Thinking Styles in Engineering Design Education
A guide on improving problem-solving skills in engineering design and physics.
Ravishankar Chatta Subramaniam, Jason W. Morphew, Carina M. Rebello, N. Sanjay Rebello
― 6 min read
Table of Contents
- What Do We Mean by "Thinking"?
- Types of Thinking
- Mixing Up the Types of Thinking
- Learning Through Doing
- An Example Project
- The Classroom Environment
- Teamwork Makes the Dream Work
- Evaluating Student Thinking
- What to Look For
- Real-World Applications
- The Importance of Interdisciplinary Learning
- Challenges in Learning
- Addressing Challenges
- Conclusion
- Original Source
Let's face it: science can be complicated. But when you throw in engineering design, it gets even trickier. This guide aims to make things clearer by discussing how students can improve their thinking when tackling engineering design problems in physics. We all know that solving problems isn’t just about knowing the facts; it’s also about how we think. So, grab a cup of coffee and let's dig in!
What Do We Mean by "Thinking"?
Thinking isn't just a fancy term that professionals use to sound smart. It’s about how we approach problems, make choices, and learn from our experiences. In engineering design and physics, students need to blend different types of thinking to come up with effective solutions. There are several ways we can categorize these thinking styles.
Types of Thinking
-
Design Thinking: This is all about creativity and coming up with new solutions. Picture yourself trying to build the best catapult ever to launch marshmallows across the room. What materials will you use? How will you test it? If it fails, how will you improve it?
-
Science Thinking: Here, you focus on understanding how things work in the physical world. You might ask, "What are the forces acting on this catapult?" or "How does gravity affect my marshmallow's flight?"
-
Mathematics Thinking: Math is the tool that helps you quantify your ideas. You’ll need to calculate angles, distances, and maybe even the right amount of sugar for those marshmallows.
-
Metacognitive Reflection: This is just a fancy way of saying, "Think about your thinking." After working on a project, you might reflect on what went well and what didn’t. What did you learn, and what would you do differently next time?
-
Computational Thinking: Think of it as your computer's way of problem-solving. It could involve writing a simple code to simulate how your catapult works. Not only will this help you visualize the outcome, but it will also connect your design and math thinking.
Mixing Up the Types of Thinking
When students dive into engineering design projects, they often need to mix and match these thinking styles. If one type of thinking fails, another can save the day! For instance, if your design doesn’t work as planned, your science thinking can guide you in figuring out what went wrong. Meanwhile, your computational thinking skills might let you draw some quick simulations to check your results.
Learning Through Doing
One of the best ways to understand these thinking styles is through hands-on activities. Instead of just reading about catapults, why not build one? Don’t worry; you won’t be graded on your marshmallow-launching skills… well, maybe just a little.
An Example Project
Let’s say your class is given the task of designing a vehicle that can transport food to a distant island. Seems straightforward, right? But wait! You have to make sure your vehicle doesn’t disturb the ecosystem and keeps its carbon footprint low. So, how do you tackle this?
-
Design Thinking: First, brainstorm ideas. Will your vehicle be a boat, a drone, or something else? What materials can you use to keep it lightweight and eco-friendly?
-
Science Thinking: Next, think about how your chosen method will work. If it’s a boat, you’ll need to understand buoyancy and water resistance. If it’s a drone, consider aerodynamics and battery life.
-
Mathematics Thinking: Calculate how much weight your vehicle can carry, how much fuel or energy it will need, and the time it will take to reach the island.
-
Metacognitive Reflection: After building a prototype, ask yourself: Why did it succeed or fail? Did it work according to your expectations? How can I improve it?
-
Computational Thinking: Create a simple program that can simulate your vehicle's journey, providing visual feedback on its efficiency and impact.
The Classroom Environment
In a classroom setting, it’s important to create a space that encourages all types of thinking. Letting students work in groups can boost creativity. If every student brings their different ways of thinking to the table, the outcome is often more innovative.
