Much has been written about theory and practice in the law, and the tension between practitioners and theorists. Judges do not cite theoretical articles often; they rarely "apply" theories to particular cases. These arguments are not revisited. Instead the Essay explores the working and interaction of theory and practice, practitioners and theorists. The Essay starts with a story about solving a legal issue using our intellectual tools - theory, practice, and their progenies: experience and "gut." Next the Essay elaborates on the nature of theory, practice, experience and "gut." The third part of the Essay discusses theories that are helpful to practitioners and those that are less helpful. The Essay concludes that practitioners theorize, and theorists practice. They use these intellectual tools differently because the goals and orientations of theorists and practitioners, and the constraints under which they act, differ. Theory, practice, experience and "gut" help us think, remember, decide and create. They complement each other like the two sides of the same coin: distinct but inseparable.

Of Theory and Practice

Traditional engineering instruction is deductive, beginning with theories and progressing to the applications of those theories Alternative teaching approaches are more inductive Topics are introduced by presenting specific observations, case studies or problems, and theories are taught or the students are helped to discover them only after the need to know them has been established This study reviews several of the most commonly used inductive teaching methods, including inquiry learning, problem-based learning, project-based learning, case-based teaching, discovery learning, and just-in-time teaching The paper defines each method, highlights commonalities and specific differences, and reviews research on the effectiveness of the methods While the strength of the evidence varies from one method to another, inductive methods are consistently found to be at least equal to, and in general more effective than, traditional deductive methods for achieving a broad range of learning outcomes

Inductive Teaching and Learning Methods: Definitions, Comparisons, and Research Bases

Academically Adrift: Limited Learning on College Campuses Richard Arum and Josipa Roksa University of Chicago Press, 2011 This book has much to say that is perceptive about today's undergraduate higher education in the United States. It will be valuable to review the authors' insights. At the same time, it will be as instructive to note the book's weaknesses, and especially what is omitted from the discussion. It is a discussion that is truncated intellectually by the authors' close adherence to the selective awareness that so greatly typifies the mindscape of the contemporary American "establishment" in academia and throughout the commanding heights of American society. That mindscape allows a recognition of many things, but not of others. The authors are both faculty members at major American universities. Richard Arum is a sociology professor at New York University with a tie to the university's school of education. He is the author of several books on education and director of the Education Research Program sponsored by the Social Science Research Council. His co-author, Josipa Roksa, is an assistant professor of sociology at the University of Virginia. That the book is published by the University of Chicago Press attests to its presumptive merit. Academically Adrift furnishes an example of something that has long been common in social science writing: a rather thin empirical study serving as the work's own contribution, combined with considerable additional material coming out of the literature on whatever subject is being explored. The function of the authors' own research is thus often to serve more or less as scientistic windowdressing. The reason we say the empiricism for this book is "thin" is that the "longitudinal data of 2,322 students," while seemingly ample, involves students spread over "a diverse range of campuses," including "liberal arts colleges and large research institutions, as well as a number of historically black colleges and universities and Hispanic-serving institutions," all "dispersed nationally across all four regions of the country." This must necessarily mean that the "sample" from any given institution or program was quite small. We are told that the authors didn't concern themselves with the appropriateness of each sample, but left the recruitment and retention of the sample's students to each of the respective institutions. The authors acknowledge that the study included fewer men than women, and more good students than those of "lower scholastic ability." So far as this book is concerned, however, the thinness doesn't particularly hurt the content, since so much of what is said doesn't especially depend upon anything unique found by the authors' own research. A brief summary is provided when the authors say that "we will highlight four core 'important lessons' from our research." These are that the institutions and students are "academically adrift" (which is the basis for the book's title), that students gain surprisingly little from their college experience, that there is "persistent and growing inequality" in the students' learning, and that "there is notable variation both within and across institutions" so far as "measurable differences in students' educational experiences" is concerned. Following the lead of former president Derek Bok of Harvard and of the Council for Aid to Education, the authors' ideal for higher education is that it will enhance students' "capacity for critical thinking, complex reasoning, and writing." These are the three ingredients measured by the Collegiate Learning Assessment (CLA), which the authors value most among the various assessment tools. The CLA results, they say, show that "growing numbers of students are sent to college at increasingly higher costs, but for a large proportion of them the gains in critical thinking, complex reasoning and written communication are either exceedingly small or empirically nonexistent. …

