Critical Design Thinking As A Supervisory Framework For Final Year Project Development In Biometric System

Abstract

This paper examines the application of the Critical Design Thinking (CDT) framework as a supervisory model for the development of Final Year Projects (FYPs) in technical higher education. Traditional supervision methods, which often emphasize system deliverables and code functionality, tend to overlook the cultivation of reflective thinking and adaptive problem-solving skills crucial for 21st-century engineering graduates. Addressing this issue, the study aims to demonstrate how CDT can foster deeper learning outcomes, enhance student engagement, and promote innovation through structured, reflective, and iterative processes.  This study employed a qualitative case study approach at a Malaysian polytechnic, focusing on the supervision of a student developing a facial recognition-based attendance system. The project progressed through the five phases of CDT —empathizing, defining, ideating, prototyping, and testing—under close guidance from the supervisor, who served as a facilitator and co-learner. Data was collected through supervision logs, design journals, performance metrics, and reflective memos.  Findings reveal that the system achieved up to 93% accuracy under optimal lighting and proximity conditions. Beyond technical success, the CDT approach contributed to notable gains in student coding proficiency, analytical reasoning, and contextual awareness. The iterative and collaborative nature of the CDT process facilitated timely adjustments to address environmental challenges, such as lighting variability and user interface considerations.  The novelty of this study lies in repositioning FYP supervision as a dynamic, co-constructive practice rather than a linear delivery of technical tasks. This provides empirical validation of CDT as a scalable, pedagogically sound framework capable of aligning technical education with both industry expectations and broader societal needs. These insights offer significant implications for curriculum designers, academic supervisors, and institutions seeking to modernize engineering education.