An official website of the United States government
It is well-established that students have difficulty transferring theory and skills between courses in their undergraduate curriculum. At the same time, many college-level courses only concern material relating to the course itself and do not cover how this material might be used elsewhere. It is unsurprising, then, that students are unable to transfer and integrate knowledge from multiple areas into new problems as part of capstone design courses, for example, or in their careers. More work is required to better enable students to transfer knowledge between their courses, learn skills and theory more deeply, and to form engineers who are better able to adapt to new situations and solve “systems-level” problems. Various authors in both the cognitive and disciplinary sciences have discussed these difficulties with the transfer of knowledge, and noted the need to develop tools and techniques for promoting knowledge transfer, as well as to help students develop cross-course connections. This work will address these barriers to knowledge transfer, and crucially develop the needed activities and practices for promoting transfer by answering the following research questions: (1) What are the primary challenges experienced by students when tasked with transferring theory and skills from prior courses, specifically mathematics and physics? (2) What methods of prior knowledge activation are most effective in enabling students to apply this prior knowledge in new areas of study? Here, we present a summary, to date, of the findings of this investigation. These findings are based on an analysis of the problem solving techniques employed by students in various years of their undergraduate program as well as faculty experts. A series of n=23 think aloud interviews have been conducted in which participants were asked to solve a typical engineering statics problem that also requires mathematical skills to solve. Based on participant performance and verbalizations in these interviews, various barriers to the knowledge transfer process were identified (lack of prior knowledge, accuracy of prior knowledge, conceptual understanding, lack of teaching of applications, language of problem, curricular mapping). At the same time, several interventions designed to promote the transfer of knowledge were incorporated into the interviews and tested. Initial results demonstrated the potential effectiveness of these interventions (detailed in the poster/paper) but questions were raised as to whether participants truly understood the underlying concepts they were being asked to transfer. This poster presentation will cover a holistic representation of this study as well as the findings to date.
more »
« less
This content will become publicly available on June 1, 2026
Investigation of student and faculty problem solving: An example from quantum mechanics
We describe a study focusing on students' and faculty members' reasoning about problems of differing cognitive complexity related to the double-slit experiment (DSE) with single particles. In the first phase of the study, students in advanced quantum mechanics courses were asked these questions in written form. Additionally, individual interviews were conducted with ten students in which they were asked follow-up questions to make their thought processes explicit on the challenging problems. Students did well on the straightforward problem, showing they had some knowledge of the DSE after traditional instruction, but they struggled on the more complex ones. Even if explicitly asked to do so in interviews, students were often uncomfortable performing calculations or making approximations and simplifications, instead preferring to stick with their gut feeling. In the second phase of the study, the problems were broken down into more pointed questions to investigate whether students had knowledge of relevant concepts, whether they would do calculations as part of their solution approach if explicitly asked, and whether they explicitly noted using their gut feeling. While the faculty members' responses suggest that they could seamlessly move between conceptual and quantitative reasoning, most students were unable to combine concepts represented by different equations to solve the problems quantitatively. We conclude with instructional implications.
more »
« less
- Award ID(s):
- 2309260
- PAR ID:
- 10597714
- Editor(s):
- Parks, Beth
- Publisher / Repository:
- American Association of Physics Teachers
- Date Published:
- Journal Name:
- American journal of physics
- Volume:
- 93
- Issue:
- 6
- ISSN:
- 0002-9505
- Page Range / eLocation ID:
- 492 to 498
- Subject(s) / Keyword(s):
- double slit experiment in modern physics course and quantum mechanics course
- Format(s):
- Medium: X
- Sponsoring Org:
- National Science Foundation
More Like this
-
-
Kucina Softic, S. (Ed.)In this exploratory study, we report results from interviews with 49 students at a large public urban university in the US who enrolled in at least one course online. In line with the literature, many students cited work or family reasons for enrolling in an online course. However, when asked at the end of the interview whether there were any other life events that impacted the time and energy that they had for their studies, 73% of the students cited at least one additional external stressor, and many of them cited up to three or four different categories of external stressors. These included illness/disability, death in the family, caretaking responsibilities, and housing instability, among others. One particularly striking result is that 89% of the external stressors reported by students in response to the final questions of the interview had not been volunteered by students when they were originally asked why they enrolled online or what factors impacted their course outcomes—this suggests that the prevalence of these more complex environmental factors may go underreported in studies that do not ask about them explicitly.more » « less
-
