Handbook of research on advancing critical thinking in higher education 9781466684126, 1466684127

Table of contents :
Ancient thinking and modern challenges: Socratic education in the 21st century / Frank G. Giuseffi --
Critical thinking and character / Dana Delibovi --
Critical thinking, Socratic seminars, and the college classroom / John D. Long --
The erosion of critical thinking development in post-secondary education: the need to return to liberal education / Michael Robert Hepner --
Critical thinking skills in virtual learning environments / Julie M. Little, Charles Feldhaus --
Developing an assessment program to measure critical thinking: a case study at a small, online college / Caulyne N. Barron --
University teachers' interactions with their online students at an Australian university / Shamsul Arifeen Khan Mamun, P.A. Danaher, Mohammad Mafizur Rahman --
Academic service-learning as a pedagogical tool and strategy: promoting critical thinking among pre-service teachers / Estanislado S. Barrera, IV, Margaret-Mary Sulentic Dowell --
Developing meaning-making to promote critical thinking / Sarah E. Schoper, Craig E. Wagner --
Mapping problems to solutions: logic modeling in a graduate teacher leadership course / Tara Loraine Shepperson, April Blakely --
Teaching critical thinking and the role of team teaching / Stephen D. Brookfield --
Watching TV news: should we approach it like reality TV? / Joseph Albert Cernik --
Critical thinking as a multifaceted phenomenon: a scheme of interdisciplinary research platform / Maria Bednarikova --
Interdisciplinary perceptions: academic acculturation and a pathway to improved critical thinking / Donna M. Velliaris --
Developing critical thinking in doctoral students: issues and solutions / Peter Smith --
Faculty support and guidance for doctoral candidates: promotion of critical thinking / Sherrie L. Wisdom --
Globalization, cross border education, and student migration: determining student institutional choice factors / Ryan Vance Guffey --
The Japanese tertiary education system and its impact on economic conditions from 2000 to 2010: human capital formation / Erin Lee Kalkbrenner --
NAIA to NCAA D-II sports transition: a three-year university case study / Sherrie L. Wisdom, Graham Weir.

Citation preview

Handbook of Research on Advancing Critical Thinking in Higher Education Sherrie Wisdom Lindenwood University, USA Lynda Leavitt Lindenwood University, USA

A volume in the Advances in Higher Education and Professional Development (AHEPD) Book Series

Managing Director: Managing Editor: Director of Intellectual Property & Contracts: Acquisitions Editor: Production Editor: Development Editor: Typesetter: Cover Design:

Lindsay Johnston Austin DeMarco Jan Travers Kayla Wolfe Christina Henning Caitlyn Martin Tucker Knerr Jason Mull

Published in the United States of America by Information Science Reference (an imprint of IGI Global) 701 E. Chocolate Avenue Hershey PA, USA 17033 Tel: 717-533-8845 Fax: 717-533-8661 E-mail: [email protected] Web site: http://www.igi-global.com Copyright © 2015 by IGI Global. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored or distributed in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, without written permission from the publisher. Product or company names used in this set are for identification purposes only. Inclusion of the names of the products or companies does not indicate a claim of ownership by IGI Global of the trademark or registered trademark. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Handbook of research on advancing critical thinking in higher education / Sherrie Wisdom and Lynda Leavitt, editors. pages cm Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 978-1-4666-8411-9 (hardcover) -- ISBN 978-1-4666-8412-6 (ebook) 1. Critical thinking. 2. Education, Higher. I. Wisdom, Sherrie, 1955- editor. II. Leavitt, Lynda, 1957BF441.H283 2015 378.007--dc23 2015008255 This book is published in the IGI Global book series Advances in Higher Education and Professional Development (AHEPD) (ISSN: 2327-6983; eISSN: 2327-6991)

British Cataloguing in Publication Data A Cataloguing in Publication record for this book is available from the British Library. All work contributed to this book is new, previously-unpublished material. The views expressed in this book are those of the authors, but not necessarily of the publisher. For electronic access to this publication, please contact: [email protected].

Advances in Higher Education and Professional Development (AHEPD) Book Series Jared Keengwe University of North Dakota, USA

ISSN: 2327-6983 EISSN: 2327-6991 Mission

As world economies continue to shift and change in response to global financial situations, job markets have begun to demand a more highly-skilled workforce. In many industries a college degree is the minimum requirement and further educational development is expected to advance. With these current trends in mind, the Advances in Higher Education & Professional Development (AHEPD) Book Series provides an outlet for researchers and academics to publish their research in these areas and to distribute these works to practitioners and other researchers. AHEPD encompasses all research dealing with higher education pedagogy, development, and curriculum design, as well as all areas of professional development, regardless of focus.

Coverage

• • • • • • • • •

Adult education Assessment in Higher Education Career Training Coaching and Mentoring Continuing Professional Development Governance in Higher Education Higher Education Policy Pedagogy of Teaching Higher Education Vocational Education

IGI Global is currently accepting manuscripts for publication within this series. To submit a proposal for a volume in this series, please contact our Acquisition Editors at [email protected] or visit: http://www.igi-global.com/publish/.

The Advances in Higher Education and Professional Development (AHEPD) Book Series (ISSN 2327-6983) is published by IGI Global, 701 E. Chocolate Avenue, Hershey, PA 17033-1240, USA, www.igi-global.com. This series is composed of titles available for purchase individually; each title is edited to be contextually exclusive from any other title within the series. For pricing and ordering information please visit http://www.igi-global.com/book-series/advances-higher-education-professional-development/73681. Postmaster: Send all address changes to above address. Copyright © 2015 IGI Global. All rights, including translation in other languages reserved by the publisher. No part of this series may be reproduced or used in any form or by any means – graphics, electronic, or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, taping, or information and retrieval systems – without written permission from the publisher, except for non commercial, educational use, including classroom teaching purposes. The views expressed in this series are those of the authors, but not necessarily of IGI Global.

Titles in this Series

For a list of additional titles in this series, please visit: www.igi-global.com

Handbook of Research on Teacher Education in the Digital Age Margaret L. Niess (Oregon State University, USA) and Henry Gillow-Wiles (Oregon State University, USA) Information Science Reference • copyright 2015 • 811pp • H/C (ISBN: 9781466684034) • US $415.00 (our price) Measuring and Analyzing Informal Learning in the Digital Age Olutoyin Mejiuni (Obafemi Awolowo University, Nigeria) Patricia Cranton (University of New Brunswick, Canada) and Olúfẹ́mi Táíwò (Cornell University, USA) Information Science Reference • copyright 2015 • 336pp • H/C (ISBN: 9781466682658) • US $185.00 (our price) Furthering Higher Education Possibilities through Massive Open Online Courses Anabela Mesquita (CICE – ISCAP / Polytechnic of Porto, Portugal & Minho University, Portugal) and Paula Peres (CICE – ISCAP / Polytechnic of Porto, Portugal) Information Science Reference • copyright 2015 • 308pp • H/C (ISBN: 9781466682795) • US $175.00 (our price) Transformative Curriculum Design in Health Sciences Education Colleen Halupa (A.T. Still University, USA & LeTourneau University, USA) Medical Information Science Reference • copyright 2015 • 388pp • H/C (ISBN: 9781466685710) • US $215.00 (our price) Handbook of Research on Enhancing Teacher Education with Advanced Instructional Technologies Nwachukwu Prince Ololube (Ignatius Ajuru University of Education, Nigeria) Peter James Kpolovie (University of Port Harcourt, Nigeria) and Lazarus Ndiku Makewa (University of Eastern Africa, Kenya) Information Science Reference • copyright 2015 • 477pp • H/C (ISBN: 9781466681620) • US $315.00 (our price) Handbook of Research on Innovative Technology Integration in Higher Education Fredrick Muyia Nafukho (Texas A&M University, USA) and Beverly J. Irby (Texas A&M University, USA) Information Science Reference • copyright 2015 • 478pp • H/C (ISBN: 9781466681705) • US $310.00 (our price) New Voices in Higher Education Research and Scholarship Filipa M. Ribeiro (University of Porto, Portugal) Yurgos Politis (University College Dublin, Ireland) and Bojana Culum (University of Rijeka, Croatia) Information Science Reference • copyright 2015 • 316pp • H/C (ISBN: 9781466672444) • US $185.00 (our price) Innovative Teaching Strategies and New Learning Paradigms in Computer Programming Ricardo Queirós (Polytechnic Institute of Porto, Portugal) Information Science Reference • copyright 2015 • 313pp • H/C (ISBN: 9781466673045) • US $195.00 (our price)

701 E. Chocolate Ave., Hershey, PA 17033 Order online at www.igi-global.com or call 717-533-8845 x100 To place a standing order for titles released in this series, contact: [email protected] Mon-Fri 8:00 am - 5:00 pm (est) or fax 24 hours a day 717-533-8661

Editorial Advisory Board Cynthia Bice, Lindenwood University, USA Toni Gallia, Lindenwood University, USA Beth Kania-Gosche, Lindenwood University, USA Kelly Leavitt, Missouri Baptist University, USA Jennifer M. O’Malley, Lincoln Land Community College, USA Chryssa Sharp, Lindenwood University, USA



List of Contributors

Barrera, IV, Estanislado S. / Louisiana State University, USA......................................................... 171 Barron, Caulyne N. / Dunlap-Stone University, USA........................................................................ 121 Bednarikova, Maria / Slovak University of Technology, Slovakia..................................................... 292 Blakely, April / Eastern Kentucky University, USA............................................................................ 218 Brookfield, Stephen D. / University of St. Thomas, USA................................................................... 246 Cernik, Joseph Albert / Lindenwood University, USA...................................................................... 271 Danaher, P. A. / University of Southern Queensland, Australia......................................................... 142 Delibovi, Dana / Lindenwood University, USA..................................................................................... 21 Dowell, Margaret-Mary Sulentic / Louisiana State University, USA............................................... 171 Feldhaus, Charles / Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis (IUPUI), USA.................... 98 Giuseffi, Frank G. / Missouri Military Academy, USA.......................................................................... 1 Guffey, Ryan Vance / Lindenwood University, USA.......................................................................... 397 Hepner, Michael Robert / St. Louis Community College, USA........................................................... 68 Kalkbrenner, Erin Lee / Lindenwood University, USA..................................................................... 443 Little, Julie M. / Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis (IUPUI), USA.......................... 98 Long, John D. / Lindenwood University, USA...................................................................................... 48 Mamun, Shamsul Arifeen Khan / University of Southern Queensland, Australia........................... 142 Rahman, Mohammad Mafizur / University of Southern Queensland, Australia............................. 142 Schoper, Sarah E. / Western Illinois University, USA........................................................................ 195 Shepperson, Tara Loraine / Eastern Kentucky University, USA....................................................... 218 Smith, Peter / University of Sunderland, UK...................................................................................... 348 Velliaris, Donna M. / Eynesbury Institute of Business and Technology, Australia............................ 323 Wagner, Craig E. / Buena Vista University, USA............................................................................... 195 Weir, Graham / Lindenwood University, USA................................................................................... 472 Wisdom, Sherrie L. / Lindenwood University, USA................................................................... 371,472

 

Table of Contents

Foreword............................................................................................................................................. xvii Preface.................................................................................................................................................. xix Acknowledgment...............................................................................................................................xxiii Section 1 Chapter 1 Ancient Thinking and Modern Challenges: Socratic Education in the 21st Century.............................. 1 Frank G. Giuseffi, Missouri Military Academy, USA Chapter 2 Critical Thinking and Character............................................................................................................ 21 Dana Delibovi, Lindenwood University, USA Chapter 3 Critical Thinking, Socratic Seminars, and the College Classroom........................................................ 48 John D. Long, Lindenwood University, USA Chapter 4 The Erosion of Critical Thinking Development in Post-Secondary Education: The Need to Return to Liberal Education............................................................................................................................... 68 Michael Robert Hepner, St. Louis Community College, USA Section 2 Chapter 5 Critical Thinking Skills in Virtual Learning Environments.................................................................. 98 Julie M. Little, Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis (IUPUI), USA Charles Feldhaus, Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis (IUPUI), USA





Chapter 6 Developing an Assessment Program to Measure Critical Thinking: A Case Study at a Small, Online College..................................................................................................................................... 121 Caulyne N. Barron, Dunlap-Stone University, USA Chapter 7 University Teachers’ Interactions with Their Online Students at an Australian University................ 142 Shamsul Arifeen Khan Mamun, University of Southern Queensland, Australia P. A. Danaher, University of Southern Queensland, Australia Mohammad Mafizur Rahman, University of Southern Queensland, Australia Section 3 Chapter 8 Academic Service-Learning as a Pedagogical Tool and Strategy: Promoting Critical Thinking among Pre-Service Teachers................................................................................................................ 171 Estanislado S. Barrera, IV, Louisiana State University, USA Margaret-Mary Sulentic Dowell, Louisiana State University, USA Chapter 9 Developing Meaning-Making to Promote Critical Thinking............................................................... 195 Sarah E. Schoper, Western Illinois University, USA Craig E. Wagner, Buena Vista University, USA Chapter 10 Mapping Problems to Solutions: Logic Modeling in a Graduate Teacher Leadership Course........... 218 Tara Loraine Shepperson, Eastern Kentucky University, USA April Blakely, Eastern Kentucky University, USA Chapter 11 Teaching Critical Thinking and the Role of Team Teaching............................................................... 246 Stephen D. Brookfield, University of St. Thomas, USA Chapter 12 Watching TV News: Should We Approach It Like Reality TV?......................................................... 271 Joseph Albert Cernik, Lindenwood University, USA Section 4 Chapter 13 Critical Thinking as a Multifaceted Phenomenon: A Scheme of Interdisciplinary Research Platform................................................................................................................................................ 292 Maria Bednarikova, Slovak University of Technology, Slovakia



