Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Constructive Controversy in Engineering Undergraduate, Masters, Doctorate, and Professional Settings

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Konstruktive Kontroverse in Organisationen

Part of the book series: uniscope. Publikationen der SGO Stiftung ((UNISCOPE))

Abstract

Constructive Controversy has been incorporated as part of the preparation of participants in academic programs in engineering since the early 1980’s. It was introduced initially in undergraduate programs and more recently in Masters and Doctorate programs as well as Professional Masters programs and faculty professional development programs. The importance of developing Constructive Controversy skills for professionals is increasing given the rapidly increasing complexity of decisions and the paramount importance of innovation. We argue that Constructive Controversy is an excellent approach for operationalizing innovation as a social process. In this paper we document the approach through: (1) briefly reviewing the development of Constructive Controversy including the social interdependence theoretical framework and the details of this type of cooperative learning approach; (2) providing instructional guidelines, references and resources; and (3) reviewing current case examples in educational and professional development settings.

Finally, a case study shows how Constructive Controversy has been implemented in a course on engineering grand challenges that adopts collaborative problem solving as its main pedagogy. Students worked in teams of four, with the assistance of their peer tutor, generated solutions to two wicked or ill-structured problems related to the engineering challenges in one semester. Two teams need to work on their own solution initially and produce an integrated solution through the Constructive Controversy process at the end. The eight student teams were found to approach Constructive Controversy in three different styles, namely, “consensus and combination”, “confrontation and synthesis”, and “forcing and following”. Among them, “confrontation and synthesis” produced the best integrated solution and the highest self-reported gains in most of the learning outcomes whereas “consensus and combination” resulted in harmonious inter-team relationship and the highest self-perceived learning gains in collaborative problem solving. Lessons learned in this case would be the initiatives for the continuous improvement of the course.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 49.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 59.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Literature

  • ABET, Inc. (2010). Criteria for Accrediting Engineering Programs: Effective for Evaluations during the 2011–2012 Accreditation Cycle. http://abet.dev.berndtgroup.net/uploadedFiles/Accreditation/Accreditation_Process/Accreditation_Documents/Current/abet-eac-criteria-2011-2012.pdf. Accessed 16 Nov 2011.

