March 20, 2019
March 20, 2019
March 22, 2019
This research will be reported solely as a presentation. It is situated within a curricular reform project in 11 core studio courses using assignments that better resemble the work done in engineering practice. These group activities cast students in the role of professional engineers working on design projects, allowing multiple solution paths. In this paper, we examine an episode in which a student group exhibits “glorious confusion,” a state of engagement that, we argue, shifts their orientation from students completing a course assignment to practicing engineers working on a design task. Our research questions are: 1) What triggers glorious confusion? 2) What interactions and types of thinking characterize glorious confusion? Building on our previous clinical study, we adopt the framework of figured worlds, defined as socially constructed realms in which the participants adopt roles, cultural values and associated actions. We contrast two such worlds: (1) “engineering world,” in which reasoning is grounded in engineering principles and the physical system being designed, and which values making meaningful progress on a task, and (2) “school world,” in which reasoning is limited by the topic under current consideration in class, and which values completed assignments and a “correct” answer. This research takes place within the context of a larger and ongoing project studying the interactions of students from multiple courses that are implementing studio activities redesigned to elicit “engineering world” participation. The concept of “glorious confusion” arises from video analysis of students working on revised studio problems. It is engagement characterized by extended discussion in which students appear to think like engineers but make little progress. It is “glorious” because it aligns with our goal of fostering more realistic engineering thinking. However, some engineering faculty viewing these videos have critiqued what they see as “floundering” and doubt the advisability of inducing it during studios. We present an analysis of six gloriously confused students working on one of the redesigned activities in a sophomore material balances class, in which they must redesign a candy production process, the hydrolysis of sugars in a solution of hydrochloric acid, to enable use of a new additive. Initially the group engages in “school world” thinking, directed by a student oriented towards simply completing a class activity. When they fail to account for the acid, she argues that they are probably not expected to attend to it in a school problem. The group shifts to “engineering world” when a previously quiet student raises the ethical concern that the acid could end up in their product. The group members become engrossed in answering the practical question, where does the acid go? All six students demonstrate greater engagement and clearly reason using the core concept in the course, conservation of mass, as they refute ideas and propose alternatives. Importantly, the group leader also shifts her reasoning process in this way. We argue that glorious confusion is the precursor towards a more productive orientation that aligns with the types of thinking and reasoning of professionals.
Michor, E. L., & Koretsky, M., & Nolen, S. B. (2019, March), Destigmatizing Confusion: Sense-Making in Professional Practice Paper presented at 2019 ASEE PNW Section Conference, Corvallis, Oregon. https://strategy.asee.org/31874
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: © 2019 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