An Analysis of Engaged Thought Through the Lens of Undergraduate Research

The engineering community values the development of critical thinking, but the techniques for most efficiently achieving this outcome are still up for debate. The literature suggests that research experiences provide a strong opportunity for students to develop cognitive abilities, but much of the research is based on the self-reported perceptions of the student participants and often lacks evidence of validity. This paper examines the perceptions and use of engaged thinking, a term that encompasses critical and reflective thinking, by six students throughout a 10-week Research Experience for Undergraduates summer program. An analysis of a series of interviews conducted with each student throughout their research experience presented themes related to prerequisites for engaged thinking (background knowledge, disposition, and transitional circumstances) which could address some of the shortcomings that have previously prevented undergraduate research from reaching its full potential. Introduction The development of critical thinking skills represents one of the primary goals of undergraduate engineering education. In our previous work, we connected critical thinking with reflective thinking, suggesting that the two types of thought overlap and might be more appropriately presented together in what will henceforth be referred to as “engaged thinking.” We further suggested that the overarching goal of engineering education should be to develop adaptive experts and showed that the skills of adaptive expertise relate closely to those of an engaged thinker. The optimal techniques used to develop these skills have been widely researched, but a definitive solution remains elusive. While utilization of a variety of approaches will likely produce optimal development of these skills, active, student-centered, and inquirybased learning appear to be common themes amongst the critical thinking literature. One such activity that promotes active, student-centered, and inquiry-based learning for undergraduate students is the undergraduate research experience. The Boyer Commission contributed a significant push in recent years towards increasing the availability and participation in undergraduate research at research universities, suggesting that research and creative endeavors provide superior mechanisms for learning over simple transmission of knowledge. Undergraduate research presents students with open-ended tasks set in real-world contexts, which are often considered important factors in promoting critical thinking. While accounts are often vague, typically lack discussion regarding processes, mechanisms, and degrees of effect, and rarely provide evidence of validity of findings, there exists a multitude of sources associating participation in research with growth in critical thinking and cognitive skills. The list of skills and traits allegedly developed through the research experience is extensive and includes originality, creativity, curiosity, the ability to think independently, the general understanding of the nature of science, the ability to cope with ambiguity, the ability to apply skepticism to information, and many other general research skills. These claims generally derive from participant, alumni, and faculty surveys and were occasionally compared to students who did not participate in undergraduate research. Results also suggested that these improvements tended to be less significant when students’ interest in research or their project was lower and when faculty mentors did not modify projects to accommodate the skill level of an undergraduate researcher. To temper these claims, however, though undergraduate research appears to provide excellent growth in many cognitive abilities, it does not necessarily correspond directly with development of higher-order thinking skills. The adequate to significant gains in specific content knowledge reported do not always appear to accompany comparable gains in conceptual understanding. Such gains require sufficient time to achieve familiarity with background content and comfort in using specific equipment associated with a given project. Additionally, opportunities to engage in higher-order thinking is dependent upon whether or not the student is involved in designing research questions and strategies. Further, despite improvements in many cognitive abilities, one study suggested that none of those improvements matched students’ expected levels of growth. The research question guiding this study is: How is engaged thinking developed and used while students are performing undergraduate research? We present data from six students who participated in a 10-week summer Research Experience for Undergraduates (REU) to identify some of the factors associated with the use of engaged thinking in undergraduate research. We will discuss the prevalent themes that will be henceforth referred to as prerequisites to engaged thinking. Methodology This study seeks an understanding of the use of engaged thinking in undergraduate research through a descriptive collective case study analysis. Case studies are used to explore complex phenomena in the context in which they occur by using a variety of lenses. The different lenses considered included a set of four interviews with each REU participant, surveys of the faculty and graduate student mentors for each student, and reports produced by the students during their projects, though only the interviews will contribute to the discussion here. As the context of each individual student’s experience varied significantly based on their background, the project for which they were selected, the mentors with whom they worked, and the strategies employed by those mentors, each student represents an individual case, and the students together form a collective case study, providing for a cross-case analysis. To reduce the length of this paper, the cross-case analysis will be the primary focus. The data was collected in the summer of 2013 at a southeastern research university with very high research activity. This institution is a large four-year, primarily residential university with a majority undergraduate population. The College of Engineering hosted a 10-week REU pertaining to infrastructural materials. Students lived on campus in apartment-style dorms with one another. Information regarding the students presented in this paper and their corresponding home universities is presented in Table 1. Pseudonyms are used in the table and the home institution profile codes are based on the Carnegie Classification of Institutions of Higher Education: RU/VH designates research university, very high research activity; Master’s L designates institutions that award at least 200 masters-level degrees; DRU designates Doctoral/Research Universities; VHU designates very high undergraduate enrollment; HU designates high undergraduate enrollment; MU designates majority undergraduate enrollment; FT4 designates Full-time, four-year institutions; MS designates more selective; S designates selective; HTI designates Higher transfer-in; LTI designates lower transfer-in; L4 designates large four-year; M4 designates medium four-year; S4 designates small four-year; NR designates primarily nonresidential; R designates primarily residential; and HR designates highly residential. Name Gender Race Major Year in school Home institution