Practical, Authentic and Sustainable Development and Assessment of Critical Thinking in Engineering through Model Eliciting Activities

James A. Kaupp; Brian M Frank

Download Paper | Permalink

Conference: 2014 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition
Location: Indianapolis, Indiana
Publication Date: June 15, 2014
Start Date: June 15, 2014
End Date: June 18, 2014
ISSN: 2153-5965
Conference Session: Student Learning, Problem Solving, & Critical Thinking 2
Tagged Division: Educational Research and Methods
Page Count: 17
Page Numbers: 24.989.1 - 24.989.17
DOI: 10.18260/1-2--22922
Permanent URL: https://peer.asee.org/22922
Download Count: 478

Paper Authors

biography

James A. Kaupp Queen's University

visit author page

Jake Kaupp, Ph.D. is an Engineering Education Researcher at Queen’s University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada in the Faculty of Engineering and Applied Science. His primary research interests include: course and program assessment, critical thinking & problem solving development, performance based assessment, model eliciting activities and data analytics in higher education.

visit author page

biography

Brian M Frank Queen's University

visit author page

Brian Frank is an associate professor in Electrical and Computer Engineering, where he has taught courses in electronics and wireless systems. He is the DuPont Canada Chair in Engineering Education Research and Development, and the Director of Program Development in the Faculty of Engineering and Applied Science where he works on engineering curriculum development, program assessment, and developing educational technology.

visit author page

Download Paper | Permalink

Abstract

Practical, authentic and sustainable development and assessment of critical thinking in engineering through model eliciting activitiesHigher order skills such as problem solving or critical thinking are key attributes for graduates of anyengineering program, are amongst industries highly desired skills for new employees and are considereda hallmark of a university education. While most programs claim to develop critical thinking in somemanner, deliberate development and direct assessment of critical thinking using some kind of conceptualframework is less common and quite challenging. This may be due to a lack of definition of criticalthinking and the continuing debate on critical thinking being a generic or disciplinespecific skill, and lackof examples of practical, authentic and sustainable methods for developing and assessing critical thinkingin engineering using disciplinespecific performance tasks.Model eliciting activities (MEAs) are performancebased, realistic problems used in the classroom thatrequire learners to document their solution to problems using mathematical models, and document theirprocesses for solving them. Studies have shown MEAs to be valuable in helping students to developconceptual understanding, knowledge transfer, and problemsolving skills. The common principles onwhich the MEAs are based upon are interwoven with aspects of critical thinking; the assessment andvaluation of information; formulating justified assumptions and arguments; generating a valid, defensiblemodel; presenting conclusions and recommendations resulting from analysis; and metacognitivereflective selfassessment to test and revise thinking. These elements can be carefully structured into adiscipline specific framework for critical thinking in engineering as well as organized into a rubric for theassessment of critical thinking skills.In this presentation we will review, compare and contrast popular models for critical thinking used inengineering (The CornellIllinois Model, the PaulElder Model and the CLA Holistic Model) and thecorresponding assessments for each model (The Cornell Level Z, the International Critical Thinking Testand the Collegiate Learning Assessment) with the critical thinking framework constructed from thecommon principles of MEAs and the MEA as an assessment instrument. Considerable discussion willinvolve examining the practicality, accuracy and sustainability of the assessment tools for evaluatingcritical thinking within the engineering discipline, providing a review of recent studies using theseassessments, and recent research by the authors. Also, we will discuss the suitability and alignment ofthe selected critical thinking models for instructional use in engineering. Lastly, the research team willdiscuss the advantages and disadvantages of using MEAs as a method for the consequent developmentand assessment of students’ critical thinking skills.

Citation
Format

Kaupp, J. A., & Frank, B. M. (2014, June), Practical, Authentic and Sustainable Development and Assessment of Critical Thinking in Engineering through Model Eliciting Activities Paper presented at 2014 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition, Indianapolis, Indiana. 10.18260/1-2--22922

TY  - CPAPER
AB  - Practical, authentic and sustainable development and assessment of critical          thinking in engineering through model eliciting activitiesHigher order skills such as problem solving or critical thinking are key attributes for graduates of anyengineering program, are amongst industries highly desired skills for new employees and are considereda hallmark of a university education.  While most programs claim to develop critical thinking in somemanner, deliberate development and direct assessment of critical thinking using some kind of conceptualframework is less common and quite challenging.  This may be due to a lack of definition of criticalthinking and the continuing debate on critical thinking being a generic or disciplinespecific skill, and lackof examples of practical, authentic and sustainable methods for developing and assessing critical thinkingin engineering using disciplinespecific performance tasks.Model eliciting activities (MEAs) are performancebased, realistic problems used in the classroom thatrequire learners to document their solution to problems using mathematical models, and document theirprocesses for solving them. Studies have shown MEAs to be valuable in helping students to developconceptual understanding, knowledge transfer, and problemsolving skills.  The common principles onwhich the MEAs are based upon are interwoven with aspects of critical thinking;  the assessment andvaluation of information; formulating justified assumptions and arguments; generating a valid, defensiblemodel; presenting conclusions and recommendations resulting from analysis; and metacognitivereflective selfassessment to test and revise thinking.  These elements can be carefully structured into adiscipline specific framework for critical thinking in engineering as well as organized into a rubric for theassessment of critical thinking skills.In this presentation we will review, compare and contrast popular models for critical thinking used inengineering (The CornellIllinois Model, the PaulElder Model and the CLA Holistic Model)  and thecorresponding assessments for each model (The Cornell Level Z, the International Critical Thinking Testand the Collegiate Learning Assessment) with the critical thinking framework constructed from thecommon principles of MEAs and the MEA as an assessment instrument.  Considerable discussion willinvolve examining the practicality, accuracy and sustainability of the assessment tools for evaluatingcritical thinking within the engineering discipline, providing a review of recent studies using theseassessments, and recent research by the authors. Also, we will discuss the suitability and alignment ofthe selected critical thinking models for instructional use in engineering. Lastly, the research team willdiscuss the advantages and disadvantages of using MEAs as a method for the consequent developmentand assessment of students’ critical thinking skills.
AU  - James A. Kaupp
AU  - Brian M Frank
CY  - Indianapolis, Indiana
DA  - 2014/06/15
PB  - ASEE Conferences
TI  - Practical, Authentic and Sustainable Development and Assessment of Critical Thinking in Engineering through Model Eliciting Activities
UR  - https://peer.asee.org/22922
DO  - 10.18260/1-2--22922
ER  -