Operationalizing Jonassen’s Design Theory of Problem Solving: An Instrument to Characterize Educational Design Activities
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Abstract Jonassen’s Towards a Design Theory of Problem Solving (2000) outlines the ways in which problems differ in their structure, complexity, and domain. His influential taxonomy describes eleven problem types that vary on those scales. Design (and to some degree, case) problems are some of the “highest” types of problem-solving, presenting students with complex real-word problems that are presented in an ill-structured way. Jonassen also emphasizes the difference in individual problem solvers, who vary in their familiarity with problems, domain knowledge, information processing, and ability to reflect on the problem at hand. In Engineering programs, especially in junior and intermediate years, students have traditionally been exposed mostly to lower forms of problem-solving (e.g., algorithmic problems, rule-using problems, and troubleshooting problems), lacking significant exposure to real, ill-structured design problems until their third and fourth year. To address this problem, the Faculty of Engineering at the University of Waterloo has launched the IDEAs Clinic, which develops and delivers a multitude of authentic, ambiguous, hands-on design activities that are integrated into existing degree programs. The most ambitious types of activities have been Engineering Design Days (EDD), which are in-class, multi-day curricular activities, where students work in teams to design and build solutions to open-ended problems, using knowledge from multiple courses. Our overarching research objective is to understand the effectiveness of EDD in developing engineering students design problem solving skills. Our research framework includes the characterization of (1) the EDD activities, (2) the problem solvers (i.e., students), (3) the problem solvers’ problem solving (i.e. design) process, and (4) the solution (i.e. design). We aim to understand the interaction of (1) and (2) with the hopes of improving (3) and (4). A first step in this research – a work in progress, is the development of an instrument for characterizing the content and structure of EDD activities. In this paper, we describe the development of an instructor survey that seeks to operationalize Jonassen’s definitions of problem structure, complexity, and representation. The survey development process began with semi-structured interviews with four instructors of previous EDD activities. These formed the basis for creating the survey questions. Survey questions were validated using a think-aloud protocol with a fifth EDD instructor. The final stage of data collection will include the dissemination of the survey to instructors of 5 different EDD activities held in the Fall 2019 term (all different from the ones interviewed/surveyed in earlier stages). This work in progress paper summarizes our efforts in developing an objective measurement instrument capable of describing ill-structured in-class design activities, and reports on the survey’s effectiveness in capturing variations in the different EDD activities along the problem dimensions described by Jonassen.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,028 | 0,075 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,012 | 0,007 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,002 | 0,011 |
| Communication savante | 0,009 | 0,008 |
| Science ouverte | 0,002 | 0,006 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,002 | 0,003 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,003 | 0,001 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».