A Cognitive Study of Problem Solving in Statics
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 stud...
Saved in:
| Published in | Journal of engineering education (Washington, D.C.) Vol. 99; no. 4; pp. 337 - 353 |
|---|---|
| Main Authors | , , , , , , , , |
| Format | Journal Article |
| Language | English |
| Published |
Oxford, UK
Blackwell Publishing Ltd
01.10.2010
|
| Subjects | |
| Online Access | Get full text |
Cover
Loading…
| Summary: | 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. |
|---|---|
| Bibliography: | ArticleID:JEE1067 istex:05995F5BD78C2F8D985F61F65D8413AFFF9D93B8 ark:/67375/WNG-987045F5-P Peggy Van Meter is an associate professor of Education within the Educational Psychology program at Penn State University where she has been on the faculty since 1996. Her research includes studies of the strategic and meta‐cognitive processes that learners use to integrate multiple representations and acquire knowledge that will transfer and be useful in problem solving. Thomas A. Litzinger is director of the Leonhard Center for the Enhancement of Engineering Education and a professor of Mechanical Engineering at Penn State, where he has been on the faculty since 1985. His work in engineering education involves curricular reform, teaching and learning innovations, faculty development, and assessment. He teaches and conducts research in the areas of combustion and thermal sciences. He was selected as a Fellow of ASEE in 2008. Sarah E. Zappe is director of Assessment and Instructional Support for the Leonhard Center for the Enhancement of Engineering Education at The Pennsylvania State University. Her expertise and research interests relate to the use of think‐aloud methodologies to elicit cognitive processes and strategies in assessment and related tasks. In her position, Dr. Zappe is responsible for supporting curricular assessment and developing instructional support programs for faculty and teaching assistants in the College of Engineering. Francesco Costanzo came to Penn State in 1995 and is a professor of Engineering Science and Mechanics. He earned a Ph.D. degree in Aerospace Engineering from the Texas A&M University in 1993. His research interests include the mechanics of nanostructures, the dynamic crack propagation in thermoelastic materials, and engineering education. Carla M. Firetto is a Ph.D. student in Educational Psychology at Penn State. Before working on her Ph.D., she earned a B.A. degree from Thiel College in Psychology and Sociology. Her primary research focus is the comprehension and integration of multiple texts. Gary L. Gray came to Penn State in 1994 and is an associate professor of Engineering Science and Mechanics. He earned a Ph.D. degree in Engineering Mechanics from the University of Wisconsin‐Madison in 1993. His research interests include the mechanics of nanostructures, dynamics of mechanical systems, the application of dynamical systems theory, and engineering education. Lucas J. Passmore is an instructor at Penn State Altoona. He received his B.S. and Ph.D. in Engineering Science and Mechanics from Penn State. He teaches introductory engineering courses and fundamental engineering mechanics courses. His primary research is in the semiconductor device physics field. Christine B. Masters is an assistant professor of Engineering Science and Mechanics at Penn State University. She earned a Ph.D. from Penn State in 1992. She has been teaching introductory mechanics courses for more than 10 years, coordinating the Engineering Science Honors Program undergraduate advising efforts for 5 years and currently participates in a variety of engineering educational research initiatives. Stephen R. Turns, professor of mechanical engineering, joined the faculty of The Pennsylvania State University in 1979. His research interests include combustion‐generated air pollution, other combustion‐related topics, and engineering education pedagogy. He is the author of three student‐centered textbooks in combustion and thermal‐sciences. He received ASEE's Ralph Roe Coats Award in 2009. |
| ISSN: | 1069-4730 2168-9830 |
| DOI: | 10.1002/j.2168-9830.2010.tb01067.x |