Chapter 14 Interdisciplinary Perceptions: Academic Acculturation and a Pathway to Improved Critical Thinking............................................................................................................................................... 323 Donna M. Velliaris, Eynesbury Institute of Business and Technology, Australia Section 5 Chapter 15 Developing Critical Thinking in Doctoral Students: Issues and Solutions.......................................... 348 Peter Smith, University of Sunderland, UK Chapter 16 Faculty Support and Guidance for Doctoral Candidates: Promotion of Critical Thinking................. 371 Sherrie L. Wisdom, Lindenwood University, USA Section 6 Chapter 17 Globalization, Cross Border Education, and Student Migration: Determining Student Institutional Choice Factors..................................................................................................................................... 397 Ryan Vance Guffey, Lindenwood University, USA Chapter 18 The Japanese Tertiary Education System and Its Impact on Economic Conditions from 2000 to 2010: Human Capital Formation......................................................................................................... 443 Erin Lee Kalkbrenner, Lindenwood University, USA Chapter 19 NAIA to NCAA D-II Sports Transition: A Three-Year University Case Study.................................. 472 Sherrie L. Wisdom, Lindenwood University, USA Graham Weir, Lindenwood University, USA Compilation of References................................................................................................................ 513 About the Contributors..................................................................................................................... 558 Index.................................................................................................................................................... 564

Detailed Table of Contents

Foreword............................................................................................................................................. xvii Preface.................................................................................................................................................. xix Acknowledgment...............................................................................................................................xxiii Section 1 Chapter 1 Ancient Thinking and Modern Challenges: Socratic Education in the 21st Century.............................. 1 Frank G. Giuseffi, Missouri Military Academy, USA The purpose of this chapter was fourfold: 1) to offer an overview of current thinking on the 21st Century skills educational agenda - its intentions and goals for the future, along with the eventual teaching and learning challenges; 2) to present an historical analysis and several working definitions of critical thinking – an educational objective within the 21st Century skills movement; 3) a brief, yet important description of the life of Socrates as a person and as a teacher- with specific emphasis on the use of his method, and 4) the history and influence the Socratic method has had on critical thinking and its hopeful entry into mainstream 21st Century educational discussion. Chapter 2 Critical Thinking and Character............................................................................................................ 21 Dana Delibovi, Lindenwood University, USA This chapter advances the view that critical thinking and character must be redefined as mutually reinforcing capabilities, and taught in the light of this redefinition. After an analysis of how critical thought and character came to be separated into independent skill sets, the chapter surveys the limited efficacy of skills-based, character-neutral education in critical thinking. Next, the chapter presents rationales and methods for uniting critical thinking and character in higher education, drawing upon philosophical, sociological, and pedagogical evidence in support of this unification. Educational recommendations and directions for future research round out the chapter. Included among these recommendations is an emphasis on relationship-building as an instructional model to integrate education in character and critical thinking. Ultimately, the chapter makes the case that critical thinking cannot be taught effectively to students who have not developed the character necessary to face the consequences of critical thought.  



Chapter 3 Critical Thinking, Socratic Seminars, and the College Classroom........................................................ 48 John D. Long, Lindenwood University, USA In many college classrooms, the requirement that students engage in critical thinking is missing. Students have become point gatherers and not thinkers. The Socratic Seminar, derived from the teaching techniques of Socrates, is a proven method to increase the critical thinking in class, and out. This structured discussion is not a debate. This chapter includes a description of, the purpose for, and successful strategies for conducting a Socratic Seminar, based on the researcher’s experiences. The use of a foundational reading grounds the discussion on a common reference point. The purpose of the seminar is to improve the quality of discussion by having the students be more precise in their questions and answers. Questioning clarity, precision, accuracy, relevance, depth, and breadth of statements forces graduate students to move past the shallow parts of discussion to areas which more fully explore a topic. Graduate level work requires this depth of understanding and this method improves their ability for in-depth discussion. Chapter 4 The Erosion of Critical Thinking Development in Post-Secondary Education: The Need to Return to Liberal Education............................................................................................................................... 68 Michael Robert Hepner, St. Louis Community College, USA A quick look at virtually any list of college-level learning outcomes will almost certainly uncover the desire to develop critical thinking skills. While prioritizing the development of critical thinking skills on campuses nationwide is a noble cause, issues quickly arise because the definition of critical thinking varies widely amongst the different disciplines, so this chapter provides a history of the idea of critical thinking in higher education, as well as various critical thinking development strategies and assessment instruments. This chapter also outlines the need for the academe to move from simply mentioning the development of critical thinking skills in various institutional documents to prioritizing such skills through the return of liberal education. Section 2 Chapter 5 Critical Thinking Skills in Virtual Learning Environments.................................................................. 98 Julie M. Little, Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis (IUPUI), USA Charles Feldhaus, Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis (IUPUI), USA As the increase in the growth of online education continues with the expansion of both online courses and programs within higher education, the most recent challenge faced by educators is how to incorporate the basic skill of critical thinking into synchronous and asynchronous virtual courses successfully. For instructors, it is then crucial to understand the correlation between critical thinking and an online learning environment. The greater goal of this chapter is to better understand the intersection of critical thinking within online delivery systems and virtual learning environments. This chapter also examines the various barriers and challenges to successful integration of delivering critical thinking courses online, while at the same time building on existing critical thinking research in an effort to connect existing critical thinking concepts to current new media and web 2.0 tools in order to reach the ‘digital native’ in the online course.



Chapter 6 Developing an Assessment Program to Measure Critical Thinking: A Case Study at a Small, Online College..................................................................................................................................... 121 Caulyne N. Barron, Dunlap-Stone University, USA This chapter posits that the assessment cycle is a valuable part of the discussion of teaching critical thinking skills in post-secondary settings. Acknowledging that critical thinking is a crucial skill for post-secondary students, the chapter ties accreditation mandates to the need to include robust outcomes assessment measures in college programs that teach critical thinking. The chapter traces one small, nationally-accredited online college’s efforts to develop a robust assessment plan to measure how well students met general education and program objectives, particularly those related to critical thinking skills in a business program. The efforts to comply with accreditation standards and to demonstrate a culture of assessment resulted in a culture shift that sought meaningful data about how well the college was educating its students and meeting its mission. Chapter 7 University Teachers’ Interactions with Their Online Students at an Australian University................ 142 Shamsul Arifeen Khan Mamun, University of Southern Queensland, Australia P. A. Danaher, University of Southern Queensland, Australia Mohammad Mafizur Rahman, University of Southern Queensland, Australia This chapter focuses on teacher-student interactions in the context of the use of digital technologies for online teaching and learning in an Australian university using thematic analysis and focus group discussion data. Cotemporary scholars agree that the factors influencing teacher–student interactions in online environments are diverse and multiple and are framed by a complex set of historically grounded and socially mediated forces. One potentially fruitful way to interrogate these factors and forces is to draw on aspects of affordance theory, by examining the kinds of relationships that are (and are not) afforded by particular digital technologies in those online environments. More broadly, affordance theory emerges as a useful conceptual lens for understanding the influences on and the impacts of teacher– student interactions using digital technologies in online environments. Those influences and impacts in turn are crucial to (re-)visioning digital futures in the context of students’ learning outcomes in tertiary education, and to advancing critical thinking in higher education. Section 3 Chapter 8 Academic Service-Learning as a Pedagogical Tool and Strategy: Promoting Critical Thinking among Pre-Service Teachers................................................................................................................ 171 Estanislado S. Barrera, IV, Louisiana State University, USA Margaret-Mary Sulentic Dowell, Louisiana State University, USA This chapter presents academic service-learning (AS-L) as a pedagogical tool and strategy for promoting critical thinking among pre-service teachers. The results of the two cases discussed reveal that many well-intentioned young education majors’ frames of reference about urban education indicate a dissonance of experience. Public urban education in the US is becoming increasingly stratified with teachers representing White, female, middle income backgrounds and resultant perspectives, but public



school children in the United States represent families of color and communities that are predominantly poor. AS-L truly promotes critical thinking about teaching and learning, especially when the tensions surrounding difference surface. Findings indicate that pre-service teachers must first overcome bias, negative expectations, and stereotypes before they synthesize the elements of the instructional process that leads to achieving reflective praxis. Chapter 9 Developing Meaning-Making to Promote Critical Thinking............................................................... 195 Sarah E. Schoper, Western Illinois University, USA Craig E. Wagner, Buena Vista University, USA Promoting critical thinking is a demand today’s teachers are asked to meet (Association of American Colleges and University [AAC&U], 2005; Hart Research Associates, 2013), yet doing so requires that teachers themselves are critical thinkers. In order to critically think, teachers must have the capacity to make meaning complexly. Making meaning complexly allows for individuals to consider experiences from multiple perspectives and make responsible, ethical decisions for the common good. In other words, complex meaning making allows for critical thinking. Thus, a method for promoting critical thinking is to develop complexity in how meaning is made, and one way to do so is to implement the learning partnerships model (Baxter Magolda, 2004). This chapter explores using the learning partnerships model in the classroom to engage in the development of how one makes meaning, so as to develop critical thinking. Chapter 10 Mapping Problems to Solutions: Logic Modeling in a Graduate Teacher Leadership Course........... 218 Tara Loraine Shepperson, Eastern Kentucky University, USA April Blakely, Eastern Kentucky University, USA Faculty used visualization and inquiry methods to help teacher leaders in a master’s course design problem-to-solution exercises. These assignments were based on an actual educational issue present in their school. By developing both a problem and solution model, students were able to experience real-world problem-based learning. This chapter presents theories supporting the approach, examples of exercises, and some lessons learned after working with 300 students over two years. Although taught online and to geographically dispersed students, the logic model exercise replicated many aspects of clinical experiences and provided professional skill development. The value of using logic models to represent real-world phenomena and to provide authentic learning experiences to teacher leaders is discussed. Chapter 11 Teaching Critical Thinking and the Role of Team Teaching............................................................... 246 Stephen D. Brookfield, University of St. Thomas, USA Critical thinking pedagogy is usually conceived as a solo teacher working with multiple students. Yet, if we take seriously the finding that students benefit enormously from seeing their instructors model critical thinking in front of them, and telling them that this is what they are doing, then team teaching represents a missed opportunity in this pedagogy. Instructors teaching as part of a team can show students how to ask questions of each other, how to disagree without condemning a peer, how to open each other up to multiple perspectives, and how to point out assumptions that each other holds. When all members of a teaching participate in all planning, instruction and evaluation, then students can see a critical dialogue unfolding before them. After laying out research on how students learn to think critically this chapter outlines the benefits of team teaching for both students and faculty members.



