Issuu

BEST Symposia on Education Erlangen 2025

Authors Sri Harsha Vadlamudi (BSE Coordinator, Erlangen) Karolina Wozniak ( Content Team, AGH Krakow) Ilinca Sararu ( Content Team, Bucharest) Jaime Santamarta Martin ( Content Team, Valladolid)

Preface Introduction Board of European Students of Technology BEST Symposia on Education BEST Symposium on Education Erlangen 2025 Schedule Content Team Participants Methodology Discussion group World Café SWOT analysis TOWS Analysis Concept Mapping Panel Discussions Structured Debates Mind Maps Role-play Finger rules Sessions 1. From Campus to Career Background Methodology Outcomes 2. Siriusly Smart – AI as the Student Assistant Background Methodology Outcomes 3. Connect the Dots – Using AI to Bridge Disciplines and Skills Background Methodology Outcomes 4. It's not all about science Background Methodology Outcomes 5. Beyond the Grade Background Methodology Outcomes

4 6 6 6 7 8 9 10 10 10 11 11 11 11 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 13 14 17 17 18 18 23 23 24 24 27 27 27 28 38 38 38 39

6. Your BEST Class Background Methodology Outcomes 7. Let’s experiment with that spell Background Methodology Outcomes 8. Learning Across Cultures Background Methodology Outcomes 9. We are STEM, we create Background Methodology Outcomes 10. When Disciplines Collide Background Methodology Outcomes 11. Wingardium STEMiosa: Levitate Your Ideas - Final Project Background Methodology Outcomes Team GryffindAI : Shaping Europe’s Energy Future: Master-after-Master in Interdisciplinary Energy Transition Studies Team Hufflethink : Smart Cities: Interdisciplinary Innovation and Practice Team Ravenquirk : The Sound Waves of Nature Team Slytherink : X - STEM Appendix

42 42 42 42 43 43 43 44 49 49 50 50 52 52 53 53 54 54 55 55 59 59 59 60 60 61 62 63 64

Preface Acknowledgements BEST Symposium on Education (BSE) “STEMwarts: A Magical Journey into Interdisciplinary Learning” took place from the 24th August until the 1st of September 2025. However, its preparation had begun over 6 months before it actually took place. During that time, there were several contributions that the authors of this report deemed necessary to acknowledge.

Local BEST Group Erlangen Our deepest gratitude goes to Local BEST Group Erlangen (LBG Erlangen) for hosting the symposium and ensuring the seamless execution of every logistical detail. With the invaluable support of Friedrich-Alexander University Erlangen-Nürnberg (FAU), Siemens, BayHost, the team created an inspiring environment that enabled participants to exchange ideas, collaborate, and grow. A special acknowledgement is extended to the Core Team of BSE 2025 and the local board of LBG Erlangen, whose commitment, creativity, and tireless efforts transformed months of planning into an unforgettable experience. We also sincerely thank all the helpers who were present at any moment to ensure smooth operations throughout the event. Their behind-the-scenes

work—organizing

venues,

managing

schedules,

and

supporting

participants—was essential to the success of the symposium. Core Team Name

Position

Prinson Joel Pereira

Main Organiser

Sourish Shetty

Logistics Responsible

Sohan Joseph Saldanha

Participants Responsible

Mahfuzur Rahman Chowdhury

Fund Raising Responsible

Srinivas Prasad

Public Relations Responsible

Vedika Darokar

Food Responsible

Fazal Kadri

Social Responsible

Board of Local BEST Group Erlangen (2024-2025) Name

Position Maitraya Prasad Goswami

President

Maksim Lambias

Secretary

Leonard Hörnlein

Treasurer

Maram AlHssien

Vice President - Human Resources

Prem Prakash Singh

Vice President - Corporate Relations

Prinson Joel Pereira

Vice President - Public Relations

Board of Local BEST Group Erlangen (2025-2026) Name

Position

Shanth Kumar Rajkumar

President

Sourish Shetty

Secretary

Tom Fischer

Treasurer

Sohan Joseph Saldanha

Vice President - Human Resources

Rishank Mehrotra

Vice President - Corporate Relations

Ishaan Bhasin

Vice President - Public Relations

Educational Involvement Department of BEST BSE Erlangen is a project supervised by the Educational Involvement Department of BEST. Through this department, BEST strives to raise awareness on educational matters, gather students’ input about them and then disseminate them to the relevant bodies. For that, we would like to acknowledge the effort of this department naming its Coordinators for the past and present year. ● Educational Involvement Department Coordinator 2024-2025: Nadica Koloska ● Educational Involvement Department Coordinator 2025-2026: Kristina Zaprova For more information, please check the following links: Homepage of BEST/Educational Involvement: www.best.eu.org/educationalInvolvement Homepage of Local BEST Group Erlangen: https://www.best-erlangen.de/ Homepage of BSE Erlangen : https://www.best-erlangen.de/bse/

Introduction Board of European Students of Technology Board of European Students of Technology (BEST) is a constantly growing non-profit and non-political organisation. Since 1989 we have provided communication, co-operation and exchange possibilities for students all over Europe. One of the core activities of BEST is the organisation of BEST courses, which aims to supplement the skills and outlook of European students of technology. BEST strives to help European students of technology to become more internationally minded, by reaching a better understanding of European cultures and developing capacities to work on an international basis. Therefore we create opportunities for the students to meet and learn from one another through our academic and non-academic events and educational symposia. A special unit of BEST is dedicated to connecting students of technology with contemporary educational topics on engineering education. Through the Educational Involvement Department (EduID),BEST strives to listen to the students’ ideas on what can be changed in their universities, study programmes and curricula. BEST is eager to be in close collaboration with the stakeholders of higher education, letting them know about innovative solutions, coming directly from the main receivers of education - students. BEST is co-funded by the Erasmus+ Programme of the European Union and cooperates with a number of corporate, career support, project and university partners to provide its services.

BEST Symposia on Education BEST Symposia on Education (BSE) were created to involve students in the process of educational improvement and raise their awareness about the possibility of students being involved in their education. Together with the other stakeholders involved directly or indirectly in educational matters, students discuss a variety of education-related topics. BEST counts on both the participants of the event and the stakeholders to provide insights on current educational matters in a most active way, in order to influence changes in education across Europe. BEST Symposia on Education (BSE) are external events prepared and facilitated by EduID and hosted by a number of Local BEST groups for the purpose of gathering qualitative data and evaluating the understanding and gathering students’ opinions on a given topic. The sessions held during a BSE are diverse in terms of the structure, they vary from topic group discussions to case studies researching practical problems.The BSE allows us to gather data from more complex situations and questions. It is also interesting because the collected information will be bounded with deeper explanations that are complementary to the quantitative data from all the methods used. The participants of the BSE are students from diverse backgrounds across Europe, who share their unique academic experiences and enrich the volume of information on the

subject matter. Reports are used as a resource for writing papers on particular topics, typically submitted and presented BEST Symposium on Education Erlangen 2025 in scientific conferences dealing with Higher Educational matters, thus making students’ voices heard.

BEST Symposium on Education Erlangen 2025 The main topic of the BEST Symposium on Education 2025 Erlangen was Skills Development & Student Engagement , contributing to the topic of “Interdisciplinary STEM learning” of this year’s Educational Involvement Programme. Purpose The purposes of the BEST Symposium on Education 2025 Erlangen was through the case studies conducted as a part of the BSE, which serve as a simulation for solving globally relevant problems, to evaluate the variety of skills obtained by students who participate and in which way those skills will prove useful as future professionals in the STEM fields. During the sessions, students are invited to share perspectives on the ideal model for university curricula inclusive of teaching methods and projects related to Interdisciplinary STEM education. The specific topic at BSE Erlangen was on Skills Development & Student Engagement which included : ● Hands-on learning, student involvement, and teaching methodologies. ● The impact of experiential learning on interdisciplinary thinking. ● The role of arts, business, and extracurricular support in STEM education.

Schedule

The event took place between the 24th August and 1st of September 2025 and was hosted by the LBG Erlangen. The exact schedule of the event can be found above.

Content Team

Alongside the Educational Involvement Department, a content team of BEST members designed the sessions of BSE Erlangen. Their contact information is shown below.

BSE Coordinator Sri Harsha Vadlamudi Email: harsha.vadlamudi@best-eu.org , CV :

Sri Harsha_CV.pdf

BSE Facilitators Karolina Wozniak Email: karolina.wozniak@best-eu.org , CV :

Karolina_Woźniak_CV.pdf

Jaime Santamarta Martin Email: jaime.santamarta.martin@best-eu.org , CV :

Jaime_CV_2025.pdf

Ilinca Sararu Email: ilinca.sararu@best-eu.org , CV :

Săraru Ilinca_CV.pdf

Participants A total of 15 STEM students (8 female, 7 male) were engaged in the sessions of BSE Erlangen. #

University

Nationality

Age

Gender

Technical University of Cluj-Napoca

Romania

Male

University of Zagreb

Croatia

Female

Ege University

Türkiye

Female

Universidad Carlos III de Madrid

Spain

Male

POLITEHNICA University of Bucharest

Romania

Female

Sapienza University of Rome

Italy

Female

Ural Federal University

Russian Federation

Female

Polytechnic of Turin

Italy

Male

University of Maribor

Slovenia

Male

Technical University of Madrid

Spain

Male

University of Zagreb

Croatia

Male

KU Leuven

Belgium

Female

North Macedonia

Female

Ss. Cyril and Methodius University in Skopje"

Technical University of Crete (T.U.C.)

Greece

Male

University of Zagreb

Croatia

Female

Table 1: Participants of BSE Erlangen

Methodology Discussion group A discussion group is an interactive oral process in which a group of people is given a topic or a situation and after reflecting on it for a few minutes, they discuss their points of view with each other. The opinions and ideas are expressed in a systematic way. The process creates a democratic learning environment where diverse perspectives are valued, encouraging critical thinking and collaborative knowledge construction through verbal interaction.

