More Like this

1. Navigating the Theory-to-Practice Gap: Insights from a Process Safety Education Pilot Study

   Butler-Morton, Brittany L; Ritz, Cayla; Miskioglu, Elif; Bodnar, Cheryl A; Dringenberg, Emily (June 2024, American Society for Engineering Education (ASEE) PEER)

   As engineering students transition from their undergraduate education into their first full-time roles within industry, they are often facing a two year induction period as a result of a Theory-to-Practice gap (Gao & Rhinehart, 2004; Rhinehart, 2019, Rhinehart 2015). The gap between engineering students and industry practitioners can be the result of many different factors: students learning complex and fundamental concepts through simple problems, students having difficulty combining knowledge from different courses to solve realistic scenarios, or the lack of time students have to master these concepts (Rhinehart, 2015). This two year induction period causes problems for the company, the individuals, and for higher education, so it is important to identify areas where this gap exists and how it can potentially be mitigated. One area worthy of investigation related to the Theory to Practice gap is the field of process safety education due to its significant impact on professional practice. This pilot study sought to gain an initial understanding of what differences may exist between how experienced industry practitioners and undergraduate engineering students approach process safety judgments. We used this data as a means for determining if approaches to process safety judgments may be an area related to where this gap has been observed. As part of the pilot study, we conducted interviews with both students and practitioners where we provided them with a list of competing criteria that are relevant to process safety judgements such as time, production, and relationships, and then asked them to describe their approach to making process safety judgments given five specific scenarios. We found that industry practitioners and students were both relying on previous experience when describing their approaches to process safety judgments. Practitioners related the scenarios to prior work place events, while students connected them to problems they learned about in class, internships, or retail jobs. A noted difference between industry practitioners and students was that industry practitioners also described being heavily influenced by relationships with co-workers, superiors, and families when approaching these judgments, which seemed to be lacking in the student responses. Past process safety incidents, as documented by the United States Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board (CSB), have shown that the dynamics of relationships can have an impact on judgment processes which lead to detrimental results. The findings from this study provide additional support for the role of relationships in process safety judgments and the need for process safety instruction that addresses this role. Moving forward, it will be important to expose undergraduate students to the role of relationships in judgment-making processes so that we can better prepare them to navigate the complexities of process safety judgments. 

   more » « less
2. Navigating the Theory-to-Practice Gap: Insights from a Process Safety Education Pilot Study

   Butler-Morton, Brittany L; Ritz, Cayla; Miskioglu, Elif; Bodnar, Cheryl A; Dringenberg, Emily (June 2024, American Society for Engineering Education (ASEE) PEER)

   As engineering students transition from their undergraduate education into their first full-time roles within industry, they are often facing a two year induction period as a result of a Theory-to-Practice gap (Gao & Rhinehart, 2004; Rhinehart, 2019, Rhinehart 2015). The gap between engineering students and industry practitioners can be the result of many different factors: students learning complex and fundamental concepts through simple problems, students having difficulty combining knowledge from different courses to solve realistic scenarios, or the lack of time students have to master these concepts (Rhinehart, 2015). This two year induction period causes problems for the company, the individuals, and for higher education, so it is important to identify areas where this gap exists and how it can potentially be mitigated. One area worthy of investigation related to the Theory to Practice gap is the field of process safety education due to its significant impact on professional practice. This pilot study sought to gain an initial understanding of what differences may exist between how experienced industry practitioners and undergraduate engineering students approach process safety judgments. We used this data as a means for determining if approaches to process safety judgments may be an area related to where this gap has been observed. As part of the pilot study, we conducted interviews with both students and practitioners where we provided them with a list of competing criteria that are relevant to process safety judgements such as time, production, and relationships, and then asked them to describe their approach to making process safety judgments given five specific scenarios. We found that industry practitioners and students were both relying on previous experience when describing their approaches to process safety judgments. Practitioners related the scenarios to prior work place events, while students connected them to problems they learned about in class, internships, or retail jobs. A noted difference between industry practitioners and students was that industry practitioners also described being heavily influenced by relationships with co-workers, superiors, and families when approaching these judgments, which seemed to be lacking in the student responses. Past process safety incidents, as documented by the United States Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board (CSB), have shown that the dynamics of relationships can have an impact on judgment processes which lead to detrimental results. The findings from this study provide additional support for the role of relationships in process safety judgments and the need for process safety instruction that addresses this role. Moving forward, it will be important to expose undergraduate students to the role of relationships in judgment-making processes so that we can better prepare them to navigate the complexities of process safety judgments. 

   more » « less
3. 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
4. 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
5. Theorizing Engineering Judgment at the Intersection of Decision-Making and Identity

   Royce A. Francis, Marie C. (January 2022, Studies in engineering education)

   Engineering judgment is critical to both engineering education and engineering practice, and the ability to practice or participate in engineering judgment is often considered central to the formation of professional engineering identities. In practice, engineers must make difficult judgments that evaluate potentially competing objectives, ambiguity, uncertainty, incomplete information, and evolving technical knowledge. Nonetheless, while engineering judgment is implicit in engineering work and so central to identification with the profession, educators and practitioners have few actionable frameworks to employ when considering how to develop and assess this capacity in students. In this paper, we propose a theoretical framework designed to inform both educators and researchers that positions engineering judgment at the intersection of the cognitive dimensions of naturalistic decision-making, and discursive dimensions of identity. Our proposed theory positions engineering judgment not only as an individual capacity practiced by individual engineers alone but also as the capacity to position oneself within the discursive community so as to participate in the construction of engineering judgments among a group of professionals working together. Our theory draws on several strands of existing research to theorize a working framework for engineering judgment that considers the cognitive processes associated with making judgments and the inextricable discursive practices associated with negotiating those judgments in context. In constructing this theory, we seek to provide engineering education practitioners and researchers with a framework that can inform the design of assignments, curricula, or experiences that are intended to foster students’ participation in the development and practice of engineering judgment. 

   more » « less