critical thinking skills in engineering

Critical Thinking for Engineers

Engineers are specialists in technical information. As the complexities of problems increase, there has been an increasing need for engineers to apply critical thinking in the context of problem solving. This article demonstrates the value and use of developing abstract thought in engineering, especially for students

Introduction

In school, the most widely used, or at least the most reputable method for solving problems is “Critical Thinking.” From understanding the works of a long dead philosopher to solving differential equations, “Critical Thinking” is like some sort of intellectual panacea. Although everyone can agree that “Critical Thinking” is usually a good thing, it is difficult to explain exactly what it is and even more difficult to teach it.

For most engineers, problem solving is essentially their profession. Critical thinking and abstract thought, then, are invaluable tools, which complement an engineer’s technical expertise. In this paper, our first goal is to define what exactly critical thinking is. From there, we will discuss examples, which highlight the importance of abstract thought as well efforts to teach this in the classroom. Finally, we will look at how this can be applied to our Senior Project and perhaps future work in general.

To begin, we will look at two definitions of critical thinking. In her 2002 article, Jessop argues that critical thinking is comprised of three major skills: analysis, synthesis, and evaluation. She goes on to quote a statement by Scriven (n.d.) to define the term more explicitly:

Critical Thinking is the intellectually disciplined process of actively and skillfully conceptualizing, applying, analyzing, synthesizing, and/or evaluating information gathered from, or generated by, observation, experience, reflection, reasoning, or communication, as a guide to belief and action.(as quoted in Jessop, 2002, p. 141)

Analysis is breaking down the problem into parts and finding the relationships between them. Synthesis is thinking about other ways to solve the problem either by incorporating new information or combining the parts in a different way. Finally, evaluation is making a judgment about the results using the evidence at hand.

According to Scriven (n.d.), then, critical thinking is the combined process of analysis, synthesis, and evaluation. Since we are trying to use critical thinking as “a guide to belief and action,” synthesis, or the generation of new ideas or solutions, is a necessary component. However, creating these new solutions is difficult, if not impossible, without understanding the problem, which leads to analysis. The process of critical thinking, though, does not stop at synthesis. Out of the results from the synthesis stage, some may be better than others. Moreover, it is possible that none of the results actually solve the problem. Because of this, it is necessary to evaluate the results in order to find the best answer. To better understand this definition, we will apply this to an example.

Let’s assume we want an egg for breakfast. For analysis , the parts of this process might be putting butter in a pan, breaking the egg, and then cooking it. For synthesis , there are many different ways to prepare eggs. For example, we could whisk the egg to make scrambled eggs, or maybe we want hard boiled eggs instead. Finally, we need to evaluate our result. There are many different criteria for this, such as which one takes the least amount of time, which is the most delicious, which is the healthiest, etc. In order to apply critical thinking to this problem, the goals are to understand the problem, find possible solutions, and evaluate the result.

For comparison, we now look at another definition of critical thinking. Qiao (2009) writes, “When one used the methods and principles of scientific thinking in everyday life, then he was practicing critical thinking. So scientific and critical thinking are the same thing…” The first thing that comes to mind when thinking about “scientific thinking” is the scientific method, so at first, this comparison seems a little odd. For reference, the steps of the scientific method are presented as follows (Wikipedia, n.d.):

• Define a question
• Gather information and resources (observe)
• Form an explanatory hypothesis
• Test the hypothesis by performing an experiment and collecting data in a reproducible manner
• Analyze the data
• Interpret the data and draw conclusions that serve as a starting point for new hypothesis
• Publish results
• Retest (frequently done by other scientists)

In the steps above, we see some similarities with the earlier definition of critical thinking. Earlier, we stated that critical thinking was composed of analysis, synthesis, and evaluation. While engineers typically begin with problems instead of questions, the gathering of information and resources is definitely a part of analysis. In both cases, understanding the problem or question is a priority. In critical thinking, the next step would be synthesis. A scientist may be trying to answer a question by forming a hypothesis, but the need to imagine different possibilities and find an answer that fits is the same in engineering. Lastly, steps 4-6 could be considered one way to evaluate the results from synthesis. While a scientist may test his or her hypothesis with experiments, an engineer may run simulations or create prototypes. The point in either case, though, is to make sure is to ensure the ideas from earlier actually work.

Although we defined critical thinking from an engineer’s perspective, it should not be surprising that we can apply it loosely in other disciplines such as science. After all, the capacity for critical thinking is not limited to or only useful for engineers alone. Writers, philosophers, mathematicians, and many other disciplines make use of critical thinking as well. Even if the process is slightly different for each, at the very least, analysis, synthesis, and evaluation lie at the heart of critical thinking.

As a technical example of critical thinking, let us examine a problem a Tufts University student encountered while doing research over the summer. This student was writing the image processing code for a robot, which had a camera mounted on it.

The code to retrieve the video and display it was already written, so the student only had to focus on the image processing part. As a simple test, the student wrote a piece of code to find the number of black pixels in a video frame. The code was easy to test since all the pixels could be made black by covering up the camera. The problem occurred when the student’s code tried to count all the pixels when the camera was covered up. In this case, all the pixels should be black, but the student recorded only a fraction of that number.

So how did the student use critical thinking to solve the problem? First, he took into account all of the available information and tried to find possible sources of the problem. The input was a video frame with an apparent size of 480 x 640 pixels, which matched the output displayed. Repeating the test for black pixels consistently returned the same fraction. When the student modified his code to check for pixels of any colors, the result found the expected number of pixels, so at first the problem appeared to be related to detecting the black pixels. The student, however, had tested that part of the code thoroughly, and was fairly confident that it was not the source of the problem.

Continuing on with his analysis, the student decided to directly save the video frame and display it. Upon seeing the result, the student at once saw the problem and found a solution. While the given video frame had room for 480 x 640 pixels, the actual image was stored in the upper left hand corner as a 240 x 320 image. Thus, the student’s code was correct, as he originally surmised, and it was actually returning the correct number. The code to display the video, it turns out, expected this input, and resized the image to the 480 x 640 video feed that the student originally saw.

From there, the rest of the problem was straightforward. For synthesis, the student decided to use the upper left corner of the given images and ignore the rest of the pixels. The result was more efficient than the original code, since it only had to process a 240 x 320 image and it ignored the pixels that were skewing the results. This example demonstrates the importance of analysis in critical thinking. Without an understanding of the problem, it is unlikely that the student would have found a solution by starting with the synthesis step. In this case, the solution and the tests to make sure it worked were relatively simple, so the synthesis and evaluation steps were not as important. Nevertheless, applying all of these steps in tandem allowed the problem to be successfully solved.

Engineering Curriculum

For the most part, critical thinking has typically been something reserved for the liberal arts, especially English and Philosophy. Even on standardized tests like the SATs, there is a critical reading section. However, as we discussed earlier, critical thinking is not limited to the liberal arts; it is also an integral part of the sciences and engineering.

Recently, the Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology (ABET) has been pushing for more emphasis on communication skills and understanding the global context of today’s problems in the engineering curriculum. Previously, and even now, the ABET accreditation process acknowledged schools that trained students not only to be able to apply their technical knowledge, but also lead and work well in teams. ABET believes that their new objectives can be achieved through the inclusion of more writing and critical thinking in the engineering classroom (Gunnink & Bernhardt, 2002).

Although most people agree that critical thinking should be a focus in school, there are a variety of proposed methods, but no single class or solution stands out. Even though we have been treating critical thinking as an individual effort, a few papers have suggested the use of group discussions and forums in order to encourage critical thinking (Radzi et al., 2009; Jacob et al, 2009). After defining critical thinking in her article, Jessop (2002) suggests a course based on Brainstorming and Critical Reading. For the brainstorming section, students are given a problem, and then, over the course of a few weeks, students must engineer a solution. For the critical reading section, students are given a number of journal articles to read and evaluate. Naturally, the brainstorming half is mainly concerned with the synthesis aspect of critical thinking while the critical reading half focuses on the analysis aspect (Jessop, 2002). The hope, of course, is that by practicing these steps, the students will become better at critical thinking in the future.

As mentioned earlier, Qiao (2009) was writing on critical thinking in schools in China. Qiao goes on to state, “The nature of authority has two forms: textbook authority and teacher authority. Laws and rules in textbook are golden and precious, beyond any manner of doubt. Science teacher is the prolocutor of truth.” (2009, p. 115). In order to promote critical thinking and a sense of skepticism, Qiao suggests a History, Philosophy, and Science (HPS) Education approach. In addition to the usual Science that students learn about, Qiao (2009) believes it is valuable to learn about both the History and Philosophy behind these advancements. While Jessop’s (2002) strategy is purely from an engineer’s perspective, Qiao’s approach relies on the idea that critical thinking is not restricted to engineers. Instead, the capacity for critical thought is developed through studies in history and philosophy.

