Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Embracing the social turn: epistemic change in engineering students enrolled in an anthro-design course

  • Published:
International Journal of Technology and Design Education Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Today, engineers are expected to face challenges that involve complicated social elements related to new technological developments and their adoption. In this scenario, there needs to be a renewed attention to the instilment of general epistemic beliefs that facilitate multidisciplinary collaboration and the incorporation of social science practices. In other words, there is a need for a “social turn” in engineering education. In the following case study, we examine the learning process of 45 undergraduate engineering students enrolled in an Anthro-Design course at a private university in Chile. This course teaches students to use cultural anthropology and design tools to generate an applied qualitative research project for real-life counterparts. Under a socio-constructivist approach, we developed a sequential explanatory design, with an emphasis on qualitative data [quant- > QUAL]. We used the three factor Epistemic Beliefs Inventory (EBI) to conduct pre-post assessment. Semi-structured interviews were conducted at the end of the course to explore representations of key epistemic notions such as objectivity and validity. This study identifies a significant diversity in how epistemic notions such as validity and objectivity are represented by students after undertaking a course that embraces the social turn. This diversity can also be observed in non-epistemic notions related to the learning experience. We argue that a better understanding of the research process and the handling of qualitative information under rigorous theoretical frameworks are key to changing beliefs about the nature of knowledge within the engineering-design students’ context.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Adams, R., Aldridge, D., Atman, C., Barker, L., Besterfield-Sacre, M., Bjorklund, S., & Young, M. (2006). The research agenda for the new discipline of engineering education. Journal of Engineering Education, 95(4), 259–261.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Adams, R., Evangelou, D., English, L., De Figueiredo, A. D., Mousoulides, N., Pawley, A. L., Schifellite, C., Stevens, R., Svinicki, M., Trenor, J.M., & Wilson, D. M. (2011). Multiple perspectives on engaging future engineers. Journal of Engineering Education, 100(1), 48–88.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Adler, P. A., & Adler, P. (1987). Membership roles in field research. SAGE Publications, Inc.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Barak, M. (2017). Science teacher education in the twenty-first century: A pedagogical framework for technology-integrated social constructivism. Research in Science Education, 47(2), 283–303. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-015-9501-y

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barger, M. M., Perez, T., Canelas, D. A., & Linnenbrink-Garcia, L. (2018). Constructivism and personal epistemology development in undergraduate chemistry students. Learning and Individual Differences, 63, 89–101.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barzilai, S., & Chinn, C. A. (2018). On the goals of epistemic education: Promoting apt epistemic performance. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 27(3), 353–389.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barzilai, S., & Weinstock, M. (2015). Measuring epistemic thinking within and across topics: A scenario-based approach. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 42, 141–158.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bendixen, L. D. (2002). A process model of epistemic belief change. In B. K. Hofer & P. R. Pintrich (Eds.), Personal epistemology: The psychology of beliefs about knowledge and knowing (pp. 191–208). Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Berland, L., & Crucet, K. (2016). Epistemological trade-offs: Accounting for context when evaluating epistemological sophistication of student engagement in scientific practices. Science Education, 100(1), 5–29. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21196

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bernard, H. R. (2002). Research Methods in Anthropology: Qualitative and quantitative methods (3rd ed.). AltaMira Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bernard, H. R. (2006). Research methods in anthropology: Qualitative and quantitative approaches (4th edition), Walnut Creek. AltaMira Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bijker, W. E. (2008). Technology. In The International Encyclopedia of Communication. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781405186407.wbiect025

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Borrego, M., Douglas, E. P., & Amelink, C. T. (2009). Quantitative, qualitative, and mixed research methods in engineering education. Journal of Engineering Education, 98(1), 53–66.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bråten, I., & Strømsø, H. I. (2010). When law students read multiple documents about global warming: Examining the role of topic-specific beliefs about the nature of knowledge and knowing. Instructional Science, 38, 635–657.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bryant, A., & Charmaz, K. C. (Eds.). (2007a). The SAGE Handbook of Grounded Theory. SAGE Publications.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Bryant, A., & Charmaz, K. (2007b). Grounded theory in historical perspective: An epistemological account. In A. Bryant & K. Charmaz (Eds.), The SAGE Handbook of Grounded Theory (pp. 31–57). Sage.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Brinkmann, S. (2007). The good qualitative researcher. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 4(1–2), 127–144. https://doi.org/10.1080/14780880701473516

