Fostering the development of critical thinking in an introduction to chemical process engineering design course

Abstract

Critical thinking is the art of analyzing and evaluating thinking with a view to improving it1, 2. This paper describes how a second semester cornerstone course is fostering the development of critical thinking in Chemical, Food, and Environmental Engineering students at Universidad de las Américas Puebla (Mexico) by developing students' self-directed, self-disciplined, selfmonitored, and self-corrective thinking. Course two major projects were presented to experts in the field that assessed students' critical thinking by means of a specialized rubric3. Instructor, peer-, and self- Assessments were also performed throughout the course on several assignments (formative) as well as on two major projects (summative). Possible performance levels were from exemplary (value 4, skilled, marked by excellence in clarity, accuracy, precision, relevance, depth, breadth, logicality, and fairness) to unsatisfactory (value 1, unskilled and insufficient, marked by imprecision, lack of clarity, superficiality, illogicality, inaccuracy, and unfairness). Mean values from rubric assessment of two major projects were 2.78 ± 0.58 for purposes (meaning that in average, students demonstrated an understanding of the assignment's purpose), 2.77 ± 0.77 for key questions, problems, or issues (students defined the issue; identified the core issues, but may not fully explored their depth and breadth), 2.85 ± 0.47 for information (students gathered sufficient, credible, and relevant information, included some information from opposing views, and distinguish between information and inferences drawn from it), 2.67 ± 0.74 for interpretations and inferences (students followed some evidence to conclusions, but inferences are more often than not unclear, illogical, inconsistent, and/or superficial), 2.23 ± 0.69 for assumptions (students are failing to identify assumptions, or failing to explain them, or the assumptions identified are irrelevant, not clearly stated, and/or invalid), 2.58 ± 0.67 for concepts (students identified some key concepts, but use of concepts was superficial and inaccurate at times), 2.53 ± 0.59 for implications, and practical consequences (meaning that in average, students are having trouble identifying significant implications and consequences and/or identifying improbable implications). The vast majority of students attained projects' expected critical thinking outcomes between the level of competent, effective, accurate and clear, but lacks the exemplary depth, precision, and insight, and the level of inconsistent, ineffective thinking; showing a lack of consistent competence: often unclear, imprecise, inaccurate, and superficial. Therefore, it is suggested to further integrate critical thinking in subsequent courses in order to foster its meaningful development in Chemical, Food, and Environmental Engineering students4. © American Society for Engineering Education, 2014.