Despite the differences in each method, the goal is the same. In order to tackle increasingly difficult problems, engineers will require more than just technical knowledge. To this end, there is a need for teachers and experts, whose job is to train these engineers, to bring critical thinking into the classroom.

Application to Senior Project

In this paper, we have attempted to answer questions like, “What is critical thinking?” and “Why is it important?” As we stated before, critical thinking can be thought of as similar to the scientific method, but its main points are the problem definition and understanding, the search for solutions, evaluation, and iteration. Since critical thinking is a powerful tool in problem solving, we have seen recent efforts to include it in the engineering curriculum. The final question we want to answer is, “How does this apply to our senior project?

The answer to this lost question is relatively simple. Each of our senior projects , if properly scoped and planned, should aim to solve a problem. In light of this, we should strive to solve these problems intelligently, which is to say, using critical thinking. This means fully researching and understanding the problem, creating new solutions and finding old ones, and evaluating the result. When our result is a failure, we go back, look for other solutions, and try again until we have solved the problem. So we can see that critical thinking is an important, if not essential, part of our senior project.

Cited References

• Gunnink, B., & Bernhardt, K. L. S. (2002). Writing, critical thinking, and engineering curricula. In Frontiers in Education , 2002. FIE 2002. 32nd Annual (Vol. 2, pp. F3H–2–F3H–7 vol.2). Presented at the Frontiers in Education, 2002. FIE 2002. 32nd Annual. DOI: 10.1109/FIE.2002.1158211
• Jacob, S. M., Lee, B., & Lueckenhausen, G. R. (2009). Measuring Critical Thinking Skills in Engineering Mathematics using online forums. In 2009 International Conference on Engineering Education (ICEED) (pp. 225–229). Presented at the 2009 International Conference on Engineering Education (ICEED). DOI: 10.1109/ICEED.2009.5490577
• Jessop, J. L. P. (2002). Expanding our students’ brainpower: idea generation and critical thinking skills. IEEE Antennas and Propagation Magazine , 44(6), 140–144. DOI: 10.1109/MAP.2002.1167273
• Qiao, C. (2009). Science Education and Fostering of Critical Thinking in China. In Second International Conference on Education Technology and Training , 2009. ETT ’09 (pp. 114–117). Presented at the Second International Conference on Education Technology and Training, 2009. ETT ’09. DOI: 10.1109/ETT.2009.25
• Radzi, N. M., Abu, M. S., & Mohamad, S. (2009). Math-oriented critical thinking skills in engineering. In 2009 International Conference on Engineering Education (ICEED), (pp. 212–218). Presented at the 2009 International Conference on Engineering Education (ICEED). DOI: 10.1109/ICEED.2009.5490579
• Scientific Method. (n.d.). In Wikipedia. Retrieved December 18, 2012, from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method
• Scriven, M. & Paul, R. (n.d.) “Defining Critical Thinking.” National Council for Excellence in Critical Thinking Instruction. Retrieved from http:/lwww.criticalthinking.orgiuniversitylunivclasslDe~ning.html

Additional Resource

• Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology (ABET). (n.d.) Retrieved from http://www.abet.org/
• Articles > 1. Design Process > Critical Thinking for Engineers

Search the Handbook:

Handbook overview.

• Introduction and Acknowledgements
• Senior Capstone Projects Summary for the 2022-23 Academic Year
• Senior Capstone Projects Summary for the 2021-22 Academic Year
• Senior Capstone Projects Summary for the 2020-21 Academic Year
• Senior Capstone Projects Summary for the 2019-20 Academic Year
• Senior Capstone Projects Summary for the 2018-19 Academic Year
• Senior Capstone Projects Summary for the 2017-18 Academic Year
• Senior Capstone Projects Summary for the 2016-17 Academic Year
• Senior Capstone Projects Summary for the 2015-16 Academic Year
• Senior Capstone Projects Summary for the 2014-15 Academic Year
• Senior Capstone Projects Summary for the 2013-14 Academic Year
• Senior Capstone Projects Summary for the 2012-13 Academic Year
• 1. Design Process
• 2. Management
• 3. Technologies
• 4. Communications And Life Skills
• 5. Tech Notes
• Electrical and Computer Engineering Design Handbook

Disclaimer | Non-Discrimination | Privacy | Terms for Creating and Maintaining Sites

Critical Thinking Skills for Engineers - Book 2: Communication Skills

Ieee account.

• Change Username/Password
• Update Address

Purchase Details

• Payment Options
• Order History
• View Purchased Documents

Profile Information

• Communications Preferences
• Profession and Education
• Technical Interests
• US & Canada: +1 800 678 4333
• Worldwide: +1 732 981 0060
• Contact & Support
• About IEEE Xplore
• Accessibility
• Terms of Use
• Nondiscrimination Policy
• Privacy & Opting Out of Cookies

A not-for-profit organization, IEEE is the world's largest technical professional organization dedicated to advancing technology for the benefit of humanity. © Copyright 2024 IEEE - All rights reserved. Use of this web site signifies your agreement to the terms and conditions.

Translate this page from English...

*Machine translated pages not guaranteed for accuracy. Click Here for our professional translations.

Science and Engineering

Engineering instruction.

Engineering increasingly attends to systems of systems, where the product of the engineer’s intellect exhibits complex interactions with other systems, markets, technologies, the environment, and society. Additionally, the workplace demands that the individual engineer continually develop, mastering new learning and deal with increasing complexities. The thinking skills of our students and young engineers provide the foundation for that growth, while in school and in the workplace. When we explicitly target their thinking skills, we provide them leverage for learning both in class and on the job.

“Critical Thinking” can be an educational buzz-phrase which we presume implicit in rigorous programs. Or, substantively expressed, critical thinking becomes a “system opening system,” a lever for both cracking open both new domains and intensifying insight into the web of connections that characterize engineering work. Generalizable critical thinking skills and dispositions should guide professional reasoning through complex engineering questions and issues, whether technological, commercial, environmental, ethical, or social.

Yet our students do not naturally think using the tools of critical thinking; they do not intuit the important questions they should be asking of themselves, teachers, colleagues, customers, or vendors, to either guide their understanding or refine their thinking. It is therefore essential that we foster, through engineering instruction, the skills, abilities and traits of the disciplined mind.

Science Instruction

• Critical Thinking in Every Domain of Knowledge and Belief
• Becoming a Critic Of Your Thinking
• Critical Thinking Development: A Stage Theory
• Critical Thinking: Identifying the Targets
• Glossary of Critical Thinking Terms
• The Analysis & Assessment of Thinking
• The Role of Questions in Teaching, Thinking and Learning
• Universal Intellectual Standards
• Using Intellectual Standards to Assess Student Reasoning
• Distinguishing Between Inert Information, Activated Ignorance, Activated Knowledge
• Distinguishing Between Inferences and Assumptions
• Thinking With Concepts
• Valuable Intellectual Traits

WHY CRITICAL THINKING SKILLS ARE IMPORTANT FOR ENGINEERS?

What is critical thinking why are critical thinking skills important.

Critical thinking is the ability to remain analytical while forming a connection between ideas. Critical thinking skills are required to solve real life problems.

It is the subject of much debate; advocated by some of the earliest philosophers like Socrates, Chanakya, and Plato. Seventeenth-century English philosopher and statesman, Sir Francis Bacon was seriously concerned with the way we misuse our minds in the pursuit of knowledge. He understood that our minds are notorious objects and should not be allowed to succumb to their natural tendencies. 

In the present era, we live in a world full of information and as we human beings are multi-tasking, problems arise in the processing of information. As the Best B.Tech. College in Jaipur , we understand the importance of critical thinking in the process of decision-making. This not only assists engineering graduates to make the right decision but also raises them as responsible and evaluative human beings. 

Critical thinking can be referred to as the ability to remain analytical while connecting different ideas to draw useful results. Critical thinking should be intrinsic to an engineer’s mental faculty as it complements the other attributes needed for the role and is a crucial factor for exceptional outcomes. 

Also Read – Theoretical and Practical Approach Best for You

Primary Objective of Critical Thinking Skills

One primary goal of higher education has always been to inculcate the habit of critical thinking among students, to raise them as responsible, evaluative human beings. In India, where engineering seems to be one of the most sought-after professions for job security and remuneration, engineers themselves seem to have fallen deep into the rabbit hole of technical knowledge. 

