2026 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition

An Analysis of How Engineering Students' Epistemic Beliefs Interact with Course Design Choices

Presented at A Deep Dive into Failure and Assessment

This empirical research brief examines the context and alignment of epistemic beliefs among engineering undergraduate students. Epistemic beliefs (i.e., what “counts” as knowledge and evidence) shape how students approach engineering problems, decide what to trust, and whether they feel they belong in a field that often mixes uncertainty with analysis. For example, a student who equates “facts” with memorized formulas may struggle in a design studio where user interviews, modeling assumptions, and prototype data all legitimately count as evidence. Because what counts as a “fact” varies across contexts, these beliefs must be studied in the contexts where students actually learn and work.

To capture this, we used a factorial, within-person survey design. Students listed all their current courses (engineering and non-engineering; lectures, design studios, and labs). For each course, they answered the same three items: two Likert statements about “facts are important” and “specific information is important,” as well as an open response explaining their ratings. The same three items were then asked for two additional contexts: life (broadly) and the engineering workforce. This design yields a unique lens on how course contexts shape responses within the same student, and how those beliefs compare across courses, life, and anticipated engineering work. This research brief focuses on the qualitative analysis of the open-ended explanations.

Initial findings. Many students displayed epistemic misalignment. For instance, some claimed a course “relied on facts” because they analyzed real data, treating empiricism itself as synonymous with factual certainty (e.g., “Biostats I feel is based almost entirely on facts and numbers. This class high[ly] depended on [quantitative] data.”) Others argued a course did not rely on facts because an equation sheet was allowed on exams (e.g., “For this course we are allowed to bring a 2 sided cheat sheet into every prelim and the final. We therefore do not need to memorize any complicated formulas or facts…”) These patterns suggest that seemingly small pedagogical choices—how instructors describe data, justify resource policies, or frame modeling assumptions—can unintentionally steer students’ epistemic beliefs about what counts as knowledge in their engineering courses.

Authors

Katharine Getz Cornell University [biography]

Katharine Getz is a first-year PhD student in the Chemical and Biomolecular Engineering Department at Cornell University. She works in the STRIDE Lab with Dr. Allison Godwin to explore the impact of messaging on student's engineering identity development.
Gabriella Grandville Cornell University [biography]

Gabriella Grandville is pursuing a PhD in Biomedical Engineering at Cornell with the intent to research career pathways in BME. She holds a B.S. degree in Interdisciplinary Engineering from Florida International University. Her research interests include community-centered design, system thinking, agency, BME curriculum, and BME career readiness.
Campbell James McColley Cornell University [biography]

Dr. Campbell McColley is a NSF Postdoctoral STEM Ed Research Fellow in the Department of Biomedical Engineering (BME) at Cornell University in the Biomedical Engineering Education Assessment and Research (BEEAR) Group. He received his Ph.D. in Environmental Engineering from Oregon State University, where he investigated microplastics transformations and behavior in aquatic environments. His work focuses on developing and supporting college-industry partnerships in engineering curricula with the wastewater treatment sector.
Alexandra Werth http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0310-2654 Cornell University [biography]

Alexandra Werth is an assistant professor at the Meinig School of Biomedical Engineering, specializing in Engineering Education Research (EER). She focuses on developing evidence-based teaching methodologies to foster authentic learning environments. Dr. Werth holds a Ph.D. in Electrical and Computer Engineering from Princeton University, where she developed a non-invasive mid-infrared glucose sensor. She later conducted postdoctoral research in physics education at the University of Colorado Boulder, where she helped develop the first large-enrollment introductory physics course-based research experience (CURE).
Dr. Todd M. Fernandez http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1387-2575 Georgia Institute of Technology [biography]

Todd is the Director of Learning Innovation and a Senior Lecturer in the Wallace H. Coulter Department of Biomedical Engineering at Georgia Institute of Technology. His research interests are engineering faculty and students beliefs about knowledge and education with a special focus on how those beliefs interact with engineering education as a culture.

Note

The full paper will be available to logged in and registered conference attendees once the conference starts on June 21, 2026, and to all visitors after the conference ends on June 24, 2026

« View session