  • Arthur, W. B. (2009). The nature of technology: What it is and how it evolves. New York: The Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Astin, H. S., & Astin, A. W. (1996). A social change model of leadership development. Los Angeles: The Regents of The University of California.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bledow, R., Frese, M., Anderson, N., Erez, M., & Farr, J. (2009). A dialectic perspective on innovation: Conflicting demands, multiple pathways, and ambidexterity. Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 2, 305–337.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • D’Eon, M., Proctor, P., & Reeder, B. (2007). Comparing two cooperative small group formats used with physical therapy and medical students. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 44(1), 31–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • DeAngelo, L., Hurtado, S., Pryor, J. H., Kelly, K. R., & Santos, J. L. (2009). The American college teacher: National norms for the 2007–2008 HERI faculty survey. Los Angeles: Higher Education Research Institute. UCLA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Denning, P. J., & Dunham, R. (2010). The innovator’s way: Essential practices for successful innovation. Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Deutsch, M. (1949a). A theory of cooperation and competition. Human Relations, 2, 129–152.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Deutsch, M. (1949b). An experimental study of the effects of cooperation and competition upon group process. Human Relations, 2, 199–231.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Felder, R. M., & Brent, R. (2003). Designing and teaching courses to satisfy the ABET. Engineering Criteria. Journal of Engineering Education, 92(1), 7–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Garvin, D. A., & Roberto, M. A. (2001). What you don’t know about making decisions. Harvard Business Review, 79(8), 108–116.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hargadon, A. (2003). How breakthroughs happen: The surprising truth about how companies innovate. Cambridge: Harvard Business School Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hofstede, G., & Hofstede, G. J. (2005). Cultures and organizations: Software of the mind (2nd edn.). New York: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1974). Instructional goal structures: Cooperative, competitive, or individualistic. Review of Educational Research, 44, 213–240.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1979). Conflict in the classroom: Controversy and learning. Review of Educational Research, 49(1), 51–70.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, F. P. (1987). Joining together: Group theory and group skills (3rd edn.). Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1988). Critical thinking through structured controversy. Educational Leadership, 45(8), 58–64.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (2009). Energizing learning: The instructional power of conflict. Educational Researcher, 38(1), 37–51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, D. W., & Smith, K. A. (1984). Structuring controversy workshop. Proceedings 14th ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference. Philadelphia, PA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T., & Smith, K. A. (1996). Academic controversy: Enriching college instruction through intellectual conflict. ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report, (Vol. 25, No. 3). Washington, DC: The George Washington University. Graduate School of Education and Human Development.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T., & Smith, K. A. (1998). Cooperative learning returns to college: What evidence is there that it works? Change, 30(4), 26–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T., & Smith, K. A. (2000). Constructive controversy: The power of intellectual conflict. Change, 32(1), 28–37.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T., & Smith, K. A. (2007). The state of cooperative learning in postsecondary and professional settings. Educational Psychology Review, 19, 15–29.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jonassen, D. H., & Kim, B. (2010). Arguing to learn and learning to argue: Design justifications and guidelines. Education Technology Research and Development, 58, 439–457.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jonassen, D. H., Cho, Y. H., Kwon, K., Henry, H., Easter, M., Shen, D., et al. (2009). Evaluating vs. constructing arguments. Journal of Engineering Education, 98(3), 235–254.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kuhn, D., Shaw, V., & Felton, M. (1997). Effects of dyadic interaction on argumentative reasoning. Cognition and Instruction, 15(3), 287–315.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • March, J. G. (1991). Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning. Organization Science, 2(1), 71–87.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • March, J. G., Sproull, L. S., & Tamuz, M. (1991). Learning from samples of one or fewer. Organization Science, 2(1), 1–13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Matusovich, H., & Smith, K. A. (2009). Constructive academic controversy—What is it? Why use it? How to structure it? Proceedings 39th ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference, San Antonio, TX.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mickleborough, N. (2011). Development of collaborative problem-solving skills in a course on engineering grand challenges. Invited presentation at The Third International Workshop on Innovative Engineering Education. Sungkyunkwan University Hub Center for Innovative Engineering Education, Jeju, South Korea, December 8–10, 2011.

    Google Scholar 

  • Morris, M. W., Williams, K. Y., Leung, K., Larrick, R., Mendoa, M. T., Bhatnagar, D., L., J., Kondo, M., Luo, J., & Hu, J. (1998). Conflict management style: Accounting for cross-national differences. Journal of International Business Studies, 29(4), 729–748.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • NAE. (2008). Leading engineers and scientists identity advances that could improve quality of life around the world: 21 century’s grand engineering challenges unveiled. http://www8.nationalacademies.org/onpinews/newsitem.aspx?RecordID=02152008. Assessed 24 Feb 2014.