Moreover being the Top Engineering College in Rajasthan , they sit in front of their computer screens, coding their way through life with blinkers on, shutting off every bit of analytical contemplation. Thus, critical thinking is a process of rationalizing, which is:

• Self-directed
• Self-disciplined
• Self-monitored
• Self-corrective 

Need of Critical Thinking Skills

For engineering graduates and budding engineers, the development of critical thinking skills is of utmost significance as it enables to achieve:

• Clarity of actions
• Practical thinking
• Attentiveness
• Systematic decision making

Studies have shown that engineering professionals who practice critical thinking skills can do better at both the personal and professional levels. For instance, specific fields of engineering demand such skills from students. These are:

• Telecommunication
• information and communication technology
• machine learning
• Mechatronics
• Other associated areas 

Also Read – Common Challenges faced by Engineering Students

Observations show that engineers who practice critical thinking are far better in their professional and personal lives. At Arya College, Jaipur , we emphasize that students should learn and inculcate critical thinking skills. This will allow them to transform data into a relevant piece of information that can be easily interpreted for obtaining necessary outcomes. Moreover, as learning is a continuous and lifelong process, critical thinking skills will improve with time. 

Future engineers who are equipped with such exceptional skills will have a competitive edge over their colleagues and peers both at the professional and personal levels respectively. In addition to this, critical thinking skills cannot be developed or learned overnight as it is the responsibility of the higher education institutions to provide the right environment to the students where such skills can be fostered and inculcated.

About The Author

Arya College

You said it perfectly.

Whoa a good deal of superb knowledge!

Excellent material, With thanks!

Thanks a lot. An abundance of advice.

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• Springer Nature - PMC COVID-19 Collection

Exploring Students' Critical Thinking Skills Using the Engineering Design Process in a Physics Classroom

Pramudya dwi aristya putra.

1 Department of Science Education, Faculty of Teacher Training and Education, University of Jember, Jember, Indonesia

Nurul Fitriyah Sulaeman

2 Department of Physics Education, Faculty of Teacher Training and Education, Mulawarman University, Samarinda, Indonesia

Sri Wahyuni

Associated data.

Critical thinking skills (CTS) have been applied in the learning environment to address students' challenges in the twenty-first century. Therefore, specific approaches need to be implemented in the learning environment to support students' CTS. This research explores students' CTS during the learning process through the engineering design process (EDP) in a physics classroom. The methodology relied on a case study where students were situated for the first time in an EDP classroom. Data were analyzed for each of the EDP stages based on CTS criteria codes. The accuracy of the data was tested through a peer review process to demonstrate the validity of the analysis. The results showed that students exhibited specific CTS criteria in each EDP stage. Therefore, EDP could be an alternative method to engage CTS. This result contributes empirical evidence that the research on CTS also needs the students' performance while engaged in EDP.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s40299-021-00640-3.

In the twenty-first century, critical thinking skills (CTS) are becoming one of the most crucial learning activities (Fuad et al., 2017 ; Kavenuke et al., 2020 ). CTS support students in making decisions in a specific way during the learning process. When students face a given problem, CTS drive a person to analyze a problem and evaluate possible solutions. In this approach, CTS also offer an opportunity for students to use a reasonable rationale for their thinking, reflecting on the problem, and the potential solution (Ennis, 1993 ).

Critical thinking (CT) has been defined as a cognitive process involving reasonable reflective thinking to develop a decision based on the problem faced by a person; CTS include a person's ability for higher-order thinking, problem-solving, and metacognition (Ennis, 1989 ). Furthermore, CT is reasonable reflective thinking focused on a decision that the students believe in or do, which is in the cognitive domain (Ennis, 1993 ). In contrast, Facione ( 1990 ) conceptualized that CTS relate to cognitive ability and affective ability to be a good thinker. CT is a reflective thinking skill involving analyzing, evaluating, or synthesizing relevant information to form an argument to make a decision (Ennis, 1993 ; Ghanizadeh, 2017 ). Wechsler et al. ( 2018 ) proposed that CTS be required to display tests conducted after the CTS process in the classroom and review student behavior during the learning process.

However, research on CTS has been conducted using single tests to determine students' cognitive ability for CT. For example., in a study by Mutakinati et al. ( 2018 ), the students in a junior high school were given a CTS post-test following a science lesson. The results showed that the students had sufficient thinking skills to critique their plan for systematic practice, including constructing a realistic critique on their power of thought. Additionally, a study by Fuad et al. ( 2017 ) trained students to study more by using exploratory questions and information about how to develop a hypothesis, assisting students in creating learning based on the students' needs. He gave a post-test to the students to evaluate their CTS.

It is crucial to utilize a learning approach that supports a student's thinking in the learning process (Shaw et al., 2020 ). CTS can be developed during the learning process using teaching approaches that prompt students to face real-world problems. The teacher can select a teaching approach that pushes students to explore their CT through argumentation to make decisions (Ghanizadeh, 2017 ). One of the teaching approaches to facilitate CTS is the engineering design process (EDP). In the EDP, reflective thinking is needed to produce a better decision in solving a problem given by the teacher. Yu et al. ( 2020 ) investigated the relationship between CTS and the EDP when students design a product. The results indicated that the EDP stages played an essential role in students' understanding of their own CTS. Using EDP student experienced to define a problem, develop the argumentation, and finally make a decision that matches the EDP step (Spector & Ma, 2019 ; Sulaeman et al., 2021 ). The EDP implementation with several stages of learning, allows students to define the problem before they make a decision (Arık & Topçu, 2020 ; Tank et al., 2018 ).

Research exploring how EDP stages engage CTS is scarce. Additionally, most of the research on CTS has been conducted quantitatively using statistical analyses (e.g., Kavenuke et al., 2020 ; Mutakinati et al., 2018 ; Yu et al., 2020 ). The performance of CTS is also essential to highlight the students' behavior during the utilization of their CT abilities (Ennis, 1993 ). This study explores the students' CTS in the EDP project. One challenge in this study is the possibility of excessive subjectivity when analyzing CT performance; the authors used the peer review process to reduce this potential concern (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016 ). Thus, the research questions to guide this study are as follows:

• To what extent could the EDP support CTS?
• How does the EDP support a student's CTS in the physics classroom by defining the problem, using argumentation, and developing a solution?

Theoretical Framework

Critical thinking skills (cts).

The urgency of CTS could be traced from the educational theory by Dewey. Experiential learning theory explains the practical learning in enquiry practices (Dewey, 1993 ). Dewey suggested that the essence of an enquiry is formulated in the experiential learning cycle, which is initiated with the perception of solving a problem and exploration of relevant knowledge to construct a meaningful explanation of the solution in solving the problem (Garrison et al., 2001 ). This experiential learning cycle is a form of reflective thinking to produce better solutions (Garrison & Arbaugh, 2007 ). Reflection demands to think critically to identify solutions from a problem (Antonieta et al., 2005 ). CT is reasonable thinking to develop a decision based on a problem caused (Ennis, 1989 ). The CT be included a person skill in reflecting a solution of a problem given (Ennis, 1993 ). CTS need to be identified in both cognitive and affective concepts (Facione, 1990 ; Shaw et al., 2020 ). Kavenuke et al. ( 2020 ) explained that CTS involves synthesizing, analyzing, and evaluating information to make a cognitive decision and transform it into affective domain performance.

Besides being related to the cognitive domain, CTS is also related to the affective domain. This domain engages students in communication to support their decision through argumentation (Antonieta et al., 2005 ). Students have an opportunity to criticize using scientific statements in a scientific environment when they are communicating their idea (Farmer & Wilkinson, 2018 ). CTS begin with a simple experience, such as observing a difference, encountering a problem, or questioning someone's statement, and then leads to an enquiry; then, more complex experiences are encountered, such as interactions through communication in the application of higher-order thinking skills (Spector & Ma, 2019 ).

Measurement tools have been developed using criteria to describe a person's ability in CT. Ernst and Monroe ( 2004 ) analyzed criteria while measuring CTS, such as interpretation, analysis, evaluation, inference, explanation, and self-regulation. Also, CT ability is developed in detail through enquiry, argumentation, and self-regulation (Kabir, 2002 ; Spector & Ma, 2019 ). Using argumentation in CT, students can select evidence that supports their decision (Giri & Paily, 2020 ). Moreover, the measurement of CT was developed based on some of the research and models available. CT could be assessed using an open-ended assessment model, multiple-choice with written justification model, essay testing of critical thinking model, and performance assessment model (Ennis, 1993 ). In general, the measurement in CTS is given through an experimental study (e.g., Farmer & Wilkinson, 2018 ; Fuad et al., 2017 ; Yu et al., 2020 ). The CTS then can be described in the median data collected statistically to different students' levels, such as low and high (Kim et al., 2013 ). However, studies to demonstrate the performance of CT in the learning process are lacking, requiring further investigation.

