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

In 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 structur ed, 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 tradit ional 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 bioengineeri ng signals and systems design projects. To drive and improve the development of problem solvin g skills in our laboratory environment, a three element approach was used that included probl em ased learning (PBL), flipped instruction, and cognitive apprenticeship. Togethe r, these three elements composed our scaffolding approach, in which a student is support ed 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 lea 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 prob lem based instructional approach for the fall 2015 term began with a series of assignmen ts guiding the students in decomposing the problem into components; this allowed the problem i tself to become central to skill development. The flipped instructional environment challenged st udents to prepare for lab sessions by reviewing programming examples and completing onlin e 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 in structor questioning and monitoring. Students were encouraged to submit periodic progres s 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, th 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 insi ght into their problem solving processes. A statistical comparison of the project scores was al so 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 and incl uded as part of the overall evaluation.