Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-m9kch Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-16T10:41:15.827Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Chapter 6 - Engineers as Problem Solvers

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 February 2015

By
David H. Jonassen
Edited by
Aditya Johri  and
Barbara M. Olds
David H. Jonassen
Affiliation:
University of Missouri
Aditya Johri
Affiliation:
Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University
Barbara M. Olds
Affiliation:
Colorado School of Mines
Get access

Summary

Engineers as Problem Solvers

Evers, Rush, and Berdrow (1998) identi-fy numerous disconnects between skills acquired in college and those required of the workplace. Among the most important skills that ABET Inc., the primary engineering accreditation institution in the United States, has identified for the preparation of engineers are the abilities to identify, formulate, and solve workplace engineering problems and to function on multidisciplinary teams. Learning to solve workplace problems is an essential learning outcome for any engineering graduate. Every engineer is hired, retained, and rewarded for his or her ability to solve problems. However, engineering graduates are ill prepared to solve complex, workplace problems (Jonassen, Strobel, & Lee, 2006).

Problem solving from a cognitive perspective has been the primary focus of my research for the past decade and a half. My theory differs from traditional theories of problem solving in that I argue there are different kinds of problems that vary between contexts. The kinds of problems that practicing engineers solve are different from the problems that most undergraduate science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) students learn to solve. In most undergraduate classes, students learn to solve textbook problems that are constrained and well structured, with known solution paths and convergent answers (capstone courses are an exception). Workplace problems, on the other hand, tend to be ill structured and unpredictable because they possess conflicting goals, multiple solution methods, non-engineering success standards, non-engineering constraints, unanticipated problems, distributed knowledge, and collaborative activity systems (Jonassen et al., 2006). Learning to solve classroom problems does not effectively prepare engineering graduates to solve workplace problems. To prepare engineering graduates, it is necessary to articulate the differences between educational problems and workplace problems. To do that, I first describe how problems vary.

Type
Chapter
Information
Cambridge Handbook of Engineering Education Research , pp. 103 - 118
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2014