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Callon, M. (1987). Society in the making: The study of technology as a tool for sociological analysis. In W. E. Bijker, T. P. Hughes, & T. J. Pinch (Eds.), The social construction of technological systems: New directions in the sociology and history of technology (pp. 83–103). MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Campbell, C. M., Cabrera, A. F., Michel, J. O., & Patel, S. (2017). From comprehensive to singular: A latent class analysis of college teaching practices. Research in Higher Education, 58(6), 581–604.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chinn, C. A., & Rinehart, R. W. (2016). Epistemic cognition and philosophy: Developing a new framework for epistemic cognition. In J. A. Greene, W. A. Sandoval, & I. Bråten (Eds.), Handbook of epistemic cognition (pp. 460–478). Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chinn, C., & Sandoval, W. (2018). Epistemic Cognition and Epistemic Development. In International Handbook of the Learning Sciences (pp., 24–33). New York: Routledge.

  • Creswell, J. W., & Piano Clark, V. L. (2007). Designing and conducting mixed methods research. Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Denzin, N. K. (2017). The Research Act: A Theoretical Introduction to Sociological Methods. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315134543

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Duderstadt, J. J. (2007). Engineering for a changing world: A roadmap to the future engineering practice, research, and education. The University of Michigan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dym, C. L., Agogino, A. M., Eris, O., Frey, D. D., & Leifer, L. J. (2005). Engineering design thinking, teaching, and learning. Journal of Engineering Education, 94(1), 103–120.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Faber, C., & Benson, L. C. (2017). Engineering students' epistemic cognition in the context of problem solving. Journal of Engineering Education, 106(4), 677–709.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Feucht, F. C., Lunn Brownlee, J., & Schraw, G. (2017). Moving beyond reflection: Reflexivity and epistemic cognition in teaching and teacher education. Educational Psychologist, 52(4), 234–241.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Figueiredo, A. D. (2008). Towards an epistemology of engineering. In Proceedings of the Workshop on Philosophy & Engineering (WPE, 2008), Royal Engineering Academy, London.

  • Flick, U. (2009). An Introduction to Qualitative Research. Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gill, M. G., Ashton, P. T., & Algina, J. (2004). Changing preservice teachers’ epistemological beliefs about teaching and learning in mathematics: An intervention study. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 29, 164–185.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1999). Discovery of Grounded Theory. Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Graham, R. (2018). The global state of the art in engineering education. Cambridge (MA): Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

  • Gray, C. M., & Fernandez, T. M. (2018). When World (View)s collide contested epistemologies and ontologies in transdisciplinary education. The International Journal of Engineering Education, 34(2), 574–589.

    Google Scholar 

  • Greco, J. (2017). What is epistemology? In J. Greco & E. Sosa (Eds.), The Blackwell Guide to Epistemology (pp. 1–32). Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishing Ltd. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781405164863

  • Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1994). Competing paradigms in qualitative research. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 105–117). Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hadwin, A., & Oshige, M. (2011). Self-regulation, coregulation, and socially shared regulation: Exploring perspectives of social in self-regulated learning theory. Teachers College Record, 113(2), 240–264.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hammer, D., & Elby, A. (2002). On the form of a personal epistemology. In B. K. Hofer & P. R. Pintrich (Eds.), Personal epistemology: The psychology of beliefs about knowledge and knowing (pp. 169–190). Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hofer, B. K. (2001). Personal epistemology research: Implications for learning and teaching. Educational Psychology Review, 13(4), 353–383.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hofer, B. K. (2016). Epistemic cognition as a psychological construct. In J. A. Greene, W. A. Sandoval, & I. Bråten (Eds.), Handbook of epistemic cognition (pp. 19–38). London & New York: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315795225

  • Hofer, B. K., & Pintrich, P. R. (1997). The development of epistemological theories: Beliefs about knowledge and knowing and their relation to learning. Review of Educational Research, 67(1), 88–140.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hofer, B. K., & Bendixen, L. D. (2012). Personal epistemology: Theory, research, and future directions. Theories, constructs, and critical issuesIn K. R. Harris, S. Graham, T. Urdan, C. B. McCormick, G. M. Sinatra, & J. Sweller (Eds.), APA educational psychology handbook (Vol. 1, pp. 227–256). American Psychological Association.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hynes, M., & Swenson, J. (2013). The humanistic side of engineering: Considering social science and humanities dimensions of engineering in education and research. Journal of Pre-College Engineering Education Research (J-PEER), 3(2), 4.

