Paper ID #34340

A Critical Thinking Paradigm for Materials and Manufacturing Education

Prof. Sayyad Zahid Qamar, Sultan Qaboos University

Dr Zahid Qamar, Sayyad is currently working as a Professor at the Mechanical and Industrial EngineeringDepartment, Sultan Qaboos University (SQU), Muscat, Oman. Recipient of several research and teachingawards, he has over 25 years of academic and research experience in different international universities.He has also worked as a professional mechanical engineer in the field for over 6 years in the heavy engi-neering and fabrication industry (Manager Research and Development; Deputy Manager Design; Produc-tion Engineer; Quality Control Engineer). On top of his experience as a researcher/academician, he hasbeen actively involved in research and accreditation work related to engineering education. His technicalresearch areas are Applied materials and manufacturing; Applied mechanics and design; Reliability engi-neering; and Engineering education. As part of the Applied Mechanics and Advanced Materials Researchgroup (AM2R) at SQU, he has been involved in different applied research funded projects in excess of 4million dollars. He has over 200 research/technical publications to his credit (research monographs/books,edited book volumes, a 5-volume encyclopedia, book chapters, refereed journal and conference publica-tions, and technical reports). He is currently working on a research monograph Swelling Elastomers inPetroleum Drilling and Development — Applications, Performance Analysis, and Material Modeling. Hehas served as Associate editor, Guest editor, and Member editorial board for different research journals(including Materials and Manufacturing Processes, Journal of Elastomers and Plastics, the Journal ofEngineering Research, American Journal of Mechanical and Industrial Engineering).

Dr. Ramanathan Arunachalam, Sultan Qaboos University

I earned my PhD from the National University of Singapore in 2005 and since then teaching and doingresearch at various capacities. I teach courses related to Manufacturing and Materials Engineering andinterested in using active learning techniques in my courses. My research interest is in materials andmanufacturing Engineering

Mr. Sayyad Basim Qamar, Texas A&M University

Sayyad Basim Qamar is a PhD student at the Materials Science & Engineering department at Texas A&MUniversity. He holds a Master’s degree in Mechanical Engineering from Masdar Institute of Science &Technology and a Bachelor’s degree in Mechanical Engineering from Sultan Qaboos University. He haspublished conference and journal papers in the fields of renewable energy, materials and manufacturing.

c©American Society for Engineering Education, 2021

ASEE 2021 Annual Conference & Exposition, 27-30 June 2021, Long Beach, California, USA

A Critical Thinking Paradigm for Materials and Manufacturing Education

Abstract

Engineering can be broadly defined as the application of scientific principles to the design and

manufacture of useful products. Product complexity is increasing due to rapid advancements in

engineering and technology, and continued induction of innovative techniques and products. Key

skills required for successful engineering today include the ability to solve complex and open-

ended problems, and independent and critical thinking. Critical thinking (CT) can be described

as objective analysis and evaluation of an issue in order to form a judgement. Unfortunately,

engineering educators generally find it difficult to foster critical thinking among their students.

This work-in-progress paper describes a strategy to inculcate critical thinking ability in

engineering graduates. Examples are taken from two core courses in the Materials and

Manufacturing stream.

Several critical thinking models were explored, such as Gibbs’ reflective cycle model, Facione’s

model, Kronholm model, and King and Kitchener’s model. Paul and Elder’s (P-E) model for

critical thinking was found to be more suited for engineering. P-E model provides a good basis

for the way in which engineers think, and is especially suited for CT as it targets issues such as

creativity, design development, and professional and ethical issues. Learning objectives for the

Materials Science and Manufacturing Processes courses were revised to incorporate CT

elements. Instructional strategy (especially discussion and interactive sessions) was modified to

include CT aspects. Assessment plans were amended to address the revised course learning

objectives. Relevant assessment rubrics were revised to include CT features, wherever needed.

This paradigm, targeting learning experiences related to critical thinking, can also be applied to

other engineering, science, and non-science courses.

Keywords: Engineering education; critical thinking; CT models; materials and manufacturing;

learning objectives; instructional strategy; assessment plan

Introduction

The most important skill required of an engineer in the workplace is perhaps the ability to solve

problems of technical, financial, interpersonal, and other types [1]. Many of these real-world

engineering problems are ill-structured and complex, containing multiple conflicting goals, and

restricted by both engineering and non-engineering constraints. That is why the first skill for

engineering graduates that ABET lists in its Criterion 3. Student Outcomes [2] is “an ability to

identify, formulate, and solve complex engineering problems by applying principles of

engineering, science, and mathematics.”

