Content uploaded by Rajni Singh
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Rajni Singh on Nov 22, 2022
Content may be subject to copyright.
An experiential
learning-integrated framework to
improve problem-solving skills of
engineering graduates
Kuldip Singh Sangwan
Mechanical Engineering, Birla Institute of Technology and Science,
Pilani, India, and
Rajni Singh
Birla Institute of Technology and Science, Pilani, India
Abstract
Purpose –Problem solving skills (PSS), an important component of learning outcomes, is one of the desirable
skills in engineering graduates as stated by many employers, researchers and government bodies in India for a
strong foothold in professional world. There is a need to develop comprehensive understanding and integration
of theory (concept) and practice (process) of PSS in the context of experiential learning (EL).
Design/methodology/approach –The present study is qualitative in nature using a conceptual research
design focussing on synthesis and model building framework. The key elements of the study are PSS, EL and
their integration. The study seeks to develop conceptual integration of PSS across multiple theories and
perspectives. It offers an enhanced view of a concept of PSS by summarising and integrating extant knowledge.
It presents the complete and comprehensive meaning/definition of PSS. Subsequently, it also explores EL and
synthesises the different variants of EL that can be used to develop PSS. Finally, the study builds a theoretical
framework that proposes integration and interplay between PSS and EL.
Findings –Problem-solving operates at three levels: problem concept (nature and context), process (stages
with strategies) and solution (open-ended). EL can be used as a tool to develop PSS in an integrated manner. It is
found that EL and problem-solving interplay with each other as both are cyclic in nature and have
commonalities strengthening each other.
Practical implications –The proposed framework can be adopted in engineering education for making the
engineering graduates job ready.
Originality/value –The study proposes a framework based on integration of EL and problem-solving
focusing on specific aims and goals of the course, learning approaches, learning strategies and authentic
learning (learning environment). This integration would bridge the gap between engineering education and
industry requirements. EL integrated problem-solving focus on pedagogical knowledge (knowing how to
facilitate discussion among learners and curricular knowledge) and instructional knowledge (knowing how to
introduce, organise different methods and assess).
Keywords Problem-solving skills, Process, Stages and strategies, Experiential learning, Reflection,
Engineering education
Paper type Conceptual paper
1. Introduction
An ability to identify, formulate and solve engineering problems along with other abilities is
an essential skill to be possessed by engineers (ABET, 2014). Problem-solving leads to better
engineering knowledge and skills in real-world engineering (Pan and Strobel, 2013). Thus,
preparing students to solve complex problems is an identified area of need in engineering
education (Kirn and Benson, 2018).
Problem-
solving skills
241
This research is sponsored by the Indiana Council of Social Science Research, Ministry of Education,
India, New Delhi through the grant No. 3-29/2019-20/PDF/GEN entitled “Assessment of problem solving
and social skills in engineering education: bridging the gap between academia and industry”.
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:
https://www.emerald.com/insight/2042-3896.htm
Received 26 February 2021
Revised 9 June 2021
20 July 2021
Accepted 26 July 2021
Higher Education, Skills and
Work-Based Learning
Vol. 12 No. 2, 2022
pp. 241-255
© Emerald Publishing Limited
2042-3896
DOI 10.1108/HESWBL-02-2021-0033
Problem-solving is one of the most important skills which can be acquired at school and in
life (Jonassen, 2004). Problem-solving skills (PSS) are considered essential in engineering
education by employers, researchers (Minocha et al., 2018;Blume et al., 2015; international
forums (OECD, 2018;World Economic Forum, 2018) and various accredited boards
(International Engineering Alliance, 2013) around the globe. Even industry feel that the
graduate engineers lack specialised knowledge, predominantly PSS (B€
uth et al., 2017). The
engineering graduates are not found suitable for direct employment in industry in India
(Reddy, n.d.;ILO Projects Unemployment Rate, 2018;Skill Development in India, n.d.;World
Bank, 2016).
Studies have focused on the possible reasons for lacking PSS such as theory-based
teaching, outdated curriculum and academic environment isolated from industry work
(Minocha et al., 2018; Federation of Indian Chambers of Commerce and Industry (FICCI) and
EY 2016), learners’unawareness (Berdanier et al., 2014), misconception and more practice on
well-defined and structured problems, and limited understanding of the process of problem-
solving (Jonassen, 2000b,2010). In addition to all these reasons, there is also need to pay
attention on the comprehensive understanding of PSS to make it practical in real-life
situations and need to focus more on practice/experience integrated problem-solving than
relying only on theoretical assumptions.
Researchers have discussed PSS in multiple ways and have acknowledged its importance at
multiple levels. By looking at the literature review, it is found that various researchers have
focussed on many aspects of it either adding to or adapting to the already existing one. The
widely used aspect of PSS is its usage as process. The aspects of the process that get
highlighted are stages and strategies (Woods et al., 2000;Woods, 2000). Problem-solving is a
process to find the unknown (Jonassen, 2000b) having different stages, each with strategies
(Woods, 2000). The stages discussed vary as per the context, requirement, problem types, etc.
The minimumstages are two, and the maximum stages are six (seeTable 1). PSS is a systematic
process to deal with real-world problems (Laksov, 2019). It enables the learners to adapt to
provide suitable solutions with available resources. The systematic process emphasises
reflection (Missingham et al.,2018;Thieken, 2012;Woods et al., 2000;Woods, 2000).
The systematic process of PSS comprises different combinations of sub-skills. Problem-
solving comprises sub-skills like information processing memory (cognitive skills) (Khalil and
Author(s) Characteristics-described PSS as a process with stages Limitations
Priemer
et al. (2020)
Process Plan Monitor Reflect (1) All these
studies
focussed
on PSS
only as a
process
(2) No
explicit
focus on
nature of
problem
and
solution
Kirn and
Benson
(2018)
Stepwise
process
Reflect
metacognitive
(m) process
Move from
the
planning
stages of m
Control,
monitor
Evaluate
Merrill
et al. (2017)
Identifying a
problem
Defining the
problem
Generating
solutions
Evaluating/
choosing/
enacting
solutions
Assessing
the
outcome
Greiff et al.
(2015)
Knowledge
acquisition
Knowledge
application
Woods
(2000)
Engage Identify Explore Plan, do it Look back
Bransford
and Stein
(1993)
Identification
of problems
Looking for
alternative
goals/
solutions
Exploring
possible
strategies
Anticipating
output and
implementing
the strategies
Looking
back and
learning
(reflection)
Table 1.
