Session F3C
Work in Progress - Pedagogical Practices for
Teaching Critical Thinking Skills to CSET Students
Eleanor Hoy
School of Science and Technology, Norfolk State University
elhoy@nsu.edu
Abstract – Ample evidence exists that employers seek
graduates who can think critically and therefore make
sound decisions. These skills are especially important to
employers interested in hiring computer science,
engineering, and technology (CSET) graduates. While
liberal arts students are taught to think critically through
written assignments, pedagogy relative to critical thinking
seems to be lacking in CSET courses. A research project is
being developed to determine best practices for teaching
CSET college students to employ critical thinking when
learning technical material. This pedagogy will require
students to continually and interactively present logical
support for calculations and other technical information
presented in the text and by faculty. Classes where critical
thinking pedagogy is being used will be observed and
students and faculty will be interviewed relative to their
perceptions of these teaching methodologies. An analysis of
findings will be presented in a paper. The long term
benefits of this study will be that CSET graduates will be
better prepared to make decisions and solve problems they
will encounter in the diverse and technical workplace.
Index Terms – Best practices, critical thinking pedagogy.
INTRODUCTION
One of the most significant goals of education is to produce
students who learn to think and reason critically [1], [2], [3].
While the term “critical thinking” has become a buzz word
around most college campuses, at many institutions, courses
specifically designed to teach students to become critical
thinkers are reserved for those majoring in either Fine or
Liberal Arts. Students who are not privy to this critical
thinking instruction are accustomed to being “spoon fed”
academic material through a cognitive domain methodology,
primarily, memorization [4]. These students do not enter the
workforce with the skills required to solve problems and make
sound decisions. Since CSET students will spend much of
their careers in positions in which they will be responsible for
solving technical problems, this research project examines
what happens when critical thinking pedagogy is used to teach
technical material to CSET students.
1-4244-1084-3/07/$25.00 ©2007 IEEE
37th ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference
F3C-13
CURRENT PROJECT STATUS
To date, certain CSET classes have been targeted for this
study, interview questions have been formulated and the
design of the study has been determined. Currently, data is
being collected through faculty and student interviews and
classroom observations.
EXPECTED OUTCOMES
It is expected that through interviews, faculty and students will
indicate the pedagogical practices they perceive to be most
helpful in fostering good critical thinking relative to technical
material. It is also expected that data collected through
classroom observations will assist in the development of a
theory as to how to best teach critical thinking skills in CSET
classes.
PROJECTED STATUS BY THE CONFERENCE DATE
It is anticipated that by the date of the conference, collection,
and transcription of all data will be complete. Additionally, a
thorough analysis of data will have been conducted using
open, axial, and selective coding of interview and observation
notes [5]. From this analysis, a substantive grounded theory
will be developed. By conference time, findings will be
synthesized and prepared for presentation relative to student
and faculty perceptions of best pedagogical practices for
teaching CSET students to become critical thinkers.
PRELIMINARY RESULTS
Competent individuals should be able to solve personal as well
as professional problems as a result of engaging in some
critical thought [6]. Very preliminary results indicate that both
faculty and students in CSET classes prefer the high student
engagement and Socratic questioning pedagogy to more
traditional teaching strategies such as lecture. Preliminary
findings also indicate that faculty perceive that students learn
better from this particular methodology because they are
required to not only perform calculations, but prove using
inductive or deductive reasoning why their solution is
reasonable. Although students defined critical thinking in a
variety of ways, all students expressed the necessity of being
able to “think about their thinking” and to become good
October 10 – 13, 2007, Milwaukee, WI

problem solvers as future Computer Scientists, Engineers, or
Technologists.
EVALUATION PLAN
An important step in the evaluation process is that of sorting
data into categories, collecting additional information then
comparing the new information with merging categories. This
process of slowly developing categories is the constant
comparative procedure [7]. By comparing each new concept
with existing categories, commonalities will be found and
emerging patterns and themes will be noted and formed into
even larger categories. Also, while exploring similarities and
differences, ideas concerning additional data to be gathered
will become apparent [8]. Throughout the data collection and
analysis process, data will be reviewed many times in a
continuous search for emerging codes. Coding for this study
will be performed with an open mind, without predetermined
ideas which could possibly lead to confirmation of previously
established ideas. Accordingly, a substantive theory will
emerge relative to student and faculty perceptions of critical
thinking pedagogy.
IMPORTANCE TO THE COMMUNITY
Typically, college graduates majoring Computer Science,
Engineering or Technology have the basic knowledge required
to be hired at entry level positions, but they sometimes lack
the problem solving skills needed to adequately apply what
they have learned. New graduates are not prepared for the
problem solving, decision making aspects of employment and
are not conditioned to work as a team or learn for themselves
[4]. Both students and employers are placing additional[5]
demands on universities to do a better job of preparing
graduates for the challenges of this transition [4]. This[6]
inability to make sound decisions and solve problems might be
related to an inability to think critically. The community will
benefit from this study if the findings initiate pedagogical
change that will lead to CSET students graduating with higher
problem solving skills.
RESEARCH METHODS
Faculty and students will be interviewed using transcripts that
ask open questions relative to perceptions of critical thinking
pedagogy. Additionally, classroom observations will be
conducted in an attempt to explore the following practices:
• Faculty ability to engage students to think critically.
• Percent of student participation in classroom
activities
• Amount of lecture per class meeting
• Methods of CSET instruction
1-4244-1084-3/07/$25.00 ©2007 IEEE
37th ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference
F3C-14
Session F3C
• Physical setting, relational cues, and shared
understandings
• Questioning techniques and responses by both
students and faculty
FUTURE WORK
This study is being conducted at a Historically Black
University. Therefore, additional research is necessary to
determine if these findings are generalizable for CSET majors
at more diverse and predominantly White institutions.
Additionally, this study was not designed to measure data
relative to whether or not students actually improved their
critical thinking skills. This might be an opportunity for future
research.
REFERENCES
[1] Dewey, J. (1933). How we think: A restatement of the relation of
reflective thinking to the educative process. New York: Heath.
[2] Gwartney, D. (Spring 2003). Teaching thinking in the information age.
Oregon Quarterly: The Northwest Perspective University of Oregon
(pp. 21-26).
[3] Papastephanou, M. (2004) Educational Critique, Critical Thinkingand
the Critical Philosophical Traditions. Journal of Philosophy of
Education, 38(3).
[4] Candy, P. C., & Crebert, R. G.,” Ivory tower to concrete jungle: the
difficult transition from the academy to the workplace as learning
environments”, Journal of Higher Education, 62(5), 1991, pp. 568-592.
[5] Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research:
Grounded theory procedures and techniques. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
[6] Barnett, R.(1997). Higher Education: A critical business.
Buckingham: Society for Research into Higher Education and Open
University Press.
[7] Creswell, J. W. (2002). Educational research: Planning,
conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative
research. New Jersey: Merrill Prentice Hall.
[8] Spiggle, S. (1994). Analysis and interpretation of qualitative data in
consumer research. Journal of Consumer Research,21(3), 491-503.
October 10 – 13, 2007, Milwaukee, WI