Chapter 12 Watching TV News: Should We Approach It Like Reality TV?......................................................... 271 Joseph Albert Cernik, Lindenwood University, USA This chapter focuses on the shortcomings of learning about complex policy issues from television news. The chapter uses the Vanderbilt University Television News Archive website to examine issues raised and not raised by television news, as well as the duration of time spent on issues by news shows. Examining the limitations of television news’ ability to present and address complex public policy issues serves as a means to focus on critical thinking in the higher education setting. Two public policy issues are explored in this chapter, Constitutional interpretation and the Affordable Care Act, sometimes referred to as ObamaCare, as the means to show how limited television news is regarding presenting the often frustrating aspects of complex policy issues. Several methods used by the author to help students apply critical thinking skills are discussed. The results of these methods are also addressed. Section 4 Chapter 13 Critical Thinking as a Multifaceted Phenomenon: A Scheme of Interdisciplinary Research Platform................................................................................................................................................ 292 Maria Bednarikova, Slovak University of Technology, Slovakia The chapter deals with critical thinking (CT) theoretical modeling. CT is explained as a multifaceted phenomenon that should be examined systematically on interdisciplinary platform. The prototype of such a platform is that of cognitive sciences. The basic issues linked to an interdisciplinary research of CT are: relations between CT and language, logical and cognitive operations in the process of critical analysis, methods of CT and their anchoring in the methodology of science, the process of CT in relation to personal dispositions and attitudes, possibilities of development, and evaluation of CT within educational and learning processes. The possibilities of a CT development are specified in the scientific methodology classes where students are guided through propositional logic, towards the analysis of judgments and arguments so they are capable of drafting research papers that have explanatory and argumentative character. The mutual conditionality between the scientific methodology, the procedure of scientific research, and the basic thought operation of CT is stressed. Chapter 14 Interdisciplinary Perceptions: Academic Acculturation and a Pathway to Improved Critical Thinking............................................................................................................................................... 323 Donna M. Velliaris, Eynesbury Institute of Business and Technology, Australia This chapter explicates a small-scale action research study that utilised qualitative survey data derived from academic lecturers at the Eynesbury Institute of Business and Technology (EIBT) into their perceptions of ‘critical thinking’. EIBT offers pre-university pathways in the form of diploma programs identical to the first-year of a Bachelor of Business, Information Technology, or Engineering at the partner institution. Interest was in the potential consistencies/inconsistencies in understanding(s) of critical thinking among academics and the ways in which they have/are incorporating related pedagogical activit(ies) into the delivery of pathway courses to an exclusively international and non-native English speaking student



population. The findings reveal that EIBT academic staff share similar definitions and insights in relation to critical thinking and are implementing many and varied techniques to enable successful acculturation of EIBT students to Western academic practices prior to them transitioning to either The University of Adelaide or the University of South Australia. Section 5 Chapter 15 Developing Critical Thinking in Doctoral Students: Issues and Solutions.......................................... 348 Peter Smith, University of Sunderland, UK The PhD is the highest level of academic qualification, and is by its very nature an exercise in the development of critical thinking. This chapter discusses what it means to study for a PhD and the problems that students have with developing skills of criticality. The author discusses his own experiences of supervising over 50 doctoral students and relates this to the relevant literature. The role that the supervisor, research training, the thesis, dissemination and the viva can play in developing critical thinking are discussed. The power of specific techniques including reflection, action research and action learning are also explored. The chapter presents areas worthy of future study and concludes by presenting an agenda which PhD students and their supervisors might follow. Chapter 16 Faculty Support and Guidance for Doctoral Candidates: Promotion of Critical Thinking................. 371 Sherrie L. Wisdom, Lindenwood University, USA This chapter describes practices of doctoral faculty in their efforts to support and encourage doctoral candidates for the EdD in conducting reliable and valid research for the writing of the dissertation. The setting of the degree program is in the School of Education in a private, four-year, liberal arts university in the Midwest United States. In guiding the doctoral candidates in their research endeavors, the faculty are promoting critical thinking applied to research design. Critical thinking is a process that represents a collection of skills difficult to teach in a doctoral program, as students who enroll bring a wide range of skills. The chapter includes a description of the doctoral program, some of the challenges faced by the doctoral faculty, and some of the strategies applied to promotion of strong research design among student work. Section 6 Chapter 17 Globalization, Cross Border Education, and Student Migration: Determining Student Institutional Choice Factors..................................................................................................................................... 397 Ryan Vance Guffey, Lindenwood University, USA Presently, there are more than two million students studying outside their home countries and the total number is expected to grow to eight million by 2025. This trend has inspired research into the “push” and “pull” factors that drive student mobility within the global higher education environment. However, despite the growing presence of cross border student enrollments throughout the United States, which is also the number one location for cross border students to study in the world, limited efforts have



been made to identify what characteristics motivate particular groups of cross border students to leave their home countries to attend particular types of higher education in the United States. This chapter addresses that gap in the literature. In response, this study sought to build upon existing global higher education literature by determining the relationship between the perceived importance of institutional characteristics and cross border students’ age, gender, and country of origin. Chapter 18 The Japanese Tertiary Education System and Its Impact on Economic Conditions from 2000 to 2010: Human Capital Formation......................................................................................................... 443 Erin Lee Kalkbrenner, Lindenwood University, USA Researchers have calculated the relationship between human capital development and economic output by various means of econometric modeling and by use of numerous indicators under the context of an assortment of human capital theory. In this chapter, new interpretations of the expansion of human capital in the form of tertiary education enrollment and the impacts of various economic conditions in Japan from 2000 to 2010 are identified. Data was collected from UNESCO UIS, OECD, and the World Bank on tertiary enrollments, tertiary expenditures, and other measures utilized during modeling. This chapter applied an OLS non-linear regression in efforts to estimate optimization of tertiary education enrollment to maximize the real growth rate in the Asian region, specifically through the use of point estimates for Japan. Government and educational policy recommendations were made based on computed outputs. Chapter 19 NAIA to NCAA D-II Sports Transition: A Three-Year University Case Study.................................. 472 Sherrie L. Wisdom, Lindenwood University, USA Graham Weir, Lindenwood University, USA The intent of this chapter is to provide results of a self-study of the transition process of a mediumsized, independent university from affiliation with National Association of Intercollegiate Athletics to National Collegiate Athletic Association Division II. This transitional movement by a four-year, liberal arts University represented real-world application of critical thinking to decision making, which created an impact on all stakeholders. The study purpose was to provide documentation of the transition with analysis of potential barriers and challenges, an examination of procedures placed, and quantitative verification of potential academic impact on both athletes and non-athletes. Data informed the original decision. This project continued analysis with before-to-after comparisons of measureable characteristics, such as athlete and non-athlete GPA, extent to which NCAA involvement influenced both athlete and non-athlete student choice to attend University, and before-to-after perceptions of University’s reputation and stature within the academic community. Compilation of References................................................................................................................ 513 About the Contributors..................................................................................................................... 558 Index.................................................................................................................................................... 564

xvii

Foreword

Our development as informed and professionally effective educators is actually about self-development. We develop what and how we think from our experiences and readings, and that changes what we do; it changes our teaching strategies and behaviors. So, thinking . . . thinking . . . thinking . . . is good. This is the mantra I tell to the EdD students in the Educational Leadership program in the Lindenwood University School of Education, Missouri’s largest EdD program. Thinking from multiple perspectives, which is just one of the great ideas in the Handbook of Research on Advancing Critical Thinking in Higher Education, is an important quality of an expert educator. In fact, advancing critical thinking truly requires the educator to be an expert. Funny thing about the concept of an ‘expert educator.’ Those of us who work in the educational environment are very hesitant to refer to ourselves as an expert. We do not refer to ourselves as an expert teacher, principal, or an expert professor. Yet, all of us believe in professional expertise. Actually, we expect and rely on others to be experts in their field; just not on ourselves in the profession of education. There are all kinds of examples where we believe and expect others to be experts. When we get on an airplane, we expect the pilot and the crew to be experts; not only do we expect to arrive safely but we expect to enjoy the flight. The same could be said for physicians, tax accountants, and so on. We expect our car to be repaired by an expert mechanic. I go to the gym almost every day. The fitness trainers there are not called trainers. On the back of their shirt is the term ‘Fitness Expert.’ We see experts in many other fields; but not in ourselves. As Assistant Commissioner for the Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary Education, I frequently represented the Department of Education, the state of Missouri, and the broader educational community in state and federal courts. I spent a great deal of time defending what we do in our schools. When it came my time to testify, the state’s attorney would always offer me as an expert witness on matters of education. Sometimes the opposing attorney would object, although I never understood this objection. It really made no difference; in each court every judge said about the same thing. They said they would decide if Dr. Stewart was an expert witness. All of us in the profession of education have judges; some of us have many judges in our classes and in our university. Our judges will decide whether or not we think and act as an expert educator. Our judges will decide if we are informed, principled, and professionally effective in our global community. In the Handbook of Research on Advancing Critical Thinking in Higher Education Dr. Sherrie Wisdom and Dr. Lynda Leavitt have approached advancing critical thinking in higher education by assembling different perspectives from 25 educators from around the world. That diversity alone guarantees multiple perspectives. Further, some of the contributors are K-12 educators while others are from higher education. Their chapters address advancing critical thinking in EdD students, in college classrooms, in 

Foreword

team teaching, and in virtual learning environments, to name just a few of the chapter approaches. As you read each chapter in this book you will judge the author to be an expert in the field of advancing critical thinking. Just as important, as you read and internalize the lessons from each chapter, and as you add to your professional understanding and behaviors about advancing critical thinking, those students in your classes and your colleagues in your university will judge you to be an expert in advancing critical thinking in higher education. Terry Stewart Lindenwood University, USA

Terry Stewart joined the Lindenwood University faculty full time in June, 2007 and is currently Assistant Dean for Educational Leadership (the EdD program). In addition to his duties as Assistant Dean, Dr. Stewart hosts the Lindenwood University TV show “Eye on Education” which focuses on topics that are important and relevant to teachers, administrators, students and parents. Prior to Lindenwood, he served eleven years as Superintendent of Schools for the School District of Jennings, and nineteen years overall as a Superintendent of Schools. While Superintendent in Jennings, the school district became Missouri’s only “high at risk” school district that was fully accredited; the district received a Smithsonian award for its effective use of instructional technology; the district was also recognized by the U.S. Department of Education as one of the nation’s top 25 school districts in the use of instructional technology. Prior to going to Jennings he served five years as Assistant Commissioner, Division of Administration, Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary education (DESE). He continues to serve as a consultant to numerous groups and organizations and speaks on educational topics around the country. He earned an Ed. D. from the University of Missouri, Columbia in 1979.

xviii

xix

Preface

The importance of critical thinking has found renewed exuberance among academics in higher education. The importance is undebated, yet the methods of developing this ability have created an ongoing debate due to America’s realization that many students, upon college acceptance, require remediation and lack the ability to think, engage in rich discussion, and lack a sufficient writing ability to express their ideas. Although much has been written regarding the ‘lack’ of critical thinking, less has been written on the success of methods implemented to develop this fundamental skill. Trilling and Fadel (2009), in their text, 21st Century Skills: Learning for Life in Our Times, noted the rapidity of change underway in teaching and learning and the necessity for a unique set of skills; critical thinking is an important component. Throughout the current literature references to 21st Century Skills abound; Kay and Greenhill (2013) described critical thinking as “the first among equals when it comes to the topic of . . . student readiness” (p. 12) and noted that without critical thinking an organization or an individual will fail to improve. Friedman and Mandelbaum (2011) explained a new stress placed on us all, particularly related to our work that now demands critical thinking skills. The compounding of advancements in technology has left this country with “an educational challenge – to expand the analytical and innovative skills of Americans . . . no less profound than the transition from plow horses to tractors or from sailing ships to steamships” (p. 20). Many agree on the importance of critical thinking; it’s the ‘how’ within our unique context and times that fuels the ongoing debate. For the purpose of this text, critical thinking was defined as a process that requires a skill set useful in decision-making, similar to the research process. As researchers, our daily work with doctoral students requires that the process of critical thinking begin with a problem, after which students gather information, analyze, and synthesize to draw their conclusions. Educators responsible for development of critical thinking within their students have considered application, analysis, and evaluation, as well as identification of appropriate sources of information for problem solving, contribution of life experiences, and forms of communication, to guide students in strengthening their skills. The co-editors serve as faculty within a higher education institution and view this skill foundational to reasoning utilized throughout our daily lives during communication and observation. Everyday decisions make demands on the individual to apply and analyze. It was important to the co-editors that we explore how educators in a higher education setting develop and strengthen the necessary skills for critical thinking in our students. Application of the critical thinking skill set applies to academic involvements, work-force readiness, and preparation for future life experiences. Discussion of ideas related to critical thinking has the potential to be diverse, varied, differentiated, rich, and rewarding. The editors sought to provide a forum of discussion related to higher education and critical thinking skills, as developed in our undergraduate and graduate students. Chapters included in this book contribute to the scholarly field of 

Preface

education research, philosophies and foundations for teacher preparation, and continued development of strategies for application of critical thinking. Our readers include all learners, regardless of their level of knowledge related to critical thinking. This text was written to meet the needs of those with a simple interest, as well as those seeking current application and research. The authors’ intent was to create a diverse handbook on critical thinking, and one written from a global perspective. In his examination of how doctoral students learn to critically think, Peter Smith from the University of Sunderland in the United Kingdom, utilizes action research, the process of self- reflection, to think critically on the role of dissertation supervisor. In his chapter titled, Developing Critical Thinking in Doctoral Students: Issues and Solutions, Smith who has mentored over 50 students to dissertation completion, concludes that critical thinking is an integral component of earning a doctorate. As a reader you will hear directly from his students, related to the process of earning this degree. As teachers we need to allow increased opportunities for critical thinking, as described by Schoper and Wagner in their chapter, Developing Meaning-Making to Promote Critical Thinking, on the ‘learning partnership model,’ a method to promote meaning-making in the development of critical thinking at the University of Western Illinois and Buena Vista University. Online learning requires a new form of student teacher relationship, moving from the historic ‘brick and mortar’ institution to an online context. Both historic and social forces are investigated in the chapter, University Teachers’ Interactions with Their Online Students at an Australian University, by Mamun, Danaher, and Rahman from the University of Southern Queensland, in their study utilizing affordance theory to increase the readers’ understanding of this relationship when teaching online. An historical analysis, working definitions, and a description of Socrates as a person and teacher is presented by Francesco Giuseffi, who currently serves as Dean of Students at a Military Academy in the United States, in his chapter titled, Ancient Thinking and Modern Challenges: Socratic Education in the 21st Century. Giuseffi examines the effectiveness of the Socratic Method of teaching. Many university faculty might agree with John Long’s thesis that the requirement to incorporate critical thinking within our classrooms is missing. Dr. Long, an Assistant Professor at Lindenwood University, in his chapter, Critical Thinking, Socratic Seminars, and the College Classroom, asserts that too many of our students are passive learners, and without a structure to promote critical thinking within college classrooms an opportunity is lost. The process Dr. Long has found to be successful is discussed and offers the reader an instructional design to consider. Dana Delibovi, a philosophy instructor at Lindenwood University, believes before critical thinking can be taught in higher education classrooms, our students must first develop the character to ‘face the consequences of critical thought.’ This author notes the process of developing critical thought is interwoven with the character evidenced by students in her chapter, Critical Thinking and Character. Stephen Brookfield, University of St. Thomas and a leading author on the development of critical thinking, describes the importance of teachers modeling critical thinking utilizing a team teaching approach. In his chapter, Teaching Critical Thinking and the Role of Team Teaching, Brookfield notes that critical thinking develops when students witness the process of adults engaged in their own skill development. Caulyne Barron from Dunlap-Stone University, in her chapter, Developing an Assessment Program to Measure Critical Thinking: A Case Study at a Small, Online College, explains research related to the assessment of critical thinking skills in a post-secondary setting. Using a case study research design, this author explains how an online university developed a plan for meeting the university’s mission. The concept of critical thinking is borderless, evidenced by the chapter written by Maria Bednarikova, Slovak University of Technology in Slovakia, Critical Thinking as a Multifaceted Phenomenon: A xx