Different perspectives
of PSS
HESWBL
12,2
242
Elkhider, 2016;Mayer and Wittrock, 2006;Woods, 2000), constructivist and contextualised
learning (situated cognition) (Jonassen, 2000b), motivational and emotional aspects (Dost
al, 2014),
metacognitive and attitudinal skills (Woods, 2000;Mayer, 1998), and thinking skills
(Carson, 2007).
Process is one of the aspects of PSS that entails its credibility. There are other aspects
which contribute to the development of PSS. In addition to the process of problem-solving, it
is important to understand the “types of problem”(Jonassen, 2000b) to be solved. Problems
are of different types (Mayer and Wittrock, 2006;Jonassen, 2000b). Solving ill-structured
problems calls for different skills than solving well-structured problems (Shin et al., 2003).
Therefore, before dealing with development and enhancement of PSS among engineering
graduates, an understanding of the concept of PSS is required. Even, Jonassen (2006)
emphasised the role of concepts in learning and instruction. The teaching/learning with
complete understanding of PSS concept will enable the engineering graduates to use PSS in
real-world environment.
At the same time, problem-solving is found to be an integral part of experiential learning
(EL), which is a four faceted process of experiencing, reflecting, thinking and acting (Kolb and
Kolb, 2018). EL develops conceptual understanding, initiates the process of application
(Savery, 2015;Efstratia, 2014) and fosters complex PSS (Marshall et al., 2016;Bernik and
Znidar
si
c, 2012). Even, Jonassen (2011) supports problem-solving in problem-based learning
(PBL) (one of the variants of EL). Consequently, various studies stress the implementation of
EL into engineering education (Li et al., 2019;Mehrtash et al., 2019;Gadola and Chindamo,
2019). It is important to comprehend the concept of EL, the association between conceptual
understanding and problem-solving process (procedural) and how to facilitate it in
developing PSS (Morris, 2019).
2. Methodology
The present study is qualitative in nature using a conceptual research approach (Jaakkola,
2020): theory synthesis (Becker and Jaakkola, 2020;White et al., 2019) and model design
(Huang and Rust, 2018;Payne et al., 2017). The key elements of the study are PSS, EL and
their integration in the context of engineering education. As per theory synthesis, the study
has summarised the conceptual integration across multiple theoretical perspectives of PSS
and EL. Based on the synthesis, the study has built the integrated model framework. To
understand the role of different theories and concepts in the study, further domain and
method theory have been applied. PSS is the domain theory, and integrated EL is the method
theory. A domain theory is an area of study characterised by a specific set of constructs,
theories and assumptions (MacInnis, 2011); a method theory is a meta-level conceptual
system for studying the essential features of the domain theory at hand (Lukka and Vinnari,
2014). All the papers were searched from Scopus, Eric, Web of Science and Proquest using
keywords competence, skills, PSS, EL, teaching/learning technique and engineering/higher
education. For inclusion/exclusion criterion, the papers directly focus on the clarity of the
concept and the relationship between PSS and EL in the context of engineering/higher
education. The exclusion criteria were articles not in the context of engineering education, not
focussed on PSS and reports. The remaining articles not related to PSS, and its association
with EL was also excluded. The study seeks to develop conceptual integration of PSS across
multiple theories and perspectives based on the proposed research framework (see Figure 1).
Thus, to address the issue of PSS in the context of EL, the study proposes three objectives
(followed by research questions) as follows:
(1) To develop a comprehensive concept of PSS
What knowledge and skills are required to develop PSS?
Problem-
solving skills
243
What are the theoretical and procedural aspects of PSS?
What are the challenges in the development of PSS?
(2) To explore EL and its variants and to identify interplay between EL and PSS
What are the different types of EL?
What are the theoretical and procedural aspects of EL?
Which EL technique/types cater better to the development of PSS?
Which elements of EL and PSS constitute interplay?
(3) To develop an experiential integrated framework focussing on pedagogical
knowledge, curricular knowledge and instructional knowledge
The study aims to present the experiential-integrated framework, with challenges and possible
solutions towards PSS and the interplay between EL and PSS along with instructional
knowledge.
3. Problem-solving skills
The ensuing three sections correspond to conceptualisation, challenges and overcoming.
3.1 Conceptualisation
To understand the concept of PSS across multiple theories, the present study has analysed
existing models (see Table 1) from the 1990s to present. A comprehensive integration of all the
models was done by Carson in 2007; this integration included all the models till 1990s. His
analysis focused on highlighting all the essential gleanings integrating PSS as a process.
The studies (Table 1) have defined the PSS in terms of process comprising stages and
strategies. The focus is on functionality and implementation of PSS in different contexts.
However, these studies focus more on the process and less on the types of problems and
solutions, which is also the requirement for successful development of PSS (see Figure 2).
There are other groups of researchers (Cho and Jonassen, 2002;Woods, 2000;Jonassen,
2000b;Mayer and Wittrock, 2006) who stated that there is a need to focus and differentiate
between the types of problem, different skills involved in problem-solving in addition to
Synthesis PSS in
engineering
education
Model Building
(Framework)
Model Building
(PSS and EL
interplay)
Synthesis EL in
engineering
education
•
Common
elements
•
Application in
engineering
education
•
EL techniques
•
Process
•
Problem
•
Process
•
Solution
•
EL integrated
framework for
developing
PSS in
engineering
graduates
Figure 1.
Conceptual/Research
framework
HESWBL
12,2
244
process. In total, 11 types of problems vary according to their structuredness, complexity,
abstractness and situatedness (Jonassen, 2000b). Before looking at the process of problem-
solving, it is important to understand the types of problems. Problems vary in their nature,
context, constraints, components, interactions, etc (Cho and Jonassen, 2002;Woods, 2000).
Problems may be ill-defined/well-defined or routine/non-routine (Mayer and Wittrock, 2006),
ill-structured/well-structured along with differences in cognitive processing used (Jonassen,
2000b). Therefore, all the problems cannot be treated in the same way. The instructional
design should differ as per problem type.
Thus, it becomes important to integrate the theory (problem concept) and practical aspects
(process) of PSS to have concrete and comprehensive conceptualization of PSS. Problem
(nature, context and individual differences), problem-solving process (stages with strategies)
and solution (open-ended) are the three concepts of PSS. Problem-solving is more of a process
than product as both the conceptual (knowledge) and procedural (process) aspects of
problem-solving are integrated. Problem-solving starts with the problem identification,
definition, solution generation, outcome anticipation, solution implementation and reflection.
