TABLE OF CONTENTS

CHAPTER 1 ................................................................................................................................ 4
INTRODUCTION TO CRITICAL THINKING AND INTEGRATED THOUGHT ................................... 4
1.1 Definition of Critical Thinking ....................................................................................... 4
1.2 Importance of Critical Thinking in Engineering .......................................................... 4
1.2.1 Problem-solving ............................................................................................... 4
1.2.2 Innovation........................................................................................................ 5
1.2.3 Effective communication ............................................................................... 5
1.2.4 Ethical considerations ..................................................................................... 5
1.2.5 Lifelong learning .............................................................................................. 5
1.2.6 Interdisciplinary collaboration........................................................................ 6
1.2.7 Systems thinking .............................................................................................. 6
1.2.8 Risk assessment and management ............................................................... 6
1.3 Components of Critical Thinking ................................................................................. 6
1.3.1 Analysis............................................................................................................. 7
1.3.2 Evaluation ........................................................................................................ 7
1.3.3 Synthesis ........................................................................................................... 7
1.3.4 Interpretation................................................................................................... 7
1.3.5 Self-reflection................................................................................................... 7
1.3.6 Inference ......................................................................................................... 8
1.3.7 Explanation ...................................................................................................... 8
1.3.8 Problem-solving ............................................................................................... 8
1.4 Integrated Thought in Engineering ............................................................................. 9
1.4.1 Interdisciplinary collaboration........................................................................ 9
1.4.2 Systems thinking .............................................................................................. 9
1.4.3 Design thinking ................................................................................................ 9
1.4.4 Ethical reasoning............................................................................................. 9
1.4.5 Sustainability ...................................................................................................10
1.4.6 Flexibility and adaptability ............................................................................10
1.4.7 Communication and collaboration .............................................................10
1.4.8 Continuous learning and professional development .................................10
CHAPTER 2 .............................................................................................................................. 12

1|Page
ASSESSING CREDIBILITY OF CLAIMS ...................................................................................... 12
2.1 Assessing Credibility of Claims ....................................................................................12
2.2 Definition of Credibility ................................................................................................12
2.3 Factors Affecting Credibility .......................................................................................13
2.4 Techniques for Assessing Credibility ...........................................................................14
2.4 Techniques for Assessing Credibility ...........................................................................14
2.5 Real-World Applications in Engineering ....................................................................15
CHAPTER 3 .............................................................................................................................. 17
RHETORICAL DEVICES............................................................................................................. 17
3.1 Definition and purpose of rhetorical devices ...........................................................17
CHAPTER 4 .............................................................................................................................. 20
VARIETIES AND ANATOMY OF ARGUMENTS .......................................................................... 20
4.1 Deductive Reasoning .................................................................................................20
4.2 Inductive Reasoning ...................................................................................................20
4.3 Abductive Reasoning .................................................................................................21
4.4 Logical Fallacies and Common Errors in Reasoning ...............................................21
CHAPTER 5 .............................................................................................................................. 23
ENGINEERING REASONING AND FUNDAMENTAL ELEMENTS ................................................ 23
5.1 Problem Identification and Formulation ...................................................................23
5.2 Hypothesis Generation and Testing ...........................................................................23
5.3 Data Collection and Analysis .....................................................................................23
5.4 Decision-Making and Solution Implementation .......................................................24
CHAPTER 6 .............................................................................................................................. 25
UNIVERSAL INTELLECTUAL STANDARDS FOR ENGINEERING REASONING ............................ 25
6.1 Clarity ...........................................................................................................................25
6.2 Accuracy .....................................................................................................................25
6.3 Precision .......................................................................................................................25
6.4 Relevance ...................................................................................................................26
6.5 Depth ...........................................................................................................................26
6.6 Breadth ........................................................................................................................27
6.7 Logical Consistency ....................................................................................................27
CHAPTER 7 .............................................................................................................................. 28
CRITICAL THINKING CASE STUDY ASSESSMENT ..................................................................... 28

2|Page
7.1 Identifying Real-World Engineering Problems ...........................................................28
7.2 Application of Critical Thinking Principles to Case Studies ......................................28
7.3 Peer Review and Feedback ......................................................................................29
7.4 Reflective Practice and Continuous Improvement .................................................29

3|Page
 CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION TO CRITICAL THINKING AND INTEGRATED THOUGHT

1.1 Definition of Critical Thinking
Critical thinking is defined as "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" (Facione, 2015, p. 2). In simpler terms,
critical thinking involves the systematic process of evaluating and interpreting information
to make well-reasoned judgments and decisions.

1.1.1 Real-world examples of critical thinking in action:

Medical Diagnosis: A physician examines a patient presenting with various symptoms.

The physician considers the patient's medical history, current medications, and test results
to diagnose the underlying condition accurately. The physician also critically evaluates
available treatment options based on the patient's unique circumstances, potential side
effects, and the latest research findings (Grossmann & Schmidt, 2017).

Engineering Design: An engineer is tasked with designing a bridge to withstand heavy

traffic and severe weather conditions. The engineer critically evaluates multiple design
options, taking into account factors such as cost, materials, safety, and environmental
impact. Through a process of analysis and synthesis, the engineer selects the most
effective design solution (Kellam, Walther, & Costantino, 2018).

Public Policy: A government official evaluates various policy proposals to address a

pressing social issue, such as unemployment or climate change. The official critically
examines the evidence supporting each proposal, the potential consequences of each
policy, and the feasibility of implementation. Based on this critical analysis, the official
recommends the most effective policy solution (Davidson, 2017).

In each of these examples, critical thinking skills are employed to analyze and evaluate
relevant information, consider multiple perspectives, and make well-informed decisions.

1.2 Importance of Critical Thinking in Engineering

Critical thinking is essential in engineering as it allows professionals to solve complex
problems, design innovative solutions, make ethical and professional decisions, and
communicate their ideas and findings effectively. The following sections elaborate on
these aspects in detail.

1.2.1 Problem-solving
Engineers frequently encounter complex, real-world problems that demand creative and
efficient solutions. These problems often involve numerous variables, constraints, and

4|Page
uncertainties. Critical thinking skills enable engineers to identify the underlying issues,
analyze their implications, and address them systematically (Jonassen, 2017). For
example, in the development of an autonomous vehicle, engineers must consider
various factors, such as sensor accuracy, navigation algorithms, and safety measures.
Critical thinking helps them evaluate the available technologies and select the most
suitable components to achieve the desired performance and reliability.

1.2.2 Innovation
The engineering field is continuously evolving, with new technologies, materials, and
processes emerging regularly. Engineers must keep abreast of these developments and
be prepared to challenge conventional wisdom and assumptions. Critical thinking fosters
innovation by encouraging engineers to think outside the box, question the status quo,
and develop novel solutions (Carberry & Baker, 2020). For instance, the development of
renewable energy technologies, such as solar panels and wind turbines, has required
engineers to critically assess traditional energy sources and devise more sustainable
alternatives.

1.2.3 Effective communication

Engineers must communicate their ideas and findings clearly and persuasively, both to
colleagues and non-experts. They need to present their arguments logically, supported
by robust evidence and sound reasoning (Archer, 2018). Critical thinking helps engineers
construct compelling arguments, avoid logical fallacies, and adapt their communication
styles to different audiences. For example, when proposing a new wastewater treatment
system to city officials, engineers must effectively convey the system's benefits, costs, and
potential environmental impacts to gain approval and funding.

