2026 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition

In this paper, we detail the use of qualitative coding and timelines as a methodological tool to analyze how students navigate confusion in a chemical engineering thermodynamics studio. Confusion is an integral part of the learning process. We define confusion as the cognitive and affective response to encountering an impasse when learning. However, students often view confusion negatively and may try to avoid it because it does not align with the preconceived notion of being a “good” student. Instructors also can view confusion as a negative aspect of classroom delivery, favoring clear lectures and neatly solved example problems [1]. In authentic engineering work, we recognize that confusion is often a necessary part of the process [2] and more broadly confusion has shown to be beneficial to learning [1]. To better design engineering learning environments where students can both engage with and learn to tolerate confusion, we must better understand how confusion arises in context. In the classroom setting, small groups provide a vehicle both for students to be supported through confusion and for researchers to study their responses [2], [3]. Thus, we focus on small-group collaborative work to understand group sensemaking practices and the role of confusion therein.

To conduct this work, audio- and video-data were collected from three consenting groups of students in a second-year chemical engineering thermodynamics studio across 14 weeks. Studios met for 50 minutes and supplemented the lecture by giving students the opportunity to tackle challenging problems [4]. We utilized discourse analysis [5] to understand how confusion manifests for three groups when solving a Henry's law problem. We observed that timelines serve as a productive way to scaffold a narrative around our complex dataset where students and instructors are constantly interacting.

References
[1] S. D’Mello, B. Lehman, R. Pekrun, and A. Graesser, “Confusion can be beneficial for learning,” Learn. Instr., vol. 29, pp. 153–170, Feb. 2014, doi: 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2012.05.003.
[2] S. B. Nolen, E. L. Michor, and M. D. Koretsky, “Engineers, figuring it out: Collaborative learning in cultural worlds,” J. Eng. Educ., vol. 113, no. 1, pp. 164–194, 2024, doi: 10.1002/jee.20576.
[3] L. Springer, M. E. Stanne, and S. S. Donovan, “Effects of small-group learning on undergraduates in science, mathematics, engineering, and technology: A Meta-Analysis,” Rev. Educ. Res., vol. 69, no. 1, pp. 21–51, Mar. 1999, doi: 10.3102/00346543069001021.
[4] M. D. Koretsky, “Program level curriculum reform at scale: Using studios to flip the classroom.,” Chem. Eng. Educ., vol. 49, no. 1, pp. 47–57, 2015
[5] J. Gee, Social linguistics and literacies: Ideology in discourses, 5th ed. London: Routledge, 2015. doi: 10.4324/9781315722511.