This research paper considers the integration of Reeves' autonomy supportive teaching scale (ASTS) as an ob-servation tool for problem based learning (PBL). The work is motivated by our interest in understanding the nature of effective facilitation in PBL settings, a recognized challenge of PBL implementation. We report on our efforts to use ASTS to characterize instructor-student interaction that balances the need for student autonomy inherent to PBL with the learning outcomes that an instructor seeks. Four members of a research used a modified version of the ASTS to analyze classroom recordings from an introductory aerospace engineering course. We considered interactions between the facilitator and students that occurred at the level of whole-class and individual group. We report on three representative cases that highlight challenges in the use of ASTS in practice. We found that using the ASTS to evaluate autonomy in the PBL classroom supports productive conversations within the research team that allowed for deliberation on several topics relevant to PBL in undergraduate engineering. This work has implications for understanding the role of discourse in supporting student autonomy within PBL classrooms. Specifically, the method and tool for assessing PBL facilitation might be adopted by educators to guide and help instructors understand how to effectively facilitate PBL problems in the classroom and find balance between student autonomy and instructor directed action.

The motivation for this work comes from the tension that students experience when considering participating in co-curriculars and meeting their curricular obligations. There is evidence highlighting a range of benefits from student involvement in co-curricular experiences, including cognitive gains, development of professional competencies, and sense of belonging. Despite these benefits, many undergraduate students have little or no co-curricular involvement. This research seeks to better understand how engineering undergraduates balance their time and navigate educational opportunities. Using the National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE) as a guide, we implemented a daily time-tracking survey and piloted it in a first-year engineering course. The survey included 14 items to capture data on how students spend their time. As part of coursework focused on time management, students were asked to complete the survey once-per-day for five days during the fourth and seventh weeks of their first semester. These weeks were intentionally selected to allow students to be acclimated to the university experience while avoiding weeks of peak work. We used statistical analysis (n=75) to investigate two questions: How do first-year engineering students use their time? How do students' time-use profiles evolve during the semester? Using k-means clustering, analysis of variance, and pairwise comparisons we found three different time-profiles (assignment flexible, downtime flexible, and regulated), which generally held the same characteristics over the two weeks. Additionally, we found that nearly half of the students transitioned between clusters from between the fourth and seventh weeks. No clusters reported co-curricular involvement as a significant activity. Limited engagement in co-curriculars has been attributed to the rigors of the engineering curriculum and students' perceptions about the time required for involvement. Yet, little is known about how students spend their time, limiting our ability to develop interventions or policies that improve access to co-curriculars. While exploratory, our analysis suggests that even as time necessary for curricular obligations fluctuates, students may lack interest or ability to allocate time to co-curriculars. Situated among first-year students, one implication of this work is that supporting engagement in co-curriculars may best be accomplished through interventions that help students in developing routine. Additionally, implications as it pertains to pedagogical design and developing more equitable engineering programs are considered.

This full paper is focused on research into how educators might use concept mapping to explore and design learning experiences in a problem-based learning environment. Attempts to incorporate more open-ended, ill-structured experiences have increased but are challenging for faculty to implement because there are no systematic methods or approaches that support the educator in designing these learning experiences. In the reported work, we present an exploratory study toward a systematic approach for comparing and manipulating problems. The approach combines concept mapping with Jonassen’s characterization of problems and the forms of knowledge required to solve them. We explore manipulation pathways for a problem that can be pursued by an instructor who is interested in impacting the dimensions of structuredness and complexity. We compare similarities and differences among two problems taken from introductory aerospace engineering courses. We consider manipulation of structuredness and complexity and the change propagation in forms of knowledge and solution pathways.

This work in progress research seeks to understand how the underlying processes of authentic/open-ended/ill-structured problem-solving evolve among engineers. With this broader research aim in mind, this paper reports on a proposed reflective approach to facilitate engineering students’ sharing their strategies and process during authentic problem-solving. The reflective approach asks individuals to consider an authentic and significant problem-solving experience and then: 1) diagram their problem-solving process, 2) relate it to an established problem typology classification by Jonassen, 3) relate it to an instructor’s process diagrams interpretating Jonassen, and 4) update their process diagram. Preliminary results from a pilot implementation with two students are reported. In sharing this preliminary work, we consider the potential for the proposed approach to support research that accesses students’ awareness and thinking about their problem-solving processes.