Research in measuring CT through performance tests can be done by applying a learning approach that describes reflective thinking (SEN et al., 2021 ; Yu et al., 2020 ). The learning approach shows the cycle learning that includes defining a problem, developing a design solution through scientific argumentation, and deciding. One of the learning approaches that facilitate the cycle model in the classroom is the implementation of the EDP.

Engineering Design Process (EDP)

Engineering is a discipline that solves problems by obeying constraints, using a body of knowledge implemented through science, math, and technological tools (NGSS, 2013 ; NRC, 2012 ). Continuing design is a critical aspect in engineering that aims to solve a problem by iterative thinking, being open to the idea of having many possible solutions, along with a meaningful understanding of the integration of science, math, and technological concepts (Guzey et al., 2019 ; Moore et al., 2014 ). The design process in engineering is needed to develop collaboration and social communication (Sulaeman et al., 2021 ; Yazici et al., 2020 ). Thus, the EDP's goal is to solve a real-world problem with an engineer-designed activity.

The engineering practice is recognized by students during the cycling process, solving a problem in several stages. These stages engage students in identifying a problem, understanding the engineering need, and the opportunity to offer multiple possible solutions (Lottero-perdue et al., 2015 ; Whitworth & Wheeler, 2017 ). Students develop a critical understanding of the potentially relevant issues within the problem statement, allowing them to generate the best solution in the engineering classroom (Arık & Topçu, 2020 ).

The EDP addresses students' abilities to make decisions by defining a problem, developing argumentation, and identifying a solution for the problem (Guzey et al., 2016 ; Mathis et al., 2017 ). Therefore, in this study, the EDP stage is a bridge to facilitate CTS. More specifically, the implementation of EDP involves cycling, which starts with defining a problem, learning a scientific concept, planning a solution, trying a solution, and deciding (Tank et al., 2018 ). Furthermore, each EDP step can facilitate the CTS to develop a solution in the engineering classroom using the investigation through defining a problem, developing argumentation, and making a decision (Ahern et al., 2012 ).

Methodology

Research design.

A single case study was utilized to explore a student's experience in the EDP classroom in relation to CTS (Yin, 2018 ). The single case study was selected because of the desire to explore an in-depth EDP based on the criteria of general CTS based on Ernst and Monroe ( 2004 ). This study was conducted during the pandemic era (when covid-19 hit in the selected area), so the study was conducted using two different approaches: both online and off-line learning (i.e., blended learning). The authors developed an EDP worksheet that guided individual activities and group activities. Due to the regulations affecting education during the pandemic, the classroom only allowed a maximum of 15 students.

Context of Study

The study was conducted in a physics classroom in one of the high schools, located in one district, in Indonesia. Students never followed the same program during the EDP project, particularly in physics. Through the EDP, the students had to define a problem, learn the physics concepts and the related subjects, develop a solution plan, and make a decision about their solution (Tank et al., 2018 ). The authors developed a EDP worksheet. This EDP worksheet is an instructional sheet for students to understand the EDP stages in this project (Sulaeman et al., 2021 ).

The team project addressed one challenge in which students could build a solution based on the given problem. The problem given by the worksheet involved asking students to solve a problem regarding the location of rice fields. The situation addressed the lack of water during the dry season and the amount of water during the rainy season. Figure  1 shows the EDP activities in the classroom, which total 315 min of activities. The project was solved by students individually and in groups to assess the consistency of improving the CTS of the students.

The EDP steps during implementation in the physics classroom

Participants

There were 12 students in this study in the tenth grade at the time of data collection. They volunteered their participation, joining the EDP project in both the online and off-line classroom. They also agreed to follow government regulations regarding health protocols and received permission from their parents to participate. The full-time physics teacher identified students' levels in various physics achievements. The demographics of the students are described in Table ​ Table1. 1 . The level of achievement is divided into three categories: high (student's achievement was more than 75); medium (student's achievement was more than 65 but less than 75); and low (student's achievement was less than 65). The score of 75 was a standard value to grade students' mastery in physics concepts in this school.

Participant demographics

Data Collection

There were three data sources: text based on the EDP worksheet, the recording of students' group discussion, and the recording of the students' interviews. First, Text was collected based on the students answer from EDP worksheet. EDP worksheet presented students with activities to work on individually, enabling the collection of data regarding students' problem definition and learning. Students then developed an opinion based on the question asked: for example, who has a problem? What is the problem? And who is the user? In the individual work, the students' writing was collected. Second, when student worked in their group, the discussion process was recorded. All the students' communication was transcribed to analyze. The data collection was focused on stages of plan, try, test, and decide. Third, Students were also interviewed to acquire the necessary supporting data on the changes in students' CT abilities (see Online Appendix A).

Data Analysis

The three types of data were analyzed to triangulate strategies for confirming the accuracy of the data (Creswell & Poth, 2016 ). The authors then identified the stage of the EDP (see Fig.  1 ) and matched the code of CT. All the data collected were transcribed into text and coded as shown in Table ​ Table2. 2 . The code of CT was developed using the criteria developed by Ernst and Monroe ( 2004 ). All students’ statements on the each EDP stage was read carefully and given a justification based on the CTS criteria. The number of the CTS criteria were calculated in each EDP and presented in Table ​ Table3. 3 . Those criteria were divided into two levels to express the students' CT abilities based on the development of inductive code in the site (Saldana, 2016 ). Thus, each author coded the data (see example in Online Appendix B) as a peer examination (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016 ). When the coding presentation differed between authors, the authors met to negotiate a consensus students’ statement.

The coding developed and level of CT

The students' statements on the relationship between the EDP and criteria of CTS

This research aimed to explore students' CTS through approaches of the EDP in a physics classroom. Our findings discuss the matrix of suitability of CTS aspects and each EDP stage. In addition, the results were organized based on the students' ability to define a problem, provide scientific argumentation, and generate a solution.

Matrix of Suitability of CTS Criteria and EDP Stages

From our analysis of students' worksheets and students' discussions in the physics classroom, the results indicated the justification of CTS criteria in each EDP stages. Table ​ Table3 3 provides code frequencies counts for the students’ statement in the EDP project.

Defining a Problem

In the EDP, defining a solution is the first step for students in the problem-solving process. Students experienced solving a problem with a focus on the necessary part of the situation and the constraints given by the teacher. In the "Define" step, students generally started by interpreting and identifying a problem given by the teacher, highlighting the problem statement and the need for problem-solving processes. Some examples were given that were expressed in the worksheet about the problem given: difficulties of watering in the farm field.

[A1]: Farmers in the western rice field of the village made small wells near their fields with the help of diesel pumps to supply water to their fields. The way for farmers to stop pumping water is by building a dam. [A1]: The client wants the dam to last a long time with an estimated cost of $2000. It is useful for storing water during the rainy season and supplies water for the dry season so that farmers do not have to pump water anymore. [A2]: The water supply is low in the irrigation area of the river. The river flow in the area is very small during the dry season, while other factors also influence the depth and width of the river. As a result, the branches of the river sometimes do not reach the rice fields, so the rice plants often lack water. [A2]: The head of the village wants to make a dam that has a width in total 3 metres, 2.5 metres for storing the water, and ½ metre for anticipating when the water overflows

Students [A1] and [A2] categorized the two statements based on the engineering problem given. They stated the problem, and they clarified a constraint to solve the problem. They did not only state the problem about the lack of watering in the rice field, but also mentioned constraints to solve the problem. Those students were categorized in the high level of interpretation criteria of the CTS. Students provide the problem information and the constrain to solve the problem. On the other hand, the two examples below show students low in CTS.

[U1]: During the dry season, the river flow in the area was very small, so that the water in branches of the river did not reach the rice fields [for watering]. [U2]: There was very little water supply in the irrigation area of the river and the [water] flow rate was very small during the dry season, so [the] availability of water in the river is little during the dry season.

Students [U1] and [U2] were less skilled in interpreting the problem given by the teacher. Even though the students could state the problem in the village, they could not adequately to explain of the constraint when asked to develop a solution.

Students' Argumentation

Students in the EDP classroom also provided an argument when they planned, tried, and tested possible effective solutions. In those steps, students worked as a group to discuss their solution for solving a problem, totalling four students per group. The data shown in this section uses vignettes to show each group's manner of discussion. The discussion in this example shows when students were trying to develop a solution. Students [A1], [S1], and [U1] discussed the possible implementation of one of the physics concepts to build a dam. The student [U1] showed an increase in the level of CTS when joining the discussion section with the group.

[A1]: I think the materials used must be strong and durable to build the foundation of the dam. We also need the concept of physics using hydrostatic pressure. The lowest foundation is built wide and thicker, while the higher one is like the shape of a cone like this [while demonstrating by hand the shape of cone]. [S1]: Then Pascal's Law also explain the water capacity. During the rainy season, the water does not flow out, or in other words, water can accommodate both in raining and dry season. The water can irrigate the rice fields continuously. [U1]: Yes, I agree, so we also implement Pascal's Law, and we pay attention to the capacity during the rainy season so that the water doesn't overflow [water spill from the dam].

In Vignette 1, the presented discussion is between the students to plan the creation of the dam. They collected physics-related evidence to emphasize the possible implementation of this real-world problem. They learned the concepts of hydrostatic pressure, serving as a base to solve the problem. Student [A1] demonstrated high CTS because he examined ideas by analyzing the concept of physics. His statement is a clear expression of the CTS of analysis, and student [S1] examined the alternative of concept work in emphasizing the situation by collecting evidence of the amount of water during dry or rainy seasons. She demonstrated high CTS of evaluation criteria. Student [U1] also described and emphasized the solution by drawing a conclusion of the dam being built. He also demonstrated high CTS in terms of the inference criteria.

In the "Test" step, students concluded their problem design and coordinated it with their understanding of the criteria needed. In Vignette 2, the discussion shows students offering further clarification about their design. Students evaluated the criteria of the design based on the problem given.

[U1]: The dam has a width of 3 metres; it's almost the same as the constraint. [S1]: Yes, 2.5 metres is added during the rainy season and ½ metres during the dry season. [A1]: The dam must last a long time with a budget of $2000. [S1]: Okay, this means, yes, the criteria requested by the client are a dam that has a width of 3 metres and a depth of 2.5 metres during the rainy season, and ½ metre during the dry season, and the dam must last a long time with a budget of $2000." (Writes down the criteria requested by the client)

Students [U1] and [S1] emphasized the dam size based on the client's request, and they also analyzed the total approved budget. The budget was used to guide the criteria of the dam, so here they are rethinking the criteria request by the client (chief of the village). [S1] agreed with the situation offered by his peer, and she interpreted it by clarifying the size and the budget.

Develop Decision

The "Decision" step is the final step in the EDP. The students worked in groups, comparing their design to the other group's design. In this step, the majority of CTS were self-regulated (see Table ​ Table4). 4 ). Students presented the results of their final design, at the front of the classroom, to show that their design could effectively solve the problem. Furthermore, the students compared their designs, drawing a conclusion to redesign when their design failed. Table ​ Table4 4 shows Group 1's design compared to that of Group 2.

Results of Students' Self-examination

Students used this data to develop an improved design. Moreover, in this step, students also implemented a redesign to solve the problem given. This situation expressed high CTS in self-regulation criteria; student [A1] stated the advantages of their group's dam design.

[A1]: The dam made by our group uses the concepts of Pascal's Law and hydrostatic pressure, so that the construction can be durable and sturdy. It also has another advantage, namely the budget is not more than $2000. However, it still has a drawback, which is to look at the situation and condition of the cost of the dam.

This study showed that EDP is beneficial in supporting students' CTS. Each stage of the EDP could be investigated, focusing on the majority of CTS exhibited. This result is in line with the results uncovered by Yu et al. ( 2020 ): the EDP plays an important role in developing CTS. When students work through all the stages of the EDP, they also develop and meet the criteria of CTS. Especially, when students did individual work, they described the cognitive domain based on the CTS; students identified the problem in the situation, highlighted the goal of the human need, and paid attention in the constraint to solve a problem (Ernst & Monroe, 2004 ). When students worked in the groups to discuss their ideas, they tried to exchange their ideas in the stage of planning a solution, tried their design, tested, and decided on their design (Giri & Paily, 2020 ; Kabir, 2002 ). This situation described the affective domain because students communicated based on their argumentation to reinforce their ideas showed an affective domain in CTS (Antonieta et al., 2005 ).

The goal in the EDP classroom was for students to make decisions regarding effective solutions to solve the lack of water in rice fields. Following the steps of the EDP, going from "Plan" to "Test," students clearly utilized the process of argumentation to decide. This implementation of the EDP followed reflective thinking because students also conducted self-regulation to redesign their solution. Self-regulation involves the necessity of re-establishing the performance that students think is recursive to setting the goal (Ghanizadeh, 2017 ). Furthermore, students thought back and forth between the problem given and the solution produced, following the learning cycle (Dewey, 1993 ; Garrison et al., 2001 ). In addition, during these activities, students designed a solution based on their understanding of the physics concepts learned.

This process highlighted that student can improve their CTS. Student [U1] showed that in the individual activities he had low CTS, but after joining the group discussion he had a high level of CTS. This phenomenon shows that group interaction can improve a student's level of CTS through communication (Farmer & Wilkinson, 2018 ). Students' communication regarding the design of the solution showed the concept of argumentation because students provided evidence to support their claims (Mathis et al., 2017 ). Therefore, students argued using a well-founded reason from various sources, including discussion activities, which in turn require CTS (Yazici et al., 2020 ).

This study emphasizes that in the EDP stages could express the specific criteria of student's CTS. Additionally, the contribution of this study is that it seems essential to show that measuring of CTS need student’s performance to conform achieving in CTS. Mainly, the cyclical thinking and the use of self-regulation could improve solutions based on the given problems. Using the EDP also gives students an opportunity to communicate with each other to build a better solution based on physics concepts. Furthermore, this research also asked students to rethink the management strategies for solving problems via communication in the group that described CTS based on the affective domain. This research differed from previous research that has investigated the link between the EDP and students' CTS by giving students post-tests of CTS (Mutakinati et al., 2018 ; Yu et al., 2020 ). Students could be investigated in more detail using cyclical thinking to generate the best solution based on the problem given and the constraints (Arık & Topçu, 2020 ; Lottero-perdue et al., 2015 ; Tank et al., 2018 ).

This research provides, through a qualitative study, empirical evidence that the EDP supports a student's CTS. In the case study, students utilize their CTS based on the dominant criteria that appeared in each step of the EDP. The EDP facilitated students' collaboration, working in groups, where students could share and explore their ideas. Additionally, students engaged in argumentation while they began the phases of planning, trying, and testing. After students decided on their design to solve the problem, they conducted self-examination, looking over their design, seeing if the results were comparable to other groups. This situation demonstrated iterative thinking, which is one of the goals of effective CTS.

This research described the infusion of engineering as central to integrating science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) approaches. This study implies that CTS should be measured during the learning process. For the teacher, the EDP approach might be formulated to teach integrated STEM in the future. Through EDP stages, the integration subjects could be involved in the classroom to support the students' 21st-century skills. The policymaker needs to support the implementation of EDP in the school curricula because students showed positive behavior in the CTS. Additionally, providing professional development (PD) in implementing engineering education is also essential to running the EDP in the classroom. Through this PD, the application of EDP in STEM learning will improve both in quality and quantity.

Furthermore, this study was limited in the sampling of participants, but the exploration of CTS in EDP stages could be described in detail. Analysis in the greater participants needs to be assessed to show the results consistently. Moreover, the EDP is to infuse the engineering in STEM education, so that in the future research, the analysis of student’ CTS through STEM learning can be investigated to gather student’ understanding comprehensively in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics subjects than in silo subject.

