Paul's model for critical thinking was infused into a community college history course by teaching the model explicitly and training students to use the model to analyze primary documents. Pretests and posttests included an Advanced Placement Examination, the Ennis-Weir Critical Thinking Essay Test, the California Critical Thinking Dispositions Inventory, and a History Content Exam. ANCOVA indicated that the experimental group performed significantly higher than the control group in historical thinking and in general critical thinking skills, with large effect sizes in each case. No significant differences were found on the other tests. Infusing Paul's model into classroom activities appeared to promote students' abilities to think historically and critically without lessening their end of term knowledge of history content.
For over 20 years now, the importance of critical thinking as an educational objective has been widely acknowledged by educators as well as by business and political leaders (Association of American Colleges, 1985; Hunt, 1995; National Education Goals Panel, 1991; Norris, 1985; Paul, 1993; Scriven, 1985; Secretary's Commission on Achieving Necessary Skills, 1991). Scholars have responded to increased demands for students who can think critically by theorizing about necessary and sufficient components of the concept, researching factors that may contribute to its enhancement, developing instructional models to strengthen critical thinking, and creating and revising assessment instruments. While much has been accomplished, critical thinking is a complex construct not easily limited to a single definition, and many areas of uncertainty and disagreement remain as cognitive scientists, educational researchers, and philosophers continue to pursue their own visions of critical thinking based in diverse research traditions (e.g., Ennis, 1992; Facione, 1984; Halpern, 1993; Johnson, 1996; Lipman, 1988; McPeck, 1981; Paul, 1993; Perkins, Jay, & Tishman, 1993; Resnick, 1987).
In spite of some contentious differences, experts have made attempts at consensus (e.g. Facione, 1990) and general characterizations of critical thinking and lists of component skills and dispositions overlap considerably. These typically include the ability and propensity to analyze complex issues and situations, to recognize and to evaluate assumptions and alternative points of view according to acceptable criteria, to make sound inferences and to draw reasonable conclusions based on reliable information, and to make interdisciplinary connections and to transfer insights to new contexts.
Research has provided some insights into factors that may enhance students' abilities to think critically. Clearly, more years of education are associated with higher scores on tests for critical thinking, but performance in general is poor and many students graduate from college lacking proficiency as critical thinkers (Bangert-Drowns & Bankert, 1990: Browne & Keeley, 1988: Keeley, 1992: Kuhn, 1992; McMillan, 1987: Pascarella & Terenzini, 1991; Perkins, 1985). Although findings from studies examining the magnitude of gains in critical thinking have varied, tentative estimates of around 0.50 SD improvement seem to be about average for the freshman year (Dressel & Mayhew, 1954; Pascarella & Terenzini, 1991). Evidence strongly favors explicit instruction over implicit instruction, and more intense programs have been shown to be more effective than programs focusing only periodically on explicit instruction in critical thinking. On the other hand, efforts to examine specific instructional programs for methods that enhance critical thinking have provided mixed, even inconsistent, results (Bangert-Drowns & Bankert. 1990: Keeley, 1992). Tsui (1999) concludes that types of instructional methods influence gains in critical thinking slightly more than kinds of courses students take.
Numerous instructional models based on varied conceptions of critical thinking have been developed to teach students to become better thinkers (for examples of models used for post-secondary instruction, see Browne & Keeley, 1994: Ennis, 1996: Chaffee, 1994: Foundation for Critical Thinking, 1998; Halpern, 1996; King, 1994). The present investigation sought to test a prominent model for critical thinking to determine if it could provide an effective strategy for teaching critical thinking skills in a community college history course. The model developed by Richard Paul was chosen because of its sound historical and theoretical base (drawing on both philosophical and psychological approaches to critical thinking); its general applicability to improving both academic and real world reasoning; its appropriateness for infusion into any course material (in this case, history) or for a general critical thinking course; and its concern with intellectual criteria and dispositional attributes in addition to thinking skills. Further, this model encourages and enhances instructional approaches that have been associated with improvement in students' abilities to think critically, such as written assignments designed to increase critical thinking, high cognitive level of student participation in discussion, and papers critiqued by instructors (and peers) using intellectual criteria drawn from a broad concept of critical thinking (Pascarella & Terenzini, 1991; Tsui, 1998). The fundamentals of Paul's model and further information about his views on critical thinking are available on his website (Center for Critical Thinking, 2000) and in publications of the Foundation for Critical Thinking (1998: Paul, 1993).
Paul's model for critical thinking centers around three aspects of thinking: elements or components of good reasoning; intellectual standards used to assess the quality of the thinking; and intellectual traits or virtues, essential dispositions of an effective critical thinker (Figure 1). According to Paul, there are eight elements or building blocks basic to any reasoning process or task, whether thinking about an academic discipline, a business decision, a book or article, a political speech, a personal relationship, a consumer purchase, and so on. They are the purpose of the thinking (goal, objective), the question at issue or problem to be solved, fundamental concepts (e.g., ideas, theories, principles), information (data, facts, observations), point of view (frame of reference, perspective), inferences (interpretations, conclusions, solutions), assumptions (things taken for granted), and implications (consequences). Paul also emphasizes universal intellectual standards essential for evaluating thinking, including clarity, accuracy, precision, relevance, sufficiency, logic, depth, and breadth. The affective component of Paul's model addresses the development of such traits or virtues of the reasoning mind as intellectual humility, empathy, perseverance, and fairmindedness. He is also known for his emphasis on "strong sense" critical thinking, an open and honest search for the best possible conclusion that involves assessing one' own thinking and acting in accord with the principles of critical thought (Foundation for Critical Thinking, 1998; Paul, 1993).
