The phenomenon of engineering thinking in the modern world: Psychological content, structure, components

Background. In the context of rapid technological progress and digitalization of various fields of activity, the importance of engineering thinking is increasing not only in technical, but also in humanitarian professions. Modern specialists, including educators and psychologists, face the need to solve complex, non-standard tasks that require a systematic, algorithmic approach, which brings their activities closer to the principles of engineering thinking.

Despite the active study of engineering thinking in the technical sciences, its psychological structure and content remain insufficiently explored, especially in the context of "helping" professions. There is a lack of empirical data on how representatives of pedagogy and psychology perceive and interpret this phenomenon, which components they consider key, and how this correlates with classical ideas about engineering thinking.

The conducted research is aimed at filling this gap through theoretical analysis and empirical study of ideas about engineering thinking among teachers and psychologists. The results of the work can be useful for developing programs for the development of professional thinking in the humanities, as well as for clarifying the psychological model of engineering thinking in modern science.

Purpose. To identify the psychological content, structure, and key components of engineering thinking based on theoretical analysis and empirical study of the concepts of this phenomenon among practicing psychologists and educators.

Materials and methods. This research includes both a theoretical analysis and generalization of scientific definitions and structural characteristics of the term "engineering thinking", as well as an empirical study of the concepts of the components and specifics of engineering thinking of modern specialists in "helping" professions (teachers and psychologists). The empirical study involved 72 people: 37 psychologists (practicing psychologists and psychology teachers) and 33 school teachers aged 23 to 67 years from different cities of the Russian Federation. The author's questionnaire "The study of ideas about the concept of "engineering thinking" and its structural characteristics" was used. For statistical data processing, the Student and Fisher criteria were used to compare groups.

Results. According to the survey results, the majority of respondents (88.9%) identify systems thinking (understanding relationships) and logical thinking as the foundation of engineering thinking. 75% of the sample consider analytical thinking to be an important component of engineering thinking. Psychologists more frequently than educators see 'creativity and inventiveness' (φ*emp= 1.843, p ≤0.05), 'systems thinking (understanding relationships), logical thinking' (φ*emp= 3.757, p ≤0.01), 'ability to work in a team' (φ*emp=2.088, p ≤0.05), 'flexibility of thinking' (φ*emp= 6.566**, p ≤0.01), 'speed of problem solving' (φ*emp= 1.724*, p ≤0.05), and 'synthesis of scientific and practical thinking' (φ*emp= 2.16, p ≤0.01) as the basis of engineering thinking. Additionally, significant differences according to Fisher's criterion were identified regarding perceptions of which qualities help develop engineering thinking: psychologists place greater emphasis on the ability to analyze and question information, corresponding to their focus on. In cognitive processes, psychologists often emphasize the importance of social skills, possibly due to their understanding of the role of teamwork in engineering activities.     Perseverance in achieving the perfect result is more significant for psychologists, which may be related to their focus on personality traits and motivation.

When analyzing which professions require developed engineering thinking, the most frequently mentioned in the entire sample are the professions of engineer, designer, robotics specialist, physicist (nuclear physicist), architect, IT specialist, mathematician, and technologist. Furthermore, when considering the responses of psychologists and educators separately, we identified a number of interesting trends.