1.2.4 Ethical considerations

Engineering decisions often have significant social, economic, and environmental
consequences. Engineers are responsible for evaluating the potential risks and benefits
of their actions and ensuring that they adhere to ethical and professional standards
(Martin & Schinzinger, 2021). Critical thinking enables engineers to weigh the implications
of their decisions, consider the perspectives of various stakeholders, and make ethical
choices that minimize harm and maximize benefits. For example, when designing a new
dam, engineers must consider the potential impact on local ecosystems, water
resources, and nearby communities.

1.2.5 Lifelong learning

The rapidly changing nature of the engineering field requires professionals to engage in
lifelong learning to stay current with new developments and maintain their competency
(Eryilmaz, 2016). Critical thinking is instrumental in this process, as it enables engineers to
evaluate new information, discern its relevance and credibility, and incorporate it into
their practice. By honing their critical thinking skills, engineers can more effectively
navigate the dynamic landscape of their profession and contribute to its ongoing
advancement.

5|Page
1.2.6 Interdisciplinary collaboration
Modern engineering projects often involve interdisciplinary teams with diverse expertise,
such as mechanical, electrical, and software engineers, working together to achieve
common goals. Critical thinking skills enable engineers to understand the perspectives
and contributions of their team members, identify areas of convergence and
divergence, and integrate their knowledge and ideas effectively (Borrego &
Newswander, 2010). For example, in the development of a smart grid system, engineers
from various disciplines must collaborate to design, implement, and optimize the
components and their interactions, ensuring reliable and efficient energy management.

1.2.7 Systems thinking

Engineering systems are often complex, interconnected, and interdependent, requiring
engineers to consider the relationships between components, processes, and
stakeholders. Critical thinking supports systems thinking by helping engineers identify and
analyze these relationships, assess their implications, and develop strategies for
optimization (Senge, 2014). For example, when designing a transportation network,
engineers must evaluate the interactions between vehicles, infrastructure, and users, as
well as the broader economic, social, and environmental impacts of their decisions.

1.2.8 Risk assessment and management

Engineering projects typically involve inherent risks, such as technical uncertainties, cost
overruns, or safety hazards. Critical thinking enables engineers to identify, evaluate, and
mitigate these risks, ensuring that their projects are completed on time, within budget,
and with minimal adverse consequences (Aven, 2016). For example, in the construction
of a chemical plant, engineers must consider the potential risks associated with the
storage and handling of hazardous materials, develop appropriate safety measures, and
plan for contingencies in case of accidents or emergencies.

By emphasizing critical thinking skills in engineering education and practice, professionals

can better navigate the complex and dynamic challenges they face, fostering
innovation, collaboration, and responsible decision-making.

In conclusion, critical thinking is vital for engineering professionals, as it enhances their

problem-solving, innovation, communication, ethical decision-making, and lifelong
learning abilities. By cultivating these skills, engineers can better address the complex
challenges they face and contribute to the development of safe, efficient, and
sustainable solutions.

1.3 Components of Critical Thinking

Critical thinking encompasses several interrelated skills that enable individuals to analyze,
evaluate, interpret, and synthesize information to make well-reasoned judgments and
decisions (Facione, 2015). The following sections outline the key components of critical
thinking and provide examples of their application.

6|Page
1.3.1 Analysis
Analysis is the process of breaking down complex ideas, issues, or arguments into their
constituent parts to examine their structure, assumptions, and implications (Durón et al.,
2016). In engineering, this skill is vital for understanding and addressing multifaceted
problems. For example, when analyzing the structural integrity of a building, engineers
must consider various factors, such as material properties, load distribution, and
environmental conditions. By breaking down the problem into manageable
components, engineers can more effectively identify potential weaknesses and develop
targeted solutions.

1.3.2 Evaluation
Evaluation involves assessing the credibility, relevance, and logical coherence of
information and arguments (Facione, 2015). Engineers must critically evaluate the data,
evidence, and assumptions that underpin their decisions to ensure that they are based
on sound reasoning and reliable information. For example, when selecting a material for
a new product, engineers must evaluate the properties and performance of various
options, considering factors such as cost, durability, and environmental impact. By
critically assessing the available information, engineers can make informed decisions that
best meet the project's requirements.

1.3.3 Synthesis
Synthesis is the process of combining existing ideas, evidence, and arguments to
generate new insights or solutions (Bloom et al., 2018). In engineering, this skill is crucial for
fostering innovation and developing creative approaches to complex problems. For
example, in designing a new energy-efficient building, engineers may synthesize
concepts from architecture, materials science, and renewable energy technologies to
create a novel and integrated solution that meets the project's sustainability goals.

1.3.4 Interpretation
Interpretation involves understanding the meaning and significance of information,
ideas, and arguments in context (Durón et al., 2016). Engineers must be able to interpret
complex and often ambiguous information, discerning its relevance and implications for
their work. For example, when analyzing the results of a computational fluid dynamics
simulation, engineers must interpret the data in the context of the problem being
addressed, considering factors such as boundary conditions, model assumptions, and
real-world constraints. By accurately interpreting the information, engineers can make
more informed decisions and design more effective solutions.

1.3.5 Self-reflection
Self-reflection is the process of recognizing one's own biases, assumptions, and limitations,
and adjusting one's thinking accordingly (Facione, 2015). Engineers must be aware of the
potential impact of their biases and assumptions on their decisions and be willing to revise
their judgments in light of new evidence or perspectives. For example, an engineer may

7|Page
initially assume that a particular manufacturing process is the most efficient and cost-
effective option, but upon further investigation, they may discover new information that
challenges this assumption. By engaging in self-reflection, engineers can develop a more
open-minded and adaptable approach to problem-solving.

1.3.6 Inference
Inference is the process of drawing logical conclusions based on available evidence,
observations, or premises (Facione, 2015). Engineers must be able to make informed
inferences, taking into account the limitations and uncertainties of the available
information. For example, in determining the cause of a structural failure, engineers may
analyze the available evidence, such as the pattern of damage, material properties,
and loading conditions, and infer the most likely contributing factors. By making well-
reasoned inferences, engineers can develop targeted strategies to address the
identified issues and prevent future failures.

1.3.7 Explanation
Explanation is the ability to articulate and justify one's reasoning, decisions, and
conclusions in a clear, coherent, and persuasive manner (Durón et al., 2016). Engineers
must be able to explain their thought processes, design choices, and recommendations
to various stakeholders, such as clients, colleagues, and regulators. For example, when
proposing a new stormwater management system, engineers must effectively explain
the system's benefits, costs, and potential environmental impacts, as well as the rationale
behind their design choices. By providing clear and compelling explanations, engineers
can gain support for their ideas and foster a shared understanding of the project's goals
and requirements.

1.3.8 Problem-solving
Problem-solving is the application of critical thinking skills to identify, analyze, and address
specific issues or challenges (Jonassen, 2017). Engineers frequently encounter complex,
real-world problems that demand creative and efficient solutions. For example, when
designing a new transportation infrastructure, engineers must consider various factors,
such as traffic flow, safety, cost, and environmental impact, and develop a solution that
optimally balances these competing priorities. By employing critical thinking skills in
problem-solving, engineers can more effectively address the complex challenges they
face and contribute to the development of safe, efficient, and sustainable solutions.

In summary, the components of critical thinking, including analysis, evaluation, synthesis,

interpretation, self-reflection, inference, explanation, and problem-solving, are
indispensable for engineering professionals. By developing and applying these skills,
engineers can better navigate the challenges they face in their work and contribute to
the advancement of innovative, efficient, and sustainable solutions.