  • Page, S. E. (2009). Understanding complexity. The great courses. Chantilly: The Teaching Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • Prince, M. J., & Felder, R. M. (2006). Inductive teaching and learning methods: definitions, comparisons and research bases. Journal of Engineering Education, 95(2), 123–138.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sawyer, R. K. (2006). The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, K. A. (1984). Structured controversy. Engineering Education, 74(5), 306–309.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, K. A. (2000). Going deeper: Formal small-group learning in large classes. In J. MacGregor, J. L. Cooper, K. A. Smith, & P. Robinson (Eds.), Strategies for energizing large classes: From small groups to learning communities, new directions for teaching and learning, 81 (pp. 25–46). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, K. A. (2011). Cooperative learning: Lessons and insights from thirty years of championing a research-based innovative practice. Proceedings 41st ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference, Rapid City, SD.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, K. A. (2013). Teamwork and project management (4th edn.). New York: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, K. A., Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1981a). The use of cooperative learning groups in engineering education. In L. P. Grayson & J. M. Biedenbach (Eds.), Proceedings Eleventh Annual ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference. Rapid City, SD.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, K. A., Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1981b). Structuring learning to meet the goals of engineering education. Journal of Engineering Education, 72(3), 221–226.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, K. A., Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1981c). Can conflict be constructive? Controversy versus concurrence seeking in learning groups. Journal of Education Psychology, 73(5), 651–663.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, K. A., Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1982). Study of controversy in cooperative learning groups. Proceedings 12th ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference, Columbia, SC.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, K. A., Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1984). Effects of controversy on learning in cooperative groups. Journal of Social Psychology, 122, 199–209.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, K. A., Petersen, R. P., Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1986). The effects of controversy and concurrence‑seeking on effective decision making. Journal of Social Psychology, 126(2), 237&#8209, 248.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, K. A., Sheppard, S. D., Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (2005). Pedagogies of engagement: Classroom-based practices (Cooperative learning and problem-based learning). Journal of Engineering Education, 94(1), 87–101.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, K. A., Matusovich, H., Meyers, K., & Mann, L. (2011). Preparing the next generation of engineering educators and researchers: Cooperative learning in the Purdue University School of Engineering Education PhD Program (Chapter 6). In B. Millis (Ed.), Cooperative learning in higher education: Across the disciplines, across the academy. Sterling: Stylus Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yadav, A., Subedi, D., Lundeberg, M. A., & Bunting, C. F. (2011). Problem-based learning: Influence on students’ learning in an electronic engineering course. Journal of Engineering Education, 100(2), 253–280.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zou, T. X. P., & Mickleborough, N. (2015). Promoting collaborative problem-solving skills in a course on engineering grand challenges. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 52(2), 148–159.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zou, T. X. P., Mickleborough, N., & Leung, J. (2012a). Promoting collaborative problem solving through peer tutoring and structured controversy. Presentation at 2012 Engineering Education Innovation Workshop, Hong Kong University of Science and Technology. Clearwater Bay, Hong Kong.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zou, T. X. P., Ko, E., & Mickleborough, N. (2012b). Promoting multi-layered peer learning in a course on engineering grand challenges. In Proceedings of International Conference on Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, in conjunction with Regional Conference on Engineering Education and Research in Higher Education (RCEERHE 2012), Seremban, Malaysia, Apr. 10–12, D2S2C.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Minnesota, St. Paul, USA

    Prof. em. Dr. Karl A. Smith

  2. Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, USA

    Dr. Holly Matusovich PhD

  3. University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, China

    Dr. Tracy X. P. Zou

Authors
  1. Prof. em. Dr. Karl A. Smith
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Dr. Holly Matusovich PhD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Dr. Tracy X. P. Zou
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Karl A. Smith .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Hochschule für Angewandte Psychologie Institut f. Kooperationsforschung und -e, Fachhochschule Nordwestschweiz, Olten, Switzerland

    Albert Vollmer

  2. Lehrstuhl f. Betriebspädagogik, Otto-von-Guericke-Universität Marburg, Magdeburg, Germany

    Michael Dick

  3. Lehrstuhl für Arbeits- und Organisations, ETH Zürich, Zürich, Switzerland

    Theo Wehner

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2015 Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Smith, K., Matusovich, H., Zou, T. (2015). Constructive Controversy in Engineering Undergraduate, Masters, Doctorate, and Professional Settings. In: Vollmer, A., Dick, M., Wehner, T. (eds) Konstruktive Kontroverse in Organisationen. uniscope. Publikationen der SGO Stiftung. Springer Gabler, Wiesbaden. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-00263-3_6

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-00263-3_6

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer Gabler, Wiesbaden

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-658-00262-6

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-658-00263-3

  • eBook Packages: Business and Economics (German Language)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation