/cards/cardview.aspx?CardGuid=065c9fb0-38db-4343-99f9-f18c6391f856

210. Dave Henthorn, Rebecca Devasher, and Ross Weatherman, all of Rose-Hulman Institute of Technology, "Electronic EML Badges: Designing the Badges to Help Students Tell Their Stories", https://engineeringunleashed.com/cards/cardview.aspx?CardGuid=45ea800f-ba71-4960-a5ab-a70d877b6677

211. Lesley Chow, Lehigh University, "Identifying a Mystery Polymer for 3D Printing Toys", https://engineeringunleashed.com/cards/cardview.aspx?CardGuid=e15697c2-f57b-4772-a679-8a3daaf124f3

212. John Aidoo and Michael Robinson, both of Rose-Hulman Institute of Technology, "Opeartion Catapult", https://engineeringunleashed.com/cards/cardview.aspx?CardGuid=130c66eb-2067-42f8-94df-17c487b75388

213. Alexander Brown, Dan Sabatino, Scott Hummel, and Susan Boerchers, Lafayette College, "Synthesizing Concepts in ME480: Control Systems & Mechatronics", https://engineeringunleashed.com/cards/cardview.aspx?CardGuid=8caf224b-b8b3-47d5-a9b4-3f534a716dc5

214. Svetlana Tatic-Lucic, Lehigh University, "Presentation on Applying MEMS in Point of Care Testing", https://engineeringunleashed.com/cards/cardview.aspx?CardGuid=dd2a9c57-8afc-4ccf-aac1-5aabe22a13af

215. Angela Brown, Lehigh University, "Modeling of Industrially Relevant Chemical Reactors", https://engineeringunleashed.com/cards/cardview.aspx?CardGuid=701e9c81-e359-48f2-a99d-dfb7ca1e335f

216. Tarek Taha, University of Dayton, "Introducing an Entrepreneurial Mindset through Video Enhancements in a Microprocessor Course", https://engineeringunleashed.com/cards/cardview.aspx?CardGuid=47123a74-3bac-4bb9-8f65-4e80565d5b16

217. Jeff Kleim and Jit Muthuswamy*, Arizona State University, "Microcontroller Applications in Bioengineering – A module to instill entrepreneurial mindset", https://engineeringunleashed.com/cards/cardview.aspx?CardGuid=faa50392-4bc6-4866-a251-8933ab42403c

218. Wujie Zhang, Milwaukee School of Engineering, "Time is Running Out", https://engineeringunleashed.com/cards/cardview.aspx?CardGuid=dd5c4a5a-5e5d-40f2-ab90-d7f8811d09eb

219. B. Wijnen, E.J. Hunt, G.C. Anzalone, and J.M. Pearce, Michigan Tech, (2014) Open-Source Syringe Pump Library. PLOS ONE 9(9): e107216. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0107216.

220. Lande, Micah, https://engineeringunleashed.com/user-profile.aspx?userguid=3cb1b1fa-8212-4dd3-b7a2-8ec3ca53a500

52

221. Jordan, Shawn, https://engineeringunleashed.com/user-profile.aspx?userguid=106f716b-8074-4f9c-bb4d-6a69f4bef6f3222. Morano, Heidi, Lawrence Technological University, "MAKING FUTURE MAKERS - Using Maker Technologies to Foster Enthusiasm in STEM and Demonstrate the Inherent Benefits of Service Learning (WIP)", https://engineeringunleashed.com/cards/cardview.aspx?CardGuid=c0e9615a-ef92-4bf6-b93d-1f86e9c8432c

223. Zheng, Rosa, Lehigh University, "B-FAB: Final Project for Embedded Systems", https://engineeringunleashed.com/cards/cardview.aspx?CardGuid=835a2269-c2ce-4be8-86e8-0238a6f2ff35

224. Thomas, Rebecca, Bucknell University, "Measuring Outputs from Resistive Sensors using Arduino and an LCD Display to Increase Motivation in a Circuits Course for Students Outside the Classroom", https://engineeringunleashed.com/cards/cardview.aspx?CardGuid=6aa0b9f3-ea38-4f83-a364-e96401fa6d8b

225. Kirkvold, Heather, James Madison University, "Lighting it Up", https://engineeringunleashed.com/cards/cardview.aspx?CardGuid=e48eaa9f-e1ac-4ed3-a4a8-0d5de6e1e071

226. Thomas, Stewart, Bucknell University, "Twiddle Bits (A Non-Electronic Logic Game)", https://engineeringunleashed.com/cards/cardview.aspx?CardGuid=ebb801ab-881e-41dc-9640-ec68bd46c831

227. Marchiori, Alan, Bucknell University, "Introduction to Making for CS Students", https://engineeringunleashed.com/cards/cardview.aspx?CardGuid=b94910b8-0d3f-42c3-b64f-50a8ca8c7120

228. Chauhan, Vedang, Western New England University, "Open Loop and Closed Loop Control Systems: DC Motor Speed Control", https://engineeringunleashed.com/cards/cardview.aspx?CardGuid=2197ff4a-21cf-4c08-827e-38ad1ecfa0ab