3.2 Challenges in the development of problem-solving skills
Based on literature review, the development of PSS faces three types of challenges: problem
concept, problem-solving process and influencing factors.
Well-structured problems, at times, are inconsistent with the nature of the problems
typically found at the end of textbook chapters and in examinations that require the
application of a finite number of concepts, rules and principles to a constrained problem
situation (Jonassen, 2000b). This leads to the discrepancy between what learners are required
to know and what learners get to know. Learner-centric learning (Struyven et al., 2006),
problem and project-based learning (Savery, 2015), open-ended learning environments
(Hannafin et al., 1997) focus on developing PSS. The instructional strategies used in these
methods to support the implicit process of problem-solving include authentic cases,
simulations, modelling, coaching and scaffolding, but these strategies do not consider the
nature of the problem (Jonassen, 2000a).
Chronological application of stages does not always lead to successful problem-solving.
For example, reflecting (going back, restructuring and moving ahead) occurs at each level.
Therefore, non-linearity during problem-solving is well accepted (Woods, 2000). The
problem-solving process comprises process and solution. The instructional focus is on
developing “what to think”and then “how to think”(Snyder and Snyder, 2008). The process of
problem-solving categorises the complete problem into sub-problems (Fernandes and Simon,
1999). Meta-cognitive skills (Guerrero et al., 2014;Shin et al., 2003) along with cognitive
Problem
Nature and context
Defined/ill-defined;
structured/well-structured;
routine/non-routine
Process
Stages and strategies
Problem identification –
solution generation through
reflection & meta-cognition
Solution
Typ es
Open-ended (unknown) and
close-ended (known)
Problem Solving Skills (PSS)
Figure 2.
Conceptualisation
of PSS
Problem-
solving skills
245
processes are required (Jonassen, 2000b). The lack of knowledge of the difference between
process and solution adds to the challenges (Strobel, 2007). These digressions challenge open-
ended solution generation in the problem-solving process.
The cognitive processing in problem-solving includes external factors and internal
characteristics of the problem solver (Smith, 2012). External factors are the variations in
problem type (defined-ill defined) and its representation (context). Internal characteristics
include variations in motivations, beliefs, etc. that the problem solver brings with them.
Knowledge and cognitive process, individual differences (attitude, beliefs, motivation,
metacognition and learning strategy), personal aims and collaborative problem-solving are
the influencing factors of problem-solving process (Chen et al., 2019;Safari and Meskini, 2016;
Lin et al., 2015;Mayer and Wittrock, 2006;Jonassen, 2000b;Woods, 2000;Mayer, 1998).
Therefore, it is important to consider these aspects also in addition to comprehension of
problem-solving concept.
3.3 Overcoming the challenges to enhance problem-solving skills
There is a difference between the structure of the problem and the structure of the process
(Strobel, 2007). The conceptual and procedural aspects need integration; understanding the
process of learning with what is learned (Snyder and Snyder, 2008). There should be equal
focus on both the solution and its process.
The stages of problem-solving process are inter-related and incursive (Strobel, 2007;
Jonassen et al., 2006;Mayer and Wittrock, 2006;Jonassen, 2000b;Woods et al., 2000). Meta-
cognition at each stage demands problem-relevant awareness of one’s thinking, monitoring of
cognitive processes, regulation of cognitive processes and application of heuristics
(Hennessey, 2003). The practice of contextualised and ill-structured problems develops
reasoning skills in learners (Jonassen, 2000b). The process of finding the solutions to
problems cultivates creative thinking (Jordan et al., 2018;Scogin et al., 2017). The explicit
questioning techniques, such as what, why and how; practice and feedback, integrated with
monitoring and reflection (Woods et al., 2000) add to the problem-solving outcomes. Defining
and identifying enable the learners to be attentive, active and classify the given information
as per the goal, situation and constraints. The active learners could underline key ideas and
monitor their own process (Woods et al., 2000).
Reflect, evaluate, assess and look back are essential components of a problem-solving
process. Learners can question how to approach the task through this process. Now the
question arises, why reflection is paid attention to at the only one stage and that too at the end.
Reflection is recursive in nature, and process and should occur throughout the process (Barell,
2007). Reflection allows critical analysis of the relationship between theory and practical
application (Howatson-Jones, 2016) and allows the learner and facilitator to reflect on the
knowledge gained (acquisition) and application in EL (Woods, cited in McLoughlin and
Darvill, 2007). Reflection helps solvers to focus on the learning as well as the process (M€
uller
and Henning, 2017). Thus, PSS can be developed through experience-based practice.
Thus, answering the proposed research objective one, it has been found that the knowledge
required to develop PSS is to understand the meaning of problem-solving concept: problem,
process and solution. The focus should not be only on process but also on the type of problem and
solution generated. PSS is a multifaceted process with multiple stages. Reflection is one of the
important stages. However, reflection should be used at every stage explicitly as it is recursive in
nature. As the stages of the process are incursive in nature, the process cannot be in linear
sequence always. The skills required in developingPSSarecognitionandmetacognitionwitha
focus on reflection and monitoring about the action taking place to move in the right direction.
The understanding of PSS demands a proper framework with an explicit focus on
“Method”(approach, design and procedure) (Richards and Rodgers, 2014) in the context of
EL. The approach defines the learning theories, learning styles and beliefs; design defines the
HESWBL
12,2
246
aims, goals, content organisation and role of the teacher/learner/instructional material; and
procedure defines the specific task, practice, technique and activity.
4. Experiential learning and engineering education
There are a number of different learning approaches such as experiential learning,
co-operative learning, adventure learning and apprenticeship with a focus on learner-centric
and active learning (Bates, 2019) used in engineering education. In experiential learning
theory (ELT), “knowledge is created through the transformation of experience”(Kolb, 1984,
p. 38). ELT has four cyclic stages: (1) concrete experience (experiencing) –the learner’s
engagement in the experience to learn; (2) reflective observation (reflecting) –learners’review
from their experience; (3) abstract conceptualisation (thinking) –learners try to apply the
knowledge that they have already acquired to explain and justify through their experience
and (4) active experimentation (acting) –the way of learners in making use of what they have
acquired from the experience into future applications.