In summary, the components of critical thinking, including analysis, evaluation, synthesis,

interpretation, self-reflection, inference, explanation, and problem-solving, are
indispensable for engineering professionals. By developing and applying these skills,

8|Page
engineers can better navigate the challenges they face in their work and contribute to
the advancement of innovative, efficient, and sustainable solutions.

1.4 Integrated Thought in Engineering

Integrated thought is the process of synthesizing various perspectives, disciplines, and
concepts to develop holistic, innovative, and sustainable solutions to complex
engineering problems (Kinchin, 2018). Engineers must be able to integrate knowledge
from multiple sources and adapt their thinking to the dynamic and interdisciplinary nature
of modern engineering challenges. The following sections outline the key aspects of
integrated thought in engineering and provide examples of its application.

1.4.1 Interdisciplinary collaboration

Interdisciplinary collaboration is the process of working with professionals from diverse
fields to address complex problems that transcend traditional disciplinary boundaries
(Borrego & Newswander, 2010). In engineering, interdisciplinary collaboration is
increasingly essential as projects often involve various expertise areas, such as
mechanical, electrical, and software engineering, working together to achieve common
goals. For example, in the development of a smart city infrastructure, engineers from
different disciplines must collaborate to design, implement, and optimize the
components and their interactions, ensuring efficient and sustainable urban systems.

1.4.2 Systems thinking

Systems thinking is the ability to understand and analyze the relationships between
components, processes, and stakeholders within a complex system (Senge, 2014).
Engineers must consider the interdependencies and interactions within engineering
systems and their broader economic, social, and environmental context. For example,
when designing a transportation network, engineers must evaluate the interactions
between vehicles, infrastructure, and users, as well as the broader implications of their
decisions on traffic flow, safety, and sustainability.

1.4.3 Design thinking

Design thinking is a human-centered approach to problem-solving that emphasizes
empathy, creativity, and iteration (Brown & Wyatt, 2015). Engineers must integrate design
thinking principles into their practice to develop solutions that effectively address the
needs and preferences of end-users and stakeholders. For example, when designing a
new medical device, engineers must consider the perspectives of patients, healthcare
providers, and regulators to develop a product that is safe, effective, and user-friendly.

1.4.4 Ethical reasoning

Ethical reasoning is the process of evaluating the moral and ethical implications of
engineering decisions and actions (Martin & Schinzinger, 2021). Engineers must integrate
ethical considerations into their practice, considering the potential risks and benefits of

9|Page
their actions and ensuring that they adhere to professional and societal standards. For
example, when designing a new dam, engineers must consider the potential impact on
local ecosystems, water resources, and nearby communities and develop strategies to
minimize adverse effects and maximize benefits.

1.4.5 Sustainability
Sustainability is the principle of meeting the needs of the present without compromising
the ability of future generations to meet their own needs (Brundtland et al., 1987).
Engineers must integrate sustainability considerations into their work, considering the
environmental, social, and economic implications of their decisions and striving to
develop solutions that minimize resource consumption, waste generation, and
environmental degradation. For example, when designing a new manufacturing
process, engineers must evaluate the energy and material inputs, emissions, and waste
outputs and develop strategies to optimize resource efficiency and minimize
environmental impacts.

1.4.6 Flexibility and adaptability

Flexibility and adaptability refer to the ability to respond to changing circumstances, new
information, and evolving requirements in a dynamic and uncertain environment
(Karakas, 2011). Engineers must integrate these skills into their practice to navigate the
rapidly changing landscape of technologies, regulations, and stakeholder expectations.
For example, when developing a renewable energy system, engineers must adapt to
emerging technologies, shifting policies, and evolving market conditions to ensure the
system remains efficient, cost-effective, and compliant with regulations.

1.4.7 Communication and collaboration

Effective communication and collaboration are essential for engineers to work with
diverse stakeholders, share ideas, and coordinate their efforts to achieve common goals
(Lattuca et al., 2004). Engineers must integrate these skills into their practice to foster a
shared understanding of project objectives, requirements, and constraints, and to
facilitate the exchange of knowledge and expertise among team members. For
example, when designing a new bridge, engineers must effectively communicate with
urban planners, environmental scientists, and local communities to ensure the structure
meets the needs of all stakeholders and minimizes adverse impacts.

1.4.8 Continuous learning and professional development

Continuous learning and professional development are the processes of acquiring new
knowledge, skills, and expertise throughout one's career, in response to evolving
professional and societal needs (Felder & Brent, 2012). Engineers must integrate these
principles into their practice to maintain their competence, adapt to technological
advancements, and contribute to the ongoing development of the engineering
profession. For example, engineers may pursue continuing education, attend
conferences, or engage in research activities to stay up-to-date on emerging trends and
best practices in their field.

10 | P a g e
In summary, integrated thought in engineering encompasses various aspects, including
interdisciplinary collaboration, systems thinking, design thinking, ethical reasoning,
sustainability, flexibility and adaptability, communication and collaboration, and
continuous learning and professional development. By embracing an integrated
approach to problem-solving, engineers can better address the complex and dynamic
challenges they face, contributing to the development of innovative, efficient, and
sustainable solutions.

11 | P a g e
 CHAPTER 2

ASSESSING CREDIBILITY OF CLAIMS

2.1 Assessing Credibility of Claims

Assessing the credibility of claims is a critical part of critical thinking, especially in a world
where information is abundantly available. The ability to distinguish between valid and
unreliable information, assertions, and arguments is integral to effective decision-making
and problem-solving. The following sections outline key concepts in assessing the
credibility of claims.

2.2 Definition of Credibility

Credibility refers to the quality of being trusted and believed in. In the realm of critical
thinking and decision-making, credibility speaks to the believability of a claim, the
trustworthiness of a source, or the persuasiveness of an argument (Tseng & Fogg, 2019).
A credible claim is one that is reliable, trustworthy, and believable. A credible source is
one that has proven to be reliable over time, exhibits expertise in the subject matter, and
possesses integrity and a lack of bias.

Two key aspects of credibility are expertise and trustworthiness (Tseng & Fogg, 2019).
Expertise refers to the perceived knowledge, skill, or experience of the source.
Trustworthiness pertains to the perceived honesty, fairness, and lack of bias of the source.

For instance, if a civil engineer makes a claim about the structural integrity of a particular
type of bridge design, their statement carries credibility due to their professional
expertise. On the other hand, if a politician with no engineering background makes the
same claim, it would be perceived as less credible.

Trustworthiness also plays a significant role in evaluating credibility. For instance, if a

pharmaceutical company claims that their new drug has no side effects, one might
question the credibility of this claim given the potential conflict of interest, as the
company stands to profit from the sale of the drug. However, if the same claim is made
by an independent research organization with no financial ties to the pharmaceutical
industry, the claim would carry more credibility.

In another example, consider the information circulating on social media platforms.

During a public health crisis, numerous claims regarding health protocols, virus
transmission, and treatment methods could circulate. A claim made by a recognized
health organization like the World Health Organization (WHO) or the Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention (CDC) is likely to be viewed as credible due to the expertise of
these organizations in the field of public health. However, the same claim from an
unidentified user without any stated qualifications or expertise might be seen as less
credible.

12 | P a g e
Thus, credibility is a crucial element in evaluating the reliability and trustworthiness of a
claim, a source, or an argument, especially in professional fields like engineering where
decision-making can have significant real-world impacts.