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Allaire, J. C., & Marsiske, M. (2002). Well-defined and ill-defined measures of everyday cognition: Relationship to older adults’ intellectual ability and functional status. Psychology and Aging, 17 (1), 101–115.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Arlin, P. K. (1989). The problem of the problem. In Sinnott, J. D. (Ed.), Everyday problem solving: Theory and applications (pp. 229–237). New York, NY: Praeger.Google Scholar
Barab, S. A., & Duffy, T. (2000). From practice fields to communities of practice. Theoretical Foundations of Learning Environments, 1(1), 25–55.Google Scholar
Barab, S. A., Squire, K. D., & Dueber, W. (2000). A co-evolutionary model for supporting the emergence of authenticity. Educational Technology Research and Development, 48(2), 37–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bransford, J., & Stein, B. S. (1984). The IDEAL problem solver: A guide for improving thinking, learning, and creativity. New York, NY: W. H. Freeman.Google Scholar
Brown, D. C., & Chandrasekaran, B. (1989). Design problem solving: Knowledge structures and control strategies. San Mateo, CA: Morgan Kaufman.Google Scholar
Brown, J. S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning. Educational Researcher, 18(1), 32–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Catrambone, R., & Holyoak, K. J. (1989). Overcoming contextual limitations on problem solving transfer. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 15(6), 1147–1156.Google Scholar
Chapman, O. (1997). Metaphors in the teaching of mathematical problem solving. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 32(3), 201–228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cho, K. L., & Jonassen, D. H. (2003). The effects of argumentation scaffolds on argumentation and problem solving. Educational Technology: Research & Development, 50(3), 5–22.Google Scholar
Dunkle, M. E., Schraw, G., & Bendixen, L. D. (1995, April). Cognitive processes in well-defined and ill-defined problem solving. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco, CA.Google Scholar
Dym, C. L., & Little, P. (2004). Engineering design: A project-based introduction. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
Evers, F. T., Rush, J. C., & Berdrow, I. (1998). The bases of competence: Skills for lifelong learning and employability. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers.Google Scholar
Gick, M. L., & Holyoak, K. J. (1983). Schema induction and analogical transfer. Cognitive Psychology, 15, 1–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Greeno, J. (1980). Trends in the theory of knowledge fro problem solving. In Tuma, D. T. & Reif, F. (Eds.), Problem solving and education: Issues in teaching and research (pp. 9–23). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Gross, M. D. (1986). Design as exploring constraints. Doctoral dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
Gross, M. D., Ervin, S. M., Anderson, J. A., & Fleisher, A. (1988). Constraints: Knowledge representation in design. Design Studies, 9(3), 133–143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Halford, G. S., Wilson, W. H., & Phillips, S. (1998). Processing capacity defined by relational complexity: Implications for comparative, developmental, and cognitive psychology. Behavioral & Brain Science, 21, 803–864.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hegarty, M., Mayer, R. E., & Monk, C. A. (1995). Comprehension of arithmetic word problems: A comparison of successful and unsuccessful problem solvers. Journal of Educational Psychology, 87(1), 18–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Henry, H., Jonassen, D. H., Winholtz, R. A., & Khana, S. K. (2010, November). Introducing problem-based learning in a materials science course in the undergraduate engineering curriculum. In Proceedings ASME 44434, Vol. 6: Engineering Education and Professional Development (pp. 395–403). doi: .Google Scholar
Hernandez-Serrano, J., & Jonassen, D. H. (2003). The effects of case libraries on problem solving. Journal of Computer-Assisted Learning, 19, 103–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hestenes, D. (1997, March). Modeling methodology for physics teachers. AIP Conference Proceedings, 399, 935–958.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hogarth, R. M., & Kunreuther, H. (1995). Decision-making under ignorance: Arguing with Yourself. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 10, 15–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hong, N. S., Jonassen, D. H., & McGee, S. (2003). Predictors of well-structured and ill-structured problem solving in an astronomy simulation. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40(1), 6–33.Google Scholar
Hung, W., Jonassen, D. H., & Liu, R. (2008). Problem-based learning. In Spector, J. M., van Merrienboer, J. G., Merrill, M. D., & Driscoll, M. (Eds.), Handbook of research on educational communications and technology (3rd ed., pp. 485–506). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Jacobs, A. E. J. P., Dolmans, D. H. J. M., Wolfhagen, I. H. A. P., & Scherpbier, A. J. J. A. (2003). Validation of a short questionnaire to assess the degree of complexity and structuredness of PBL problems. Medical Education, 37(11), 1001–1007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnson, S. D., Flesher, J. W., & Chung, S. -P., (1995, December). Understanding troubleshooting styles to improve training methods. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Vocational Association, Denver, CO. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 389 948).Google Scholar
Johnson, S. D., & Satchwell, R. E. (1993). The effect of functional flow diagrams on apprentice aircraft mechanics’ technical system understanding. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 6(4), 73–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jonassen, D. H. (1997). Instructional design model for well-structured and ill-structured problem-solving learning outcomes. Educational Technology: Research and Development, 45(1), 65–95.Google Scholar
Jonassen, D. H. (2000). Toward a design theory of problem solving. Educational Technology: Research & Development, 48(4), 63–85.Google Scholar
Jonassen, D. H. (2006). Modeling with technology: Mindtools for conceptual change. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Jonassen, D. H. (2008). Instructional design as a design problem solving: An iterative process. Educational Technology, 48(3), 21–26.Google Scholar
Jonassen, D. H. (2011). Learning to solve problems: A handbook for designing problem-solving learning environments. New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
Jonassen, D. H. (2012). Designing for decision making. Educational Technology: Research and Development, 60, 341–359.
Jonassen, D. H., & Hernandez-Serrano, J. (2002). Case-based reasoning and instructional design: Using stories to support problem solving. Educational Technology: Research and Development, 50(2), 65–77.Google Scholar
Jonassen, D. H., & Hung, W. (2006). Learning to troubleshoot: A new theory-based design architecture. Educational Psychology Review, 18, 77–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jonassen, D. H., & Hung, W. (2008). All problems are not equal: Implications for PBL. Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-Based Learning, 2(2), 6–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jonassen, D. H., & Kwon, H. I. (2001). Communication patterns in computer-mediated vs. face-to-face group problem solving. Educational Technology: Research and Development, 49(1), 35–52.Google Scholar
