scholarly journals Defining Open-Ended Problem Solving Through Problem Typology Framework

2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
pp. 7 ◽  
Author(s):  
Andrew Olewnik ◽  
Randy Yerrick ◽  
Amanda Simmons ◽  
Yonghee Lee ◽  
Brian Stuhlmiller
Keyword(s):  
Problem Solving ◽  
Engineering Education ◽  
Student Performance ◽  
Design Thinking ◽  
Cognitive Learning ◽  
Problem Formulation ◽  
Discrete Problem ◽  
Undergraduate Instruction ◽  
Problem Solvers ◽  
Learning Frameworks

Problem solving is central to engineering education. Yet, there little agreement regarding what constitutes an exemplary design problem or case analysis problem for modeling undergraduate instruction after. There is even less agreement in engineering education literature regarding the best way to measure students ability or progress in learning to be better problem solvers in these discrete problem categories. We describe the development of a research method toward accessing how students think about design is described, what constitutes a measurable response, and how to compare through qualitative research methods pre and post student performance. The discussion draws from Jonassen’s (2000) framework for problem typology, as well as cognitive learning frameworks of design thinking, and metacognition as a theoretical basis that informs the problem formulation and planned approach for analysis.

The Model Eliciting Activity (MEA) Construct: Moving Engineering Education Research Into the Classroom

2008 ◽  
Author(s):  
Larry J. Shuman ◽  
Mary Besterfield-Sacre ◽  
Renee Clark ◽  
Tuba Pinar Yildirim
Keyword(s):  
Problem Solving ◽  
Student Performance ◽  
Engineering Students ◽  
Undergraduate Curriculum ◽  
Conceptual System ◽  
Learning Material ◽  
Professional Skills ◽  
Real World Problem ◽  
Upper Level ◽  
Problem Solvers

A growing set of “professional skills” including problem solving, teamwork, and communications are becoming increasingly important in differentiating U.S. engineering graduates from their international counterparts. A consensus of engineering educators and professionals now believes that mastery of these professional skills is needed for our graduates to excel in a highly competitive global environment. A decade ago ABET realized this and included these skills among the eleven outcomes needed to best prepare professionals for the 21st century engineering world. This has left engineering educators with a challenge: how can students learn to master these skills? We address this challenge by focusing on models and modeling as an integrating approach for learning particular professional skills, including problem solving, within the undergraduate curriculum. To do this, we are extending a proven methodology — model-eliciting activities (MEAs) — creating in essence model integrating activities (MIAs). MEAs originated in the mathematics education community as a research tool. In an MEA teams of students address an open-ended, real-world problem. A typical MEA elicits a mathematical or conceptual system as part of its procedural requirements. To resolve an MEA, students may need to make new connections, combinations, manipulations or predictions. We are extending this construct to a format in which the student team must also integrate prior knowledge and concepts in order to solve the problem at hand. In doing this, we are also forcing students to confront and repair certain misconceptions acquired at earlier stages of their education. A distinctive MEA feature is an emphasis on testing, revising, refining and formally documenting solutions, all skills that future practitioners should master. Student performance on MEAs is typically assessed using a rubric to measure the quality of solution. In addition, a reflection tool completed by students following an MEA exercise assists them in better assessing and critiquing their progress as modelers and problem solvers. As part of the first phase a large, MEA research study funded by the National Science Foundation and involving six institutions, we are investigating the strategies students use to solve unstructured problems by better understanding the extent that our MEA/MIA construct can be used as a learning intervention. To do this, we are developing learning material suitable for upper-level engineering students, requiring them to integrate concepts they’ve learned in foundation courses while teasing out misconceptions. We provide an overview of the project and our results to date.

Thinking About Design Thinking: Toward Capturing Students’ Metacognition in Solving Design Problems

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Andrew Olewnik ◽  
Brian Stuhlmiller ◽  
Randy Yerrick
Keyword(s):  
Engineering Education ◽  
Research Methodology ◽  
Theoretical Basis ◽  
Design Thinking ◽  
Problem Formulation ◽  
Short Paper ◽  
Design Consideration ◽  
Problem Statement ◽  
Design Problems ◽  
Ongoing Development

Abstract In this short-paper we describe the ongoing development of a research methodology toward accessing how students think about design. Consideration of the formulation of a design problem statement that is suitable for supporting discussion with students from multiple disciplines at various points in their engineering education is the specific focus. The discussion draws from work on problem typology, design thinking, and metacognition as a theoretical basis that informs the problem formulation and planned approach for analysis.

