Framework Theory of Conceptual Change to Interpret Undergraduate Engineering Students' Explanations About Mechanics of Materials Concepts. Issue 1 (23rd February 2018)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Brown, Shane; Montfort, Devlin; Perova‐Mello, Natasha; Lutz, Ben; Berger, Amber; Streveler, Ruth
• Is Part Of: Journal of engineering education. Volume 107:Issue 1(2018:Jan.)
• Page Start: 113
• Page End: 139
• Publication Date: 2018-02-23
• Subjects: conceptual change -- framework theory -- mechanics of materials -- mental models -- misconceptions -- problem solving; Engineering -- Study and teaching (Higher) -- Periodicals; 620.00711
• DOI: 10.1002/jee.20186
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1069-4730

Abstract

Abstract: Background: Conceptual change is a process in which an individual's understanding and the basis of this understanding change over time. Vosniadou's framework theory explains conceptual change in terms of how students learn to relate the observable and unobservable in everyday phenomena. As a result, courses that relate physical phenomena to complex abstractions – such as Mechanics of Materials – are useful spaces for exploring conceptual change. Purpose: This paper leverages Vosniadou's framework theory of conceptual change to explore students' reasoning and to identify trends about their understanding of fundamental concepts of mechanics of materials. Design/Method: This research is based on the qualitative analysis of semi‐structured interviews with ninety engineering undergraduate students enrolled in a Mechanics of Materials course. Interviews were qualitatively analyzed to capture students' understanding of mechanics of materials concepts under different loading scenarios. Results: Our results found two common persistent beliefs in student reasoning in both the axial and bending load cases: that shear and normal stress depend on (a) the direction and (b) the location of an applied load. We propose that students' "nonscientific" beliefs are part of an intermediate, synthetic model of conceptual understanding created as students assimilate their presuppositions of mechanics of materials with newly acquired information based on the scientific concepts. Conclusions: Students form naïve conceptual beliefs based on their experiences with loading scenarios that impede their abilities to more effectively assimilate new concepts into their current framework theories. A better understanding of student reasoning and what influences it can inform instructional techniques to help students develop science‐based reasoning in mechanics of materials.