Academically Adrift: Limited Learning on College Campuses

/pdf/academically-adrift-limited-learning-on-college-campuses-232nuz2woh.pdf

Doing Visual EthnographyDoing EthnographyDoing Visual ResearchPrinciples of Visual AnthropologyThe Wiley Handbook of Ethnography of EducationAdvances in Visual MethodologyVisual Methods in Social ResearchDoing Visual EthnographyInnovative Methods in Media and Communication ResearchUrban Youth and PhotovoiceReflecting Visual EthnographyRethinking Visual AnthropologyAn Anthropology of the SubjectVisual InterventionsExperimental EthnographyVisualizing AnthropologyDoing Visual EthnographyThe Future of Visual AnthropologyVisual Research Methods in the Social SciencesDoing Visual EthnographyThe SAGE Encyclopedia of Qualitative Research MethodsQualitative Inquiry Under FireWorking ImagesDrawn to SeeVisual ResearchDigital EthnographyInterpreting Visual EthnographyVisual Methods in the FieldDoing Public EthnographyDoing Anthropology in Consumer ResearchBeing EthnographicVideo EthnographyChallenges and Solutions in Ethnographic ResearchMuseumsThe Routledge International Handbook of Ethnographic Film and VideoDoing Visual EthnographyMediating MobilityDoing Sensory EthnographyMade to Be SeenVisual Anthropology

Doing Visual Ethnography

Qualitative Research Quality: A Collaborative Inquiry Across Multiple Methodological Perspectives