In experiential learning like PBL, projects help learners to achieve competencies,
interrelate disciplines and identify problems in the process of problem-solving (Edstr€
om and
Kolmos, 2014). EL fosters critical thinking skills in learners (Scogin et al., 2017). Experience
leads to deep learning. Deep learning (one of the learning approaches identified in the
literature particularly with engineering education) concentrates on the meaning of what is
learned (Jackson, 2012). Deep learning describes the developmental process of learning that
fully integrates the four stages of the EL cycle (Border, 2007) as learning in EL is viewed as an
integrated process with each stage being mutually supportive of and feeding into the next
(Kolb and Fry, 1975).
In the present study, EL is used for learning techniques based on “learning by doing,
experiencing, and reflecting”. The six EL techniques include PBL, project-based learning
(PrBL), research-based learning (RBL), case-based learning (CBL), inquiry-based learning
(IBL) and discovery-based learning (DBL). The EL pedagogy is to facilitate the PSS where
learners can develop a deeper understanding and reflect on knowledge through experience.
Constructivism, learner-centric pedagogy, reflection and active engagement are
predominant among all the six EL techniques (Bates, 2019;Lazonder and Harmsen, 2016;
Savery, 2015;Healey et al., 2014;Prince and Felder, 2006;French, 2006;Savin-Baden and
Major, 2004). PBL and RBL develop PSS to the maximum as compared to PrBL (Singh et al.,
2019;Missingham et al., 2018;Efstratia, 2014;Ferreira and Trudel, 2012). The teacher in EL
acts as a facilitator rather than a lecturer, and the teaching becomes learner centric rather
than teacher centric. The role of the facilitator is critical in facilitating and guiding the
learning process (Bates, 2019). The facilitator provides less information related to the problem
in PBL and RBL as compared to PrBL (Savery, 2015) but guides the learners by presenting
several ideas, methods and tools in PBL (Edstr€
om and Kolmos, 2014) and acts as a catalyst to
direct the group without leading the learners (Covill et al., 2011). The role of the learner is more
active and self-dependent in PBL and RBL as compared to PrBL. The learners are trained to
use reflection as a method to process the experience. The learners have less autonomy in
PrBL due to input–output (product-oriented) approach, as PBL and RBL are based on
process-oriented approach.
PBL enhances deep learning (Dolmans et al., 2016) and metacognition (Sart, 2014;
Downing et al., 2009). The EL process provides sufficient scaffolding (extensive support and
supervision as and when required followed by the gradual withdrawal of the support
provided by the facilitator). Continuous, multidimensional, non-evaluative, supportive,
timely, specific, credible, infrequent and genuine feedback can be a powerful tool in learners’
learning (Schwartz and White, 2000).
Due to the change in the role of teacher in EL and unawareness of EL’s culture, availability
of motivated and well-trained faculty to take on the role of facilitator becomes more important
Problem-
solving skills
247
(Win et al., 2015). PBL is not a simple application of the methodology that can be transferred to
the classroom without making structural and cultural changes (Savin-Baden and Major, as
cited in Da Silva et al., 2018;M€
uller and Henning, 2017;Bouhuijs, 2011). The introduction of
EL requires the teacher as well as learner to get familiar with the new cultural aspects of
teaching/learning (M€
uller and Henning, 2017). The development of appropriate “problem”
(variations in nature and context) with open-ended solutions through EL is not simple. The
concept of “problem”remains a challenge in itself, as facilitators need to rethink in terms of
structured/ill-structured or well-defined/ill-defined. The well-defined and ill-defined problems
require different cognitive processes. Therefore, facilitators should know how to introduce,
organise different methods and consider different instructional models for well-structured
and ill-structured problem-solving learning outcomes. The facilitator should practice the
step-by-step process in their instructions. To develop the EL problems, there should be a
general awareness to the ambiguous problem representations (context), their characteristics
(problem, solution and process) and their consequences in practice. Though EL caters to the
development of PSS, it requires changes in the organisational structure and culture (in terms
of learning environment, role of teacher/learner and strategies).
Reflection, experience and process remain the common elements in PSS and EL.
Therefore, it is important to understand that the teaching/learning needs to adopt reflective
practice (what, why, how). Knowing EL and problem-solving as a learner-centric approach
and adapting the same as a teaching habit to facilitate practice are two different aspects.
Teachers as tutors need to reflect on their present facilitating habits and check whether they
are helpful. The implicit theories, problem representation, problem-solving process and
possible problem-solving outcomes need to be more explicit in nature.
Followed by second research objective, to answer the third research objective, it is
essential to have a framework with a focus on all aspects of any course to be taught: aims
(objective) and goal (learning outcome); learning approaches; teaching/learning strategy and
authentic learning (learning environment).
5. Proposed experiential learning-integrated framework to improve problem-
solving skills
The present study proposes an EL-integrated framework (Figure 3) to improve PSS of
engineering graduates. The integration is required as EL is found to interplay with problem-
solving being both cyclic in nature and have commonalities strengthening each other. The
framework has three distinct features: EL process at the base; four pillars identified in this
research to develop effective problem learning skills in engineering graduates and problem-
solving skill development process for enhanced PSS as explained next. Figure 3 shows the
EL-integrated problem-solving framework (House) for improvement in PSS of engineering
graduates.
The EL as a base depicts the complete process of learning with its stages which is cyclic in
nature. These stages (engagement, experiment, reflection, thinking and improvement) are
integrated and mutually support each other. Through these stages, the learner may be actively
engaged in posing questions, investigating, experimenting being curious and creative, solving
problems, assuming responsibility and constructing meaning. These can be supported by the
facilitator by setting suitable experiences (in the form of problems), explaining the boundaries
and scope to facilitate the learning. It functions as a strong foundation for developing the PSS.
Without following the basic process of EL, PSS cannot be developed effectively.
The proposed four pillars function as root concepts for developing PSS in engineering
graduates. The four pillars are designed to answer the two research questions proposed at the
beginning. These pillars that function in an integrated manner focus on pedagogical methods
and instructional methodology to be followed for developing and enhancing PSS as explained:
HESWBL
12,2
248
Educational aim and goal: Properly defined aims and goals make the process more
systematic as acknowledged by accrediting boards, academicians and practitioners. It is also
important to associate the stated objective with the learning outcome of a course to monitor
the process and avoid digression. The aim of engineering education should be outcome-based
learning as per emphasis, process, expectations and opportunities. The outcome-based
learning brings more clarity in teaching/learning. A learning outcome defines an ability of a
learner to learn and experience. The goals such as skill development, project development,
research ability, knowledge development, etc. engage the learner in learning through
experience and reflection.
