Fostering Reflection in Engineering: An Approach for a Mandatory First-Year Bachelor´s Course in the Era of Generative AI

Practice Paper Recommended citation: Lemke, C., Winkens, A.-K., Marie, M., & Leicht-Scholten, C. (2025). Fostering Reflection in Engineering: An Approach for a Mandatory First-Year Bachelor´s Course in the Era of Generative AI. In Kangaslampi, R., Langie, G., Järvinen, H.-M., & Nagy, B. (Eds.), SEFI 53rd Annual Conference. European Society for Engineering Education (SEFI), Tampere, Finland. DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.17631611. This Conference Paper is brought to you for open access by the 53rd Annual Conference of the European Society for Engineering Education (SEFI) at Tampere University in Tampere, Finland. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-Share Alike 4.0 International License. Fostering Reflection in Engineering: An Approach for a Mandatory First-Year Bachelor´s Course in the Era of Generative AI Clara Lemke a,1, Ann-Kristin Winkens b, Marie Mirschc, Carmen Leicht-Scholten d a Research Group Gender & Diversity in Engineering, RWTH Aachen University, Aachen, Germany, ORCID 0009-0003-4623-6019 b Research Group Gender & Diversity in Engineering, RWTH Aachen University, Aachen, Germany, ORCID 0000-0003-4637-3905 c Research Group Gender & Diversity in Engineering, RWTH Aachen University, Aachen, Germany, ORCID 0000-0002-9138-231X d Research Group Gender & Diversity in Engineering, RWTH Aachen University, Aachen, Germany, ORCID 0000-0003-2451-6629 Conference Key Areas: Sustainability and society in engineering, Engineer as a social debater – new skills needed? Keywords: Reflection, Generative Artificial Intelligence, Civil Engineering, FirstYear, Lecture ABSTRACT Reflection is a crucial yet often underdeveloped competency in engineering education. While it fosters critical thinking, ethical awareness, and social responsibility, its implementation in early engineering curricula remains challenging. This paper presents a structured approach to integrating reflection into a mandatory first-year engineering course, Engineering and Society. The course employs a structured reflection portfolio, including written reflections, educational videos, and quiz development, incentivized by a grading bonus. However, the rise of generative AI tools, such as ChatGPT, challenges traditional reflection formats, necessitating adaptations. This paper discusses the impact of generative AI on reflection-based learning, outlines modifications to the course’s reflection portfolio, and provides insights into fostering independent and critical thinking in an evolving educational landscape. 1 Corresponding Author Clara Lemke [email protected]-aachen.de 1 INTRODUCTION Engineering and technology must provide innovative and responsible solutions to global challenges, addressing technological, ecological, economic and social dimensions (Tabas et al., 2019; UNESCO, 2021). Engineers require essential competencies, including systems thinking, anticipatory, normative, strategic, interpersonal and problem-solving skills to fulfill their roles in society and contribute to the achievement of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), as well as to sustainable and socially responsible development (Wiek et al., 2016; Wiek et al., 2011). The development of these competencies requires the reflection on engineers´ social and environmental responsibilities, which enhances critical thinking (Drake et al., 2023; Niles et al., 2020; Rulifson & Bielefeldt, 2019). However, engineering education often emphasizes technical and environmental aspects of sustainability, while social aspects are frequently overlooked (Monteiro et al., 2019). Reflective assignments can help bridge this gap (Magnell et al., 2022) by providing students with opportunities to critically evaluate the social impact of their engineering activities and develop a sense of social responsibility (Sarrade & Lermigeaux-Sarrade, 2023). Reflection is an essential component of learning processes in higher education that promotes critical thinking and deeper learning. However, implementation remains a challenge due to differing definitions, students’ difficulties with reflection and the delicate balance between structured guidance and openness for students’ own reflection process (Ryan, 2013). As Ambrose (2013) emphasizes, learning occurs not just through action but also through the time allocated for reflection, yet engineering curricula often lack consistent, structured opportunities for this essential process. This paper explores the integration of structured reflection portfolio in the Engineering and Society course at RWTH Aachen University. Initially, the course employed a variety of reflection activities to support comprehensive and holistic reflection opportunities. However, the rise of generative AI has raised concerns about the authenticity and effectiveness of especially written reflections, forcing an adaption of the reflection activities. Thus, we present different approaches for structured activities to foster reflection among first-year engineering students and discuss our adaptations since the introduction of generative AI tools. 