Search for: All records

Abstract BackgroundMetacognitive processes have been linked to the development of conceptual knowledge in STEM courses, but previous work has centered on the regulatory aspects of metacognition. PurposeWe 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. MethodWe 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. ResultsAnalysis 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: aconstructed knowledge framingvaluing conceptual knowledge and sense‐making, and anauthoritative knowledge framingforegrounding numerical, algorithmic problem‐solving. All six instructors interviewed described resources that align with both frames, and none explicitly considered student epistemic metacognition. ConclusionsInstructors' 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. 

Professional engineering demands more than the ability to proficiently carry out engineering calculations. Engineers need to approach problems with a holistic view, make decisions based on evidence, collaborate effectively in teams, and learn from setbacks. Laboratory work plays a crucial role in shaping the professional development of university engineering students, as it enables them to cultivate these essential practices. A successful laboratory task design should provide students opportunities to develop these practices but also needs to adhere to the constraints of the educational environment. In this project, we explore how both virtual (simulation-based) and physical (hands-on) laboratories, based on the same real-world engineering process, prepare students for their future careers. Specifically, we seek to determine whether the virtual and physical laboratory modes foster different yet complementary epistemic practices. Epistemic practices refer to the ways in which group members propose, communicate, justify, assess, and validate knowledge claims in a socially organized and interactionally accomplished manner. To accomplish these objectives, we are conducting a microgenetic analysis of student teams engaging in both the virtual and physical versions of the same laboratory exercise, the Jar Test for Drinking Water Treatment. Jar testing is a standard laboratory procedure used by design engineers and water treatment plant operators to optimize the physical and chemical conditions for the effective removal of particulate contaminants from water through coagulation, flocculation, and settling. The central hypothesis guiding this research is that physical laboratories emphasize social and material epistemic practices, while virtual laboratories highlight social and conceptual epistemic practices. The goal is to gain transferable knowledge about how the laboratory format and instructional design influence students' engagement in epistemic practices. To date we have developed physical and virtual versions of the Jar Test laboratory, each built around the affordances of their respective modes. We have completed two rounds of data collection resulting in data from 21 students (7 groups of 3). The primary data sources have included video recordings and researcher observations of the teams during the laboratory work, semi-structured stimulated recall interviews with students and laboratory instructors, and student work products. Using discourse analysis methods within a sociocultural framework, we are addressing the following research questions: 1. In what ways and to what extent does conducting an experiment in a physical mode to develop a process recommendation influence students’ engineering epistemic practices? 2. In what ways and to what extent does conducting an experiment in a virtual mode to develop a process recommendation influence students’ engineering epistemic practices? 3. How do students in each laboratory mode respond to being “stuck”? Do students’ views on the iterative nature of science/engineering and their tolerance for mistakes depend on the instructional design afforded by the laboratory mode? While this study focuses on a process specific to environmental engineering, its findings have the potential to positively impact teaching and learning practices across all engineering and science disciplines that rely on laboratory investigations in their curriculum. 

We use qualitative methods to investigate students’ engagement in an upper-division laboratory. Laboratory activities are recognized as key curricular elements in engineering education. These activities have traditionally been delivered in person, but new laboratory modalities (such as virtual laboratories) have been gaining popularity, boosted by the COVID-19 pandemic. Understanding how laboratory modality influences student learning is important to be able to design and implement effective laboratories. While some educators have investigated if virtual laboratories can replace their analogous physical laboratory counterparts, others have looked at using virtual laboratories in combination with physical laboratories. Taking this latter approach, they argue the two modes have different affordances and therefore could be complementary - meaning that each mode may lend itself to more effectively engaging students in certain productive practices. We have previously reported on the development of two environmental engineering laboratories, one physical and one virtual. Both laboratories address the topic of jar testing, an important process in drinking water treatment, with the design of each mode being based on that mode's affordances. These laboratories were implemented in an upper-level chemical engineering course. Twelve students split into four groups consented to be audio and video recorded during their time in the laboratory and have the work they turn in collected, with most also volunteering to be interviewed about their experiences. A first pass of this data has been completed in which we viewed learning from the lens of participation in disciplinary practice. We applied the theory of engineering epistemic practices, which are the socially organized and interactionally accomplished ways engineers develop, justify, and communicate ideas when completing engineering work. Transcripts of the laboratory observations were coded to identify students’ engagement with specific epistemic practices, which were categorized as either conceptual, material, or social. These codes were then counted and cross-validated with interview responses to draw conclusions about how student's engagement differed in each mode. This prior research has indicated that students engage with each design using different epistemic practices. While the first pass analysis showed differences in counts of epistemic practices between modes, it provided limited insight into how and why the epistemic practices are elicited and coordinated among students. In this paper, we extend the discourse analysis by illustrating our developing methodology for a second pass analysis of the video recordings. We seek to develop a thick description by identifying how particular epistemic practices fit together temporally and serve to promote or hinder students’ progress. Engagement in epistemic practices does not happen in a vacuum and instead happens contextually, influenced by students' previous engagement and the laboratory environment and their social and academic history. This analysis allows a deeper understanding of how students engage in engineering practice while completing laboratories, knowledge that can be applied to enhance engineering physical and virtual laboratory instruction and design. Additionally, this work contributes to the methodological conversation of ways to use interaction analyses to extract understanding from a rich set of qualitative data.