Scholarlink

Background <p>Instructional laboratories are widely regarded as foundational to engineering education, yet many laboratory courses continue to emphasize highly structured verification-oriented activities. Although research on laboratory reform has expanded substantially, comparatively little attention has been given to the belief systems that shape how faculty conceptualize teaching and learning in laboratory environments. This exploratory qualitative case study investigates engineering and engineering technology faculty members’ espoused beliefs and conceptions about instructional laboratories at a large U.S. institution. Semi-structured interviews with 13 faculty members were analyzed using seven belief dimensions adapted from Samuelowicz and Bain’s Orientations to Teaching and Learning framework.</p> Results <p>The analysis yielded five Conceptions of Teaching and Learning in the Labs (C1–C5), ranging from Content Reinforcement through Structured Learning to Expertise Development through Student Autonomy. The findings demonstrate both convergence and divergence with established conceptions of teaching. At the content-centered end of the continuum, “cookbook” laboratories emerged not simply as pedagogical limitations, but as coherent expressions of beliefs that position knowledge as externally constructed and laboratories as sites for verification. At the learner-centered end, C5 reflected an epistemological shift from conceptual change toward epistemic practice, emphasizing experimentation, trial-and-error, ambiguity navigation, and professional judgment as central learning processes. Faculty associated with these conceptions also described a transition in instructional role from instructor-as-expert to instructor-as-mentor, oriented toward professional identity formation.</p> Conclusions <p>This study advances a conceptual framework for understanding the epistemological orientations underlying engineering laboratory instruction and offers an “epistemology of practice” perspective on laboratory learning. The findings suggest that efforts to expand authentic, inquiry-oriented laboratory experiences must explicitly engage faculty members’ belief systems, as these beliefs strongly shape how instructional reforms are interpreted and enacted. The framework may also support faculty and graduate teaching assistant development by helping instructors critically reflect on the assumptions that organize their laboratory teaching practices.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

The epistemology of practice: an exploratory case study of five conceptions of teaching and learning in engineering instructional laboratories

  • 期刊论文

  • 出版模式：

    开放获取

  • 发表日期：

    2026年7月6日

查看全文
  • Genisson S. Coutinho,
  • Alejandra Magana

摘要

Background

Instructional laboratories are widely regarded as foundational to engineering education, yet many laboratory courses continue to emphasize highly structured verification-oriented activities. Although research on laboratory reform has expanded substantially, comparatively little attention has been given to the belief systems that shape how faculty conceptualize teaching and learning in laboratory environments. This exploratory qualitative case study investigates engineering and engineering technology faculty members’ espoused beliefs and conceptions about instructional laboratories at a large U.S. institution. Semi-structured interviews with 13 faculty members were analyzed using seven belief dimensions adapted from Samuelowicz and Bain’s Orientations to Teaching and Learning framework.

Results

The analysis yielded five Conceptions of Teaching and Learning in the Labs (C1–C5), ranging from Content Reinforcement through Structured Learning to Expertise Development through Student Autonomy. The findings demonstrate both convergence and divergence with established conceptions of teaching. At the content-centered end of the continuum, “cookbook” laboratories emerged not simply as pedagogical limitations, but as coherent expressions of beliefs that position knowledge as externally constructed and laboratories as sites for verification. At the learner-centered end, C5 reflected an epistemological shift from conceptual change toward epistemic practice, emphasizing experimentation, trial-and-error, ambiguity navigation, and professional judgment as central learning processes. Faculty associated with these conceptions also described a transition in instructional role from instructor-as-expert to instructor-as-mentor, oriented toward professional identity formation.

Conclusions

This study advances a conceptual framework for understanding the epistemological orientations underlying engineering laboratory instruction and offers an “epistemology of practice” perspective on laboratory learning. The findings suggest that efforts to expand authentic, inquiry-oriented laboratory experiences must explicitly engage faculty members’ belief systems, as these beliefs strongly shape how instructional reforms are interpreted and enacted. The framework may also support faculty and graduate teaching assistant development by helping instructors critically reflect on the assumptions that organize their laboratory teaching practices.