Learning approaches: Engineering education needs to embrace new cultural aspects
of EL (M€
uller and Henning, 2017). The learning approaches are the theoretical assumptions on
which the teaching/learning techniques are based. Approaches like open-ended and learner-
centric, meta-cognition, reflection, deep learning, scaffolding, constructivism and individual
differences are required to bridge the between academia and industry (theory and practice).
The teaching/learning based on these approaches engages the student to self-reflect in finding
the solutions to different problems leading to the development of effective PSS.
Authentic learning: The learning environment should be authentic, which means the
learning environment consists inside as well as outside the classroom. The problems vary in
nature and context. The authentic situation is contextual situations; one of the pre-requisites
of problem-solving process. Engaging the learners in authentic learning brings contextual
experiences through training, internships, industrial visits, simulations, learning factories
(LFs) and collaboration. This enables the learners to engage in open-ended, multi-disciplinary
and industry projects. Simulations improve learning outcomes and could effectively serve as
the “problem”in a PBL designed course (Miller and Maellaro, 2016;Anderson and Lawton,
2004). LF are a paradigm shift to industry partnered, interdisciplinary, real-world problem-
solving in engineering education (Lamancusa et al., 2008). The concept of LF, virtual
laboratories, modelling or simulations in addition to theoretical aspects can be used to
promote a more active role of learners.
Teaching/learning strategy: The three most useful EL techniques in engineering
education are PBL, PrBL and RBL. Problem identification and solving through projects is the
main feature of these three techniques. These learning techniques create new knowledge
acquisition, knowledge application and self-awareness without the fear of failure. Interaction
Problem Solving Skills
laog&mialanoitacudE
(llikS,gninraeldesabemoctuO
hcraeseR,ytili
b
at
c
ejo
rP,tnem
polev
e
d
ecneirepxe&egdelwonK,ytiliba
development)
Problem Process Solution
Learning approaches
(Deep learning, Scaffolding, Learner-
centric & open-ended, Reflection &
meta-cognition, Constructivism,
Individual differences)
Authentic learning
(Collaboration, Classroom
(lecture/tuts), Industrial visits, Internal
& External training, Virtual labs,
simulation , & LFs, Regular
Internships)
Teaching/learning strategy
(PBL, PrBL, RBL, Instructional
strategy, Peer feedback, Flexible
assessment, Teamwork)
Experiential Learning
Engage Improve
Experience Reflect Think
Figure 3.
EL-integrated
framework for
improving PSS of
engineering graduates
Problem-
solving skills
249
with the facilitator and peers allows deeper/critical reflection (Collins et al., 2016). The
facilitator helps learners identify and avoid inappropriate enquiries, frame and ask
appropriate questions, indulge into the process of reflection, ask all the queries, how to seek
answers for probing and leading questions (Covill et al., 2011) and appreciate the process of
learning and also focussing on the solutions (Savin-Baden and Major, 2004). Both learning
process and knowledge acquisition are important in EL and problem-solving. Therefore, the
traditional assessment methods should be flexible, reliable and continuous. Besides written
and oral components, peer feedback, informal feedback via discussion, rubric and reflective
journals (all are continuous in nature) could also be used as an assessment tool. These
assessments can be used in accordance with the individual differences of the learners to get
the desired outcome. Learners and learning differ in terms of intelligence, interest, attitude,
anxiety, motivation, etc.
There is a need to arouse interest and motivation among learners to solve the problem
through reflection based instructional materials. The designing of the problem and task is not
sufficient. The pedagogical expertise (instructional materials) should include observations of
small group discussions, exploratory interactions with tutors and learners, and regular
documentation of the discussion outcomes. In addition, online platforms can be used to
discuss the details of new cases and relevant problems before and shortly after each session.
Debriefing the learners to recall the previous discussions would also help the learners to
associate them with present discussion.
Instead of solving the problem individually, teamwork seems to be a more appropriate
strategy used in developing PSS, as it promotes a collaborative environment, though it is not
easy to structure and manage the teams. In a team, learners can gather information, interact,
discuss and get feedback about the problem and process. The collaborative environment in a
team allows for more critical thinking as learners need to think and reflect on their process
with “essential questions”and self-assess throughout the learning experience.
The third part of the framework, the roof as PSS is strengthened by the base and pillars. It
seems to consider the interplay between PSS and EL as both have stages that are interrelated
and cyclic in nature. It also clearly presents the PSS as problem, process and solution, which
are interrelated with each other.
6. Conclusions
The findings reveal that EL techniques are highly effective for development and
improvement of PSS in engineering graduates. The literature shows many challenges in
its implementation due to structural and cultural changes in the teaching/learning
environment. The paper identifies the conceptualization and challenges of PSS. It is found
that the linking of learning approaches and strategies with a real work environment should
be focussed to enhance PSS at the levels of problem, process and solution.
The study proposes an integrated approach to develop the PSS in engineering education
and proposes a house framework consisting the foundation, pillars and roof. The framework
proposes that the aims and goals of the course, learning approaches, learning strategies and
authentic learning (learning environment) integrate EL as a base for bridging the gap
between engineering education and industry requirements. It is found that EL and problem-
solving interplay with each other as both are cyclic in nature and have commonalities
strengthening each other.
Further, there is a need to investigate the impact of newer learning environments as LF
and virtual laboratory through quantitative and qualitative analyses. There should be more
action research on the comprehension of types of problem, process adopted and multiple
solutions generated. An in-depth observation of instructors’strategy and the attitude and
motivation of the instructor/learner in the EL environment with specific focus to PSS is
required.
HESWBL
12,2
250
References
Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology (2014), Criteria for Accrediting Engineering
Programs-Effective for Evaluations during the 2015-2016 Accreditation Cycle, ABET,
Baltimore, available at: http://www.abet.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/E001-15-16-EAC-
Criteria-03-10-15.pdf#outcomes.
Anderson, P.H. and Lawton, L. (2004), “Simulation performance and its effectiveness as a PBL
problem: a follow-up study”,Developments in Business Simulations and Experiential Exercises,
Vol. 31, pp. 183-189.
Barell, J.F. (2007), Problem-based Learning: an Inquiry Approach, 2nd ed., Corwin Press, California.
Bates, T. (2019), “Methods of teaching: campus-focused”,Teaching in a Digital Age: Guidelines for
Designing and Learning, Tony Bates Associates.
Becker, L. and Jaakkola, E. (2020), “Customer experience: fundamental premises and implications for
research”,Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 48 No. 4, pp. 630-648.
