Search for: All records

In this research paper, we investigate the structure and validity of survey data related to students’ framing agency. In order to promote increased opportunities for students to engage in and learn to frame design problems that are innovative and empathetic, there is a need for instruments that can provide information about student progress and the quality of learning experiences. This is a complex problem because, compared to problem solving, design problem framing is less studied and harder to predict due to the higher levels of student agency involved. To address this issue, we developed a survey to measure framing agency, which is defined as opportunities to frame and reframe design problems and learn in the process. This study extends past research which focused on the construct of framing agency and developing an instrument to measure it following best practices in survey design, including using exploratory factor analysis of pilot data, which recovered six factors related to shared and individual consequentiality, problem structure and constrainedness, and learning. However, as a pilot, the sample limited generalizability; the current study addresses this limitation. We used a national cohort that included multiple engineering disciplines (biomedical, mechanical, chemical, electrical, computer, aerospace), types of formal design projects (e.g., first-year, design-spine, senior capstone) and institution types, including private religious; Hispanic-serving; public land-grant; and research flagship institutions (N=449). We report sample characteristics and used confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) to provide validity evidence, reporting the chi-square and standardized root mean square residual as estimates of fit. We report Cronbach’s alpha as a measure of internal consistency. We found that overall, the CFA aligned with the prior exploratory results, in this case, recovering four factors, measured on a seven-point scale: shared consequentiality (the extent to which the student identifies that their understanding of the problem changed as result of a teammate’s decision, M = 6.15; SD = 1.13); learning as consequentiality (the extent to which the student identifies learning as the result of decisions, M = 5.88; SD = 0.98); constrainedness (the extent to which the student reports the ability to make decisions despite design constraints, M = 4.95; SD = 1.49); and shared tentativeness (the extent to which the student identifies uncertainty about the problem and solution, M = 4.02; SD = 1.76). This suggests the survey can provide valid data for instructional decisions and further research into how students learn to frame engineering design problems and what role framing plays in their professional formation. 

Problem-based learning (PBL) is gaining momentum in engineering education as a student-centered teaching approach that engages students in problems that mirror realities of practice. While the goal of this pedagogical approach is to more authentically prepare and train students for success in the field, it can be both challenging and frustrating for faculty to effectively implement. In this research paper, the opinions of faculty experts from aerospace engineering and PBL are considered. Data were collected through two structured focus groups to identify areas deemed critical for the transition of an introductory, second-year aerospace engineering course to PBL at an R1 university on the East Coast of the United States. Four different dimensions of PBL integration were considered: design, learning objectives, implementation/facilitation, and assessment. Through a thematic analysis of focus group transcripts, results showed that while the experts identified many areas that were critical to consider during this transition, there are important areas of divergence among the expert groups. In fact, areas of distinct opposition were exposed. This study highlights the importance of considering feedback from both content/technical experts and pedagogical design experts during the development and integration of PBL and lays the groundwork for further exploration of if and how consensus between these two groups can be found to support improved curriculum development. 

Problem-based learning (PBL) is recognized as a pedagogical approach that is well-suited to preparing engineering students for the realities of the profession, but there are persistent implementation challenges that serve as barriers to broad adoption. This systematic literature review focuses on three facets of PBL – design, facilitation, and assessment – in search of operational guidelines for engineering faculty considering a transition to PBL. Findings led to two broad conclusions. First, there is a need for research on methods to support engineering faculty in problem design. Second, while current research provides thorough support for PBL facilitation and suggestions for assessment, there is a need for additional research to evaluate the efficacy of the various models of facilitation and assessment suggested by the literature. 

