A frequent conversation at faculty gatherings is how students failed to reach the expectations we envisioned for a project. The discussion usually involves statements such as:
“I can’t believe the students didn’t do [insert step], that should be expected.”
“Don’t the students know they should follow [insert process]?”
A theme of the Kaneb Center Course Design Academy was transparency in teaching. This topic is commonly tied to grading through robust rubrics that set clear expectations. This way, students know the evaluation criteria, avoiding the cryptic task of navigating assumptions about an “excellent” project.
On the other hand, faculty are often concerned that if we make rubrics completely transparent, we reinforce the behavior of students simply checking the boxes to get their “A” in the course. Furthermore, many faculty will point to industry, which lacks a clear rubric that says if you check all these boxes, you’ll get a job, win the contract, get promoted, etc.
Although other members of the design academy addressed transparency in rubrics while maintaining curiosity and creativity, I decided to approach transparent assignment design from a different, but complementary lens, focusing on the process of completing the assignment rather than the rubric/grade. Part of the frustration of projects that fail to meet our expectations is a failure of students to follow the process that we would follow (and expect them to follow). Therein lies the problem; our students do not have the experiences, knowledge, or mental reps we do. What seems trivial, basic, and commonplace to us is likely new, novel, and uncharted territory for the students.
To address this, I reverse-engineered my thought process to scaffold a project for my students. The course, which I taught in the 2025 London Summer Program, explores engineering feats in London. The course project requires the students to identify a feat of Europe or London, and design an artifact/experience (pamphlet, video, skit, etc.) that explains the feat and the engineering principles behind it. Without additional instruction, asking students to pick a feat and design an experience may lead to great projects, but it may also leave students unsure of the process to follow, and thus, result in subpar projects.
As I reflected on how I would go about this reverse-engineering, I identified several critical steps:
- Identify multiple feats by referencing books/websites about the history of Europe/London related to a topic of interest.
- Explore how museums or tourist attractions explain technical topics through pamphlets, videos, etc. (as a benchmark).
- Select a feat and use resources (books, websites, topical experts) to understand the engineering principles related to the feat.
- Translate these engineering principles to a non-technical audience; solicit feedback from peers.
- Create the experience.
These steps became the scaffolded milestones due each week as part of the six-week project, with students following a robust process that led to projects that exceeded my expectations.
Andrew Bartolini is the director of the College of Engineering’s First-Year Engineering Program and was a participant in the 2024–25 Kaneb Center Course Design Academy.