Parikh, S. E., & P.E., S. S., & Goodson, K. E. (2011, June), Characterizing Responses to Open-ended Questions In Heat Transfer Based on Everyday Situations   Paper presented at 2011 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition, Vancouver, BC. 10.18260/1-2--17603

\bibitem{asee_peer_17603}
  Parikh, S. E., \& P.E., S. S., \& Goodson, K. E. (2011, June), \emph{Characterizing Responses to Open-ended Questions In Heat Transfer Based on Everyday Situations }
  Paper presented at 2011 ASEE Annual Conference \& Exposition, Vancouver, BC.
  10.18260/1-2--17603

Sarah E. Parikh, Sheri Sheppard, P.E., and Kenneth E. Goodson.  "Characterizing Responses to Open-ended Questions In Heat Transfer Based on Everyday Situations ".  2011 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition, Vancouver, BC, 2011, June.  ASEE Conferences, 2011.  https://peer.asee.org/17603 Internet.  25 Apr, 2024

\bibitem{asee_peer_17603}
  Sarah E. Parikh, Sheri Sheppard, P.E., and Kenneth E. Goodson.
  "Characterizing Responses to Open-ended Questions In Heat Transfer Based on Everyday Situations ".
  \emph{2011 ASEE Annual Conference \& Exposition, Vancouver, BC, 2011, June}.
  ASEE Conferences, 2011.
  https://peer.asee.org/17603 Internet.  25 Apr, 2024

@INPROCEEDINGS{asee_peer_17603
author = "Sarah E. Parikh, Sheri Sheppard, P.E., and Kenneth E. Goodson"
title = "Characterizing Responses to Open-ended Questions In Heat Transfer Based on Everyday Situations "
booktitle = "2011 ASEE Annual Conference \& Exposition"
year = "2011"
month = "June"
address = "Vancouver, BC"
publisher = "ASEE Conferences"
note = {https://peer.asee.org/17603}
number = {10.18260/1-2--17603}
}

TY  - CPAPER
AB  -                        Characterizing Experts’ Analysis of               Heat Transfer Problems Based on Everyday SituationsIntroductionAs educators, we are constantly trying to improve the learning experience of our students. Asresearchers, we aim to contribute to the understanding of the learning process. Thecharacterization of responses to open-ended questions in heat transfer presented in this papermay add to both of these goals. This characterization of what “expert” heat transferunderstanding looks like may help both educators and students to better guide novices to expert-like thinking. In addition this characterization adds to the research database on expertise.In this study, eight experts were given a series of written questions, based on everyday situations,and the responses were analyzed. The responses included a variety of approaches to answeringthese questions, as well as a variety of mistakes.MethodologyThe experts that participated in this study each had three years or more of post-bachelors study inheat transfer in addition to having passed a Ph.D. qualifying exam in heat transfer. The expertscompleted 12 to 15 written open-ended questions in addition to a brief survey describing theirspecific area of expertise and their current research project.Questions were chosen based on previous concept inventory work and common misconceptionsidentified by Olds (2004), Streveler (2008), and Prince (2010). In addition, comprehensivequestions addressing multiple modes of heat transfer and different key concepts were included tofurther characterize the experts’ approach to solving general heat transfer problems.Each question was coded for both the content of the response and the methods used tocommunicate the response such as equations, diagrams, and vocabulary. In addition, eachquestion included a 4 point likert-scale indicating the expert’s self-reported confidence in theiranswer. The choices were 1-guessing, 2-smart guessing, 3-confident, and 4-very confident.ResultsParticipants expressed different levels of confidence in their answers. While three participantsresponded with the same confidence level for every question, one participant changed thereported confidence level between 1s, 2s, 3s and 4s depending on the question.The open-ended questions intentionally lacked details, so that participants could arrive atdifferent correct answers depending on the assumptions made when reading and interpreting thequestion. However, very few assumptions were stated by the participants even though they wereprompted to articulate them in the instructions.In addition, the experts’ responses were not without mistakes. For example, one participantstated that “[it] has a large thermal mass due to the use of low heat capacity materials” whileanother participant stated “steady-state is only achieved once thermal equilibrium has beenestablished.” The types of mistakes ranged from possibly mixing up the effect of changes on asystem to pointing to possible misconceptions about fundamental concepts in heat transfer.Conclusions and SignificanceExperts’ responses varied in content, the methods of communicating, the reported levels ofconfidence, and the mistakes that were made in answering the questions.A promising area for future work involves comparing answers from experts (as described in thispaper) to those of novice heat transfer learners taking their first heat transfer course.ReferencesOlds, B. M., R.A. Streveler, R.L. Miller, and M.A. Nelson (2004). Preliminary Results from theDevelopment of a Concept Inventory in Thermal and Transport Science. American Society forEngineering Education Annual Conference, Salt Lake City, Utah.Prince, M. (2010). Personal Communication regarding Heat Transfer Concept Inventory.Streveler, R. A., T. A. Litzinger, R. L. Miller, P. S. Steif (2008). "Learning conceptualKnowledge in the Engineering Scinces: Overview and Future Research Directions." Journal ofEngineering Education 97(3): 279-294.
AU  - Sarah E. Parikh
AU  - Sheri Sheppard, P.E.
AU  - Kenneth E. Goodson
CY  - Vancouver, BC
DA  - 2011/06/26
PB  - ASEE Conferences
TI  - Characterizing Responses to Open-ended Questions In Heat Transfer Based on Everyday Situations 
UR  - https://peer.asee.org/17603
DO  - 10.18260/1-2--17603
ER  -