Preface

Scheme of Interdisciplinary Research Platform. Bednarikova describes critical thinking as multifaceted and interdisciplinary; developed through scientific methodology spanned across the relationship between language and cognitive operations. An action research study, conducted by Donna Velliaris of Eynesbury Institute of Business and Technology, Australia, adds to the current literature through her work, Interdisciplinary Perceptions: Academic Acculturation and a Pathway to Improved Critical Thinking, with an investigation of a unique pre-university pathway and the inconsistencies found among academics who teach within this unique educational setting. Student mobility across borders, was described by Ryan Guffey, Lindenwood University, as ongoing and rapidly increasing, creating a push-and-pull between various factors, which form a possible relationship between institutional characteristics and a student’s demographics, including country of origin. Additionally Japan’s economic conditions were discussed by Erin Kalkbrenner, The Japanese Tertiary Education System and its Impact on Economic Conditions from 2000 to 2010: Human Capital Formation, also of Lindenwood University, in which she applied a regression analysis to produce outputs for government and educational policy recommendations related to tertiary education enrollment and the real growth rate in the Asian region. During the experience of pre-service teaching there is an opportunity to promote critical thinking. Barrera and Dowell, Louisiana University, share with readers in their chapter, Academic Service-Learning as a Pedagogical Tool and Strategy: Promoting Critical Thinking among Pre-Service Teachers, study results with regard to the increasingly stratified student population and the predominately white, female perspective on critical thinking; implementation strategies of academic service learning (AD-L) are also discussed. The concept of diversity is foundational to Wisdom and Weir’s Lindenwood University three-year case study related to a university’s transition from NAIA to NCAA D-II sports participation status. They discuss in their chapter, NAIA to NCAA D-II Sports Transition: A Three Year University Case Study, how the transition required the use of critical thinking among all aspects of the university when making this shift; detailed factors of before and after the change are described, as one way to document this historic event. The application of the logic model to real-world phenomena in the chapter, Developing MeaningMaking to Promote Critical Thinking, was discussed by Shepperson and Blakey, faculty at Eastern Kentucky University. Data collection occurred over the span of two years during the application of visualization and inquiry methods to assist teacher leaders using online learning. Simply mentioning critical thinking within the higher education experience is not enough; what is needed is a return to liberal education described by Michael Hepner, Saint Louis Community College. In his chapter, The Erosion of Critical Thinking Development in Post-Secondary Education: The Need to Return to Liberal Education, the author notes the complexity in defining the nature of critical thinking and method of assessments that should be expected due to the diverse set of disciplines found within our institutions. Hepner writes on the history and strategies, along with assessments that could lead to an increase in common language. Watching TV News: Should We Approach It Like Reality TV?, written by Joseph Cernik, Lindenwood University, applies critical thinking to current issues, specifically constitutional interpretation and the Affordable Care Act (ACA), ObamaCare, reported by television news. Cernik shares with the reader the frustration of over simplifying complex issues and describes specific methods of instruction that can be applied in the classroom with students whose predominate knowledge of current events is oversimplified. xxi

Preface

Dr. Wisdom, Co-Editor of this publication and Associate Professor at Lindenwood University, School of Education, Department of Educational Leadership, frequently works with doctoral students in the process of gathering data and statistical analysis to complete their dissertations. Faculty within the department strive to promote critical thinking throughout their coursework, specifically as students develop their studies. Wisdom reminds the reader in her chapter, Faculty Support and Guidance for Doctoral Candidates: Promotion of Critical Thinking, that the process of critical thinking is not a skill that can be taught, but a process students must undertake to develop and sharpen their already existing ways to acquire knowledge and think critically. The author notes Reichenback’s six steps of critical thinking: knowledge, comprehension, application, analysis and evaluation, along with an author included in this publication – Stephen Brookfield, who supports the idea that critical thinking is a process that includes seeking and checking one’s assumptions, gaining another perspective, and then active participation. Wisdom provides the reader with a detailed description of one doctoral program, data that supports its development, and the process of ongoing evaluation. Although everyone ‘thinks’, writes Little & Feldhaus, Indiana University - Purdue University, in their chapter titled, Critical Thinking Skills in Virtual Learning Environments, not all of us participate in the process of critical thinking. Definitions of critical thinking and Paul & Elder’s model of critical thinking are discussed within the context of the next generation of learning contexts: online, blended/hybrid, and MOOCs, along with social media. These authors note that, regardless of the learning environment critical thinking can be developed and is dependent upon the individual pedagogy of each course. These authors remind the reader of the barriers and challenges of developing critical thinking using an online format. As higher education continues to undergo continual development due to the rapidly changing technology and global context, critical thinking will continue to be necessary for all students to be successful. The multifaceted nature of today’s student and the ongoing discussion throughout the current literature on how best to define and apply critical thinking remains a priority, not only in institutes of higher education, but in k-12 systems of learning, as well. The co-editors strived to achieve a varied representation of national and international research in the hopes of adding to the current literature related to critical thinking within a global higher education context. This scholarly handbook is meant to inform and inspire further discussion of critical thinking among its readers. Sherrie Wisdom Lindenwood University, USA Lynda Leavitt Lindenwood University, USA

REFERENCES Friedman, T., & Mandelbaum, M. (2011). That used to be us: How America fell behind in the world it invented and how we can come back. New York: Picador. Kay, K., & Greenhill, V. (2013). The leader’s guide to 21st century education: 7 steps for schools and districts. Pearson. Trilling, B., & Fadel, C. (2009). 21st century skills: Learning for life in our times. Jossey-Bass. xxii

xxiii

Acknowledgment

We would like to express appreciation of family, friends, and colleagues who supported and encouraged this project, which resulted in publication of the Handbook of Research on Advancing Critical Thinking in Higher Education. We would like to thank publisher IGI Global and editorial assistants Caitlyn Martin and Allison McGinnis, for informational support, guidance, and patience. We thank members of our Advisory Board, Dean Cynthia Bice, Toni Gallia, Jennifer O’Malley, Beth Kania-Gosche, Kelly Leavitt, and Chryssa Sharp for valued support, creative consultation, and help with recruitment of potential contributors. We value the time given and feedback provided by our reviewers, Yvonne Gibbs, Stephen Sherblom, Nancy Watson-Weir, Graham Weir, and Nathan Wisdom. We especially appreciate the time provided by those who filled dual roles. Advisory Board members and contributing authors joined in the review process and increased the efficiency of the double-blind review of chapter submissions. The diversity and wide range of perspectives represented in the chapter submissions for this handbook, along with representation from regions around the globe exceeded our expectations as co-editors. We enjoyed the readings, and simultaneously met the needs of our natural tendency towards lifelong learning. Thank you to our contributing authors for their talents, efforts, and hard work in preparing the contributed chapters. And finally, thank you to Assistant Dean Terry Stewart for conversations concerning critical thinking and his expressions of its importance to education in writing the Foreword for the Handbook of Research on Advancing Critical Thinking in Higher Education. Sherrie Wisdom Lindenwood University, USA Lynda Leavitt Lindenwood University, USA



Section 1

1

Chapter 1

Ancient Thinking and Modern Challenges:

Socratic Education in the 21st Century Frank G. Giuseffi Missouri Military Academy, USA

ABSTRACT The purpose of this chapter was fourfold: 1) to offer an overview of current thinking on the 21st Century skills educational agenda - its intentions and goals for the future, along with the eventual teaching and learning challenges; 2) to present an historical analysis and several working definitions of critical thinking – an educational objective within the 21st Century skills movement; 3) a brief, yet important description of the life of Socrates as a person and as a teacher- with specific emphasis on the use of his method, and 4) the history and influence the Socratic method has had on critical thinking and its hopeful entry into mainstream 21st Century educational discussion.

INTRODUCTION The educational landscape at the secondary school level reflects a growing concern for today’s youth to be reflective, critical thinkers. The 21st century student, according to Hoffman (2004), must be able to creatively solve problems, assimilate knowledge and synthesize information. Schoberl (2004) pointed out that research in learning theory identified a growing need for teaching pedagogies that emphasized deep understanding, intellectual exploration, and the application of knowledge and discovery. Cookson (2009) wrote that there should be the marrying of the western intellectual tradition,

namely the Socratic influence, with the present intellectual demands of the 21st century. Larson (2004) remarked that instructors should employ the Socratic Method in the hope of better understanding the way students today acquire knowledge. This chapter per the author wishes to advance the position that an ancient technique known to us as the Socratic Method, can be an instructional tool that offers assistance in the development of critical thinking skills for students and, consequently hold a rightful place in 21st century pedagogy and education. This chapter will first offer an intellectual overview of the movement toward 21st century skills education. It then offers an historical look

DOI: 10.4018/978-1-4666-8411-9.ch001

Copyright © 2015, IGI Global. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.

 Ancient Thinking and Modern Challenges

at the development of critical thinking, highlighting major thinkers’ ideas on the topic. The chapter will then present a detailed description of the person, Socrates. After a brief biographical introduction of the philosopher, the chapter uncovers the historical development of the Socratic Method, tracing its origins in the classical world and ultimately to the educational experiences in the United States. There is then a discussion on a distinctive practice within the Socratic Method known as the elenchus. In clearly explicating the Socratic Method, this chapter per the author argues that if educators fully understand the classic sense of this method, along with the nature and role of the elenchus, there can be a more enriching use of the Socratic Method in today’s classrooms and an appreciation for the role the ancient world has on today’s educational initiatives.

BACKGROUND Daniel Bell’s assessment in the 1970’s of a post-industrial environment that would require a knowledge society and Peter Drucker’s assertion that a post-capitalist world would need to produce knowledge workers, ushered in the 21st Century Skills movement (Hargreaves, 2010). Dede (2010) argued that the 20th century is different from the 21st century in relation to “skills people now need for work, citizenship, and self-actualization” (p. 51). Zao (2009) wrote that based on the revolution that is currently occurring globally and digitally, it is vital that schools re-assess what should be taught. According to the Partnership for 21st Century Skills, the content that should be taught not only consists of the core subjects, but also 21st century themes such as global mindfulness, problem-solving, communication and critical thinking (Zao, 2009). Basset (2004) posited that schools of the 21st century should focus on four pillars of content: proficiency, fluency, multicultural literacy and performance. Students should be proficient in

2

reading and writing, mathematics, the empirical method of attaining knowledge and the uses of technology (Basset, 2004). Second, students would be fluent in various communications, able to lead in teams, and be able to make ethical decisions (Basset, 2004). Third, students must be able to converse well in their native language and have knowledge of its history, culture and geography (Basset, 2004). They must also meet the same standards of at least one other place or culture. Lastly, students must be able to perform in the fine arts, practical arts and athletics (Basset, 2004). While the need for critical thinking and other st 21 century skills looms over the educational horizon, some share a dim view of what many schools are currently doing. Basset (2004) argued that there will need to be school leaders who will challenge the discrepancy between the educational objectives for the 21st century and the seemingly 18th century school system that exists today. Schools deeply committed to 21st century education will take heed to a 2003 report entitled Building a Nation of Learners where the authors argue that today’s employers require workers to be problem solvers, able to work in a team, can readily adapt, and effectively communicate (Basset, 2010). Indeed, as the report claimed: To better prepare for the challenges of the highperforming jobs and the innovations of the future, all sectors of society must work together to build a nation of learners equipped with the key skills needed to succeed, including those that transcend specific job categories. (Building a Nation of Learners, 2003, p. 9) Furthermore, Dede (2010) wrote that highstakes testing impedes 21st century teaching and learning in today’s classrooms. School leaders and educators must search for other ways to assess students besides the standardized-testing approach (Salpeter, 2003). Richardson (2010) remarked that although schools function in the 21st century, they still are “decidedly 20th (or even