Berdanier, M.C.G., Branch, M.S.E., London, M.J.S., Ahn, M.B. and Cox, M.F. (2014), “Survey analysis of
engineering graduate students’perceptions of the skills necessary for career success in industry
and academia”,Age, Vol. 24 No. 1, pp. 1-14.
Bernik, M. and
Znidar
si
c, J. (2012), “Solving complex problems with help of experiential learning”,
Organizacija, Vol. 45 No. 3, pp. 117-124.
Blume, S., Madanchi, N., B€
ohme, S., Posselt, G., Thiede, S. and Herrmann, C. (2015), “Die Lernfabrik–
research-based learning for sustainable production engineering”,Procedia CIRP, Vol. 32,
pp. 126-131.
Border, L.L.B. (2007), “Understanding learning styles: the key to unlocking deep learning and in-depth
teaching”,NEA Higher Education Advocate, Vol. 24, pp. 5-8.
Bouhuijs, P.A. (2011), “Implementing problem based learning: why is it so hard?”,REDU: Revista de
DocenciaUniversitaria, Vol. 9 No. 1, p. 17.
Bransford, J.D. and Stein, B.S. (1993), The IDEAL Problem Solver, Centers for Teaching and
Technology - Book Library, p. 46, available at: https://digitalcommons.georgiasouthern.edu/ct2-
library/46.
B€
uth, L., Bhakar, V., Sihag, N., Posselt, G., B€
ohme, S., Sangwan, K.S. and Herrmann, C. (2017),
“Bridging the qualification gap between academia and industry in India”,Procedia
Manufacturing, Vol. 9, pp. 275-282.
Carson, J. (2007), “A problem with problem solving: teaching thinking without teaching knowledge”,
The Mathematics Educator, Vol. 17 No. 2, pp. 7-14.
Chen, L., Yoshimatsu, N., Goda, Y., Okubo, F., Taniguchi, Y., Oi, M., Konomi, S., Shimada, A., Ogata, H.
and Yamada, M. (2019), “Direction of collaborative problem solving-based STEM learning by
learning analytics approach”,Research and Practice in Technology Enhanced Learning, Vol. 14
No. 1, pp. 1-28.
Cho, K.L. and Jonassen, D.H. (2002), “The effects of argumentation scaffolds on argumentation and
problem solving”,Educational Technology Research and Development, Vol. 50 No. 3, p. 5.
Collins, R.H., Sibthorp, J. and Gookin, J. (2016), “Developing ill-structured problem-solving skills
through wilderness education”,Journal of Experiential Education, Vol. 39, pp. 179-195.
Covill, C., Kaye, V. and Burton, R. (2011), “Problem based learning: a reflective account of its application
in health professional education”,Malaysian Journal of Nursing, Vol. 3 No. 2, pp. 1-19.
Da Silva, A.B., de Ara
ujo Bispo, A.C.K., Rodriguez, D.G. and Vasquez, F.I.F. (2018), “Problem-based
learning: a proposal for structuring PBL and its implications for learning among students in an
undergraduate management degree program”,Revista de Gest~
ao, Vol. 25 No. 2, pp. 160-177.
Dolmans, D.H., Loyens, S.M., Marcq, H. and Gijbels, D. (2016), “Deep and surface learning in problem-
based learning: a review of the literature”,Advances in Health Sciences Education, Vol. 21 No. 5,
pp. 1087-1112.
Problem-
solving skills
251
Dost
al, J. (2014), “Theory of problem solving”,Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, Vol. 174,
pp. 2798-2805.
Downing, K., Kwong, T., Chan, S.W., Lam, T.F. and Downing, W.K. (2009), “Problem-based learning
and the development of metacognition”,Higher Education, Vol. 57 No. 5, pp. 609-621.
Edstr€
om, K. and Kolmos, A. (2014), “PBL and CDIO: complementary models for engineering education
development”,European Journal of Engineering Education, Vol. 39 No. 5, pp. 539-555.
Efstratia, D. (2014), “Experiential education through project based learning”,Procedia-social and
Behavioral Sciences, Vol. 152, pp. 1256-1260.
Fernandes, R. and Simon, H.A. (1999), “A study of how individuals solve complex and ill-structured
problems”,Policy Sciences, Vol. 32 No. 3, pp. 225-245.
Ferreira, M.M. and Trudel, A.R. (2012), “The impact of problem-based learning (PBL) on student
attitudes toward science, problem-solving skills, and sense of community in the classroom”,
Journal of Classroom Interaction, Vol. 47, pp. 23-30.
FICCI EY (2016), “Future of jobs its implications on Indian higher education”, available at: http://ficci.
in/spdocument/20787/FICCI-Indian-Higher-Education.pdf.
French, D.P. (2006), “Don’t confuse inquiry and discovery”,Journal of College Science Teaching, Vol. 35
No. 6, pp. 58-59.
Gadola, M. and Chindamo, D. (2019), “Experiential learning in engineering education: the role of
student design competitions and a case study”,International Journal of Mechanical Engineering
Education, Vol. 47 No. 1, pp. 3-22.
Greiff, S., Fischer, A., Stadler, M. and W€
ustenberg, S. (2015), “Assessing complex problem-solving
skills with multiple complex systems”,Thinking and Reasoning, Vol. 21 No. 3, pp. 356-382.
Guerrero, M.S.R., Ramirez-Corona, N., Lopez-Malo, A. and Palou, E. (2014), “Assessing metacognition
during problem-solving in two senior concurrent courses”,Age, Vol. 24, p. 1.
Hannafin, M., Hill, J. and Land, S. (1997), “Student-centered learning and interactive multimedia:
status, issues, and implications”,Contemporary Education, Vol. 68 No. 2, pp. 94-99.
Healey, M., Jenkins, A. and Lea, J. (2014), Developing Research-Based Curricula in College-Based Higher
Education, HEA, York.
Hennessey, M.G. (2003), “Metacognitive aspects of students’reflective discourse: implications for
intentional conceptual teaching and learning”, in Sinatra, G.M. and Pintrich, P.R. (Eds),
Intentional Conceptual Change, Lawrence Erlbaum, Mahwah, New Jersey, NJ, pp. 103-132.
Howatson-Jones, L. (2016), Reflective Practice in Nursing, 3rd ed., Sage, Exeter.
Huang, M.H. and Rust, R.T. (2018), “Artificial intelligence in service”,Journal of Service Research,
Vol. 21 No. 2, pp. 155-172.
ILO Projects Unemployment Rate at 3.5% in 2018: Government (2018), available at: https://
economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/economy/indicators/ilo-projects-unemployment-rate-at-3-5-
in-2018-government/articleshow/63202592.cms?from5mdr.
