An investigative approach to technical problem solving

Valerie Linton
Chair: Welded Structures
Department of Mechanical Engineering

When plunged into a real-life situation, students, although having the technical skills to deal with the situation, often lack the ability to obtain and rationalise information to answer the (usually undefined) question at the centre of the problem. The exercise reported here set out to provide a roadmap to allow the students to successfully navigate from a presented problem to a solution satisfactory to all concerned parties.

Background | Goals | Process | Student response | Evaluation | Future developments | Contact

Background

This exercise was performed as part of a fourth-year elective course on welding. The course covers a wide range of topics, each of which can be addressed in lectures. However, application of the knowledge acquired to an unfamiliar problem usually requires engineers to draw on a number of topics in a way that is often difficult to teach through lectures and tutorials.

The project described here took the form of a role-playing exercise, where the students were presented with a request for technical assistance on a failed component. The normal response of students would be to use only their current knowledge to rapidly reach a conclusion about how the component had failed. However, in most situations this approach would lead to incorrect conclusions and a failure to address the crux of the matter. This was a situation I had observed frequently in the industrial workplace before I joined the University. I wanted, therefore, to give the students an opportunity to deal with a real situation in a controlled environment where they could learn from their frustrations and experiences.

The exercise was a departure from traditional teaching methods in that the students investigated for themselves the best way of dealing with the problem through role-play interactions with other parties of their choice.

Goals

The exercise had a wide range of goals, all of which were non-technical. The exercise objectives for the students were:

• to learn about the investigative approach to problem solving
• to learn about dealing with clients and customer relations
• to be able to apply background and obtained knowledge to an unfamiliar problem
• to be able to define the 'real’ question and answer that question

Process

The students were unaware that this project was going to happen: it was slotted into the course as an 'interruption’ to mimic the way in which problems come up in the workplace without warning. The students were given the opportunity to work on the problem over three consecutive lectures/tutorials (a total of five hours' effort), endeavouring to assist, and report back to, their client.

The students were divided into groups and given letters (with accompanying photographs) from clients requesting assistance with a failed component. There were three different scenarios so that at least two groups were working on each scenario. The text from one letter follows; this letter was accompanied by a photographs of the failed chain link and the fracture surfaces.

Dear sirs,

A serious accident occurred in my fab shop yesterday when a chain link on the overhead crane broke while the crane was in use. Fortunately no one was injured but significant damage was caused to equipment.

I can get the chain fixed but I am concerned that it might break again and we might not be so lucky next time.

Am I ok just to fix it?

Looking forward to your assistance.

After reviewing the information received, the students were asked to present to the rest of the class a summary of that information, a list of actions to be taken and further information to be sought, and the question they were trying to answer.

The students were then free to implement their action plans, including options to request lab analysis, consult reference material, talk to the client, and talk to materials suppliers or fellow engineers.

After an hour the students were requested to report progress to the rest of the class, particularly addressing the following questions:

• Did you get the information you wanted?
• What would you have done differently?
• How did you feel after talking to the client?
• How had your understanding progressed after talking to the client/lab work/reading up?
• What were the important elements of the previous step?
• What elements did you expect to be covered that weren’t?
• Is the question you were trying to answer the one you now think you want answered?

Additionally, the students were asked to summarise the information they had received, list their new actions and identify the question they were trying to answer.

At this stage, three clear areas of frustration were emerging for the students. First, the information the groups were using was a jumbled mix of things they had been told, things they thought they had been told and things they thought they knew about. This mixture was leading the groups down dead ends and on wild goose chases. Second, in conversations with the client, the students were not obtaining the information they wanted and this manifested as frustration with the client. Third, although the question the students thought they were trying to answer had evolved in their minds, they were failing to address the key question of the problem.

At this point the three main tools I wanted the students to apply were introduced, namely:

• the importance of distinguishing between known facts, assumptions and theories
• the use of open and closed questions to gain the required information
• the need to identify the real question at the centre of the problem

In addition, a suggested process was introduced as a flow chart.

The students were then given more time to apply these tools to their exercise and again report back to the class. Finally the student groups had to report back to their respective clients. At the end of the exercise, the main points coming out of it were summarised and the 'answers’ to the failure investigations given.

There was no formal assessment of this exercise. However, the progression of the students’ understanding of the process was evaluated through observing how they improved in their approach to the problem. The student groups’ presentations to the class also improved and matured as the exercise progressed.

Student response

On the whole the students responded very positively to the exercise. It provided them with an opportunity to tackle some actual problems and apply their knowledge. Importantly, all of the students took an active role within their groups, engaging for the whole exercise.

Evaluation

At the end of the exercise the students were asked to complete tailored SET assessment sheets. The SET results indicated that the students had enjoyed the exercise and felt that they had gained something from it. Although this had been a stand-alone exercise, I found that there were knock-on benefits throughout the course. For example, during class students were happy to tackle, in the same manner, bigger questions for which they didn’t necessarily have all the required information.

Future developments

I would like to expand this approach to problem solving more widely through the course to the point where it becomes second nature for the students. For example, when a new topic is introduced, the students currently sit back and wait to be instructed on the topic. They assume that the information received in this way will be all they need to do the associated assignments.

I would prefer the students to use investigative thinking and discussion in class in order to identify the key pieces of information they need to discover and learn about in order to be able to tackle associated projects or assignments.

Contact
Valerie Linton can be contacted:

Tel: +61 8 8303 3980
Email: valerie.linton@adelaide.edu.au

Department of Mechanical Engineering
Adelaide University, Australia 5005

last updated 26 November 2001