Search for: All records

Situated cognition theory suggests that representations of concepts are products of the environment wherein we learn and apply concepts. This research builds on situated cognition by investigating how concepts are tangible to a professional engineering environment.

The tangibility of concepts in relation to social and material contexts was defined and explored in this study. Specifically, the conceptual representations of structural loads were examined within workplace and academic environments.

A researcher conducted ethnographic fieldwork at a private engineering firm and in undergraduate engineering courses. Data sources from this fieldwork included the ethnographer's participant‐observation field notes, formal and informal interviews, and artifact documentation.

Findings from this study described how academic representations of structural loads are more or less tangible to the social and material contexts of engineering practice. Representations documented in the workplace were found to be tangible to (1) real‐world conditions, (2) project/stakeholder constraints, and (3) engineering tools. Conversely, representations documented in the courses studied exhibited various degrees of tangibility to none, some, or all of these three traits.

These findings explicitly identify the ways in which representations of structural loads differ across academic and workplace environments and how these differences may contribute to the education–practice gap. Specific suggestions for making academic representations more tangible to workplace environments are provided based on findings from in the workplace, previous engineering education literature, and best practices observed in the courses studied. Future research considerations and the value of ethnographic methodology to situated cognition theory are also discussed.

 

The following is a Theory paper that presents an ethnographic exploration into how concepts are situated in workplace and classroom settings. Situated cognition research demonstrates that different contexts wherein learning occurs and knowledge is applied shape our conceptual understanding. Within engineering education and practice this means that practitioners, students, and instructors demonstrate different ways of representing their conceptual knowledge due to the different contexts wherein they learn and apply engineering concepts. The purpose of this paper is to present themes on how practitioners, students, and instructors represent fundamental structural engineering concepts within the contexts of structural engineering design. By representation of concepts we mean the ways in which practitioners, students, and instructors portray and demonstrate their conceptual understanding of concepts through the social and material contexts of the workplace and classroom environments. Previous research on learning and engineering education has shown the influence that social and material contexts within these environments have on our knowing and understanding. The researchers use ethnographic methods consisting of workplace and classroom observations, interviews with practitioners, students, and instructors, and documentation of workplace and academic artifacts—such as drawings, calculations, and notes—to access practitioners’, students’, and instructors’ conceptual representations. These ethnographic methods are conducted at a private engineering firm and in 300 and 400 level structural engineering courses. Preliminary results indicate that instructors’ conceptual representations in the classroom aim to enhance students’ broader understanding of these concepts; whereas students’ conceptual representations are focused towards utility in solving homework and exam problems. Practitioners’ conceptual representations are more flexible and adapt to project and workplace constraints. These results seem to indicate that even when instructors emphasize broader conceptual knowledge, the academic incentives behind homework and test scores lead to more academically focused conceptual representations by students. Furthermore, practitioners’ conceptual representations indicate the necessity of conceptual fluency in the workplace, which contrasts with the rigidity of conceptual representations that students develop in the classroom. This comparison between workplace and academic conceptual representations enhances our understanding of the extent to which students, instructors, and practitioners share similar or different conceptual representations within the domain of structural engineering. This, in turn, may lead to guided curriculum reform efforts aimed at better preparing structural engineering students for their professional careers.