This synthesis paper examines the concepts of critical thinking, reflective practice, and adaptive expertise as represented throughout academic literature. The academic community generally considers each of these skillsets to be desirable attributes of engineering graduates and practitioners. Despite the trend of engineering programs across the country to embrace critical thinking, reflective practices, and adaptive expertise through mission and vision statements, the development of these qualities through education may be falling short. Lack of explicit exposure to and discussion of each concept may be contributing to the common inability of engineering students and educators to effectively communicate their understanding of each. In an attempt to contribute to the improvement of the situation, this paper aims to provide an individual evaluation of each topic as represented in the literature, a review of current operationalization techniques, and the current state of each topic within the field of engineering. Additional discussion builds connections by exploring relationships among the three topics, considers issues related to the topics within engineering, and offers possible areas of future exploration. Introduction Mission and vision statements for universities and colleges across the country underline the importance of critical thinking and related skills in higher education today. Without explicitly using the phrase, sources such as ABET EAC and the National Academy of Engineering assert the need for engineers to be well trained in critical thinking skills. However, a number of researchers argue that many students show little to no gain in “critical thinking, complex reasoning, and writing skills” over the course of their undergraduate educations. Despite consensus that one of the primary goals of college faculty should be to promote critical thinking, many professors fail to express a clear understanding of critical thinking or how to convey its use to students. This represents a glaring roadblock on the path to producing effective engineers. The difficulty in expressing a coherent understanding of critical thinking likely stems from the variability present amongst its numerous descriptions. The definitions that exist lack an empirical basis, but a review and analysis of the various concepts may provide a foundation for discussion. Further, two additional topics may contribute significantly to the exploration of critical thinking: reflective practice and adaptive expertise. Critical thinking, reflective practice, and adaptive expertise have each received considerable attention individually in the academic literature, however, there appears to be a strong and deep connection present between these topics. Typically, each topic has been discussed in isolation or only in passing with respect to one another, so previous instances attempting to relate and link the concepts remain limited at best. Ultimately, the goal of this paper is to begin a conversation about how a more thorough understanding of critical thinking, reflective practice, and adaptive expertise in conjunction with one another might contribute to the improved development of engineering students. To most P ge 24342.2 effectively construct these relationships and their importance to the field, the paper shall be organized using the following structure: first, as the current literature typically considers each topic in isolation, the standard definitions of each will be presented individually; next, because the only way to determine the efficacy of our attempts to foster these abilities within our students necessitates an ability to measure, the existing operationalization techniques for each concept will be provided; subsequently, since improvements rarely occur without knowledge of the present state of affairs, a review of each concept in the context of engineering and engineering education will be considered; finally, all of the aforementioned content will be collectively analyzed to explore the relationships between each topic, the potential shortcomings of engineering education to sufficiently develop desirable skills, and how these shortcomings may be addressed, as well as additional questions this analysis may have aroused. Definitions Critical thinking lacks a clear, exact, and consistent definition due primarily to its highly philosophical nature. Some experts attempt to give broad definitions, ranging from a problem solving methodology, to an information filtration process, to a simple ‘frame of mind.’ Meanwhile, others define critical thinking through lists of specific skills related to reasoning, logic, and strategies. While each individual’s definition and terminology differs, general trends tend to emerge. This is perhaps best illustrated by Facione’s Delphi report in which 46 participants produced a collaborative definition of critical thinking as “purposeful, self-regulatory judgment” for “interpretation, analysis, evaluation, and inference,” leading to a set of six main skills with corresponding sub-skills. In addition to skills, several experts recognize that critical thinking involves a component of disposition or spirit, which leads an individual to approach all phases of life with reason and inquisitiveness. The generalizability of critical thinking generates a greater degree of contention, but may be the most important consideration. Some experts believe critical thinking cannot be developed in the absence of context and may vary in form by subject. Alternatively, others claim that while background knowledge may facilitate