Promoting Effective Student Problem Solving

2007 ◽  
Author(s):  
J. C. Bennett
Keyword(s):  
Problem Solving ◽  
Engineering Education ◽  
Student Development ◽  
Engineering Students ◽  
Complex Problem ◽  
Course Development ◽  
Complex Problem Solving ◽  
Problem Solvers ◽  
Student Problem ◽  
Effective Problem

If one were to ask most anyone what engineers do, they would say “solve problems.” And indeed, engineers do [but I would suggest that all people solve problems regardless of their chosen careers]. What are less obvious are [a] whether engineering students and graduates are effective problem solvers; [b] whether engineering education is facilitated effectively as a “problem to be solved” and [c] whether that engineering education intentionally facilitates the development by students of an effective problem solving approach. In this paper, it is argued that instructors use of effective problem solving in course development, preparation, and facilitation must include the explicit attention to the student development of effective problem solving procedures. In this paper, it is argued that students will become more effective problem solvers if instructors encourage them to use procedures that embrace ambiguity and if instructors more consistently expect them to apply the procedures to open-ended problems throughout the curriculum. As students move from well-defined problem solving to more complex problem solving, they will benefit from one general and effective problem-solving procedure that is sufficiently flexible to include the various and more specific procedures that students will encounter. With career paths continually evolving and with information generation growth ever expanding, such skills are absolutely critical to success, again regardless of career choice.

Fostering Creativity in Mechanical Engineering Education Based on Cooperation with Enterprises

2011 ◽  
Vol 121-126 ◽  
pp. 3304-3309
Author(s):  
Lan Kang ◽  
Jiao Liu
Keyword(s):  
Problem Solving ◽  
Engineering Education ◽  
Mechanical Engineering ◽  
Practical Problem ◽  
Cognitive Learning ◽  
Basic Training ◽  
Fostering Creativity ◽  
Level Training ◽  
Engineering Undergraduates

Mechanical engineering field requires engineers with more practical problem-solving experience and skills of thinking, working and acting creatively. But, how can we develop and encourage these important skills in undergraduates? This article describes a case of nurturing creativity in undergraduates through cooperation with enterprises. Through the study of cognitive learning and creativity, a series of educational procedures and strategies are presented, they involved in basic training of fostering creativity and higher-level training of developing creativity based on commercial projects. Questionnaires from students and the actual results demonstrate that the above strategies and methods for fostering creativity in mechanical engineering undergraduates have yielded good results and students benefit from them.

scholarly journals University STEM students' perceptions of creativity in non-routine problem-solving

2020 ◽  
Vol 61 ◽  
pp. C152-C165
Author(s):  
Priscilla Eng Lian Murphy ◽  
Tanya Evans ◽  
Sergiy Klymchuk ◽  
Julia Novak ◽  
Jason Stephens ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Critical Thinking ◽  
Problem Solving ◽  
Engineering Education ◽  
Student Perceptions ◽  
Design Thinking ◽  
Mathematical Problem ◽  
Mathematical Problem Solving ◽  
Problem Solving Skills ◽  
Cambridge University ◽  
Physics Problems

The primary purpose of this study is to investigate students' perceptions about the characteristics of creativity and engagement in solving non-routine problems. It involved 64 science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) university students, who participated in a two-year research project in New Zealand during which participants were given opportunities to utilise puzzle-based learning in their courses. Comparing open-ended responses of two surveys, this article focuses on student perceptions about attributes of creativity in non-routine problem-solving. These results have pedagogical implications for tertiary stem education. References A. J. Baroody and A. Dowker. The development of arithmetic concepts and skills: Constructive adaptive expertise. Routledge, 2013. URL https://www.routledge.com/The-Development-of-Arithmetic-Concepts-and-Skills-Constructive-Adaptive/Baroody-Dowker/p/book/9780805831566. S. A. Costa. Puzzle-based learning: An approach to creativity, design thinking and problem solving. implications for engineering education. Proceedings of the Canadian Engineering Education Association (CEEA), 2017. doi:10.24908/pceea.v0i0.7365. N. Falkner, R. Sooriamurthi, and Z. Michalewicz. Teaching puzzle-based learning: Development of transferable skills. Teach. Math. Comput. Sci., 10(2):245–268, 2012. doi:10.5485/TMCS.2012.0304. A. Fisher. Critical thinking: An introduction. Cambridge University Press, 2011. URL https://www.cambridge.org/us/education/subject/humanities/critical-thinking/critical-thinking-2nd-edition/critical-thinking-introduction-2nd-edition-paperback?isbn=9781107401983. E. C. Fortes and R. R. Andrade. Mathematical creativity in solving non-routine problems. The Normal Lights, 13(1), 2019. URL http://po.pnuresearchportal.org/ejournal/index.php/normallights/article/view/1237. P. Gnadig, G. Honyek, and K. F. Riley. 200 puzzling physics problems: With hints and solutions. Cambridge University Press, 2001. URL https://www.cambridge.org/us/academic/subjects/physics/general-and-classical-physics/200-puzzling-physics-problems-hints-and-solutions?format=AR&isbn=9780521774802. J. P. Guilford. Creativity: Yesterday, today and tomorrow. J. Creative Behav., 1(1):3–14, 1967. doi:10.1002/j.2162-6057.1967.tb00002.x. J. P. Guilford. Characteristics of Creativity. Illinois State Office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction, Springfield. Gifted Children Section, 1973. URL https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED080171. G. Hatano and Y. Oura. Commentary: Reconceptualizing school learning using insight from expertise research. Ed. Res., 32(8):26–29, 2003. doi:10.3102/0013189X032008026. S. Klymchuk. Puzzle-based learning in engineering mathematics: Students\T1\textquoteright attitudes. Int. J.Math. Ed. Sci. Tech., 48(7): 1106–1119, 2017. doi:10.1080/0020739X.2017.1327088. B. Martz, J. Hughes, and F. Braun. Developing a creativity and problem solving course in support of the information systems curriculum. J. Learn. High. Ed., 12(1):27–36, 2016. URL https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1139749.pdf. Z. Michalewicz, N. Falkner, and R. Sooriamurthi. Puzzle-based learning: An introduction to critical thinking and problem solving. Hybrid Publishers, 2011. B. Parhami. A puzzle-based seminar for computer engineering freshmen. Comp. Sci. Ed., 18(4):261–277, 2008. doi:10.1080/08993400802594089. URL http://www.informaworld.com/openurl?genre=article&id. G. Polya. How to solve it: A new aspect of mathematical method. Princeton University Press, 2004. URL https://press.princeton.edu/books/paperback/9780691164076/how-to-solve-it. M. A. Runco. Creativity: Theories and themes: Research, development, and practice. Elsevier, 2014. URL https://www.elsevier.com/books/creativity/runco/978-0-12-410512-6. A. H. Schoenfeld. Mathematical problem solving. Elsevier, 2014. URL https://www.elsevier.com/books/mathematical-problem-solving/schoenfeld/978-0-12-628870-4. C. Thomas, M. Badger, E. Ventura-Medina, and C. Sangwin. Puzzle-based learning of mathematics in engineering. Eng. Ed., 8(1):122–134, 2013. doi:10.11120/ened.2013.00005. M. O. J. Thomas. Developing versatility in mathematical thinking. Med. J. Res. Math. Ed., 7(2):67–87, 2008. A. Valentine, I. Belski, and M. Hamilton. Developing creativity and problem-solving skills of engineering students: A comparison of web and pen-and-paper-based approaches. Eur. J. Eng. Ed., 42(6):1309–1329, 2017. doi:10.1080/03043797.2017.1291584. G. Wallas. The art of thought. Solis Press, 1926.

