Enhancing Critical Thinking in Engineering by
Incorporating an E-assignment and Peer Review in
a Blended Learning Course
Sangit Sasidhar
Dept. of Electrical and Computer Engineering
National University of Singapore
Singapore
sangit@nus.edu.sg
Abstract—This Innovative Practice Category Work in Progress
Paper presents the design and implementation of an online writ-
ing assignment as a critical component to the blended learning
approach in designing a Power System Course to enhance student
learning and pique their interest. The learner needs to stay
abreast with current technologies and methodologies used in
the industry to be relevant in these fields. It was decided to
incorporate an assignment into the module assessment strategy
that would be on delivering a write-up on the current relevant
topics in Energy and Power Systems. The blended learning nature
of the module resulted in the choice of the online platform as
the medium of delivery of the assignment. Firstly, the learner
needed to read and critically analyze multiple technical reports
to write this report. A through rubric was developed to ensure
that students had guidelines on how to write the report. The
rubric included the use of language and assigned a percentage
of the grade to it. Secondly, to ensure that he/she is being
authentic and ethical to the source, the write up was checked
for plagiarism using the Turnitin Platform. This was also to
encourage independent thinking amongst students. Finally, peer
review was used as a methodology for evaluation for students
to enable them to critically analyze their classmate’s report on
these topics. This ensured their exposure to engineering writing
and that they could eloquently express themselves. These topics
were also discussed in the face-to-face session to ensure that
students understood their significance in the practical real-world
scenario. This paper describes the design and implementation of
the e-assignment and the peer review system and presents both
quantitative and qualitative assessment results.
Index Terms—Critical Thinking, Peer Review, Blended Learn-
ing, E-assignment
I. I NTRODUCTION
Critical thinking is the ability to solve a problem, pose
questions to the solutions and develop arguments with a sound
basis in the underlying theory. The ABET accreditation criteria
outlines complex problem solving, designing and interpreting
experiments and understanding of professional skills as essen-
tial student learning outcomes [1].
Blended learning combines digital content with traditional
classroom teaching wherein online videos are used to deliver
lecture content [2]. Griffiths proposed a blended approach to
support modern learners post lecture using technology and
investigated different online tools for the same [3]. Akyuz and
Samsa’s study on development of critical thinking skills in
978-1-7281-1746-1/19/$31.00 ©2019 IEEE
Authorized licensed use limited to: Anelis Plus consortium. Downloaded on March 15,2022 at 08:16:49 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
a blended learning environment concluded that the type of
activity and the period of study is crucial to improve these
skills [4].
Miskioglu and Asare used kinesthetic experiential learn-
ing activities to promote critical thinking in engineering [5]
while [6] concluded that it is important to determine the
use and efficacy of different instruments to identify, measure
and enhance critical thinking. Claris and Riley implemented
critical pedagogy in engineering classrooms for the students,
based on student reflection, critical questions and self-directed
learning. They embedded reflexive and reflective thinking
in the classrooms for the students to critically think about
the topic in general rather than limiting themselves to the
engineering perspective [7].
Saade et.al. examined the resources and activities that
require critical thinking skills and designed online interac-
tive learning components to develop critical thinking. They
found that students equated interactive activities contributed
to critical thinking more than providing resources and that
assignments had the strongest positive impact for the same [8].
Koohang and Durante in their study on web-based distance
learning activities concluded that activities or assignments
designed based on a set of appropriate instructional parameters
and objectives promote learning [9]. Montebello et.al. in [10]
have analysed data from online courses guided by a reflexive
pedagogy. They employ the use of peer, expert and self-review
to evaluate critical and creative thinking.
Peer review is the process of students grading the work of
their peers and learning to make deeper connections within
their own body of work [11]. An experiment was developed
in [12] to evaluate the effectiveness of peer-assessment and
results showed that the critical thinking ability of the students
was significantly improved as compared to those in the control
group. Balfour compared the automated essay scoring to
calibrated peer review in massive open online courses and
found that the peer review provides human-generated feedback
and trains them in evaluation skills. This links back to the
original discussion on critical thinking [14].
Power Systems engineering is a fundamental discipline
of electrical engineering. The introductory power systems
 TABLE I
BLENDED LEARNING SCHEDULE INCORPORATING THE E-ASSIGNMENT
Academic Week → Week 6
Learning Framework ↓ Tuesday Wednesday
Blended Learning Framework - Online Videos on
Renewable Energy
E-Assignment Framework Release Online -
Assignment
course offered by the university covers a wide array of topics
ranging from phasors, AC circuit analysis, power generation,
transmission, and distribution. These topics are extensively
theoretical as well as mathematical in nature. The module
has transitioned from a traditional two-hour classroom lectures
and one-hour tutorials to a blended learning framework. The
learner needs to stay abreast with current technologies and
methodologies used in the industry to be relevant in these
fields. To do so, the learner must experience combing through
multiple technical reports and be able to express these ideas
succinctly. Another key professional skill for an engineer is to
understand the implications of plagiarism and ethical use of
content.