 Ancient Thinking and Modern Challenges

19th) century in its form and structure” (p. 287). And even the former U.S. Secretary of Education Roderick Paige indicated that “We still educate our students based on an agricultural timetable, in an industrial setting, yet tell students they live in a digital age” (Building a Nation of Learners, 2003, p. 11). Pearlman (2010) argued that there is a new debate in education about the most effective way students will learn in the 21st century. Hoffman (2004) added to the discussion by writing that students in the 21st century must experience a different kind of learning. The memorization of facts must give way to the assimilation of information along with the educational approach that asks how one thinks as opposed to what one thinks (Hoffman, 2004). Larson (2004) endorsed the work of Carl Rogers and Jerome Brunner. According to Rogers, people learn either through cognitive activity or experience (Larson 2004). “Academic knowledge is attained through cognitive learning and hands-on learning, such as learning how to repair a car’s engine is experiential. Experiential learning consists of the desires and interests of the learner. The personal qualities involved in experiential learning are personal involvement, self-initiation, and ongoing self-evaluation” (p. 332). According to Rogers, this leads to change and self-improvement (Larson, 2004). According to Larson (2004) Brunner believed that “learning is an active process in which learners construct new ideas or concepts based upon their current and past knowledge” (p. 332). In this educational model, students take what they already know and discover new knowledge and information, via cognitive frameworks. (Larson 2004). Ormrod (2003) commented on the positive effects of discovery learning: When learners discover something on their own, they typically give more thought to (process) that information or skill than they might otherwise, and so they are more likely to engage in mean-

ingful learning. In addition, learners often learn classroom subject matter in a more complete and integrated way (i.e., they achieve greater conceptual understanding) when they have opportunities to explore and manipulate their environment firsthand. (p. 44) Barell (2010) endorsed the pedagogical practice of Problem-Based Learning (PBL) that engages students in real-world issues that call for insightful questions, critical thinking and reflection. In this teaching methodology, the instructor develops a lesson or unit on a problem that needs to be addressed. As students contend with finding solutions to the problem, they master the intended skills needed Barell (2010). Johnson and Johnson (2010) argued for Cooperative Learning that heightens a shared sense of learning without losing sight of personal mastery. November (2010) surmised that in order for schools to truly meet the demands of the 21st century, classrooms need to be converted into global environments that connect with students from around the world. These global environments will go beyond the traditional classroom and be made available on the Web, leading to online communication and network literacy (Richardson, 2010). Roger Schank, founder of the Institute for Learning Sciences at Northwestern University, argued against classrooms, endorsing instead student environments that promote and enhance concentrated academic work, collaboration and hands-on projects (Pearlman, 2010). Moreover, Lemke (2010) argued that educators must take heed to the fact that students are learning in a high-tech environment. This does not go unnoticed by Robin (2008) who wrote that as the debate over the effectiveness of computer technologies in schools rages on, young people continue to use emerging technologies in their personal lives, even if a large number of educators have not yet found ways to meaningfully integrate them in the classroom.

3

 Ancient Thinking and Modern Challenges

Larson (2004) remarked, when instructional technology is used effectively, students become self-reflective people and independent learners.

CRITICAL THINKING: ITS HISTORY AND INFLUENCE Interestingly enough, the origins of critical thinking can be found in the mission and work of Socrates (Somos, 2005). Chafee (2012) wrote that Socrates exclaimed “The unexamined life is not worth living” (p. 4). One’s life loses some meaning when there is a lack of self-reflection concerning one’s thoughts and actions (Chafee, 2012). Paul and Elder (1997) noted that Socrates sought evidence and reasons for assertions and distinguished between logical and illogical statements. Elder (2010) noted: Considered a thinker par excellence, Socrates sought reasonable and logical ways to approach issues and problems. Ever in search of rational ways of living, he tried to help others do the same. Believing that education should lead to a deeper and more coherent world view, and that people need to develop skills and habits of thought to reason well through life’s myriad problems, he continually pondered how the examined life could be achieved. (n.p.) Wood (2012) credited Plato along with those philosophers after him with the development of critical thinking. According to Stewart and Blocker (2006) the philosopher Aristotle (384 BCE – 322 BCE) identified the essential practice of accurate thinking when classifying subjects, arguing that it was the sign of an educated person to find exactness in every class of things. The vast amount of work Aristotle did on logic showed how the human mind acts logically (Hakim, 1992). The medieval philosopher and theologian, St. Augustine (354 AD – 430 AD) possessed desire for truth that led to his disavowal of erroneous theological thinking

4

and added to the growing doctrines of Christianity (Wood, 2012). Following in the same intellectual pattern as that of Socrates who exclaimed ‘know thyself,’ Augustine’s spiritual and theological quest had to originate from within (Hakim, 1992). Brann (2001) also noticed similarities between Socrates and Augustine in that both shared a sense of wonder. The reflection and questions included in Augustine’s critical thinking is clearly expressed in Book XII of the Confessions when he writes “inquiry has more to say than discovery (plus loquitur inquisition quam invention)” (Brann, 2001, p. 112). Known as a philosopher who synthesized different components of reality, St. Thomas Aquinas’ (1225 – 1274) intellectual objectives heightened an awareness for human reason and set out to methodically critique and analyze held notions (Somos, 2005). Paul and Elder (1997) wrote that Aquinas always held his ideas to a critical standard through cross-examination. Francis Bacon (1561 – 1626) believed in the empirical study of the world (Paul & Elder, 1997). Bacon initiated the basis for modern science with the method of data-gathering. Clarke (2003) noted that in the midst of a scientific revolution along with theological challenges brought about by the Reformation, Rene Descartes (1596 – 1650) set out to develop“ a new system of philosophy that would replace the scholastic style of philosophy almost universally taught at colleges and universities in Europe” (p. xvii). His desire for certainty led Descartes to develop four rules that would lead to certain knowledge: 1) accept only those things as true that are known to be true and not to be doubted; 2) to analyze problems by distinguishing their fundamental parts; 3) to start with things most easily known and then end with those things most difficult, and 4) ensure that nothing is left out in one’s search for knowledge (Hakim, 1992). Niccolo Machiavelli (1469 – 1527), critiqued the intellectual development of the Renaissance, and embarked upon creating new methods and guidelines found in his books, The Prince and the Discourses. (Mansfield & Tarcov, 1998). Somos

 Ancient Thinking and Modern Challenges

(2005) noted that thinkers of the French Enlightenment, such as Charles–Louis Motesquieu (1689 – 1755), Voltaire (1694 – 1778) and Denis Diderot (1713 – 1784), believed that authority must rely on and submit to human reason. Through reasoning, the German philosopher, Immanuel Kant (1724 – 1804) argued that one could assess moral situations and make choices (Chafee, 2012). This kind of universal rational framework was articulated in his Categorical Imperative – “Act only according to that maxim by which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law” (Chafee, 2012, p. 387). Carman (1993) wrote that the philosopher, Martin Heidegger (1889 – 1976) claimed that his philosophical quest was a break from “the metaphysical thinking that had dominated Western philosophy for some 2,300 years” (p. ix). As opposed to thinking about entities as the philosophers from Plato to Nietzsche had done, Heidegger critically investigated the nature of being, something that had been ignored in Western philosophy (Carman, 1993). Thinkers such as John Dewey (1859 – 1952), Ludwig Wittgenstein (1889 – 1951) and Jean Piaget (1896 - 1980 have all added to the canon of identifying and defining critical thinking (Somos, 2005). Later in the 20th century, Roth (2010) wrote that the concept of critical thinking advanced as a serious study with Robert Ennis’ “A Concept of Critical Thinking” published in the Harvard Educational Review in 1962. Ennis’ objective was to determine how one teaches the assessments of statements (Roth, 2010). Paul & Elder (2008) wrote that the nature of the human person is to think, however, left to his or her own devices, that thinking can become prejudicial, incorrect, and misinformed; the activity of critically thinking produces excellence of thought due to rigorous standards of examination. Ormrod (2003) argued that critical thinking included the induction and deduction of oral and written arguments, probability, evaluating methodologies in the collection of data, and weighing alternatives when making a decision. Willingham (2007) of-

fered a more fundamental definition claiming it included being open to various opinions, novel approaches, using deductive reasoning, and calling for evidence to support claims. In How We Think, John Dewey described various forms of thinking, but focused primarily on reflection (Rodgers, 2002). Reflective thinking according to Dewey is active and continual. The learner develops a deep understanding of reality due to the interconnectedness of experiences and relationships based on those experiences (Rodgers, 2002). Reflection is a communal endeavor that is disciplined, methodical, and committed to the intellectual development of the learner and others (Rodgers, 2002). Influenced by Dewey, Edward Glaser, coauthor of the Watson-Glaser Critical Thinking Appraisal, included one’s attitude as a component of critical thinking (Fisher, 2001). According to Glaser, there must be the disposal to thinking about the problems, issues and concepts that are presented in a person’s experience, along with the appropriate methodologies for rational inquiry and the investigation of held beliefs and opinions (Fisher, 2001). According to Ennis (2011) critical thinking is “reasonable and reflective thinking focused on deciding what to believe or do” (p. 1). The critical thinker seeks to arrive at the truth, is open to different perspectives, actively listens, stays informed, reflects on personal values, and is empathetic (Ennis, 2011). Ennis (2011) went further, however, and argued that critical thinking required certain dispositions in order to make decisions based on sound critical thinking. These dispositions consisted of 1) the desire to hold beliefs as true and verifiable; 2) to comprehend and articulate a position in a sincere, credible way, and 3) to exhibit a caring nature toward every person (Ennis, 2011). Benjamin Bloom’s theories and ideas also added to the plethora of work on critical thinking. Benjamin Bloom (1913-1999) was a Professor of Education at the University of Chicago who

5

 Ancient Thinking and Modern Challenges

conducted research on measuring instruction, the relationship between mastery and time, and the development of gifted students (Husen, 2004). Bloom spent his intellectual life exploring the activity of thinking (Forehand, 2012). Duron, Limbach & Waugh (2006) noted that Bloom’s taxonomy offered “a straightforward way to classify instructional activities as they advance in difficulty” (p. 160). The taxonomy consisted of knowledge, comprehension, application, analysis, synthesis and evaluation (Duron, Limbach & Waugh, 2006). In the 1990’s a revised version of Bloom’s Taxonomy was introduced (Forehand, 2012). Based on the input from those in the fields of psychology, curriculum development, and educational research, the new version consisted of remembering, understanding, applying, analyzing, evaluating and creating (Forehand, 2012). According to Chafee (2012) thinking critically is “thinking about your thinking so that you can clarify and improve it” (p, 52). Along with this definition Chafee (2012) offers specific characteristics the critical thinker should have: • • • • • • •

6

Open-minded: consciously listening to all opinions and opposing viewpoints. Knowledgeable: comments and opinions are based on facts, supported ideas and evidence. Mentally active: pro-active attitude toward solving problems through intellectual ability. Curious: questions are probing and indepth in nature in order to go beyond simple, dogmatic explanations. Independent thinkers: courageous in disagreeing with the group consensus. Skilled discussants: able to intelligently participate in thoughtful discussion and respect the opinions of others. Insightful: able to understand the essence of an argument and pinpoint the issue or problem in an argument.

• • •

Self-aware: able to admit prejudices, dogmatism and biases in one’s argument and include that reality in analysis. Creative: seeks ways to approach problems and situations in imaginative ways. Passionate: possesses a strong desire for knowledge and works toward understanding intellectual issues more clearly. (Chafee, 2012, pp. 53)

THE HISTORICAL SOCRATES AND HIS METHOD Aristophanes, Xenophon, and Plato recorded the life of Socrates (Dorion, 2011). Hughes (2012) wrote that Aristophanes was the oldest source for Socrates and made jokes about him with his play, The Clouds. Xenophon, former soldier, prose writer, and historian, wrote a lengthy biography of Socrates entitled the Memorabilia (O’Connor). Plato was Socrates’ most well-known student (Mannion, 2006) and carried on the Socratic endeavor through his dialogues (Rejai & Phillips, 2002). Indeed, Cooper (1997) noted that Plato’s writings were the main texts for the study of philosophical thought. Socrates (469 B.C. E. – 399 B.C.E.), has been regarded as a philosopher of the highest order (McPherran, 2011). Morrison (2011) claimed that although there were sophists and poets with a philosophical bent before Socrates, he was the first true philosopher. Cooper (1997) remarked that before Socrates, philosophers claimed to have some special or esoteric knowledge or truth, however, Socrates denied that he possessed any kind of knowledge. Indeed Cooper (1997) stated with great clarity and precision, Socrates was a totally new kind of Greek philosopher. He denied that he had discovered some new wisdom, indeed that he possessed any wisdom at all, and he refused to hand anything down to anyone as his personal ‘truth’, his claim to fame.

