Critical Thinking in Science

By the end, the learner can

• Pollutant source evaluation: evaluates multiple potential pollutant pathways in a watershed using available monitoring data and selects most probable sources for investigation
• Model assumption scrutiny: challenges underlying assumptions in hydrologic models by comparing outputs against observed stream gauge or water quality monitoring data
• Multi-criteria analysis: weighs technology options, cost implications, and market demand simultaneously to assess project feasibility and recommend approaches

Session plan

1. 15 minThe caseWhere this shows up: engineering offices and labs, working with managers, engineers, technicians. Conditions to expect: analytical, precision-driven, project-based. Entry roles this maps to: Engineering Technologists and Technicians, Except Drafters, All Other, Non-Destructive Testing Specialists, Aerospace Engineering and Operations Technologists and Technicians.
   • weighs technology options, cost implications, and market demand simultaneously to assess project feasibility and recommend approaches
   From Architectural and Engineering Managers (11-9041.00)
2. 20 minEvidence logWork the task on your own first. Support is available, but ask for it out loud so the group hears what got you stuck.
   • Tools in play: Data base user interface and query software, Analytical or scientific software, Computer aided design CAD software.
3. 10 minCompare readingsCompare answers before the debrief. Where the room split is the useful part — the split usually marks a real judgment call rather than a knowledge gap.
   • Where did two people read the same situation differently, and what did each notice?
   • Which answer would survive a supervisor asking "why did you do it that way?"
4. 10 minWhat the record showedClose the loop: what changed between the first attempt and the last, and what would have to be true for critical thinking to hold up on a bad day.