More Like this

1. Engineering Judgment and Decision Making in Undergraduate Student Writing

   Francis, R.; Paretti, M. C.; Riedner, R. (July 2021, 2021 ASEE Virtual Annual Conference Content Access)

   null (Ed.)

   In this paper, we argue that the exploration of engineering judgment in undergraduate education should be grounded at the intersection of decision making, situated cognition, and engineering identity production. In our view, engineering judgment is an embodied cognitive process that is situated in written and oral communication, involved with immediate praxis, and takes place within the contexts of standards and traditions of the engineering communities of practice. Moreover, engineering judgment is constituted as authoritative communication tasks that draw on the subject’s and audience’s common experiences and knowledge base for its clarity and persuasive power (e.g., Weedon (2019), "The role of rhetoric in engineering judgment," IEEE Trans. Prof. Commun. 62(2):165-177). The objective of this work short essay is to review the engineering education literature with the aim of synthesizing the concept of engineering judgment from theories of decision-making, identity, communities of practice, and discourse communities. Although the rationale for developing engineering judgment in undergraduate students is the complexity they will face in professional practice, engineering educators often considerably reduce the complexity of the problems students face (with learning engineering judgement or with engineering judgment in their undergraduate education?). Student work intended to train engineering judgment often prescribes goals and objectives, and demands a one-time decision, product, or solution that faculty or instructors evaluate. The evaluation process might not contain formal methods for foregrounding feedback from experience or reflecting on how the problem or decision emerges; thus, the loop from decision to upstream cognitive processes might not be closed. Consequently, in this paper, our exploration of engineering judgment is guided by the following questions: How have investigators researchers? defined engineering judgment? What are the potential limitations of existing definitions? How can existing definitions be expanded upon? What cognitive processes do students engage to make engineering judgments? How do communication tasks shape students’ engineering judgments? In what ways does engineer identity production shape students’ engineering judgments? How might a definition of engineering judgement suggest areas for improving undergraduate education? 

   more » « less
2. Engineering judgment and decision making in undergraduate student writing

   Francis, Royce; Riedner, Rachel; Paretti, Marie C. (July 2021, 2021 ASEE Virtual Annual Conference)

   null (Ed.)

   In this paper, we argue that the exploration of engineering judgment in undergraduate education should be grounded at the intersection of decision making, situated cognition, and engineering identity production. In our view, engineering judgment is an embodied cognitive process that is situated in written and oral communication, involved with immediate praxis, and takes place within the contexts of standards and traditions of the engineering communities of practice. Moreover, engineering judgment is constituted as authoritative communication tasks that draw on the subject’s and audience’s common experiences and knowledge base for its clarity and persuasive power (e.g., Weedon (2019), "The role of rhetoric in engineering judgment," IEEE Trans. Prof. Commun. 62(2):165-177). The objective of this work short essay is to review the engineering education literature with the aim of synthesizing the concept of engineering judgment from theories of decision-making, identity, communities of practice, and discourse communities. Although the rationale for developing engineering judgment in undergraduate students is the complexity they will face in professional practice, engineering educators often considerably reduce the complexity of the problems students face (with learning engineering judgement or with engineering judgment in their undergraduate education?). Student work intended to train engineering judgment often prescribes goals and objectives, and demands a one-time decision, product, or solution that faculty or instructors evaluate. The evaluation process might not contain formal methods for foregrounding feedback from experience or reflecting on how the problem or decision emerges; thus, the loop from decision to upstream cognitive processes might not be closed. Consequently, in this paper, our exploration of engineering judgment is guided by the following questions: How have investigators researchers? defined engineering judgment? What are the potential limitations of existing definitions? How can existing definitions be expanded upon? What cognitive processes do students engage to make engineering judgments? How do communication tasks shape students’ engineering judgments? In what ways does engineer identity production shape students’ engineering judgments? How might a definition of engineering judgement suggest areas for improving undergraduate education? 

   more » « less
3. Board 231: Contextualizing Engineering Science Courses by Teaching History and Judgement

   Bell, Martell C; Johnson, Aaron W; Vitali, Rachel (June 2024, American Society for Engineering Education)

   Engineering programs have long struggled with balancing curricula that are rigorous enough to prepare graduates to be capable practitioners and educational experiences that are engaging enough to retain undergraduate students. Over the past 60 years, data collected from a variety of institutions across the United States capture an alarming trend – only about half of students who start in an engineering program will actually graduate with an engineering degree. Several studies found that the first-year engineering curricula, which traditionally consist of physics, chemistry, and mathematics courses, are ineffective in motivating students to persist in a program. Many students who leave after their first or second year explain that they came to dislike engineering or lost interest in the profession altogether. Together, these findings suggest a mismatch between what incoming students think engineering is and what message they receive during their first two years of a program. To address retention issues in the first year of an engineering program, many institutions now employ a first-year design experience intended to expose students early on to the true nature of engineering [4]. However, the engineering science courses that occupy a significant proportion of the middle two years of a program still most often utilize traditional lecture-based pedagogy and simplified close-ended textbook problems, which do not typically allow students to make the connection between these classes and the engineering design process or the engineering profession. These types of closed-ended problems also do not provide students with the opportunity to engage in the kind of decision-making that leads to developing sound engineering judgement. Recent work developing and studying the effects of open- ended modeling problems define an opportunity to provide students with challenging problems that simultaneously reinforce their understanding of course material and expose them to the realities of engineering practice. This NSF-funded work proposes introducing two different pedagogies into a Mechanical Engineering program at the University of Iowa. The first pedagogy is designed to provide a more holistic contextualization of engineering practice by introducing students to the history of the profession. The second instructional technique is intended to provide students with context for how engineering science concepts are implemented in authentic engineering practice and how engineering judgement is essential in that implementation. This work will aim to understand how historical and/or technical contextualization of what it means to practice engineering can influence the intentions of students, particularly those identifying as underrepresented minorities and women, to persist in a discipline that historically struggles to retain them. With this understanding, changes can be made to undergraduate engineering education to better retain students. 

