Problem-solving in biology vs. engineering: What can engineering educators learn from biology educators

Anastasia Chouvalova, S. DeDecker, R. Clemmer, J. Vale, Karen Gordon
{"title":"Problem-solving in biology vs. engineering: What can engineering educators learn from biology educators","authors":"Anastasia Chouvalova, S. DeDecker, R. Clemmer, J. Vale, Karen Gordon","doi":"10.24908/pceea.vi.15938","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Problem-solving (PS) is a universal skill inherent to nearly all disciplines. This study’s objective is to explore the types of PS assessments that engineering and biology undergraduate students are exposed to and what PS approaches they use to complete these assessments. Comparing PS assessments and approaches between the two disciplines will help reveal important lessons that engineering educators can apply when immersing their undergraduate students into PS. Qualitative data was obtained from focus groups with students in engineering (n = 6), and biology (n = 5). Notable differences were found across disciplines, with students mentioning different skill sets pertinent to PS, assessment features, and PS strategies. A posteriori analysis of students’ focus group responses revealed that an epistemic lens is an appropriate framework for interpreting students’ response. Schommer’s epistemic dimensions of knowledge (i.e., structure and stability of knowledge) are used to classify results and indicate that biology students are frequently exposed to the complex structure of knowledge through multi-factorial systems whereas engineering students are typically exposed to the instability of knowledge, particularly through design projects. Other interesting observations related to biology students’ tendency to engage in discussion as a helpful study approach, while engineering students may view group discourse as a hindrance. Our results can inform engineering educators of how they can incorporate PS practices used by biology educators into their classrooms to promote better learning outcomes and encourage deeper learning approaches in students, while cultivating more mature epistemic beliefs.","PeriodicalId":314914,"journal":{"name":"Proceedings of the Canadian Engineering Education Association (CEEA)","volume":"158 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Proceedings of the Canadian Engineering Education Association (CEEA)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.24908/pceea.vi.15938","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Problem-solving (PS) is a universal skill inherent to nearly all disciplines. This study’s objective is to explore the types of PS assessments that engineering and biology undergraduate students are exposed to and what PS approaches they use to complete these assessments. Comparing PS assessments and approaches between the two disciplines will help reveal important lessons that engineering educators can apply when immersing their undergraduate students into PS. Qualitative data was obtained from focus groups with students in engineering (n = 6), and biology (n = 5). Notable differences were found across disciplines, with students mentioning different skill sets pertinent to PS, assessment features, and PS strategies. A posteriori analysis of students’ focus group responses revealed that an epistemic lens is an appropriate framework for interpreting students’ response. Schommer’s epistemic dimensions of knowledge (i.e., structure and stability of knowledge) are used to classify results and indicate that biology students are frequently exposed to the complex structure of knowledge through multi-factorial systems whereas engineering students are typically exposed to the instability of knowledge, particularly through design projects. Other interesting observations related to biology students’ tendency to engage in discussion as a helpful study approach, while engineering students may view group discourse as a hindrance. Our results can inform engineering educators of how they can incorporate PS practices used by biology educators into their classrooms to promote better learning outcomes and encourage deeper learning approaches in students, while cultivating more mature epistemic beliefs.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
解决问题的生物学vs.工程学:工程学教育者能从生物学教育者那里学到什么
解决问题(PS)是几乎所有学科所固有的普遍技能。本研究的目的是探讨工程和生物学本科生接触到的PS评估类型以及他们使用哪些PS方法来完成这些评估。比较两个学科之间的PS评估和方法将有助于揭示工程教育工作者在让本科生沉浸于PS时可以应用的重要经验。定性数据来自工程(n = 6)和生物学(n = 5)学生的焦点小组。不同学科之间发现了显著差异,学生提到了与PS相关的不同技能、评估特征和PS策略。对学生焦点小组反应的后验分析表明,认知透镜是解释学生反应的合适框架。Schommer的知识认知维度(即知识的结构和稳定性)被用来对结果进行分类,并表明生物学学生经常通过多因子系统接触到复杂的知识结构,而工程学生通常通过设计项目接触到知识的不稳定性。其他有趣的观察与生物系学生倾向于参与讨论作为一种有益的学习方法有关,而工程系学生可能将小组讨论视为一种障碍。我们的研究结果可以告诉工程教育工作者,他们如何将生物教育工作者使用的PS实践纳入他们的课堂,以促进更好的学习成果,鼓励学生采用更深入的学习方法,同时培养更成熟的认知信念。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
What Makes an Exemplary Engineering Leader? In the Words of Engineers Questioning Green Growth and Sustainable Development in Undergraduate Engineering Memorization: Friend or Foe when Solving Problems in STEM Undergraduate Courses Persistent mistakes in learning basic circuit analysis Development and Assessment of a Training Module on Intellectual Property Literacy
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1