Improving Undergraduate Success through Effective Critical Thinking

该项目旨在通过为工科学生提供批判性思维的重要训练来服务于国家利益。这样的培训有望提高他们解决问题的能力、学习成绩和记忆力。学生们以前必须记住的信息现在只需点击鼠标。然而，这种可用性使得学生学会如何批判性地思考这些信息变得更加重要。批判性思维包括客观思考，寻求公正的数据，以及考虑广泛的观点。该项目旨在系统地研究批判性思维如何影响学生在四年本科化学和电气工程教育中的短期和长期成功。这项研究将包括一年级学生，他们的进步将被监控到毕业。研究小组还计划调查批判性思维的性别影响，因为女性在STEM领域的代表性远远不足。最后，该团队将与初中和高中教师合作，探索在中学阶段整合批判性思维活动的方法，帮助学生更好地为大学做好准备。该项目的研究结果有可能帮助教育工作者设计更有效的批判性思维项目，包括关注女性在STEM领域取得成功的努力。该项目的目标是探讨在工程课程的早期进行批判性思维的刻意训练是否能改善学生的学习。为此，由工程师、心理学家和教育研究人员组成的多学科项目小组将使用由调查小组成员于2004年设计的由nsf资助的批判性思维评估测试（CAT）。CAT工具是为数不多的批判性思维评估工具之一，它使用短文回答来评估批判性思维。该研究将采用直接统计分析的双水平、双因素、析因设计，将CAT检查作为干预前和干预后的治疗。在这个设计中，一些学生将被提供旨在提高批判性思维的干预，一些学生将被提供多重干预。这些学生的表现将与没有接受干预的对照组学生的表现进行比较。如果个人在采取行动之前客观地看待信息，做出明智的决定，而不是依靠本能和先入为主的观念，那么国家在社会经济上的成功将得到加强。因此，批判性思维，以及有效解决问题的能力，以及在看似不相关的信息之间建立联系的能力，对社会有巨大的好处。该项目由美国国家科学基金会IUSE:EHR项目资助，该项目支持研究和开发项目，以提高所有学生STEM教育的有效性。通过参与学生学习轨道，该计划支持有前途的实践和工具的创建，探索和实施。该奖项反映了美国国家科学基金会的法定使命，并通过使用基金会的知识价值和更广泛的影响审查标准进行评估，被认为值得支持。

This project aims to serve the national interest by providing engineering students with important training in critical thinking. Such training is expected to enhance their problem-solving skills, academic performance, and retention. Information that students previously had to memorize is now just a mouse click away. However, this availability makes it much more important that students learn how to think critically about that information. Critical thinking includes thinking objectively, seeking unbiased data, and considering a broad range of perspectives. This project aims to systematically study how critical thinking affects both short- and long-term student success over the four years of undergraduate Chemical and Electrical Engineering education. The study will include first year students whose progress will be monitored through graduation. The research team also plans to investigate gendered effects of critical thinking since women are greatly underrepresented in STEM fields. Finally, the team will work with middle and high school teachers to explore ways to integrate critical thinking activities at the secondary-school level, helping to better prepare students for college. The project's findings have the potential to help educators to design more effective critical thinking programs, including efforts that focus on the success of women in STEM. The project goal is to explore whether deliberate training in critical thinking in early years of the engineering curriculum improves students’ learning. To this end, the multidisciplinary project team of engineers, psychologists, and education researchers will use the NSF-funded Critical Thinking Assessment Test (CAT), which was designed by a member of the investigative team in 2004. The CAT instrument is one of the few critical thinking assessment tools that uses short answer essay responses to assess critical thinking. The research will use a two-level, two-factor, factorial design using direct statistical analysis, with the CAT exam administered as pre- and post-intervention treatments. In this design some students will be provided with interventions meant to improve critical thinking and some students will have multiple interventions. The performance of these students will be compared to that of control students who did not receive the intervention(s). The nation’s socioeconomic success will be strengthened by individuals who look objectively at information before acting and who make informed decisions rather than relying on instinct and preconceptions. Thus, critical thinking, together with effective problem solving and the ability to draw connections between seemingly unrelated pieces of information, are of tremendous societal benefit. This project is funded through the NSF IUSE:EHR program, which supports research and development projects to improve the effectiveness of STEM education for all students. Through the Engaged Student Learning track, the program supports the creation, exploration, and implementation of promising practices and tools.This award reflects NSF's statutory mission and has been deemed worthy of support through evaluation using the Foundation's intellectual merit and broader impacts review criteria.