In this paper, we discuss the results from our study on the experiences of first-year Black and Brown engineering students in engineering teams. This work is part of ongoing research on identifying teams engaging in marginalizing behaviors against minoritized (race, gender, LGBTQ identity, nationality) students. Using a diary study methodology, we explore the team experiences of Black and Brown students by examining two research questions: 1) what does racial marginalization look like within engineering classrooms where teamwork is a primary feature and 2) what experiences from the dairies inform researchers and faculty about participants’ experiences and personal knowledge of how race and racism operates in teams. We identified two central themes: 1) participants often avoided conversations when race could be a potential topic, and 2) participants believed that racism was a normal part of teams (in both the classroom and workplace). Participants explained that even if race was not explicitly discussed during their group work, they sensed that implicit bias and discrimination were affecting their experience. Further, when we asked participants how to increase support related to their teaming experience, they reported feeling unsure of what can be done to eliminate behaviors of racism and marginalization from engineering education. The participants expressed that change needed to happen so that other Black and Brown students are welcomed into the field, but that no one on campus (peers, faculty, and staff) has asked them about ideas for change. This diary study provides important insights into how Black and Brown engineering students contextualize their experience with marginalizing behaviors in teams.more » « less
-
Within chemistry education, there are various curricular and pedagogical approaches that aim to improve teaching and learning in chemistry. Efforts to characterize these transformations have primarily focused on student reasoning and performance, and little work has been done to explore student perceptions of curricular and pedagogical transformations and whether these perceptions align with the transformational intent. To complement our previous work on the Organic Chemistry, Life, the Universe, and Everything (OCLUE) curriculum, we developed this exploratory study to determine if students had perceived the goals of the transformation. As in our previous research on OCLUE, we compared perceptions between OCLUE and a more traditional organic chemistry course. Using inductive and deductive qualitative methodologies, we analyzed student responses to three open-eneded questions focused on how students perceived they were expected to think, what they found most difficult, and how they perceived they were assessed. The findings were classified into three superodinate themes: one where students perceived they were expected to learn things as rote knowledge, such as memorization (“Rote Knowledge”), another where students perceived they were expected to use their knowledge (“Use of Knowledge”), and responses that used vague, generalized language, were uninformative, or did not address the questions asked (“Other”). Students in these two courses responded very differently to the open-ended questions with students in OCLUE being more likely to perceive they were expected to use their knowledge, while students in the traditional course reported rote learning or memorization more frequently. As the findings evolved, our interpretations and discussions were influenced by sociocultural perspectives and other cultural frameworks. We believe this approach can provide meaningful insights into transformational intent and certain features of classroom cultures.more » « less
-
Sacristán, A. I.; Cortés-Zavala, J. C.; Ruiz-Arias, P. M. (Ed.)What impact, if any, do interesting lessons have on the types of questions students ask? To explore this question, we used lesson observations of six teachers from three high schools in the Northeast who were part of a larger study. Lessons come from a range of courses, spanning Algebra through Calculus. After each lesson, students reported interest via lesson experience surveys (Author, 2019). These interest measures were then used to identify each teachers’ highest and lowest interest lessons. The two lessons per teacher allows us to compare across the same set of students per teacher. We compiled 145 student questions and identified whether questions were asked within a group work setting or part of a whole class discussion. Two coders coded 10% of data to improve the rubric for type of students’ questions (what, why, how, and if) and perceived intent (factual, procedural, reasoning, and exploratory). Factual questions asked for definitions or explicit answers. Procedural questions were raised when students looked for algorithms or a solving process. Reasoning questions asked about why procedures worked, or facts were true. Exploratory questions expanded beyond the topic of focus, such as asking about changing the parameters to make sense of a problem. The remaining 90% of data were coded independently to determine interrater reliability (see Landis & Koch, 1977). A Cohen’s Kappa statistic (K=0.87, p<0.001) indicates excellent reliability. Furthermore, both coders reconciled codes before continuing with data analysis. Initial results showed differences between high- and low-interest lessons. Although students raised fewer mathematical questions in high-interest lessons (59) when compared with low-interest lessons (86), high-interest lessons contained more “exploratory” questions (10 versus 6). A chi-square test of independence shows a significant difference, χ2 (3, N = 145) = 12.99, p = .005 for types of students’ questions asked in high- and low-interest lessons. The high-interest lessons had more student questions arise during whole class discussions, whereas low-interest lessons had more student questions during group work. By partitioning each lesson into acts at points where the mathematical content shifted, we were able to examine through how many acts questions remained open. The average number of acts the students’ questions remained unanswered for high-interest lessons (2.66) was higher than that of low-interest lessons (1.68). Paired samples t-tests suggest that this difference is significant t(5)=2.58, p = 0.049. Therefore, student interest in the lesson did appear to impact the type of questions students ask. One possible reason for the differences in student questions is the nature of the lessons students found interesting, which may allow for student freedom to wonder and chase their mathematical ideas. There may be more overall student questions in low-interest lessons because of confusion, but more research is needed to unpack the reasoning behind student questions.more » « less
