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

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.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Journal of Engineering Education
Published
2025-09-16
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1002/jee.70035
Primary Topic
Educational Strategies and Epistemologies
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

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

Milo Koretsky, Lorena S. Grundy
Journal of Engineering Education
Educational Strategies and Epistemologies
article

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

Milo Koretsky, Lorena S. Grundy
article en

Abstract

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.

Journal of Engineering EducationVol. 114(4)
Tufts University (US)
Openalex Percentile: Top 73%
Educational Strategies and Epistemologies
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.