   more » « less
4. Characterization of problem types in statics textbooks.

   Therriault, D. J. (January 2022, Proceedings of the American Society for Engineering Education)

   This work in progress research paper considers the question, what kind of problems do engineering students commonly solve during their education? Engineering problems have been generally classified as ill-structured/open-ended or well-structured/closed-ended. Various authors have identified the characteristics of ill-structured problems or presented typologies of problems. Simple definitions state that well-structured problems are simple, concrete, and have a single solution, while ill-structured problems are complex, abstract, and have multiple possible solutions (Jonassen, 1997, 2000). More detailed classifications have been provided by Shin, Jonassen, and McGee (2003), Voss (2006), and Johnstone (2001). It is commonly understood that classroom problems are well-structured while workplace problems are ill-structured, but we cannot find any empirical data to confirm or deny this proposition. Engineers commonly encounter ill-structured problems such as design problems in the field therefore problem-solving skills are invaluable and should be taught in engineering courses. This research specifically looks at the types of problems present in the two most commonly used statics textbooks (Hibbeler, 2016; Beer, et al., 2019). All end-of-chapter problems in these textbooks were classified using Jonassen’s (2000) well-known typology of problem types. Out of 3,387 problems between both books, 99% fell into the algorithmic category and the remaining fell into the logic category. These preliminary results provide an understanding of the types of problems engineering students most commonly encounter in their classes. Prior research has documented that textbook example problems exert a strong influence on students' problem-solving strategies (Lee et al., 2013). If instructors only assign textbook problems, students in statics courses do not see any ill-structured problems at that stage in their education. We argue that even in foundational courses such as statics, students should be exposed to ill-structured problems. By providing opportunities for students to solve more ill-structured problems, students can become more familiar with them and become better prepared for the workforce. Moving forward, textbooks from several other courses will be analyzed to determine the difference between a fundamental engineering course such as statics and upper-level courses. This research will allow us to determine how the problem types differ between entry level and advanced classes and reveal if engineering textbooks primarily contain well-structured problems. Keywords: problem solving, textbooks, ill-structured problems 

   more » « less
5. Using a Summer Bridge Program to Develop a Situational Judgment Inventory: From Year 1 to Year 2

   https://doi.org/10.18260/1-2--45493  

   Josiam, Malini; Lee, Walter (February 2024, ASEE Conferences)

   The College of Engineering at [University] offers a comprehensive five-week summer program known as a summer bridge program (SBP) for incoming students. The primary objective of this program is to familiarize first-time-in-college students with the university environment and community, setting them up for success in their academic journey. During this period, students engage in non-credit courses that cover subjects typically deemed challenging and necessary for first-year students, including calculus, chemistry, and engineering fundamentals. In addition to these courses, over the course of the program, students actively participate in informative seminars conducted by different campus offices, providing them with a comprehensive understanding of the wide array of opportunities and resources available to support their them during their academic journey. In the previous year, we organized a workshop during the SBP with a total of 60 participating students. The purpose of this workshop was to gauge students' reactions to a series of open-ended scenarios that reflected potential opportunities and constraints commonly encountered in the field of engineering. Students were given the opportunity to respond to these scenarios both individually and in groups, with each group assigned four unique scenarios. To further enhance our understanding, we also conducted interviews with 11 students. By analyzing the individual and group responses, along with the interview data, we developed a Situational Judgment Inventory (SJI), aggregating students’ open ended responses into closed-ended responses to the scenarios. The primary objective of this SJI is to promote better alignment between students' navigational tendencies and the expectations of professionals regarding students' navigational approaches within the learning environment. The purpose of this presentation is to provide a comprehensive overview of our instrument refinement process and present preliminary findings regarding the anticipated navigational approaches of incoming engineering students. To address this purpose, we conducted a 90-minute workshop with SBP students, where we administered the piloted SJI containing the closed-ended responses we developed earlier. The primary purpose of piloting the SJI was to understand how to enhance the instrument's accuracy in capturing the full spectrum of navigational tendencies that students possess and expect to employ prior to commencing their engineering studies. The quantitative analysis of the pilot results will not only identify areas of improvement for the instrument but also contribute to our understanding of how incoming students anticipate navigating the field of engineering. 

   more » « less