Computer Science editorial
Open AccessOA2024
Differences in Mechanical Reasoning of Engineering Students
This study analyzes differences in mechanical reasoning among engineering students at UNISKI, finding significant disparities in levers, gears, and tools, but not in pulleys, springs, and electrical circuits.
Firdaus Ms; Eddy Saud· Jurnal Riset dan Inovasi Pembelajaran· 2024· DOI 10.51574/jrip.v4i3.2180
The core problem
Engineering aptitude, particularly mechanical reasoning, is a critical competency for engineering students. This study aims to analyze the differences in mechanical reasoning among engineering students at the Faculty of Engineering, Ogan Komering Ilir Islamic University (UNISKI), Kayuagung. The research addresses whether students from different engineering disciplines exhibit varying levels of mechanical reasoning, which could inform curriculum design and instructional strategies. The study focuses on two groups: mechanical engineering and civil engineering students, using a standardized instrument to assess their reasoning abilities across six key topics.
Innovation
This quantitative study employed a cross-sectional design. Participants were selected via simple random sampling, yielding 26 mechanical engineering students and 36 civil engineering students. The instrument used was the aptitude-mechanical reasoning test developed by Mackellar (2015), covering six topics: 1) Levers, 2) Pulleys, 3) Gears, 4) Springs, 5) Simple electrical circuits, and 6) Tools. Data were analyzed using the Rasch model with the WINSTEP application. The Rasch model allows for the evaluation of item difficulty and person ability on a common logit scale, providing insights into the differences between groups. The analysis focused on comparing the t-count values for each topic to determine statistical significance.
Introduction
Engineering aptitude, particularly mechanical reasoning, is a critical competency for engineering students. This study aims to analyze the differences in mechanical reasoning among engineering students at the Faculty of Engineering, Ogan Komering Ilir Islamic University (UNISKI), Kayuagung. The research addresses whether students from different engineering disciplines exhibit varying levels of mechanical reasoning, which could inform curriculum design and instructional strategies. The study focuses on two groups: mechanical engineering and civil engineering students, using a standardized instrument to assess their reasoning abilities across six key topics.
Why it matters
The significant differences in levers, gears, and tools suggest that mechanical engineering students have a stronger grasp of mechanical components directly related to their field of study. This could be due to the specialized coursework and practical training in mechanical systems that mechanical engineering students receive. In contrast, the lack of significant differences in pulleys, springs, and electrical circuits indicates that these topics may be covered similarly in both programs or are less emphasized in the mechanical engineering curriculum. The findings align with the expectation that discipline-specific training enhances reasoning in relevant areas. The Rasch model's ability to separate item difficulty from person ability provides a robust framework for such comparisons. Future research could explore longitudinal changes and the impact of curriculum interventions. The study's limitations include a small sample size and a single institution, which may affect generalizability.
Who should read this
Pembaca Research Digest dan praktisi rumpun ini.
Opening member content…