Scaffolding Engineering Students to Be the Problem Solvers We Want Them to Be

Abstract

Scaffolding Engineering Students to be the Problem Solvers We Want Them to Be AbstractIn addition to communicating theoretical knowledge, successful engineering education programs equip prospective engineers with the strategies and methods to solve practical problems encountered in the work place. In contrast to many of the limited-scope problems in textbooks,practical problems are open-ended, loosely structured, and complex. Engineering programs have long recognized the need to convey both theoretical and practical knowledge by supplementing textbooks and lectures with laboratory experiences and integrated design projects; however, many of the teaching methods employed in the traditional lecture hall are carried over to the lab environment.In the fall 2014, we observed student difficulty in solving open-ended problems, leading to low achievement outcomes with junior-level bioengineering signals and systems design projects. To drive and improve the development of problem solving skills in our laboratory environment, a three element approach was used that included problem based learning (PBL), flipped instruction, and cognitive apprenticeship. Together, these three elements composed our scaffolding approach, in which a student is supported during the early stages of skill acquisition, and as the skill level increases, support is scaled back. Our hypothesis was that this scaffolding approach, as described in the PBL literature, would lead to enhanced achievement in the fall 2015 on these open-ended laboratory projects.The signals and systems projects required students to design input signals to test and analyze unknown systems using MATLAB programming. The problem based instructional approach for the fall 2015 term began with a series of assignments guiding the students in decomposing the problem into components; this allowed the problem itself to become central to skill development. The flipped instructional environment challenged students to prepare for lab sessions by reviewing programming examples and completing online assessments to gain early feedback before going to the lab sessions. The lab sessions were then reserved for collaborative, hands-on programming practice with peers and just-in-time instructor questioning and monitoring.Students were encouraged to submit periodic progress reports (i.e. design reviews) for instructor feedback and guidance that included their decision justifications. The students, rather than passively taking in information from the instructor, became actively involved in the apprenticeship. As part of this transformed role, the students were encouraged to reflect on changes in their problem solving approaches in the final progress report. The students' reflective responses were then qualitatively analyzed for insight into their problem solving processes. A statistical comparison of the project scores was also done to assess improvement. The instructor's assessment of the students' use of his feedback and their problem solving approaches was gathered via semi-structured interview ...

Build As You Go: An Approach to Completing Laboratory Reports

“…In conclusion, and based on the results gathered during 2015 and 2016 semesters, we believe that the combination of scaffolding in general (Clark & Mahboobin, 2016) and our specific scaffolding approach of build-as-you-go report writing has been successful in enhancing the open-ended problem solving and professional skills of the students participating in our laboratory. We also view our build-as-you-go approach beneficial to students partaking in senior capstone projects in which project duration may last for up to two semesters and therefore require incremental writing.…”

“…The laboratory details have been described in a previously published paper (Clark & Mahboobin, 2016). For completeness, a brief description is provided here.…”

“…This strategy encouraged them to use the optional progress reports (three per project) as portions of the final report, thus encouraging proactive and incremental writing as the project progressed. During the previous 2015 fall semester, students had not been formally instructed on this approach, although some teams determined on their own to use such an approach (Clark & Mahboobin, 2016).…”