A key challenge in engineering design problem framing is defining requirements and metrics. This is difficult, in part, because engineers must make decisions about how to treat qualitative and subjective issues, like stakeholder preferences, about how to prioritize different requirements, and about how to maintain tentativeness and ill-structuredness in the solution space. And this is made more challenging in light of the function of requirements in other types of engineering problems, like feasibility analysis, in which the requirements should converge on a decision. Given these challenges, it is unsurprising that there is limited research on how first-year students approach such work, how they make sense of requirements, and how their conceptualizations of requirements change with instruction. Our purpose in this study is to investigate students’ initial understanding and use of engineering requirements in a specific problem solving context. We developed a survey to measure students’ perceptions related to engineering requirements based on constructs derived from the literature on engineering requirements. We implemented the survey in a first-year and in senior courses for the purpose of validating items using factor analysis. Following this, we conducted analysis of survey and interview data restricted to the first-year course, including epistemic beliefs and analysis of students’ agency. Through exploratory factor analysis, we found that factors did not converge around constructs as described in the literature. Rather, factors formed around the forms of information leveraged to develop requirements. Through qualitative analysis of students’ responses on the survey and to interviews, we evaluated the extent to which students expressed agency over their use of requirements to make decisions within a course project. We describe implications of this exploratory study in terms of adapting research instruments to better understand this topic. Further, we consider pedagogical implications for first year programs and beyond in supporting students to develop ownership over decision making related to engineering requirements. 

This full paper is focused on research into how educators might use concept mapping to explore and design learning experiences in a problem-based learning environment. Attempts to incorporate more open-ended, ill-structured experiences have increased but are challenging for faculty to implement because there are no systematic methods or approaches that support the educator in designing these learning experiences. In the reported work, we present an exploratory study toward a systematic approach for comparing and manipulating problems. The approach combines concept mapping with Jonassen’s characterization of problems and the forms of knowledge required to solve them. We explore manipulation pathways for a problem that can be pursued by an instructor who is interested in impacting the dimensions of structuredness and complexity. We compare similarities and differences among two problems taken from introductory aerospace engineering courses. We consider manipulation of structuredness and complexity and the change propagation in forms of knowledge and solution pathways. 

Introduction: The work reported here subscribes to the idea that the best way to learn - and thus, improve student educational outcomes - is through solving problems, yet recognizes that engineering students are generally provided insufficient opportunities to engage problems as they will be engaged in practice. Attempts to incorporate more open-ended, ill-structured experiences have increased but are challenging for faculty to implement because there are no systematic methods or approaches that support the educator in designing these learning experiences. Instead, faculty often start from the anchor of domain-specific concepts, an anchoring that is further reinforced by available textbook problems that are rarely open in nature. Open-ended problems are then created in ad-hoc ways, and in doing so, the problem-solving experience is often not realized as the instructor intended. Approach: The focus in this work is the development and preliminary implementation of a reflective approach to support instructors in examining the design intent of problem experiences. The reflective method combines concept mapping as developed by Joseph Novak with the work of David Jonassen and his characterization of problems and the forms of knowledge required to solve them. Results: We report on the development of a standard approach – a template -- for concept mapping of problems. As a demonstration, we applied the approach to a relatively simple, well-structured problem used in an introductory aerospace engineering course. Educator-created concept maps provided a visual medium for examining the connectivity of problem elements and forms of knowledge. Educator reflection after looking at and discussing the concept map revealed ways in which the problem engagement may differ from the perceived design intent. Implications: We consider the potential for the proposed method to support design and facilitation activities in problem-based learning (PBL) environments. We explore broader implications of the approach as it relates to 1) facilitating a priori faculty insights regarding student navigation of problem solving, 2) instructor reflection on problem design and facilitation, and 3) supporting problem design and facilitation. Additionally, we highlight important issues to be further investigated toward quantifying the value and limitations of the proposed approach. 

Supporting students to frame design problems is one of the most challenging aspects of engineering education, and as faculty, sharing agency with students, such that they have framing agency to make decisions that are consequential to the problem frame is difficult. In this paper, we report on students’ progress framing authentic problems early and after four months of work. Set in a high-agency, co-curricular intramural program where students work on interdisciplinary design projects, we found, using surveys and student work, that early in the process, students reported open-ended problems constrained somewhat by budget or design requirements. Over time, they came to recognize their own limitations as constraining, became more tentative in their treatment of the problem, and reported opportunities to learn from their own and peers’ decisions. Students who reported opportunities to learn also reported working on somewhat more constrained problems yet being able to make consequential decisions. Collectively, this suggests problems that offer a Goldilocks middle ground, that include endemic constraints yet allow students to make consequential decisions may be a key ingredient for developing problem framing capacity. We share instructional implications related to supporting students to differentiate between design requirements and constraints, in shifting from qualitative understandings to quantitative requirements and their role in doing so, and navigating their own limitations.