Anastasia Chouvalova, S. DeDecker, R. Clemmer, J. Vale, Karen Gordon
{"title":"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","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":"{\"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}","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}
Problem-solving in biology vs. engineering: What can engineering educators learn from biology educators
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.