[ILLUSTRATION OMITTED]
The present study was the first empirical test of Paul's model known to this researcher. While this study focused on the effectiveness of Paul's model for critical thinking and its potential for use in a college setting, it also bears on several current issues in critical thinking research, including explicit versus implicit instruction and whether teaching for critical thinking in a specific subject area can result in, improvements in students' general thinking abilities. This study compared an infusion approach, which makes general principles of critical thinking explicit using standard subject matter content (U.S. history, in this study), to an immersion approach, which provides similar thought-provoking standard subject matter content but does not make general principles of critical thinking explicit. (See Ennis, 1992, for a discussion of four basic approaches to teaching critical thinking).
More specifically, the purposes of this study were to assess the effect of infusing Richard Paul's model for critical thinking into a one-semester U.S. history course on community college students' (a) abilities to think historically, (b) abilities to think critically about everyday issues, (c) dispositions toward thinking critically, and (d) knowledge of history content. The researcher expected that an intensive emphasis on critical thinking would result in improvement in students' abilities to think historically, general critical thinking abilities, and dispositions toward critical thinking as a result of the explicit nature of the training. History content scores were not expected to differ between control and experimental groups since both groups were given opportunities to think deeply about historical content.
Method
Participants
Students in four sections of U.S. History 1877 to the Present at a moderate size community college in central Florida participated in the study. Two sections were randomly selected to serve as the experimental group, and the other two sections served as the control group. The resulting experimental group (n = 29) consisted of 20 females and 9 males, 21 students under 22 and 8 students 22 and older. The control group (n=23) consisted of 14 females and 9 males, 15 students under 22 and 8 students 22 and older. These numbers represent students who completed course requirements. Percentages of students who did not complete the course were consistent across groups and with other instructors teaching the same course but not participating in the study.
Instructional Method and Materials
Richard Paul's model for critical thinking, described in the introductory section, was used as the basis for the experimental treatment in this study (Figure 1). The instructor integrated Paul's model into experimental sections of the U.S. history course by (a) teaching the model explicitly, (b) training students to use the elements of reasoning to analyze primary source documents and historical problems, (c) giving out-of-class assignments that required students to use the model, (d) providing a packet of handouts that graphically displayed and further explained the model, and (e) conducting classroom discussions by focusing on the elements and standards set forth in the model. In this study, critical thinking was developed mainly through instruction in analysis and interpretation of primary source documents.
The researcher served as the instructor in all four sections, and careful attention was paid to consistency of instructional approach and avoidance of bias in favor of one group or the other. Results from "Student Perception of Instruction" forms required by the participating institution confirmed the researcher's claim of consistency of instruction across groups (15 statements ranked 4 to 1, Experimental M = 3.81, Control M = 3.84 out of M = 4 possible).
The course met for three hours per week for fifteen weeks. Following pre-testing, students in the experimental group were taught to use the elements of reasoning to analyze historical documents selected from a required source reader Constructing the American Past, Volume 2 (Gorn, Roberts, & Bilhartz, 1995). Instructional activities included individual, small-group, and total class components. After introduction to and practice with the eight elements of reasoning, the instructor distributed "Reasoning about History" worksheets, a handout developed by the researcher to help students focus on the elements of reasoning as they interpreted historical documents (Figure 2).
Figure 2.
Reasoning about History Worksheet
Title, issue, subject, etc. under consideration:
Elements of Reasoning
1. What are the main Point(s) of View, or Frame(s) of Reference?
a. [Sourcing] Who is the author, what point of view does he or she bring to this issue, and how credible is he or she?
b. [Contextualization] In what context (frame of reference) was this document produced? What political, economic, social, and cultural circumstances might have affected this document?
2. What is the main Purpose, Goal, or End in View?
3. What is (are) the key Question(s) at Issue or Problem(s) to be Solved? Why is it important to consider this (these) issue(s)?
4. What is the most important Data, Information, or Evidence (How do they know what they know? Is the information relevant and sufficient to support conclusions?)
5. What main Assumptions underlie the thinking (things taken for granted, explicit and implicit)? [Consider assumptions in the context of the period]
6. What key Concepts and Ideas need to be understood? (Clarify at least three.) [Consider the concepts and terms in the context of the period]
7. What main Inferences or Interpretations are made, leading to Conclusions?
8. What would be the main Implications and Consequences if this course of action or belief is accepted, or not accepted?
9. [Corroboration] What do other documents, etc. on the same topic contribute to understanding the issue? Do the documents agree, and if not, which has a stronger argument?