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

• Ahern A, O’Connor T, McRuairc G, McNamara M, O’Donnell D. Critical thinking in the university curriculum—The impact on engineering education. European Journal of Engineering Education. 2012; 37 (2):125–132. doi: 10.1080/03043797.2012.666516. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Antonieta M, Celani A, Collins H. Critical thinking in reflective sessions and in online interactions. AILA Review. 2005; 18 :41. doi: 10.1075/aila.18.05cel. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Arık M, Topçu MS. Implementation of engineering design process in the K-12 science classrooms: Trends and issues. Research in Science Education. 2020 doi: 10.1007/s11165-019-09912-x. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Creswell JW, Poth CN. Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches. Sage publications; 2016. [ Google Scholar ]
• Dewey J. How we think. A restatement of the relation of reflective thinking to the educative process. Berlin: D. C. Heath; 1993. [ Google Scholar ]
• Ennis RH. Critical thinking and subject specificity: Clarification and needed research. Educational Researcher. 1989; 18 (3):4. doi: 10.3102/0013189X018003004. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ennis RH. Critical thinking assessment. Theory into Practice. 1993; 32 (3):179–186. doi: 10.1080/00405849309543594. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ernst J, Monroe M. The effects of environment-based education on students’ critical thinking skills and disposition toward critical thinking. Environmental Education Research. 2004; 10 (4):507–522. doi: 10.1080/1350462042000291038. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Facione PA. Critical thinking: A statement of expert consensus for purposes of educational assessment and instruction. The California Academic Press; 1990. [ Google Scholar ]
• Farmer JL, Wilkinson L. Engineering success: Using problem-based learning to develop critical thinking and communication skills in a Chemical Engineering classroom. Proceedings of the Canadian Engineering Education Association (CEEA) 2018 doi: 10.24908/pceea.v0i0.13057. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Fuad NM, Zubaidah S, Mahanal S, Suarsini E. Improving junior high schools’ critical thinking skills based on test three different models of learning. International Journal of Instruction. 2017; 10 (1):101–116. doi: 10.12973/iji.2017.1017a. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Garrison DR, Arbaugh JB. Researching the community of inquiry framework: Review, issues, and future directions. Internet and Higher Education. 2007; 10 (3):157–172. doi: 10.1016/j.iheduc.2007.04.001. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Garrison DR, Anderson T, Archer W. Critical thinking, cognitive presence, and computer conferencing in distance education. International Journal of Phytoremediation. 2001; 21 (1):7–23. doi: 10.1080/08923640109527071. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ghanizadeh A. The interplay between reflective thinking, critical thinking, self-monitoring, and academic achievement in higher education. Higher Education. 2017; 74 (1):101–114. doi: 10.1007/s10734-016-0031-y. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Giri V, Paily MU. Effect of scientific argumentation on the development of critical thinking. Science and Education. 2020; 29 (3):673–690. doi: 10.1007/s11191-020-00120-y. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Guzey SS, Moore TJ, Harwell M. Building up stem: An analysis of teacher-developed engineering design-based stem integration curricular materials. Journal of Pre-College Engineering Education Research. 2016; 6 (1):10–29. doi: 10.7771/2157-9288.1129. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Guzey SS, Ring-Whalen EA, Harwell M, Peralta Y. Life STEM: A case study of life science learning through engineering design. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education. 2019; 17 (1):23–42. doi: 10.1007/s10763-017-9860-0. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kabir S. Literature review Literature review. Basic Guidelines for Research. 2002; 6 (July):33–37. [ Google Scholar ]
• Kavenuke PS, Kinyota M, Kayombo JJ. The critical thinking skills of prospective teachers: Investigating their systematicity, self-confidence and scepticism. Thinking Skills and Creativity. 2020; 37 (March 2019):100677. doi: 10.1016/j.tsc.2020.100677. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kim K, Sharma P, Land SM, Furlong KP. Effects of active learning on enhancing student critical thinking in an undergraduate general science course. Innovative Higher Education. 2013; 38 (3):223–235. doi: 10.1007/s10755-012-9236-x. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lottero-perdue BP, Bolotin S, Benyameen R, Brock E, Metzger E. The engineering design process-5E. Science and Children. 2015; 3 (1):60–66. [ Google Scholar ]
• Mathis CA, Siverling EA, Glancy AW, Moore TJ. Teachers’ incorporation of argumentation to support engineering learning in STEM integration curricula. Journal of Pre-College Engineering Education Research. 2017; 7 (1):76–89. doi: 10.7771/2157-9288.1163. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Merriam SB, Tisdell EJ. Qualitative Research A guide to design and implementation. 4. Jossey-Bass A Wiley Brand; 2016. [ Google Scholar ]
• Moore, T. J., Stohlmann, M. S., Wang, H. H., Tank, K. M., Glancy, A. W., & Roehrig, G. H. (2014). Implementation and integration of engineering in K-12 STEM education. In Engineering in pre-college settings: Synthesizing research, policy, and practices. Purdue University Press
• Mutakinati L, Anwari I, Yoshisuke K. Analysis of students’ critical thinking skill of middle school through stem education project-based learning. Jurnal Pendidikan IPA Indonesia. 2018; 7 (1):54–65. doi: 10.15294/jpii.v7i1.10495. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• NGSS . Next generation science standards: For states, by states. National Academies Press; 2013. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• NRC . STEM integration in K-12: Status, prospects, and an agenda for research engineering. The National Academic Press; 2012. [ Google Scholar ]
• Saldana J. Qualitative coding: The manual researchers for qualitative researchers. SAGE Publications Ltd; 2016. [ Google Scholar ]
• Sen C, Sonay Z, Ahmet KS. Computational thinking skills of gifted and talented students in integrated STEM activities based on the engineering design process: The case of robotics and 3D robot modeling. Thinking Skills and Creativity. 2021 doi: 10.1016/j.tsc.2021.100931. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Shaw A, Liu OL, Gu L, Kardonova E, Chirikov I, Li G, Hu S, Yu N, Ma L, Guo F, Su Q, Shi J, Shi H, Loyalka P. Thinking critically about critical thinking: Validating the Russian HEIghten® critical thinking assessment. Studies in Higher Education. 2020; 45 (9):1933–1948. doi: 10.1080/03075079.2019.1672640. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Spector JM, Ma S. Inquiry and critical thinking skills for the next generation: from artificial intelligence back to human intelligence. Smart Learning Environments. 2019 doi: 10.1186/s40561-019-0088-z. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Sulaeman, N. F., Putra, P. D. A., Mineta, I., Hakamada, H., Takahashi, M., Ide, Y., & Kumano, Y. (2021). Exploring Student Engagement in STEM Education through the Engineering Design Process. Jurnal Penelitian Dan Pembelajaran IPA, 7 (1), 1. 10.30870/jppi.v7i1.10455
• Tank KM, Rynearson AM, Moore TJ. Examining student and teacher talk within engineering design in kindergarten. European Journal of STEM Education. 2018 doi: 10.20897/ejsteme/3870. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Wechsler SM, Saiz C, Rivas SF, Vendramini CMM, Almeida LS, Mundim MC, Franco A. Creative and critical thinking: Independent or overlapping components? Thinking Skills and Creativity. 2018; 27 :114–122. doi: 10.1016/j.tsc.2017.12.003. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Whitworth B, Wheeler L. Is It engineering or not? The Science Teacher. 2017; 084 (05):25–29. doi: 10.2505/4/tst17_084_05_25. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Yazici HJ, Zidek LA, St. Hill H. A study of critical thinking and cross-disciplinary teamwork in engineering education. In: Smith AE, editor. Women in industrial and systems engineering: Key advances and perspectives on emerging topics. Berlin: Springer; 2020. pp. 185–196. [ Google Scholar ]
• Yin RK. Case study research and applications: Design and methods. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research. 2018 doi: 10.1177/109634809702100108. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Yu KC, Wu PH, Fan SC. Structural relationships among high school students’ scientific knowledge, critical thinking, engineering design process, and design product. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education. 2020; 18 (6):1001–1022. doi: 10.1007/s10763-019-10007-2. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]

• SUGGESTED TOPICS
• The Magazine
• Newsletters
• Managing Yourself
• Managing Teams
• Work-life Balance
• The Big Idea
• Data & Visuals
• Reading Lists
• Case Selections
• HBR Learning
• Topic Feeds
• Account Settings
• Email Preferences

Why Engineers Should Study Philosophy

• Marco Argenti

Understanding the “why” before you start working on the “how” is a critical skill — especially in the age of AI.

The ability to develop crisp mental models around the problems you want to solve and understanding the why before you start working on the how is an increasingly critical skill, especially in the age of AI. Coding is one of the things AI does best and its capabilities are quickly improving. However, there’s a catch: Code created by an AI can be syntactically and semantically correct but not functionally correct. In other words, it can work well, but not do what you want it to do. Having a crisp mental model around a problem, being able to break it down into steps that are tractable, perfect first-principle thinking, sometimes being prepared (and able to) debate a stubborn AI — these are the skills that will make a great engineer in the future, and likely the same consideration applies to many job categories.

I recently told my daughter, a college student: If you want to pursue a career in engineering, you should focus on learning philosophy in addition to traditional engineering coursework. Why? Because it will improve your code.

• MA Marco Argenti is the Chief Information Officer at Goldman Sachs.

Partner Center

A Crash Course in Critical Thinking

What you need to know—and read—about one of the essential skills needed today..

Posted April 8, 2024 | Reviewed by Michelle Quirk

• In research for "A More Beautiful Question," I did a deep dive into the current crisis in critical thinking.
• Many people may think of themselves as critical thinkers, but they actually are not.
• Here is a series of questions you can ask yourself to try to ensure that you are thinking critically.

Conspiracy theories. Inability to distinguish facts from falsehoods. Widespread confusion about who and what to believe.

These are some of the hallmarks of the current crisis in critical thinking—which just might be the issue of our times. Because if people aren’t willing or able to think critically as they choose potential leaders, they’re apt to choose bad ones. And if they can’t judge whether the information they’re receiving is sound, they may follow faulty advice while ignoring recommendations that are science-based and solid (and perhaps life-saving).