World Café World Café methodology is a simple, effective and flexible format for hosting large group dialogues. Participants are divided into groups, each starting from a different spot or table. Each table has a specific topic which is being discussed. Discussions are recorded and after the allocated time, groups change tables. After moving to new tables, groups familiarize themselves with what was previously discussed there and then the new group adds its ideas. This process is repeated until all the groups have been to all the tables. Finally, the ideas from each table are presented to all the participants.

SWOT analysis A SWOT analysis is a process which identifies the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats of an organisation, situation or plan. Specifically, SWOT is a basic, analytical framework that assesses what an organisation/situation/plan can and cannot do, as well as its potential opportunities and threats. A SWOT analysis takes information from an environmental analysis and separates it into internal strengths and weaknesses, as well as its external opportunities and threats.

TOWS Analysis A TOWS analysis is a strategic planning tool that builds upon a completed SWOT analysis to create actionable strategies. Specifically, TOWS is a matrix framework that systematically combines the internal factors (strengths and weaknesses) with external factors (opportunities and threats) identified in a SWOT analysis to generate four types of strategies. A TOWS analysis takes the descriptive information from SWOT and transforms it into prescriptive actions by asking: how can we use our strengths to take advantage of opportunities (SO strategies), how can we overcome weaknesses by pursuing opportunities (WO strategies), how can we use strengths to avoid threats (ST strategies), and how can we minimize weaknesses and avoid threats (WT strategies). This creates a comprehensive strategic action plan rather than just an assessment.

Concept Mapping A concept mapping is a visual representation technique that displays relationships between different ideas, concepts, or pieces of information. Specifically, concept mapping is a graphical tool that organizes and represents knowledge through nodes (usually circles or boxes containing concepts) connected by labeled links (lines or arrows showing relationships). The process involves identifying key concepts, arranging them spatially (often with general concepts at the top and specific ones below), and drawing connecting lines with relationship descriptors (such as "leads to," "is part of," "causes") to explicitly show how concepts relate to one another.

Panel Discussions Experts or experienced individuals present their views on a topic to an audience. Typically includes a moderator who guides questions and manages time. Useful for bringing professional expertise and multiple viewpoints into educational settings.

Structured Debates Formal argumentation where opposing sides present cases for/against a proposition. Includes timed speeches, rebuttals, and clear rules. Develops critical thinking, research skills, and ability to see multiple perspectives.

Mind Maps A mind map is a visual thinking tool that radiates ideas from a central concept using branches, colors, and images to show relationships and hierarchy. Specifically, a mind map is a non-linear diagram that mirrors how the brain naturally processes information, using spatial organization and visual elements to enhance memory and understanding.

Role-play Role-playing represents consciously acting out an adopted role. As a facilitation tool, it is commonly used in order to make people think about specific scenarios. Usually, a role-play is done by 2 or 3 people from a group and based on their acting, a discussion starts. In this way, all the people from the group imagine the particularities of any situation and have a better perception of why or how it is happening and how it can improve.

Finger rules The act of facilitating a session or discussion through the use of hand signs derived from sign language.

Sessions 1. From Campus to Career Facilitator: Sri Harsha Vadlamudi Minute taker: Tris Horwath, Prem Prakash Singh

Background

This session focused on bridging the gap between university education and industry readiness, helping students understand the skills and experiences necessary to succeed in their first jobs. The motivation arose from recurring challenges observed in engineering graduates, including limited exposure to practical skills, real-world problem solving, and effective professional communication. By engaging students, industry professionals, and educators, the workshop aimed to: ● Identify key skills gaps in current university curriculum. ● Explore strategies to better prepare students for Day-One readiness in industry. ● Provide students with hands-on experience in evaluating and refining microcredential programs and learning interventions. The session encouraged students to reflect critically on their own learning experiences and compare them with industry expectations, while providing actionable feedback to Expedite – Skills for Industry Microcredential Specialization- design of microcredentials and industry-aligned education program.

Methodology The session employed a combination of interactive discussions, panel insights, and hands-on workshops: Icebreaker – Preconceptions about Work: Participants shared what they believed was most important before starting their first job. Insights on perceived skill gaps and alignment with university training were captured via pairs, sticky notes, and polling. Session Overview & Objectives: Facilitators outlined goals: identifying skill gaps, practicing problem-solving with real-world cases, and

fostering

intergenerational

dialogue

between

students,

academia,

and

industry

representatives. Panel Discussion with Q&A: Industry professionals shared experiences about transitioning from university to work, highlighted essential workplace skills, and discussed the relevance of microcredentials and student organizations for developing career readiness. Participants explored topics such as day-one readiness, hands-on skills, soft skills, and digital workflow understanding. Case Study Briefing:

Teams received the challenge: “How can we adapt and scale the Expedite – Skills for Industry Microcredential to better prepare students for Day One in industry?” Roles were assigned (note-taker, timekeeper, presenter) to structure team activities. Workshop Rounds: Round 1 – Ideation: Teams brainstormed strategies addressing module relevance, coverage, delivery, and engagement. Round 2 – Switch & Reflect: Groups rotated to review and refine other teams’ strategies, suggesting practical improvements and adjustments. Round 3 – Return, Refine & Gallery Walk with Voting: Teams presented final strategies; participants reviewed and voted on the most effective approaches. Collective Prioritization: Facilitators guided discussion on which strategies stood out, why, and where consensus emerged. Reflection & Wrap-Up: Participants discussed the skills applied during the workshop, how these relate to industry readiness, and provided feedback for future program improvements.

Outcomes Icebreaker: Preconceptions About Work Participants began by reflecting on expectations of professional life. The activity surfaced varying assumptions about readiness, workplace dynamics, and how university preparation translates to real-world contexts. Table 1. Summary of Form Results – Student Perceptions of Industry Readiness Question

Key Findings / Response Options

Average / %

No. of Responses

1. Alignment

Average rating on a 1–5 scale

3.0 / 5

between university training and industry needs

2. Top 3 skills missing 1. Soft skills (communication, leadership, from university education

–

15–18

2.5 / 5

–

negotiation, adaptability) 2. Practical experience (hands-on work, real projects, guided practice) 3. Critical thinking and collaboration

3. Confidence in being Average confidence level on a 1–5 scale “day-one ready” for your career 4. Completion of

Yes – technical: 43%

micro-credentials (e.g., Yes – soft skills: 50% Coursera, LinkedIn Learning)

Yes – interdisciplinary: 14% No, but plan to: 21% No, not interested / unsure: 0%

5. Main sources of job-ready skills

Formal university classes: 13% Online courses / micro-credentials: 6% Student organizations / side projects: 75% Internships or jobs: 69% Self-study (books, YouTube, etc.): 25%

Summary: A total of 13–18 participants contributed to the survey. Overall alignment between university training and industry needs averaged 3.0/5, while confidence in being “day-one ready” averaged 2.5/5. Students emphasized that soft skills, practical experience, and critical thinking are the most significant gaps in current education. Most job-ready skills are developed through student projects (75%) and internships (69%), not formal coursework. 2. Panel Discussion Highlights – Bridging Education and Industry Act 1: Day-One Readiness Industry view (Siemens): Adaptability and curiosity matter more than technical mastery; learning agility defines success. Graduate view: University provides theory, but practical workflows and complexity must be learned on the job. Shared advice: “Stay open, curious, and networked.” Act 2: Collaboration Between Academia and Industry Effective models include dual programs, internships, and access to real company tools.

Barriers persist where structural or resource gaps limit engagement. Actionable step: Embed industry-led projects and short internships into every degree. Act 3: Microcredentials and Skills Gaps Microcredentials offer targeted upskilling and signal initiative, but are supplements—not substitutes—for hands-on experience. Example: Siemens’ battery design credential encourages interdisciplinary understanding. Act 4: Learning Beyond Lectures Extracurriculars build leadership, teamwork, and initiative—often decisive in hiring. Student advice: Actively combine coursework with real projects, volunteering, or student organizations. Employer advice: Balance technical depth with practical and interpersonal competence. Closing Takeaways: “Stay open, adaptable, and connected.” “Blend what you learn in class with real-world experience.” 3. Microcredential Case Study Feedback – Expedite: Skills for Industry Table 2. Summary of Participants Review on four modules Module

Overall Relevance

Strengths

Improvement Areas

Industry Foundations

High

Overview of HR, hierarchy, finance basics; interactive videos

Simplify finance content; improve personalization and visuals

Electronic Design Automation (EDA) Explained

Medium–High

Clear intro to EDA tools, real-world linkage

Too many tool names; add demos, optional deep dives

Design & Manufacturing

Very High

CAD/CAM, PLM, sustainability, collaboration

Some repetition; prefer single final assessment

Future of Industry

High

AI ethics, personal branding, design thinking

Reduce repetitive tasks; deepen technical examples

Cross-cutting insights: ● Gamification and interactive tools sustain engagement. ● AI videos/chatbots need more natural tone and fewer glitches. ● Participants valued breadth and context but suggested trimming repetition and simplifying technical terms. ● Ideal module length: 4–6 micro-units with optional advanced segments. 4. Key Insights Across the Session Practical Integration: Strong desire for project-based, interdisciplinary learning. Soft Skills Priority: Communication, teamwork, and adaptability consistently ranked highest. Microcredentials as Bridges: Valuable for targeted readiness but not replacements for experience. Industry Collaboration: Embedding real tools, mentorship, and internships significantly improves transition outcomes. Overall Insights ● Practical Industry Insight: Participants appreciated the exposure to HR practices, professional hierarchy, and interdisciplinary collaboration, which complement academic learning and prepare them for real-world careers. ● Interactive Learning: Gamification, live polls, and badges were strong motivators, though improvements in chatbot functionality, technical clarity, and personalization are needed. ● Balanced Content: While the program covered a broad spectrum of topics, participants recommended reducing repetition, simplifying technical terminology, and offering clear foundational explanations for complex areas like finance and EDA. More information about this in detail can be seen in Appendix A1.