1.1 Reflection in Engineering Education Reflection is a complex process that serves both learning and assessment purposes. Kember et al. (2008) highlight that reflection is a widely used and multifaceted concept. It involves active exploration and can be described as the process of “mulling over events in our mind or making sense of experiences we have had” (Boud et al., 1985, p. 8). Reflection supports students in their learning process by linking new insights with prior experiences and fostering critical thinking (Chan & Lee, 2021). Additionally, reflection enhances problem-solving skills and facilitates the development of multiple solutions to a given problem (Fullana et al., 2016; Lönngren, 2017). Rather than being an end in itself, reflection serves as a means to gain deeper insights. Integrating reflection into engineering curricula is therefore crucial (Turns et al., 2014) and must enable students to reflect not only on their technical work but also on their development as professionals and individuals (Hermsen et al., 2022). Reflection can be applied across various interrelated domains, such as society, product, process, interactions, learning, and self-development (Hermsen et al., 2022). This structured approach makes reflection more accessible for teachers and students. The domain ‘Society’ involves reflecting on social issues and challenges, such as climate change, inclusion and equity, sustainable infrastructure and mobility or energy transition. In a constructive manner, learning is an active and self-directed process in which learners build knowledge through personal experience, reflection and interaction. This process is influenced by learner´s prior knowledge and skills, context and engagement (Briede, 2013; Tenenbaum et al., 2001). Frameworks such as the one proposed by Felder & Silverman (1988, 2002) describe dimensions in which students differ in learning and approaching problems. They distinguish between different dimensions of preferred learning styles, for example, through visual or verbal information – those who learn through images versus those who learn through text – reflection or action – those who learn through doing, while others learn through thinking – or through a sequential or global understanding (Felder & Silverman, 1988). 1.2 Course Context: Engineering and Society The context for this practice paper is the mandatory first-year Bachelor lecture Engineering and Society at RWTH Aachen University, one of the leading technical universities in Germany. The interdisciplinary course is aimed at students enrolled in undergraduate programs in Civil and Environmental Engineering, Human Technology Interaction and Communication, and Sociology with a focus on technology research. The course aims to increase students’ awareness of the interactions between engineering, sustainability, and social responsibility through a blended learning approach (Decker et al., 2022). The blended learning concept consists of three key components: independent learning, reflection, and collaborative discussion and reflection. The course is offered in German and its concept tis presented in detail in Decker et al. (2021), Decker et al. (2022) and Lemke et al. (2023). The course is a mandatory component of the curriculum and is attended by around 300 students each year. Since it is well known that education only about sustainability is not sufficient to develop future-proof competencies (Sterling, 2014), this lecture has the (ambitious) goal of going beyond mere knowledge transfer. Following the principle of Constructive Alignment (Biggs & Tang, 2011), learning activities, intended learning outcomes, and assessment methods must be coherently aligned. However, given the structural constraints (large number of students, second semester, no prior knowledge, resource constraints), the summative assessment currently does not allow for meaningful focus on higher-order competencies such as reflection and evaluation. Instead, it primarily assesses knowledge, comprehension and analysis. To address this gap, structured reflection activities during the course have been implemented. These activities are a type of reflection as described in the dimension of society in Hermsen et al. (2022) and are intended to stimulate a critical and application-oriented discussion. The implementation of these activities is described in the following sections. 