A Detailed Characterization of the Expert Problem-Solving Process in Science and Engineering: Guidance for Teaching and Assessment

Price, Argenta; Kim, Candice J; Burkholder, Eric; Fritz, Amy; Wieman, Carl

doi:10.1187/cbe.20-12-0276

Cited by 46 publications

(48 citation statements)

References 34 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Visually, arrows connecting the Action/Cue/Sensemaking bubbles point in all directions on the diagram, indicating that theorists frequently jump between different points in their overall process as they refine their goals and progress toward a satisfactory research product. The nonsequential nature of the theorists' processes aligns with previous results on the nature of authentic decision-making by STEM researchers [25]. Still, construction of these process diagrams allowed us to split theorists' research projects into several loosely defined phases, with the acknowledgement that the order of research activities is flexible.…”

Section: A Phases Of Theory Projectssupporting

confidence: 64%

“…We utilize similar methods to Price et al, who used a cognitive task analysis approach to conduct retrospective interviews with 52 STEM professionals about how they solved a particular problem in their research (see Section III for details on cognitive task analysis methods). The authors identified a set of 29 primary decision points that experts use across disciplines, such as deciding what problems are important in their field and which predictive framework to use [25].…”

Section: Background a Expert Problem Solvingmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Research specifically examining how physicists solve real-world problems related to their research is comparatively limited [22][23][24][25][26]. Prior studies have provided little information about the context in which the physicists were performing the problem-solving activities, therefore yielding limited insight into how and why physicists made the decisions that they made.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Making expert processes visible: how and why theorists use assumptions and analogies in their research

Verostek¹,

Griston²,

Botello³

et al. 2022

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Understanding how physicists solve problems can guide the development of methods that help students learn and improve at solving complex problems. Leveraging the framework of cognitive task analysis, we conducted semi-structured interviews with theoretical physicists (N=11) to gain insight into the cognitive processes and skills that they use in their professional research. Among numerous activities that theorists described, here we elucidate two activities that theorists commonly characterized as being integral to their work: making assumptions and using analogies. Theorists described making assumptions throughout their research process, especially while setting their project's direction and goals, establishing their model's interaction with mathematics, and revising their model while troubleshooting. They described how assumptions about their model informed their mathematical decision making, as well as instances where mathematical steps fed back into their model's applicability. We found that theorists used analogies to generate new project ideas as well as overcome conceptual challenges. Theorists deliberately sought out or constructed analogous, indicating this is a skill students can practice. When mapping knowledge from one system to another, theorists sought to use systems that shared a high degree of mathematical similarity; however, these systems did not always share similar surface features. We conclude by discussing connections between the ways theorists use assumption and analogy and offering potential applications to instruction.

show abstract

Section: A Phases Of Theory Projectssupporting

confidence: 64%

Section: Background a Expert Problem Solvingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Making expert processes visible: how and why theorists use assumptions and analogies in their research

Verostek¹,

Griston²,

Botello³

et al. 2022

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Additionally, group members can provide validating feedback to one another, which may also increase their confidence in solutions. Remarkably, it was recently shown that scientific experts consistently make twenty-nine specific types of decisions in the process of solving authentic problems, irrespective of their discipline (Price, Kim, Burkholder, Fritz, & Wieman, 2021). While this number of decisions is tractable, it is not few.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Shaping student confidence and their perception of learning in undergraduate chemistry and biochemistry courses

Gould

2021

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study examined factors influencing student confidence and their perception of learning in the context of undergraduate chemistry and biochemistry courses. Anonymous online surveys were used to measure the extent to which small group work influenced student confidence in solving problems compared to working individually, as well as how various course factors and the amount of effort and pleasure students experienced during their coursework influenced their perception of learning. Upon examining over 2500 student responses to more than 150 unique problems/exercises across 3 different courses, student confidence in solving problems improved to an average of approximately 8 out of 10 when they worked in small groups, compared to that of 6.5 out of 10 when working alone. Students ranked (i) opportunities to revisit assessments, (ii) the class environment, and (iii) instructor feedback as course factors that were most influential on their learning. There was little if any correlation between student effort and their perception of learning, and their perception of learning only slightly correlated with the amount of pleasure they experienced during their coursework. Taken together, these data highlight the importance of facilitating regular small group work, multistage assessments, good feedback and a pleasurable learning environment for students.

show abstract

“…Developing these skills is especially important for undergraduate students aspiring to become STEM professionals, as those are the skills that they will utilize on a daily basis in their future careers [9]. However, little research has aimed to characterize how physicists solve real-world problems related to their research, and has typically focused on engineers [10], multiple STEM fields [11], or physics graduate students [12]. Few have focused exclusively on physics researchers [13][14][15].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Making expert cognitive processes visible: planning and preliminary analysis in theoretical physics research

Verostek¹,

Griston²,

Botello³

et al. 2022

2022 Physics Education Research Conference Proceedings

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Many of the activities and cognitive processes that physicists use while solving problems are "invisible" to students, which can hinder their acquisition of important expert-like skills. Whereas the detailed calculations performed by researchers are often published in journals and textbooks, other activities such as those undertaken while planning how to approach a problem are rarely discussed in published research. Hence, these activities are especially hidden from students. To better understand how physicists solve problems in their professional research, we leveraged the framework of cognitive task analysis to conduct semi-structured interviews with theoretical physicists (N = 11). Here we elucidate the role of planning and preliminary analysis in theorists' work. Theorists described using a variety of activities in order to decide if their project was doable while also generating possible solution paths. These actions included doing preliminary calculations, reflecting on previous knowledge, gaining intuition and understanding by studying prior work, and reproducing previous results. We found that theorists typically did not pursue projects unless they had a clear idea of what the outcome of their project would be, or at least knew that they would be able to make progress on the problem. Thus, this preliminary design and analysis phase was highly important for theorists despite being largely hidden from students. We conclude by suggesting potential ways to incorporate our findings into the classroom to give students more numerous opportunities to engage in these expert-like practices.

show abstract

A Detailed Characterization of the Expert Problem-Solving Process in Science and Engineering: Guidance for Teaching and Assessment

Cited by 46 publications

References 34 publications

Making expert processes visible: how and why theorists use assumptions and analogies in their research

Making expert processes visible: how and why theorists use assumptions and analogies in their research

Shaping student confidence and their perception of learning in undergraduate chemistry and biochemistry courses

Making expert cognitive processes visible: planning and preliminary analysis in theoretical physics research

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About