2. Siriusly Smart – AI as the Student Assistant Facilitator: Sri Harsha Vadlamudi Minute Taker: Tris Horwath

Background This session explored how artificial intelligence is reshaping student learning and how to integrate AI responsibly in education. The motivation arose from the rapid adoption of AI tools among students and the need to ensure these technologies enhance rather than replace genuine learning and critical thinking.

By engaging engineering students from across Europe, the session aimed to create student-driven guidelines for AI use that balance innovation with academic integrity and learning effectiveness.

Methodology The session began with an icebreaker, where participants shared their “most genius, lazy, or sketchy use of AI,” creating an open and relaxed atmosphere. A pre-survey via Mentimeter captured baseline data on AI usage patterns and confidence levels. Participants then engaged in a series of structured activities: ● Group Sorting & Mapping: Teams categorized AI use into productive (supporting learning), unproductive (over-reliance, shallow understanding), and experimental (new or untested applications). ● Debate 1 – “Should using AI on assignments count as cheating?” A structured debate examined AI as a complementary tool versus concerns about academic integrity. ● Debate 2 – “Is AI helping you learn better or just making us dumber?” Focused on balancing technological adaptation with preserving critical thinking skills. ● Design Workshop – Student-AI Success Guide: Groups drafted 4–5 principles for responsible AI use and one recommendation for universities. ● Gallery Walk & Voting: Teams presented their outputs on flipcharts, participants added comments, and dot voting identified the most insightful principles. The session concluded with a post-survey to measure impact and collect qualitative feedback.

Outcomes ● Pre-Survey Results Table 3. Summary of Form Results – Student Use and Perceptions of AI Question 1. How often do you currently use AI tools in your studies? 2. Which AI tool do you use most?

Key Findings / Example Responses Average self-reported frequency (1 = rarely, 5 = very often)

Averag

No. of

e/%

Responses

2.8 / 5

–

Most frequently mentioned: ChatGPT, Perplexity, DeepSeek, Gemini, Notion, GitHub Copilot, Claude, Grammarly

Examples included: solving coding problems; writing or improving emails; 3. What’s your most

organizing events; generating tutorials;

genius, lazy, or sketchy

language learning; thesis support;

use of AI?

humorous or creative uses (e.g., party

–

2.1 / 5

–

planning, stock predictions, message writing) 4. How confident do you feel about using AI

Average self-rating (1 = not confident, 5 =

responsibly in your

very confident)

academic work? 5. What percentage of your coursework currently involves some use of AI?

0–10%: 4 participants 10–25%: 2 participants 25–50%: 2 participants 50–75%: 5 participants 75–100%: 4 participants

Summary A total of 14–17 participants completed the AI perception survey. Students reported a moderate level of AI use (2.8/5), with ChatGPT and Perplexity emerging as the dominant tools. Their uses ranged from academic assistance (solving coding problems, improving writing) to personal or creative tasks (organizing events, generating humorous content). Confidence in ethical and responsible AI use was relatively low (2.1/5), suggesting uncertainty about appropriate academic boundaries. Responses on coursework integration were mixed: while some used AI minimally (0–25%), several reported using AI in more than half of their coursework. Overall, findings highlight growing experimentation and curiosity toward AI, paired with a need for clearer guidance on responsible use. ● Group Sorting & Mapping Results Groups identified diverse AI applications across three categories:

○ Productive: Summarizing papers, vocabulary assistance, brainstorming ideas, coding help, explaining mathematical formulas, personalized learning, analyzing student programs

○ Unproductive: Reducing critical thinking, hallucinations, writing complete papers without understanding, asking questions without verifying sources, over-reliance

○ Experimental: AI therapy applications, image generation, tutoring systems, medical diagnosis assistance, adaptive learning platforms

● Debate 1 Key Arguments : “Should using AI on assignments count as cheating?” ● Against AI as cheating: "Using AI is complementing what is missing in the classroom" ; AI is just another tool like notebooks or calculators; personal responsibility for learning remains with the student ● For AI as cheating: Studies show reduced memory retention when using AI; assignments aim to assess individual thinking, not AI output; the ease of AI use differs fundamentally from traditional cheating methods ● Notable insight: Comparison to calculator adoption - "Calculators were also considered to be cheating for a long time. If we define rules it's not cheating anymore" ● Debate 2 Key Arguments : “Is AI helping you learn better or just making us dumber?” ● MIT study cited showing cognitive decline in AI-dependent students ● Discussion of adaptation necessity - "If you don't adapt you get replaced" ● Emphasis on maintaining critical thinking while embracing technological evolution ● Recognition that humanity must learn to coexist with AI while preserving essential cognitive skills ● Call for universities to teach responsible AI use rather than simply restricting it.

● Institutional Recommendations ● Universities should develop comprehensive AI literacy programs ● Clear guidelines needed on acceptable AI use in different assessment types ● Integration of prompt engineering into technical curricula ● Regular workshops to keep pace with evolving AI capabilities

Table. Categorized Summary – Student AI Success Guide Vote Category

Guidelines / Principles (Grouped by Vote Count)

Votes (Dots)

Key Interpretations / Insights

Most Voted

• Think critically and verify information • Summarize and present in your own way → personalize • Learn prompt structure • Use different AI tools for different purposes (don’t think ChatGPT is universal) • Don’t use AI to replace professional or personal relationships (friends, family) • Ask for step-by-step descriptions to understand, not copy

4–6

Emphasizes critical awareness, ethical use, and skill development. Students prioritize understanding AI outputs, using multiple tools, and maintaining originality.

Moderately Voted

• Always do it yourself first, without AI • Maintain critical thinking • Always check the sources • Use AI as a tool, not a source • Combine AI output with professor discussions • Be honest about usage of AI • Ask for sources (done by ChatGPT) • Checking the info (done by us) • Asking AI to elaborate while keeping opinions personal

2–3

Reflects responsibility and integrity in AI use. Students value honesty, self-reliance, and the combination of human judgment with AI support.

Least Voted

• No copywriting in projects • Given tasks could include self-research; AI may not have the answer • Vocabulary and grammar improvements allowed (AI essays forbidden) • AI can support learning methods (flashcards, reading tips, etc.) • Try to formulate neutral questions

Indicates supportive but secondary practices. These rules reinforce authenticity, encourage learning independence, and refine prompting habits.

● Post-Survey Insights Q1: What impact did the group debate and discussions have on your perspective about AI in education? A: Most participants reported a greater awareness of responsible AI use and the importance of critical thinking. Common themes included recognizing both pros and cons of AI, understanding the need for ethical boundaries, and realizing how AI can affect problem-solving skills. Some representative comments were: ● “Responsibility really matters.” ● “We should still use it, but not in a way that degrades problem-solving and critical thinking.” ● “Sources are much more important than we think.” ● “Now I’m aware that using AI can make me lazier.” A few participants noted that their perspective did not change significantly, indicating varying levels of reflection impact.

Q2: How confident do you now feel about using AI tools responsibly in your academic work? A: The average confidence level was 3.7 out of 5, showing a clear improvement compared to the previous average of 2.1 before the discussion. Participants expressed feeling more capable and aware of responsible practices, though some uncertainty remains about institutional guidelines. Conclusion and final discussion The workshop successfully created a dialogue among engineering students about the transformative yet challenging role of AI in education. Through structured debates and collaborative activities, participants moved beyond simplistic pro/anti positions to develop nuanced guidelines that acknowledge both opportunities and risks. The session revealed a generation of students actively grappling with how to maintain academic integrity and critical thinking skills while embracing technological advancement. Particularly notable was the recurring theme of balance - using AI to enhance rather than replace learning, and the parallel drawn to previous technological disruptions like calculators.

● Key Takeaways: ○ Responsibility matters most: The consensus emerged that AI itself is neither inherently good nor bad for education - responsible usage determines outcomes ○ Critical thinking requires conscious effort: Participants recognized that maintaining analytical skills while using AI requires deliberate practice and self-discipline ○ Adaptation is inevitable: The comparison to calculators resonated strongly - resistance to AI in education may be futile, making responsible integration essential More information about this in detail can be seen in Appendix A2.

3. Connect the Dots – Using AI to Bridge Disciplines and Skills Facilitator: Ilinca Sararu, Sri Harsha Vadlamudi (Co-Facilitated)

Minute taker: Eszter Anna Torgyik

Background This session wants to explore how AI can support interdisciplinary learning by revealing links between seemingly unrelated fields. Participants will actively engage with AI tools to create cross-disciplinary concept maps and brainstorm innovative learning pathways. Through challenges and discussions, students will practice skills such as synthesis, curiosity, and lateral

thinking, understanding how AI can scaffold creative transfer of knowledge across disciplines.

Methodology ● Introduction & Icebreaker: The participants filled out a short survey on their confidence connecting different disciplines, Ai use, and curiosity. They then shared pairs of unrelated concepts they found interesting to connect. ● Context Setting: Group discussion on why interdisciplinary learning matters and how AI can help bridge disciplines. ● Challenge Activity: In small groups, participants selected two unrelated concepts and used AI tools to generate and visualize connections between them in a concept map. The participants filled a survey afterwards regarding the difficulty they had in using AI and how many ideas they generated. ● Concept Map Sharing: Each group presented their AI-supported concept maps, highlighting connections across disciplines. ● Discussion: Reflection on how AI supported their disciplines connections, challenges in prompting and surprising or irrelevant suggestions. ● Cross-Disciplinary Pathways: Groups designed short learning pathways or projects that combined multiple disciplines with AI support, then shared results with the others. ● Wrap-up & Reflection: The participants completed a post-session survey on their confidence in using AI for interdisciplinary thinking, AI’s usefulness, and curiosity toward interdisciplinary learning, followed by final reflections.