2.3 Factors Affecting Credibility

Various factors affect the credibility of a claim, information source, or an argument. These
factors include expertise, trustworthiness, objectivity, and consistency of the information.

a. Expertise: Expertise is an essential factor that influences the credibility of a claim or

source. It pertains to the qualifications, skills, or knowledge of the person or
institution making the claim (Tseng & Fogg, 2019). For instance, scientific claims
made by a certified scientist in their field of expertise would generally be regarded
as more credible than claims made by a layperson. Similarly, in engineering, if an
experienced civil engineer makes a statement about a structural design, it would
be deemed more credible than if a novice engineer or non-engineer made the
same claim.
b. Trustworthiness: Trustworthiness is the degree to which a source is viewed as
reliable, honest, and unbiased (Tseng & Fogg, 2019). For example, if a news report
is released by a media outlet known for thorough fact-checking and balanced
reporting, the information is likely to be considered more trustworthy and credible
than if the same report was released by a less reputable source.
c. Objectivity: Objectivity is the lack of bias, prejudice, or partiality, and it greatly
affects the credibility of a claim or source (Lucas & Marino, 2021). For example, a
research study funded and published by a company that stands to benefit from
positive outcomes could be viewed with skepticism. However, if the same study
was conducted and published by an independent research institution, the
findings would likely be considered more credible.
d. Consistency: Consistency refers to the degree to which the information aligns with
other known facts or corroborated data (Metzger, Flanagin, & Medders, 2020). If
a claim aligns with established knowledge or is corroborated by multiple reliable
sources, it is likely to be considered more credible. For example, in a complex
engineering problem, if the proposed solution aligns with the established principles
of physics and has been validated by multiple independent engineers, it would
be regarded as more credible.

In summary, evaluating the credibility of a claim, information source, or an argument

involves considering various factors, including the expertise of the source, the
trustworthiness of the source, the objectivity of the claim, and the consistency of the
information. Considering these factors can assist in making informed decisions, especially
in fields such as engineering, where the consequences of accepting false or misleading
information can be significant.

13 | P a g e
2.4 Techniques for Assessing Credibility
Effective assessment of credibility requires utilizing various techniques. These techniques
facilitate a comprehensive evaluation of the claim or source at hand. The following are
the techniques commonly used for assessing credibility (Metzger, Flanagin, & Medders,
2020):

a. Evaluating the Source: Evaluating the source involves assessing the qualifications,
reputation, and credentials of the source making the claim. An authoritative
source with a proven track record of expertise and integrity is likely to provide more
credible information (Tseng & Fogg, 2019). For example, a study about the
environmental impacts of a specific engineering process would carry more weight
if published by an environmental scientist in a peer-reviewed journal rather than a
blog post by a non-expert.
b. Checking Consistency and Corroboration: This technique involves comparing the
claim with other independent sources. If the claim is consistent and corroborated
by other reliable sources, it is likely to be credible (Lucas & Marino, 2021). For
instance, if an engineering report concludes that a new construction material is
both strong and lightweight, and this conclusion is corroborated by multiple
independent studies, the claim is more likely to be credible.
c. Examining the Evidence: This involves scrutinizing the quality, relevance, and
sufficiency of the evidence provided. A credible claim should be supported by
strong, relevant, and sufficient evidence (Metzger et al., 2020). For example, a
proposal stating that a particular renewable energy technology is the most
efficient should provide rigorous comparative data and analysis to support this
claim.
d. Assessing the Logic: This technique involves checking the reasoning and logic
behind the claim. A credible claim should be logically coherent and consistent
(Tseng & Fogg, 2019). For instance, if an engineering solution adheres to the
fundamental principles of physics and provides a clear rationale, the proposal is
likely to be credible.
e. Identifying Biases: This involves spotting potential biases or conflicts of interest that
may distort the information or interpretation. A credible source or claim should be
as objective and unbiased as possible (Lucas & Marino, 2021). For instance, if a
company funded a study that conveniently supports their product, the results
might need to be evaluated with caution due to potential bias.

Thus, these techniques form a comprehensive approach to assessing credibility, which is

particularly important in fields like engineering, where decisions based on inaccurate or
misleading information can have serious consequences.

2.4 Techniques for Assessing Credibility

Credibility assessment is a crucial skill in the practice of critical thinking, particularly in
fields like engineering, where decisions based on inaccurate or unreliable information

14 | P a g e
can lead to serious consequences. Several techniques can be used to assess the
credibility of information:

a. Source Evaluation: The credibility of information is often closely linked to the

credibility of its source. A credible source typically has relevant qualifications, a
good reputation, and a track record of reliability (Tseng & Fogg, 2019). For
instance, in engineering, an experienced civil engineer's claim about a particular
structural design would be more credible than a claim made by a non-engineer.
b. Consistency and Corroboration: Checking the consistency and corroboration of
information is a key technique for assessing credibility. Information that is consistent
with known facts and corroborated by multiple sources is generally more credible
(Metzger et al., 2020). In an engineering context, if a proposed solution to a
problem is consistent with established engineering principles and corroborated by
multiple engineers, it would be considered more credible.
c. Evidence Examination: A rigorous examination of the evidence supporting a claim
is also essential for assessing credibility. The evidence should be relevant, reliable,
and sufficient to support the claim (Metzger et al., 2020). For example, if a report
claims that a particular material has specific properties, the credibility of this claim
would be strengthened if it is backed by comprehensive testing data and rigorous
analysis.
d. Logic and Reasoning Analysis: Assessing the logic and reasoning behind a claim is
another key technique for determining its credibility. Claims based on sound
reasoning and logical arguments are generally more credible (Lucena, 2021). In
engineering, a proposed solution that is based on a clear understanding of the
problem, a logical approach to solving it, and a sound reasoning process would
be considered more credible.
e. Bias Identification: Identifying potential biases in information or its source is also
important in assessing credibility. Biases can affect the accuracy and reliability of
information, so credible information should be as free from bias as possible (Tseng
& Fogg, 2019). For example, in engineering, a study conducted by a company
that manufactures a product being evaluated might be seen as less credible due
to the potential for bias.

By employing these techniques, engineers, like professionals in many other fields, can
effectively assess the credibility of the information they rely on in their work, ensuring that
their decisions and actions are based on reliable and trustworthy information.

2.5 Real-World Applications in Engineering

Assessing credibility is crucial in all disciplines, including engineering, which often deals
with complex, multifaceted problems. Decisions based on credible information lead to
effective, reliable, and safe solutions. On the contrary, accepting and acting on non-
credible information can have serious consequences, including safety hazards and
project failures (Lucena, 2021).

15 | P a g e
One instance where credibility assessment is critical in engineering is in the evaluation of
materials and technologies. For example, manufacturers may claim their newly
developed material has superior properties, such as high strength and low weight. To
assess the credibility of such claims, engineers would need to consider the source's
reputation, look for corroborating independent studies, scrutinize the testing data and
methodologies, assess the logic of the interpretations made, and be alert for potential
biases, like conflicts of interest. If the claim holds up against all these credibility assessment
techniques, it is likely to be credible (Tseng & Fogg, 2019).

Similarly, when considering design solutions, engineers must weigh the credibility of
different sources and ideas. For instance, a proposed solution may claim to improve
efficiency, reduce costs, or enhance safety. The credibility of these claims would be
assessed by checking the expertise of the proposer, the consistency of the solution with
established engineering principles, the quality of evidence provided (like simulations or
calculations), and the logic of the argument (Lucena, 2021).

Moreover, when engineers communicate their findings, they must also present their
information in a way that demonstrates credibility. They can enhance their credibility by
providing clear, logical, and coherent arguments; citing relevant and reliable sources;
presenting sufficient and robust evidence; and demonstrating awareness of potential
biases or limitations in their work (Metzger et al., 2020).

