Structural Engineering Heuristics in an Engineering Workplace and Academic Environments

Barner, Matthew; Brown, Shane; Linton, David

doi:10.1061/(asce)ei.2643-9115.0000029

Cited by 4 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 28 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Baybutt's (2018) analysis of potential cognitive biases affecting the use of heuristics in hazards analysis is a particularly salient example of the challenges of replacing sound engineering judgment with routine heuristics. Though as Barner et al (2021) argue, heuristics can be a valuable component of undergraduate education, we exclude them from our current conceptualization because of these limitations.…”

Section: Studies In Engineering Educationmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Cunningham et al 2018;Montfort et al 2009;Streveler et al 2014) in engineering education broadly. Importantly, however, these processes also move beyond basic domain knowledge and simplified heuristics to reflect the ways experts develop, learn from, and subsequently draw on a repertoire of experiences -what Gonzalez refers to as "context-action exemplars" (Gonzalez 2017, p. 10) (see, for example, recent work by Barner et al [2021], on the importance of context in the application of engineering heuristics and the differences between academic and workplace applications). Both the closed-loop and naturalistic models emphasize the critical role played by learning from experience -by encountering an open-ended situation, exercising judgment to identify and implement initial decisions, and observing and learning from the outcomes of those decisions to inform future judgments.…”

Section: Studies In Engineering Educationmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Theorizing Engineering Judgment at the Intersection of Decision-Making and Identity

Francis¹,

Paretti²,

Riedner³

2022

Studies in Engineering Education

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Engineering judgment is critical to both engineering education and engineering practice, and the ability to practice or participate in engineering judgment is often considered central to the formation of professional engineering identities. In practice, engineers must make difficult judgments that evaluate potentially competing objectives, ambiguity, uncertainty, incomplete information, and evolving technical knowledge. Nonetheless, while engineering judgment is implicit in engineering work and so central to identification with the profession, educators and practitioners have few actionable frameworks to employ when considering how to develop and assess this capacity in students. In this paper, we propose a theoretical framework designed to inform both educators and researchers that positions engineering judgment at the intersection of the cognitive dimensions of naturalistic decision-making, and discursive dimensions of identity. Our proposed theory positions engineering judgment not only as an individual capacity practiced by individual engineers alone but also as the capacity to position oneself within the discursive community so as to participate in the construction of engineering judgments among a group of professionals working together. Our theory draws on several strands of existing research to theorize a working framework for engineering judgment that considers the cognitive processes associated with making judgments and the inextricable discursive practices associated with negotiating those judgments in context. In constructing this theory, we seek to provide engineering education practitioners and researchers with a framework that can inform the design of assignments, curricula, or experiences that are intended to foster students' participation in the development and practice of engineering judgment.*Author affiliations can be found in the back matter of this article 80 Francis et al. Studies in Engineering Education 83 Francis et al. Studies in Engineering Education 93 Francis et al. Studies in Engineering Education individual cognitive and discursive practices and the cumulative, collaborative enactment of engineering judgment remain practical problems.

show abstract

Section: Studies In Engineering Educationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Studies In Engineering Educationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Theorizing Engineering Judgment at the Intersection of Decision-Making and Identity

Francis¹,

Paretti²,

Riedner³

2022

Studies in Engineering Education

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…On the other hand, noticing that undergraduates and practicing engineers performances are very different-with students often outperforming practitioners in concept inventories [e.g., 14]-, some researchers have highlighted the context and activity dependency of conceptual understanding [20][21][22][23][24][25]. Consequently, they have paid more attention to the way in which the understanding and use of concepts vary across school and work.…”

Section: Conceptual Knowledge In Engineering Educationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Concept development in microengineering: unpacking underlying processes and developmental paths

Vergara¹

2022

Towards a New Future in Engineering Education, New Scenarios That European Alliances of Tech Universities Open Up

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Concepts are a matter of importance for engineering education. Believed to be critical for developing expertise and engineering competence, conceptual knowledge has become a focus for research and training. Despite focusing on it, engineering graduates still often do not understand core concepts for their practice. With a few exceptions, most research concerning conceptual knowledge in engineering has been developed on assumptions of cognitive psychology, which have been subject to strong criticisms. One of these criticisms points out that mainstream approaches on concepts do not account for the socio-material conditions in which concepts are used and transformed. Some researchers in engineering education have moved beyond, taking a situative perspective. These studies have shown how, compared to training, knowledge in the practice is highly contextualized, depends on tools in which it is inscribed, and is distributed among collaborators. However, while stressing the sociomaterial dimension of conceptual knowledge and the differences in concept use between training and practice, the situative perspective does not account for the way in which conceptual knowledge develops. Alternatively, the cultural-historical theory of concepts offers an approach that overcomes the weaknesses of mainstream approaches while addressing the problem of development. Drawing on culturalhistorical theory, this paper presents an ongoing research aimed at the study of concept development in microengineering teaching and practice. I will present the respective methodological approach—borrowed from a French tradition of work psychology—for studying concept development from interactions in work and teaching activities. Expected results and implications for engineering education will also be discussed.

show abstract

Tangibility of representations in engineering courses and the workplace

Barner¹,

Brown

Bornasal

et al. 2021

J of Engineering Edu

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Situated cognition theory suggests that representations of concepts are products of the environment wherein we learn and apply concepts. This research builds on situated cognition by investigating how concepts are tangible to a professional engineering environment.Purpose/Hypothesis: The tangibility of concepts in relation to social and material contexts was defined and explored in this study. Specifically, the conceptual representations of structural loads were examined within workplace and academic environments.Design/Method: A researcher conducted ethnographic fieldwork at a private engineering firm and in undergraduate engineering courses. Data sources from this fieldwork included the ethnographer's participant-observation field notes, formal and informal interviews, and artifact documentation.Results: Findings from this study described how academic representations of structural loads are more or less tangible to the social and material contexts of engineering practice. Representations documented in the workplace were found to be tangible to (1) real-world conditions, (2) project/stakeholder constraints, and (3) engineering tools. Conversely, representations documented in the courses studied exhibited various degrees of tangibility to none, some, or all of these three traits.Conclusions: These findings explicitly identify the ways in which representations of structural loads differ across academic and workplace environments and how these differences may contribute to the education-practice gap. Specific suggestions for making academic representations more tangible to workplace environments are provided based on findings from in the workplace, previous engineering education literature, and best practices observed in the courses studied. Future research considerations and the value of ethnographic methodology to situated cognition theory are also discussed.

show abstract

Structural Engineering Heuristics in an Engineering Workplace and Academic Environments

Cited by 4 publications

References 28 publications

Theorizing Engineering Judgment at the Intersection of Decision-Making and Identity

Theorizing Engineering Judgment at the Intersection of Decision-Making and Identity

Concept development in microengineering: unpacking underlying processes and developmental paths

Tangibility of representations in engineering courses and the workplace

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About