Cognitive Investigations into Knowledge Representation in Engineering Design

As engineering students gain experience and become experts in their domain, the structure and content of their knowledge changes. Two studies are presented that examine differences in knowledge representation among freshman and senior engineering students. The first study uses a recall paradigm, and the second uses Latent Semantic Analysis to analyze brief descriptions written by engineering students. Both studies find that the most prominent differences between these two groups of students are their representations of the function of electromechanical components and how these components interact. The findings from these studies highlight some ways in which the structure and content of mental representations of design knowledge differ with experience.

[1]  Paul J. Feltovich,et al.  Categorization and Representation of Physics Problems by Experts and Novices , 1981, Cogn. Sci..

[2]  Masaki Suwa,et al.  Macroscopic analysis of design processes based on a scheme for coding designers' cognitive actions , 1998 .

[3]  Judith S Reitman,et al.  Skilled perception in Go: Deducing memory structures from inter-response times , 1976, Cognitive Psychology.

[4]  John S. Gero,et al.  The structure of concurrent cognitive actions: a case study on novice and expert designers , 2002 .

[5]  H. Simon,et al.  Perception in chess , 1973 .

[6]  Kristin L. Wood,et al.  Development of a Functional Basis for Design , 2000 .

[7]  T. Landauer,et al.  Indexing by Latent Semantic Analysis , 1990 .

[8]  Jonathan Evans,et al.  Problem-solving Strategies and Expertise in Engineering Design. , 1997 .

[9]  Dorothea P. Simon,et al.  Expert and Novice Performance in Solving Physics Problems , 1980, Science.

[10]  Robert P. Smith,et al.  An Observational Study of Design Team Process: A Comparison of Student and Professional Engineers , 1998 .

[11]  D E Egan,et al.  Chunking in recall of symbolic drawings , 1979, Memory & cognition.

[12]  Shuang Song,et al.  IDENTIFYING SHARED UNDERSTANDING IN DESIGN USING DOCUMENT ANALYSIS , 2001 .

[13]  Cynthia J. Atman,et al.  A comparison of freshman and senior engineering design processes , 1999 .

[14]  Masaki Suwa,et al.  What do architects and students perceive in their design sketches? A protocol analysis , 1997 .

[15]  F. Gobet.  Expert memory: a comparison of four theories , 1998, Cognition.

[16]  Barbara Tversky,et al.  Diagrams and Descriptions in Acquiring Complex Systems , 2019, Proceedings of the Twenty-Fourth Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society.

[17]  T. Landauer,et al.  A Solution to Plato's Problem: The Latent Semantic Analysis Theory of Acquisition, Induction, and Representation of Knowledge. , 1997 .

[18]  Linden J. Ball,et al.  Structured and opportunistic processing in design: a critical discussion , 1995, Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud..

[19]  Linden J. Ball.  Cognitive processes in engineering design , 1990 .

[20]  H B Richman,et al.  Simulation of expert memory using EPAM IV. , 1995, Psychological review.

[21]  John S. Gero,et al.  Sketching as mental imagery processing , 2001 .

[22]  Ian Dennis,et al.  Cognitive processes in engineering design: a longitudinal study , 1994 .

[23]  V. Goel.  Sketches of thought , 1995 .