In essence, assessing credibility is integral to the practice of engineering, influencing how

engineers evaluate materials, technologies, and solutions, as well as how they
communicate their own findings and proposals.

16 | P a g e
 CHAPTER 3

RHETORICAL DEVICES

3.1 Definition and purpose of rhetorical devices

Rhetorical devices are linguistic tools primarily used to enhance the efficacy of
communication by infusing style, emphasis, emotional effect, or persuasiveness into
language (Graff & Birkenstein, 2018). They serve to articulate meaning more expressively,
add clarity, create emphasis, evoke emotional responses, and increase memory
retention.

In technical fields like engineering, where precision and clarity are paramount, the use
of rhetorical devices might seem counterintuitive. However, they can actually augment
comprehension, particularly when dealing with complex concepts that may be difficult
to grasp through straightforward language. By fostering a deeper connection with the
information, these devices can make technical information more digestible and
compelling, thereby ensuring effective communication.

Notably, the use of rhetorical devices isn't limited to literature, arts, or humanities but is
integral in scientific communication, including engineering. For instance, they can make
technical reports more understandable, presentations more engaging, and discussions
more thought-provoking. Thus, they can foster deeper understanding, stimulate
innovative thinking, and enable effective decision-making in engineering contexts.

3.2 Common Rhetorical Devices in Engineering Communication

a. Metaphor and Simile: Metaphors and similes make direct or indirect comparisons
to make descriptions more vivid or explanations clearer. In the engineering
context, metaphors and similes can translate complex or abstract engineering
principles into more familiar or tangible terms, thereby fostering better
comprehension (Eide, Jenison, Mashaw, & Northup, 2020). For instance, electricity
is often explained as water flowing through a pipe, making the abstract concepts
of electrical current and resistance more tangible. Similarly, comparing a bridge's
supporting structures to a human skeleton can make structural engineering
principles more relatable.
b. Analogies: Analogies involve explaining an unfamiliar or complex idea by likening
it to something familiar. This rhetorical device is especially useful in engineering
when communicating complex processes or mechanisms to non-specialists. For
instance, engineers might use the analogy of a crowded marketplace to explain
the behavior of electrons in a semiconductor.
c. Emphasis: Emphasis involves drawing attention to a particular point to ensure its
importance is acknowledged. Engineers often use this rhetorical device to
highlight critical details or concepts in technical communication. This might
involve the repetition of crucial points, underlining, using different colors, or

17 | P a g e
 increasing the volume of speech during a presentation. By doing so, they ensure
the most vital information is understood and retained.
d. Jargon: Jargon comprises words or phrases that are specific to a particular field
and are typically understood by professionals within that field. While jargon can
hinder communication with non-specialists, it can enhance the speed and
precision of communication among experts. In engineering, terms like "modulus of
elasticity," "circuit," or "thermodynamics" are jargon, bearing specific meanings
that are well-understood within the field but might be unfamiliar to others.
e. Visual Rhetoric: Visual rhetoric refers to the use of images, diagrams, charts, or
graphs to express ideas or arguments. This rhetorical device is particularly
important in engineering, where data visualization and schematic representation
of systems or processes are essential for conveying complex information clearly
and concisely.

3.3 Analyzing and Evaluating Rhetorical Devices

Analyzing and evaluating rhetorical devices is a skill that can enhance critical thinking. It
involves understanding the purpose of the rhetorical device, assessing its effectiveness in
achieving that purpose, and considering its appropriateness in a particular context or
audience. For instance, a metaphor's evaluation might involve whether it clarifies a
complex concept, whether it might mislead due to oversimplification, and whether it's
appropriate for the audience's familiarity with the subject matter.

Similarly, when evaluating emphasis in communication, it is important to assess whether

it highlights the most crucial points effectively, whether it could potentially lead to
information overload if excessively used, and whether it is suited to the medium of
communication (be it a written report, an oral presentation, or a visual diagram).

Analyzing and evaluating the use of rhetorical devices can enhance engineers' ability to
improve their own communication skills and critically assess the communication of others.
This, in turn, can foster effective and efficient exchange of ideas and information, thereby
enhancing the overall problem-solving and decision-making processes.

3.4 Using Rhetorical Devices Effectively in Engineering Communication

Using rhetorical devices effectively in engineering communication involves considering

a few key factors:

a. Audience: The choice of rhetorical devices should be guided by the audience's

knowledge level and familiarity with the subject. For example, jargon and
complex analogies might work well among expert audiences but could confuse
non-specialists.

18 | P a g e
 b. Clarity: Rhetorical devices should serve to clarify, not complicate, the message.
While metaphors and analogies can aid understanding, they should be chosen
carefully to avoid introducing confusion or misconceptions.
c. Balance: While rhetorical devices can make communication more engaging and
persuasive, excessive use can be distracting and can undermine the message's
professionalism. Therefore, balance is crucial.
d. Visual Support: In engineering, visual rhetoric can often convey complex
information more effectively than verbal rhetoric. As such, diagrams, charts, and
graphs should be used to augment verbal communication whenever
appropriate.

In summary, rhetorical devices are potent tools for enhancing the effectiveness of
communication in engineering. By understanding, analyzing, and skillfully employing
these devices, engineers can improve their ability to convey complex ideas and
arguments, thus leading to more effective and successful engineering practices.

19 | P a g e
 CHAPTER 4

VARIETIES AND ANATOMY OF ARGUMENTS

4.1 Deductive Reasoning

Deductive reasoning is a type of logical argument where a specific conclusion is drawn
from general premises. It is typically structured in a manner where the conclusion must
necessarily follow if the premises are true. This type of reasoning is used extensively in
various fields, including mathematics, philosophy, and computer science. In engineering,
deductive reasoning can be employed in problem-solving and design processes, where
specific conclusions or solutions are derived from general principles or guidelines (Govier,
2020).

For instance, in civil engineering, if it is established that a particular material (e.g., steel)
has specific properties (e.g., high tensile strength), and a design requires these properties,
one might deduce that this material would be suitable for the design.

However, the strength of a deductive argument is contingent on the truth of its premises.
If a premise is false, the conclusion may not necessarily be true. In other words, the
argument's validity does not guarantee its soundness. A valid deductive argument with
true premises will result in a true conclusion, making it a sound argument. Therefore, in
employing deductive reasoning, it is crucial to ensure the premises' accuracy (Govier,
2020).

4.2 Inductive Reasoning

Inductive reasoning is a type of argument where general conclusions are drawn from
specific observations or instances. Unlike deductive reasoning, the conclusion in an
inductive argument is probable, given the premises, but not necessarily guaranteed. This
type of reasoning is often used in empirical sciences and engineering, where general
theories or principles are formulated based on specific observations or experiments
(Fisher, 2020).

For example, in materials engineering, observing that a particular alloy withstands a

specific amount of stress in multiple tests could lead to the general conclusion that the
alloy is suitable for applications requiring resistance to that level of stress. However, this
conclusion is probable rather than certain, as it is based on a limited number of
observations. There may be instances where the alloy fails to withstand that level of stress
due to various factors such as variations in production, application conditions, or simply
the inherent uncertainty in any empirical observation.

While inductive reasoning does not provide the certainty of deductive reasoning, it is a
powerful tool for generating hypotheses, theories, and principles based on limited data
or observations. It is a fundamental part of the scientific method, which involves
generating hypotheses (induction) and then testing them (deduction) (Fisher, 2020).