scholarly journals PUZZLE-BASED LEARNING: AN APPROACH TO CREATIVITY, DESIGN THINKING & PROBLEM SOLVING. IMPLICATIONS FOR ENGINEERING EDUCATION.

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stacy A Costa
Keyword(s):  
Problem Solving ◽  
Engineering Education ◽  
Engineering Students ◽  
Design Thinking ◽  
Exploratory Analysis ◽  
First Year ◽  
Critical Problem ◽  
Future Studies ◽  
Undergraduate Engineering ◽  
Engineering Degree

This paper will explore research practices already being conducted in various institutions, strengthening this paper's position that puzzle-based learning is a foundational methodology which assists newly admitted undergraduate engineering students, how to best approach critical problem solving. Furthermore, this paper will provide recommendations for an introductory protocol to introduce the incorporation of puzzle-based learning into a seminar-style course for First Year Introductory Engineering, and as a component of the engineering degree. The paper results in an exploratory analysis of what could be a starting place for future studies or classes to be conducted.

Creative Problem Solving in Public School Supervision

1989 ◽  
Vol 20 (3) ◽  
pp. 320-332 ◽  
Author(s):  
David A. Shapiro ◽  
Nelson Moses
Keyword(s):  
Public School ◽  
Problem Solving ◽  
School Environment ◽  
Professional Growth ◽  
Cognitive Learning ◽  
School Personnel ◽  
Collaborative Problem Solving ◽  
The Public ◽  
School Supervision ◽  
Team Functioning

This article presents a practical and collegial model of problem solving that is based upon the literature in supervision and cognitive learning theory. The model and the procedures it generates are applied directly to supervisory interactions in the public school environment. Specific principles of supervision and related recommendations for collaborative problem solving are discussed. Implications for public school supervision are addressed in terms of continued professional growth of both supervisees and supervisors, interdisciplinary team functioning, and renewal and retention of public school personnel.

Systems thinking, a consilience of values and logic

2005 ◽  
Vol 24 (4) ◽  
pp. 259-274
Author(s):  
Sameer Kumar ◽  
Thomas Ressler ◽  
Mark Ahrens
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Problem Solving ◽  
Systems Thinking ◽  
Qualitative Reasoning ◽  
Colleges And Universities ◽  
Decision Makers ◽  
Modern World ◽  
Problem Solving Process ◽  
Problem Solvers

This article is an appeal to incorporate qualitative reasoning into quantitative topics and courses, especially those devoted to decision-making offered in colleges and universities. Students, many of whom join professional workforce, must become more systems thinkers and decision-makers than merely problem-solvers. This will entail discussion of systems thinking, not just reaching “the answer”. Managers will need to formally and forcefully discuss objectives and values at each stage of the problem-solving process – at the start, during the problem-solving stage, and at the interpretation of the results stage – in order to move from problem solving to decision-making. The authors suggest some methods for doing this, and provide examples of why doing so is so important for decision-makers in the modern world.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document