229. Hill-Munoz, Manuela, University of St. Thomas, "WIP: Making Maker Tools Learning a Blast", https://engineeringunleashed.com/cards/cardview.aspx?CardGuid=897862c0-6c9d-44e8-8409-93fc3f7dc174

230. Pask, Greg, Bucknell University, "Scientific Outreach Service (SOS) Project", https://engineeringunleashed.com/cards/cardview.aspx?CardGuid=fe7ea65f-abea-44fc-a922-faf7610364fc

231. Karcher, Brandon, Bucknell University, "Library Makers (WIP) B-Fab", https://engineeringunleashed.com/cards/cardview.aspx?CardGuid=6773a9f4-13c9-4862-94c1-0ff288f80bbb

232. Jablonski, Erin, Bucknell University, "Building the Basics: Feasibility Study of Greywater and Plumbing System Design for a Campus Residence Hall", https://engineeringunleashed.com/cards/cardview.aspx?CardGuid=399eff3c-96c9-46c5-ac06-80df87109e96

233. Anvaryazdi, Samira Fazel, Louisiana Tech University, "Catapult Project - Design of Experiments with Several Factors", https://engineeringunleashed.com/cards/cardview.aspx?CardGuid=545f2d6f-6697-4f47-8307-d6c1eb0a286c

234. Hanegman, Andrew, Iron Range (Minnesota State University - Mankato), "Design Sprint 2 Prototype 2019", https://engineeringunleashed.com/cards/cardview.aspx?CardGuid=508e9da8-bc23-4bed-ac55-d395129b8e2f

53

235. Zhao, Junhui, University of New Haven, "Power Infrastructure Inspection Drone", https://engineeringunleashed.com/cards/cardview.aspx?CardGuid=575fe822-fba3-4d77-90d0-d2b69146657e

236. Mehta, Vishal, Ohio Northern University, "Push and Pull - Prototype Material Testing", https://engineeringunleashed.com/cards/cardview.aspx?CardGuid=e3f96a2b-5b1c-4dbd-bd66-0662d5cd9965

237. Bodnar, Cheryl; Mallouk, Kaitlin, and Streiner, Scott, all of Rowan University, "Building Toys for Children by Applying Universal Design Principles", https://engineeringunleashed.com/cards/cardview.aspx?CardGuid=2a0efeb2-ef09-434a-b29f-914e10e98eab

238. Zhu, Haolin, Arizona State University, "Hands on Toy Design Project for a Mechanism Analysis and Design Course", https://engineeringunleashed.com/cards/cardview.aspx?CardGuid=205cbbd3-bf24-4526-a012-f7bee6cdb565

239. Khorbotly, Sami, Valparaiso University, "Counters - Designing a Basketball Shot Clock", https://engineeringunleashed.com/cards/cardview.aspx?CardGuid=1e807b01-4e60-4c72-bd51-f2e6b23f72dc

240. Khan, Ajmal, Ohio Northern University, "EML in AM and FM Radio Receivers", https://engineeringunleashed.com/cards/cardview.aspx?CardGuid=b1d057b9-e105-415f-a07c-c220c36688de

241. Thompson, Stu, Bucknell University, "First Year ECE Project - IOT Environmental Sensing", https://engineeringunleashed.com/cards/cardview.aspx?CardGuid=c8394e10-c112-4f58-9bd4-252d4a145202

242. Read-Daily, Brenda; Batista Abreu, Jean; and de Goede, Kurt, all of Elizabethtown College, "First-Year Project Featuring Multiple Design Tradeoffs", https://engineeringunleashed.com/cards/cardview.aspx?CardGuid=da285c1c-8d2a-4530-a1ff-40f791baec09

243. Sills, Deborah, Bucknell University, "Low Cost Air Pollution Sensors and Thinking About Citizen-Science", https://engineeringunleashed.com/cards/cardview.aspx?CardGuid=9f3200cb-bf3f-4fa0-b695-45c38418ff85

244. Lamparter, Matthew, and Pask, Greg, Bucknell University, " PiSpy: Creating an Automated Video Recording Platform", https://engineeringunleashed.com/cards/cardview.aspx?CardGuid=e9cd9530-02f6-4217-97c0-1fe5ed4ed58d

245. Liu, John, University of St. Thomas, "Freshman Students Designing Together with Members of the Local Community", https://engineeringunleashed.com/cards/cardview.aspx?CardGuid=855e49d1-fc44-4eff-9d92-28347ccd2083

246. Niknam, Seyed, Western New England University, "Applying Additive Manufacturing in Mass Production", https://engineeringunleashed.com/cards/cardview.aspx?CardGuid=a76a4097-7604-4b39-a48d-4c3202c1e9ff

247. Zheng, Rosa, Lehigh University, "Introduction to Embedded Systems", https://engineeringunleashed.com/cards/cardview.aspx?CardGuid=c797d5a4-1b8a-4547-aee4-ee5255efb00d

54

248. Becky Benishek and Michael Johnson, Kern Family Foundation, and Jeff Ma, Saint Louis University, "CardDeck: Machine Design", https://engineeringunleashed.com/cards/cardview.aspx?CardGuid=f5030525-d941-423f-8e5a-2e520c507e69

