View in EDS

"More conceptual than actual": Epistemic metacognition in response to a non‐numerical statics question.

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: "More conceptual than actual": Epistemic metacognition in response to a non‐numerical statics question.
Authors: Grundy, Lorena S.1,2 (AUTHOR) lgrundy@seas.upenn.edu, Koretsky, Milo D.1,2 (AUTHOR) milo.koretsky@tufts.edu
Source: Journal of Engineering Education. Oct2025, Vol. 114 Issue 4, p1-23. 23p.
Subjects: Metacognition, Concept learning, STEM education, Education research methodology, Engineering education, Active learning, Inquiry-based learning
Abstract: Background: Metacognitive processes have been linked to the development of conceptual knowledge in STEM courses, but previous work has centered on the regulatory aspects of metacognition. Purpose: We interrogated the relationship between epistemic metacognition and conceptual knowledge in engineering statics courses across six universities by asking students a difficult concept question with concurrent reflection prompts that elicited their metacognitive thinking. Method: We used a mixed‐methods design containing an embedded phase followed by an explanatory phase. This design allowed us to both prompt and measure student epistemic metacognition within the learning context. The embedded phase consisted of quantitative and qualitative analyses of student responses. The explanatory phase consisted of an analysis of six instructor interviews. Results: Analysis of 267 student responses showed greater variation in students' epistemic metacognition than in their ability to answer correctly. Students used different kinds of epistemic metacognitive resources about the nature and origin of knowledge, epistemological forms, epistemological activities, and stances toward knowledge. These resources generally assembled into one of two frames: a constructed knowledge framing valuing conceptual knowledge and sense‐making, and an authoritative knowledge framing foregrounding numerical, algorithmic problem‐solving. All six instructors interviewed described resources that align with both frames, and none explicitly considered student epistemic metacognition. Conclusions: Instructors' explicit attention to epistemic metacognition can potentially shift students to more productive frames for engineering learning. Findings here also inform two broader issues in STEM instruction: student resistance to active learning, and the direct instruction versus inquiry‐based learning debate. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]
Copyright of Journal of Engineering Education is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites without the copyright holder's express written permission. Additionally, content may not be used with any artificial intelligence tools or machine learning technologies. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)
Database: Engineering Source
Description
Abstract:Background: Metacognitive processes have been linked to the development of conceptual knowledge in STEM courses, but previous work has centered on the regulatory aspects of metacognition. Purpose: We interrogated the relationship between epistemic metacognition and conceptual knowledge in engineering statics courses across six universities by asking students a difficult concept question with concurrent reflection prompts that elicited their metacognitive thinking. Method: We used a mixed‐methods design containing an embedded phase followed by an explanatory phase. This design allowed us to both prompt and measure student epistemic metacognition within the learning context. The embedded phase consisted of quantitative and qualitative analyses of student responses. The explanatory phase consisted of an analysis of six instructor interviews. Results: Analysis of 267 student responses showed greater variation in students' epistemic metacognition than in their ability to answer correctly. Students used different kinds of epistemic metacognitive resources about the nature and origin of knowledge, epistemological forms, epistemological activities, and stances toward knowledge. These resources generally assembled into one of two frames: a constructed knowledge framing valuing conceptual knowledge and sense‐making, and an authoritative knowledge framing foregrounding numerical, algorithmic problem‐solving. All six instructors interviewed described resources that align with both frames, and none explicitly considered student epistemic metacognition. Conclusions: Instructors' explicit attention to epistemic metacognition can potentially shift students to more productive frames for engineering learning. Findings here also inform two broader issues in STEM instruction: student resistance to active learning, and the direct instruction versus inquiry‐based learning debate. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]
ISSN:10694730
DOI:10.1002/jee.70035