Reaching optimum solutions for practical engineering problems requires a systematic approach

based on evaluation, interpretation, and creative decision making. Mature level of critical

thinking (CT) skills are crucial in the handling of these multi-dimensional complex problems [3].

Leading engineering universities, and accreditation boards such as ABET, are unanimous in their

recommendation about incorporating critical thinking in engineering curricula, in addition to the

other technical and soft skills [4]. However, recent surveys highlighted a significant gap between

the required and exhibited CT skills in fresh graduates [5]. Though the use of CT in teaching and

learning in an engineering context can be found in several published works, it is mostly framed

within theoretical and conceptual frameworks. Hands-on approaches of how to practically

incorporate CT skills in engineering curricula are less common [6].

Defining Critical Thinking

A dictionary gives a very concise definition of “critical thinking” (CT): the objective analysis

and evaluation of an issue in order to form a judgement. Wikipedia defines CT as the analysis of

facts to form a judgment; the rational, skeptical, unbiased analysis, or evaluation of factual

evidence. Everyone agrees that critical thinking is a desirable trait. However, it is difficult to

explain exactly what it is, and even more difficult to teach it. The Indeed Career Guide [7]

includes the following five common and impactful critical thinking skills in its top list:

observation; analysis; inference; communication; and problem solving. Jessop [8] gives a very

comprehensive definition of CT: “Critical thinking is 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.” In simpler words, CT involves the three major

skills of analysis, synthesis, and evaluation which are the higher order thinking skills according

to Bloom’s Taxonomy [9]. A more general and rudimentary definition of CT was coined by Qiao

[10], proposing that critical thinking is the same as “scientific thinking.” This instinctively

redirects us to what is known as the “scientific method” [11] that consists of the well-known

steps: define a question; gather relevant information; form an explanatory hypothesis; conduct

experiment/s to test the hypothesis; analyze and interpret the results, and draw meaningful

conclusions.

Current Work

The current paper describes a work-in-progress about how to develop CT ability in engineering

graduates, based on recent experiences in two courses in the Materials and Manufacturing (MM)

area. Various CT models relevant to engineering education were examined in detail. Paul and

Elder’s model was adopted for the Materials Science (MS) course, while Facione’s model was

used in the Manufacturing Processes (MP) course. Student outcomes and course learning

objectives for the MS and MP courses were amended to reflect CT essentials. Course delivery

and instructional strategy were revised in light of the CT approach, with especial emphasis on

discussion and interactive sessions. Assessment plans were modified in line with the revised

learning objectives. In some cases, assessment rubrics had to be reworked to include CT

components. Though the overall approach is almost the same in the two courses, only the MS

course is presented below as a case study. This pedagogical approach of revising learning

outcomes and course delivery with a focus on CT, in an activity-based environment, can be

easily adapted to courses in other streams in mechanical engineering, and to other engineering,

science, and non-science courses.

Critical Thinking Models

Various critical thinking models adopted by different engineering and science institutions were

explored for their efficacy in materials and manufacturing education. Some of these are Gibb’s

reflective cycle model, Facione’s model, Kronholm model, King and Kitchener’s model, and

Paul and Elder’s model. The two models selected for the MP and MS courses are briefly

described below.

Facione’s model [12] states that critical thinking is composed of the following cognitive skills:

analysis; interpretation; evaluation; inference; explanation; and self-regulation. Together with

their famously utilized rubric, it has allowed for development of CT skills from the school level

onwards. The multiple levels of information dissection make this model very useful for

cultivating CT. However, there exists some vagueness in the model and rubric in terms of

measurement of the, especially for lengthy and complicated problems.

A popular model for CT in engineering was pioneered by Paul and Elder [13]. It is based on

intellectual standards (such as accuracy, logic, and precision) that can be applied to reasoning,

resulting in a CT paradigm. Model implementation can be divided into various stages which fall

under three major categories of information gathering, analysis, and solution; Fig-1. From

another viewpoint, intellectual standards must be applied to elements of thought in order to

develop intellectual traits. As it is built around the well-known scientific method of problem

solving, the use of this model has been implemented with notable success in engineering

education. The method can be complemented by including some of the aspects of other models

such as group activities and problem-based learning.