Teamwork Makes the Dream Work
Collaboration is key. Students should feel comfortable sharing their ideas and reflecting on each other's work. When working as a team, they can test different thinking styles against each other. It’s like a mini-brainstorming session, except with more marshmallows!
Evaluating Student Thinking
Now, how do we know if students are applying these thinking styles effectively? Well, we can use rubrics-structured guides for grading. These rubrics should focus on how well students demonstrate each type of thinking.
What to Look For
- Creativity in Design: Did they come up with innovative solutions?
- Understanding of Concepts: Can they explain the science behind their designs?
- Accuracy in Calculations: Are their math skills adding up?
- Depth of Reflection: Are they thinking critically about their process?
- Use of Programming Skills: Did they attempt to use computational thinking effectively?
Real-World Applications
It’s easy to get lost in the academic world of engineering and physics, but real-world applications are what bring these concepts to life. Engineers and scientists tackle problems every day that require a mix of the thinking styles discussed.
The Importance of Interdisciplinary Learning
Integrating disciplines is essential. Sometimes, a problem might not fit neatly within the boundaries of the individual subjects. For example, when designing a sustainable vehicle, students need to blend physics, engineering concepts, and even knowledge of environmental science.
Challenges in Learning
As exciting as all this sounds, learning can also be challenging. Students might feel overwhelmed by the variety of approaches or struggle to see how they connect.
Addressing Challenges
To help students face these challenges, instructors should provide clear guidelines. Encouragement to ask questions and seek help is essential. Reflective practices also promote deeper learning, helping students break down their experiences into manageable pieces.
Conclusion
Learning to think in diverse ways is crucial for students tackling engineering design problems in physics. By fostering an environment that promotes creativity, collaboration, and reflection, educators can help students develop the skills needed to solve real-world challenges.
With a pinch of humor and a lot of heart, let’s embrace the messy, creative, and ever-so-exciting world of science and engineering together! And remember: the next time you're launching marshmallows, you might just be unleashing the next big design innovation.
Title: Presenting a STEM Ways of Thinking Framework for Engineering Design-based Physics Problems
Abstract: Investigating students' thinking in classroom tasks, particularly in science and engineering, is essential for improving educational practices and advancing student learning. In this context, the notion of Ways of Thinking (WoT) has gained traction in STEM education, offering a framework to explore how students approach and solve interdisciplinary problems. Building on our earlier studies and contributing to ongoing discussions on WoT frameworks, this paper introduces a new WoT framework: Ways of Thinking in Engineering Design based Physics (WoT4EDP). WoT4EDP integrates five key elements: design, science, mathematics, metacognitive reflection, and computational thinking within an undergraduate introductory physics laboratory. This framework offers a novel perspective by emphasizing how these interconnected elements work together to foster deeper learning and holistic problem-solving in Engineering Design based projects. A key takeaway is that this framework serves as a practical tool for educators and researchers to design, implement, and analyze interdisciplinary STEM activities in physics classrooms. We describe the development of WoT4EDP, situate it within the broader landscape of undergraduate STEM education, and provide detailed characterizations of its components. Additionally, we compare WoT4EDP with two contemporary frameworks: Dalal et al. (2021) and English (2023), to glean insights that enhance its application and promote interdisciplinary thinking. This paper is the first of a two-part series. In the upcoming second part, we will demonstrate the application of the WoT4EDP framework, showcasing how it can be used to analyze student thinking in real-world, ED-based physics projects.
Authors: Ravishankar Chatta Subramaniam, Jason W. Morphew, Carina M. Rebello, N. Sanjay Rebello
Last Update: 2024-12-11 00:00:00
Language: English
Source URL: https://arxiv.org/abs/2411.11654
Source PDF: https://arxiv.org/pdf/2411.11654
Licence: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
Changes: This summary was created with assistance from AI and may have inaccuracies. For accurate information, please refer to the original source documents linked here.
Thank you to arxiv for use of its open access interoperability.