No abstract

Contributors Michael Alley, The Pennsylvania State University; Cindy Atman, University of Washington; David DiBiasio, Worcester Polytechnic Institute; Cindy Finelli, University of Michigan; Heidi Diefes‐Dux, Purdue University; Anette Kolmos, Aalborg University; Donna Riley, Smith College; Sheri Sheppard, Stanford University; Maryellen Weimer, The Pennsylvania State University; Ken Yasuhara, University of Washington Background Although engineering education has evolved in ways that improve the readiness of graduates to meet the challenges of the twenty‐first century, national and international organizations continue to call for change. Future changes in engineering education should be guided by research on expertise and the learning processes that support its development. Purpose The goals of this paper are: to relate key findings from studies of the development of expertise to engineering education, to summarize instructional practices that are consistent with these findings, to provide examples of learning experiences that are consistent with these instructional practices, and finally, to identify challenges to implementing such learning experiences in engineering programs. Scope/Method The research synthesized for this article includes that on the development of expertise, students' approaches to learning, students' responses to instructional practices, and the role of motivation in learning. In addition, literature on the dominant teaching and learning practices in engineering education is used to frame some of the challenges to implementing alternative approaches to learning. Conclusion Current understanding of expertise, and the learning processes that develop it, indicates that engineering education should encompass a set of learning experiences that allow students to construct deep conceptual knowledge, to develop the ability to apply key technical and professional skills fluently, and to engage in a number of authentic engineering projects. Engineering curricula and teaching methods are often not well aligned with these goals. Curriculum‐level instructional design processes should be used to design and implement changes that will improve alignment.

No abstract

Learning conceptual knowledge in engineering science is a critical element in the development of competence and expertise in engineering. To date, however, research on conceptual learning in engineering science has been limited. Therefore, this article draws heavily on fundamental research by cognitive psychologists and applied research by science educators to provide a background on fundamental issues in the field and methods for assessing conceptual knowledge. Some of the most common conceptual difficulties from three domains: mechanics, thermal science and direct current electricity, are discussed to provide concrete examples of what students find difficult to learn. The article concludes with a discussion of possible sources of these difficulties, implications for instruction, and suggestions for future research.

A study was conducted on the Felder-Soloman Index of Learning Styles © (ILS) to assess reliability, factor structure, and construct validity as well to determine whether changing its dichotomous response scale to a five-option response scale would improve reliability and validity. Data collected in this study had internal consistency reliability ranging from 0.55 to 0.77 across the four learning style scales of the ILS. Factor analysis revealed that multiple factors were present within three of the learning style scales, which correspond to known aspects of the scale definitions. The factor analysis and direct feedback from students on whether they felt their scores accurately represented their learning preferences provide evidence of construct validity for the ILS. Changing the response scale improved reliability, but it did not change the factor structure substantially nor did it affect the strength of the evidence for construct validity based on student feedback.

Background Even as expectations for engineers continue to evolve to meet global challenges, analytical problem solving remains a central skill. Thus, improving students' analytical problem solving skills remains an important goal in engineering education. This study involves observation of students as they execute the initial steps of an engineering problem solving process in statics. Purpose (Hypothesis) (1) What knowledge elements do statics students have the greatest difficulty applying during problem solving? (2) Are there differences in the knowledge elements that are accurately applied by strong and weak statics students? (3) Are there differences in the cognitive and metacognitive strategies used by strong and weak statics students during analysis? Design/Method These questions were addressed using think‐aloud sessions during which students solved typical textbook problems. We selected the work of twelve students for detailed analysis, six weak and six strong problem solvers, using an extreme groups split based on scores on the think‐aloud problems and a course exam score. The think‐aloud data from the two sets of students were analyzed to identify common technical errors and also major differences in the problem solving processes. Conclusions We found that the weak, and most of the strong problem solvers relied heavily on memory to decide what reactions were present at a given connection, and few of the students could reason physically about what reactions should be present. Furthermore, the cognitive analysis of the students' problems solving processes revealed substantial differences in the use of self‐explanation by weak and strong students.

No abstract

is currently a PhD Candidate in the Architectural Engineering Department at Penn State. Robert's research focuses on the improvement of team collaboration while leveraging advanced data modeling and visualization technologies for building design and construction. Robert earned his Masters in Architectural Engineering at Penn State, as well as having a background in the construction industry. In addition, Robert has also spend time working with VTT, the Technical Research Center of Finland, as a visiting scholar with their Building Informatics team. Robert's interest in Multi-Media educational methods has grown through his research into improving team collaboration through improved communication technology. He can be reached at