Figure-1 The three categories of information (left), and elements of the three groups (right) in

Paul and Elder’s CT model

Critical Thinking for Materials Science

Materials and Manufacturing Stream

The Materials and Manufacturing (MM) stream of the undergraduate Mechanical Engineering

program at our university consists of three core courses. The Materials Science (MS) course

serves as an introduction to the science and engineering of materials. Some of the main topics are

crystal structure and crystalline imperfections (defects); stress, strain, and mechanical properties;

phase diagrams; and basic engineering materials such as metals and alloys, polymers, and

ceramics. The Manufacturing Processes (MP) course introduces the major manufacturing

processes for engineering products, including material removal (machining), solidification

processes (casting), deformation processes (forging, extrusion, rolling), and assembly operations

(welding, bonding, mechanical fastening). The Engineering Materials (EM) course covers major

classes of engineering materials (metals and alloys, plastics and rubbers, ceramics, composites),

their properties and applications in design and manufacturing, and techniques of performance

enhancement such as heat treatment. Emphasis is on manipulation of material properties, and use

of the Ashby method for material selection. The MS course serves as a prerequisite for the MP

and EM courses. All the three MM courses form prerequisites for the Final-Year Project that

runs for the last two semesters and consists of designing, constructing, and testing of a complex

mechanical product. During the last two semesters, students can also opt for electives offered in

the MM area, such as Advanced Materials Technology, Corrosion Engineering, Introduction to

Nanotechnology, etc. As mentioned above, though CT strategy was adopted in two courses (MS

and MP), only MS is presented below as a case study due to limitations on paper length.

Blueprint for Course Revision

For any course revision, establishing a clear set of steps can significantly reduce the time and

effort, and increase the efficacy of the revision process. Efficient course revision can be

accomplished through five key steps: set revision goals; review course structure, content, and

assignments; integrate student feedback; record reflections, findings, and observations; and

implement revisions [14]. To modify a course from a critical thinking viewpoint, the major steps

are selection of a CT model; and revision of course learning objectives, instructional strategy,

and assessment scheme. How these steps were carried out for CT transformation of the Materials

Science course is described below.

Selected CT Model

To implement a CT based revision, it is not necessary to select a standard CT model. Rethinking

about course objectives, delivery, and assessment can be carried out in terms of general CT

attributes. By looking at all course components with focus on words such as analyze, critique,

examine, infer, and communicate, effective course modification can be achieved. However,

comparative study of popular CT models, with a view to selecting the most suitable one for a

given course, is highly recommended.

Paul and Elder’s model for critical thinking [13] was selected for the Materials Science course.

In a nutshell, engineering can be defined as the design and manufacture of useful products [15].

The three areas of product design, engineering materials, and manufacturing processes are totally

interrelated and interdependent. The MS course therefore belongs as much to the Applied

Mechanics and Design stream as to the Materials and Manufacturing stream. To evaluate their

critical thinking mindset and skills, engineers need a vocabulary of thinking and reasoning. Paul

and Elder’s model provides a good basis for the way in which engineers think, and helps in the

analysis and evaluation of the thought process and skills. The model provides an appropriate

framework for analyzing and evaluating engineering projects and reports, design exercises, etc.

The model is especially suited for critical thinking as it targets issues such as creativity, design

development, and professional and ethical issues. The model of course needed a little tweaking

when applied to the MS course.

Revised Course Learning Objectives

Engineering education requires a succinct and meaningful description of course objectives and

outcomes, together with a coherent and relevant instructional strategy and assessment scheme

[16]. ABET describes student outcomes as a collection of skills that engineering graduates must

possess for success in the professional field. ABET has recently shifted from the earlier (a) to (k)

scheme to a new (1) to (7) classification of student outcomes. However, this paper follows the

previous scheme, as the new one is still in a state of flux in terms of adaptation. Targeting more

accurate and meaningful assessment, the Mechanical Engineering faculty at our department held

a long series of deliberations, and sub-divided the ABET students outcomes (SOs) into

performance indicators (PIs). For example, ABET SO (b) “an ability to design and conduct

experiments, as well as to analyze and interpret data” was divided into three PIs: (b1) “ability to

design an experiment,” (b2) “ability to conduct an experiment,” and (b3) “ability to analyze and

interpret a set of experimental data.” Learning objectives (LOs) of the MS course from a recent

semester are listed in Fig-2. Letters/numbers in parentheses denote ABET SOs and PIs (a, b, e, j)

and Bloom’s cognitive taxonomy levels (L1, L2, L3, L4).

