2025 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition

Engineers take various engineering science courses over the span of their undergraduate degree to learn the theories and mathematical models needed to solve common engineering problems. These courses, such as statics, dynamics, and fluids, are typically taught in a lecture and recitation format using close-ended “textbook” problems. However, ethnographic studies have shown that engineering professionals solve open-ended problems that involve not just performing calculations, but making decisions to develop an appropriate model. This can involve identifying relevant and important concepts, choosing a course of action, and assessing reasonableness. Engineering professionals must use their engineering judgment to make these decisions, and we pose that it is therefore critical that undergraduate engineering students have the opportunity to practice solving ill-defined problems throughout their degree program in order to develop their own engineering judgment.

Our study of undergraduate engineering students focuses on the productive beginnings of engineering modeling judgment when provided with the opportunities to practice within open-ended modeling problems (OEMPs) presented in engineering science courses. Our multi-institution collaborative team, funded by the NSF Research in the Formation of Engineers program, aims to address the following questions: (RQ1) In what ways do undergraduate engineering students display the productive beginnings of engineering judgment? (RQ2) What assignment scaffolding supports students in developing the productive beginnings of engineering judgment? (RQ3) What assignment scaffolding makes students’ productive beginnings of engineering judgment (or lack thereof) visible to instructors?

Since last year’s poster session, we have refined our analysis and discussion of 34 student interviews (RQ1) resulting in the Emerging Engineering Modeling Judgment (EMJ) taxonomy of four types and fifteen sub-types of engineering judgment. The four types consist of 1) Making assumptions, 2) Assessing reasonableness, 3) Overriding a calculated answer, and 4) Using technology tools. To begin answering RQ2, we have completed interviews with two instructors about their intentions behind OEMP design. We are currently conducting more intense, in depth research on scaffolding support of engineering judgment development (RQ2) through closely analyzing each interaction that one instructor has with students as they work on a specific OEMP in two sections of a statics class at purple university. We collected this data during observations of one-on-one meetings after lecture, group work during lecture, office hours, and project submission check-ins. To address RQ3, we are also currently using the EMJ Framework to interview instructors who assign OEMPs in their classes about occasions that they have noticed their students demonstrating the emerging engineering judgment types during OEMPs. We intend to share preliminary findings toward scaffolding (RQ2) and instructor noticing (RQ3) that can show the role of instructors in developing and supporting OEMPs that promote the productive beginnings of engineering judgment. Implications of this work include showing how to incorporate engineering modeling judgment practice for students throughout the degree program using well-scaffolded open-ended modeling problems in their engineering science courses. These results will be used to design faculty professional development that supports instructors in designing and implementing OEMPs and noticing and responding to students’ emerging engineering judgment.