the process, critical thinking may be taught in a neutral context. Reflective practices relate closely to the disposition component of critical thinking. Aristotle began discussions of reflective practices, but Dewey, Heidegger, and Schӧn receive the most credit for developing the theory. The most important concepts involve transforming an unfamiliar or unexpected situation or surprise into something familiar by improvising a response using a ‘reflective conversation’ – ‘reframing’ the situation, considering possible actions, and ‘listening’ to the situation’s ‘backtalk’ in an iterative loop. Schӧn suggested that individuals participate in non-reflective thought (or knowing-in-action), post-mortem reflection (or reflection-on-action), and in situ reflection (or reflection-in-action). P ge 24342.3 The well-known foundations laid by Dewey, Heidegger, and Schӧn, however, apparently lack critical analysis and ironically fail to reflect upon themselves. The call for a more reflective, critical analysis of reflective practice produced both practical and philosophical developments. These developments have painted a clearer picture of levels of awareness, forms of surprise, bases of improvisation, modes of reflection (based on levels of engagement, temporal aspects, epistemic purpose, ‘images’, and needs for extensions), and differences between reflectivity and the deeper, more self-aware reflexivity. Developments have also unearthed potential limitations related to the use and study of reflective practices: man tends to avoid error and suppress negative feelings; different cultures may possess different viewpoints toward reflection; the standard utilitarian mentality potentially prevents anything beyond a practical grounding of reflection; and finally, reflection may be fruitless if practiced individually rather than through discourse in a group setting. Despite these limitations, reflective practices are still considered extremely useful in research and professional development, as long as the practitioner employs it appropriately based on experience and background knowledge. Adaptive expertise consists of two core concepts: expertise and transfer. General or routine experts have extensive domain-specific knowledge and experience, making them efficient, accurate, and fast with specific types of problems. Transfer represents the ability of an individual to apply concepts learned in one context to a different, usually similar, context. Adaptive experts, therefore, are like routine experts, but with the ability to transfer their skills. While general experts possess strong procedural knowledge, adaptive experts also possess strong conceptual knowledge. Thus, adaptive experts utilize their understanding to flexibly adapt previous mental models to new situations. Adaptive experts are both highly efficient and highly innovative, while routine experts are merely highly efficient. This difference derives from the adaptive expert’s use of multiple perspectives and metacognition, as well as a disposition toward more rigorous learning. Unfortunately, time constraints within the learning environment may lead to preferential adoption of procedural knowledge over conceptual knowledge, significantly hindering the development of an adaptive expert. Operationalization In order to determine the degree to which engineers utilize critical thinking, reflective practices, and adaptive expertise and, more importantly, how engineering students develop these skills, measurement techniques for each prove necessary. A number of methods currently exist, though the lack of an empirical basis for what constitutes each topic imparts a degree of imprecision and uncertainty. Nonetheless, a quick review of the present operationalization techniques follows to provide background for subsequent discussion. Researchers and practitioners have developed a variety of operationalization techniques for critical thinking over the years. Several groups have developed guides, frameworks, rubrics, and models to represent the skills of critical thinking – some based on expert opinions, others P ge 24342.4 derived through surveys of faculty perception of students. Studies frequently measure student critical thinking through preand posttests of relevant critical thinking skills, though others use qualitative interviews and observations to determine the studen

https://www.asee.org/public/conferences/32/papers/10737/download

Critical Thinking, Reflective Practice, and Adaptive Expertise in Engineering

Many qualitative research studies in engineering education use semi-structured interviews as an approach to inquiry. However, traditional semi-structured interviews do not always enable participants to answer questions in deep and meaningful ways. Recent research in engineering education has successfully drawn upon the inquiry method of photo elicitation, which uses photographs as interview prompts to elicit “thick description” from participants. Some studies have extended the methodology of photo elicitation to artifact elicitation, in which research participants are asked questions about artifacts (physical, virtual, etc.) that they have previously created and bring to the interview. Artifacts are similar to photos in that they embody the knowledge, skills, and attitudes held by the artifact creators. In this paper, we will provide examples of two current studies in engineering education that use artifact elicitation. Through these examples we demonstrate how artifact elicitation can elicit new meanings not possible through traditional interview techniques.