Figure-2 Course learning objectives/outcomes for the MS course

To deliver a course with a CT perspective, it is not necessary to revise all the course learning

objectives. As clearly seen in Fig-2, several course outcomes already have built-in CT elements.

For instance, conducting experiments, converting data to graphs, and analyzing the results all

involve critical thinking. Similarly, medium-to-high level cognitive abilities in Bloom’s

taxonomy (such as L3 applying, and L4 analyzing) implicitly require CT skills. However, a CT

based revision of the LOs (wherever applicable) not only spells out the CT approach for both

instructors and students in unequivocal terms, it also helps in the revised planning and layout of

course delivery and other aspects.

As an illustration of CT implementation, modifications in some of the learning objectives is

discussed below. Rewriting the first and very basic outcome (Fig-2) after tailoring it to the CT

viewpoint, the revised learning objective (RLO-1) reads as “identify the major classes of

engineering materials and discuss their role in the development of societies and industries.”

Critically conducting experimental work is one of the five CT skills described above [7].

Two of the existing LOs are “understand the relationship between structure and properties of

materials” and “understand the relationship of mechanical properties of materials to strength,

fracture, fatigue, and creep.” A new subset of these, from a CT viewpoint, is named RLO-2 and

Upon the successful completion of this course, students should be able to: • Understand the basics of engineering materials and their role in the development of societies

and industries [a2, a3, L1, L2, L3] • Understand the relationship between structure and properties of materials [a2, a3, L1, L2, L3] • Understand the relationship of mechanical properties of materials to strength, fracture,

fatigue, and creep [a2, a3, L1, L2, L3] • Understand and distinguish between different types of imperfections present in metals and

alloys, and the effect of deformation on mechanical properties of materials [a2, a3, e1, e2, L1, L2, L3]

• Understand phase diagrams and phase transformations, and their effect on mechanical properties of metals and alloys [a2, a3, e1, e2, L1, L2, L3]

• Understand the basics of non-metallic materials such as ceramics and polymers, and advanced materials [a2, a3, j, L1, L2, L3]

• Conduct materials science experiments including strength-related properties of materials, cold work, heat treatment, microstructure/metallography; and analyze experimental results [b2, b3, L2, L3, L4].

reads as “understand and comparatively evaluate the various post-processing methods that can be

used to improve mechanical properties.”

Modified in line with CT requirements, the last course outcome (Fig-2) is dubbed here as RLO-

3, and has been reworded to “conduct materials science experiments (strength-related properties

of materials, cold work, heat treatment, microstructure/metallography); convert experimental

data into graphs (wherever applicable); and analyze and interpret the results.” As is obvious,

rephrasing these learning objectives now directly targets CT as an essential tool.

As there is no general course on pedagogical methods or critical thinking in the current

curriculum, at least one class should be dedicated to the explanation of CT in general, and the

Paul and Elder model in particular, with relevant engineering examples. One new learning

objective (NLO) could be: “define critical thinking, especially with reference to engineering and

technology; discuss the major components of Paul and Elder CT model; give at least three

relevant examples from different engineering disciplines.”

Revised Instructional Strategy

In all the Materials and Manufacturing courses, course delivery and teaching strategy have

gradually evolved with the advances in audio-visual technology, digital sharing platforms, and

the progressive modification of course objectives targeting ABET student outcomes,

performance indicators, and Bloom’s taxonomy levels. The changes also reflect the shift from a

teacher-centered to a student-centered philosophy, including methodologies such as active

learning, problem-based learning, and group-based learning.

The current instructional strategy consists of the following components: lectures (white board)

and presentations (PowerPoint); problem-based class sessions; interactive problem solving

sessions and tutorials; independent reading assignments; video presentations on material testing

techniques; class discussions on open ended and contemporary issues; laboratory sessions for

selected experiments; etc. In the new approach, some of the above (such as discussion and

interactive sessions) have been modified to include critical thinking aspects. Some instructional

modules are totally new items, such as lecture/presentation on critical thinking (including the

Paul and Elder model); and discussion of modified assessment rubrics.

Revised Assessment Plan

Current assessment scheme includes components such as quizzes and exams (including multiple-

choice, true-false, and short theory questions; numerical problems); lab reports and analysis;

questions based on independent reading; and small classwork assessments (individual and group-

based). With the inclusion of CT, this assessment plan has been revised to some extent.

