2025 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition

Critical Thinking (Mis)conceptions of First-Year Engineering Students

Presented at First-Year Programs Division (FPD) Technical Session 10: Learning to Learn - Metacognition and Self-Regulated Strategies

Intro: Critical thinking has been touted as one of the single most crucial elements for the success of an engineer. For some, it represents the ontological premise upon which the engineering profession as it exists today is built. The concept of critical thinking has a long history t, with its roots stretching back over a century. While it has been adapted for various contexts, it fundamentally refers to the process of gathering extensive data or information on a topic, analyzing it, and making sound judgments. In engineering, the aspect of judgment is central to the responsibility and decision-making of professional engineers. Consequently, critical thinking is essential to engineering, suggesting that it should be explicitly and comprehensively taught by faculty in diverse contexts and situations. Despite this, there is a dearth of research investigating how early undergraduate engineering students understand or misunderstand critical thinking.

Purpose statement: This work aims to explore how first-year engineering students at Texas A&M University (a large, Hispanic Serving Institution, very high research activity Carnegie Classification, Association of American Universities (AAU) member, and Morrill Act of 1862 Land Grant University) conceptualize, or fail to conceptualize, critical thinking in their own words. By examining these conceptions, we seek to understand how these students define and perceive critical thinking as they enter their engineering education.

Methods: To capture student conceptions, a single open-ended question was integrated into a quiz for an introductory engineering course taken by first-year engineering students. The question posed was: "In your own words, define critical thinking in no more than three sentences.” Responses were collected and analyzed using an open-coding inductive approach. A qualitative thematic analysis was conducted to categorize student definitions into overarching themes, which were then compared with accepted definitions of critical thinking found in engineering education literature.

Implications: While this qualitative study is limited to a single university in the southwestern United States, the findings provide valuable insights for engineering educators. Understanding how students (mis)conceive critical thinking can better inform educators to reflect on their teaching practices and identify necessary interventions to explicitly define and foster critical thinking in their curriculum. Moreover, the study has implications beyond higher education, it may inform k-12 educators about potential pedagogical modifications needed to better prepare students for future engineering studies and careers.

Authors

Mr. Lance Leon Allen White http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1172-0500 Texas A&M University [biography]

Lance White is a Lecturer for Frist-Year Engineering in Engineering and Academic Student Affairs at Texas A&M University. He is also a Ph.D. candidate at Texas A&M University in Interdisciplinary Engineering with a thrust in Engineering Education. He has worked as a graduate research assistant at the Institute of Engineering Education and Innovation at the Texas Engineering Experiment Station and remains a collaborator. His M.S. is in Nuclear Engineering with a focus in experimental thermal hydraulics from Texas A&M University. His B.S. is in Mechanical Engineering from West Texas A&M University.
Dr. Gibin Raju http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2559-6931 Texas A&M University [biography]

Gibin Raju is a Postdoctoral Researcher in Engineering Education in the Department of Multidisciplinary Engineering at Texas A&M University. He earned his Ph.D. in Engineering Education from the University of Cincinnati. His research focuses on transformative learning, creativity, critical thinking skills, spatial skills, and engineering design, with particular attention to cognitive stress, cognitive load, and STEM accessibility. He also focuses on the professional development of K-12 teachers for teaching engineering design. By integrating these strategies into a holistic framework, Dr. Raju enhances workforce development, strengthens engineering pathways, and broadens participation in STEM fields. His work equips educators with tools to personalize instruction and foster professional identity, ultimately preparing future engineers to thrive in a rapidly evolving global landscape.
Dr. Karan Watson P.E. Texas A&M University [biography]

Karan L. Watson, Ph.D., P.E., is currently a Regents Senior Professor of Electrical and Computer Engineering, having joined the faculty at Texas A&M University in 1983 as an Assistant Professor. She is also serving as the C0-Director of the Institute
Dr. Kristi J. Shryock Texas A&M University [biography]

Dr. Kristi J. Shryock is the Frank and Jean Raymond Foundation Inc. Endowed Associate Professor in Multidisciplinary Engineering and Affiliated Faculty in Aerospace Engineering in the College of Engineering at Texas A&M University. She also serves as Director of the Craig and Galen Brown Engineering Honors Program. She received her BS, MS, and PhD from the College of Engineering at Texas A&M. Kristi works to improve the undergraduate engineering experience through evaluating preparation in areas, such as mathematics and physics, evaluating engineering identity and its impact on retention, incorporating non-traditional teaching methods into the classroom, and engaging her students with interactive methods.

Note

The full paper will be available to logged in and registered conference attendees once the conference starts on June 22, 2025, and to all visitors after the conference ends on June 25, 2025

« View session