A Paradigm for Assessing Conceptual and Procedural Knowledge in Engineering Students

Conceptual and procedural knowledge are two mutually‐supportive factors associated with the development of engineering skill. The present study extends previous work on undergraduate learning in engineering to provide further validation for an assessment paradigm capable of quantifying engineering students' conceptual and problem‐solving knowledge. Eight students who were enrolled in an introductory thermodynamics course and four who were enrolled in the course sequel provided verbal protocol data as they used instructional software. They were compared to existing data from a cohort of eleven science and engineering majors who had not taken thermodynamics. The results replicated earlier findings showing more cognitive activity on computer screens requiring overt user interaction compared to text‐based screens. The data also indicated that higher‐ versus lower‐performing students, based on course grades, engaged in more higher‐order cognitive processing. There was no evidence that students gained deeper cognitive processing as they advanced through the engineering curriculum.

[1]  Benjamin S. Bloom,et al.  Taxonomy of Educational Objectives: The Classification of Educational Goals. , 1957 .

[2]  J. R. Landis,et al.  The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. , 1977, Biometrics.

[3]  S. Addelman.  Statistics for experimenters , 1978 .

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

[5]  K. A. Ericsson,et al.  Protocol Analysis: Verbal Reports as Data , 1984 .

[6]  Matthew W. Lewis,et al.  Self-Explonations: How Students Study and Use Examples in Learning to Solve Problems , 1989, Cogn. Sci..

[7]  A. G. Priest,et al.  New light on novice—expert differences in physics problem solving , 1992 .

[8]  Jungsoon P. Yoo,et al.  Categorization, Concept Learning, and Problem-Solving: A Unifying View , 1993 .

[9]  Peter Afflerbach,et al.  Verbal Protocols of Reading: The Nature of Constructively Responsive Reading , 1996 .

[10]  M. Pavelich,et al.  Measuring the Effect of Experiential Education Using the Perry Model , 1996 .

[11]  K. VanLehn,et al.  Cognitive skill acquisition. , 1996, Annual review of psychology.

[12]  Karen M. Bursic,et al.  Verbal Protocol Analysis as a Method to Document Engineering Student Design Processes , 1998 .

[13]  Ann L. Brown,et al.  How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school. , 1999 .

[14]  Marie Tejero Hughes,et al.  Underprepared College Students' Perceptions of Reading: Are Their Perceptions Different than other Students? , 1999 .

[15]  Donald R. Woods,et al.  An Evidence‐Based Strategy for Problem Solving , 2000 .

[16]  Thomas A. Litzinger,et al.  The Effects of a First‐Year Engineering Design Course on Student Intellectual Development as Measured by the Perry Scheme , 2000 .

[17]  Roman Taraban,et al.  College Students' Academic Performance and Self-Reports of Comprehension Strategy Use. , 2000 .

[18]  C. Borror.  Practical Nonparametric Statistics, 3rd Ed. , 2001 .

[19]  Arthur C. Graesser,et al.  1. Introduction to the psychology of science text comprehension , 2002 .

[20]  Roman Taraban,et al.  Developing A Model Of Students' Navigations In Computer Modules For Introductory Thermodynamics , 2003 .

[21]  Roman Taraban,et al.  Giving Students Time for the Academic Resources that Work , 2004 .

[22]  Cindy E. Hmelo-Silver,et al.  Comparing expert and novice understanding of a complex system from the perspective of structures, behaviors, and functions , 2004, Cogn. Sci..

[23]  P.S. Steif,et al.  An articulation of the concepts and skills which underlie engineering statics , 2004, 34th Annual Frontiers in Education, 2004. FIE 2004..

[24]  Roman Taraban,et al.  Developing On‐Line Homework for Introductory Thermodynamics , 2005 .

[25]  Michelene T. H. Chi,et al.  Commonsense Conceptions of Emergent Processes: Why Some Misconceptions Are Robust , 2005 .

[26]  Barbara M. Olds,et al.  Concept Inventories Meet Cognitive Psychology: Using Beta Testing As A Mechanism For Identifying Engineering Student Misconceptions , 2005 .

[27]  Francesco Costanzo,et al.  Problem Solving In Statics And Dynamics: A Proposal For A Structured Approach , 2005 .

[28]  Students’ Cognitions When Using An Instructional Cd For Introductory , 2005 .

[29]  Malgorzata Zywno,et al.  Learning Styles Of Engineering Students, Online Learning Objects And Achievement , 2005 .

[30]  Phillip C Wankat,et al.  Improving Engineering and Technology Education by Applying What is Known About How People Learn , 2005 .

[31]  Roman Taraban,et al.  Implementing and Assessing Computer- based Active Learning Materials in Introductory Thermodynamics* , 2005 .

[32]  R. Taraban.  The Growth Of Text Literacy In Engineering Undergraduates , 2006 .

[33]  Peggy Noel Van Meter,et al.  A Cognitive Study Of Modeling During Problem Solving , 2006 .

[34]  Barbara M. Olds,et al.  Identifying and Investigating Difficult Concepts in Engineering Mechanics and Electric Circuits. Research Brief. , 2006 .

[35]  Ruth A. Streveler,et al.  Misconceptions About Rate Processes: Preliminary Evidence For The Importance Of Emergent Conceptual Schemas In Thermal And Transport Sciences , 2006 .

[36]  Margot A. Vigeant,et al.  Using inquiry-based activities to promote understanding of critical engineering concepts. , 2006 .

[37]  Roman Taraban,et al.  First Steps in Understanding Engineering Students' Growth of Conceptual and Procedural Knowledge in an Interactive Learning Context , 2007 .

[38]  F. Gobet,et al.  The Cambridge handbook of expertise and expert performance , 2006 .