Outcomes ● Initial Confidence and Curiosity: At the start, most participants reported low-to-moderate confidence in connecting concepts across disciplines (7 at level 2, 4 at level 3). However, curiosity about interdisciplinary learning was high, with 12 participants rating 4 or 5. AI was already familiar to them, with 9 using it often and 6 sometimes in their studies. ● Using AI for Interdisciplinary Connections: In group work, participants found it relatively easy to use AI to generate interdisciplinary connections. On a difficulty scale (1–5), 12 participants rated it as very easy or easy, with only 3 rating it as mid to challenging. Groups also compared AI’s suggestions with their own, showing a balance between AI-generated and participant-created connections: Group 1 (“Happy Engineers”): 3 AI vs. 4 self-made - Psychology and Engineering ● Participants explored connections between psychology and various engineering disciplines, highlighting how human behavior and cognition influence design and functionality.

● They identified applications in robotics, adaptive education, human-centered design, ergonomics, well-being, and social interactions within physical and digital spaces. ● The group recognized that AI can suggest unexpected links between disciplines, though human insight was essential to evaluate and integrate them. ● Working with AI supported their understanding of cross-disciplinary relationships and helped visualize complex connections, while fostering collaborative problem-solving. Group 2: 5 AI vs. 9 self-made - Physics + Computer Science + Theoretical Chemistry ● Participants identified connections between physics, computer science, and chemistry, focusing on shared methodologies such as coding, modeling, simulations, and data analysis. ● They explored interdisciplinary applications like quantum computing and molecular dynamics, emphasizing how computational tools link theoretical concepts across fields. ● AI contributed by suggesting connections, though some ideas (e.g., AI and ethics) were discarded due to lack of domain knowledge, highlighting the need for human judgment in interdisciplinary mapping. ● The group successfully visualized complex relationships, combining AI-generated suggestions with their own insights, enhancing understanding of cross-disciplinary linkages. Group 3: 9 AI vs. 6 self-made ● Participants explored connections between mechanical engineering, neuroscience, and related fields such as robotics, prosthetics, and control systems. ● They examined how brain signals can be translated into motor control, integrating computational neuroscience, neurophysiology, and cybernetics for applications like rehabilitative and neurocontrolled robotics. ● The group also considered creative interdisciplinary ideas, linking generative science and art with engineering and neuroscience concepts. ● AI was used to suggest connections, complementing participants’ own insights and helping them visualize complex cross-disciplinary relationships. ● The activity encouraged collaborative problem-solving and highlighted how engineering principles can intersect with human-centered neuroscience applications. This indicates that while AI provided valuable input, participants actively contributed their own links, highlighting a complementary relationship.

● Brainstorm Cross-Disciplinary Learning Pathways

Group 1:

Group 2:

Group 3:

● Post-Session: After the activities, participants showed an increase in confidence and positive perception of AI: ○ Confidence in using AI for interdisciplinary thinking: shifted upward, with 7 participants at level 2, but 8 reaching levels 3–5. ○ Usefulness of AI in creative knowledge transfer: 12 participants rated 4 or 5, indicating strong perceived value. ○ Curiosity to explore further: remained high, with 13 participants at levels 4 or 5. ● Engagement and Attitudes: Facilitator observations confirmed that participants were proactive, engaged, and curious throughout. They worked collaboratively, reflected critically on AI’s role, and expressed enjoyment in the process.

Overall Outcome: The session succeeded in enhancing participants’ confidence in interdisciplinary thinking with AI support, reinforcing their curiosity, and demonstrating that AI can act as a useful scaffold for creative connections. More information about this in detail can be seen in Appendix A3.

4. It's not all about science Facilitator: Karolina Woźniak, Ilinca Sararu (Co-facilitated) Minute taker: Prem Prakesh Singh

Background This session focused on gathering input from students about their experiences with classes that emphasise subjects beyond science, such as business, the arts, and other extracurricular areas. It included discussions about different approaches taken by various universities and highlights the advantages and disadvantages of these methods.

Methodology Introduction + Experiences Recap

The facilitator introduced the session’s structure, highlighting the session goals and conducting the experiences recap using Mentimeter. Experience Sharing: Participants were invited to reflect on and share their personal or institutional experiences integrating arts and business concepts into their STEM curricula. Each of the experiences was written in the sticky notes and shared with the group SWOT & TOWS Analysis: Teams conducted a SWOT analysis to identify the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats related to incorporating Arts and Business into STEM. In the following round, groups used the TOWS framework to develop strategies that build on strengths and opportunities while addressing challenges. Outputs were reviewed café-style, allowing participants to explore each other’s findings informally. Case Study – Class Design Challenge: Participants then worked in three groups to design a two-hour class integrating Arts and/or Business into STEM. Each team developed a topic, learning outcomes, and a brief implementation plan, informed by their SWOT and TOWS results. Presentations & Wrap-Up: Groups presented their class concepts, received peer feedback, and reflected on the workshop’s key insights. The session concluded with a summary of takeaways on fostering creativity, adaptability, and interdisciplinary thinking within STEM education.

Outcomes Introduction to the topic + experiences recap After the brief introduction to the topic, the participants were asked to fill out the experiences recap in Mentimeter and the results are as follows: ● 8/14 participants said that their university offers business or art-related courses along with their STEM curriculum, 5/14 participants do not have those classes and one person is not sure

● The classes that are offered along with the STEM curriculum are related to entrepreneurship, economy, marketing, management, and fine arts ● Students gave a rating of 3.8/5 to the importance of art and business classes in the STEM curriculum ● The students are seeking classes that will expand their skills, such as creativity, communication, ethics, entrepreneurship, managing finances, innovation and soft skills ● 14/15 students showed their interest in business-related classes, and 3/15 students showed their interest in art-related classes Experience Sharing: Participants wrote their experiences on the sticky notes and then shared it with the group. Based on this activity, the following things were pointed out: ● Limited Access to Arts & Business Courses ○ Many universities do not offer structured art or business courses, especially at the master’s level. ○ Where options exist, they are often minimal, optional, or not well-integrated into STEM programs. ○ Some students noted that private universities provide more business-related fields compared to national/public institutions. ● Integration of Business into STEM ○ Certain

programs

include

applied

business

elements

such

bio-entrepreneurship, biomanagement, or economics within STEM contexts. ○ Some institutions require students to take at least one business or enterprise subject. ○ Business-related courses are often easier to pass and sometimes not taken seriously by students or faculty. ● Humanities and Cross-Disciplinary Options

○ A few universities mandate students to choose from the humanities (e.g., art, history, philosophy), though these are generally peripheral. ○ Arts courses are rarely offered as structured programs alongside STEM. ● Experiential Learning Outside University ○ Several students gained business and management skills through professional or personal experiences rather than academic settings. ○ Skills acquired include budgeting, pitching projects, contract management, and dealing with government or investors. ○ Prior education or professional Backgrounds (e.g., oil and gas, technical offices) contributed to stronger exposure to business practices. ● Variability Across Institutions ○ Differences exist between campuses of the same university, with some offering engineering plus business faculties, while others remain purely technical. ○ Some universities are gradually expanding the number of economics and business courses available. ○ Students observed a stronger emphasis on technical education compared to interdisciplinary or entrepreneurial training.

SWOT Analysis: At first, teams found it hard to evaluate the role of business and art-related classes in STEM as it seemed too broad, but after the explanation of the facilitators each team came up with some ideas.

As a summary, here are the key outcomes of this activity among all of the groups: ● Strengths: interdisciplinary learning, universities are already making an effort to include those subjects in the curriculum, possibility of collaboration with other universities, developing creativity, expanding knowledge in non-technical fields, and meeting more people. ● Weaknesses: classes are not taken seriously, the selection is limited, the topics are not up-to-date, not adapted to market needs, and it is hard to connect those topics with STEM-related subjects. ● Opportunities: helping students develop skills outside of STEM needed for the future, connecting

with

the

business

aspect needed for career seeking, broadening

opportunities, developing thinking outside the box, collaborating with colleagues at work, learning entrepreneurship basics needed for selling ideas, starting a business and investing money responsibly, growing trend of being an entrepreneur ● Threats: mismatched opportunities between students and universities, not enough interest, possibility of overshadowing other subjects, losing interest in STEM

TOWS Analysis: This analysis also proved to be challenging for the participants, as it was hard for them to come up with strategies for such a broad subject. But after careful explanation, each team tried their

BEST to come up with some ideas.

As a summary, the following ideas were presented by the participants: ● SO strategies: How can we use our strengths to take advantage of opportunities?

○ Collaboration between students and universities when creating the curriculum ○ Introducing interactive aspects in the classes to spark interest in students ○ Creating classes that can be uniform for the students across different fields ○ Investing in promotion towards the target group of students ● WO strategies: How can we overcome weaknesses by taking advantage of opportunities? ○ Collaborating with companies to deliver quality classes ○ Introducing mentorship programs between companies and students ○ Reforming the methodologies used to teach classes ○ Emphasising the real impact of those classes in real life ● ST strategies: How can we use our strengths to reduce or avoid threats? ○ Introducing the creativity factor in the classes to spark students' interest ● WT strategies: How can we minimise weaknesses and avoid threats? ○ Introducing the collaborative approach in the classes Case study: Each group got the task to create a learning experience that combines STEM curriculum with arts and/or business topics. The teamwork was very productive, and each team was able to design an inspiring experience. ● Group 1: Art class for STEM students - graphic design class aimed to introduce students to the basics of graphic design, using software, creating materials that can be used in the future, such as presentations, logos, etc.

● Group 2: Business class for STEM students - a business-focused session where students

learned how to develop innovative product ideas and pitch them to investors. The class included a short theory segment on creativity, market differentiation, and pitching, followed by two assignments: creating a product with SWOT/TOWS analysis and developing a sales pitch presented to facilitators acting as investors.