20 | P a g e
4.3 Abductive Reasoning
Abductive reasoning, also known as inference to the best explanation, involves forming
a conclusion from the information that is known. It starts with an incomplete set of
observations and leads to the most likely, rather than certain, explanation. In other words,
abductive reasoning deals with uncertainty and aims to provide the most plausible
account for a set of data or observations (Douven, 2017).

Abductive reasoning is commonly used in diagnostic processes in various fields, including

medicine and engineering. For example, in mechanical engineering, when a machine
malfunction is observed, engineers will use abductive reasoning to identify the most likely
cause based on the symptoms and their knowledge of the machine's operation.

While abductive reasoning is a powerful tool for dealing with uncertainty and complexity,
it comes with a risk of confirmation bias, i.e., the tendency to favor information that
confirms pre-existing beliefs or hypotheses. To mitigate this risk, it is important to consider
multiple possible explanations and to assess them objectively based on the available
evidence (Douven, 2017).

Abductive reasoning is commonly used in diagnostic processes in various fields, including

medicine and engineering. For example, in mechanical engineering, when a machine
malfunction is observed, engineers will use abductive reasoning to identify the most likely
cause based on the symptoms and their knowledge of the machine's operation.

While abductive reasoning is a powerful tool for dealing with uncertainty and complexity,
it comes with a risk of confirmation bias, i.e., the tendency to favor information that
confirms pre-existing beliefs or hypotheses. To mitigate this risk, it is important to consider
multiple possible explanations and to assess them objectively based on the available
evidence (Douven, 2017).

4.4 Logical Fallacies and Common Errors in Reasoning

Logical fallacies are errors in reasoning that undermine the logic of an argument. While
they may appear to be logically sound, they are flawed due to their incorrect reasoning.
Recognizing these fallacies is crucial in critical thinking and effective argumentation
(Damer, 2020).

a. Ad hominem: This fallacy involves attacking the person making the argument
rather than the argument itself. For example, dismissing an engineer's design
recommendation based on their lack of experience rather than assessing the
merits of the recommendation itself.
b. Appeal to authority: This fallacy occurs when someone claims their argument is
correct because an expert or authority supports it. While it is reasonable to respect
the opinions of experts, their statements should not be accepted without critical
evaluation. For example, accepting a particular engineering solution because a

21 | P a g e
 renowned engineer endorses it, without scrutinizing its feasibility or suitability for the
specific context, would constitute this fallacy.
c. Hasty generalization: This fallacy involves drawing broad conclusions based on a
small or unrepresentative sample. For instance, concluding that a particular
engineering method is universally ineffective based on a single project where it
failed.
d. False cause: This fallacy occurs when one assumes that because two events occur
together, one must have caused the other. For example, claiming that
implementing a new software caused an increase in productivity, when there
might be other factors responsible for the increase.
e. Slippery slope: This fallacy involves arguing that a particular action will inevitably
lead to a series of negative events. For instance, arguing that investing in a new
technology will inevitably lead to job losses, bankruptcy, and economic downturn.

In conclusion, understanding the varieties and anatomy of arguments, including

deductive, inductive, and abductive reasoning, along with recognizing logical fallacies,
is crucial for effective argumentation and decision making in engineering. By employing
these reasoning techniques and avoiding fallacies, engineers can develop sound
arguments, make better decisions, and contribute more effectively to their projects and
teams.

22 | P a g e
 CHAPTER 5

ENGINEERING REASONING AND FUNDAMENTAL ELEMENTS

5.1 Problem Identification and Formulation

Problem identification and formulation are critical steps in engineering reasoning as they
set the foundation for the entire problem-solving process. This involves recognizing and
defining the problem or challenge at hand, understanding its context and constraints,
and articulating it in a clear and concise manner (Basadur et al., 2017).

In engineering, problems can arise from various sources, such as technical limitations,
performance issues, safety concerns, or changing requirements. For example, in civil
engineering, the problem might involve designing a bridge that can withstand specific
environmental conditions and support a given load.

Formulating the problem requires breaking it down into its key components, identifying
relevant variables and parameters, and considering the broader implications of the
problem. Engineers need to consider the system boundaries, stakeholders' needs,
available resources, and any ethical or sustainability considerations (Harris et al., 2017).

5.2 Hypothesis Generation and Testing

Once the problem is identified and formulated, engineers employ hypothesis generation
and testing to develop potential solutions. Hypotheses are educated guesses or
proposed explanations for the problem, based on the engineer's knowledge,
experience, and available information (Najafabadi et al., 2019).

In engineering, hypotheses can take various forms, depending on the nature of the
problem and the available data. For example, in chemical engineering, a hypothesis
might involve proposing a specific reaction mechanism to optimize a chemical process.

To test hypotheses, engineers design experiments, conduct simulations, or gather

additional data through observations or measurements. The collected data is then
analyzed to evaluate the validity of the hypotheses and refine the problem-solving
approach. This iterative process of hypothesis generation, testing, and refinement is
crucial for advancing engineering knowledge and finding effective solutions
(Najafabadi et al., 2019).

5.3 Data Collection and Analysis

Data collection and analysis play a pivotal role in engineering reasoning, providing
evidence to support decision-making and solution development. Engineers gather data
from various sources, including experiments, field observations, surveys, or existing

23 | P a g e
literature, depending on the nature of the problem and the available resources (Bridges
et al., 2018).

Once the data is collected, engineers employ various analytical techniques to make
sense of the information and extract meaningful insights. Statistical analysis, modeling,
simulation, and data visualization are some of the commonly used methods for analyzing
engineering data. This analysis helps engineers identify patterns, trends, correlations, and
anomalies, which can inform the decision-making process (Bridges et al., 2018).

For example, in aerospace engineering, data analysis techniques are used to evaluate
the structural integrity of aircraft components based on fatigue test results, helping
engineers make informed decisions about maintenance schedules or design
modifications.

5.4 Decision-Making and Solution Implementation

Engineering reasoning culminates in the decision-making and solution implementation
stage, where engineers evaluate the available options and choose the most suitable
solution to address the identified problem. This process involves considering technical
feasibility, cost-effectiveness, safety, environmental impact, and other relevant factors
(Harris et al., 2017).

Engineers use a systematic approach to evaluate alternative solutions, weighing their

advantages, disadvantages, and risks. This may involve employing decision-making tools
such as cost-benefit analysis, risk assessment, or multi-criteria decision analysis. The
chosen solution is then implemented, taking into account the necessary resources,
timeframes, and potential challenges (Harris et al., 2017).

For instance, in mechanical engineering, decision-making and solution implementation

may involve selecting the most efficient manufacturing process for a specific
component, considering factors such as cost, production time, quality, and scalability.

Throughout the decision-making and implementation process, engineers must consider

the potential consequences of their decisions, including ethical considerations, long-term
sustainability, and societal impact. Effective communication and collaboration with
stakeholders are also essential for successful solution implementation (Bridges et al.,
2018).

In conclusion, engineering reasoning involves a systematic and logical approach to

problem identification, hypothesis generation and testing, data collection and analysis,
and decision-making and solution implementation. By employing these fundamental
elements, engineers can effectively address complex engineering challenges and
contribute to the advancement of their respective fields.

24 | P a g e
 CHAPTER 6

UNIVERSAL INTELLECTUAL STANDARDS FOR ENGINEERING REASONING

6.1 Clarity
Clarity is a fundamental intellectual standard that plays a crucial role in engineering
reasoning. It refers to the use of clear and precise language and the ability to express
ideas and concepts in a way that is easily understood by others (Paul & Elder, 2019). In
engineering, clarity is essential for effective communication, as engineers need to
convey complex technical information to colleagues, stakeholders, and clients.

