Cognitive Barriers to Understanding Complexity in Human-Technical Systems: Evidence from Engineering Students and Practitioners

根据美国国家工程院的说法，对复杂的人类技术系统缺乏了解，即，具有许多相互作用部分的系统是“人为灾难”的主要原因，包括例如福岛第一核电站事故和墨西哥湾的深水地平线石油泄漏。各种研究表明，即使是受过良好教育的工程师也很难理解复杂的人类技术系统的基本概念。这项研究将提供重要的认知（例如推理，思维）技能的理解复杂系统的工程专业学生和工作的专业人士的见解。认知障碍的例子是，例如，专家倾向于以牺牲大局为代价来看待细节，以及人类倾向于关注短期而不是长期结果等。这项研究将满足行业和政府的需求，为美国劳动力教育和开发复杂的问题解决者，使美国保持其经济竞争力，国家安全和作为全球创新领导者的地位。鉴于工程师在整个职业生涯中设计、构建和管理人-技术系统，研究他们在正规教育期间和之后的认知障碍的影响是很重要的。从教育的角度来看，该研究将把结果整合到工程课程、案例研究、团队作业和模拟平台中。从推广的角度来看，研究成果将用于设计和提供公司，政府机构和大学研讨会。这是一个多学科的项目，它位于复杂系统和工程教育的交叉点，将研究具有不同教育经验的本科生以及具有不同工作经验的专业人士。系统思维的中心概念化是关注理解复杂的相互关联的社会技术系统的运作。在我们的项目中，我们的具体定义与系统动力学学派相一致，该学派提供了分析系统行为的既定方法，这些系统行为随着时间的推移可能会违反直觉。该研究假设工程师可以识别和管理系统的复杂性，课堂教育和现场经验对于学习如何理解复杂系统至关重要。中心研究假设是，工程项目的教育和真实的世界经验影响（积极或消极）工程师对复杂系统的理解。为了验证主要假设，研究了四个具体的研究问题（RQ 1-RQ 4）。将使用三个具有不同结构性和复杂性水平的小插图，代表工程任务。研究问题如下：RQ 1：什么是工程学生/专业人士的教育/专业知识水平和他们的表现上的三个小插曲，不同的问题结构和复杂性之间的关系？第二个问题：什么是工程专业的学生/专业人士的看法，他们自己的系统思维能力和他们的表现上的三个小插曲，不同的问题结构和复杂性之间的关系？第三个问题：工程专业的学生和专业人士在解决问题的方法上有何不同？和RQ 4：工程专业的学生和专业人士如何描述他们如何以及在哪里发展了理解复杂系统的认知技能？该奖项反映了NSF的法定使命，并被认为是值得通过使用基金会的知识价值和更广泛的影响审查标准进行评估的支持。

According to the National Academy of Engineering, poor understanding of complex human-technical systems, i.e., systems that have many interacting parts, has been a major cause of "man made disasters" that include, for example, the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear accident and the Deepwater Horizon oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. Various studies show that even well-schooled engineers have difficulty understanding basic concepts of complex human-technical systems. This research will provide insights of the important cognitive (e.g. reasoning, thinking) skills for the understanding of complex systems for both engineering students and working professionals. Examples of cognitive barriers are for example, the experts' tendency to look at details at the expense of looking at the big picture, and the human tendency to focus on short-term as opposed to the long-term outcomes, among others. This research will address the needs of industry and government to educate and develop complex problem solvers for the US workforce so that the US maintains its economic competitiveness, national security, and position as a global leader in innovation. Given that engineers design, build and manage human-technical systems throughout their careers, it is important to study the effect of the cognitive barriers during and after their formal education. From an educational point of view, the research will integrate the results into engineering courses, case studies, team assignments and simulation platforms. From an outreach point of view, the research will use the results for the design and offering of company, government agency, and University workshops.This is a multi-disciplinary project, which lies at the intersection of complex systems and engineering education and will study undergraduate students with different educational experiences as well as professionals with different work experiences. Central conceptualizations of systems thinking is the focus on understanding the workings of complex interconnected socio-technical systems. In our project, our specific definition aligns with the system dynamics school of thought, which provides established methods for analyzing system behavior whose final behavior over time might be counter-intuitive. The research assumes that engineers can recognize and manage system complexity and that classroom education and field experiences can be essential for learning how to understand complex systems. The central research hypothesis is that education in engineering programs and real world experiences influence (positively or negatively) engineers' understanding of complex systems. In order to investigate the main hypothesis, four specific research questions (RQ1-RQ4) are studied. Three vignettes with different levels of structuredness and complexity representing engineering tasks will be used. The research questions are as follows: RQ1: What is the relationship between engineering students'/professionals' level of education/expertise and their performance on three vignettes that vary with respect to problem structuredness and complexity? RQ2: What is the relationship between engineering students'/professionals' perceptions of their own systems thinking competencies and their performance on three vignettes that vary with respect to problem structuredness and complexity? RQ3: How do engineering students and professionals differ in their approaches to solving problems that vary with respect to problem stucturedness and complexity? and RQ4: How do engineering students and professionals describe how and where they developed their cognitive skills of understanding complex systems?This award reflects NSF's statutory mission and has been deemed worthy of support through evaluation using the Foundation's intellectual merit and broader impacts review criteria.