Researching Critical Thinking A cautionary tale

Transcription

1 Presenter s Name & Job Title Date Researching Critical Thinking A cautionary tale Professor Lesley-Jane Eales-Reynolds

2 Why and What is critical thinking? Teaching for Critical Thinking AACTs project What have we learned?

3 Why critical thinking? A defining concept of the Western University (Bartlett, 1997) >90% of faculty in USA: CT most important element of university education (Bok, 2006) Employability Critically evaluate arguments, assumptions, abstract concepts and data to make judgments, and to frame appropriate questions to achieve a solution - or identify a range of solutions - to a problem (QAA, 2008)

4 Critical thinking -definitions..a desire to seek, patience to doubt, fondness to meditate, slowness to assert, readiness to consider, carefulness to dispose and set in order; and hatred for every kind of imposture. Francis Bacon, (1605).. Critically evaluate arguments, assumptions, abstract concepts and data to make judgments, and to frame appropriate questions to achieve a solution - or identify a range of solutions - to a problem (QAA, 2008)

5 Teaching Critical Thinking Typology of Critical Thinking instruction (Ennis, 1989) General approach CT taught separately Infusion approach CT infused in other subject matter Immersion approach CT a result of immersion in disciplinary knowledge Combination/ Mixed

6 Teaching Critical Thinking Behar-Horenstein & Niu (2011) 42 studies 52% used immersion approach Improvement more likely when teaching is explicit No single method consistently better/ worse Development dependent upon environment, instructor training & instructor-student interaction Abrami et al (2008) Largest effect mixed with CT as independent track within course Smallest effect immersion where CT is a bi product further reduced when CT skills are not a course objective Larger instructional effects when CT requirements are clear and important part of course design. Most effective - developing CT skills separately and then applying them to course content explicitly. Least effective - Immersing students in thought provoking subject matter instruction without explicit use of CT principles.

7 Developing Critical Thinking Underlying Strategies (Ennis,2011) Reflection, Reasons, Alternatives (RRA): Encourage students to be Reflective; stop and think, instead of making snap judgments, or accepting what is presented in the media. Encourage students to have good Reasons for their views and to seek reasons for others' views. Ask questions How do you know, "What are the reasons?" and Is that a good source of information? Emphasize alertness for Alternative hypotheses, conclusions, explanations, sources of evidence, points of view, plans, etc.

8 Perhaps the simplest approach: Develop a questioning approach to everything -Who? -What? -Where? -How? -WHY?

9 BACKGROUND TO AACTS PROJECT LJER; Dr Colin Clarke; Dr Clarissa Wilks (KUL); Professor Carol Grech (UniSA); Dr David Gillham (Flinders) AACTs project Authentic Assessment for Critical Thinking Skills Australian WRAP project evidence-based practice for nurses Tool which was behaviourist and constructivist in nature structured learning outputs for use in practice

10 WRAP tool Web-resource appraisal process (WRAP) tool designed to support student s critical, analytical skills at UniSA Largely designed for managing typical published literature from established databases relevant to practice-based courses such as nursing, medicine, biomedical sciences etc.

11 WRAP project

12 WRAP Data Input

13 WRAP Outputs -production of systematic reviews -uses standardised and authoritative search engines and repositories & limits student choice in which they may use. -not effective for other disciplines, assessment types or evaluation of other online resources (video, images, other types of printed material). -analysis of outputs does not suggest that it encourages development of critical thinking skills either.

14 AACTS PROJECT To understand the concept of critical thinking in different disciplines and HE systems To explore international perceptions of CT and disciplinary differences To understand student perceptions of assessment and how they use e-resources to support it To explore student perceptions of critical thinking and how they manifest it in their assessment artefacts To develop fully customisable tool and the underlying pedagogy to support development of CT through authentic assessment

15 Initial findings International Delphi study demonstrates no interdisciplinary consensus due to the way in which language is used. Staff don t know or do it intuitively implications for assessment. Students tend to use the resources they are told to use lack of discovery or self-direction.

16 CRITICAL THINKING Interpretation understanding and ability to express meaning or significance Analysis identify intended and actual relationships between statements Evaluation assess the credibility of statements etc. Inference identify and secure elements needed to draw reasonable conclusions, conjectures, hypotheses Explanation- able to cogently present results of ones reasoning Self-regulation(Metacognition) to monitor ones cognitive activities, the elements used in them and the results educed. Information seeking- able to competently and systematically identify relevant sources of information to help develop your knowledge and understanding All of this needs to be underpinned by a disposition toward purposeful reflective judgement (Facione. Critical Thinking What it is and Why it Counts 1998)

17 Disaster strikes! WRAP not transferable to UK legacy systems IT lead goes on maternity leave for a year The phoenix rises! Realisation of the need for work on CT understanding Students develop AACTs tool

18 AACTs Tool Document Title Presenter s Name & Job Title Date

19 AACTs tool: Allows authoring but is not intuitive Allows different outputs but this is part of authoring Allows students to input and change Output is de facto textual

20 Some Conclusions from the Project -Lack of understanding/consensus of CT -If you can t explain it, how can you teach or assess it? -Web 2.0 tools may support and scaffold CT development but students still need choice what suits them -Assessment and feedback skills need to be enhanced to support CT development -Assessment artefact design is crucial to CT development in students.

21 Further development Design students using Agile methodology and research outcomes produced design for new tool Critica Based on Cassandra platform, allows generation of big data Open access and user friendly interface call for participants to join usability testing in Sept. Scaffolds development of assessment artefacts for CT development. Please contact

22 Abrami, P. C., Bernard, R. M., Borokhovski, E., Wade, A., Surkes, M. A., Tamim, R., & Zhang, D. (2008). Instructional Interventions Affecting Critical Thinking Skills and Dispositions: A Stage 1 Meta-Analysis. Review of Educational Research, 78(4), doi: / Bartlett, D. J., & Cox, P. D. (2002). Measuring Change in Students Critical Thinking Ability: Implications for Health Care Education. Journal of Allied Health, 31(2), Behar-Horenstein, L. S., & Niu, L. (2011). Teaching Critical Thinking Skills in Higher Education: A Review of the Literature. Journal of College Teaching & Learning, 8(2), Eales-Reynolds, LJ., Gillham,D., Grech, C., Clarke,C, Cornell, J (2012) A study of the development of critical thinking skills using an innovative Web 2.0 tool. Nurse Education Today, 32,

23 Ennis, R. (2011). Critical Thinking. Inquiry: Critical Thinking Across the Disciplines, 26(1), Ennis, R. H. (1989). Critical thinking and subject specificity: Clarification and needed research. Educational researcher, 18(3), Facione, P. A. (1998). Critical thinking: What it is and why it counts. Millbrae, CA: California Academic Press. Retrieved February, 26, 28. Paul, R. (2005). The State of Critical Thinking Today. New Directions for Community Colleges. Retrieved from