Undergraduate Students' Beliefs about Engineering Problem Solving

Abstract

Background Problem solving is considered to be a central activity of engineering practice. While some studies have shown how various beliefs affect students' abilities to solve problems, studies are needed that explicitly examine the beliefs and assumptions students bring to the problem‐solving process. Purpose/Hypothesis The purpose of this qualitative research was to describe students' engineering problem‐solving processes and develop a conceptual model that illustrates students' beliefs about problem solving. Our research question was, What beliefs do students have about engineering problem solving? Design/Method We analyzed data from retrospective semistructured interviews carried out after a problem‐solving session. We interviewed nine engineering students about the processes they used to solve the problems and the assumptions and beliefs that guided their problem solving. We then used grounded theory to identify and analyze statements from the interviews and to develop a conceptual model of student beliefs. Results The resulting model has five major categories: the problem‐solving process itself, the role of classroom problems, the role of workplace problems, personal characteristics that affect problem solving, and resources that assist problem solving. Students identify a sharp distinction between classroom problems and workplace problems. Conclusions Our conceptual model provides an initial framework for understanding how students' beliefs affect their approaches to engineering problems. In contrast to stage models, our model shows that students' epistemic beliefs about problem solving are contextual. Future work is needed to understand the limits and extend the applicability of our model.

A Multimodal Exploration of Engineering Students' Emotions and Electrodermal Activity in Design Activities

“…In addition, EDA will not associate to these topic emotions for each of the design activities. This hypothesis is based on the premise engineering education researchers have suggested that engineering design problem solving may be more cognitively focused when using Piagetian constructivist tasks and activities (McNeill, Douglas, Koro-Ljungberg, Therriault, & Krause, 2016). As such, cognitive processes may suppress emotional responses (Kleinginna & Kleinginna, 1981) regardless of topic or instructional format.…”

Experiences of First‐Year Engineering Students Working on Ill‐Structured Problems in Teams

“…Specifically, this work captured student variation in seven discrete categories that varied by students' reactions to ambiguity and their use of multiple perspectives. While prior work has shown that there is variation in how students perceive their project experiences (Atman et al, ; Courter et al, ; Douglas et al, ; McNeill, Douglas, Koro‐Ljungberg, Therriault, & Krause, ), this work provides a more nuanced characterization of the detailed variation in student experience.…”

“…use of multiple perspectives. While prior work has shown that there is variation in how students perceive their project experiences (Atman et al, 1999;Courter et al, 1998;Douglas et al, 2012;McNeill, Douglas, Koro-Ljungberg, Therriault, & Krause, 2016), this work provides a more nuanced characterization of the detailed variation in student experience. Prior literature has established that one of the most cognitively challenging aspects of solving ill-structured problems is dealing with ambiguity (Atman et al, 1999;Atman et al, 2010;Stevens et al, 2008).…”

“…The requirement for students to transition to embracing ambiguity in authentic engineering problem-solving settings also builds on prior research documenting the sharp Figure 1 Variation in ways first-year engineering students experience working on ill-structured problems in teams with respect to accepting ambiguity and valuing multiple perspectives, both external and internal to the team. distinction between well-structured homework-type problems and real-world problems (McNeill et al, 2016;Turns, 1997). During early design experiences, students may need to reconcile their idea of what engineering is to accept ambiguity as an inherent aspect of this domain.…”

Exploring Students' Perceptions of Complex Problems and Stakeholders

“…In contrast, the problems encountered in the engineering workplace are "ill-structured and complex" 2 . Additional research has found that engineering students also recognize this difference: they describe the problems they see in their courses as "closed-ended, contrived, and focused on mathematics", while problems encountered in the workplace are described as "complex, open-ended, and requiring the consideration of diverse criteria" 3 .…”