"Problem solving" in engineering: Research on students' engineering design practices and mathematical modeling practices

TL;DR: Tolbert et al. as discussed by the authors explored how African American youth access capital to develop engineering skills and how those skills can be transferred to engineering education settings, and their work intersects both design research and research on the access and experiences of underrepresented communities along engineering pathways.

TL;DR: How PA has been used in engineering design education contexts is described, understanding the range of research questions that can be addressed by the method as well as providing some commentary on the strengths, limitations, and future directions of the method.

Abstract: The goals of this chapter are (1) to outline and substantiate a broad conceptualization of what it means to think mathematically, (2) to summarize the literature relevant to understanding mathematical thinking and problem solving, and (3) to point to new directions in research, development, and assessment consonant with an emerging understanding of mathematical thinking and the goals for instruction outlined here. The use of the phrase “learning to think mathematically” in this chapter’s title is deliberately broad. Although the original charter for this chapter was to review the literature on problem solving and metacognition, the literature itself is somewhat ill defined and poorly grounded. As the literature summary will make clear, problem solving has been used with multiple meanings that range from “working rote exercises” to “doing mathematics as a professional”; metacognition has multiple and almost disjoint meanings (from knowledge about one’s thought processes to self-regulation during problem solving) that make it difficult to use as a concept. This chapter outlines the various meanings that have been ascribed to these terms and discusses their role in mathematical thinking. The discussion will not have the character of a classic literature review, which is typically encyclopedic in its references and telegraphic in its discussions of individual papers or results. It will, instead, be selective and illustrative, with main points illustrated by extended discussions of pertinent examples. Problem solving has, as predicted in the 1980 Yearbook of the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (Krulik, 1980, p. xiv), been the theme of the 1980s. The decade began with NCTM’s widely heralded statement, in its Agenda for Action, that “problem solving must be the focus of school mathematics” (NCTM, 1980, p. 1). It concluded with the publication of Everybody Counts (National Research Council, 1989) and the Curriculum and Evaluation Standards for School Mathematics (NCTM, 1989), both of which emphasize problem solving. One might infer, then, that there is general acceptance of the idea that the primary goal of mathematics instruction should be to have students become competent problem solvers. Yet, given the multiple interpretations of the term, the goal is hardly clear. Equally unclear is the role that problem solving, once adequately characterized, should play in the larger context of school mathematics. What are the goals for mathematics instruction, and how does problem solving fit within those goals? Such questions are complex. Goals for mathematics instruction depend on one’s conceptualization of what mathematics is, and what it means to understand mathematics. Such conceptualizations vary widely. At one end of the spectrum, mathematical knowledge is seen as a body of facts and procedures dealing with quantities, magnitudes, and forms, and the relationships among them; knowing mathematics is seen as having mastered these facts and procedures. At the other end of the spectrum, mathematics is conceptualized as the “science of patterns,” an (almost) empirical discipline closely akin to the sciences in its emphasis on pattern-seeking on the basis of empirical evidence. The author’s view is that the former perspective trivializes mathematics; that a curriculum based on mastering a corpus of mathematical facts and procedures is severely impoverished—in much the same way that an English curriculum would be considered impoverished if it focused largely, if not exclusively, on issues of grammar. The author characterizes the mathematical enterprise as follows:

TL;DR: A review of the literature on problem solving and metacognition can be found in this article, where the authors outline and substantiate a broad conceptualization of what it means to think mathematically, summarize the literature relevant to understanding mathematical thinking and problem solving, and point to new directions in research, development and assessment.

TL;DR: In this article, the purpose of engineering education is to train engineers who can design, and that design thinking is difficult to learn and difficult to teach, and the most popular pedagogical model for teaching design is Project-Based Learning (PBL).

TL;DR: In this paper, the purpose of engineering education is to train engineers who can design, and that design thinking is difficult to learn and difficult to teach, and the most popular pedagogical model for teaching design is Project-Based Learning (PBL).