To address some of the challenges it was decided to in-
corporate an assignment into the module assessment strategy
that would be on delivering a write-up on the current relevant
topics in Energy and Power Systems. The blended learning
nature of the module naturally resulted in the choice of the
online platform as the medium of delivery of the assignment.
A peer review along with a plagiarism check was incorporated
into the assignment for the learner to critically analyze their
classmate’s report on these topics.
II. E- LEARNING A SSIGNMENT AND THE B LENDED
L EARNING F RAMEWORK
The e-learning assignment took advantage of the blended
learning framework to ensure that the learners had a basic un-
derstanding of the topic before embarking on the assignment.
The incorporation of the assignment into the framework is
outlined in Table I.
The online assignment was released on the Tuesday of Week
6. To ensure that the students had a proper scaffold for the
assignment, online videos on wind energy and solar energy
were released on the Wednesday of Week 6. These videos
introduced wind energy and solar energy while providing the
students with a starting point for their exploration of the
respective topics.
The students worked on the assignment till the Sunday
of the Recess week. The following week’s (Week 7) face-
to-face session incorporated the assignment questions in an
interactive classroom discussion on understanding different
perspectives of their peers. This session was followed by the
critique submission on the Monday of Week 8.
III. D ESIGN OF THE E- LEARNING A SSIGNMENT
F RAMEWORK
The e-learning assignment framework is designed in the
following three stages:
Authorized licensed use limited to: Anelis Plus consortium. Downloaded on March 15,2022 at 08:16:49 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
Recess Week Week 7 Week 8
Sunday Monday Monday
- Face-to-Face -
Session
Assignment - Critique
Submission Submission
A. Online Assignment
The learner is given an assignment to deliver a write-up on
current topics in Energy and Power Systems. The topic chosen
was on Renewable energy and its incorporation to the nation’s
electrical grid. Two different renewable energy sources, wind
energy and solar energy, were the focus of the write up. The
online assignment required the learner to:
• Critically analyse the problem, provide the motivation for
use and feasibility of the renewable energy source.
• Evaluate different aspects of technical solutions, do a
comprehensive analysis and conclude on the best prac-
tices on integrating the renewable energy to the nation’s
electrical grid.
Rubrics provide an extensive definition and description of
criteria for achievements at different levels [15]. This helps
the learner understand the expectations of the assignment and
plan the execution accordingly [16]. Szarka and Brestenska
implemented assessment rubrics to evaluate the outcomes of
activity based learning [17]. To guide the students in writ-
ing and structuring the assignment, comprehensive evaluation
rubrics were provided to them as shown in Table II.
B. Plagiarism Check
To ensure that the learner is being authentic and ethical
to the source, the write-up is checked for plagiarism using
the Turnitin platform. The plagiarism check is integrated into
the learning management system of the university for report
submissions. The platform checks for plagiarism not only with
research and journal articles but also with student submissions.
This ensures that the students are not copying the assignment
from their peers or seniors. The platform provides a plagiarism
percentage for each report submitted that is visible to the
students before the submission deadline. This ensures that the
students are aware of the authenticity of their reports and can
correct their reports if necessary. The plagiarism percentage is
a component of the final grade for the assignment.
C. Assignment Critique
Peer review is used as an evaluation for students to critique
their classmate’s report on the topics. The peer review had
a twofold purpose as firstly, it provides the learner being
evaluated with the opinion of their peers and secondly, it
develops the evaluator’s critical thinking skills. The evaluator
not only peer evaluates the report but self-evaluates their
own write-ups based on their peer’s assignment. To guide the
students in the peer review process, the following questions
were provided to them:

Problem (20%)
Does the student understand the
problem?
Scale 1 (2.00)
• Little understanding of the
problem.
Scale 2 (4.00)
• Summarizes issues,
though some aspects are
incorrect or key issues are
neglected.
• Unable to distinguish be-
tween relevant and irrele-
vant questions.
Scale 3 (6.00)
• Adequate but superficial
understanding /summary
of the key issues.
• Does not identify the
interrelationships between
issues.
• Poses some relevant ques-
tions.
Scale 4 (8.00)
• Shows some understand-
ing of the underlying is-
sues.
• Partial understanding of
the integral relationships
essential to the problem.
• Poses relevant questions.
Scale 5 (10.00)
• Clearly identifies all em-
bedded or implicit key is-
sues.
• Identifies integral relation-
ships.
• Poses a depth and breadth
of questions.