 Ancient Thinking and Modern Challenges

All that he knew, humbly, was how to reason and reflect, how to improve himself and (if they would follow him in behaving the same way) help others to improve themselves, by doing his best to make his own moral, practical opinions, and his life itself, rest on appropriately tested and examined reasons – not on social authority or the say-so of esteemed poets (or philosophers) or custom or any other kind of intellectual laziness. (p. xix) Cohen and Fermon (1996) claimed that Socrates set his students on a course for a new method of intellectual searching and discussion in Western civilization. According to Stewart and Blocker (2006), Socrates dedicated his life to asking questions to his friends and pursuing truth. Hughes (2010) argued that Socrates was concerned with searching for the good life and concentrated his pursuits on ‘eudaimonia’ – human happiness (McPherran, 2010). Morrison (2011) made the bold assertion that Socrates was a revolutionary who argued that the greatest human importance was not material possessions but the health of the person’s soul. Chafee (2012) argued that Socrates believed his mission was to “remind people of the moral imperative to attend to their souls and create upstanding character and enlightened values within themselves” (p. 371). Eventually, Socrates was charged with corrupting the men of Athens (Herman, 2013), and sentenced to death (Mannion, 2006). While the scholarship of ancient Greece faded from the Western world’s memory after the fall of the Roman Empire, in the 8th and 9th centuries, the Islamic world translated Greek texts that eventually found their way to libraries in what would become in the future the countries of Spain and Italy (Schneider, 2013). By the fifteenth century, Europe regarded Plato’s dialogues as essential (Cooper, 1997). During the waning years of the Byzantine Empire, George Gemistos Plethon caused a sensation when he praised the works of Plato over Aristotle at the Council of Ferrara, a council convened to discuss union between the

Catholic and Orthodox churches (Cooper, 1997). The re-emergence of the ancient Greek language during the time of the Northern Renaissance elicited renewed interest in the classics and the philosopher, Socrates (Schneider, 2013). Kimball (1995) argued that the Renaissance humanists greatly encouraged the reading of Platonic dialogues. For example, scholars such as Marsilio Ficino (1433-1499), translated the writings of Plato and eventually established a school dedicated to the thoughts of the philosopher in Florence (Herman, 2013). Cooper (1997) noted that from the fifteenth century onwards, through the revived knowledge of Greek and from translations into Latin and then into major modern European languages, Plato’s dialogues resumed their central place in European culture as a whole. They have held it without interruption ever since. (p. vii) In the mid-eighteenth century, the Scottish educator, David Fordyce wrote Dialogues Concerning Education where he credited the Socratic Method in developing the mind. During the same time, Isaac Watts wrote The Improvement of the Mind which made reference to the Socratic Method’s ability to make conversation enjoyable and developing in students’ minds enthusiasm for learning (Schneider, 2013). A ‘Socratic Problem’ emerged when scholars, such as Friedrich Schleiermacher in his book The Worth of Socrates as a Philosopher (1818), pondered the actual historical Socrates and the method he used (Dorion, 2011). The historical development of Socratic education could be found in Rousseau’s Emile (1762), Horace Mann’s call for discussion-based classes at Antioch College, and John Dewey’s novel approaches to learning (Nussbaum, 2010). Copeland (2005) noted that between 1910 and 1940, a Great Books movement begun by noted scholars such as Alexander Meiklejohn from Amherst College, John Erskine at Columbia University, Stringfellow Barr and Scott Buchanon from the University of Virginia and Mortimer J.

7

 Ancient Thinking and Modern Challenges

Adler and Robert Hutchins from the University of Chicago. These scholars integrated the Socratic dialogue in their programs and “developed the framework for the current pedagogical practice” (p. 8). A student of John Erskine’s, Adler was educated at Columbia University and authored Dialectic, a work that celebrated Socratic dialogue which allowed for the free exchange of ideas (Schneider, 2013). In 1982, Adler authored The Paideia Proposal: An Educational Manifesto. Three methods of teaching were proposed by Adler: didactic instruction, coaching, and Socratic questioning (National Paideia Center, 2013). According to Tredway (1995), a rise in Socratic inquiry occurred due to Adler’s enterprise. One finds the implementation of the Socratic Method in a myriad of educational institutions, including St. John’s College (Copeland, 2005). Stringfellow Barr, a founder of St. John’s College’s Great Books program, characterized Socratic questioning as an activity that follows its own direction and embracing the philosophical quest with others (Barr, 1968). Other colleges and universities followed the same educational path as St. John’s: Shimer College, Monteith College, Thomas Aquinas College and Rose Hill College (Schneider, 2013). In investigating a working definition of the Socratic Method, it is essential to draw attention to what the ancients thought. An admirable aspect of Socrates’ disposition as teacher is found in the Phaedo when he says to the interlocutor, Simmias, that if he has issues with his (Socrates’) arguments, then he should put forth his own views to develop the conversation (Plato, 1997). In explaining Socrates’ teaching method, Xenophon (c. 425-354 BCE), wrote that Socrates would carefully refer back to accepted positions from his interlocutors during discussions, with the intention of answering a series of questions raised by him, ultimately convincing the interlocutors of the truth of things (Strauss, 1964). In his Metaphysics, Aristotle credited Socrates with his use of induction and search

8

for universal definitions (Benson, 2011). While there have been scholars who have remarked that a Socratic method does not exist, Benson (2011) claimed that “Plato’s Socratic dialogues coherently present a Socrates practicing a distinctive philosophical method featuring a common form, a common strategy, and a common epistemological presupposition” (p. 179). Morrell (2004) indicated that in the Platonic dialogues Socrates is normally in conversation with someone over a specific question. Socrates challenged assertions made by the protagonists in the dialogue; this is evidenced in the Meno and the Apology (Morrell, 2004). Hughes (2010) contended that Socrates’ method “gets inner thoughts out into the public sphere, not as a monologue, but as a dialogue” (p. xx). Cookson (2009) argued that Socrates held that individuals maximize their learning through the asking of fundamental questions and challenging the answers through reason. Van Hooft (2011) wrote that Socratic dialogue is a collaborative examination of the implied knowledge and accepted assumptions that influence the decisions we make as people. Moir (2004) extended off this notion and claimed that it was a teaching method that drew from the discussants their own personal experiences and belief systems. Van Rossem (2006) wrote that the Socratic dialogue was a subset of the Socratic Method and claimed that discussants simply examine the truthvalue of a given opinion based on responses from a question. The Socratic Method has also come to be regarded as a disciplined kind of questioning that elicits philosophical thought (Peterson, 2009). In the sphere of pedagogy, Graybill (2013) wrote that in a Socratic dialogue there must be some textual subject to the discussion – second, there is an opening question that ideally directs the discussion – third, there must be a leader of the discussion – and, fourth, there has to be active, engaged discussants who clearly understand the text, exhibit civility toward others and ask insightful questions.

 Ancient Thinking and Modern Challenges

In delving deeper into the nature of the Socratic question, Paul and Elder (2007) wrote that this kind of questioning is disciplined, analytical, in depth, and regularly explores fundamental definitions and principles of things. Copeland (2005) agreed and further claimed that Socratic questioning actually uncovers the idea that all understanding is connected, that “thought itself is a continuous thread woven through our lives rather than isolated sets of questions and answers” (p. 8).

CRITICAL THINKING AND THE SOCRATIC METHOD CONVERGE The connection between Socratic questioning and critical thinking is highlighted by Paul and Elder (2007) in that both critical thinking and Socratic questioning share a common end. Critical thinking provides the conceptual tools for understanding how the mind functions (in its pursuit of meaning and truth); Socratic questioning employs those tools in framing questions essential to the pursuit of meaning and truth. The goal of critical thinking is to establish an additional level of thinking, a powerful inner voice of reason. Socratic discussion cultivates that inner voice through an explicit focus on self-directed, disciplined questioning. (p. 36) Elkind and Sweet (1997) argued that this method guided students to identify different value systems and compelled them to engage in critical inquiry. Hodhod, Kudenko & Cairns (2009) agreed, maintaining that Socratic dialogue developed students’ problem solving skills. It has also been claimed that a cooperative atmosphere while engaging in Socratic dialogue can improve children and adults’ critical thinking skills (Ablad, 2008). Copeland (2005) saw a direct link between the Socratic approach and critical thinking. He argued that what he termed Socratic circles, assisted students in more advanced levels of thinking, bol-

stered their problem-solving skills, and developed their creativity. Moreover, the Socratic Method emboldened theoretical thought and invited the person to use his or her critical thinking skills (Peterson, 2009). Moir (2004) wrote that the method is viewed as a way to “engage both children and adults in critical thinking and ethical principles” (p. 29). Van Rossem (2006) argued that learning objectives through the use of the Socratic Method should include thinking in terms of questions as opposed to answers, actively listening, respecting various opinions, and a desire for investigation.

CRITICAL THINKING IN THE PLATONIC DIALOGUES In Plato’s Republic Socrates has entered the house of Cephalus as a guest. As Socrates enjoys the conviviality of Cephalus’ party, he listened to the wise words of Cephalus about the pleasures of old age (Plato, trans. 1997). Cephalus made the point that when a man is close to the end, he becomes fearful of the punishment of Hades if he were unjust (Plato, trans. 1997). A man awakes from sleep in fear if he recounts all the injustices he has committed, but the man who was just has hope as a comfort when he grows old (Plato, trans. 1997). Socrates was curious about the concept of justice and wished to inquire into its nature with Cephalus. Socrates asked if justice is fundamentally being truthful and paying one’s debts, or are there circumstances that say otherwise (Plato, trans. 1997). For example, Socrates stated that if it is just to lend “weapons to a friend and then asks for them back when he is out of his mind, the friend shouldn’t return them, and wouldn’t be acting justly if he did” (Plato, trans. 1997, p. 975). Socrates also argued that it would not be just to tell the complete truth to someone who is insane (Plato, trans. 1997). After Cephalus agreed with Socrates’ claims, Socrates concluded that justice is not articulating truth or paying back one’s debts (Plato, trans. 1997).

9

 Ancient Thinking and Modern Challenges

In the Meno, Meno wanted to know from Socrates if one could teach virtue (Cooper, 1997). In the ensuing discussion, Meno stated that virtue was the ability to take hold of good things (Plato, trans. 1997). Socrates then began to critique Meno’s thinking on this issue. Meno believed that the good things he spoke of were good health and riches, along with gold, silver, high office and honors (Plato, trans. 1997). Socrates, however, was able to get Meno to admit that the unjust attainment of things was not virtue, and that “the acquisition must be accompanied by justice or moderation or piety or some other part of virtue; if it is not, it will not be virtue, even though it provides good things” (Plato, trans. 1997, p. 878). Socrates then claimed that whatever is accomplished with justice would be considered virtuous and an action that is accomplished without virtue was evil (Plato, trans. 1997). Socrates then reminded Meno that earlier in the conversation there was agreement that concepts such as justice and moderation were a part of virtue (Plato, trans. 1997). Meno agreed with Socrates on this. Socrates then claimed that Meno was playing a joke on him because earlier they had agreed that they should not separate the definition of virtue, and yet Meno had claimed that justice was a part of virtue (Plato, trans. 1997). Socrates emphasized to Meno that one could not search for the definition of virtue as a whole if one only defined its parts. Hence, Socrates asked Meno again to define virtue (Plato, trans. 1997). Meno then stated: Indeed, if a joke is in order, you seem in appearance and in every other way, to be like the torpedo fish, for it too makes anyone who comes close and touches it feel numb, and you now seem to have had that kind of effect on me, for both my mind and my tongue are numb, and I have no answer to give you. (Plato, trans. 1997, p. 879) Although Meno felt that he was perplexed and considered himself ‘numb’ due to Socrates’ supposed beguilement, Socrates had nonetheless

10

challenged his thinking and his definition of virtue, guiding him to hopefully improve his definition. A specific practice that Socrates employed while using his method with his friends was the elenchus (Benson, 2011). This unique teaching method was used by Socrates when he repudiated the prejudices and dogmatic positions held by his interlocutors (Benson, 2011). For instance, in both the Meno and Apology Socrates’ dialectical conversation (elenchus) left his discussants perplexed and confused. (Morrell, 2004). McPherran, (2010) indicated that the elenchus began when Socrates’ friend would first articulate his personal belief on a subject being discussed. As the discussion with Socrates advanced, the interlocutor would hold fast to his original position. However, as the dialectical exchange with Socrates ensued, the interlocutor could not accept the latter positions he came to accept through dialectical exchange with Socrates and still hold to his initial belief. (McPherran, 2010). Furlani (2002) wrote that the objective of the Socratic elenchus was propaedeutic, to wit, the interlocutor’s experience with Socrates freed him from dogmatism and guided him on an intellectual journey toward investigating first principles. Vlastos (1991) wrote that this particular method refuted an argument when the negation to the argument came from the interlocutor’s own ideas. Aristotle referred to it as being ‘peirastic’ – a position or assertion is countered only when it comes from the interlocutor’s own values (Vlastos, 1991). The elenchus is at work in the Platonic dialogue, Crito. Even before his execution, Socrates objected to Crito’s desire to pay someone to help him (Socrates) escape. Socrates invited Crito to investigate this situation and was willing to listen and be persuaded by more logical arguments (Orig, 2006). It was Socrates’ intention to seek and find the truth. However, in the end Socrates’ logic convinced Crito that one cannot replace one injustice with another (Orig, 2006). Returning to the Republic, the elenchus is used when Socrates reveals the inconsistency of the interlocutor’s

 Ancient Thinking and Modern Challenges

views of justice by offering one counter example (Morrell, 2004). As mentioned earlier, Socrates asked if the debtor should have re-paid what was owed another if that repayment harmed the one who was owed? Logic demanded that the creditor should not be repaid, shedding light on the idea that the two Athenians’ concept of justice was not tenable (Morrell, 2004). This chapter per the author looked at the 21st century skills educational movement. It also analyzed a crucial element of 21st century skills, critical thinking. The chapter offered various definitions of critical thinking. The chapter then tied critical thinking with the Socratic method of teaching and learning, sharing the idea that Socrates’ original method indeed reflected the critical thinking process and how the many Platonic dialogues exhibited the development of critical thinking among the interlocutors. Moreover, the chapter also detailed a specific Socratic practice called the elenchus through Platonic dialogues, specifically looking at the Platonic dialogue, Crito.