Moreover, as a society, if we can’t think critically about the many serious challenges we face, it becomes more difficult to agree on what those challenges are—much less solve them.

On a personal level, critical thinking can enable you to make better everyday decisions. It can help you make sense of an increasingly complex and confusing world.

In the new expanded edition of my book A More Beautiful Question ( AMBQ ), I took a deep dive into critical thinking. Here are a few key things I learned.

First off, before you can get better at critical thinking, you should understand what it is. It’s not just about being a skeptic. When thinking critically, we are thoughtfully reasoning, evaluating, and making decisions based on evidence and logic. And—perhaps most important—while doing this, a critical thinker always strives to be open-minded and fair-minded . That’s not easy: It demands that you constantly question your assumptions and biases and that you always remain open to considering opposing views.

In today’s polarized environment, many people think of themselves as critical thinkers simply because they ask skeptical questions—often directed at, say, certain government policies or ideas espoused by those on the “other side” of the political divide. The problem is, they may not be asking these questions with an open mind or a willingness to fairly consider opposing views.

When people do this, they’re engaging in “weak-sense critical thinking”—a term popularized by the late Richard Paul, a co-founder of The Foundation for Critical Thinking . “Weak-sense critical thinking” means applying the tools and practices of critical thinking—questioning, investigating, evaluating—but with the sole purpose of confirming one’s own bias or serving an agenda.

In AMBQ , I lay out a series of questions you can ask yourself to try to ensure that you’re thinking critically. Here are some of the questions to consider:

• Why do I believe what I believe?
• Are my views based on evidence?
• Have I fairly and thoughtfully considered differing viewpoints?
• Am I truly open to changing my mind?

Of course, becoming a better critical thinker is not as simple as just asking yourself a few questions. Critical thinking is a habit of mind that must be developed and strengthened over time. In effect, you must train yourself to think in a manner that is more effortful, aware, grounded, and balanced.

For those interested in giving themselves a crash course in critical thinking—something I did myself, as I was working on my book—I thought it might be helpful to share a list of some of the books that have shaped my own thinking on this subject. As a self-interested author, I naturally would suggest that you start with the new 10th-anniversary edition of A More Beautiful Question , but beyond that, here are the top eight critical-thinking books I’d recommend.

The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark , by Carl Sagan

This book simply must top the list, because the late scientist and author Carl Sagan continues to be such a bright shining light in the critical thinking universe. Chapter 12 includes the details on Sagan’s famous “baloney detection kit,” a collection of lessons and tips on how to deal with bogus arguments and logical fallacies.

Clear Thinking: Turning Ordinary Moments Into Extraordinary Results , by Shane Parrish

The creator of the Farnham Street website and host of the “Knowledge Project” podcast explains how to contend with biases and unconscious reactions so you can make better everyday decisions. It contains insights from many of the brilliant thinkers Shane has studied.

Good Thinking: Why Flawed Logic Puts Us All at Risk and How Critical Thinking Can Save the World , by David Robert Grimes

A brilliant, comprehensive 2021 book on critical thinking that, to my mind, hasn’t received nearly enough attention . The scientist Grimes dissects bad thinking, shows why it persists, and offers the tools to defeat it.

Think Again: The Power of Knowing What You Don't Know , by Adam Grant

Intellectual humility—being willing to admit that you might be wrong—is what this book is primarily about. But Adam, the renowned Wharton psychology professor and bestselling author, takes the reader on a mind-opening journey with colorful stories and characters.

Think Like a Detective: A Kid's Guide to Critical Thinking , by David Pakman

The popular YouTuber and podcast host Pakman—normally known for talking politics —has written a terrific primer on critical thinking for children. The illustrated book presents critical thinking as a “superpower” that enables kids to unlock mysteries and dig for truth. (I also recommend Pakman’s second kids’ book called Think Like a Scientist .)

Rationality: What It Is, Why It Seems Scarce, Why It Matters , by Steven Pinker

The Harvard psychology professor Pinker tackles conspiracy theories head-on but also explores concepts involving risk/reward, probability and randomness, and correlation/causation. And if that strikes you as daunting, be assured that Pinker makes it lively and accessible.

How Minds Change: The Surprising Science of Belief, Opinion and Persuasion , by David McRaney

David is a science writer who hosts the popular podcast “You Are Not So Smart” (and his ideas are featured in A More Beautiful Question ). His well-written book looks at ways you can actually get through to people who see the world very differently than you (hint: bludgeoning them with facts definitely won’t work).

A Healthy Democracy's Best Hope: Building the Critical Thinking Habit , by M Neil Browne and Chelsea Kulhanek

Neil Browne, author of the seminal Asking the Right Questions: A Guide to Critical Thinking, has been a pioneer in presenting critical thinking as a question-based approach to making sense of the world around us. His newest book, co-authored with Chelsea Kulhanek, breaks down critical thinking into “11 explosive questions”—including the “priors question” (which challenges us to question assumptions), the “evidence question” (focusing on how to evaluate and weigh evidence), and the “humility question” (which reminds us that a critical thinker must be humble enough to consider the possibility of being wrong).

Warren Berger is a longtime journalist and author of A More Beautiful Question .

• Find a Therapist
• Find a Treatment Center
• Find a Support Group
• International
• New Zealand
• South Africa
• Switzerland
• Asperger's
• Bipolar Disorder
• Chronic Pain
• Eating Disorders
• Passive Aggression
• Personality
• Goal Setting
• Positive Psychology
• Stopping Smoking
• Low Sexual Desire
• Relationships
• Child Development
• Therapy Center NEW
• Diagnosis Dictionary
• Types of Therapy

Understanding what emotional intelligence looks like and the steps needed to improve it could light a path to a more emotionally adept world.

• Coronavirus Disease 2019
• Affective Forecasting
• Neuroscience

8 Essential Skills Aspiring Prompt Engineers Must Have

T alking to AI is trickier than newbies assume. Writing prompts for complex, multi-step tasks requires good communication skills and a solid understanding of language models. AI relies solely on the input provided. It won’t generate optimal output if you feed it vague, ambiguous directions.

Learn to write clear, precise prompts. Here are eight hard and soft skills that prompt engineers must focus on when upskilling.

1. Critical Thinking

AI systems can quickly analyze input. They only need minutes to spot patterns, themes, and inconsistencies hidden in large volumes of data. Meanwhile, manually sifting through the same figures might take days.

Despite their speed, you shouldn’t wholly rely on AI tools for analyses and evaluations. Their reports are limited to their datasets. AI provides output based on what it has been trained on—it doesn’t analyze and observe problems the way humans do. Laying down raw data might cause errors.

To produce optimal results, feed your tools precise, detailed prompts. Use your critical skills to solve potential roadblocks right from the get-go. Leave no room for error—AI only takes input at face value.

2. Numeracy

Systems using advanced language models were trained on vast datasets, including mathematical formulas. They solve basic to intermediate arithmetic equations within minutes.

This example below shows ChatGPT answering an intermediate-level Algebra question correctly.

While AI tools also solve complex equations, e.g., statistics, calculus, or physics, they’re not always accurate. AI only runs formulas it understands. Errors might arise if the platform uses the wrong equation or misreads numerical patterns.

This example shows ChatGPT incorrectly answering a simple statistics problem. The answer should be 50 percent.

To compensate for AI’s inaccuracies, prompt engineers must have excellent numeracy. Spot mathematical errors yourself. Most AI tools improve their accuracy if you provide them with more context in the prompts. Your instructions should indicate the correct formulas or patterns.

3. Good Communication

Language models use English-based syntax. So whether you’re crafting user-generated input or predetermined instructions, good communication skills will help you convey messages. Simple tasks are easy to execute. You can ask general knowledge questions and one-step commands outright. Just indicate them in your prompt.

On the contrary, complex, multi-step projects require more detailed instructions. You must clearly explain your orders step by step to boost precision and accuracy. Vague prompts confuse AI.

If AI misinterprets you, try changing your word choice and phrasing. Minimize ambiguity by replacing weak verbs, breaking down instructions, predicting patterns, and setting trigger phrases.

Take this prompt as an example. It explicitly outlines orders to ensure that ChatGPT provides the expected output, even if it must bypass restrictions.

4. Attention to Detail

Prompt engineers need a keen eye for detail. Overlooking typos and omissions compromises accuracy, especially when executing multi-step projects. You’ll keep getting subpar outputs until you resolve them.

While meticulousness is an inherent, intangible trait, adults can still develop it. There are several ways to practice soft skills online . For prompt engineering, start by editing brief prompts under 100 words—correct typos, ambiguous terms, and vague phrasing.

