More Like this

1. Comparing engineering students’ and professionals’ conceptions of ambiguity.

   https://doi.org/10.1109/FIE56618.2022.9962415  

   Douglas, E. P. (January 2022, Proceedings of the Frontiers in Education Conference. (41696 2022. IEEE).)

   Abstract— Engineers are frequently confronted with complex, unique, and challenging problems. Many of our most pressing engineering problems contain ambiguous elements, and a core activity of engineering is being able to solve these complex problems effectively. While engineering problems are often described as ambiguous, ambiguity has not been clearly defined in the literature in the context of engineering problem solving. This work-in-progress paper describes our initial results to understand how ambiguity is experienced during engineering problem solving. We interviewed both engineering students and engineering professionals about ambiguous problems they have encountered. We found that both groups identified technical ambiguity as the core element of engineering problem solving. They also described differences between classroom and workplace problems, with students describing classroom problems as “purposefully” ambiguous. Students had strong negative emotional reactions to ambiguity, in contrast to professionals who seemed to accept ambiguity as a common element in engineering problem. Our initial findings suggest that changes to engineering education practice that allow students to become comfortable with ambiguity would better prepare them for the ambiguous problems they will face in the workplace. Keywords—problem solving, ambiguity, qualitative 

   more » « less
2. WIP: A Pedagogical Intervention Leveraging Engineering Design Thinking to Foster a Tolerance for Ambiguity

   Julia Machele Brisbane Jeremi London Kingsley A. Reeves (June 2022, American Society for Engineering Education)

   Tolerance for Ambiguity (TA) is the ability to seek out, enjoy, and excel in ambiguous tasks. This is a skill or mindset that today’s engineering graduates must possess in order to address the problems they must be prepared to solve—problems that are complex, fraught with uncertainty, and given to conflicting interpretations by varying constituents. It can be argued that students with a higher tolerance for ambiguity will be better suited to proactively engage in, enjoy, and excel in finding solutions to the contemporary problems faced by 21st-century engineers. In contrast, students with a lower tolerance for ambiguity may be unmotivated in the modern engineering work environment and struggle to perform well. Given this reality, pedagogical innovations shown to increase students’ tolerance for ambiguity have the potential to better prepare the future engineering workforce. However, there are few examples of how to do this in engineering and/or how to measure the effectiveness of our efforts. This paper briefly describes the development of a pedagogical intervention designed to increase sophomore engineering students’ tolerance for ambiguity. The context of this study is an undergraduate engineering statistics course offered by the Industrial Engineering department at a large university located in the southeast. Students will be given a large hypothetical data set that mimics real data the undergraduate student experience (e.g., GPAs, course completion rates), and asked to use the engineering design process to identify and solve a data-rich problem using statistical techniques they have learned in the course. Two well-established measures of TA were adapted for this study; the result of the face validity check will also be discussed. This paper closes with insights on how these measures will be used to evaluate the impact of the intervention. The findings of this study will not only advance our understanding of pedagogical strategies for fostering the development of this 21st century skill, but also give us meaningful ways to measure the effectiveness of our efforts. 

   more » « less
3. Characterization of Problem Types in a Statics Textbook

   Douglas, E. P. (October 2020, Frontiers in Education Conference (FIE))

   null (Ed.)

   Abstract— In this Work in Progress Research paper, we present preliminary results on the analysis of the problems present in a common engineering textbook. In order to transition students from novice to expert problem solving, they must have practice solving problems that are typical of engineering practice, i.e. illstructured and complex. While it is generally believed that classroom problems are for the most part closed-ended and not complex, there is no work in the literature to confirm this belief. In order to address this gap, we analyzed the types of problems present in a commonly used statics textbook, using Jonassen’s well-known typology. Our findings show that almost all of the problems are algorithmic, with a few rule-based and story problems. There were no problems with higher levels of illstructuredness, such as decision-making, diagnosis-solution, or design problems. Some educators may believe that because statics is an introductory level class, it is appropriate to only present wellstructured problems. We argue that it is both possible and necessary to include ill-structured problems in classes at all levels. Doing so could potentially support students’ critical transition from novice to expert problem solvers. Keywords—problem-solving, statics, ambiguity 

   more » « less
4. Defining and Assessing Systems Thinking in Diverse Engineering Populations

   Mosyjowski, E.A.; Daly, S.R.; Lattuca, L. (January 2019, Proceedings of the American Society for Engineering Education Conference)

   Engineers are called to play an important role in addressing the complex problems of our global society, such as climate change and global health care. In order to adequately address these complex problems, engineers must be able to identify and incorporate into their decision making relevant aspects of systems in which their work is contextualized, a skill often referred to as systems thinking. However, within engineering, research on systems thinking tends to emphasize the ability to recognize potentially relevant constituent elements and parts of an engineering problem, rather than how these constituent elements and parts are embedded in broader economic, sociocultural, and temporal contexts and how all of these must inform decision making about problems and solutions. Additionally, some elements of systems thinking, such as an awareness of a particular sociocultural context or the coordination of work among members of a cross-disciplinary team, are not always recognized as core engineering skills, which alienates those whose strengths and passions are related to, for example, engineering systems that consider and impact social change. Studies show that women and minorities, groups underrepresented within engineering, are drawn to engineering in part for its potential to address important social issues. Emphasizing the importance of systems thinking and developing a more comprehensive definition of systems thinking that includes both constituent parts and contextual elements of a system will help students recognize the relevance and value of these other elements of engineering work and support full participation in engineering by a diverse group of students. We provide an overview of our study, in which we are examining systems thinking across a range of expertise to develop a scenario-based assessment tool that educators and researchers can use to evaluate engineering students’ systems thinking competence. Consistent with the aforementioned need to define and study systems thinking in a comprehensive, inclusive manner, we begin with a definition of systems thinking as a holistic approach to problem solving in which linkages and interactions of the immediate work with constituent parts, the larger sociocultural context, and potential impacts over time are identified and incorporated into decision making. In our study, we seek to address two key questions: 1) How do engineers of different levels of education and experience approach problems that require systems thinking? and 2) How do different types of life, educational, and work experiences relate to individuals’ demonstrated level of expertise in solving systems thinking problems? Our study is comprised of three phases. The first two phases include a semi-structured interview with engineering students and professionals about their experiences solving a problem requiring systems thinking and a think-aloud interview in which participants are asked to talk through how they would approach a given engineering scenario and later reflect on the experiences that inform their thinking. Data from these two phases will be used to develop a written assessment tool, which we will test by administering the written instrument to undergraduate and graduate engineering students in our third study phase. Our paper describes our study design and framing and includes preliminary findings from the first phase of our study. 

   more » « less
5. Tensions in Applying a Design-Thinking Approach to Address Barriers to Increasing Diversity and Inclusion in a Large, Legacy Engineering Program

   Eddington, S. M.; Zoltowski, C. B.; Brightman, A. O.; Corple, D.; Buzzanell, P. M. (June 2019, ASEE annual conference & exposition proceedings)

   We are focusing on three interconnected issues that negatively impact engineering disciplinary cultures: (1) diversity and inclusion issues that continue to plague engineering programs; (2) lack of adequate preparation for professional practices; (3) and exclusionary engineering disciplinary cultures that privilege technical knowledge over other forms of knowledge [1]. Although much effort has been devoted to these issues, traditional strategic and problem-solving orientations have not resulted in deep cultural transformations in many engineering programs. We posit that these three issues that are wicked problems. Wicked problems are ambiguous, interrelated and require complex problem-scoping and solutions that are not amenable with traditional and linear strategic planning and problem-solving orientations [2]. As design thinking provides an approach to solve complex problems that occur in organizational cultures [3], we argue that these wicked problems of engineering education cultures might be best understood and resolved through design thinking. As Elsbach and Stigliani contend, “the effective use of design thinking tools in organizations had a profound effect on organizational culture” [3, p. 2279]. However, not all organizational cultures support design thinking approaches well. Despite increasing calls to teach design as a central part of professional formation (e.g., ABET, National Academy of Engineers, etc.), many engineering programs, especially larger, legacy programs have not embraced fundamental design thinking [4-5] strategies or values [6-7]. According to Godfrey and Parker, many engineering cultures are characterized by linear epistemologies, “black and white” approaches to problem solving, and strategic “top down” ways of designing [8]. In contrast, design thinking approaches are characterized by ways of thinking and designing that prioritize prototyping, multiple stakeholder perspectives, and iterative problem-solving to address complex problems. In this paper, we examine the effectiveness of design thinking as a tool to address wicked problems in engineering education cultures, and the role of engineering culture itself in shaping the application and effectiveness of design thinking. More specially, we evaluate the role of design thinking in seeking cultural transformation at a School of Electrical and Computer Engineering (ECE) at Purdue University. We analyze interviews of members of the School after they participated in six design thinking sessions. Our previous research explored the effect of design thinking sessions on participant understanding of diversity and inclusion in biomedical engineering [9]. Herein, we explore participant experiences of design thinking sessions toward cultural change efforts regarding diversity and inclusion (D&I) within professional formation in ECE. We identified three tensions (push/pull dynamics of contradictions) that emerged from the participants’ experiences in the design sessions [10]. We conclude by discussing our emerging insights into the effectiveness of design thinking toward cultural change efforts in engineering. 

   more » « less