/pdf/artifact-elicitation-as-a-method-of-qualitative-inquiry-in-4nb7t1nyvn.pdf

Artifact Elicitation as a Method of Qualitative Inquiry in Engineering Education

This paper examines the meaning and enactment of critical thinking for engineering and humanities undergraduate students. We address the following research question: What are the similarities and differences between humanities and engineering students in their perceptions and enactment of critical thinking? Semi-structured interviews were conducted with four to five undergraduate Materials Science & Engineering and English students. Interviews were analyzed using thematic analysis. English and Materials Science & Engineering students differed in the specific way critical thinking was viewed. A major theme that arose for engineering students was that critical thinking was often similar or equivalent to problem solving. However, English students saw critical thinking as a way of forming opinions, forming and defending an argument, and making connections. Common themes for both groups included aspects such as broadening ideas, needing deeper understanding, and needing reflection and metacognition. Both groups utilized the concepts common throughout their major classes as the physical representation of critical thinking. The embodiment of course concepts as critical thinking may be supported by the idea of engineering identity and self-efficacy. Students may choose engineering, and stick to it, because they relate to the concepts and to how engineers think. However, faculty may influence how students in either discipline comprehend the meaning of critical thinking. Thus, critical thinking style may be considered a part of engineering identity or may be influenced by faculty. Introduction Critical thinking is considered an important attribute in engineers, and there is a desire to graduate engineers with the ability to think critically. 1,2 However, humanities departments believe that they are a key contributor to fostering creative and critical thinking. 3–5 In Academically Adrift, Arum and Roska reveal that neither humanities or engineering programs are fostering critical thinking as they desire, and overall student gains in critical thinking during their undergraduate years are minimal. 6 This leads to the question of what is critical thinking and how can it be fostered within the higher education curriculum. First, it is important to briefly detail how scholars view and define critical thinking. The definition of critical thinking differs throughout literature. 7–19 One of the commonly used expert definitions was created by a group of scholars, educators, and leading figures in critical thinking using the Delphi method. The consensus from this process defined critical thinking as “purposeful, self-regulatory judgment which results in interpretation, analysis, evaluation, and inference, as well as explanation of the evidential, conceptual, methodological, criteriological, or contextual considerations upon which that judgment is based.” 9,10 Most definitions of critical thinking are not empirically based, and they are rarely specific to engineering. More recently scholars have developed guides on critical thinking within specific areas, for example Paul and Elder’s Guide to Engineering Reason. 20 These guides also are founded on scholarly and philosophical definitions that were not based on empirical research. The empirically based critical thinking principles that do exist are founded upon expert and faculty beliefs, rather than student beliefs. 9,21–24 P ge 26124.2 In order to foster critical thinking in the undergraduate curriculum for humanities and engineering students, it is important to study what critical thinking means to these students and how they perceive their enactment of critical thinking. How can we teach critical thinking without understanding how students see critical thinking in the classroom? It is also valuable to understand the possible differences between critical thinking in these two disciplines. This could allow a foundational understanding of teaching and learning differences and similarities for the two disciplines and open possibilities to further existing pedagogies. Thus, in this paper we seek to provide an initial exploration of the similarities and differences of what critical thinking is for humanities and engineering students. We address the following research question: What are the similarities and differences between humanities and engineering students in their perceptions and enactment of critical thinking? For the purpose of this paper, the focus will be on one of the major categories discovered between the two groups of students: how students use and perform critical thinking. Methodology This study is the pilot phase of a larger project aiming to understand critical thinking for students and faculty in humanities and in engineering. As a pilot, four to five students each from Materials Science & Engineering and English were selected. Selection was based on requesting senior students from both departments to respond to an interest email and/or in-class visit. Semistructured interviews were conducted with five senior year undergraduate Materials Science & Engineering students and four senior year undergraduate English students. The interviews focused on the perception of students on the meaning of critical thinking and their use of critical thinking. In order to provide a starting point for the discussion, students were asked to bring an assignment that they felt required them to use critical thinking. Interviews followed an interview guide which contained a few broad questions asked within each interview such as “Can you describe the assignment in which you thought critically?”; “What does critical thinking mean to you?”; and “How do you see teachers implementing critical thinking in their classrooms?”. The interviewer then asked further, unstructured questions to gain a deeper understanding of concepts introduced by participants’ answers to the structured questions. Interviews were analyzed using interpretivist thematic analysis. Statements in the interview transcriptions were coded with descriptive labels through emergent coding, and these codes were then categorized into themes. Constant comparison, first within each interview and then within each cohort, was used to continually sort the data until a robust set of themes that explained the data was developed for each cohort. Then each cohort’s themes were compared in parallel, through the use of tables with sub-themes, to address similarities and differences. Coding and sorting was conducted by the first author. Trustworthiness, as defined by Borrego et al., was assured through conversations among peers, including the two authors and two other researchers not involved in the project. 25 In these conversations, themes, codes, and data were discussed and compared and then suggestions were made for revising the coding scheme and how the themes were organized.