  • Illeris, K. (Ed.). (2018). Contemporary Theories of Learning: Learning Theorists In Their Own Words (2nd ed.). Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ivankova, N. V., Creswell, J. W., & Stick, S. L. (2006). Using mixed-methods sequential explanatory design: From theory to practice. Field Methods, 18(1), 3–20. https://doi.org/10.1177/1525822X05282260

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jehng, J.-C., Johnson, S. D., & Anderson, R. C. (1993). Schooling and Students’ epistemological beliefs about learning. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 18(1), 23–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, R. B., & Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (2004). Mixed methods research: A research paradigm whose time has come. Educational Researcher, 33(7), 14–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kalman, C. S., Sobhanzadeh, M., Thompson, R., Ibrahim, A., & Wang, X. (2015). Combination of interventions can change students’ epistemological beliefs. Physical Review Special Topics-Physics Education Research, 11(2).

  • Kelly, G. J., & Cunningham, C. M. (2019). Epistemic tools in engineering design for K-12 education. Science Education, 103(4), 1080–1111. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21513

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kelly, G., Crawford, T., & Green, J. (2001). Common task and uncommon knowledge: Dissenting voices in the discursive construction of physics across small laboratory groups. Linguistics and Education, 12(2), 135–174. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0898-5898(00)00046-2

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kienhues, D., Bromme, R., & Stahl, E. (2008). Changing epistemological beliefs: The unexpected impact of a short-term intervention. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 78, 545–565.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kienhues, D., Ferguson, L., & Stahl, E. (2016). Diverging information and epistemic change. In J. A. Greene, B. Sandoval, & I. Bråten (Eds.), Handbook of epistemic cognition (pp. 318–330). Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kienhues, D., Stadtler, M., & Bromme, R. (2011). Dealing with conflicting or consistent medical information on the web: When expert information breeds laypersons’ doubts about experts. Learning and Instruction, 21, 193–204.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kuhn, D. (1991). The Skills of Argument. Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Kuhn, D., Iordanou, K., Pease, M., & Wirkala, C. (2008). Beyond control of variables: What needs to develop to achieve skilled scientific thinking? Cognitive Development, 23, 435–451.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leal-Soto, F., & Ferrer, R. (2017). Three-factor structure for Epistemic Belief Inventory: A cross-validation study. PLoS ONE, 12. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0173295

  • LeCompte, M. D., & Schensul, J. J. (1999). Analyzing & interpreting ethnographic data. Altamira Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Litzinger, T., Lattuca, L. R., Hadgraft, R., & Newstetter, W. (2011). Engineering education and the development of expertise. Journal of Engineering Education, 100(1), 123–150.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lunn Brownlee, J., Ferguson, L. E., & Ryan, M. (2017). Changing teachers’ epistemic cognition: A new conceptual framework for epistemic reflexivity. Educational Psychologist, 52(4), 242–252.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lunn Brownlee, J., Schraw, G., & Berthelsen, D. (2011). Personal epistemology in teacher education: An emerging field of research. In J. Brownlee, G. Schraw, & D. Berthelsen (Eds.), Personal epistemology and teacher education (pp. 3–22). Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lunn Brownlee, J., Schraw, G., Walker, S., & Ryan, M. (2016). Changes in preservice teachers’ personal epistemologies. In J. A. Greene, W. A. Sandoval, & I. Bråten (Eds.), Handbook of epistemic cognition (pp. 300–317). Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • McNeill, N. J., Douglas, E. P., Koro-Ljungberg, M., Therriault, D. J., & Krause, I. (2016). Undergraduate students' Beliefs about engineering problem solving. Journal of Engineering Education, 105(4), 560–584.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meadows, D. (2009). Thinking in systems: A primer. Chelsea Green Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Merk, S., Rosman, T., Muis, K. R., Kelava, A., & Bohl, T. (2018). Topic specific epistemic beliefs: Extending the Theory of Integrated Domains in Personal Epistemology. Learning and Instruction, 56, 84–97.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miranda, C., Goñi, J., & Hilliger, I. (2019). Orchestrating conflict in teams with the use of boundary objects and trading zones in innovation-driven engineering design projects. International Journal of Technology and Design Education. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-019-09552-2