2 CONCEPT FOR INTEGRATING REFLECTION INTO THE COURSE The lecture consists of three thematic blocks: Social and sustainable technology design, social structures and discourses, and tools for a sustainable habitat design. Every block consists of 2–3 learning units, related to the SDGs. Since the lecture follows a blended-learning approach (Decker et al., 2022), the students work through learning material for each of the three learning units independently, followed by a collaborative discussion and reflection in the plenum after each unit (see Figure 1). To support an in-depth engagement with the material during the independent learning phases, several learning activities are offered to provide opportunities for the reflection of the given topics – the so-called structured reflection portfolio. Students can choose specific learning activities or combine them. The reflection portfolio is optional, but to incentivize participation, bonus points for the exam can be achieved, eventually improving the overall course grade. Initial evaluations showed that students who engaged in reflection activities performed better in final assessments. By providing reflection opportunities continuously, we address the gap in engineering education where structured opportunities and time for continual reflection is often missing (Ambrose, 2013). Figure 1. Independent learning, reflection, and group-reflection activities In the following, we describe each of the learning activities of the structured reflection portfolio. Every learning activity is designed to address specific learning types. One activity is the written reflection on given questions. Students are given contentrelated and practical-oriented questions addressing the different course topics to critically evaluate implications of their engineering work (Decker et al., 2022). For example, they reflect on the role of engineers, what role engineers play in fostering sustainability; the future professional field, such as what is the relevance of diversity management for their future career; or a local application example, for instance, what opportunities and challenges exist for mobility in Aachen or which areas of action do they identify in urban planning for Aachen. This opportunity for written reflection benefits students who identify more with intuitive and reflective learning offers (Felder & Silverman, 1988). Another reflection activity is the creation of a short educational video on a specific course topic. The goal is to present the topic to fellow students clearly and creatively. These videos can be produced in groups of three to five students. Through this, we support group work and a collaborative in-depth engagement with the course content. In particular, students are incentivized to explain the learned content actively and process it for the specific target group of their fellow students. In previous semesters, students explored topics such as sustainability models and strategies, feminism, social and technological determinism, as well as the Leipzig Charter for common-good-oriented urban development in their videos. The videos are then made available to their peers via the learning platform and can be used for further individual engagement with the material. According to Felder and Silverman (2002; 1988), creating a video appeals to students who process information actively and prefer a globally advanced learning approach. At the same time, the videos support students who learn more effectively through visual and verbal information. In an additional activity, students can submit quiz items related to the course topics, including providing sample solutions. Through this process, students actively engage with the course content by anticipating relevant content for the exam and thus reflecting on which topics might be assessed and in what suitable format. In addition to this reflection opportunity, the quiz questions are subsequently made available to their peers and can be used for exam preparation. According to Felder and Silverman (2002; 1988), the quiz questions particularly benefit students who need to process information to learn effectively actively. After submitting the various reflection activities, students provide feedback to each other as part of a peer feedback process. The submission and peer feedback are conducted through the university’s online learning platform and are based on various criteria, such as structure, logical argumentation, creativity, and visualization. These criteria are assessed by students as fulfilled, partially fulfilled, or not fulfilled. Additionally, students write brief, free-form feedback. This process allows students to engage with the content again and take on an examiner’s outer perspective. Since the videos and quiz questions are made available by students for exam preparation, the content is reviewed by the course instructors and then shared with all students. 3 ADJUSTMENTS AND IMPLICATIONS DUE TO GENAI By implementing our structured reflection portfolio, we created opportunities for students to engage critically with the course content. Continuous development of this approach should foster the knowledge transfer. However, the increasing integration of generative AI tools in education presents both opportunities and challenges for reflection activities. While generative AI tools offer new possibilities for personalized learning and automated feedback, they also challenge existing reflection formats by enabling students to generate structured responses with minimal cognitive effort. In a benchmark study, Nicolic et al.