Experts Across Engineering Come Together to Talk Human-Centered Design

Engineering students are often trained to move quickly toward a technically correct answer. At a recent roundtable hosted by the Grainger College of Engineering, titled “Human-Centered Design in Engineering Curricula,” faculty and researchers explored what changes when students are prepared  to slow down–to understand the problem, meet the people affected by it, and consider the wider implications of their engineering work.

The panel brought together Saad Shehab, Senior Associate Director of Research and Strategic Initiatives at Siebel Center for Design; Matt Goodman, Senior Lecturer in Materials Science and Engineering; Elle Wroblewski, Teaching Assistant Professor in Aerospace Engineering; and Sneha Gayen, a Ph.D. candidate in Aerospace Engineering.

Human-Centered Design in Practice

Shehab, whose team at Siebel Center for Design developed the Human-Centered Design (HCD) framework both instructors drew on, distinguished between two ways it enters a course. A full HCD challenge runs a project start to finish with real clients. A module is smaller, a targeted activity practicing one or two elements. He noted that the framework's value to faculty has largely been diagnostic, giving instructors a way to map what they already teach, identify the gaps, and co-design something to fill them.

In Materials Science and Engineering, Goodman rebuilt the senior capstone after the department recognized post-COVID that the sequence needed work. He reached out to Siebel Center for Design, connecting with Shehab and Siebel Center for Design’s director, Rachel Switzky, to help restructure the course around HCD. The course now runs across two semesters, ending with teams handing their work to real stakeholders for feedback. Goodman observed that poster sessions have changed noticeably, with solutions markedly more stakeholder-centric than previous cohorts produced. The department is building exposure earlier too, so that capstone becomes an integration of prior practice rather than a first encounter.

In Aerospace Engineering, Wroblewski asks students to design a glider-launch system for a small plastic "cat pilot" framed as their direct supervisor. The experimental data record asks whether the flight caused their cat pilot suffering and what they will change next time. With this stakeholder in mind, Wroblewski observed their students began iterating with far more purpose, and glider range improved from roughly 60 feet to more than 70 after implementing the cat pilot. A second aerospace project introduces three stakeholders with conflicting priorities, forcing students to decide whose needs come first and making the values behind their choices visible.

Gayen, whose doctoral research examines what students weigh when stakeholder needs conflict, described the change she has watched take hold. Students who arrive thinking of themselves as technical problem solvers begin to think of themselves as decision makers, weighing who is affected by their work and how.

Navigating Obstacles

While both Wroblewski and Goodman have seen impressive results through integrating HCD into their engineering curricula, the roundtable participants were also transparent about how open-ended design can be uncomfortable for many engineering students accustomed to well-defined problems, who tend to seek rigid structure. The group found success in sharing the convergent and divergent points in the HCD taxonomy outright, observing that framing uncertainty as temporary can make it easier to sit with.

The barriers on the faculty side are steeper; human-centered design is not part of standard engineering training, so instructors often need mentoring. Frequent formative feedback across 14 or 15 groups demands real course staff capacity. And participants raised concern that student evaluations can penalize ambiguity, discouraging instructors from trying new approaches when those evaluations affect performance review. Their advice was to start small: rather than asking students whether a bridge carries a given load, perhaps tell them it has to handle rush-hour traffic in San Francisco. By changing the scenario slightly, students are challenged to bring hypothetical situations into real world situations.

What made the session most insightful was the melding of experts’ perspectives. Shehab noted that the framework's value to faculty has largely been diagnostic, giving instructors a way to map what they already teach, identify the gaps, and design something to fill them.

Watch the full conversation

If you weren’t able to attend the roundtable, tune in to the full recording below.

Continuing the Conversation

• Explore HCD and STEM Education work through Siebel Center for Design's research resources at designcenter.illinois.edu.
• Join the Human-Centered Engineering Consortium for monthly community conversations, open to all.
• Save the date for the second Human-Centered Engineering Symposium, March 5 and 6.
• Start small in your own course: add a stakeholder perspective, an empathy prompt, an iteration checkpoint, or a reflection on broader impacts.