An official website of the United States government
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
Civil engineering students as avoidant actors: Using culturally relevant problem‐solving to increase critical action attitudes
Abstract BackgroundCivil engineers design systems that have the potential to impact existing oppressive societal conditions. Critical action—the ability to recognize and act against oppressive conditions—is an obligation for civil engineers committed to building a more just world. Purpose/HypothesisHistory reveals that civil engineers often do not take critical action and accrediting bodies (e.g., ABET) have responded by creating requirements to consider social factors and contexts. Considering these endeavors, we ask: To what extent do civil engineering students demonstrate critical action attitudes when prompted by engineering problem‐solving? In what ways does culturally relevant problem‐solving influence critical action attitudes? Design/MethodEmploying transformative action as a theoretical framework, we assessed students' responses to a design question on three levels that perpetuate or disrupt oppression (avoidant, destructive, and critical action). The empirical study used qualitative and quantitative analysis to examine survey responses of 375 civil engineering undergraduate students across 12 US universities. ResultsThe results showed that engineering students largely avoided discussing taking critical action, remaining focused on technical and nontechnical factors that evaded acknowledgement of sociopolitical factors. Nevertheless, when exposed to culturally relevant problem‐solving, students showed a statistically significant increase in both critical and destructive action responses. ConclusionsWe posit that students' exposure to culturally relevant problem‐solving can enhance students' critical action attitudes. The results call on the need for civil engineering educators to cultivate culturally relevant problem‐solving in civil engineering curriculum.
more »
« less
- Award ID(s):
- 1763204
- PAR ID:
- 10493353
- Publisher / Repository:
- Journal of Engineering Education
- Date Published:
- Journal Name:
- Journal of Engineering Education
- Volume:
- 112
- Issue:
- 2
- ISSN:
- 1069-4730
- Page Range / eLocation ID:
- 262 to 283
- Format(s):
- Medium: X
- Sponsoring Org:
- National Science Foundation
More Like this
-
-
Abstract BackgroundEngineering curricula are built around faculty and accreditors' perceptions of what knowledge, skills, and abilities graduates will need in engineering careers. However, the people making these decisions may not be fully aware of what industry employers require for engineering graduates. Purpose/HypothesisThe purpose of this study is to determine how industry employer‐sought professional and technical skills vary among engineering disciplines and levels of education. Design/MethodUsing a large sample (n = 26,103) of mined job advertisements, we use the O*NET skills database to determine the frequencies of different professional and technical skills for biomedical, civil, chemical, electrical, environmental, and mechanical engineers with bachelor's, master's, and PhD degrees. ResultsThe most frequently sought professional skill is problem‐solving; the most frequently sought technical skills across disciplines are Microsoft Office software and computer‐aided design software. Although not the most frequently requested skills, job advertisements including the Python and MATLAB programming languages paid significantly higher salaries than those without. ConclusionsThe findings of this study have important implications for engineering program leaders and curriculum designers choosing which skills to teach students so that they are best prepared to get and excel in engineering jobs. The results also show which skills students can prioritize investing their time in so that they receive the largest financial return on their investment.more » « less
-
Abstract BackgroundReal‐world engineering problems are ill‐defined and complex, and solving them may arouse negative epistemic affect (feelings experienced within problem‐solving). These feelings fall into sequenced patterns (affective pathways). Over time, these patterns can alter students' attitudes toward engineering. Meta‐affect (affect or cognition about affect) can shape or reframe affective pathways, changing a student's problem‐solving experience. Purpose/Hypothesis(es)This paper examines epistemic affect and meta‐affect in undergraduate students solving ill‐defined problems called open‐ended modeling problems (OEMPs), addressing two research questions: What epistemic affect and transitions between different affective states do students report? And, how does meta‐affect shape students' affective experiences? Design/MethodWe examined 11 retrospective interviews with nine students performed across two semesters in which students completed OEMPs. Using inductive and deductive coding with discourse analysis, we systematically searched for expressions conveying epistemic affect and for transitions in affect; we performed additional deductive coding of the transcripts for meta‐affect and synthesized these results to formulate narratives related