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Introduction. In Qualitative Data Analysis: An expanded sourcebook (pp. 1–12). SAGE Publications.

  • Morgan, D. (1998). Practical strategies for combining qualitative and quantitative methods: Applications to health research. Qualitative Health Research, 8, 362–376.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Muis, K. R., Bendixen, L. D., & Haerle, F. C. (2006). Domain generality and domain specificity in personal epistemology research: Philosophical and empirical reflections in the development of a theoretical model. Educational Psychology Review, 18, 3–54.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Muis, K. R., & Duffy, M. C. (2013). Epistemic climate and epistemic change: Instruction designed to change students’ beliefs and learning strategies and improve achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 105(1), 213–225. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0029690

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Muis, K. R., Trevors, G., Duffy, M., Ranellucci, J., & Foy, M. J. (2016). Testing the TIDE: Examining the nature of students’ epistemic beliefs using a multiple methods approach. The Journal of Experimental Education, 84, 264–288.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Murphy, P. K., Alexander, P. A., & Muis, K. R. (2012). Knowledge and knowing: The journey from philosophy and psychology to human learning. In APA educational psychology handbook, Vol 1: Theories, constructs, and critical issues. (pp. 189–226). Washington: American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/13273-008

  • Panadero, E., & Järvelä, S. (2015). Socially shared regulation of learning: A review. European Psychologist, 20(3), 190–203.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Perry, W. G. (1970). Forms of intellectual and ethical development in the college years. Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.

    Google Scholar 

  • Piaget, J. (1975). L’équilibration des structures cognitives: Problème central du développement (Vol. 33). Presses universitaires de France.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pontificia Universidad Católica. (2018). IDI2015: Antro-Diseño course syllabus. Santiago, Chile: Author.

  • Rittel, H. W., & Webber, M. M. (1973). Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy Sciences, 4(2), 155–169.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rose, J., & Johnson, C. W. (2020). Contextualizing reliability and validity in qualitative research: Toward more rigorous and trustworthy qualitative social science in leisure research. Journal of Leisure Research, 1–20,. https://doi.org/10.1080/00222216.2020.1722042

  • Rosenberg, S., Hammer, D., & Phelan, J. (2006). Multiple epistemological coherences in an eighth-grade discussion of the rock cycle. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 15(2), 261–292.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Saldaña, J. (2013). The Coding Manual for Qualitative Researchers (Second). Sage Publications Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Salomon, G. (1990). Cognitive effects with and of computer technology. Communication Research, 17(1), 26–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schommer, M. (1990). Effects of beliefs about the nature of knowledge on comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82(3), 498.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schraw, G., Bendixen, L. D., & Dunkle, M. E. (2002). Development and validation of the Epistemic Belief Inventory (EBI). In B. K. Hofer & P. R. Pintrich (Eds.), Personal epistemology: the psychology of beliefs about knowledge and knowing (pp., 261–275). Mahwah: Erlbaum.

  • Sheppard, S. D., Pellegrino, J. W., & Olds, B. M. (2008). On becoming a 21st century engineer. Journal of Engineering Education, 97, 231–234. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2168-9830.2008.tb00972.x.