In engineering reasoning, clarity is achieved by defining technical terms, avoiding

ambiguity, and ensuring that ideas and concepts are presented in a concise and
coherent manner. Clear communication facilitates understanding, promotes
collaboration, and reduces the potential for misinterpretation or confusion.

For example, when presenting a design proposal, engineers should use clear and concise
language to explain the specifications, functionality, and performance requirements of
the proposed solution. This ensures that all parties involved have a clear understanding
of the design intent.

6.2 Accuracy
Accuracy is another critical intellectual standard in engineering reasoning. It refers to the
degree to which information, data, and arguments are free from errors, distortions, or
misinterpretations (Paul & Elder, 2019). Engineers rely on accurate information to make
informed decisions, validate hypotheses, and develop reliable solutions.

In engineering, accuracy is achieved through rigorous data collection, analysis, and

verification processes. Engineers should employ appropriate measurement techniques,
ensure the validity and reliability of data sources, and use reliable mathematical models
and simulations.

For example, in civil engineering, accurate measurements of soil properties and structural
loads are crucial for designing safe and stable foundations for buildings and
infrastructure. Any inaccuracies in these measurements can lead to structural failures and
compromise public safety.

6.3 Precision
Precision is closely related to accuracy and focuses on the level of detail, specificity, and
exactness in engineering reasoning (Paul & Elder, 2019). Precision involves using precise
measurements, calculations, and specifications to ensure that engineering solutions
meet the required standards and specifications.

25 | P a g e
In engineering, precision is essential to ensure the compatibility and interoperability of
components, systems, and processes. Engineers must specify tolerances, dimensions, and
performance criteria with precision to ensure that different parts fit together correctly and
function as intended.

For example, in electrical engineering, precise measurements and calculations are

crucial for designing circuit boards and ensuring that components are placed accurately
to avoid short circuits or signal interference.

6.4 Relevance
The intellectual standard of relevance is concerned with the selection and use of
information and arguments that are directly related to the problem or question at hand
(Paul & Elder, 2019). In engineering reasoning, relevance ensures that engineers focus on
the most pertinent information and avoid irrelevant or extraneous details.

Engineers must identify the key variables, parameters, and factors that are relevant to
the problem-solving process. They should critically evaluate the relevance of data,
research findings, and expert opinions to ensure that they contribute meaningfully to the
decision-making process.

For example, in aerospace engineering, when evaluating the aerodynamic

performance of an aircraft wing design, engineers must focus on relevant factors such
as airfoil shape, wing span, and airspeed, while considering irrelevant factors such as the
color of the wing would not contribute to the analysis.

6.5 Depth
Depth refers to the level of complexity and thoroughness in engineering reasoning (Paul
& Elder, 2019). It involves going beyond surface-level understanding and exploring the
underlying principles, theories, and mechanisms that govern a particular engineering
problem or phenomenon.

In engineering, depth is crucial for developing a comprehensive understanding of the

problem at hand. Engineers must delve into the underlying science, engineering
principles, and relevant theories to gain a deeper insight into the problem's root causes
and potential solutions.

For example, when analyzing the failure of a mechanical component, engineers should
go beyond observing the surface-level damage and investigate the material properties,
stress distribution, and failure mechanisms to identify the underlying causes and develop
effective solutions.

26 | P a g e
6.6 Breadth
Breadth refers to the inclusion of multiple perspectives, viewpoints, and alternative
explanations in engineering reasoning (Paul & Elder, 2019). It involves considering diverse
sources of information, seeking input from different stakeholders, and exploring various
possible solutions to the problem.

In engineering, breadth is crucial for avoiding narrow-mindedness and fostering creativity

and innovation. By considering multiple perspectives, engineers can uncover new
insights, challenge assumptions, and develop more robust and effective solutions.

For example, in environmental engineering, when developing a wastewater treatment

system, engineers should consider various treatment methods, such as biological,
chemical, and physical processes, and evaluate their respective advantages and
disadvantages to determine the most suitable approach.

6.7 Logical Consistency

Logical consistency is an essential intellectual standard in engineering reasoning,
ensuring that arguments and reasoning processes follow logical and coherent patterns
(Paul & Elder, 2019). It involves avoiding contradictions, fallacies, and inconsistencies in
the development and evaluation of engineering arguments.

In engineering, logical consistency is critical for building sound and persuasive

arguments, supporting hypotheses, and making robust decisions. Engineers should apply
logical reasoning, adhere to the principles of deductive and inductive logic, and avoid
common logical fallacies.

For example, in software engineering, when developing an algorithm, engineers should

ensure that the code is logically consistent, without any contradictions or conflicting
instructions that could result in errors or unpredictable behavior.

By applying these universal intellectual standards, engineers can enhance the quality of
their reasoning, decision-making, and problem-solving processes, leading to more
effective and reliable engineering solutions.

27 | P a g e
 CHAPTER 7

CRITICAL THINKING CASE STUDY ASSESSMENT

7.1 Identifying Real-World Engineering Problems

In the context of critical thinking case study assessment, the first step is to identify and
select real-world engineering problems that serve as the basis for analysis and evaluation.
These problems should be complex, multidimensional, and representative of the
challenges that engineers face in their professional practice (Ennis, 2016). Real-world
engineering problems provide students with the opportunity to apply critical thinking skills
and principles to practical scenarios, enhancing their ability to reason effectively in the
engineering context.

Case studies can be sourced from various industries and engineering disciplines, such as
civil engineering, electrical engineering, mechanical engineering, or computer science.
They can involve issues related to sustainability, safety, ethics, design, or innovation. For
example, a case study might involve the evaluation of different renewable energy
technologies for a community's power supply, considering factors such as cost,
environmental impact, and reliability.

7.2 Application of Critical Thinking Principles to Case Studies

Once the real-world engineering problems are identified, students engage in the
application of critical thinking principles to analyze and evaluate the case studies. This
process involves the systematic use of intellectual standards, such as clarity, accuracy,
relevance, depth, breadth, and logical consistency, to critically assess the information,
arguments, and proposed solutions presented in the case (Paul & Elder, 2014).

Students should employ critical thinking skills to identify and analyze the assumptions,
biases, and limitations of the case study. They should question the credibility of the
sources, evaluate the evidence provided, and consider alternative perspectives and
explanations. Through careful analysis and evaluation, students develop a deeper
understanding of the problem, recognize the complexities involved, and develop
reasoned judgments about the best course of action.

For example, in a case study related to sustainable transportation, students might

critically analyze the effectiveness of different transportation systems in reducing carbon
emissions, considering factors such as energy efficiency, infrastructure requirements, and
societal acceptance. They would use critical thinking principles to evaluate the evidence
and arguments presented, weigh the pros and cons, and propose well-reasoned
recommendations.

28 | P a g e
7.3 Peer Review and Feedback
Peer review and feedback are valuable components of the critical thinking case study
assessment process. After students have individually analyzed and evaluated the case
studies, they engage in peer discussions, group work, or presentations where they share
their findings and perspectives with their peers. This allows for constructive critique,
debate, and the exploration of different viewpoints.

Peer review and feedback provide students with the opportunity to refine their critical
thinking skills by considering alternative interpretations, challenging assumptions, and
addressing any gaps or weaknesses in their analysis. It promotes collaborative learning,
enhances communication skills, and encourages students to think critically about the
perspectives and arguments presented by their peers.

7.4 Reflective Practice and Continuous Improvement

The final phase of critical thinking case study assessment involves reflective practice and
continuous improvement. Students are encouraged to reflect on their own thinking
processes, the strategies they employed, and the effectiveness of their analysis and
evaluation. They are encouraged to identify areas for improvement, learn from their
experiences, and develop strategies to enhance their critical thinking skills (Brookfield,
2017).

Instructors can facilitate reflection through guided questions, self-assessment tools, or

reflective journals, prompting students to critically evaluate their own thinking, identify
biases or cognitive limitations, and consider how they can further develop their critical
thinking skills.

By engaging in reflective practice, students deepen their understanding of their own

thinking processes, become more aware of their biases and assumptions, and develop
a commitment to ongoing learning and improvement. This helps them to refine their
critical thinking skills and apply them more effectively in future case studies and
engineering problem-solving situations.

In conclusion, the critical thinking case study assessment approach provides students
with the opportunity to apply critical thinking principles and skills to real-world engineering
problems. By engaging in the identification and analysis of real-world case studies,
applying critical thinking principles, engaging in peer review and feedback, and
reflecting on their own thinking processes, students develop and enhance their critical
thinking abilities in the engineering context.

References:

1. Archer, L. (2018). Communication skills for engineers: A critical success factor.

International Journal of Engineering Education, 34(6), 1789-1797.

29 | P a g e
2. Aven, T. (2016). Risk assessment and risk management: Review of recent advances
on their foundation. European Journal of Operational Research, 253(1), 1-13.
3. Basadur, M., Geoghegan, W. D., & Maier, C. (2017). Problem Formulation and
Identification. In The Wiley Blackwell Handbook of the Psychology of Team Working
and Collaborative Processes (pp. 277-296). Wiley-Blackwell.
4. Bloom, B. S., Krathwohl, D. R., & Masia, B. B. (2018). Taxonomy of educational
objectives: The classification of educational goals. Handbook I: Cognitive domain.
Routledge.
5. Borrego, M., & Newswander, L. K. (2010). Definitions of interdisciplinary research:
Toward graduate-level interdisciplinary learning outcomes. The Review of Higher
Education, 34(1), 61-84.
6. Bridges, D., Charoenngam, C., & Wilder, L. (2018). Data Collection and Analysis. In
Handbook of Research on Data Science for Effective Engineering Decision Making
(pp. 106-132). IGI Global.
7. Brookfield, S. D. (2017). Becoming a critically reflective teacher. John Wiley & Sons.
8. Brown, T., & Wyatt, J. (2015). Design thinking for social innovation. Stanford Social
Innovation Review, 8(1), 30-35.
9. Brundtland, G. H., Khalid, M., Agnelli, S., Al-Athel, S., Chidzero, B., Fadika, L., ... &
Ramphal, S. (1987). Our common future ('Brundtland report'). Oxford University
Press.
10. Carberry, A. R., & Baker, D. R. (2020). Innovation in engineering education: Impact
on teaching and learning. International Journal of Engineering Education, 36(4),
1284-1297.
11. Damer, T. E. (2020). Attacking Faulty Reasoning: A Practical Guide to Fallacy-Free
Arguments. Routledge.
12. Davidson, N. (2017). Public Policy: Analysis and Evaluation. Public Administration
Review, 77(4), 515-525.
13. Douven, I. (2017). Abduction. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of
Philosophy (Winter 2017 Edition). Stanford University.
14. Durón, R., Limbach, B., & Waugh, W. (2016). Critical thinking framework used to
evaluate the effectiveness of faculty development in critical thinking. Journal of
General Education, 54(1), 1-21.
15. Eide, A. R., Jenison, R., Mashaw, L., & Northup, L. (2020). Engineering: Fundamentals
and Problem Solving. McGraw Hill.
16. Ennis, R. H. (2016). Critical thinking across the curriculum: A vision. Topoi, 35(1), 1-9.
17. Eryilmaz, E. (2016). Lifelong learning and engineering: A comparative study of the
beliefs of engineers. European Journal of Engineering Education, 41(6), 661-677.
18. Facione, P. A. (2015). Critical thinking: What it is and why it counts. Insight
Assessment, 1-30.
19. Felder, R. M., & Brent, R. (2012). Engineering education: A tale of two paradigms.
Chemical Engineering Education, 46(2), 83-88.
20. Fisher, A. (2020). Critical Thinking: An Introduction. Cambridge University Press.
21. Govier, T. (2020). A Practical Study of Argument. Cengage Learning.

30 | P a g e
22. Graff, G., & Birkenstein, C. (2018). They say/I say: The moves that matter in
academic writing. WW Norton & Company.
23. Grossmann, I., & Schmidt, K. (2017). Medical Decision-Making and Critical Thinking.
In Psychological Perspectives on Risk and Risk Analysis (pp. 105-120). Springer,
Cham.
24. Harris, C. E., Pritchard, M. S., & Rabins, M. J. (2017). Engineering Ethics: Concepts
and Cases. Cengage Learning.
25. Jonassen, D. H. (2017). Designing for problem-solving in engineering. In A. M. de
Jong & A. Alblas (Eds.), Research Agenda on Engineering Education (pp. 17-32).
Springer, Cham.
26. Jonassen, D. H. (2017). Designing for problem-solving in engineering. In A. M. de
Jong & A. Alblas (Eds.), Research Agenda on Engineering Education (pp. 17-32).
Springer, Cham.
27. Karakas, F. (2011). Positive management education: Creating creative minds,
passionate hearts, and kindred spirits. Journal of Management Development,
30(9), 819-831.
28. Kellam, N., Walther, J., & Costantino, T. E. (2018). Engineering design: Representing
and reasoning with ambiguity. Journal of Engineering Education, 107(2), 218-237.
29. Kinchin, I. M. (2018). Integrated thought: A new way of thinking for the 21st century.
Higher Education Research & Development, 37(5), 1072-1085.
30. Lattuca, L. R., Voigt, L. J., & Fath, K. Q. (2004). Does interdisciplinarity promote
learning? Theoretical support and researchable questions. The Review of Higher
Education, 28(1), 23-48.
31. Lucas, B., & Marino, D. (2021). The challenges of online misinformation and the role
of schools. Education and Information Technologies, 26(2), 1615-1636.
32. Lucena, J. (2021). Engineering and Sustainable Community Development. Morgan
& Claypool Publishers.
33. Martin, M. W., & Schinzinger, R. (2021). Ethics in Engineering. Oxford University Press.
34. Metzger, M. J., Flanagin, A. J., & Medders, R. B. (2020). Social and heuristic
approaches to credibility evaluation online. Journal of Communication, 60(3), 413-
439.
35. Najafabadi, M. M., Villanustre, F., Khoshgoftaar, T. M., Seliya, N., Wald, R., &
Muharemagic, E. (2019). Deep learning applications and challenges in big data
analytics. Journal of Big Data, 6(1), 1-35.
36. Paul, R., & Elder, L. (2014). Critical thinking: Basic theory and instructional structures
handbook. Foundation for Critical Thinking Press.
37. Paul, R., & Elder, L. (2019). Critical thinking: The nature of critical and creative
thought. Journal of Developmental Education, 43(2), 4-5.
38. Senge, P. M. (2014). The fifth discipline fieldbook: Strategies and tools for building
a learning organization. Crown Business.
39. Tseng, S., & Fogg, B. J. (2019). Credibility and computing technology.
Communications of the ACM, 42(5), 39-44.

31 | P a g e
32 | P a g e
33 | P a g e