• Q1: What aspect of the topic does the author focus on in
the report?
• Q2: How clearly does the author express his or her ideas?
• Q3: Write a short summary of the report focussing on
the key arguments.
• Q4: Rate this report’s overall readability.
Questions Q1 and Q3 were free response questions with a
minimum answer length of 50 words. Questions Q2 and Q4
were rated on a scale from the best to the worst.
The students were given feedback on their ideas, their
engineering writing skills as well as their peer review.
Authorized licensed use limited to: Anelis Plus consortium. Downloaded on March 15,2022 at 08:16:49 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
TABLE II
ASSIGNMENT EVALUATION RUBRICS
Motivation (30%) Content (40%) References (10%)
Has the student given enough Has the student provided com- Does the student provide
background information from prehensive content? appropriate references?
the literature for the motivation?
• Little information was • Basic information pro- • No references pro-
gathered. vided. vided.
• Information gathered from • Copied from Wikipedia. • Some references pro-
a limited range of sources. vided.
• Information gathered
lacked relevance and
quality.
• Information gathered • Copied from Wikipedia. • Some references pro-
from various electronic • Copied from other web vided.
and print sources. articles. • Citations / Bibliogra-
• Little evaluation made in phy included.
terms of the contribution.
• Information gathered • Comprehensive detailing • Comprehensive refer-
from various electronic of the problem and cur- ences provided.
and print sources. rent solutions. • References appropri-
• Some evaluation of poten- • Referencing appropriate ately cited in report.
tial contribution. methodologies in litera-
ture.
• Provides a balanced argu-
ment on both sides of the
problem (Topic Specific).
• Information gathered from • Comprehensive detailing • Comprehensive refer-
a variety of electronic and of the problem and cur- ences provided.
print sources. rent solutions. • Appropriate referenc-
• Areas of potential contri- • Referencing appropriate ing style used.
bution well evaluated. methodologies in litera- • References appropri-
• Proposal on improvements ture and their implemen- ately cited in report.
/ further work given. Re- tation (Topic Specific).
port written concisely. • Provides a comprehen-
sive balanced argument
on both sides of the prob-
lem (Topic Specific).
IV. R ESULTS AND D ISCUSSION
In this section, the quantitative results from the e-assignment
as well as the student perception results for the e-assignment
survey are presented.
A. Plagiarism Percentage
Fig. 1 shows the plagiarism percentage for the whole cohort.
It can be seen that around 80% of the class has plagiarism
percentage below 15% while 90% of the class has it below
20%. On further analysis of the reports, it was found that
the plagiarism check included quotes and content properly
credited to their authors. The students who had high plagiarism
percentage in their reports were penalised in their grade for
the assignment.

Fig. 1. Percentage of Plagiarism in the Assignment
B. Survey Results
A survey was conducted to understand student perception
on the e-assignment. The survey was optional and voluntary.
The students rated the e-assignment on a Likert scale and gave
qualitative feedback on their experience with the same. Out of
a cohort size of 142 students, 79 responded to the survey. The
survey had two sections as follows:
1) Student Perception of the E-assignment: The following
questions were rated on a Likert scale from Strongly Disagree
to Strongly Agree
• AQ1: The topic on renewable energy was relevant to
current trends.
• AQ2: The assignment helped me understand renewable
energy integration better
• AQ3: The rubrics guided me on the expectations of the
assignment.
• AQ4: The Turnitin platform guided me in understanding
the importance of academic authenticity.
Fig. 2. Student Perception of the E-assignment
Analysing Fig. 2, it is clear that a majority of the students who
responded felt that the topic on renewable energy was relevant
to current trends (> 90%) and that the assignment helped un-
derstand renewable energy integration better (> 85%). About
80% of the responses agreed to the significance of the Turnitin
platform in understanding academic authenticity. The design
of the rubrics was acceptable but it can be improved. This
Authorized licensed use limited to: Anelis Plus consortium. Downloaded on March 15,2022 at 08:16:49 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
was also reflected in the qualitative comments on the rubrics
where the student’s felt that the rubrics were ambiguous and
the guidelines were not specific.
2) Student Perception of the Assignment Critique: . The
following questions were rated on a Likert scale from Strongly
Disagree to Strongly Agree
• CQ1: I could critically abstract the whole report into a
concise paragraph.
• CQ2: I could understand the author’s ideas and perspec-
tive.
• CQ3: The critique questions were simple and easy to
understand.
• CQ4: Writing the critique helped me understand my own
assignment better.
Fig. 3. Student Perception of the Assignment Critique
Analysing Fig. 3, it is clear that the critique questions were
easy to understand (> 85%). More than 90% of the students
who responded, either agreed or were neutral on their ability
to critically abstract the report and understand the author’s
ideas and perspective. Writing the critique also helped the
students understand their own assignments better. This was
also reflected in the qualitative comments on the critique where
the student’s felt that the critique helped them to learn from
each other, understand on the things they missed out in their
own reports and also understand the topic of renewable energy
better as they could read up more on their peer’s views and
research.
