2026 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition

Engineering education necessitates more than mere technical competence; it demands adaptability, creativity, and advanced problem-solving abilities to address the multifaceted challenges of the modern-day engineering workplace. However, traditional curricula frequently encourage students to prioritize attaining correct answers rather than spending time developing and refining effective learning processes. This approach may constrain students’ adaptability and hinder the development of self-regulated learning skills that are essential for a professional engineer.

To address this, a structured metacognitive framework was introduced to strengthen engineering students’ learning strategies within the context of electrical circuit problem-solving. The framework comprises three sequential stages: Planning, Monitoring, and Evaluating. In the Planning stage, students a develop a plan and anticipate the difficulties and concepts associated with each problem. During Monitoring, they execute their plan and adjust strategies where necessary. Finally, through Evaluating, students reflect on their approaches and outcomes, given an example solution. This systematic process helps learners assess their own thinking, identify areas for improvement, and develop effective habits for managing complex tasks. Ultimately, the framework aims to cultivate independent, reflective learners prepared for the dynamic expectations of modern engineering practice.

The framework was implemented in a series of third-year electrical circuits classes where students documented their perceived, experienced, and retrospective views of problem difficulty and conceptual understanding as part of the three stages. Analysis of student reflections revealed several patterns: some students articulated their problem-solving strategies with clarity and considered outcomes thoughtfully; others approached problems without a clear plan; some solved problems correctly but did not see value in reflection; and several expressed surprise at their own learning outcomes. Transitions among these groups occurred as students grew more accustomed to the framework’s structured nature.

Initially, many students equated achieving incorrect answers solely with numerical errors, overlooking deeper conceptual or strategic causes. However, as familiarity with the process improved, such surface explanations decreased. Student feedback was varied and largely centered on their unfamiliarity with taking a structured approach. Some students requested more time to complete the problem-solving, while others preferred traditional, teacher-led sessions covering a greater volume of problems. This feedback demonstrates both the challenge and promise of integrating structured metacognitive approaches into engineering curricula and suggests that a more integrated approach across multiple courses is needed in order to more deeply influence student learning behavior.