A Paradigm for Assessing Conceptual and Procedural Knowledge in Engineering Students |
| |
| Authors: | Roman Taraban Alli DeFinis Ashlee G Brown Edward E Anderson M P Sharma |
| |
| Affiliation: | 1. Department of Psychology Texas Tech University;2. Roman Taraban is professor in the Department of Psychology at Texas Tech University. He received his Ph.D. in cognitive psychology from Carnegie Mellon University. His interests are in how undergraduate students learn, and especially, how they draw meaningful connections in traditional college content materials.;3. Alli DeFinis is a graduate student in the Psychology program at Texas Tech University.;4. Ashlee G. Brown is a graduate student in the Psychology program at Texas Tech University.;5. Department of Mechanical Engineering Texas Tech University;6. Edward E. Anderson is professor of Mechanical Engineering and the Ray Butler Distinguished Educator at Texas Tech University. He received his B.S. and M.S. degrees in Mechanical Engineering from Iowa State University and Ph.D. degree from Purdue University. His research interests are in applying technology to teaching.;7. Department of Chemical and Petroleum Engineering University of Wyoming;8. M.P. Sharma is professor of Chemical and Petroleum Engineering at the University of Wyoming. He received his Ph.D. degree in Mechanical Engineering from Washington State University. A current area of interest is conducting research on teaching and learning methods, especially on the use of synchronous and asynchronous tools using Web technology. |
| |
| Abstract: | 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. |
| |
| Keywords: | cognitive processing instructional software skill development assessment |
|