/pdf/a-thematic-analysis-comparing-critical-thinking-in-2nhqrrej9o.pdf

A thematic Analysis Comparing Critical Thinking in Engineering and Humanities Undergraduates

This qualitative research paper examines the meaning and enactment of critical thinking for engineering undergraduate students. Though critical thinking is considered an important topic in the engineering community, research on the topic is limited to mostly measuring critical thinking in the classroom and definitions used are not empirically based. Thus, in this paper we seek to provide an initial exploration of what critical thinking is in engineering. We address the following research question: How do undergraduate engineering students perceive and enact critical thinking? Semi-structured interviews were conducted on the enactment of critical thinking and analyzed using a thematic analysis. Main themes that arose from the interviews included: difficulty articulating critical thinking ideas, relating critical thinking to engineering course concepts (especially problem solving), communicating with others, disposition to think critically, metacognition, challenges of critical thinking in the classroom, and critical thinking varying in other disciplines and majors. Problem solving concepts prevailed in the many of the themes. Although themes connected with many of the ideas present in current definitions of critical thinking, most students did not mention concepts of clarification, credibility, generalization, or recognizing assumptions. Participants also emphasized a broader idea of communication and stronger reliance on real world context in critical thinking than previously established by critical thinking definitions. Introduction Academics value the importance of critical thinking in the development of any student. However, in their book, Academically Adrift, Richard Arum and Josipa Roksa revealed the notion that critical thinking may not be learned by students in undergraduate programs. 1 After emphasizing how little students gain in the four years of college, Arum and Roksa stated more generally that: “While [students] may be acquiring subject-specific knowledge or greater selfawareness on their journeys through college, many students are not improving their skills in critical thinking, complex reasoning, and writing.” (p. 36) Before their book created a renewed interest in critical thinking, ABET EAC criteria and the NAE report The Engineer of 2020 created criteria and attributes that focused on what engineering students needed to do for the future. The NAE outlined the following important attributes: “strong analytical skills, creativity, ingenuity, professionalism, and leadership.” 2,3 These attributes and the EAC criteria do not identify critical thinking directly; however, the listed skills relate to common ideas of critical thinking. Due to this drive for improvement, many engineering programs and departments have begun to incorporate critical thinking into their goals for student outcomes or into their mission or vision statements. 4–11 It is important to study how these goals can be met and what is being done in higher education to achieve them. Many definitions of critical thinking exist. 12–24 One of the commonly used definitions is that of the “Delphi Report” which defines critical thinking as “purposeful, self-regulatory judgment which results in interpretation, analysis, evaluation, and inference, as well as explanation of the evidential, conceptual, methodological, criteriological, or contextual considerations upon which that judgment is based.” 14,15 Mason’s simplified framework of critical thinking, based on many of the existing philosophical approaches to critical thinking, includes the following aspects 21 :  The skills of critical reasoning (such as the ability to assess reasons properly);  A disposition, in the sense of: o A critical attitude (scepticism [sic], the tendency to ask probing questions) and the commitment to give expression to this attitude, or o A moral orientation which motivates critical thinking;  Substantial knowledge of particular content, whether of: o Concepts of critical thinking (such as necessary and sufficient conditions), or of o A particular discipline, in which one is then capable of critical thought. (pp. 343344) Most definitions of critical thinking are not empirically based and they are rarely specific to engineering. Recently critical thinking experts created guides on critical thinking. Paul and Elder created a ‘mini’ guide for critical thinking in the classrooms 25 and expanded their work to a guidebook for critical thinking in engineering called Thinker’s Guide to Engineering Reason. 26 Following up on Paul et al. 26 and the work of the critical thinking foundation, Van Gyn et al. also created a guideline for critical thinking for engineering. 27 These were created based on common definitions and engineering concepts, but not based on empirical research. Although these guides allowed operationalization in some recent engineering studies, 28–30 critical thinking research in engineering is generally conducted without a structured definition of critical thinking and is most commonly used to simply measure critical thinking in the classroom. The few definitions or structured guides of critical thinking that are empirically based are built from receiving input from a variety of faculty, including engineering faculty. 31–34 However, research on the meaning or ideas of critical thinking for students is not present in literature. Critical thinking is often incorporated without gaining student input, especially on how they best enact critical thinking. How do we know if students are enacting and understanding the critical thinking that faculty members and departments intend to instill? Are students understanding and learning the same critical thinking as defined by these guides, definitions, or faculty members? Do students enact critical thinking only in particular environments or situations? Understanding students’ perception and enactment may create a foundation for more efficient implementation of critical thinking in the future. To answer these questions and help students learn more effectively, gaining student input and understanding student perspectives is necessary. Thus, in this paper we seek to provide an initial exploration of what critical thinking is in the engineering classroom. This research paper examines the meaning and enactment of critical thinking for engineering undergraduate students. We address the following research question: How do undergraduate engineering students perceive and enact critical thinking? Methodology This study is the pilot phase of a larger project aiming to understand critical thinking for students and faculty in humanities and engineering. Since this is a part of the work of a larger study only one discipline and 5 students were examined. Further disciplines will be studied as part of the full study. In this paper, we examine the enactment and meaning of critical thinking for materials science and engineering students. Students were selected by requesting participants in a required senior materials science and engineering course and asking students to email back if interested. The first five students to respond were selected. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with these five students. These interviews focused on the ways in which students used critical thinking in their engineering classes and what critical thinking means to them. Interviews were analyzed using a thematic analysis. Statements in the interview transcriptions were coded with descriptive labels. These codes were then categorized with similar concepts. When more than half the students expressed similar concepts, the category became a major theme. This includes concepts of opposing views. For instance in the theme critical thinking varying in other disciplines and majors, three students mentioned some aspect of critical thinking in different disciplines but not all had the same view. One student said critical thinking was the same for everyone with just a different knowledge base, another student felt there is a difference in thinking between engineering majors, and a third student had a view somewhat in between these two. Based on these related or opposite aspects, the general idea was supported by more than two students and a theme was created. However, if a concept was only mentioned by two students and no related or opposite ideas mentioned, the concept was not considered a theme at this time. With further data collection and analysis of other students more themes may arise. Findings Many themes appeared in the data. The main types of themes include the following categories: difficulty articulating critical thinking ideas, relating critical thinking to engineering course concepts, communicating with others, disposition to think critically, using metacognition, challenges of critical thinking in the classroom, and critical thinking varying in other disciplines and majors. Difficulty articulating critical thinking ideas Many of the students expressed confusion and felt unsure when addressing thoughts on critical thinking. They showed poor ability to articulate how they used or viewed critical thinking. Interviews included contradicting thoughts and direct statements about not knowing how to express their views. For example when one student discussed his way of reasoning, he stated, “Okay. Um, (pause) well, I mean, you have to, well, I mean, I consider the multiple aspects that, um, are, it’s hard to phrase, let’s see.” Another student struggled to verbalize her thoughts when discussing teaching critical thinking. “So I think, I think they’re teaching something in a fashion that makes sense to people. I’m not sure how to explain what I mean. Um. (pause)...” Relating critical thinking to engineering course concepts Although students struggled with articulating their thoughts, students did tend to relate ideas of critical thinking to engineering concepts they deal with in the classroom. These engineering course concepts include: applying a frame

/pdf/a-thematic-analysis-on-critical-thinking-in-engineering-1wsshr6hmf.pdf

Amy Elizabeth Bumbaco

Papers

Qualitative Research Quality: A Collaborative Inquiry Across Multiple Methodological Perspectives

Critical Thinking, Reflective Practice, and Adaptive Expertise in Engineering

Artifact Elicitation as a Method of Qualitative Inquiry in Engineering Education

A thematic Analysis Comparing Critical Thinking in Engineering and Humanities Undergraduates

A thematic analysis on critical thinking in engineering undergraduates