Overview and Comparison of Assessment Tools for Integrative Thinking

Abstract

College of Engineering where she oversaw outreach, recruiting, retention and enrichment programs for the college. Since 2013, she serves as the Executive Director for Industry and Nonprofit Partnerships with responsibilities to increase opportunities for undergraduates engineering students to engage in experiential learning multidisciplinary team projects. These include promoting capstone design projects sponsored by industry, developing the teaching the Engineering Projects in Community Service course, and developing curricular and co-curricular programs at the Engineering Innovation Center which promote innovation and entrepreneurship among engineering students and in collaborations with other colleges on campus and partnering with other institutions across the country. Overview and Comparison of Assessment Tools for Integrative Thinking AbstractIntegrative thinking is an essential competency for graduating engineers. Engineering graduates, who are prepared to address significant engineering challenges, e.g., Engineering Grand Challenges, can effectively integrate fragments from multiple disciplines to solve problems. To help students develop integrative thinking skills, engineering programs need to articulate how they will observe, evaluate, and support student development. Universities have recognized the need for students to engage in interdisciplinary projects and develop skills needed to support industry needs. To address that need, they have offered programs ranging from semester-long courses to weekend challenges designed to engage students in multidisciplinary team projects. However, effectiveness of instructional programs intended to support student development with respect to integrative thinking must be evaluated through assessment. While integrative thinking is much discussed in engineering education, evaluation approaches are few and not widely incorporated into engineering curriculum.The authors have identified four existing approaches for evaluating integrative thinking: (A) Interdisciplinary Writing Assessment Profiles with the following elements: (i) drawing on disciplinary sources, (ii) critical argumentation, (iii) multidisciplinary perspectives, and (iv) interdisciplinary integration; (B) Targeted Assessment Framework with the following elements: (i) purposefulness, (ii) disciplinary grounding, (iii) integration, and (iv) critical awareness; (C) Transdisciplinary Research Quality Framework rubric with the following elements: (i) relevance, (ii) credibility, (iii) legitimacy, (iv) and effectiveness; and (D) Integrative Learning VALUE Rubric with the following elements: (i) connections to experience, (ii) connections to discipline, (iii) transfer, (iv) integrated communication, and (v) reflection and self-assessment. Following descriptions of the four approaches, the authors will offer criteria to compare assessment instruments for integrative thinking to assist other researchers in identifying most appropriate tools for assessing such skills in their curricula or programs.

Delineating the parameters of integrated thinking: A synthetic literature review

“…Integrative thinking necessitates an individual's conscious and continual growth of their ability to manage complexity, adaptability and openmindedness in order to cognitively process the world around them (Miller 1981). Research on the development of integrative thinking in fields other than accounting during higher education seems to prefer the term integrative thinking over integrated thinking (Kallio 2011;Lattemann & Fritz 2014;O'Keefe et al 2021;Ortega, Lagoudas & Froyd 2017). This confirms the views of McGuigan et al (2020) as these articles refer to the development of integrative thought within an individual.…”

Augmented and Virtual Reality Experiences for Learning Robotics and Training Integrative Thinking Skills

“…Educators point out that engineering programs rarely pay explicit attention to fostering and assessing students' integrative thinking skills [32]. We did not find studies addressing this subject in the educational robotics literature.…”