● Group 3: Business and Art class for STEM students - a creative business class aimed at understanding the design thinking concept and how it applies to entrepreneurship in STEM. The class includes STEM product development, its branding and a segment to practice product pitching.

Key outcomes:

● Most participants recognized the value of integrating Arts and Business into STEM education, highlighting its role in fostering creativity, communication, innovation, and entrepreneurial thinking. ● While some universities already offer related courses - mainly in business areas such as entrepreneurship and management, access remains limited and uneven, especially for arts-focused subjects. ● Participants

expressed

strong

interest

expanding

business-oriented

and

interdisciplinary learning opportunities ● Students identified a need for courses that bridge theory and practice, helping them develop real-world skills such as teamwork, financial literacy, and problem-solving. ● Through group analyses, participants emphasised that integrating arts and business can enhance employability, encourage innovative thinking, and promote collaboration between disciplines. ● Key challenges include limited course offerings, outdated content, and low engagement, alongside institutional barriers to curriculum integration. ● Proposed strategies focused on collaboration between universities, industry, and students, incorporating interactive and creativity-driven teaching methods, and mentorship programs that connect learning with real-world practice. ● Overall, the session reinforced a shared belief that STEM education benefits from cross-disciplinary approaches, preparing students for more adaptable, entrepreneurial, and creative career paths. More information about this in detail can be seen in Appendix A4.

5. Beyond the Grade Facilitator: Ilinca Sararu Minute takers: Eszter Anna Torgyik & Tris Horwath

Background This session uses a combination of quantitative ratings and qualitative discussions to help students reflect on how a strong focus on grades in STEM affects their learning choices, willingness to take intellectual risks, and engagement with interdisciplinary subjects. Participants rate statements related to grade pressure and failure stigma, then discuss personal experiences and ideas for fostering curiosity and creativity beyond grades.

Methodology In this session, participants reflected on how grades and the fear of failure influence their learning in STEM. We began with a one-word check-in to capture initial feelings about grades and

failure, followed by a short poll where participants rated statements about grade pressure, risk-taking, and assessment practices. The group then engaged in an open discussion, sharing personal experiences around course selection, study strategies, and the difference between passing exams and truly understanding. Finally, participants imagined what subjects or projects they would explore if grades were no longer a concern, contributing a diverse list of ideas ranging from art and theater to psychology, sustainability, and advanced STEM topics.

Outcomes The session explored how grades and failure shape students’ choices, motivation, and creativity in STEM education. Using a combination of polling, group discussion, and reflection, participants surfaced both challenges and opportunities for shifting towards more curiosity-driven learning. ● Perceptions of Grades and Learning Participants generally did not prioritize grades over genuine understanding (average 2.7) and largely disagreed with avoiding courses outside their major due to GPA concerns (average 2). However, they agreed that STEM assessments often fail to measure creativity or interdisciplinary skills (average 3.9), indicating a recognition that current evaluation methods do not fully capture meaningful learning.

● Impact of Pressure and Failure Participants felt that failure or mistakes in STEM are somewhat stigmatized (average 3.6) and expressed moderate anxiety about taking risks that could negatively affect grades

(average 2.9). GPA pressure was seen as somewhat limiting deep engagement with difficult material (average 3.3), reflecting that experiences vary but that performance concerns can constrain intellectual exploration.

● Role of Instructors and Course Design Participants mostly disagreed that instructors actively encourage exploration beyond course requirements (average 2.6). Discussions highlighted that factors such as passionate professors, interactive classes, smaller groups, and diverse assessment formats would better support risk-taking and creativity.

● Attitudes Toward True Learning Across the group, “truly learning” was associated with applying knowledge in practice, being able to explain concepts clearly to others, and remembering material beyond exams. Passing exams, by contrast, was often described as memorization with little long-term retention. Many participants emphasized that real understanding comes from teaching others, applying knowledge in projects, or connecting it to everyday contexts.

● Exploration Without Grade Pressure When imagining what they would pursue without fear of GPA impact, participants identified a wide range of subjects including art, theater, psychology, astronomy, sustainability, entrepreneurship, human behavior, electro-optics, and computer vision. This demonstrated both strong curiosity and a desire to engage with disciplines outside traditional STEM tracks. What new ideas or subjects would you explore if grade pressure and fear of failure were removed? I don’t feel pressure ( X2)

art

astronomy

Any medical subject

business

Biology - as a CS student

Computer vision

Economic strategies

electrooptics

Fluid dynamics

Human behavior (x2)

entrepreneurship

International regulations

psychology

software

sustainability

Theater lessons

● Overall Atmosphere The session created space for open and reflective discussion. Participants engaged with one another’s perspectives, challenged assumptions about learning strategies, and showed interest in exploring alternative assessment models that would better support creativity, interdisciplinarity, and resilience in the face of failure.

Overall Outcome: The session revealed that while grades remain a significant driver of academic behavior, students strongly value genuine understanding, interdisciplinary exploration, and creative risk-taking. They see institutional and instructional changes, especially in assessment design and teaching approach, as key to reducing grade pressure and fostering more meaningful learning experiences. ● Encouragement growth beyond academics. ○ At least 3 participants stated stories about teachers who motivated students to see themselves as capable individuals, inviting them to pursue hobbies to build resilience and reinforce STEM identity.

● Negative drivers: Barriers from professors. ○ At least 2 participants shared stories describing professors whose sexism created fear or demotivation, while they were still good professors, this hate created internal conflicted feelings. More information about this in detail can be seen in Appendix A5.

6. Your BEST Class Facilitator: Jaime Santamarta Martin Minute taker: Prem Prakesh Sigh

Background The session wants to explore the importance excellent professors can have into the motivation and decision taken by the students. For this matter, the session aims to gather the experiences of the participants with professors and the importance they have had for their future decisions and how this provides them a positive long term impact on the student.

Methodology The session starts with a representation of Harry potter to communicate the importance of good memories and build more trust with them, to continue with the explanation of the session. The session was based on sharing the greatest experiences the participants have got with professors and how they motivate them to enter into STEM areas and continue.

Outcomes Each person shared their personal experiences with life-changing professors, with many different stories and experiences to get the engagement drivers of the participants: ● Passion and energy of professors. ○ At least 4 of the participants were inspired by professors who loved their subject and taught with enthusiasm. This passion is transferred to students, motivating them to apply for internships, pursue specific fields, or stay engaged in challenging courses. ● Mentorship and personal support. ○ At least 3 out of 15 of the participants highlighted professors who gave extra time, offered internships fitting their skills and mentored beyond classes. Comprehension and encouraging communication took a great role to make the students feel capable and motivated to push further.

● Engaging and practical teaching methods. ○ At least 2 of the participants had professors who explained concepts simply, used tools like Desmos to showcase the practicality of theoretical concepts making complex topics more understandable, or made classes interactive left a lasting positive impression. ● Discipline and fairness. ○ At least 4 participants shared stories about admired professors who were strict but fair, and maintained high level discipline. At the beginning they didn’t like that discipline and didn't realise the importance, but in the long term they appreciated that strictness was accompanied with great teaching methods. More information about this in detail can be seen in Appendix A6.

7. Let’s experiment with that spell Facilitator: Karolina Woźniak Co-Facilitator : Ilinca Sararu Minute taker: Jaime Santamarta Martin, Iris Horwath

Background The session focused on exploring and comparing different methods of experiential learning through analysis of already existing methods, experience sharing and collaborative case study approach. Each team was assigned the same educational topic but challenged to design a learning experience using a distinct experiential method. Through creative group work, peer presentations, and critical reflection, participants uncovered the strengths and limitations of each experiential learning approach and had a chance to design an experience that they would like to participate in.

Methodology Pre-Survey & Introduction: The session began with participants introducing themselves and their universities. Then, they completed a short pre-survey on their knowledge of experiential learning and were introduced to the session’s structure and objectives. Experiential Learning – Experience Sharing: Participants reflected on the experiential learning methods currently used in their classrooms. Responses were recorded on sticky notes and shared with the group, followed by a dot-voting

activity to identify the most impactful methods. Experiential Learning Case Study: Participants were divided into three teams and assigned the task of designing a one-hour learning activity around the topic “The Secrets of the Universe” using a specific experiential learning technique. Each team defined a clear learning goal, designed the activity, established the role of learners, listed required materials, included a reflection step, and planned methods to evaluate learning outcomes. Case Study Presentations: Each team presented their activity in a five-minute session, followed by questions from other participants and facilitators. Presentations allowed teams to demonstrate their approach and discuss the rationale behind their design choices. Post-Case Study Reflection & Feedback: Participants provided feedback on other teams’ presentations, responding to prompts about their experience, key takeaways, and challenges faced during the task. Pros & Cons of Experiential Learning Methods: Participants recorded the advantages and limitations of the experiential learning techniques used in the case study and shared insights from prior experiences. This helped consolidate understanding of the strengths and challenges of different approaches. Brainstorming Experiential Learning in Universities: Based on previous activities and reflections, participants brainstormed ideas for incorporating experiential learning into STEM education at their universities. Ideas were shared and discussed collaboratively to identify actionable strategies. Key Outcomes & Feedback: The session concluded with participants summarising the most important outcomes and completing feedback form.