(2023) looked at the strengths and weaknesses of genAI tools for students passing various assessment formats. The authors call for changes in assessment formats and a conscious approach to the opportunities offered by genAI tools. They underline this demand in another study, which considers the further development of ChatGPT and other genAI tools within a year (Nikolic et al., 2024). Regarding our Engineering and Society course, we critically examined our activities within the structured reflection portfolio, particularly considering the rapid and continuous development of genAI tools. This reflection aligns with the findings of Nicolic et al. (2024), which identify written assessments, quiz items, and selfor peer-evaluations in their Generative AI Assessment Security and Opportunity Matrix as high risk. As a result, we have decided to adapt our approach for the next iteration of the course. Specifically, we will discontinue the use of written reflections on given questions and quiz items while retaining the video creation component. Nicolic et al. (2024) classify Reflection as high risk, as genAI can produce seemingly adequate responses for most reflection tasks. However, they recommend leveraging generative AI to support students in their learning and reflection processes rather than avoiding genAI tools. In line with these results, we have decided to remove the written reflections on given questions from the structured reflection portfolio activities and instead to integrate a structured Socratic dialogue with generative AI (Dickerson, 2025). Students engage in a critical, reflective discussion with an AI of their choice (e.g., ChatGPT) on a predefined thesis related to the respective learning unit. This dialogue encourages them to systematically question assumptions, deepen their understanding, and refine their arguments. Each conversation consists of at least ten well-founded responses from the student and is subsequently analyzed using a set of guided reflection questions. The structured reflection process ensures that students move beyond passively accepting AI-generated content and instead critically engage with the discourse. The creation of quiz items will no longer be part of the structured reflection portfolio, as this activity has been classified as very high risk (Nikolic et al., 2024). Previously, students were required to formulate closed-ended questions and corresponding answers based on the course content. However, due to the increasing capabilities of genAI, this task can now be largely automated, making it unsuitable as a meaningful reflection activity. As a short-term response, this activity will be discontinued. However, an alternative approach could involve having students critically evaluate AI-generated questions, which has been shown to foster critical thinking and deeper engagement with the material (Nikolic et al., 2024). In the long term, we aim to explore how this type of reflection can be meaningfully integrated into the course, similar to the structured written reflections that already incorporate genAI. This approach would ensure that AI is not used for passive content generation but as a tool to enhance analytical reasoning and knowledge application. Research suggests that assessment formats extending beyond text-based responses can enhance student engagement and creativity (Nikolic & Raad, 2021). In response, we have already partially implemented interactive formats such as educational videos and cooperative reflections into our structured reflection portfolio. These approaches align with the need for creativity and active participation in learning processes (Nikolic et al., 2023). One particularly promising format is video creation. While Nikolic et al. (2024) classifies videos as a medium risk format, the process of producing original video content fosters essential skills such as communication, critical thinking, and creativity. Given the continued advancement of generative AI, these skills will become even more critical. Therefore, future assessments of student-created videos will place greater emphasis on creativity and storytelling (Nikolic et al., 2024). Students will be encouraged to incorporate insights from collaborative discussions and reflection sessions and to illustrate key concepts from different learning units visually through concrete examples. Beyond individual assessments, active class participation is essential for meaningful learning. In this context, our joint discussion and reflection sessions are gaining increasing relevance. These sessions offer students the opportunity to engage in dialogue with their peers and instructors, fostering a deeper understanding of the course material. Moving forward, we will place a stronger focus on the practical application and transfer of knowledge, ensuring that students can actively exchange ideas and experiences. In the long term, key aspects of these in-person sessions will be integrated into the structured reflection portfolio. Looking further ahead, we also plan to integrate virtual reality into our reflection framework. By enabling students to engage with course content in immersive virtual environments, VR has the potential to enrich the reflection process, proving new dimensions for experiential learning and deeper engagement with complex concepts (Zontou et al., 2024). 