Advertisement

A Study of Metacognitive Problem Solving in Undergraduate Engineering Students

  • Lisa Jo ElliottEmail author
  • Heather C. Lum
  • Faisal Aqlan
  • Richard Zhao
  • Catherine D. Lasher
Conference paper
Part of the Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing book series (AISC, volume 963)

Abstract

One of the key challenges in engineering education is the problem of teaching future engineers’ professional skills. Engineering students need to know what they do and do not know. This is termed metacognition. There is still quite a bit that we do not know about how metacognition develops in classroom settings. In this study, we discuss an exploration of these issues using both physical and virtual reality (VR) simulations of manufacturing systems; which are performed by student teams. We discuss the incorporation of measures of metacognition into a model of conflict and error to predict what types of experiences may be most helpful to produce improved metacognition in engineering students.

Keywords

Metacognition Engineering education Virtual reality 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This material is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation under Grant No. (1830741). Awarded 8/1/18.

References

  1. 1.
  2. 2.
    Levesque, K., Laird, J., Hensley, E., Choy, S.P., Cataldi, E.F., Hudson, L.: Career and Technical Education in the United States: 1990 to 2005. Statistical Analysis Report. NCES 2008-035. National Center for Education Statistics (2008)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Aqlan, F., Al-Fandi, L.: Prioritizing process improvement initiatives in manufacturing environments. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 196, 261–268 (2018)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Sengul, S., Katranci, Y.: Meta-cognitive aspects of solving indefinite integral problems. Procedia - Soc. Behav. Sci 197, 622–629 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    García Peñalvo, F.J.: Entrepreneurial and problem solving skills in software engineers. J. Inf. Technol. Res. 8, iv–vi (2015)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bickhard, M.H.: Why children don’t have to solve the frame problems: cognitive representations are not encodings. Dev. Rev. 21, 224–262 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Visser, W.: The Cognitive Artifacts of Designing. CRC Press, Boca Raton (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Flavell, J.H.: Metacognition and cognitive monitoring: a new area of cognitive-developmental inquiry. Am. Psychol. 34, 906 (1979)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Flavell, J.H., Friedrichs, A.G., Hoyt, J.D.: Developmental changes in memorization processes. Cogn. Psychol. 1, 324–340 (1970)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Markman, E.M.: Realizing that you don’t understand: a preliminary investigation. Child Dev. 48(3), 986–992 (1977)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Schraw, G., Dennison, R.: Assessing meta-cognitive awareness. Contemp. Educ. Psychol. 19, 460–475 (1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Garrison, D.R., Akyol, Z.: Toward the development of a metacognition construct for communities of inquiry. Internet High. Educ. 24, 66–71 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Zohar, A., Lustov, E.: Challenges in Addressing Metacognition in Professional Development Programs in the Context of Instruction of Higher-Order Thinking. Contemporary Pedagogies in Teacher Education and Development. Intech Open (2018)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Coutinho, M.V., Redford, J.S., Church, B.A., Zakrzewski, A.C., Couchman, J.J., Smith, J.D.: The interplay between uncertainty monitoring and working memory: can metacognition become automatic? Mem. Cogn. 43, 990–1006 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Akturk, A.O., Sahin, I.: Literature review on metacognition and its measurement. Procedia Soc. Behav. Sci. 15, 3731–3736 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    van Gog, T., Jarodzka, H.: Eye tracking as a tool to study and enhance cognitive and metacognitive processes in computer-based learning environments. In: International Handbook of Metacognition and Learning Technologies, pp. 143–156. Springer (2013)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Lawanto, O., Santoso, H.B.: Development and validation of the engineering design metacognitive questionnaire. In: American Society of Engineering Education (ASEE) Annual Conference (2014)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Cooke, R.A., Szumal, J.L.: Measuring normative beliefs and shared behavioral expectations in organizations: the reliability and validity of the organizational culture inventory. Psychol. Rep. 72, 1299–1330 (1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Jackson, S.A., Marsh, H.W.: Development and validation of a scale to measure optimal experience: the flow state scale. J. Sport. Exerc. Psychol. 18, 17–35 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Green, D.M., Swets, J.A.: Signal Detection Theory and Psychophysics. Wiley, New York (1966)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Salvucci, D.D., Goldberg, J.H.: Identifying fixations and saccades in eye-tracking protocols. In: Proceedings of the Eye Tracking Research and Applications Symposium, pp. 71–78. ACM Press, New York (2000)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Rayner, K.: The 35th Sir Frederick Bartlett lecture: eye movements and attention in reading, scene perception, and visual search. Q. J. Exp. Psychol. 62, 1457–1506 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Costa-Gomes, M., Crawford, V.P., Broseta, B.: Cognition and behavior in normal-form games: an experimental study. Econ. 69, 1193–1235 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Orquin, J.L., Ashby, N.J.S., Clarke, A.D.F.: Areas of interest as a signal detection problem in behavioral eye-tracking research. J. Behav. Decis. Mak. 29, 103–115 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  • Lisa Jo Elliott
    • 1
    Email author
  • Heather C. Lum
    • 1
  • Faisal Aqlan
    • 1
  • Richard Zhao
    • 1
  • Catherine D. Lasher
    • 1
  1. 1.The Behrend CollegeThe Pennsylvania State UniversityErieUSA

Personalised recommendations