Outcomes Pre-Survey & Introduction: The session started with a pre-survey that examined the knowledge of participants of the experiential learning topic. The results are as follows: ● 7/13 of participants had heard “experiential learning” before, but are not sure what it means; for the rest, the term is completely new

● After the explanation of what experiential learning is, participants came up with activities such as internships, debate, role-play, trial and error, labs, projects, simulations, and hackathons ● Participants strongly agree that more experiential learning should be incorporated into STEM curriculum (rating 4.4 out of 5) Experiential Learning – Experience Sharing: Participants wrote their experiences on the sticky notes and then shared it with the group. Based on this activity, the following experiences with experiential learning were mentioned: ● Laboratory Work ○ Regular lab sessions (weekly in physics, throughout engineering studies) to build research-oriented and technical skills. ○ Labs included work with sensors, microcontrollers, Arduino-based projects, and 3D printing. ○ Opportunities to practice experimentation, learn from mistakes, and repeat processes to improve accuracy. ● Projects & Teamwork ○ Semester-long projects in digital electronics, hardware/software integration, and rehabilitation engineering. ○ Group projects often require cross-disciplinary collaboration, involving future users, health professionals, or industry mentors. ○ Project

work

fostered

coding,

design,

technical

documentation,

and

problem-solving skills. ● Internships & Industry Exposure ○ Internships in research labs, companies, and structural design offices offered real-world professional experience. ○ Provided exposure to preparing technical documents, applying classroom knowledge to actual projects, and understanding workplace standards. ○ Internships typically took place in the later years of study or post-graduation. ● Practical Facilities & Simulations ○ Access to departmental facilities, such as a “little factory” to test scaled-down industrial devices. ○ Workshops, competitions, and case studies reinforced applied knowledge beyond theory. ● Broader Professional Skills ○ Jobs outside core engineering (e.g., airport work) offered unexpected insights into industries like air transport. ○ Financial analysis labs connected theoretical formulas to real-time stock market applications.

○ Career-oriented events such as job fairs strengthened links with industry and employability As a result of dot voting Case Study, Lab Work and Internships were selected Experiential Learning Case Study: Each team got assigned one of the previously selected experiential learning methods and was in charge of creating a one-hour-long learning experience around the topic “Secrets of the universe”. The results for each team are as follows: ● Group

–

Lab

Work

(Cybersecurity

Simulation) ○ Students practice cybersecurity basics through hands-on labs. ○ Simulated attacks such as DDoS and brute

force

understand

system

vulnerabilities. ○ Used “Over the Wire” exercises to track and compare progress from initial to final website states. ○ Evaluation progress

focused and

measurable

effectiveness

the

learning process.

● Group 2 – Internship (Casting Practice) ○ Students

engaged

directly

with

material casting (e.g., sand and iron) to strengthen materials. ○ Hands-on use of casting tools under safety protocols. ○ Reflection involved analysing outputs of their own projects to connect theory with practice. ○ Outcome: Deeper understanding of industrial properties

processes

and

through

material active

experimentation.

● Group 3 – Case Study (Radio Wave Analysis with AI) ○ Students

investigated

whether radio signals from space were real or artificial using AI tools. ○ Roles were assigned to learners,

supported

worksheets,

research

papers, and materials. ○ Evaluation

was

flexible—teachers assessed approaches

which or solutions

made the most sense. ○ Outcome:

Encouraged

critical thinking, role-based collaboration, and use of scientific evidence.

Post-Case Study Reflection & Feedback: After the case study, the participants reflected on the completed task - what they learned about experiential learning and what the challenges were. The results are as follows: ● The teamwork was very valuable for them ● Participants found it hard to find a clear idea because the topic was too broad ● Participants pointed out that learning by doing is what makes acquiring knowledge easier ● Experiential learning takes effort to be well prepared and conducted Pros & Cons of Experiential Learning Methods: Using Mentimeter, participants brainstormed pros and cons of experiential learning, the results are as follows:

Pros

Gaining practical skills, better knowledge retention, possibility for collaboration, making classes more enjoyable, gaining confidence, holistic approach

Cons

Time-consuming, complicated to organise, threat of missing theoretical information, need of basic knowledge to start practical work,

less

structured,

potential

lack

instructions

Brainstorming Experiential Learning in Universities: Using left time, based on the experiences from this session and personal experiences, the participants brainstormed ideas of incorporating experiential learning in the STEM curriculum. The results are as follows: ● Industry & Collaboration ○ Company visits, industry partnerships, and joint case studies with universities. ○ Exchange of materials and collaboration across universities. ● Case Studies & Projects ○ Regular, well-prepared case studies to strengthen core concepts. ○ Hands-on projects introduced at the start of semester and continued throughout. ○ Role-play scenarios (e.g., tech startup simulation). ● Active Learning Formats ○ Hackathons and innovation challenges. ○ Debates within technical classes. ○ Simulations where labs are not available. ○ Field work and lab practice. ● Student Engagement Strategies ○ Friendly competitions between students. ○ Teaching students to design and present their own projects. Lastly, they discussed the challenges this introduction might face: ● Resources & Infrastructure ○ Lack of adequate lab spaces and physical materials. ○ High cost of equipment and facilities. ● Faculty & Capacity ○ Shortage of professors trained or available to implement experiential methods. ○ High student numbers compared to teaching staff. ● Industry Barriers ○ Companies are often unwilling to partner with inexperienced students. ○ Preference for already-skilled workers limits internship and collaboration opportunities.

● Institutional Hurdles ○ Bureaucratic obstacles and extra workload for professors. ○ Limited financial incentives or support for faculty to adopt new approaches. Insights: 15/15 participants agreed experiential learning would significantly increase engagement in STEM education. Key outcomes: ● Many participants were unfamiliar with the term “experiential learning,” but recognized its relevance after the introduction. ● Lab work, internships, and hands-on projects were identified as the most impactful experiential learning methods. ● Participants valued teamwork and active learning but noted challenges in defining clear ideas for broad topics and preparing activities effectively. ● Experiential learning was seen to improve practical skills, knowledge retention, collaboration, confidence, and overall engagement. ● Participants

highlighted

that

experiential

methods

can

time-consuming,

resource-intensive, less structured, and may require prior knowledge or clear instructions. ● Case studies, simulations, hackathons, role-play, debates, and fieldwork were suggested as effective ways to integrate experiential learning into STEM curricula. ● Collaboration with industry and across universities was seen as important for providing real-world context and enhancing learning outcomes. ● Implementation challenges include limited resources, faculty capacity, institutional hurdles, and industry barriers. ● All participants agreed that experiential learning can significantly increase student engagement and enrich STEM education. More information about this in detail can be seen in Appendix A7.

8. Learning Across Cultures Facilitator: Sri Harsha Vadlamudi Co-Facilitators : Karolina Wozniak , Ilinca Sararu , Jaime Santamarta Martin Minute takers: Eszter Anna Torgyik

Background This session explored how cultural differences shape learning experiences and how cross-cultural exchange can improve engagement and educational outcomes. The motivation

arose from the need to understand common challenges and unique approaches across countries, enabling students and educators to learn from each other’s practices. By bringing together engineering students from multiple countries, the session aimed to identify engagement strengths, learning challenges, and cultural learning patterns, while fostering reflection and collaboration.

Methodology The session began with an icebreaker, “Learning Object Show-and-Tell,” where participants shared an object or symbol representing learning in their culture, creating an open and reflective atmosphere. Participants then completed a series of structured activities: ● Round 1 – Engagement Strengths (Mixed Groups): Participants discussed what works best in their educational systems to keep students engaged. Passport prompts encouraged recording one sentence about their best learning or engagement experience. Facilitators awarded stamps for inspiring ideas and thoughtful contributions. ● Round 2 – Learning Challenges (Mixed Groups): Participants shared common learning challenges in their regions. Passport prompts captured frustrations or obstacles, and stamps were awarded for honesty, reflection, and creativity. ● Round 3 – Cultural Learning Patterns (Regional Groups): Participants explored unique cultural rituals and patterns that shape learning in their regions. Passport prompts encouraged sketching or describing a ritual. Stamps were awarded for unique insights and collaborative contributions. ● Gallery Walk & Voting: Flipcharts from all groups were displayed. Participants added comments with sticky notes and voted with dots on favorite ideas. Final stamps were awarded for thoughtful engagement. ● Plenary Synthesis & Best Practices: Facilitators guided reflection on best practices, cultural learning patterns, and actionable strategies. Participants shared final takeaways from passports.

Outcomes Icebreaker Insights: Participants shared a variety of symbols, including pyramids, Christmas trees, lightbulbs, and

cityscapes, highlighting differences in educational structures, accessibility, and student autonomy. Table . Summary of Group Discussion Rounds – Student Engagement, Challenges, and Learning Patterns

Round Theme / Focus

Round 1

Engagement Strengths –

Key Findings and Examples

● Interactive

teaching

methods,

with

professors

actively

involving students.

What keeps

● Student participation in projects and hands-on activities.

students

● Opportunities

engaged

join

student

organizations

and

extracurricular activities. ● Company visits offering real-world exposure and motivation ● Strong infrastructure supporting learning (labs, classrooms, connectivity). ● Freedom of subject choice, particularly appreciated in Russia. ● Online classes are valued for flexibility (though some students expressed mixed opinions).

Round 2

Learning

● Public vs. private university disparities (better public

Challenges –

institutions in Argentina; stronger private ones in Colombia).

Common

● Limited feedback from professors, especially in online

frustrations identified

settings. ● Arrogance or lack of engagement from some professors (reported in Italy and Argentina). ● Communication gaps between students and university administration. ● Access difficulties for students commuting to central campuses. ● Missing social interactions in online learning environments.

Round 3

Cultural

● Russia: Flexible structure allowing students to choose subjects

Learning Patterns –

freely. ● Belgium/Poland: More structured educational systems

Regional differences in

with less flexibility. ● Italy/Argentina: Emphasis on public universities, though

education systems

quality varies. ● Romania: Few private options (mainly one in Bucharest). ● Greece: No private universities mentioned by participants.

Key Voting Outcomes The colored dots on various points indicate participants particularly valued: ● Freedom of choice in education ● Student-centered benefits ● Interactive learning environments ● Community involvement in universities These outcomes reveal significant variations in educational structures, engagement strategies, and challenges across European countries, with particular emphasis on the public/private university divide and the importance of student autonomy in learning. More information about this in detail can be seen in Appendix A8.

