Defining Open-Ended Problem Solving Through Problem Typology Framework

Andrew Olewnik,Randy Yerrick,Yonghee Lee,Amanda Simmons,Brian Stuhlmiller

doi:10.3991/ijep.v10i1.11033

Andrew Olewnik, Randy Yerrick + Show 3 more

Open Access

https://doi.org/10.3991/ijep.v10i1.11033

Copy DOI

Abstract

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.

Highlights

Engineering curriculum, lack of belonging in engineering” [14], which is supported by a more recent survey of retention among STEM majors [15]
The origins of engineering lie in the trades with focus on producing something useful; the formalization of engineering education has served to further disconnect engineers in practice and academic settings [36]. This disjunction has been the focus of much engineering education literature [37]–[39], especially as it pertains to student perceptions of engineering problem solving in academic and professional contexts [40]–[42]
Adopting Jonassen’s work for framing educational experiences for undergraduate engineers and Flavell [54], [73], [74], and Kuhn and Dean’s [58] framework for metacognition, we propose that the problem typology framework can be studied and instrumental for informing, assessing, and guiding student problem solving in experiential learning contexts

Summary

Introduction

Engineering curriculum, lack of belonging in engineering” [14], which is supported by a more recent survey of retention among STEM majors [15]. Jonassen argued that the most important disposition for a professional engineer to acquire is that of “problem solver” [33], [34], but his arguments point to a criticality toward pedagogy that must be adopted by engineering instructors to produce strong problem-solving students as a direct result of our instruction. Authors have called for a focus on nontechnical, non-calculative sides, ill-structured problems, conflicting and non-technical success measures, and varied solution strategies to be employed within the experiences of academic engineering learning [1], [33]

Objectives

Methods

Results

Conclusion