“More conceptual than actual”: Epistemic metacognition in response to a non-numerical statics question

IF 3.4 2区 工程技术 Q1 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH
Lorena S. Grundy, Milo D. Koretsky
{"title":"“More conceptual than actual”: Epistemic metacognition in response to a non-numerical statics question","authors":"Lorena S. Grundy,&nbsp;Milo D. Koretsky","doi":"10.1002/jee.70035","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Background</h3>\n \n <p>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.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Purpose</h3>\n \n <p>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.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Method</h3>\n \n <p>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.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>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 <i>constructed knowledge framing</i> valuing conceptual knowledge and sense-making, and an <i>authoritative knowledge framing</i> foregrounding numerical, algorithmic problem-solving. All six instructors interviewed described resources that align with both frames, and none explicitly considered student epistemic metacognition.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusions</h3>\n \n <p>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.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":50206,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Engineering Education","volume":"114 4","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Engineering Education","FirstCategoryId":"5","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jee.70035","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"工程技术","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

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.

“概念多于实际”:对一个非数值静态问题的认知元认知
元认知过程与STEM课程中概念知识的发展有关,但之前的工作主要集中在元认知的调节方面。目的通过向六所大学的工程静力学课程的学生提问一个复杂的概念问题,并同时提出反思提示,以激发他们的元认知思维,探讨认知元认知与概念知识之间的关系。方法采用混合方法设计,包括一个嵌入阶段和一个解释阶段。这种设计使我们能够在学习情境中提示和测量学生的认知元认知。嵌入阶段包括对学生反应的定量和定性分析。解释阶段包括对六个教师访谈的分析。结果对267名学生的回答进行分析,发现学生的认识论元认知差异大于正确回答能力差异。学生对知识的性质和起源、认识论形式、认识论活动和对知识的立场使用了不同种类的认识论元认知资源。这些资源通常组合成两个框架之一:一个是重视概念知识和意义构建的构建知识框架,另一个是重视数值、算法问题解决的权威知识框架。所有接受采访的六名教师都描述了与这两个框架一致的资源,没有一个明确考虑到学生的认知元认知。结论:教师对认识论元认知的明确关注可以潜在地将学生转变为更有效的工程学习框架。这里的研究结果还揭示了STEM教学中的两个更广泛的问题:学生对主动学习的抵制,以及直接教学与基于探究的学习的争论。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Journal of Engineering Education
Journal of Engineering Education 工程技术-工程:综合
CiteScore
12.20
自引率
11.80%
发文量
47
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: The Journal of Engineering Education (JEE) serves to cultivate, disseminate, and archive scholarly research in engineering education.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信