to affect and meta‐affect. ResultsTogether, the expressions, transitions, and meta‐affect suggest different types of student experiences. Depending on their meta‐affect, students either recounted experiences dominated by positive or negative affect, or else they experienced negative emotions as productive. ConclusionsIll‐defined complex problems elicit a wide range of positive and negative emotions and provide opportunities to practice affective regulation and productive meta‐affect. Viewing the OEMPs as authentic disciplinary experiences and/or the ability to view negative emotions as productive can enable overall positive experiences. Our results provide insight into how instructors can foster positive affective pathways through problem‐scaffolding or their interactions with students.more » « less
-
Problem solving is an essential part of engineering. Research shows that students are not exposed to ill-structured problems in the engineering classrooms as much as well-structured problems and do not feel as confident and comfortable solving them. There have been several studies on how engineering students solve and perceive ill-structured problems, however, understanding engineering faculty’s perceptions of teaching and solving such problems is important as well. Since it is the engineering faculty who teach students how to approach engineering problems, it is essential to understand how they perceive solving and teaching of these problems. The following research question has guided this research: What beliefs do engineering faculty have about teaching and solving ill-structured problems? Ten tenure-track or tenured faculty in civil engineering from various universities across the U.S. were interviewed after solving an ill-structured engineering problem. Their responses were transcribed and coded. The findings suggest that faculty generally preferred to teach both well-structured and ill-structured problems in their courses. They also acknowledge the advantages of ill-structured problems, in that they promote critical thinking, require creativity, and are more challenging. However, the results showed that some are less likely to use ill-structured problems in their teaching compared to well-structured problems. We also found that faculty became more comfortable teaching ill-structured problems as they gain more experience in teaching these types of problems. Faculty’s responses showed that while they solve ill-structured problems as part of their research on a regular basis, some faculty do not integrate these problems in the classes that they teach. These results indicate that although faculty recognize the importance of using ill-structured problems while teaching, the lack of experience with teaching these problems, other faculty responsibilities, and the complex nature of these problems make it challenging for engineering faculty to incorporate these problems into the engineering classroom. Based on these findings, in order to improve faculty’s comfort and willingness to use ill-structured problems in their teaching, recommendations for faculty are provided in the paper.more » « less
-
That the school-to-work transition can be challenging for many recent engineering graduates is well known [1]–[7]. However, current students and faculty rarely get an opportunity to learn directly from the mistakes, regrets, and hindsight of recent graduates during their first few years in the workplace. In order to help make students’ transition to engineering practice easier, and, relatedly, to help faculty prepare them in salient ways, this paper addresses the following research questions: 1) What do newcomer civil engineers believe are the biggest mistakes they made in their first few years on the job? and 2) If they could go back to when they began their jobs, what would they have done differently? As part of a mixed-methods, longitudinal study that aims to explore organizational socialization in engineering practice, sixteen early career civil engineers who worked in different firms around the country were asked about their work experiences, including their biggest mistakes and what they would have done differently at work knowing what they know now. Participants said their biggest mistakes related to not asking enough questions, undervaluing/not advocating for oneself, and staying in a position they dislike. Less mentioned issues included specific personal habits, attitudes, and unrealistic expectations from university education. When asked what they would have done differently from the first day at work until now, most responses related to having more confidence, networking and socializing more, and other specific personal behaviors, such as better organization. Less mentioned themes included requesting a higher salary, asking more questions, learning more material, and advocating for their own interests. The results have important implications for successfully preparing civil engineering students to begin their careers. By identifying these gaps in preparation, the paper points to recommendations for the civil engineering community.more » « less
- Free Publicly Accessible Full Text
-
Accepted Manuscript1.0
- Journal Article:
- https://doi.org/10.1002/jee.20507