  • Sipe, L. R., & Ghiso, M. P. (2004). Developing conceptual categories in classroom descriptive research: Some problems and possibilities. Anthropology and Education Quarterly, 35(4), 472–485.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stilgoe, J. (2019). Self-driving cars will take a while to get right. Nature Machine Intelligence, 1(5), 202–203. https://doi.org/10.1038/s42256-019-0046-z

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stilgoe, J. (2020). Innovation is not Self-Driving. In Who’s Driving Innovation? (pp. 7–20). Cham: Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-32320-2_2

  • Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research. Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sosu, E. M., & Gray, D. S. (2012). Investigating change in epistemic beliefs: An evaluation of the impact of student teachers’ beliefs on instructional preference and teaching competence. International Journal of Educational Research, 53, 80–92.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sunder, S. (2018). Engineering Design and Society. Engineering a Better Future (pp. 51–60). Springer International Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tan, E., Calabrese Barton, A., & Benavides, A. (2019). Engineering for sustainable communities: Epistemic tools in support of equitable and consequential middle school engineering. Science Education, 103(4), 1011–1046. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21515

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tavakol, M., & Dennick, R. (2011). Making sense of Cronbach’s alpha. International Journal of Medical Education, 2, 53–55. https://doi.org/10.5116/ijme.4dfb.8dfd

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • U. S. National Academy of Engineering. (2004). The engineer of 2020: Visions of engineering in the new century. National Academies Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vosniadou, S. (2012). Preconceptions, misconceptions and synthetic models. In B. Fraser, K. Tobin, & C. J. McRobbie (Eds.), Second International Handbook of Science Education (Volume 2, pp. 119–130.). Springer International Handbooks of Education.

  • Vygotsky, L. S. (1930–1934/1978). Development of the higher mental functions. In A. N. Leontyev, A. R. Luria, & A. Smirnov (Eds.), Psychological research in the USSR (pp. 11–46). Moscow: Progress.

  • Vygotsky, L. (1934/1987). Thinking and Speech. In R. W. Rieber & A. S. Carton (Eds.), The collected works of L. S. Vygotsky (Vol. 1, pp. 39–285). New York: Plenum Press.

  • Walker, S., Brownlee, J., Whiteford, C., Exley, B., & Woods, A. (2012). A longitudinal study of change in preservice teachers’ personal epistemologies. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 37(5), 24–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wang, Aiping, Chen, Lang, Zhao, B. and Xu, Y. (2006). First-Year Students’ Psychological and Behavior Adaptation to College: The Role of Coping Strategies and Social Support. US-China Education Review 3 (5).

  • Wetmore, J. M. (2018). Reconnecting Engineering with the Social and Political Sphere. Engineering a Better Future (pp. 15–19). Springer International Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weiss, R. S. (2004). In their own words: Making the most of qualitative interviews. Contexts, 3(4), 44–51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wendell, K. B., Andrews, C. J., & Paugh, P. (2019). Supporting knowledge construction in elementary engineering design. Science Education, 103(4), 952–978. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21518

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Williams, P. J. (2009). Technological literacy: A multliteracies approach for democracy. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 19(3), 237–254. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-007-9046-0

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wood, D., Bruner, J., & Ross, G. (1976). The role of tutoring in problem-solving. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry and Allied Disciplines, 17, 89–100.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yildirim, T. P., Shuman, L., & Besterfield-Sacre, M. (2010). Model eliciting activities: Assessing engineering student problem solving and skill integration processes. International Journal of Engineering Education, 26(4), 831–845.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The research team would like to thank the participants who generously shared their time and experience for the purposes of this research.

Funding

This study received no external funding.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Biomedical Engineering, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD, USA

    Constanza Miranda

  2. DILAB School of Engineering, Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile, Santiago, Chile

    Julian Goñi & Trinidad Sotomayor

Authors
  1. Constanza Miranda
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Julian Goñi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Trinidad Sotomayor
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

All authors contributed to all stages of this research project. The third author participated as an undergraduate research assistant.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Constanza Miranda.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Availability of supporting data

The datasets generated and/or analyzed during the current study are not publicly available due confidentiality and protection of rights of the human subjects. They may be available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Appendix

Appendix

See Table 6.

Table 6 Table of items adapted and reorganized from Leal-Soto and Ferrer (2017)
Full size table

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Miranda, C., Goñi, J. & Sotomayor, T. Embracing the social turn: epistemic change in engineering students enrolled in an anthro-design course. Int J Technol Des Educ 32, 2697–2724 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-021-09699-x

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-021-09699-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation