Asee peer logo

Assessing Cognitive Reasoning And Learning In Mechanics

Download Paper |

Conference

2008 Annual Conference & Exposition

Location

Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Publication Date

June 22, 2008

Start Date

June 22, 2008

End Date

June 25, 2008

ISSN

2153-5965

Conference Session

Mechanics Education Programs and Projects

Tagged Division

Mechanics

Page Count

18

Page Numbers

13.226.1 - 13.226.18

Permanent URL

https://peer.asee.org/4347

Download Count

53

Request a correction

Paper Authors

biography

Christopher Papadopoulos

visit author page

Chris Papadopoulos earned BS degrees in Civil Engineering and Mathematics from Carnegie Mellon University, and a PhD in Theoretical and Applied Mechanics, Cornell University. He previously served on the faculty of Engineering at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, where he is currently a research associate, grant writer, lecturer, and director of educational programs. His research interests include biomechanics, nonlinear structural mechanics, computational mechanics, engineering education, and engineering ethics. He is an active member of American Society for Engineering Education (ASEE), American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), and Association for Practical and Professional Ethics (APPE).

visit author page

Download Paper |

Abstract
NOTE: The first page of text has been automatically extracted and included below in lieu of an abstract

Assessing Cognitive Reasoning and Learning in Mechanics

1. Introduction

Mechanics is the discipline that anchors the engineer’s scientific reasoning. While mechanics is properly concerned with practical treatment of the behavior of structures and mechanisms – “what to think”, it is equally concerned with the methodology of problem formulation and solution – “how to think”. Not coincidentally, all accredited engineering programs require mechanics courses at entry to major. Because mechanics is so centrally situated in the engineer’s intellectual training, it lends itself to the study of engineers’ thinking, learning, and metacognition.

Perhaps because of these characteristics, a great deal of research has been conducted to assess student learning in mechanics and methods of teaching mechanics. Educators in physics and engineering have developed a clear understanding of misconceptions that conflict with student learning, and the concept inventory has emerged as a powerful tool to identify these misconceptions. I review several results of the literature on misconceptions and use of concept inventories. In the course of this review, I raise the issue of whether concept understanding is sufficient for problem-solving, and I suggest that procedural knowledge must also be emphasized in mechanics instruction.

I also review other methods of assessing student learning, such as student interviews and interactive reviews of student work. I also provide some information on studies that have attempted to evaluate textbooks. I frame the discussion on textbooks within the larger context of promoting problem-solving by the incorporation of systematic procedure and the fostering of sound problem-solving habits.

2. Misconceptions and Concept Inventories in Physics Education

Formal study of student knowledge and learning in mechanics is rooted in research conducted by physics educators since the early 1970s. In 1984, Lillian McDermott18 published what is perhaps the first review of these efforts. The over-riding themes that had emerged were that (1) students bring misconceptions to the classroom that contradict principles of Newtonian physics; (2) misconceptions are often resistant to change, and often persist after instruction; (3) students can obtain correct answers to problems (e.g., by plugging numbers into formulae) without understanding the underlying concepts; and (4) students have difficulty applying basic concepts to actual physical situations. Corresponding to these general themes were several specific types of misconceptions that were widely held by students:

Neglecting “passive” forces. Students often neglect forces that do not appear to be “active”, such as the normal force supplied by a tabletop to support a book that rests on the tabletop18. Such forces are termed “passive” in the physics education literature and roughly correspond to “reactions” in engineering.

Papadopoulos, C. (2008, June), Assessing Cognitive Reasoning And Learning In Mechanics Paper presented at 2008 Annual Conference & Exposition, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. https://peer.asee.org/4347

ASEE holds the copyright on this document. It may be read by the public free of charge. Authors may archive their work on personal websites or in institutional repositories with the following citation: © 2008 American Society for Engineering Education. Other scholars may excerpt or quote from these materials with the same citation. When excerpting or quoting from Conference Proceedings, authors should, in addition to noting the ASEE copyright, list all the original authors and their institutions and name the host city of the conference. - Last updated April 1, 2015