9. We are STEM, we create Facilitator: Jaime Santamarta Martin Minute Takers : Eszter Anna Torgyik

Background Students have experienced many different teaching methods that can encourage or discourage someone to learn more about certain topics, different experiences that can help others to improve their teaching methods for specific subjects. The session aims to gather student’s ideas on how to organise a foundational class or a subject that can improve the engagement of the students.

Methodology The session started with an energiser where several electrical elements were provided to them in photos and required to build an electrical circuit with themselves, showcasing a different way to learn about electricity. To start the session, a survey was done via Mentimeter to gather common subjects before building the groups, from a total of 33 responses, they reply: 9 Maths, 3 Electronics, 5 Biology, 6 physics, 4 chemistry, 2 statistics and several single responses. Then the participants were splitted into 3 different groups, where required to find a common subject between them to create a learning path for the chosen subject according the following criteria: a. Affordability: Can this be easily implemented? b. Interactivity: How are students actively involved in the learning process? c. Inclusivity: Is it engaging for people with different needs and backgrounds? d. Use of technology: Does it enhance the experience or distract from it? e. Motivation: Does it give learners ownership of their process? f. Real-World Application: Does it connect with practical, personal, or global challenges? After each of the presentations, each participant had the opportunity to solve questions before the voting. Each person had 1 point to vote in each of the categories.

Outcomes There were 3 different presentations on different subjects, providing insights on how to improve them. Group A: Statistics ● Use humor and culture to break the barrier with a catchy rap video that easily explains the topic. ● Connecting the theory with real-world applications like casino games through Montecarlo methods or showcasing mistakes in scientific publications. ● Great focus on data analysis usage and how it is beneficial for their future. ● Using python notebooks instead of excel, with focus on visual graphics for better employability ● Long term group project to showcase their learnings, studying a real-world application. Group B: Introduction to sensors ● Use of affordable elements as Arduino sensors for PH, gas, or light, they showed how students can directly test their environment. ● Use of open-source software makes their efforts useful no matter the platform.

● Challenge the students with a tight budget for sensors to test their knowledge on the matter. Group C: Kynetics ● Use of quite affordable elements (rope, a ball, and a watch) to create a physics experiment where students measure gravity themselves, increasing the interactibility. ● Recording and analyzing the data turned the experiment into a more tech-supported process and motivated more students to include their data. According with the voting, the results were: ● Most affordable: Group C. Using just a ball and clock. ● Most interactive: Group C. Due to the inclusion of the application to combine all the measures. ● Most inclusive: Tie. No team highlighted among the others. ● Best real-world use: Group A: Can be applied in a wide variety of cases. ● Best use of tech: Group B. Already existing tech solutions that provide opportunity to create real-world full projects. ● Best overall (More balanced): Group B. their approach with better balance between interactivity, inclusivity, affordability, and tech integration According the work of each of the groups and comments during the session there were some insights that can become useful: ● Real-world applications motivates the students to understand why they are studying specific subjects. ● Combining several subjects and having connections between them help to establish greater foundations. ● The students needs to associate learning to specific impactful moments (Showing the statistics rap video, kinetics demonstration) More information about this in detail can be seen in Appendix A9.

10. When Disciplines Collide Facilitator: Ilinca Sararu Minute takers: Otto Winter & Tris Horwath

Background What happens when a physicist, a biologist, and an engineer tackle the same problem? This interactive session uses discussion and roleplay to explore how disciplinary differences lead to both clashes and creative breakthroughs. Participants will simulate real-world interdisciplinary

collaboration, reflect on the process, and discuss how education can better prepare them for such challenges.

Methodology Introduction

and

Reflection:

Participants

explored

the

concept

interdisciplinary

collaboration, discussing what each field values that others might overlook. This helped them understand why clashes occur and how different perspectives can complement each other. Discussion on Clashes: Real-world examples were shared where interdisciplinary work was challenging but ultimately successful (e.g., prosthetics design, ecological building projects). Participants reflected on differences in assumptions, terminology, and priorities across disciplines, and shared personal experiences of interdisciplinary conflicts. Mini-Film Challenge: Participants were divided into teams to create short videos illustrating an interdisciplinary challenge and its resolution. They brainstormed disciplinary perspectives, planned the story, assigned roles, and filmed live-action scenes. Each team showcased their video, highlighting clashes that appear when people from different working backgrounds work together and the accomplishments when the collaboration between fields happen. Debrief and Reflection: Participants discussed what made collaboration difficult, how disagreements sometimes led to better ideas, and what skills could improve interdisciplinary teamwork. They reflected on the hardness of working with people from different backgrounds like communication challenges, differing priorities, and surprises in how other disciplines think. Overall Activity Flow: The session combined reflection, discussion, creative teamwork, and practical application to help participants experience firsthand the complexities and benefits of interdisciplinary collaboration.

Outcomes 1. Increased Awareness of Interdisciplinary Challenges ● Participants recognized that each discipline has its own values, priorities, and ways of thinking that can clash with others. ● They observed that terminology, methods, and assumptions vary significantly across fields. ● Real-world examples reinforce that clashes are common but can improve outcomes when managed properly.

Table X. What’s something your field values that other fields might overlook?

Participant Responses

Finance

User-friendly approaches

Optimization

Continuous development

Amount of work required to build a simple thing (e.g., roads)

Efficiency

Importance of structure in information (how data is organized, stored, accessed)

Hygiene

Strong use of the scientific method

Modifiability of a project throughout years

Being punctual

Product Lifecycle Management (PLM)

2. Understanding the Value of Clashes ● Participants realized that conflicts between disciplines are not necessarily negative, they can lead to better solutions, as differing perspectives highlight risks, gaps, and opportunities. ● They noted that clarification of terms and mutual respect are key to turning clashes into productive collaboration. 3. Collaborative Problem-Solving Skills ● Through the Mini-Film Challenge, participants practiced working in interdisciplinary teams, applying communication, negotiation, and problem-solving skills. ● They experienced firsthand the difficulties of coordinating different disciplinary priorities and perspectives, and learned how to integrate them creatively in a short project. 4. Communication and Perspective-Taking ● Participants reflected on the importance of translating knowledge across disciplines to be understood by others.

● They identified moments where disagreements or misunderstandings led to more robust ideas and innovative solutions. ● They became more aware of how assumptions and cognitive frameworks from their own disciplines influence how they approach problems. 5. Creativity and Engagement ● Participants

actively

engaged

brainstorming,

storyboarding,

and

filming,

demonstrating curiosity and creativity. ● The exercise encouraged them to think beyond their own field and appreciate the contributions of others. ● The practical, hands-on nature of the activity supported learning through doing, highlighting the benefits of experiential approaches to interdisciplinary challenges. 6. Reflection on Skills Needed for Interdisciplinary Work ● Participants identified skills that would help improve collaboration, including: ○ Effective communication and explanation of one’s discipline ○ Flexibility in thinking ○ Active listening and openness to others’ perspectives ○ Awareness of potential conflicts and assumptions in cross-disciplinary work 7. Positive Engagement and Motivation ● Participants

worked proactively, contributed ideas, and seemed to enjoy the

collaborative, creative format of the session. ● The session fostered a safe space for experimentation, discussion, and creative expression, which encouraged learning from clashes rather than avoiding them. Outcomes per groups: Group 1 ● Participants produced a video about constructing a hospital, highlighting how multiple disciplines interact during large-scale projects. ● The group demonstrated how different priorities and perspectives—such as structural integrity, aesthetics, and functionality, can initially clash but eventually contribute to a more comprehensive solution. ● The activity revealed communication challenges between disciplines and the importance of clarifying assumptions, methods, and terminology. ● Reflection emphasized how acknowledging and navigating disciplinary differences enhances creativity and practical outcomes in real-world projects.

group1 Group 2 ● Participants created a video illustrating a workplace scenario where marketing and software development teams had to collaborate to deliver a customer-oriented solution. ● The activity highlighted how differing priorities, like functionality versus user experience, can create initial conflicts but also spark innovative solutions when managed effectively. ● The video fostered empathy and understanding of other perspectives, emphasizing the importance of collaboration across fields. ScreenRecording_08-28-2025 13-09-52_1.MP4 Group 3 ● Participants created a short video illustrating an interdisciplinary challenge involving robotics and medicine, specifically replacing an amputated arm with a smart prosthetic hand. ● They integrated perspectives from biomedical engineering, robotics, and user-centered design, showing how collaboration across disciplines improves practical solutions. ● The group demonstrated awareness of real-world constraints and user needs, emphasizing both technical feasibility and human experience. ● The activity highlighted challenges in communication and terminology across disciplines, while fostering creative problem-solving and teamwork. ● The team reflected on how differing disciplinary perspectives initially caused clashes but ultimately

led

richer,

innovative

outcomes. WhatsApp Video 2025-08-28 at 13.00.37.mp4 The hand created by the group for their video: More information about this in detail can be seen in Appendix A10.

11. Wingardium STEMiosa: Levitate Your Ideas - Final Project Facilitators: Content Team Minute Takers : Eszter Anna Torgyik, Prem Prakash Singh

Background This session guided participants through designing innovative, student-centered STEM learning experiences that emphasize interdisciplinary collaboration, active engagement, and real-world applicability. Inspired by insights from previous BSE sessions — including experimental learning, cross-cultural classrooms, and AI in education — the workshop challenged participants to create proposals that enhance skills development and prepare students for future challenges. The session also introduced the WOOP goal-setting method (Wish, Outcome, Obstacle, Plan) to help participants define clear, realistic, and actionable goals for their projects. By integrating goal-setting with collaborative design, the workshop encouraged participants to create practical yet creative solutions that could be implemented in real academic contexts.

Methodology Objective: Participants were tasked with designing a bold, student-centered interdisciplinary STEM learning experience, incorporating active learning and real-world collaboration. They were split into groups based on their interests and encouraged to draw from their own university experiences. While working on their projects, the groups followed structured phases with checkpoints where they reported progress to the facilitator. Facilitators provided guidance, answered questions, and supported teams in refining their proposals. The phases were defined as follows: ● Set Goals using WOOP: Define your Wish, visualize the Outcome, identify Obstacles, and develop a Plan to achieve your project goals. ● Design Part 1 – Learning Experience: Brainstorm and outline an engaging interdisciplinary

STEM

learning

activity,

including

key

learning methods, skills

development, and assessment strategies. ● Design Part 2 – Real-World Collaboration: Plan collaborations with industry partners, student organizations, or external communities, specifying roles, activities, and expected impact. ● Design Part 3 – Marketing & Evaluation: Develop strategies for promoting the project and evaluating its success and impact. ● Prepare Presentations: Consolidate ideas into a short, structured presentation.

For the presentations, participants used flipcharts, projectors, and other materials. Each group had 10 minutes to present their proposal, 10 minutes for Q&A, and 10 minutes for live peer feedback via polls and surveys. Facilitators guided discussion and encouraged constructive feedback to help refine the projects.

Outcomes Team GryffindAI : Shaping Europe’s Energy Future: Master-after-Master in Interdisciplinary Energy Transition Studies Part 1: Interdisciplinary Learning Experience ● Creates professionals with expertise across 6 integrated disciplines (Engineering, Environmental Science, Economics, Law, Social Sciences, Design) ● Develops dual skill sets: technical competencies (modeling, data analysis, systems thinking) and soft skills (multicultural collaboration, complex communication) ● Delivers 8 intensive interdisciplinary modules through guest professors and industry experts ● Ensures deep engagement through interactive teaching, company visits, and varied assessment methods ● Provides Erasmus Mundus certification for international recognition Part 2: Real-World Collaboration ● Connects students directly with companies, NGOs, and EU agencies through real case studies ● Produces actionable "New European Energy Identity" framework for EU stakeholders ● Facilitates knowledge transfer between academia and industry through employee interaction ● Creates 5-8 person interdisciplinary teams solving actual energy transition challenges ● Delivers final symposium and formal report to EU institutions ● Establishes mentorship relationships between professors and student groups Part 3: Marketing and Evaluation ● Achieves macro-credential recognition through strategic company partnerships ● Builds international visibility via Erasmus Mundus and alumni ambassador network ● Implements multi-stakeholder feedback system (students, companies, professors) ● Ensures yearly curriculum updates responding to emerging industry challenges ● Maintains program relevance through incorporation of real-time company needs ● Creates sustainable improvement cycle while preserving academic standards

By establishing this comprehensive interdisciplinary program, the proposal produces energy transition leaders capable of navigating complex technical, policy, and social dimensions of Europe's energy future.

Team Hufflethink : Smart Cities: Interdisciplinary Innovation and Practice Part 1: Interdisciplinary Learning Experience ● Establishes a two-semester university course centered on smart cities, integrating Engineering, Computer Science, Business, and Design. ● Provides an initial “bootcamp” week introducing students to interdisciplinary teamwork, project-based learning, and smart city challenges. ● Develops dual competencies: ○ Technical skills: prototyping, systems integration, data-driven problem solving. ○ Soft skills: interdisciplinary communication, project management, creativity, and critical thinking. ● Employs project-based learning with real-world cases proposed by companies and municipal partners. ● Encourages continuous reflection and progress tracking through weekly reports, monthly presentations, and feedback loops. ● Promotes hands-on learning where students apply theoretical knowledge to practical, city-level challenges.

Part 2: Real-World Collaboration ● Partners with companies, local authorities, and industry professionals to provide authentic smart city challenges. ● Ensures direct mentorship and regular feedback from industry experts and university professors. ● Creates interdisciplinary student teams working on projects with real-life application potential (e.g., environmental monitoring, digital infrastructure, urban mobility). ● Incorporates on-site project work, where students collaborate directly with professional teams in companies or city institutions. ● Strengthens learning outcomes through exposure to diverse disciplinary perspectives (mechanical, chemical, IT, design, business). ● Concludes with a final presentation where students showcase prototypes and strategies to both academic and industry stakeholders.

Part 3: Marketing and Evaluation ● Promotes the program through collaborations with universities, partner companies, and city networks, emphasizing its relevance to smart city innovation. ● Builds visibility via public presentations of prototypes, student fairs, and local community engagement.

Implements a multi-layered evaluation system: weekly reports, mentor feedback, peer reviews, student self-assessment surveys, and final project presentations. ● Focuses on qualitative outcomes (how students feel about skill development, teamwork, and applicability of their knowledge) alongside measurable outputs (prototypes created, collaborations established). ● Ensures continuous improvement through feedback loops between students, professors, and industry mentors. ● Strengthens employability by connecting students with potential future employers and increasing their readiness for real-world professional challenges.

Team Ravenquirk : The Sound Waves of Nature Part 1: Interdisciplinary Learning Experience ● Cultivates professionals across 3 integrated disciplines: Mathematics, Biology, and Music ● Develops dual competencies: ○ Technical skills: data analysis, coding, pattern recognition, mathematical modeling ○ Creative skills: composition, sound design, artistic interpretation ● Delivers multi-modal learning experiences including fieldwork (“Pattern Hunt Labs”), creative studio sessions, and hackathon-style challenges ● Encourages deep engagement through hands-on exploration, nature-based data collection, and transformation of patterns into music and algorithms ● Strengthens student motivation by connecting scientific discovery with creativity, fun, and real-life relevance

Part 2: Real-World Collaboration ● Connects students directly with musicians, therapists, and community partners (schools, hospitals, art spaces) ● Produces practical outputs: musical compositions, soundscapes, and algorithmic tools with therapeutic or cultural applications ● Facilitates knowledge transfer between academia, music, and health sectors ● Forms interdisciplinary student teams mentored by professionals to co-create innovative works ● Delivers a final public showcase and dialogue event for community engagement ● Tests and refines outputs in real-world contexts (therapy centres, schools, public spaces), generating authentic feedback and impact

● Builds long-term career pathways and networks for students in fields such as health, music, and AI

Part 3: Marketing and Evaluation ● Expands reach through university promotions, student fairs, concerts, exhibitions, and social media campaigns ● Builds visibility by partnering with STEM student clubs, biology institutes, and music organisations ● Implements a multi-stakeholder feedback system: students, faculty, collaborators, and community partners ● Ensures adaptability by addressing student concerns (e.g., more hands-on practice, clearer real-world applications) ● Maintains project relevance through ongoing partnerships and guest input from industry and research ● Creates a sustainable cycle of improvement, ensuring each iteration becomes more impactful and engaging

Team Slytherink : X - STEM Part 1: Interdisciplinary Learning Experience ● Immersive extracurricular program placing engineering students in real contexts such as hospitals, banks, and schools. ● Integrates engineering with healthcare, finance, education, and innovation studies, fostering adaptability across disciplines ● Develops soft skills and technical skills that feature the innovation like problem analysis, prototyping, communication, design thinking and teamwork ● Learning process structured through immersive company visits, interviews, co-creation with the stakeholders through prototyping. ● Encourages

ownership

and motivation by letting students work directly with

professionals and see how their ideas transition into tangible solutions.

Part 2: Real-World Collaboration ● Builds strong professional networks through direct exposure to mentors, collaborators, and potential employers while working on your area of expertise. ● The program produces prototypes that may be tested, with winning solutions potentially implemented. ● Establishes impact by addressing real-world problems and applying student-driven solutions in practical technological settings

● Students rotate across facilities, observe workflows and collaborate with staff to identify challenges ● Offers follow-up opportunities such as internships and employment prospects

Part 3: Marketing and Evaluation ●

Physical promotion such as posters, flyers, info sessions, with the endorsement of the faculty.

● Participation incentives such as awards, certificates, internships, and potential employment can be provided. ● Continuous adaptation of the program design based on engagement metrics and feedback from students, mentors, and partners. ● Quantitative measures for evaluation like participation rates, number of prototypes developed and solutions adopted. ● Strengthening partnerships and embedding interdisciplinary collaboration into future cycles. More information about this in detail can be seen in Appendix A11.

Appendix Appendix A1 – From Campus to Career Full session detailed, participant quotes, and form results :

“From Campus to Career”

Appendix A2 – Siriusly Smart – AI as the Student Assistant Debate summaries, pre/post survey data, and student-AI success guide outputs : “Siriusly Smart – AI as the Student Assistant" Appendix A3 – Connect the Dots – Using AI to Bridge Disciplines and Skills Concept maps, interdisciplinary project notes, and confidence-tracking results : “Connect the Dots – Using AI to Bridge Disciplines and Skills" Appendix A4 – It’s Not All About Science SWOT/TOWS analyses, class design challenge details, and Mentimeter results : “It’s not all about the science" Appendix A5 – Beyond the Grade Poll data, reflection notes, and discussion excerpts on grade pressure and creativity : “Beyond the Grade"

Appendix A6 – Your BEST Class Participant narratives about impactful professors and engagement drivers : “Your BEST Class" Appendix A7 – Let’s Experiment with That Spell Case-study designs, experiential-learning reflections, and survey results : “Let’s experiment with that spell" Appendix A8 – Learning Across Cultures Regional learning pattern charts, passport activity summaries, and voting outcomes : “Learning Across Cultures" Appendix A9 – We Are STEM, We Create Group project descriptions, evaluation results, and insights on engagement drivers : “We are STEM, we create" Appendix A10 – When Disciplines Collide Video scripts, reflection notes, and interdisciplinary collaboration findings : “When Disciplines Collide" Appendix A11 – Wingardium STEMiosa: Levitate Your Ideas – Final Project Team project documentation, voting summaries, and final evaluation notes : Final_Project_Report