An official website of the United States government
This paper presents the preliminary findings of a larger study on the problem-solving rationale associated with the use of multiple contextual representations. Four engineering practitioners solved a problem associated with headloss in pipe flow while their visual attention was tracked using eye tracking technology. Semi-structured interviews were conducted following the problem-solving interview and the rationale associated with their decisions to use a particular contextual representation emerged. The results of this study show how the rationale can influence the problem-solving process of the four engineering practitioners. Engineering practitioners used various contextual representations and provided multiple rationale for their decisions. Eye tracking techniques and semi-structured interviews created a robust picture of the problem-solving process that supplements previous problem-solving research.
more »
« less
Traffic Signal Phasing Problem-Solving Rationales of Professional Engineers Developed from Eye-Tracking and Clinical Interviews
There is a lack of knowledge on the way transportation engineering practitioners engage with various Contextual Representations (CRs) to solve traffic engineering design problems. CRs such as equations, graphs, and tables could be perceived differently, even if they represent the same concept. The present study recognized left-turn treatment at signalized intersections as a prominent concept in traffic engineering practice and identified three associated CRs (a text-book equation, a graphical representation, and a stepwise flowchart) to design a phasing plan. Two data collection mechanisms were concurrently employed: 1) eye-tracking to analyze visual attention and document problem-solving approaches and 2) reflective clinical interviews to analyze ways of thinking and document problem-solving rationales. The problem-solving experiment was completed by twenty-four transportation engineering practitioners. Transportation engineering practitioners not only demonstrated preferences for different CRs, they also demonstrated different reasoning as to the selection of the same CR. Results of Multivariate Analysis of Variance showed that there was a statistically significant difference in visual attention based on CR. Additionally, in-vivo coding of participants’ interviews identified seven distinct rationales for CR selection. Findings from this study could be employed to modify transportation engineering curricula with optimized visual CRs.
more »
« less
- Award ID(s):
- 1463769
- PAR ID:
- 10089052
- Publisher / Repository:
- SAGE Publications
- Date Published:
- Journal Name:
- Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board
- Volume:
- 2673
- Issue:
- 4
- ISSN:
- 0361-1981
- Format(s):
- Medium: X Size: p. 685-696
- Size(s):
- p. 685-696
- Sponsoring Org:
- National Science Foundation
More Like this
-
-
Engineers have the power to drive innovation and rethink the way the world is designed. However, a key practice often absent from engineering education is facilitating innovation and considering diverse perspectives through divergent thinking. We define divergence in engineering practices as exploring multiple alternatives in any stage of engineering processes. Currently, engineering education and research focuses on divergence primarily in the generation and development of design solutions, supported by idea generation methods such as Brainstorming and Design Heuristics. But in practice, there are many other opportunities throughout an engineering project where engineers may find it useful to explore multiple alternatives. When does divergent thinking take place during engineering problem solving as it is currently practiced? We conducted 90-minute semi-structured interviews with mechanical engineering practitioners working in varied setting to elicit their experiences with divergent thinking taking place in their engineering projects. The initial results document divergent thinking in six different areas of engineering design processes: 1) problem understanding, 2) problem-solving methods and strategies, 3) research and information gathering, 4) stakeholder identification, 5) considering potential solutions, and 6) anticipating implications of decisions. These findings suggest engineers find divergent thinking useful in multiple areas of engineering practice, and we suggest goals for developing divergent thinking skills in engineering education.more » « less
-
Engineering practitioners solve problems in various ways; it is plausible that they often rely on graphs, figures, formulas and other representations to reach a solution. How and why engineering practitioners use representations to solve problems can characterize certain problem-solving behaviors, which can be used to determine particular types of problem solvers. The purpose of this research was to determine the relationship between time spent referring to various representations and the justifications for the decisions made during the problem-solving process of engineering practitioners. A persona-based approach was used to characterize the problem-solving behavior of 16 engineering practitioners. Utilizing eye tracking and retrospective interview techniques, the problem-solving process of engineering practitioners was explored. Three unique problem-solver personas were developed that describe the behaviors of engineering practitioners; a committed problem solver, an evaluative problem, and an indecisive problem solver. The three personas suggest that there are different types of engineering practitioner problem solvers. This study contributes to engineering education research by expanding on problem-solving research to look for reasons why decisions are made during the problem-solving process. Understanding more about how the differences between problem solvers affect the way they approach a problem and engage with the material presents a more holistic view of the problem-solving process of engineering practitioners.more » « less
-
Abstract Computational thinking is crucial for STEM researchers and practitioners, as it involves more than just developing skills—it is a way of thinking that enables effective problem-solving. STEM disciplines approach different problems and as such employ computational thinking uniquely, so students cannot rely solely on computer science to develop computational thinking. Less attention has been given to social aspects of computation, such as collaborating and communicating with and about computation even though social aspects are essential to problem solving. We utilized computational literacy as an alternative framework that explicitly includes social elements as a primary pillar. We conducted 15 interviews with STEM researchers to identify and organize the social aspects that play a role in their research. We organized goals by motivation (persuasion and productivity) and representation (visual and non-visual) to contextualize the use of communication in computation. We found that researchers use computation to explain research results, navigate decision making, establish rigor, ensure reproducibility, facilitate lab stability, and promote research efficiency. We used Activity Theory to describe the tools, norms, and communities associated with these goals to offer a more detailed framework for the social pillar of computational literacy within the context of science and engineering. Examples from each discipline within STEM are described. This social computational literacy framework can act as a guide for STEM educators and practitioners alike to use and teach social aspects of computation.more » « less
-
Problem solvers vary their approaches to solving problems depending on the context of the problem, the requirements of the solution, and the ways in which the problems and material to solve the problem are represented, or representations. Representations take many forms (i.e. tables, graphs, figures, images, formulas, visualizations, and other similar contexts) and are used to communicate information to a problem solver. Engagement with certain representations varies between problem solvers and can influence design and solution quality. A problem solver’s evaluation of representations and the reasons for using a representation can be considered factors in problem-solving heuristics. These factors describe unique problem-solving behaviors that can help understand problem solvers. These behaviors may lead to important relationships between a problem solver’s decisions and their ability to solve a problem and overall quality of the solution. Therefore, we pose the following research question: How do factors of problem-solving heuristics describe the unique behaviors of engineering students as they solve multiple problems? To answer this question, we interviewed 16 undergraduate engineering students studying civil engineering. The interviews consisted of a problem-solving portion that was followed immediately by a semi-structured retrospective interview with probing questions created based on the real time monitoring of the problem-solving interview using eye tracking techniques. The problem-solving portion consisted of solving three problems related to the concept of headloss in fluid flow through pipes. Each of the three problems included the same four representations that were used by the students as approaches to solving the problem. The representations are common ways to present the concept of headloss in pipe flow and included two formulas, a set of tables, and a graph. This paper presents a set of common reasons for why decisions were made during the problem-solving process that help to understand more about the problem-solving behavior of engineering students.more » « less