A sample assessment for RLO-1 is articulated as follows: Select a published article (from a list

provided) on latest developments in materials science and engineering. (i) Identify the “elements

of thought” described in the Paul-Elder model of critical thinking. (ii) Make judgements about

the article’s reasonableness using the “intellectual standards” of the Paul-Elder model. (iii)

Briefly discuss the global, economic, environmental, and societal impacts of any one of these

developments.

To assess RLO-2, one of the open-ended exercises given to students (initially as an individual

task, and later as a group exercise) was: A simple mechanical component has been designed and

manufactured. Name and briefly describe four different methods by which the strength of the

metal/alloy can be increased. Also give a comparative evaluation of the methods in terms of cost,

time, technical difficulty, and environmental impact.

An assessment exercise addressing RLO-3 is worded as: Write a concise report on the xperiment

on Cold Working and Hardness Testing. It should include objectives, introduction, apparatus and

materials, procedural steps, results (tabular and graphical formats), and discussion of results. In

the last section, discuss the behavior pattern of hardness against percent cold work; justify the

results in comparison with theory; comment on any notable results or deviations; and discuss any

sources of error.

An assessment exercise addressing RLO-3 is worded as: Write a concise report on the

experiment on Cold Working and Hardness Testing. It should include objectives, introduction,

apparatus and materials, procedural steps, results (tabular and graphical formats), and discussion

of results. In the last section, discuss the behavior pattern of hardness against percent cold work;

justify the results in comparison with theory; comment on any notable results or deviations; and

discuss any sources of error.

Figure-3 Old-scheme SOs (a) and (e) with their PIs; and the new-scheme SO (1) and its PIs

Though the course learning objectives listed in Fig-2 refer to the older ABET scheme of (a) to

(k) student outcomes (SOs), courses are already running under the new (1) to (7) system. As an

illustration, Fig-3 catalogs the performance indicators (PIs) for the old SOs (a) and (e) covered

by the MS course, and the new relevant SO (1) and its PIs. It should be noted that in the new

scheme, ABET defines a “complex engineering problem” as one that includes one or more of the

following characteristics: involving wide-ranging or conflicting technical issues, having no

obvious solution, addressing problems not encompassed by current standards and codes,

involving diverse groups of stakeholders, including many component parts or sub-problems,

involving multiple disciplines, or having significant consequences in a range of contexts.

Rather than the traditional grading scheme, it is now encouraged to do assessment using rubrics.

To demonstrate this new approach, a portion of the rubrics developed for SO (1) in the new

ABET scheme is shown in Fig-4. As described above, each SO is divided into distinct PIs. For a

clear and uniform understanding of the scope of the PIs by all instructors, each PI is further sub-

Old SOs (a-k scheme) PIs for old SOs New SO (1-7 scheme) PIs for new SO

(a) an ability to apply

knowledge of

mathematics,

science, and

engineering

(e) an ability to identify,

formulate, and solve

engineering

problems

(a1) apply knowledge of

mathematics

(a2) apply knowledge of

science

(a3) apply knowledge of

engineering

(e1) identify and

formulate the problem

(e2) solve the problem

1. an ability to identify,

formulate, and solve

complex engineering

problems by applying

principles of

engineering, science,

and mathematics

1.1 identify complex

engineering problems

1.2 formulate/develop

complex engineering

problems using

models, governing

equations, etc

1.3 solve and analyze

complex engineering

problems

divided into its “attributes.” Assessment rubrics are based on a (1) to (5) scale, and defined

through minimal textual description. As can be clearly seen through the choice of descriptive

words (conceptualization, abstraction, modeling, etc), the attributes represent a critical thinking

viewpoint; Fig-4. An important component of the instructional strategy is to discuss these CT-

based rubrics with the students.

Figure-4 Attributes and assessment rubrics for PI (1.2) of SO (1) of the new ABET scheme

Some General Comments

Special mention of critical thinking in pedagogical literature is a relatively new trend. However,

CT has always been an implicit target of higher education. Even when CT terminology was not

explicitly used in educational vernacular, it was being practiced by good instructors. Without

going through all the steps described above, just a conscious effort to think of CT in different

course areas may be enough. Whichever portions of the course are addressing the top three skill

levels of Bloom’s taxonomy (analyzing, evaluating, and creating) are already involved in critical

thinking. Designing and conducting of lab experiments, and analyzing and interpreting the

experimental results and data, are also direct CT activities. Furthermore, if any problem is of an

open-ended nature rather than having a closed-form solution, it inherently involves CT. Looking

at different possible solutions of the same problem, comparing their pros and cons, trying to

reach an optimum solution in the face of certain constraints, are all CT exercises.

