Fractured Practices: How Schooling Norms Limit Modeling Practices in Traditional Technical Thermal-Fluids Engineering Courses -- And the Possibilities Emerging through the Cracks

Abstract

In professional science and engineering contexts, modeling practices are frequent and diverse. To understand, analyze, and communicate, scientists and engineers simplify and distort the complex systems with which they work. This practice is known as modeling. Typically, scientists create models to predict and explain phenomena while engineers develop them to analyze and test systems, make design decisions, and predict the performance of built systems. Models can include verbal (ex. analogy, story), visual (ex. diagrams, graphs, images), and symbolic (ex. equations) representations. When scientists and engineers model, they do so expansively: pulling from different resources, combining modeling strategies, engaging in critique and iteration, and contextualizing their claims in the work of their field. This is not the case for students in technical engineering classes who are attempting to learn these skills. Traditional, lecture-based courses are the norm for introducing technical material to undergraduate engineering students. These courses typically consist of lectures, recitations, problem sets, and exams. In this type of class, students report homework and test problems as having an outsized influence on their learning approach. These problems tend to be narrow and prescribed. Colloquially known as ‘Textbook-Style’ problems, well-defined, single-solution problems are not sucient to prepare students to successfully tackle the ill-defined, multifaceted engineering problems they will face in their careers. These problems do not elicit student engagement in scientific or engineering modeling practices. Instead, they lead to inauthentic, bounded learning where students develop strategies adequate for groups of similar problems, but too narrow for use outside of the classroom. There has been significant research on innovative educational interventions and alternative problem types shown to improve classroom learning. However, educators work within established structures that resist change, leading to the perpetuation of insucient practices. The gap between textbook-style problems and the problems engineers face, therefore, exists not just in the problem type, but in the context surrounding the task. In this work, I describe and characterize the norms and practices of the classroom environment through three qualitative studies, each centered on traditional technical thermal-fluids courses. Specifically, I investigate the ways in which the development of student modeling practices are supported or undermined. I do this, in part, by adapting the theoretical framework of Figured Worlds. Originally developed by Dorothy Holland and later used in Engineering Education research, figured worlds is a situative framework that allows researchers to look at distinct, sometimes contradictory cultural worlds within the same group and activity. In the first study, I look at individual student approaches to classroom tasks in a think-aloud study, comparing their problem solving approaches and analyzing prompt-student interactions. In the second study, I analyze small groups’ modeling practices and how they are limited by the cultural practices of schooling. In the third study, through semi-structured interviews, I document instructor perceptions of their research and teaching, and discuss the misalignments within and between these contexts. Together, these works outline the mechanisms by which school practices can inhibit the development of student modeling capabilities and the role of students and instructors in perpetuating these practices. In describing student and instructor behavior and contextualizing practices that may otherwise be ascribed to misconceptions, carelessness, or ignorance, I hope to build a foundation for future research into pragmatic educational interventions for enhanced learning outcomes.