is a Professor of Engineering Education and also serves as the Director of education and global initiatives at an interdisciplinary research institute called the Institute for Critical Technology and Applied Science (ICTAS) at Virginia Tech. He is the founding director of an interdisciplinary lab called Learning Enhanced Watershed Assessment System (LEWAS) at VT. He received a Ph.D. in civil engineering from VT. His research interests are in the areas of computer-supported research and learning systems, hydrology, engineering education, and international collaboration. He has served as a PI or co-PI on 16 projects, funded by the National Science Foundation, with a $6.4 million research funding participation from external sources. He has been directing/co-directing an NSF/Research Experiences for Undergraduates (REU) Site on interdisciplinary water sciences and engineering at VT since 2007. This site has 95 alumni to date. He also leads an NSF/Research Experiences for Teachers (RET) site on interdisciplinary water research and have 10 alumni. He also leads an NSF-funded cybersecurity education project and serves as a co-PI on two International Research Experiences for Students (IRES) projects funded by the NSF. He has published over 90 papers in peer-reviewed journals and conferences.

A new engineering course at a large land-grant university seeks to introduce non-engineers to the profession via a combination of artistic endeavors, social science analyses, engineering design thinking, and community practice. The course introduces a new concept, "citizen engineering," borrowed from a tradition of citizen science in which community members ("non-experts") identify scientific questions and proceed through a formal process, such as participatory action research, to seek answers to their questions by defining and driving their own processes of inquiry and analysis, sometimes but not always with the cooperation of trained scientists.The course first introduces multiple definitions of engineering and citizenship for critical discussion, develops the idea of citizen engineering from citizen science, and then proceeds to a unit on Making where students ponder through examination of examples from art exhibits and popular media what kinds of activities might constitute Making, and which might constitute citizen engineering, and why. The students engage in various Making activities including a short project in which they design and build prototypes of an artifact to improve dorm life. After this, students gain an introduction to engineering studies through analysis of the co-construction of technology and society, and through examining the roles of citizens in large engineering projects such as nuclear power or gas pipelines. Throughout the course there is an underlying argument that non-engineers can and should engage engineering, problematizing the notion of engineering expertise as unique. A series of short essays encourage students to analyze engineering as a profession and consider their own roles as citizen engineers with the power to intervene as nonexperts in engineering activities that impact society.In this first iteration of the course, one of the authors served as a participant-observer and ethnographer focused on student learning. The observer witnessed student engagement with course topics and with one another, and interviewed all the students in the class (n=5) individually. Using the observer's analysis of his observation notes and interview responses, and using the instructors' analysis of student work and course feedback, we reflect on the outcomes of this first iteration of the course and consider avenues for improvement.Although the course was designed for non-engineers and particularly students outside of STEM fields, those who enrolled for this iteration were three seniors majoring in the sciences, and three first year students who intend to major in engineering but are not yet admitted to the engineering college. This population of students struggled with critical analysis and in particular with the central argument of the course that engineering ought to be democratized, that non-engineers can make crucial contributions that improve engineering practice and hold engineering accountable for its roles in society. Improved reading selection, better scaffolding for more challe...

is a doctoral candidate in the Department of Engineering Education at Virginia Tech, where she also completed her master's degree in Higher Education. She is the graduate assistant for the Rising Sophomore Abroad Program, a global engineering course and study abroad program for first year engineering students. Her primary research interests are engineering study abroad, developing intercultural competency in engineering students, and international higher education.

Professional engineering work occurs in dynamic, complex contexts that require engineers to leverage various skills beyond their technical competencies to work productively with different stakeholders. Problem-solving is not merely a technical endeavor; educators and practitioners have long realized the synergistic connection between technical proficiency and complex personal and interpersonal competencies, such as critical thinking and communication skills. Since the 1990s, the topic of transversal or professional skills has been a common thread in engineering education literature. Engineering accreditation bodies such as Accreditation Board for Engineering Technology (ABET) and Commission des titres d’ingénieur (CTI), and engineering curriculum models such as the conceive-designimplement- operate (CDIO) have highlighted the importance of various transversal skills in professional engineering work. Today, there is a general agreement among engineering educators and scholars about the value and benefits of transversal skills. What is less clear is which specific skills should be considered transversal and how those skills can be categorized and defined. Efforts in settling these issues ultimately help engineering programs to have a clearer picture of which skills are (and are not) well integrated and assessed in their curricula. This concept paper discusses a framework for categorizing transversal skills. We build on the relevant literature and the ongoing educational practices in prioritizing transversal skills at the École polytechnique fédérale de Lausanne (EPFL) to bring visibility to essential graduate skills and attributes, including those that are often underemphasized.

The revolutionary changes in ABET EC 2000 accreditation criteria promoted the address of critical thinking in engineering curricula by emphasizing such outcomes as ethics, social and global context, communication, lifelong learning and contemporary issues in addition to technical work in design and problem solving. However, the mainstream notion of critical thinking as used in the educational settings is often connected with the conceptions of reasoning and logic. Critical thinking is often seen as a skill in line with decision making and problem solving applications. The extent and degree of success of addressing critical thinking is still under question.Liberation as its own field of praxis and theory which has been excluded from formal education, can provide a unique contribution in changing status quo. For the oppressed to get engaged in the process of discovery and transformation, critical thinking is such a crucial component. In this paper, liberation as a program of praxis and theory will be introduced. Then considering different stages in a liberatory process, the role of critical thinking in liberation struggle will be discussed and evaluated. Finally, paper focuses on contribution of liberatory scholars and in particular Paulo Freire and Gloria Anzaldúa in addressing promising components of critical thinking such as relation, communication, and imagination. This paper aims to raise awareness regarding liberation scholarship as a resource for researchers and practitioners in engineering education.