Treffer: 'More Conceptual than Actual': Epistemic Metacognition in Response to a Non-Numerical Statics Question

Title:
'More Conceptual than Actual': Epistemic Metacognition in Response to a Non-Numerical Statics Question
Language:
English
Authors:
Lorena S. Grundy (ORCID 0000-0001-7706-2216), Milo D. Koretsky (ORCID 0000-0002-6887-4527)
Source:
Journal of Engineering Education. 2025 114(4).
Availability:
Wiley. Available from: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 111 River Street, Hoboken, NJ 07030. Tel: 800-835-6770; e-mail: cs-journals@wiley.com; Web site: https://www.wiley.com/en-us
Peer Reviewed:
Y
Page Count:
23
Publication Date:
2025
Sponsoring Agency:
National Science Foundation (NSF), Division of Undergraduate Education (DUE)
Contract Number:
2135190
Document Type:
Fachzeitschrift Journal Articles<br />Reports - Research
Education Level:
Higher Education
Postsecondary Education
DOI:
10.1002/jee.70035
ISSN:
1069-4730
2168-9830
Entry Date:
2025
Accession Number:
EJ1487746
Database:
ERIC

Weitere Informationen

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.

As Provided