More Like this

1. Tolerance of Ambiguity, Development of Cognitive Models and Engineering Identity

   Khan, M. J. (July 2020, ASEE National Conference 2020)

   The cognitive models of students’ perceptions of the real world lie on a spectrum spanning a dualistic understanding of the worldview on one end and a relativistic view on the other end. Students who are dualistic in their understanding of concepts have difficulty in solving problems which do not lend themselves to a well-defined single answer or solution. One would therefore assume that engineering students would rapidly develop a relativistic understanding of the solution space. It is also expected that this developmental process would also manifest itself in the strengthening of an engineering identity. The focus of the research presented in this paper is to explore the relationships of the cognitive models of the solution space, tolerance of ambiguity and the development of engineering identity. A cross-sectional study of the cognitive models of undergraduate students, their tolerance to ambiguity and perception of engineering identity was conducted at an historically black university. The modified Rydell-Rosen Ambiguity Tolerance (RRAT) instrument for tolerance of ambiguity and the Bateman-McDonald (BD) instrument for determining their location on the cognitive spectrum were used in this study. The students were also administered the Godwin Engineering Identity (GEI) survey. Data analysis indicated that students’ tolerance of ambiguity increased on only few items of the RRAT instrument with the time spent in college. The analysis of the engineering identity indicated positive changes on several of the items of the instrument for the freshmen while reduction on some items of the GEI survey were observed. This research is supported by NSF Grant# 1832041. 

   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. 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
4. Examining Undergraduate Engineering Students’ Perceptions of Solving an Ill-Structured Problem in Civil Engineering

   https://doi.org/10.18260/1-2--34622  

   Akinci-Ceylan, S; Cetin, KS; Ahn, B; Cetin, B (June 2020, 2020 ASEE Virtual Annual Conference)

   Workplace engineering problems are different from the problems that undergraduate engineering students typically encounter in most classroom settings. Students are most commonly given well-structured problems which have clear solution paths along with well-defined constraints and goals. This paper reports on research that examines how undergraduate engineering students perceived solving an ill-structured problem. Eighteen undergraduate civil engineering students were asked to solve an ill-structured engineering problem, and were interviewed after they completed solving the problem. This qualitative study is guided by the following research question: What factors do students perceive to influence their solving of an ill-structured civil engineering problem? Students’ responses to seven follow-up interview questions were transcribed and reviewed by research team members, which were used to develop codes and themes associated with these responses. Students’ transcripts were then coded following the developed codes. The analysis of data revealed that students were generally aware of the main positives and negatives of their proposed solutions to the ill-structured problem and reported that their creativity influenced their solutions and problem solving processes. Student responses also indicated that specific life events such as classes that they had taken, personal experiences, and exposure to other ill-structured problems during an internship helped them develop their proposed solution. Given students’ responses and overall findings, this supports creating learning environments for engineering students where they can support increasing their creativity and be more exposed to complex engineering problems. 

   more » « less
5. A Qualitative Analysis of How a Student, Faculty, and Practicing Engineer Approach an Ill-structured Engineering Problem

   Akinci-Ceylan, S; Cetin, KS; Ahn, B; Cetin, B; Surovek, A (June 2020, 2020 ASEE Virtual Annual Conference)

   Solving open-ended complex problems is an essential part of being an engineer and one of the qualities needed in an engineering workplace. In order to help undergraduate engineering students develop such qualities and better prepare them for their future careers, this study is a preliminary effort to explore the problem solving approaches adopted by a student, faculty, and practicing engineer in civil engineering. As part of an ongoing NSF-funded study, this paper qualitatively investigates how three participants solve an ill-structured engineering problem. This study is guided by the following research question: What are the similarities and differences between a student, faculty, and practicing engineer in the approach to solve an ill-structured engineering problem? Verbal protocol analysis was used to answer this research question. Participants were asked to verbalize their response while they worked on the proposed problem. This paper includes a detailed analysis of the observed problem solving processes of the participants. Our preliminary findings indicate some distinct differences between the student, professor, and practicing engineer in their problem solving approaches. The student and practicing engineer used their prior knowledge to develop a solution, while the faculty did not make any connection to outside knowledge. It was also observed that the faculty and practicing engineer spent a great deal of time on feasibility and safety issues, whereas the student spent more time detailing the tool that would be used as their solution. Through additional data collection and analysis, we will better understand the similarities and differences between students, professionals, and faculty in terms of how they approach an ill-structured problem. This study will provide insights that will lead to the development of ways to better prepare engineering students to solve complex problems. 

   more » « less