Acknowledgement

The authors acknowledge the support of Sultan Qaboos University (SQU) for workshops related

to outcome-based learning, cognitive skills, and critical thinking.

References

1. C. Dominguez, M. Nascimento, R. Payan-Carreira, G. Cruz, H. Silva, J. Lopes, M.F.A.

Morais, and E. Morais “Adding Value to the Learning Process by Online Peer Review

Activities: Towards the Elaboration of a Methodology to Promote Critical Thinking in Future

Engineers,” European Journal of Engineering Education, Vol. 40, No. 5, pp. 573–91, 2015

2. ABET (2021) “Criteria for Accrediting Engineering Programs 2020-2021,” ABET, accessed

Jan-2021, https://www.abet.org/accreditation/accreditation-criteria/criteria-for-accrediting-

engineering-programs-2020-2021/

3. E.P. Douglas “Defining and Measuring Critical Thinking in Engineering,” International

Conference on Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, Procedia-Social and Behavioral

Sciences, Vol. 56, No. 8, pp. 153-159, 2012

PI

Attributes Excellent

(5)

Good

(4)

Adequate

(3)

Needs

improvement

(2)

Unsatisfactory

(1)

1.2 Formulate/develop

complex engineering

problems using models,

governing equations, etc

Formulates the problem with appropriate level

of conceptualization, abstraction, modeling,

schematic drawings

Completely Satisfactorily Unable to

formulate

Develops a clear picture of the problem,

including inputs from different stakeholders

Completely Satisfactorily Unable to

develop a clear

picture of the

problem

Develops a model that can be used to both

understand the problem and to solve it.

Completely Satisfactorily Unable to

develop a

model

4. A. Naimpally, H. Ramachandran, and C. Smith, Lifelong Learning for Engineers and

Scientists in the Information Age, Amsterdam: Elsevier, 2012 Social and Behavioral

Sciences, Vol. 56, pp. 153-159, 2012

5. C. Dominguez “A European Collection of the Critical Thinking Skills and Dispositions

Needed in Different Professional Fields for the 21st Century,” Vila Real: UTAD. ISBN: 978-

989-704-256-0, 2018

6. A. Aherna, C. Dominguez, C. McNallya, J.J. O’Sullivan, and D. Pedrosa “A literature review

of critical thinking in engineering education,” Studies in Higher Education, Vol. 44, No. 5,

pp. 816-828, 2019

7. ICG, Examples of critical thinking skills, The Indeed Career Guide; accessed Jan-2021;

https://www.indeed.com/career-advice/career-development/critical-thinking-skills

8. J.L.P Jessop, “Expanding our students’ brainpower: idea generation and critical thinking

skills,” IEEE Antennas and Propagation Magazine, Vol. 44. No. 6, pp 140–144, 2002

9. B.S. Bloom, M.D. Englehart, E.J. Furst, W.H. Hill, and D.R. Krathwohl, Taxonomy of

Educational Objectives: The Classification of Educational Goals, New York: David McKay

Company, 1956

10. C. Qiao (2009). “Science Education and Fostering of Critical Thinking in China,” 2nd

International Conference on Education Technology and Training (ETT ’09), Washington,

DC, 2009

11. SEP, “Scientific Method,” Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy; accessed Dec-2020;

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/scientific-method/

12. P. Facione, Critical Thinking: A Statement of Expert Consensus for Purposes of Educational

Assessment and Instruction, the Delphi Report: Research findings and recommendations

prepared for the American Philosophical Association. ERIC Doc. No. ED315-423, 1990.

13. R. Paul and L. Elder, Critical Thinking: Concepts and Tools, Dillon Beach, CA: The

Foundation for Critical Thinking; 2009

14. S.J. McGahan, “Reflective Course Review and Revision: An Overview of a Process to

Improve Course Pedagogy and Structure,” Journal of Educators Online, Vol. 15, No. 3, Dec

2018

15. S.Z. Qamar, M. Al-Maharbi and J.C. Chekotu “A Significant Learning Approach for

Materials Education,” ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition, American Society for

Engineering Education, 21-24 June 2020, Montreal, Canada

16. S.Z. Qamar SZ “Engineering Education: Skill Levels and Outcome-Based Approach,”

International Journal of Management and Applied Science, Vol. 4, No. 12, Dec 2018, p 25-

29