International Engineering Alliance (2013), Graduate Attributes and Professional Competencies, Version
3, available at: http://www.ieagreements.org/assets/Uploads/Documents/Policy/Graduate-
Attributes-and-Professional-Competencies.pdf.
Jaakkola, E. (2020), “Designing conceptual articles: four approaches”,AMS Review, Vol. 10, pp. 18-26.
Jackson, M. (2012), “Deep approaches to learning in higher education”, in Boston, N.M.S. (Ed.),
Encyclopaedia of the Sciences of Learning, Springer, MA.
Jonassen, D.H. (2000a), “Integrating problem solving into instructional design”, in Reiser, R.A. and
Dempsey, J. (Eds), Trends and Issues in Instructional Design and Technology, Prentice-Hall,
Upper Saddle River, New Jersey, NJ.
Jonassen, D.H. (2000b), “Toward a design theory of problem solving”,Educational Technology
Research and Development, Vol. 48 No. 4, pp. 63-85.
HESWBL
12,2
252
Jonassen, D.H. (2004), Learning to Solve Problems: An Instructional Design Guide, Vol. 6, John Wiley
& Sons.
Jonassen, D.H. (2006), “On the role of concepts in learning and instructional design”,Educational
Technology Research and Development, Vol. 54 No. 2, p. 177.
Jonassen, D.H. (2010), Learning to Solve Problems: A Handbook for Designing Problem-Solving
Learning Environments, Routledge, New York.
Jonassen, D. (2011), “Supporting problem solving in PBL”,Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-Based
Learning, Vol. 5 No. 2, p. 8.
Jonassen, D., Strobel, J. and Lee, C.B. (2006), “Everyday problem solving in engineering: lessons for
engineering educators”,Journal of Engineering Education, Vol. 95 No. 2, pp. 139-151.
Jordan, K.A., Gagnon, R.J., Anderson, D.M. and Pilcher, J.J. (2018), “Enhancing the college student
experience: outcomes of a leisure education program”,Journal of Experiential Education, Vol. 41
No. 1, pp. 90-106.
Khalil, M.K. and Elkhider, I.A. (2016), “Applying learning theories and instructional design models for
effective instruction”,Advances in Physiology Education, Vol. 40 No. 2, pp. 147-156.
Kirn, A. and Benson, L. (2018), “Engineering Students’Perceptions of Problem solving and their
future”,Journal of Engineering Education, Vol. 107 No. 1, pp. 87-112.
Kolb, D.A. (1984), Experiential Learning: Experience as The Source of Learning and Development,
Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Kolb, D.A. and Fry, R.E. (1975), “Toward an applied theory of experiential learning”, in Cooper, C.
(Ed.), Theory of Group Processes, John Wiley and Sons, New York, NY.
Kolb, A. and Kolb, D. (2018), “Eight important things to know about the experiential learning cycle”,
Australian Educational Leader, Vol. 40 No. 3, p. 8.
Laksov, K.B. (2019), “Lessons learned: towards a framework for integration of theory and practice in
academic development”,International Journal for Academic Development, Vol. 24 No. 4,
pp. 369-380.
Lamancusa, J.S., Zayas, J.L., Soyster, A.L., Morell, L. and Jorgensen, J. (2008), “2006 Bernard M. Gordon
prize lecture: the learning factory: industry-partnered active learning”,Journal of Engineering
Education, Vol. 97 No. 1, pp. 5-11.
Lazonder, A.W. and Harmsen, R. (2016), “Meta-analysis of inquiry-based learning: effects of
guidance”,Review of Educational Research, Vol. 86 No. 3, pp. 681-718.
Li, H.,
€
Ochsner, A. and Hall, W. (2019), “Application of experiential learning to improve student
engagement and experience in a mechanical engineering course”,European Journal of
Engineering Education, Vol. 44 No. 3, pp. 283-293.
Lin, K.Y., Yu, K.C., Hsiao, H.S., Chu, Y.H., Chang, Y.S. and Chien, Y.H. (2015), “Design of an assessment
system for collaborative problem solving in STEM education”,Journal of Computers in
Education, Vol. 2 No. 3, pp. 301-322.
Lukka, K. and Vinnari, E. (2014), “Domain theory and method theory in management accounting
research”,Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal, Vol. 27 No. 8, pp. 1308-1338.
MacInnis, D.J. (2011), “A framework for conceptual contributions in marketing”,Journal of Marketing,
Vol. 75 No. 4, pp. 136-154.
Marshall, M.M., Carrano, A.L. and Dannels, W.A. (2016), “Adapting experiential learning to develop
problem-solving skills in deaf and hard-of-hearing engineering students”,Journal of Deaf
Studies and Deaf Education, Vol. 21 No. 4, pp. 403-415.
Mayer, R.E. (1998), “Cognitive, metacognitive, and motivational aspects of problem solving”,
Instructional Science, Vol. 26 No. 1, pp. 49-63.
Mayer, R.E. and Wittrock, M.C. (2006), “Problem solving”, in Alexander, P.A. and Winne, P.H. (Eds),
Handbook of Educational Psychology, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers, pp. 287-303.
Problem-
solving skills
253
McLoughlin, M. and Darvill, A. (2007), “Peeling back the layers of learning: a classroom model for
problem-based learning”,Nurse Education Today, Vol. 27 No. 4, pp. 271-277.
Mehrtash, M., Yuen, T. and Balan, L. (2019), “Implementation of experiential learning for vehicle
dynamic in automotive engineering: roll-over and fishhook test”,Procedia Manufacturing,
Vol. 32, pp. 768-774.
Merrill, K.L., Smith, S.W., Cumming, M.M. and Daunic, A.P. (2017), “A review of social problem-
solving interventions: past findings, current status, and future directions”,Review of
Educational Research, Vol. 87 No. 1, pp. 71-102.
Miller, R.J. and Maellaro, R. (2016), “Getting to the root of the problem in experiential learning: using
problem solving and collective reflection to improve learning outcomes”,Journal of
Management Education, Vol. 40 No. 2, pp. 170-193.
Minocha, S., Hristov, D. and Sreedharan, C. (2018), Global Talent in India: Challenges and Opportunities
for Skills Development in Higher Education, Global Engagement Hub, Bournemouth University.
Missingham, D., Shah, S. and Sabir, F. (2018), “Student engineers optimising problem solving and
research skills”,Journal of University Teaching and Learning Practice, Vol. 15 No. 4, p. 8.