Work on longer, more complex prompts as your skills improve. To streamline analyses, turn your revisions and their generated outputs into diagrams. You’ll lose track of combinations otherwise.

Also, note that language models react differently to prompts. If you plan on integrating multiple platforms for one complex task, you might have to rephrase specific instructions. Consider your tools’ datasets, limitations, and capabilities.

5. Versatility

AI has significantly evolved over the past few years. Global tech leaders like Google, Microsoft, and OpenAI have already released their language models, and they’re still working on new language model projects. You can expect more AI tools to hit the market soon.

Although exciting and innovative, some might find the fast-paced evolution of AI overwhelming. Even Elon Musk calls for a pause in AI development . Newly introduced platforms overtake more popular competitors after just weeks of performing well.

For prompt engineers, the best approach is to study multiple platforms. Apart from keeping up with new AI tools, know how to write prompts for their language models. Don’t focus on one platform—any AI product could become obsolete.

6. Teamwork

Apart from honing technical skills, aspiring prompt engineers must also learn to be team players. AI development isn’t a one-person job. Most projects will require you to collaborate with other specialists, like programmers, AI trainers, and UX designers.

Familiarize yourself with the different areas of AI. Knowing your teammates’ tasks and roles lets you provide better support. Help them meet their goals. Create a streamlined system wherein they review your prompts and suggest improvements.

But instead of sending emails back and forth, consider using project management tools . They let you track, assign, and edit prompts in one platform. It’s a more organized approach than forwarding revisions and sending carbon copies to third parties.

7. Coding and Programming

Prompt engineers should at least learn basic coding. Knowing the programming languages that AI developers use will help you write more effective, precise prompts. Ensure your instructions suit each model’s unique capabilities.

Also, use the Open AI Playground to explore the application of programming languages with LLMs. It lets you test different GPT-3 models. You can structure prompts more efficiently if you understand how AI processes inputs.

8. A/B Testing

Several factors affect prompt accuracy. Changing your tone, language, phrasing, and data consistency triggers different outputs. Unfortunately, AI won’t execute your instructed tasks unless you use the correct formulas.

Take this conversation as an example. ChatGPT rejected our simple request because it violated its terms of use.

After altering the prompt, we received our desired response. ChatGPT ignored its restrictions and prioritized our requests—even if doing so violated OpenAI’s policies.

This example shows what minor alterations do to brief prompts. Simple changes can be done quickly. However, if you need to modify complex prompts spanning thousands of words, expect to spend more time on A/B testing. See which variables impact output accuracy the most.

Keep track of all your results. A/B testing takes up much time and resources—avoid repeating comparison tests when possible.

Build the Skill Set of a Professional Prompt Engineer

The above skills will help you craft more detailed, precise instructions for multi-step projects. Anyone can make ChatGPT answer general questions. But conditioning language models to produce specific output and recognize patterns requires precision.

Just note that prompt engineering goes beyond upskilling. Once you have the necessary skills, start looking for job openings, research the appropriate rates, and study industry trends. Make sure you can utilize the latest industry developments.

Contact/Feedback

• Mission & Vision
• Discover IEEE-USA
• Giving Opportunities
• Advertise with Us
• Volunteer Leaders
• Brand Media
• Visiting IEEE-USA

Careers Home

For consultants, for entrepreneurs.

• Career Webinars
• IEEE-USA Salary Service
• Career eBooks
• FE/PE Training Materials NEW
• Career & Professional Development
• Licensure & Registration
• Consultant Finder
• Networks by IEEE Region
• Networks by State
• Start a Consultants Network
• IEEE-USA Consultants Newsletter Archive
• Federal & Other Resources
• eBooks for Entrepreneurs
• Employment Networks
• Start Your Employment Network
• Help for the Unemployed or At-Risk Member

Public Policy Home

Public policy resources, fellowships & internships, policy events.

• Policy Priorities
• Policy Positions
• Public Policy News
• Policy Webinars
• White Papers
• AI Policy (AIPC)
• Communications Policy (CCP)
• Energy Policy (EPC)
• Entrepreneurship & Innovation (EPIC)
• Intellectual Property (IPC)
• R&D Policy (RDPC)
• Transportation & Aerospace
• Congressional Fellowships
• State Department Fellowships
• USAID Fellowships
• WISE Internships
• Government Fellows Committee
• Congressional Visits Day (CVD)

Volunteers Home

Get involved, awards & recognition.

• BOD Nominations
• MOVE Community Outreach
• Board Resources
• Volunteer Resources
• Youth Resources
• Professionalism Awards
• Technical Achievement Awards
• Literary Awards
• IEEE-USA InSight
• News Releases
• eBooks & Audiobooks
• Advertise With Us
• Email Newsletters
• IEEE-USA In The News
• Calendar Overview
• Conferences
• Policy Webinars & Events
• Special Events

Public Policy

• Whitepapers
• Visit IEEE-USA InSight
• Search for:

Critical Thinking Skills for Engineers – Book 3: On Creativity

Author:  Sridhar Ramanathan  |  Download FREE audiobook

In his third e-book of IEEE-USA’s Critical Thinking Skills for Engineers series, author Sridhar Ramanathan builds further upon critical thinking, by exploring creative approaches for both individuals and groups.

E-Book (PDF)

Member:  FREE Non-Member:  $4.99

Description

People in the profession often consider creativity the core of engineering — because from creativity, engineers devise unique solutions to society’s challenges. In his third e-book of IEEE-USA’s Critical Thinking Skills for Engineers series, author Sridhar Ramanathan builds further upon critical thinking, by exploring creative approaches for both individuals and groups.  Don’t just take his word for it. The World Economic Forum moved Creativity up from #10 to #3 in its ranking of important attributes required for jobs of the future. LinkedIn’s Learning Study ranked Creativity #1 in its poll of critical job skills.

You may also like…

Critical Thinking Skills for Engineers – Book 4: On Open-mindedness

Critical Thinking Skills for Engineers – Book 2: Communication Skills

Critical Thinking Skills for Engineers – Book 1: Analytical Skills

Critical Thinking Skills for Engineers – Book 5: On Problem Solving

Related products.

2013 Systems & Control Industry Salary Report

Would Have Liked to Know That! Book 1: Selling Yourself at Work

Career Planning Guide: How to Achieve Greater Satisfaction and Impact at Work

IEEE-USA is an organizational unit of IEEE, created in 1973 to support the career and the public policy interests of IEEE’s U.S. members. IEEE is the world’s largest technical professional organization dedicated to advancing technology for the benefit of humanity.

Next Conference

IEEE AIIoT 2024

29 may - 31 may, next webinar.

IEEE-USA Special Legislative Update

2 may @ 11:00 am - 12:00 pm.

Massac County High School Teacher Megan Musselman, center, helps students brainstorm ideas during EcoThink’s “Fast Fashion” sustainability challenge. Teams of students were asked to think of ways to reduce, reuse or recycle clothing, tackling an emerging environmental problem.

PADUCAH, Ky. – Local high school students from western Kentucky and southern Illinois put their problem solving skills to the test during the annual EcoThink project, challenging themselves to address environmental and sustainability issues through critical thinking exercises focused on teamwork and engineering concepts.

“The students really enjoyed this opportunity,” Paducah Tilghman High School Teacher Amy Clark said. “They liked seeing other students’ thought processes and ideas. One student said the word engineering frightened her but realized it wasn't as scary as she thought.”

This year’s project focused on a “Fast Fashion” challenge and the environmental impact of manufacturing cheap, limited-use clothing. Students were tasked with finding ways to reduce, reuse or recycle clothing by determining buying habits, back-to-school shopping needs and how to impact culture changes with their peers. Solutions presented by the teams included creating a phone application and distribution centers for renting clothes and designing clothing that can be modified depending on the season or style.

The EcoThink project was led by U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Office of Environmental Management (EM) Portsmouth/Paducah Project Office deactivation and remediation contractor Four Rivers Nuclear Partnership (FRNP).

“EcoThink is a great way to emphasize DOE’s mission for sustainability to students in the region,” EM Paducah Site Lead April Ladd said. “Not only does it bring awareness to real world problems, but by encouraging students to think about these problems, they may consider a career in science, technology, engineering and math (STEM), which will be critical as the next generation workforce is developed.”

EcoThink, which was featured at the 2024 Waste Management Symposia ’s STEMZone, is conducted through a partnership between Sprocket, Inc. and University of Kentucky College of Engineering and sponsored by FRNP.

“Each year, I am impressed with the ingenuity displayed by the students who participate in EcoThink,” FRNP Program Manager Myrna Redfield said. “We appreciate all the teachers and volunteers who come together to make this event possible and look forward to growing and improving the program in the future.”

-Contributor: Dylan Nichols