V. C ONCLUSIONS AND F UTURE W ORKS
This study focusses on establishing a framework for en-
hancing critical thinking in engineering by incorporating an
e-assignment and peer review in a power systems blended
learning course. The design of the e-assignment framework
with respect to the blended learning framework is discussed.
The evaluation rubrics are designed and the importance of the
plagiarism check and the assignment critique is explored using
quantitative results and student perceptions.
The next steps would be to improve on the rubrics to be
more clear and specific along with identifying other elements
of critical thinking in the assignment.
 R EFERENCES
[1] Engineering Accreditation Committee, Criteria for Accrediting Engi-
neering Programs, 2018-2019, Accreditation Board of Engineering and
Technology, Baltimore Maryland, 2018.
[2] B. Guzer and H. Caner, “The Past, Present and Future of Blended
Learning: An in Depth Analysis of Literature,” Procedia - Social and
Behavioral Sciences, Vol. 116, 2014, pp. 4596-4603.
[3] L. Griffiths, “Flexible learning support in an inflexible society,” 2011
IEEE 11th International Conference on Advanced Learning Technolo-
gies, Athens, GA, 2011, pp. 274-276.
[4] H. I. Akyuz and S. Samsa, “The effects of blended learning environment
on the critical thinking skills of students,” Procedia - Social and
Behavioral Sciences, vol. 1, issue 1, 2009, pp. 1744-1748.
[5] E. E. Miskioglu and P. Asare, ”Critically thinking about engineering
through kinesthetic thinking,” in 2017 IEEE Frontiers in Education
(FIE), Indianapolis, IN 2017, pp 1-3.
[6] J. Follman, C. Lavely and N. Berger, ”Inventory of instruments of critical
thinking,” Informal Logic, vol. 18, nos. 2 and 3, pp. 261-267, 1997.
[7] L. Claris and D. Riley, ”Situation critical: critical theory and critical
thinking in engineering education,” Engineering Studies, vol. 4, issue 2,
pp. 101-120, Feb. 2012.
[8] R. G. Saade, D. Morin and J. D. E . Thomas, ”Critical thinking in e-
learning environments,” Computers in Human Behavior, vol. 28, issue
5, pp. 1608-1617, Sep. 2012.
[9] A. Koohang and A. Durante, ”Learners’ perceptions toward the web-
based distance learning activities/assignments portion of an undergrad-
uate hybrid instructional model,”Journal of Information Technology
Education: Research, vol. 2, no. 1, pp. 105-113 Jan. 2003.
[10] M. Montebello, B. Cope, M. Kalantzis, A.O. Tzirides, S. Haniya, T.
Amina, D. Searsmith, N. Zhao and M. Chen,”Critical thinking through a
reflexive platform,” 2018 17th International Conference on Information
Technology Based Higher Education and Training (ITHET), Olhao,
2018, pp. 1-6.
[11] S. T. Bulu and Z. Yildirim, ”Communication behaviors and trust in
collaborative online teams,” Educational Technology and Society, vol.
11, no. 1, 2008, pp. 132-147.
[12] C. L. Lai and G. J. Hwang, ”A peer-assessment criteria development
approach to improve critical thinking of students,” 2014 IIAI 3rd
International Conference on Advanced Applied Informatics, Kitakyushu,
2014, pp. 355-360.
[13] L. Bouzidi and A. Jaillet, ”Can Online Peer Assessment be Trusted?,”
Educational Technology and Society, vol. 12, no. 4, 2009, pp. 257-268.
[14] S. P. Balfour, ”Assessing writing in MOOCs: automated essay scoring
and calibrated peer review,” Research and Practice in Assessment,vol.
8, no. 1, 2013, pp. 40-48.
[15] D. Allen and K. Tanner, “Rubrics: tools for making learning goals and
evaluation criteria explicit for both teachers and students,” CBE Life
Sciences Education, vol. 5, issue 3, 2006, pp. 197-203.
[16] B. Sadler and H. Andrade, “The writing rubric,” Educational Leadership,
vol.62, no. 2, Oct. 2004, pp. 48-52.
[17] K. Szarka and B. Brestenska, “ Implementation the assessment rubrics
to evaluate the outcomes of PBL and ABL process,” 2012 IEEE
10th International Conference on Emerging eLearning technologies and
Applications (ICETA), Sara Lesna, 2012, pp. 377-380.

Authorized licensed use limited to: Anelis Plus consortium. Downloaded on March 15,2022 at 08:16:49 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.