Jonassen, D. H., Strobel, J., & Lee, C. B. (2006). Everyday problem solving in engineering: Lessons for engineering educators. Journal of Engineering Education, 95(2), 1–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kahneman, D., Slovic, P., & Tversky, A. (1982). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristic and biases. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kitchner, K. S. (1983). Cognition, metacognition, and epistemic cognition: A three-level model of cognitive processing. Human Development, 26, 222–232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kolodner, J. (1993). Case-based reasoning. New York, NY: Morgan Kaufman.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Konradt, U. (1995). Strategies of failure diagnosis in computer-controlled manufacturing systems. International Journal of Human Computer Studies, 43, 503–521.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lave, J. (1988). Cognition in practice: Mind, mathematics and culture in everyday life. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marston, M., & Mistree, F. (1997, April). A decision based foundation for systems design: A conceptual exposition. Paper presented at Decision-Based Workshop, Orlando, FL. Retrieved from from:Google Scholar
Meacham, J. A., & Emont, N. C. (1989). The interpersonal basis of everyday problem solving. In Sinnott, J. D. (Ed.), Everyday problem solving: Theory and applications (pp. 7–23). New York, NY: Praeger.Google Scholar
Means, B., Salas, E., Crandall, B., & Jacobs, T. O. (1993). Training decision makers for the real world. In Klein, G. A., Orasanu, J., Calderwood, R., & Zsambok, C. E. (Eds.), Decision making in action: Models and methods (pp. 306–326). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
Morris, N. M., & Rouse, W. B. (1985). Review and evaluation of empirical research in troubleshooting. Human Factors, 27(5), 503–530.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Newell, A., & Simon, H. (1972). Human problem solving. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
Perrenet, J. C., Bouhuijs, P. A. J., & Smits, J. G. M. M. (2000). The suitability of problem-based learning for engineering education: Theory and practice. Teaching in Higher Education, 5(3), 345–358.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ploetzner, R., Fehse, E., Kneser, C., & Spada, H. (1999). Learning to relate qualitative and quantitative problem representations in a model-based setting for collaborative problem solving. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 8(2), 177–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ploetzner, R., & Spada, H. (1998). Constructing quantitative problem representations on the basis of qualitative reasoning. Interactive Learning Environments, 5, 95–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reisslein, J., Sullivan, H., & Reisslein, M. (2007). Learner achievement and attitudes under different paces of transitioning to independent problem solving. Journal of Engineering Education, 96(1), 45–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rettinger, D. A., & Hastie, R. (2001). Content effects on decision making. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Process, 85(2), 336–359.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Riley, M. S., & Greeno, J. G. (1988). Developmental analysis of understanding language about quantities and of solving problems. Cognition and instruction, 5(1), 49–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rogoff, B., & Lave, J. (1984). Everyday cognition: Its development in social context. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Rohlfing, K. J., Rehm, M., & Goecke, K. U. (2003). Situatedness: The interplay between context(s) and situation. Journal of Cognition and Culture, 3(2), 132–156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ross, B. H. (1987). This is like that: The use of earlier problems and the separation of similarity effects. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 13, 456–468.Google Scholar
Ross, B. H. (1989). Distinguishing types of superficial similarities: Different effects on the access and use of earlier problems. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 15, 629–639.Google Scholar
Roth, W. M., & McGinn, M. K. (1997). Toward a new perspective on problem solving. Canadian Journal of Education, 22(1), 18–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schank, R. C. (1990). Tell me a story: Narrative and intelligence. Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press.Google Scholar
Schank, R., & Abelson, R. (1977). Scripts, plans, goals, and understanding: An inquiry into human knowledge structures. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Scribner, S. (1986). Thinking in action: Some characteristics of practical thought. In Sternberg, R. & Wagner, R. (Eds.), Practical intelligence: Nature and origins of competence in the everyday world (pp. 13–30). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Sherrill, J. M. (1983). Solving textbook mathematical problems. Alberta Journal of Educational Research, 29, 140–152.Google Scholar
Simon, D. P. (1978). Information processing theory of human problem solving. In Estes, D. (Ed.), Handbook of learning and cognitive process (pp. 287–302). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Simon, H. A. (1955). A behavioral model of rational choice. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 69, 99–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, M. U. (1991). A view from biology. In Smith, M. U. (Ed.), Toward a unified theory of problem solving (pp. 1–20). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Sweller, J. (1988). Cognitive load during problem solving: Effects on learning. Cognitive Science, 12, 257–285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Swezey, R. W., Perez, R., & Allen, J. (1988). Effects of instructional delivery system and training parameter manipulations on electromechanical performance. Human Factors, 30(6), 751–762.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tawfik, A., & Jonassen, D. (2013). The effects of successful versus failure-based cases on argumentation while solving decision-making problems. Educational Technology Research and Development, 61(3), 385–406.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tessmer, M., & Wedman, J. F. (1990). A layers-of-necessity instructional development model. Educational Technology: Research and Development, 38(2), 77–85.Google Scholar
Voss, J. F., Wolfe, C. R., Lawrence, J. A., & Engle, R. A. (1991). From representation to decision: An analysis of problem solving in international relations. In Sternberg, R. J. & Frensch, P. A. (Eds.), Complex problem solving (pp. 119–157). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Wood, P. K. (1983). Inquiring systems and problem structure: Implications for cognitive development. Human Development, 26, 249–265.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wood, P. K. (1985). A statistical examination of necessary but not sufficient antecedents of problem solving behavior. Doctoral dissertation, University of Minnesota.Google Scholar
Zeitz, C. M., & Spoehr, K. T. (1989). Knowledge organization and the acquisition of procedural expertise. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 3(4), 313–336.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×