249. Matthew Franchetti, Mike Toole, and Norman Rapino, The University of Toledo, "University of Toledo - A New KEEN Partner Eager to Connect and Learn from Others", https://engineeringunleashed.com/cards/cardview.aspx?CardGuid=68db7d54-bcdf-40c8-be31-288932170956

250. Donald Gaver, Howard Davis, Katherine Raymond, Katie Russell, Kimberly Foster, and Matt Barrios, "Tulane University - Incorporation of the Tulane Makerspace Throughout the Engineering Curriculum", https://engineeringunleashed.com/cards/cardview.aspx?CardGuid=305052a7-29bf-40bb-bf6b-bd917f564ab2

251. Breigh Roszelle, Gancalo Martins, Haluk Ogmen, Jason Roney, JB Holston, Matt Gordon, and Michael Caston, "University of Denver - Advancing EM in the Curriculum Through Making", https://engineeringunleashed.com/cards/cardview.aspx?CardGuid=916245dd-f394-4989-b49b-822d510ad428

252. Marco Carvalho, Chiradeep Sen, Robert Weaver, Kastro Hamed, Rodrigo Mesa-Arango, Jim Brenner, and Kimberly Demoret, Florida Institute of Technology, "Florida Institute of Technology - Reframing Making to Integrate Entrepreneurially-Minded Learning", https://engineeringunleashed.com/cards/card.aspx?CardGuid=d397eeb2-7b12-42bb-b299-8a1872d81288

253. Kathleen Bieryla and Rebecca Levison, The University of Portland, "Turn Your 3D World Into 2D- Real Life FBDs", https://engineeringunleashed.com/cards/cardview.aspx?CardGuid=1627c51f-3eca-4abe-9982-dde8e535e970

254. Katie Russell, Tulane University, "BFAB: Design, Construction, and Testing of Shell-and-Tube Heat Exchanger", https://engineeringunleashed.com/cards/cardview.aspx?CardGuid=ff8c5ccc-d906-460a-9e58-f3dcd6a8cd7d

255, Icaro dos Santos, Milwaukee School of Engineering, "Create a Controls Lab Experiment for the Temperature Control of a Neonatal Incubator", https://engineeringunleashed.com/cards/cardview.aspx?CardGuid=be957792-b533-4723-9c06-4566c82d7d94

256. Sabrina Shankar, Bucknell University, "EMphasizing Making from a Student Affairs Perspective", https://engineeringunleashed.com/cards/cardview.aspx?CardGuid=511f1592-e96c-4263-99e7-ba623bc05492

257. Deborah Gryzbowski, The Ohio State University, "Big Lab on a Tiny Chip - Integrating EML into 1st Year Engineering Design Project", https://engineeringunleashed.com/cards/cardview.aspx?CardGuid=6ac2d470-f9f0-4f43-a3ad-0aef9685b8ba

258. Breigh Roszelle, The University of Denver, "Introduction to Mechanical Systems Project - Design and Build a Toy", https://engineeringunleashed.com/cards/cardview.aspx?CardGuid=5370600b-13b0-4664-8873-fdeefb93ec4c

259. Levert, Joseph, University of New Haven, "Drawing Dimension 'Exploration'", https://engineeringunleashed.com/cards/cardview.aspx?CardGuid=aafe7457-a037-4cfb-8884-398a83e3dd13

55

260. Hoffbeck, Joseph, and Dillon, Heather, The University of Portland, "Design an Energy-Saving Device", https://engineeringunleashed.com/cards/cardview.aspx?CardGuid=141a1989-af99-40e2-ba06-d5d492018e95

261. Mynderse, James, Gerhart, Andrew; Vejdani, Hamid; Yee, Kingman; Liu, Liping; Fletcher, Robert; and Jing, Wuming, all of Lawrence Technological University, "Development of an Entrepreneurial Mind-set within a Three-Semester Mechanical Engineering Capstone Design Sequence Based on the SAE CDS", https://engineeringunleashed.com/cards/cardview.aspx?CardGuid=ee24aa65-e953-4b50-859f-450869e59cac

262. Jablonski, Erin, Bucknell University, "Authentic Projects: How Inspired Design and Public Delivery Engages Students and Develops Entrepreneurial Mindset", https://engineeringunleashed.com/cards/cardview.aspx?CardGuid=91253235-1c03-4c59-b387-d37e656288b5

263. Wittie, Lea, Bucknell University, "Build a Better Bug Swatter: Learning to Write Methods to Catch ADT Bugs for Beginning Programmers", https://engineeringunleashed.com/cards/cardview.aspx?CardGuid=c9439625-b542-45cb-a043-93eb0a038b27

264. Trollinger, Danielle; Dillon, Heather, and van de Grift, Tammy, all of the University of Portland, "Design Your Life", https://engineeringunleashed.com/cards/cardview.aspx?CardGuid=0b08d178-e13c-4c00-8f0e-47b8b8ef27d6

56

my.fit.edumy.fit.edu/~jbrenner/keen/2019-12-24_keen annual_re… · web view2019/12/24 ·...

Documents