ACTION RESEARCH ON THE SOCRATIC METHOD In light of current literature on 21st century education and the affect the Socratic Method has on critical thinking skills, the author per the chapter wishes to now explicate a research study conducted at the author’s school during the spring of 2012 and the fall and spring of the 2012-2013 school year. In so doing, the author per the chapter will shed further light on how the Socratic Method increases critical thinking skills. The chapter will also present a ‘real-world’ example of how a pedagogical practice can develop critical thinking skills. The author’s original project was to see if the Socratic Method of teaching and learning in his class could develop or improve, in any way, the leadership skills of Junior Reserve Officer Training Corps (JROTC) cadet leaders at a military

boarding school in the Midwest. While the author ultimately argued that gains in leadership did develop through the Socratic Method, there was also the development of critical thinking skills. For the research study the author chose Oscar Graybill’s (2013) four characteristics of the Socratic Method: 1) an assigned reading; 2) a question that leads the dialogue and refers back to the reading; 3) a facilitator of the conversation, and 4) discussants who have read the assignment, show respect for their peers’ comments and ask insightful questions. Discussions on the nature of the Socratic question came from the work of Paul and Elder (2007). The author wanted the cadet participants to be familiar with these thinkers’ works on how Socratic questioning is disciplined questioning (Paul and Elder, 2007). On this topic, Paul and Elder (2007) commented further Socratic questioning is disciplined questioning that can be used to pursue thought in many directions and for many purposes: to explore complex ideas, to get to the truth of things, to open up issues and problems, to uncover assumptions, to analyze concepts, to distinguish what is known from what is not known, and to follow out logical implications of thought. (p. 36) The class was called Western Intellectual History, a course the author developed several years ago. It was the intention of the author to expose students to the great thoughts and ideas found in the classic texts of Western history. In the course students read the philosophical works of Plato, Aristotle, Cicero, St. Augustine, St. Thomas Aquinas, Niccolo Machiavelli, Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Adam Smith, Edmund Burke, Mary Wollstonecraft, John Stuart Mill, Alexis de Tocqueville, G.W.F. Hegel, Karl Marx, Friedrich Nietzsche, Max Weber, V.I. Lenin, Benito Mussolini, Hannah Arendt, and Leo Strauss. Students were assigned a nightly reading from one of the philosophers. The next day one of the students or the author would pose a question

11

 Ancient Thinking and Modern Challenges

based on the reading. The intention was to ask a question open-ended enough to create thoughtful, Socratic conversation throughout the entire class period. It was the author’s intention to rarely ask the opening question; this was a student-centered endeavor, hence, the cadets needed to ask the questions. The author wondered, could sustained, habitual Socratic dialogue develop, increase or improve leadership skills among these JROTC cadets? Could the regular thought-processes, dissection of arguments and active listening develop intelligent JROTC leaders? The author was intent on discovering answers to these questions. This was a qualitative, action research study. Qualitative researchers seek answers to phenomena based on the actions of the participants, hence they are directly involved in the research study (Fraenkel and Wallen, 2003). Qualitative researchers incline toward developing a hypothesis as the research study is underway and prefer a ‘holistic description of complex phenomena’ (Fraenkel and Wallen, 2003). McEwan and McEwan (2003) noted that action research is motivated by a desire for the researcher to implement the data that is gathered from the research. Educators and school leaders are better informed as they improve their schools and educational objectives (Mertler, 2009). This qualitative, action research study consisted first in administering a pre- and posttest (leadership skills inventory) to both sets of cadets. This inventory asked the cadet participants to answer questions based on what was called The Five Leadership Traits – Model the Way, Inspire a Shared Vision, Challenge the Process, Enable Others to Act, and Encourage the Heart (Kouzes & Posner, 2009, pp. 4-13). Each of the Five Practices is defined by six statements of behavior or characteristics (Kouzes & Posner, 2013). The cadet participants were asked to rate (rare - very frequently) how often they thought they engaged in each characteristic. Next, the author used a Socratic Method Observation instrument to gauge the development of six characteristics

12

–critical thinking, listening skills, respectful behavior, probing questions, encourages thinking and participation in others, ethical behavior, and values and principles, of the cadets on a weekly basis while they were participating in the Socratic method. If a cadet showed no evidence of the respective characteristic(s) in a week, he was given a ‘1’. If the cadet showed some evidence of the characteristic (2-3 times per week), he received a ‘2.’ If the cadet showed full evidence (4 times per week), he would receive a ‘3.’ The author wanted to see if there was any kind of pattern throughout the academic term. Third, the author had the cadets write journal entries every Friday that pertained to the topic (philosopher) being discussed and its relationship to leadership skills at either a theoretical or practical level. Fourth, there was a videography of class sessions to determine if concepts in leadership were discussed. Lastly, both sets of cadets answered questions to an end of the year interview that consisted of nineteen questions or requests concerning decision-making, intellectual development, leadership skills and critical thinking. These questions or requests were as follows: 1. When did you enroll at MMA? 2. What is your current rank? 3. What are your cur rent leadership responsibilities? 4. Tell me about your experiences as a Cadet Leader at MMA. 5. Tell me about your experiences participating in class discussions prior to your involvement in your current class on Western Intellectual History. 6. In what ways has your participation in classroom discussions developed this year? 7. Tell me about your experiences discussing philosophical texts and ideas with other cadets. 8. Comment on any relationship you saw between your ethical decision-making and your involvement in class discussions.

 Ancient Thinking and Modern Challenges

9. How would you describe your listening skills during class discussion? 10. Comment on your self-reflection after participating in class discussions this past year. 11. How do you define ‘being a leader’, what skills do you believe are necessary to become a leader? 12. Tell me about the effectiveness of your leadership decisions this past school year. 13. Comment on any relationship you saw, if any, between your leadership development and your involvement in class discussions. 14. Tell me about the ethical decisions you might have made as a leader. 15. Describe any possible discussions you have had with your subordinates about values and principles. 16. How have you used your communication skills during the past year both in class and out of class? 17. How have you used your leadership skills in caring and supporting your subordinates? 18. How did you use your critical thinking skills during class discussion 19. How did you use your critical thinking skills as a leader? The author discovered that information gathered from the leadership inventory indeed showed marked improvement in leadership skills for the majority of cadets while they engaged in Socratic discussion (Giuseffi, 2014). There were also emerging themes on leadership that came from the journal entries. However, there was minimal data collected on leadership from the Socratic Method Observation instrument or the videography. Indeed, after analyzing the weekly Socratic Method Observation sheets, the author could not see any clear pattern of increase or decrease in the characteristics, to include critical thinking (Giuseffi, 2014). For the purposes of this chapter however, the author per the chapter will discuss the role critical

thinking had in the research study. Based on the cadet answers to the interviews, three fundamental themes emerged: 1) Helping or caring for subordinates; 2) Improved Confidence, and 3) Intellect Precedes Will. The third emerging theme speaks to the development of critical thinking. The questions 13, 14, 15 and 19 elicited answers from the cadets that spoke to the activity of thinking before acting, hence the theme ‘Intellect Precedes Will.’ Cadets in this research study were identified as C2, C3, C4, C5, and C6 respectively. Cadet C3 answered Question 13, ‘Comment on any relationship you saw, if any, between your leadership development and your involvement in class discussions’, by stating ‘More thinking things through.’ Question 14 requested ‘Tell me about the ethical decisions you might have made as a leader.’ C2 answered with ‘He talked about the mistakes he made as a leader on the Florida trip. He understands he needs to do the right thing, even if it’s inconvenient to him.’ Question 15 requested to ‘Describe any possible discussions you have had with your subordinates about values and principles.’ C4 indicated that he articulated to them to ‘think before acting.’ C6 held conversations concerning stealing and emphasized to ‘think before you act.’ Lastly, C5 answered Question 19, ‘How did you use your critical thinking skills as a leader?’ with ‘Stop and think before acting. Consider outcomes.’ C6 answered the same question with ‘More analysis before acting.’ It was clear to the author that the concept of critical thinking had emerged, particularly with the activity of thinking before acting. The cadet participants seemed to be able to first understand based on their answers to the aforementioned questions that decision-making involved thinking things through before acting. By the end of the academic year, C2, C3, C4, C5, and C6 perceived that they were indeed thinking about possible actions and decisions more intensely before acting on their leadership decisions (Giuseffi, 2014). Based on this action research study, sustained use of

13

 Ancient Thinking and Modern Challenges

the Socratic Method did improve JROTC cadet participants’ perceptions of their critical thinking skills (Giuseffi, 2014).

FUTURE RESEARCH DIRECTIONS Schools must change their curricula to meet the pressing challenges of the 21st century (Basset, 2004; Salpeter, 2003; Zao, 2009). Appropriate teaching methods must be employed, to include the Socratic Method (Larson, 2004). School leaders and curriculum specialists would do well to investigate the influence the Socratic Method can have on critical thinking skills among high school students. Through a qualitative, action research study, instructors and school administrators can assess if there is an increase in critical thinking skills through the implementation of the Socratic Method. A starting point for classroom teachers to learn about the Socratic Method can be found in the work of Graybill (2013) and Paul and Elder (2007). Teachers can begin to understand the nature of critical thinking by looking at the work of John Chaffee (2012) in his book, Thinking Critically. Particular emphasis should be directed toward certain characteristics that make a critical thinker as mentioned earlier in this paper. As the research study reviewed a pre-and posttest inventory on leadership, so should educational researchers use a pre- and posttest that measures critical thinking. This will help determine if the student participants made any improvement in critical thinking while they participated in Socratic dialogue. In order to gauge where the students are in their critical thinking, researchers can have their student participants write journal entries, reflecting on their critical thinking skills while they participate in the Socratic Method.

14

CONCLUSION This chapter covered the fundamental issues and challenges facing education in the 21st century. The concept of critical thinking was methodically dissected along with its connection to the Socratic Method. Lastly, the chapter analyzed a research study that offered a concrete example showing how the Socratic Method can develop critical thinking skills. Based on the information offered in this research study on the Socratic Method and critical thinking skills, it behooves educators and researchers to continue researching both these essential subjects. In Plato’s dialogue, The Theaetetus, Socrates referred to himself as a midwife, who, through the free exchange of ideas, helped give birth to knowledge and truth among his pupils (Plato, trans. 1997). Should not educators in the 21st century, if they wish to guide students in this ever complex, fast-paced society, also accept the role of midwife? Should they not, through the Socratic Method, assist in the development of their students’ critical thinking skills that is greatly needed in today’s global environment? And in this complex world are there still opportunities for teachers and students, through the Socratic Method, to embark on a quest for knowledge? This is the challenge to today’s educator and the hopeful confluence of modern issues and ancient thinking.

REFERENCES Ablad, J. (2008). Socrates in the classroom: Rationales and effects of philosophizing with children (Doctoral thesis, Swedish Research Council). Retrieved from http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_ releases/2008-05/src-sit050708.php

 Ancient Thinking and Modern Challenges

Barr, S. (1968). Notes on dialogue. Retrieved from http://www.stjohnscollege.edu/about/dialogue.shtml

Cooper, J. M. (Ed.). (1997). Plato: Complete works. Indianapolis, IN: Hackett Publishing Company, Inc.

Barrel, J. (2010). Problem-based learning: the foundation for 21st century skills. In J. Bellanca & R. Brandt (Eds.), 21st Century skills: Rethinking how students learn (pp. 175-200). Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree Press.

Copeland, M. (2005). Socratic circles: Fostering critical and creative thinking in middle and high school. Portland, Maine: Stenhouse Publishers.