4 CONCLUSION Integrating interactive and creative assessment formats, such as videos and cooperative reflections, enhances student engagement and supports the development of critical thinking beyond knowledge retention. However, implementing these approaches within a first-year Bachelor engineering lecture presents significant challenges. Given the constraints of large student cohorts, limited resources, and the lack of students’ prior knowledge and experiences, striking the balance between meaningful, competency-based learning and scalable assessment methods remains a key concern. While structured reflection portfolios and interactive discussions offer valuable learning opportunities, their effectiveness depends on ensuring active participation and practical application without overburdening students or instructors. Moreover, the increasing influence of genAI requires a paradigm shift in how reflection activities are structured and assessed, leading to a continuous adaptation of assessment strategies. Our adjustments described in Chapter 3 provide a reactive approach to incorporating AI into reflection activities within a large-scale course in first-year programs. Based on our experiences to the challenges and opportunities posed by genAI, we derive several recommendations that may support educators facing similar developments. We suggest diversifying formats by incorporating creative and collaborative tasks, such as video creation and peer-led activities. These formats shift the focus away from traditional text-based activities, which are particularly vulnerable to genAIgenerated content, and instead promote engagement and social learning. Second, rather than prohibiting the use of genAI, we recommend its meaningful integration into the learning and reflection process. Structured formats like guided Socratic dialogues with genAI can foster critical thinking and ensure that students actively engage with the material instead of relying passively on automated outputs. Additionally, structured peer feedback and dialogic reflection can complement individual assignments, encouraging students to take multiple perspectives and participate in a community of critical inquiry. However, moving forward, refining these approaches – potentially integrating emerging technologies like VR – will be essential to foster deep learning experiences while addressing those structural limitations. Furthermore, the effectiveness of these interventions needs to be investigated. 5 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The authors would like to express their gratitude to the DigiFellowship, a joint initiative of RWTH Aachen University, the Ministry of Culture and Science of North Rhine-Westphalia, the Stifterverband, and ETS, for supporting innovative approaches in digital higher education since 2020. We especially acknowledge the support provided in 2023 to the Research Group of Gender and Diversity in Engineering, led by Univ.-Prof. Dr. Carmen Leicht-Scholten, for the implementation of the extended structured reflection portfolio. 6 REFERENCES Ambrose, S. A. (2013). Undergraduate engineering curriculum: The ultimate design challenge. The Bridge: Linking Engineering and Society, 43(2), 16–23. Biggs, J., & Tang, C. (2011). Teaching for Quality Learning at University. McGrawHill and Open University Press. Boud, D. J., Keogh, R., & Walker, D. (1985). Reflection: turning experience into learning / edited by David Boud, Rosemary Keogh and David Walker. Routledge Falmer. Briede, B. (2013). A Constructivist Approach in Engineering Education. ENGINEERING for RURAL DEVELOPMENT, 23, 584–589. Chan, C., & Lee, K. (2021). Reflection literacy: A multilevel perspective on the challenges of using reflections in higher education through a comprehensive literature review. Educational Research Review, 32, 100376. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2020.100376 Decker, M., Winkens, A., & Leicht-Scholten, C. (2021). Flipped Classroom Concept for Initiating a Reflection Process among Engineering Students in Large and Mandatory Courses. In L. Gómez Chova, A. López Martínez, & I. Candel Torres (Eds.), EDULEARN Proceedings, EDULEARN21 Proceedings (pp. 7280–7289). IATED. https://doi.org/10.21125/edulearn.2021.1467 Decker, M., Winkens, A., & Leicht-Scholten, C. (2022). Teaching Topics of Responsibility and Sustainability in Large Engineering Classes. International Journal of Engineering Education, 38(3), 643–655. Dickerson, P. (2025). Learning with Socrates. In H. Crompton & D. Burke (Eds.), Artificial intelligence applications in higher education: theories, ethics, and case