This paper presents evidence-based practice in required first-year engineering curriculum at Northeastern University. It will outline the motivation to redesign the curriculum, and include review of engineering education practice that inspired and directed the change, along with evidence and assessment of the effectiveness of the new approach. In 2012, after a comprehensive curriculum review by a faculty committee at Northeastern University, the firstyear engineering program decided to adopt the "cornerstone to capstone" curriculum design. The overarching goal of the cornerstone was the integration of design, programming, graphical communication, and engineering analysis through real world, hands-on design projects previously taught in two separate courses. This goal directly supports the interdisciplinary, student-centered approach recommended by the National Academy of Engineering's Educating the Engineer of 2020 report. 13Additional motivation for the cornerstone approach came from three areas; student feedback, the changing profile of first year students, and increased access to affordable technologies such as programmable microcontroller kits and 3D printing. Today's students are entering the university with more advanced placement credit and an increased level of experience with hands-on projects and technologies, such as electronics. This cohort of students are looking for more depth in exploring engineering and a sense of real world problems along with taking courses at an accelerated pace.First pilots of the cornerstone course included a 14-week, 400-minutes per week course. Several measures were reviewed to evaluate success of the cornerstone. In comparing course content artifacts from the previous courses to similar ones from cornerstone, the cornerstone students of similar entrance skills did as well as the previous students on tests, projects, quizzes and presentations. Cornerstone students also reported similar positive outcomes for learning in the new course compared to students in the traditional courses, and even reported how they couldn't imagine the courses not integrated. This paper will report on the motivations and lessons learned at Northeastern University in implementing a cornerstone approach. It will present evidence-based practice in required firstyear engineering curriculum at Northeastern University and will outline the motivation to redesign the curriculum. It will include review of engineering education practice that inspired and directed the change, along with evidence and assessment of the effectiveness of the new approach.

and Sue are core members of the Gateway Team of full-time faculty in the College of Engineering at Northeastern University in Boston, MA. While they concentrate on first-year engineering courses teaching across all engineering disciplines, they also teach specialty courses in the Department of Mechanical and Industrial Engineering at NU. Each of the NU team has published and presented papers on approaches and techniques in engineering education. Combined, Sue, Rich, and Beverly have earned several teaching awards and are proponents of active, engaging, and effective learning practices.

No abstract

is the Head of STEM and Entrepreneurship at Northeastern University. She also serves as liaison to the biology and bioengineering departments in addition to leading an interdisciplinary systematic reviews team. Previously, she worked as a STEM Librarian at Northeastern University and an Education Librarian at Boston University's Medical Campus.

Our engineering students have often asked why they need to learn computer programming and at times they miss the association that many aspects of our daily existence are dependent upon software running hardware. It is not enough to tell students that some of the required attributes to becoming a good engineer involve being proficient in the application of algorithmic thinking and problem solving. Therefore, our program at Northeastern University decided to implement a hands-on, low-cost, easily integrated component in the first-year programming course to emphasize the importance of understanding how software and hardware are interlaced, and to engage the students meaningfully in their first college programming class. The hardware-application approach that was initiated at Northeastern University contrasts some of the more traditional methods used to teach algorithmic thinking and problem-solving skills to first-year engineering students, yet follows an emerging trend. Computing projects that are used to control physical hardware were added to the Engineering Problem Solving and Computation course in order to make strong connections to the many embedded computing applications used in students' everyday experience and in society in general. Moreover, witnessing computer instructions produce light, sound, and motion engages the students' senses and provides the sort of immediate feedback essential for constructive and memorable learning.In order to accomplish the goal of introducing hands-on laboratory experiences to over 600 students, Northeastern University teamed with the not-for-profit company Machine Science Incorporated to conduct a pilot study using a custom kit of electronic components in the Spring semester of 2010. The kits were comprised of inexpensive, highly functional -and in many cases reusable-components combined for the purposes of demonstrating the capabilities of programming to generate tangible and observable results from programs created by the students. This was supplemented by online tutorials, instructions, and projects provided by Machine Science Inc. to guide the learning process. The success and lessons of the pilot study resulted in a full rollout to all first-year engineering students enrolled in the programming course in the following spring.To assess this initiative, students were surveyed prior to implementation of the full iteration of the 'machine science' module to provide a baseline of their impressions of what was to come. Later, they also provided feedback on several aspects of the module including the learning outcomes related to this part of the course. Results strongly showed that student participants find that these labs demonstrate the capabilities and value of programming for any engineering major. They reported that it was engaging and that they learned more than just programming, and the course and its material gained credibility with the majority of the student population -an improvement over previous years' feedback.