Paul's approach to critical thinking was modeled and encouraged in class discussions and written work throughout the semester. In total, students in experimental sections received about 90 minutes of explicit instruction in critical thinking distributed over the semester. They also had multiple opportunities, written and oral, collaboratively and individually, to practice using Paul's model.
With the exception of training in Paul's model, all participants in the study used the same textbooks, received the same activity assignments, were taught in the same manner, and took the same exams. All students received information on general strategies for historical thinking (Wineburg, 1991). Students in the control group read the same primary source documents as students in the experimental group, but they were assigned to respond to questions (labeled "Critical Thinking") provided at the end of each reading by the authors of the source reader (Gorn, Roberts. & Bilhartz, 1995). They did not receive the critical thinking packets or "Reasoning About History" worksheets, nor were they taught to apply Richard Paul's model for critical thinking to document analysis.
Instruments
This study compared results from four instruments, selected after an extensive review of available assessments for critical thinking and recognition that all available instruments have some limitations (Reed, 1998; Tsui, 1998). A disclosed Document Based Question (DBQ) section of the 1986 Advanced Placement Examination for United States History (Spoehr & Fraker, 1995) was used to measure achievement in document analysis and interpretation, or historical thinking. It required students to write an essay integrating knowledge of U.S. history with accurate interpretations of the primary documents provided with the question. The Ennis-Weir Critical Thinking Essay Test (Ennis & Weir, 1985), which tests students' abilities to respond to arguments as they occur naturally in discussion, disputation, and debate in the real world, served as a test of general critical thinking skills. Both the DBQ and the Ennis-Weir required responses generated by students. The California Critical Thinking Dispositions Inventory (CCTDI; Facione & Facione, 1992) was used to measure students' inclinations or dispositions toward critical thinking. Finally, students' content knowledge of U. S. History 1877 to the Present was tested using thirty-five multiple-choice questions selected from two disclosed forms of the College Board Achievement Test in American History and Social Studies, developed by the Educational Testing Service (1990, 1994).
Students in both the experimental and control groups took the Ennis-Weir, the CCTDI, and the History Content Exam as pretests within the first two weeks of the semester and again at the end as posttests. The History Content Exam and the DBQ were given at the end of the semester as two sections of the final exam. The DBQ was not given to students at the beginning of the study because it required an essay based on knowledge and skills most students did not possess.
Issues of validity and reliability were considered for each instrument. Both the AP Exam for U.S. History and the College Board Achievement Test in American History and Social Studies are standardized instruments widely accepted as content validated and reliable, frequently subjected to rigorous reviews for continued validity. The Document Based Question selected for use in this study and the questions selected for the History Content Exam were carefully matched to course content. Additionally, on the History Content Exam, careful attention was paid to maintaining a variety of item difficulty levels consistent with the structure of ETS exams to avoid a possible ceiling effect.
The authors of the Ennis-Weir Critical Thinking Essay Test and the CCTDI claim content validity also. The Ennis-Weir provides a reasonably authentic way to assess students' abilities to think critically about an everyday issue, and the scoring material and instructions provided allow the test to be reliably scored. The CCTDI was created using a consensus definition of critical thinking produced by a panel of 46 experts using Delphi procedures.
Internal consistency reliability on the History Content Exam on the pretest was K-R 20 = .69 and on the posttest was K-R 20 = .77. Cronbach's alpha reliabilities on the CCTDI were .86 pretest and .90 posttest.
The two essay instruments were blind-scored by two raters; experimental and control group essays were mixed together, and participants' social security numbers were used to identify essays. To provide maximum accuracy in scoring, raters discussed and resolved discrepancies of over one point on the DBQ (scale 0 to 9) or over three points on the Ennis-Weir (scale -9 to 29). Mean scores were used for data analysis. Using this approach to scoring, interrater reliability on the DBQ was .99 (taken as a posttest only). On the Ennis --Weir, interrater reliability was .98 on the pretest and .99 on the posttest.
Student Perception of Instruction forms and interviews with eight randomly selected students (two from each of the four sections) provided an opportunity to obtain information on students' reactions to primary source reading assignments.
Data Analysis
Descriptive statistics were used to summarize achievement scores at the beginning (pretest) and end (posttest) of the course by method of instruction and to determine that the samples could be considered normally distributed. An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) using pretests as covariates was used to determine if group means differed significantly from each other. Pretest scores on the History Content Exam were used as the covariate for the DBQ posttest since the DBQ also tests for knowledge of history content. For the Ennis-Weir Critical Thinking Essay Test, the CCTDI, and the History Content Exam, their respective pretests served as covariates for posttest scores. Data from each instrument were screened for ANCOVA assumptions (homogeneity of regression, linearity, homogeneity of variances, and normality), and it did not appear that the assumptions of ANCOVA were violated on any of the outcome variables. F values were examined for significance at [Alpha] = .05
ْ
________*التــَّـوْقـْـيـعُ*_________
لا أحد يظن أن العظماء تعساء إلا العظماء أنفسهم. إدوارد ينج: شاعر إنجليزي
أمس في 2:16 am من طرف freeman