Morris, T.H. (2019), “Experiential learning–a systematic review and revision of Kolb’s model”,
Interactive Learning Environments, Vol. 28 No. 8, pp. 1064-1077.
M€
uller, T. and Henning, T. (2017), “Getting started with PBL—a reflection”,Interdisciplinary Journal
of Problem-Based Learning, Vol. 11 No. 2, Article 8.
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (2018), The Future of Education and Skills:
Education 2030: The Future We Want, OECD, Paris, available at: http://www.oecd.org/
education/2030/oecd-education-2030-position-paper.pdf.
Pan, R. and Strobel, J. (2013), “Engineering students’perceptions of workplace problem solving”,
ASEE Annual Conference and Exposition, pp. 1-14.
Payne, A., Frow, P. and Eggert, A. (2017), “The customer value proposition: evolution, development,
and application in marketing”,Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 45 No. 4,
pp. 467-489.
Priemer, B., Eilerts, K., Filler, A., Pinkwart, N., R€
osken-Winter, B., Tiemann, R. and Zu Belzen, A.U.
(2020), “A framework to foster problem-solving in STEM and computing education”,Research
in Science and Technological Education, Vol. 38 No. 1, pp. 105-130.
Prince, M.J. and Felder, R.M. (2006), “Inductive teaching and learning methods: definitions,
comparisons, and research bases”,Journal of Engineering Education, Vol. 95 No. 2, pp. 123-138.
Reddy, B.V.R.M. (n.d.), “Engineering education in india- short and medium term perspectives”,AICTE
Database, pp. 1-40.
Richards, J.C. and Rodgers, T.S. (2014), Approaches and Methods in Language Teaching, 3rd ed.,
Cambridge University Press.
Safari, Y. and Meskini, H. (2016), “The effect of metacognitive instruction on problem solving skills in
Iranian students of health sciences”,Global Journal of Health Science, Vol. 8 No. 1, p. 150.
Sart, G. (2014), “The effects of the development of metacognition on project-based learning”,Procedia-
Social and Behavioral Sciences, Vol. 152, pp. 131-136.
Savery, J.R. (2015), “Overview of problem-based learning: definitions and distinctions”,Essential
Readings in Problem-Based Learning: Exploring and Extending the Legacy of Howard S.
Barrows, Vol. 9, pp. 5-15.
Savin-Baden, M. and Major, C.H. (2004), Foundations of Problem-Based Learning,OpenUniversityPress.
Schwartz, F. and White, K. (2000), “Making sense of it all: giving and getting online course feedback”,
in White, K.W. and Weight, B.H. (Eds), The Online Teaching Guide: A Handbook of Attitudes,
Strategies, and Techniques for the Virtual Classroom, Allyn and Bacon, Boston, pp. 57-72.
Scogin, S.C., Kruger, C.J., Jekkals, R.E. and Steinfeldt, C. (2017), “Learning by experience in a
standardized testing culture: investigation of a middle school experiential learning program”,
Journal of Experiential Education, Vol. 40 No. 1, pp. 39-57.
HESWBL
12,2
254
Shin, N., Jonassen, D.H. and McGee, S. (2003), “Predictors of well-structured and ill-structured problem
solving in an astronomy simulation”,Journal of Research in Science Teaching, Vol. 40
No. 1, pp. 6-33.
Singh, R., Devika, Herrmann, C., Thiede, S. and Sangwan, S.K. (2019), “Research-based learning for
skill development of engineering graduates: an empirical study”,Procedia Manufacturing,
Vol. 31, pp. 323-329.
Skill Development in India–Present Status and Recent Developments (n.d.), available at: http://www.
swaniti.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/Skill-development-Brief-Final-Version.pdf.
Smith, M.U. (Ed.) (2012), Toward a Unified Theory of Problem Solving: Views from the Content
Domains, Routledge.
Snyder, L.G. and Snyder, M.J. (2008), “Teaching critical thinking and problem solving skills”,The
Journal of Research in Business Education, Vol. 50 No. 2, p. 90.
Stroble, J. (2007), “Compound problem solving: workplace lessons for engineering education”,
Proceedings of the 2007 Midwest Section ASEE Conference.
Struyven, K., Dochy, F., Janssens, S. and Gielen, S. (2006), “On the dynamics of students’approaches to
learning: the effects of the teaching/learning environment”,Learning and Instruction, Vol. 16
No. 4, pp. 279-294.
Thieken, J. (2012), Engineering-Based Problem Solving Strategies in AP Calculus: an Investigation into
High School Student Performance on Related Rate Free-Response Problems, Arizona State
University, Tempe , AZ.
White, K., Habib, R. and Hardisty, D.J. (2019), “How to SHIFT consumer behaviors to be more
sustainable: a literature review and guiding framework”,Journal of Marketing, Vol. 83 No. 3,
pp. 22-49.
Win, N.N., Nadarajah, V.D.V. and Win, D.K. (2015), “The implementation of problem-based learning in
collaborative groups in a chiropractic program in Malaysia”,Journal of Educational Evaluation
for Health Professions, Vol. 12.
Woods, D.R. (2000), “An evidence-based strategy for problem solving”,Journal of Engineering
Education, Vol. 89 No. 4, pp. 443-459.
Woods, D.R., Felder, R.M., Rugarcia, A. and Stice, J.E. (2000), “The future of engineering education III.
Developing critical skills”,Change, Vol. 4, pp. 48-52.
World Bank (2016), “A knowledge economy needs primary soft skills development”. available at:
http://blogs.worldbank.org/jobs/knowledge-economy-needs-preprimary-soft-skillsdevelopment.
World Economic Forum (2018), The Future of Jobs Report 2018, World Economic Forum, Geneva.
available at: http://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_Future_of_Jobs_2018.pdf.
Further reading
Prince, M. and Felder, R. (2007), “The many faces of inductive teaching and learning”,Journal of
College Science Teaching, Vol. 36 No. 5, p. 14.
Woods, D.R., Hrymak, A.N., Marshall, R.R., Wood, P.E., Crowe, C.M., Hoffman, T.W., Wright, J.D.,
Taylor, P.A., Woodhouse, K.A. and Bouchard, C.K. (1997), “Developing problem solving skills:
the McMaster problem solving program”,Journal of Engineering Education,Vol.86No.2,
pp. 75-91.
Corresponding author
Kuldip Singh Sangwan can be contacted at: kss@pilani.bits-pilani.ac.in
For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
Problem-
solving skills
255
