2026 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition

This empirical research full paper examines how undergraduate engineering students articulate adaptive and non-adaptive reasoning in written reflections from a senior capstone design course. Drawing on Individual Adaptability (I-ADAPT) theory, which conceptualizes adaptability as operating through mediating processes such as situation appraisal, strategy selection, and self-regulation, this study reframes adaptability as enacted reasoning rather than as a stable individual trait or generalized flexibility. In engineering education research, adaptability is frequently assessed through self-report instruments or inferred from final design outcomes. While such approaches capture important aspects of adaptive performance, they provide limited insight into how students interpret disruption, evaluate evolving constraints, and determine whether and how to revise their approach during ongoing design work. Data were drawn from 141 individual reflections submitted by 47 students during the first semester of a two-semester, industry-sponsored capstone experience. Using a primarily inductive, theory-informed qualitative analysis, we examined how students described responding to changing requirements, resource limitations, stakeholder input, and feasibility constraints. Patterns across the dataset revealed distinct forms of adaptive and non-adaptive reasoning. Adaptive accounts were marked by explicit recognition of misalignment between expectations and project realities, articulated evaluation of its implications, and justified adjustment of strategies or success criteria. In contrast, non-adaptive reasoning involved persistence or deferral despite acknowledged uncertainty, with limited evidence of evaluative engagement or regulatory change. Importantly, sustained effort and engagement appeared in both adaptive and non-adaptive reflections, highlighting the need to distinguish adaptability from related constructs such as persistence, effort, and general problem-solving ability. By grounding construct clarification in students’ situated accounts of authentic design work, this study extends I-ADAPT theory into undergraduate engineering contexts and characterizes adaptability as a structured reasoning process enacted in response to evolving conditions. These findings provide an empirical foundation for assessment approaches that move beyond performance domains or trait endorsement and instead capture how individuals interpret and regulate action under ambiguity and constraint. Such process-oriented measurement offers a more theoretically coherent and context-sensitive basis for assessing adaptability in engineering education and practice.