Effects of Developing Metacognitive Strategies on Problem-Solving Among Engineering Students in the Field of Mechanics Physics
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.71068/8m82491Keywords:
Metacognitive strategies, Problem-solving, Secondary educationAbstract
This research explores the influence of metacognitive strategies on students' ability to solve problems in Physics, highlighting their significant effect on academic achievement. The findings are in line with earlier studies that acknowledge the multifaceted nature of problem-solving, which involves a combination of cognitive, metacognitive, and emotional skills. Among the Colombian participants, the evidence indicates that they are insufficiently prepared to address this complexity, largely due to shortcomings in their secondary education. The lack of essential metacognitive abilities—such as planning, monitoring, decision-making, and process assessment—emerges as a barrier to effective problem resolution. In response, the study underscores the importance of incorporating pedagogical approaches that explicitly foster these skills to enhance student outcomes. Furthermore, the implementation of active and participatory teaching methodologies appears to support independent learning, offering a response to structural weaknesses in the education system. Lastly, the study recommends conducting similar research in varied local contexts and applying targeted educational interventions to strengthen students’ self-regulation capabilities and, thereby, improve their academic performance.
References
ABET. (2025). Criteria for accrediting engineering programs 2025–2026. https://www.abet.org/accreditation/accreditation-criteria/criteria-for-accrediting-engineering-programs-2025-2026/
Adams, W. K., & Wieman, C. E. (2015). Analyzing the many skills involved in solving complex physics problems. American Journal of Physics, 83(5), 459–467. https://doi.org/10.1119/1.4913923
Akyol, Z., & Garrison, D. R. (2011). Assessing metacognition in an online community of inquiry. The Internet and Higher Education, 14(3), 183–190. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2011.01.005
Balta, N., Mason, A. J., & Singh, C. (2016). Surveying students’ attitudes and approaches to physics problem solving. Physical Review Physics Education Research, 12(1), 010129. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevPhysEducRes.12.010129
Bao, L., Soh, K. G., Nasiruddin, N. J. M., Xie, H., & Zhang, J. (2024). Unveiling the impact of metacognition on academic achievement: A systematic review. Psychology Research and Behavior Management, 17, 973–987. https://doi.org/10.2147/PRBM.S444631
Browne, M. N., & Keeley, S. M. (2015). Asking the right questions (11th ed.). Pearson.
Ceberio, M., Almudí, J. M., & Franco, Á. (2016). Design and application of interactive simulations. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 25, 590–609. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-016-9615-7
Chi, M. T. H. (2006). Two approaches to the study of experts. En The Cambridge handbook of expertise. Cambridge University Press.
Claxton, G. (2018). The learning power approach. Corwin.
Chen, X., Li, X., Zou, D., Xie, H., & Wang, F. L. (2025). Metacognition research in education: Topic modeling and bibliometrics. Educational Technology Research and Development, 73, 1399–1427. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-025-10451-8
Dulger, Z., & Ogan-Bekiroglu, F. (2025). Students’ metacognition knowledge and skills during physics problem-solving process. Physical Review Physics Education Research, 21(2), 020106. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevPhysEducRes.21.020106
De Cock, M. (2012). Representation use and strategy choice. Physical Review Special Topics – Physics Education Research, 8(2), 020117. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevSTPER.8.020117
Flavell, J. H. (1979). Metacognition and cognitive monitoring. American Psychologist, 34(10), 906–911. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.34.10.906
Flavell, J. H., Miller, P. H., & Miller, S. A. (2002). Cognitive development (4th ed.). Prentice Hall.
Förster, C., & Rojas-Barahona, C. (2010). Adaptación del cuestionario. RIDEP, 30(2), 9–33. https://www.redalyc.org/pdf/4596/459645442002.pdf
Fritzsche, E., Händel, M., & Kröner, S. (2018). Second-order judgments. Metacognition and Learning, 13, 159–177. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-018-9182-9
García, T., et al. (2016). Metacognición y funcionamiento ejecutivo. Anales de Psicología, 32(2), 474–483. https://doi.org/10.6018/analesps.32.2.202891
Georghiades, P. (2004a). From the general to the situated. International Journal of Science Education, 26(3), 365–383. https://doi.org/10.1080/0950069032000119401
Georghiades, P. (2004b). Making pupils’ conceptions more durable. International Journal of Science Education, 26(1), 85–99. https://doi.org/10.1080/0950069032000070333
Greene, J. A., & Azevedo, R. (2009). Self-regulated learning processes. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 34(1), 18–29. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2008.05.006
Haeruddin, H., Prasetyo, Z. K., & Supahar. (2020). Metacognition instrument. International Journal of Instruction, 13(1), 767–782. https://doi.org/10.29333/iji.2020.13149a
Haeruddin, H., Prasetyo, Z. K., & Supahar. (2023). Metacognition and thinking style in physics problem solving. Jurnal Penelitian Pendidikan IPA, 9(12), 11429–11440. https://doi.org/10.29303/jppipa.v9i12.6151
Hattie, J. (2009). Visible learning. Routledge.
Hsu, L., et al. (2004). Research in problem solving. American Journal of Physics, 72(9), 1147–1156. https://doi.org/10.1119/1.1763175
ICFES. (2020). Informe PISA Colombia 2018. http://www.icfes.gov.co
Kohl, P. B., & Finkelstein, N. D. (2008). Patterns of multiple representation use. Physical Review Physics Education Research, 4(1), 010111. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevSTPER.4.010111
Kryjevskaia, M., Stetzer, M., & Grosz, N. (2014). Answer-first reasoning. Physical Review Physics Education Research, 10(2), 020109. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevSTPER.10.020109
Marulis, L. M., & Nelson, J. A. (2020). The role of metacognition in academic achievement. Educational Psychology Review, 32, 1201–1227. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-020-09519-z
Kryjevskaia, M., Stetzer, M., & Grosz, N. (2014). Answer-first reasoning. Physical Review PER, 10(2), 020109. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevSTPER.10.020109
Larkin, J. H., et al. (1980). Expert and novice performance. Science, 208(4450), 1335–1342. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.208.4450.1335
Marulis, L. M., & Nelson, J. A. (2020). Metacognition and academic performance. Educational Psychology Review, 32, 1201–1227. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-020-09519-z
Schraw, G., & Dennison, R. S. (1994). Assessing metacognitive awareness. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 19(4), 460–475. https://doi.org/10.1006/ceps.1994.1033
Schraw, G., & Moshman, D. (1995). Metacognitive theories. Educational Psychology Review, 7(4), 351–371. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02212307
Taasoobshirazi, G., & Farley, J. (2013). Physics metacognition inventory. International Journal of Science Education, 35(3), 447–459. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2012.740459
Wicaksono, B. A., Purwaningsih, E., Diantoro, M., & Sunaryono. (2025). Metacognition research trends in physics education: A systematic review. Jurnal Ilmiah Pendidikan Fisika Al-Biruni, 14(1). https://doi.org/10.24042/jipfalbiruni.v14i1.27584
Yuruk, N., Beeth, M. E., & Andersen, C. (2009). Metacognition in science learning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46(4), 413–436. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20278
Zohar, A., & Barzilai, S. (2013). Metacognition in science education. Studies in Science Education, 49(2), 121–169. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057267.2013.847261.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2025 Emily Ashley Alvarado Bastidas (Autor/a)
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
