Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-669899f699-qzcqf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-04-24T22:11:14.141Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Chapter 2 - Learning Theories for Engineering Education Practice

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 February 2015

By
Wendy C. Newstetter  and
Marilla D. Svinicki
Edited by
Aditya Johri  and
Barbara M. Olds
Wendy C. Newstetter
Affiliation:
Georgia Institute of Technology
Marilla D. Svinicki
Affiliation:
University of Texas
Aditya Johri
Affiliation:
Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University
Barbara M. Olds
Affiliation:
Colorado School of Mines
Get access

Summary

Introduction

In his book Discussion of the Method, Billy V. Koen characterizes the engineering method as “the strategy for causing the best change in a poorly understood situation within the available resources” (Koen, 2003, p. 7). This characterization could easily apply to the instructional method: the strategy is to effect the best change in a learner or in the relations between the learner and a larger community of practice in an imperfectly understood situation with available resources. The worlds of engineering and education are not so far apart after all. Whereas engineers seek to change the material world, instructors seek to change students who inhabit that world, both for the better. “Better,” for the engineer, can mean less expensive, faster, or more durable materials and processes while for the instructor “better” can mean a more skilled, knowledgeable, or expert person who is essentially changed as a result of participating in a new community of practice. In both cases, “best” is accomplished through careful, informed design. And just as physical principles, that is, engineering fundamentals, inform engineering design, learning theory should inform instructional design. Thus, we make the case that designing learning environments without learning theory is comparable to designing a bridge without mechanical laws and principles. In both cases, the goal is unlikely to be accomplished; the learner fails to change in desired ways and the bridge collapses.

To address a common scenario in postsecondary education where faculty are not instructional designers with a toolkit of learning fundamentals but rather accomplished disciplinary experts, we offer a primer on theories of cognition and learning as they relate to engineering education. As with other theoretical disciplines, advances in our understanding of cognition and learning have proceeded through a series of Kuhn-like paradigm shifts. These shifts have occurred as psychology, linguistics, philosophy, anthropology, artificial intelligence, and recently neuroscience have engaged the same two questions: What is the nature of knowing? What is the nature of learning? These questions are bound together, for conceptualizations of knowing have significant implications for conceptualizations of learning and for the design of learning environments. As the conceptualization of knowledge changes, so should the interventions enacted in the educational setting.

Type
Chapter
Information
Cambridge Handbook of Engineering Education Research , pp. 29 - 46
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2014

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Book purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Alexander, P. (2003). The development of expertise: The journey from acclimation to proficiency. Educational Researcher, 32, 10–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aronson, D., & Briggs, L. (1983). Contributions of Gagne and Briggs to a prescriptive model of instruction. In Reigeluth, C. (Ed.), Instructional design theories and models: An overview of their current status (pp. 75–100). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Atkinson, R. C., & Schiffrin, R. M. (1968). Human memory: A proposed system and its control processes. In Spence, K.W. & Spence, J. T. (Eds.), The psychology of learning and memory. Advances in research and theory, Vol. 2. New York, NY: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
Bandura, A. (1989). Human agency in social cognitive theory. American Psychologist, 44, 1175–1184.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bartlett, F. C. (1932). Remembering: A study in experimental and social psychology. New York, NY: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Barwise, J., & Perry, J. (1983). Situations and attitudes. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Bloom, B. S. (1984). The 2 sigma problem: The search for methods of instruction as effective as one-to-one tutoring. Educational Researcher, 13(6), 4–16CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bousfield, W. A. (1953). The occurrence of clustering in the recall of randomly arranged associates. Journal of General Psychology, 49, 229–240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bransford, J., Stevens, R., Schwartz, D., Meltzoff, A., Pea, R., Roschelle, J.,…& Sabelli, N., et al. (2006). Learning theories and education: Toward a decade of synergy. In Alexander, P. & Winne, P. (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology (pp. 209–244). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Brown, J. S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning. Educational Researcher, 18(1), 32–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chi, M. T. H., Feltovich, P. J., & Glaser, R. (1981). Categorization and representation of physics problems by experts and novices. Cognitive Science, 5(2), 121–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cordray, D. S., Harris, T. R., & Klein, S. (2009). A research synthesis of the effectiveness, replicability, and generality of the VaNTH challenge-based instructional modules in bioengineering. Journal of Engineering Education, 98(4), 335–348.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Deffenbacher, K. A. (1991). A maturing of research on the behaviour of eyewitnesses. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 5(5), 377–402.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dewey, J. (1916). Democracy and education. New York, NY: The Free Press.Google Scholar
DiSessa, A. (Ed.). (1988). Knowledge in pieces. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
DiSessa, A. (1993). Toward an epistemology of physics. Cognition and Instruction, 10, 105–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Engestrom, Y. (1987). Learning by expanding: An activity-theoretical approach to developmental research. Helsinki, Finland: Orienta-Konsultit.Google Scholar
Foer, J. (2011). Moonwalking with Einstein: The art and science of remembering everything. New York, NY: Penguin Press.Google Scholar
Foreyt, J. P., & Rathjen, D. P. (1978).Cognitive behavior therapy: Research and application. New York, NY: Plenum Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gagne, R. M. (1965). The conditions of learning. New York, NY: Holt, Reinhart & Winston.Google Scholar
Gagne, R. M. (1968). Learning hierarchies. Educational Psychologist, 6, 1–9.CrossRef
Gardiner, H. (1985). The mind's new science: A history of the cognitive revolution. New York, NY: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Gertner, D., & Stevens, A. L. (Eds.). (1983). Mental models. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Greeno, J. G., Collins, A. M., & Resnick, L. B. (1996). Cognition and learning. In Calfee, R. & Berliner, D. (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology (pp. 15–47). New York, NY: MacmillanGoogle Scholar
Greeno, J. G., & Middle School Mathematics Through Applications Project Group. (1998). The situativity of knowing, learning and research. American Psychologist, 53, 5–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Greeno, J. G., & van de Sande, C. (2007). Perspectival understanding of conceptions and conceptual growth in interaction. Educational Psychologist, 42(1), 9–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gronlund, N. E. (2000). How to write and use instructional objectives. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill-Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
Guthrie, E. R. (1935). The psychology of learning. New York, NY: Harper.Google Scholar
Harzem, P. (2004). Behaviorism for new psychology: What was wrong with behaviorism and what is wrong with it now. Behavior and Philosophy, 32, 5–12.Google Scholar
Hestenes, D., Wells, M., & Swackhamer, G. (1996). Force concept inventory. The Physics Teacher, 30, 141–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hutchins, E. (1993). Learning to navigate. In Chaiklin, S. & Lave, J. (Eds.), Understanding practice: Perspectives on activity and context (pp. 35–63). Cambridge: Cambridge University PressCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hutchins, E. (1995). Cognition in the wild. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Johri, A., & Olds, B. (2011). Situated engineering learning: Bridging engineering education research and the learning sciences. Journal of Engineering Education, 100(1), 151–185.CrossRef
Kintsch, W. (1988). The role of knowledge in discourse comprehension: A construction-integration model. Psychological Review, 95, 163–182.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Koen, B. V. (2003). Discussion of the method. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kulik, C. C., Kulik, J. A., & Bangert-Downs, R. I. (1990). Effectiveness of mastery learning programs: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 60, 265–299.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kulik, J. A., Cohen, P. A., Eberling, B. J. (1980a). Effectiveness of programmed instruction in higher education: A meta-analysis of findings. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 2(6), 51–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kulik, J. A., Kulik, C. C., & Cohen, P. A. (1979). A meta-analysis of outcome studies of Keller's Personalized System of Instruction. American Psychologist, 34, 307–318.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kulik, J. A., Kulik, C. C., & Cohen, P. A. (1980b). Effectiveness of computer-based college teaching: A meta-analysis of findings. Review of Educational Research, 50, 525–544.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lajoie, S. (2003). Transitions and trajectories for studies of expertise. Educational Researcher, 32, 21–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lave, J. (1988). Cognition in practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leont'ev, A. N. (1978). Activity, consciousness, and personality. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Litzinger, T. A. Latuca, L., Hadgraft, R., & Newstetter, W. (2011). Engineering education and the development of expertise. Journal of Engineering Education, 100(1), 123–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Litzinger, T. A., Wise, J. C., & Lee, S. A. (2005). Self-directed learning readiness among engineering undergraduate students. Journal of Engineering Education, 94(2), 215–221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Luria, A. R. (1976). Cognitive development: Its cultural and social foundations. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Mayer, R. E. (1996). Learners as information processors: Legacies and limitations of educational psychology's second metaphor. Educational Psychologist, 59(1), 151–161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mayer, R. E. (2004). Should there be a three-strikes rule against pure discovery learning? The case for guided methods of instruction. American Psychologist, 59(1), 14–19.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Meichenbaum, D. H. (1977). Cognitive-behavior modification. New York, NY: Plenum Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mercer, N., & Fisher, E. (1993). How do teachers help children to learn? An analysis of teachers’ interventions in computer-based activities. Learning and instruction, 2, 339–355.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Newell, A., Rosenbloom, P. S., & Laird, J. E. (1989). Symbolic architectures for cognition. In Posner, M. (Ed.), Foundations of cognitive science (pp. 93–132). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Oakes, W., Jacobius, T., Linos, P., Lord, S., Schultz, W.W., & Smith, A. (2002). Service learning in engineering. In Proceedings of the ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference, Boston, MA (pp. F3A1–F3A6).Google Scholar
Perkins, D., & Unger, C. (1999). Teaching and learning for understanding. In Reigeluth, C. (Ed.), Instructional-design theories and models: A new paradigm of instructional theory, Vol. II. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Piaget, J. (1973). To understand is to invent: The future of education. New York, NY: Grossman.Google Scholar
Piaget, J. (1980). The psychogenesis of knowledge and its epistemological significance. In Piattelli-Palmarini, M. (Ed.), Language and learning. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Prince, M. J. (2004). Does active learning work? A review of the research. Journal of Engineering Education, 95(3), 223–231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Prince, M. J., & Felder, R. M. (2006). Inductive teaching and learning methods: Definitions, comparison, and research bases. Journal of Engineering Education, 97, 123–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roth, W., & Lee, Y. (2007). Vygotsky's neglected legacy: Cultural-historical activity theory. Review of Educational Research, 77(2), 186–232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Skinner, B. F. (1938). The behavior of organisms: An experimental analysis. New York, NY: D. Appleton-Century.Google Scholar
Skinner, B. F. (1950). Classics in the history of psychology. Psychological Review, 57, 193–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Skinner, B. F. (1971). Beyond freedom and dignity. Indianapolis, IN: Hackett .Google Scholar
Smith, K. A., Sheppard, S., Johnson, D., & Johnson, R. (2005). Pedagogies of engagement: Classroom-based practices. Journal of Engineering Education, 94(1), 87–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sperry, R. W. (1993). The impact and promise of the cognitive revolution. American Psychologist, 48(8), 878–885.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Star, S. L. (1996). Working together: Symbolic interactionism, activity theory and information sustems. In Engstrom, Y. & Middleton, D. (Eds.), Cognition and communication at work. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Streveler, R. A., Litzinger, T. A., Miller, R. L., & Steif, P. (2008). Learning conceptual knowledge in the engineering sciences: Overview and future research directions. Journal of Engineering Education, 98(3), 279–294.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Suchman, L. (1987). Plans and situated action. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Thorndike, E. L. (1931). Human learning. New York, NY: The Century Co.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tobias, S. (2010). Generative learning theory, paradigm shifts, and constructivism in educational psychology: A tribute to Merl Wittrock. Educational Psychologist, 45(1), 51–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tolman, E. C. (1932). Purposive behavior in animals and men. New York, NY: The Century Co.Google Scholar
Tsang, E., & Van Haneghan, J. (2001). A report on service learning and engineering design. International Journal of Engineering Education, 17(1), 30–39.Google Scholar
von Glasersfeld, E. (1989). Cognition, construction of knowledge, and teaching. Synthese, 80, 121–140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vygotsky, L. S. (1962). Thought and language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Watson, J. B. (1913). Psychology as the behaviorist views it. Psychological Review, 20, 158–177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning and identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wertsch, J. V. (1998). Mind as action. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Wiggins, G., & McTighe, J. (1995). Understanding by design. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill-Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
Wittrock, M. (2010, original 1974). Learning as a generative process. Educational Psychologist, 45(1), 40–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wood, D., Bruner, J., & Ross, G. (1976). The role of tutoring in problem solving. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 17, 89–100.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×