Bassett, P. (2004). Re-engineering schools for the 21st century. In P. F. Bassett & C. Thorn (Eds.), Looking ahead: Independent school issues and answers (pp. 324–329). Gilsum, NH: Avocus Publishing, Inc. Benson, H. H. (2011). Socratic Method. In D. R. Morrison (Ed.), The Cambridge companion to Socrates (pp. 179–201). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Brann, E. (2001). What, then, is time? New York, NY: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers. Brann, E. (2001). What, then, is time? New York, NY: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc. Building a Nation of Learners. (2003). Retrieved from http://www.bhef.com/publications/buildingnation-learners-need-changes-teaching-andlearning-meet-global-challenges Carman, T. (1993). Foreword. In F. Krell (Ed.), Martin Heidegger: Basic writings (pp. ix–xvii). New York, NY: Harper Perennial. Chafee, J. (2012). Thinking critically (10th ed.). Boston, MA: Wadsworth Cengage Learning. Cohen, M., & Fermon, N. (Eds.). (1996). Princeton readings in political thought. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Cookson, P. W. (2009, September). What would Socrates say? Educational Leadership, 67(1), 8–14.

Dede, C. (2010). Comparing frameworks for 21st century skills. In J. Bellanca & R. Brandt (Eds.), 21st century skills: Rethinking how students learn (pp. 51-76). Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree Press. Descartes, R. (2003). Meditations and other metaphysical writings (D. Clarke, Trans.). New York, NY: Penguin Putnam Inc. (Original work published 1641) Dorion, L. A. (2011). Editor’s preface. In D. R. Morrison (Ed.), The Cambridge companion to Socrates (pp. xiii–xv). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Duron, R., Limbach, B., & Waugh, W. (2005). Critical thinking framework for any discipline. International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education., 17(2), 160–166. Retrieved from http://sazlie.com/bahan/promotecriticalthinking.pdf Elder, P. (2010). Reason to live. Retrieved from http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/410393. article Elkind, D. H., & Sweet, F. (1997). The Socratic approach to character education. Educational Leadership, 54(8), 56–59. Ennis, R. (2011). The nature of critical thinking: an outline of critical thinking dispositions and abilities. Retrieved from http://faculty.education. illinois.edu/rhennis/documents/TheNatureofCritical Thinking_51711_000.pdf Fisher, A. (2001). Critical thinking: an introduction. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

15

 Ancient Thinking and Modern Challenges

Forehand, M. (2012). Bloom’s Taxonomy. Retrieved from http://www4.edumoodle.at/gwk/ pluginfile. php/109/mod_resource/content/5/ forehand_bloomschetaxonomie02.pdf Fraenkel, J., & Wallen, N. (2003). How to design and evaluate research in education. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill. Furlani, A. (2002, July). The sacred fount in Plato’s cave. University of Toronto Quarterly, 71(3), 721–734. doi:10.3138/utq.71.3.721 Giuseffi, F. G. (2014). Investigation of the Influence of the Socratic Method on Leadership Skills among JROTC Cadet Leaders at a Military Boarding School. (Doctoral dissertation). ProQuest-UMI. Graybill, O. (2013). What are Socratic seminars? Retrieved from http://www.socraticseminars.com/ education/whatare.html Graybill, O. (2013). What are Socratic seminars? Retrieved from http://www.socraticseminars. com/ education/whatare.html Hakim, A. B. (1992). Historical introduction to philosophy. New York, NY: Macmillan Publishing Company. Hargreaves, A. (2010). Leadership, change, and Beyond the 21st century skills agenda. In J. Bellanca & R. Brandt (Eds.), 21st century skills: Rethinking how students learn (pp. 327-348). Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree Press. Herman, A. (2013). The cave and the light: Plato versus Aristotle, and the struggle for the soul of western civilization. New York, NY: Random House.

16

Hodhod, R., Kudenko, D., & Cairns, P. (2009). Character education using pedagogical agents and Socratic voice. Proceedings of the Twenty-Third International Florida Artificial Intelligence Research Society Conference. Retrieved from http:// www.academia.edu/3708648/Character_Education_Using_Pedagogical_Agents_and_Socratic_Voice Hoffman, M. A. (2004). Mapping into the 21st century. In P. F. Basset & C. Thorn (Eds.), Looking ahead: Independent school issues and answers (pp. 269–278). Gilsum, NH: Avocus Publishing, Inc. Hughes, B. (2010). The hemlock cup: Socrates, Athens, and the search for the good life. New York, NY: Vintage Books. Husen, T. (2004). Benjamin Bloom. In J. A. Palmer (Ed.), Fifty modern thinkers on education: from Piaget to the present (pp. 86–90). New York, NY: Routledge. Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (2010). Cooperative learning and conflict resolution: essential 21st century skills. In J. Bellanca & R. Brandt (Eds.), 21st century skills: Rethinking how students learn (pp. 201-220). Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree Press. Kimball, B. (1995). Orators and philosophers: a history of the idea of liberal education. New York, NY: College Entrance Examination Board. Kouzes, J. M., & Posner, B. Z. (2009). Student leadership practices inventory. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Kouzes, J. M., & Posner, B. Z. (2013). Student leadership practices inventory. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

 Ancient Thinking and Modern Challenges

Krell, D. F. (Ed.). (1993). Basic writings. New York, NY: Harper Collins. Larson, J. (2004). Student-centered learning in the knowledge society. In P. F. Bassett & C. Thorn (Eds.), Looking ahead: Independent school issues and answers (pp. 330–342). Gilsum, NH: Avocus Publishing, Inc. Lemke, C. (2010). Innovation through technology. In J. Bellanca & R. Brandt (Eds.), 21st century skills: Rethinking how students learn (pp. 51-76). Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree Press. Machiavelli, N. (1998). Discourses on Livy (H. C. Mansfield & N. Tarcov, Trans.). Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press. (Original work published 1531) Mannion, J. (2006). Essential philosophy. Avon, MA: F+W Publications Company. McPherran, M. L. (2010). Socratic religion. In D. R. Morrison (Ed.), The Cambridge companion to Socrates (pp. 111–137). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/ CCOL9780521833424.006 Mertler, C. A. (2009). Action research: Teachers as researchers in the classroom. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc. Moir, D. (2004). Leadership and integrity: Are they compatible? Management in Education, 18(3), 28–31. doi:10.1177/089202060401800307 Morrel, K. (2004). Socratic dialogue as a tool for teaching business ethics. Journal of Business Ethics, 53(4), 383–392. doi:10.1023/ B:BUSI.0000043500.63029.40 Morrison, D. R. (2011). Editor’s preface. In D. R. Morrison (Ed.), The Cambridge companion to Socrates (pp. xiii–xv). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

National Paideia Center. (2013). Paideia active learning. Retrieved from http://www.paideia.org/ about-paideia/philosophy/ November, A. (2010). Technology rich, information poor. In J. Bellanca & R. Brandt (Eds.), 21st Century skills: Rethinking how students learn (pp. 275-284). Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree Press. Nussbaum, M. (2010). Not for profit: Why democracy needs the humanities. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. O’Connor, D. K. (2011). Socratic Method. In D. R. Morrison (Ed.), The Cambridge companion to Socrates (pp. 179–201). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Orig, P. (2006). Problem-based learning and the Socratic elenchus in the teaching of literature. Retrieved from http://www.tp.edu.sg/files/centres/ pbl/pbl_princessorig.pdf Ormrod, J. E. (2003). Educational Psychology. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill Prentice-Hall, Inc. Paul, R., & Elder, L. (1997). Critical thinking: Its nature and practice. Retrieved from http://www. elegant brain.com/edu4/classes/readings/depository/TNS_560/think/critic_think.pdf Paul, R., & Elder, L. (2007). Critical thinking: The art of Socratic questioning. Journal of Developmental Education, 31(1), 32–37. Paul, R., & Elder, L. (2008). The critical thinking community. Retrieved from http://www.criticalthinking. org/pages/defining-critical-thinking/766 Pearlman, B. (2010). Designing new learning environments to support 21st century skills. In J. Bellanca & R. Brandt (Eds.), 21st Century skills: Rethinking how students learn. Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree Press.

17

 Ancient Thinking and Modern Challenges

Peterson, E. (2009). Socratic problem-solving in the business world. American Journal of Business Education., 2(5). Plato. (1997). Plato: complete works (J. Cooper, Trans.). Indianapolis, IN: Hackett Publishing Company, Inc. Rejai, M., & Phillips, K. (2002). Concepts of leadership in western political thought. Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers. Richardson, W. (2010). Navigating social networks as learning tools. In J. Bellanca & R. Brandt (Eds.), 21st century skills: Rethinking how students learn (pp. 285-304). Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree Press. Robin, B. R. (n.d.). Digital story telling: a powerful technology tool for the 21st century classroom. Retrieved from http://digitalstorytellingclass.pbworks.com/f/Digital+Storytelling+A+Powerful. pdf Robinson, D. J. (2006). The Paidiea seminar: Moving reading comprehension from transaction to transformation (Doctoral dissertation, University of Massachusetts-Lowell). Retrieved from http:// www.paideia.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/ dissertation-robinson.pdf Rodgers, C. (2002). Defining reflection: Another look at John Dewey and reflective thinking. Teachers College Record, 104(94), 842–866. doi:10.1111/1467-9620.00181 Roth, M. S. (2010 January). Beyond critical thinking. The Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved from http://chronicle.com/article/ Beyond-Critical-Thinking/63288/ Schneider, J. (2013, December). Remembrance of things past: A history of the Socratic method in the United States. Curriculum Inquiry, 43(5), 613–640. doi:10.1111/curi.12030

18

Schoberl, C. (2004). Bloom and Gardner: Understanding as ‘going deeper. In P. F. Bassett & C. Thorn (Eds.), Looking ahead: Independent school issues & answers (pp. 278–285). Gilsum, NH: Avocus Publishing, Inc. Somos, M. (2005). Critical thinking: a historical overview. Retrieved from http://www.sdcentras. lt/mind/ mind2_result.htm Stewart, D., & Blocker, H. G. (2006). Fundamentals of philosophy. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Pearson Education, Inc. Tredway, L. (1995, September). Socratic seminars: Engaging students in intellectual discourse. Educational Leadership, 53(1), 26–29. Van Hooft, S. (2011). Socratic dialogue as collegial reasoning. Practical Philosophy, 2(2), 18–27. Van Rossem, K. (2006). What is a Socratic dialogue? Filosofie, (1), 48-51. Vlastos, G. (1991). Socrates: Ironist and moral philosopher. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511518508 Willingham, D. T. (2007). Critical thinking: Why is it so hard to teach? American Educator. Retrieved fromhttp://www.aft.org/pdfs/americaneducator/ summer2007/Crit_Thinking.pdf Wood, P. (2012, January). Some critical thoughts. The Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved from http://chronicle.com/blogs/innovations/ some-critical-thoughts/31252 Zao, Y. (2009). Catching up or leading the way. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.

ADDITIONAL READING Adler, M. J. (1982). The Paideia proposal: an educational manifesto. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster.

 Ancient Thinking and Modern Challenges

Bloom, A. (1993). Love and friendship. New York, NY: Simon and Schuster. Boghossian, P. (2003). How Socratic pedagogy works. Informal Logic, 23(2), 17–25. Brownhill, B. (2002). The Socratic Method. In T. Jarvis (Ed.), The theory & practice of teaching (pp. 71–77). New York, NY: Routledge. Cleveland, J. P. (2008). What Socrates would say to undergraduate tutors. The Chronicle of Higher Education, 55(17), 1–4. Doughty, H. A. (2006). Critical thinking vs. Critical consciousness. College Quarterly, 9(2), 1–54. Glassman, M., Erdem, G., & Bartholomew, M. (2012). Action research and its history as an adult education movement for social change. Adult Education Quarterly, 63(3), 272–278. doi:10.1177/0741713612471418 Gose, M. (2009). When Socratic dialogue is flagging: Questions and strategies for engaging students. College Teaching, 57(1), 45–49. doi:10.3200/CTCH.57.1.45-50 Kimball, B. A. (1995). Orators and philosophers. New York, New York: College Entrance Examination Board. Lane, M. (2011). Socratic Method. In D. R. Morrison (Ed.), The Cambridge companion to Socrates (pp. 179–201). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Le, K., & DeFilippo, C. L. (2008, October). Little philosophers. Educational Leadership, 66(2), 66–69. Maxwell, J. A. (2005). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications. McIntyre, A. (2008). Participatory action research. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications National Paideia Center. (2013). Paideia Active Learning. Retrieved from http://www.paideia.org/aboutpaideia/philosophy/

Newstreet, C. (2008). Paul Revere rides through high school government class: Teacher research and the power of discussion to motivate thinking. Social Studies, 99(1), 9–12. doi:10.3200/ TSSS.99.1.9-12 Nussbaum, M. (2010). Not for profit: Why democracy needs the humanities. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Offor, F. (2012). Socrates, science and technology. Canadian Social Science, 8(4), 101–107. doi:10.3968/j.css.1923669720120804.1145 Ozanne, J. L., & Saatcioglu, B. (2008). Participatory action research. The Journal of Consumer Research, 35(3), 423–439. doi:10.1086/586911 Peters, M. P. (2010, March). Liberal education in the land of enchantment. Paper presented at the Albuquerque Rotary Club, