Trina C. Kershaw

Multiple causes of difficulty in insight: the case of the nine-dot problem.

Theories of insight problems are often tested by formulating hypotheses about the particular difficulties of individual insight problems. Such evaluations often implicitly assume that there is a single difficulty. We argue that the quantitatively small effects of many studies arise because the difficulty of many insight problems is determined by multiple factors, so the removal of 1 factor has limited effect on the solution rate. Difficulties can reside either in problem perception, in prior knowledge, or in the processing of the problem information. We support this multiple factors perspective through 3 experiments on the 9-dot problem (N.R.F. Maier, 1930). Our results lead to a significant reformulation of the classical hypothesis as to why this problem is difficult. The results have general implications for our understanding of insight problem solving and for the interpretation of data from studies that aim to evaluate hypotheses about the sources of difficulty of particular insight problems.

Expert vs. Non-expert Tutoring: Dialogue Moves, Interaction Patterns and Multi-utterance Turns

Studies of one-on-one tutoring have found that expert tutoring is more effective than non-expert tutoring, but the reasons for its effectiveness are relatively unexplored. Since tutoring involves deep natural language interactions between tutor and student, we explore the differences between an expert and non-expert tutors through the analysis of individual dialogue moves, tutorial interaction patterns and multi-utterance turns. Our results are a first step showing what behaviors constitute expertise and provide a basis for modeling effective tutorial language in intelligent tutoring systems.

Multiple paths to transfer and constraint relaxation in insight problem solving

In two experiments participants received various training methods designed to relax constraints present in the Four-Tree problem (deBono, 1967), a difficult insight problem. Geometry misconceptions were corrected via direct instruction. Participants’ difficulty with developing three-dimensional representations was addressed via spontaneous analogical transfer (Experiment 1) or via cued analogical transfer (Experiment 2). We found that, while both training methods were effective, alleviating multiple constraints was more effective than the alleviation of single constraints via training programmes (c.f. Kershaw & Ohlsson, 2004). Providing single difficulty hints was ineffective in promoting solution. Implications for multiple paths to transfer (Nokes, 2009; Nokes & Ohlsson, 2005) and multiple constraints are discussed.

The Effects of the Undergraduate Curriculum and Individual Differences on Student Innovation Capabilities

Innovation is considered a key to competitiveness of the nation. In order to ensure that graduating students are equipped with innovation skills to meet this challenge, we must ensure that engineering curricula are enhancing students’ innovation capabilities. In this paper we investigate if the undergraduate engineering curriculum can have a significant positive effect on students’ innovation capabilities. In addition, we investigate if individual difference factors, such as engineering design self-efficacy and self-reported GPA, can be correlated with innovation capabilities. To test this, we assessed students’ solutions to specific open ended problems for their level of innovation, or more specifically, originality and technical feasibility. The experiments were replicated at two universities and with a variety of cohorts, including freshman students before and after an introductory engineering course and senior mechanical engineering students before and after a capstone course. We found that that students’ innovation capabilities were enhanced by the senior-level capstone course at both universities. Similar positive results can be found for the overall four year curriculum at both schools. While individual differences in academic performance and engineering design self-efficacy did not predict seniors’ performance, these individual difference factors did interact to influence originality in the freshmen students. At high levels of GPA, increased self-efficacy led to increased originality, but at low levels of GPA, increased self-efficacy led to lower originality scores. Results are discussed in relation to prior research and suggestions are made to track freshmen students to better train future engineers.Copyright

A CROSS-SECTIONAL AND LONGITUDINAL EXAMINATION OF THE DEVELOPMENT OF INNOVATION CAPABILITY IN UNDERGRADUATE ENGINEERING STUDENTS

Multiple research studies have examined the role of the undergraduate engineering curriculum on students’ innovation capabilities. The majority of these studies have used cross-sectional samples to compare students at the beginning and end of their college careers, and most results have shown that seniors outperform freshmen. In the following paper, we use a combination of cross-sectional and longitudinal comparisons to uncover when innovation capabilities grow. Over a two-year period, undergraduate engineering majors at different points in their college careers completed concept generation tasks. Their resulting concepts were scored for originality. While no difference was found from freshman to senior year using a cross-sectional comparison, a significant increase in originality was found between separate senior groups at the beginning and end of a capstone course. The difference between the senior groups occurred despite no difference between these students in academic performance or engineering design self-efficacy. In addition, a significant increase in originality was found from junior to senior year using a longitudinal analysis. This increase in originality occurred without corresponding changes in academic performance or engineering design self-efficacy. These results are discussed in relation to prior research regarding the interplay between curricular and individual difference factors in the development of students’ innovation capabilities.Copyright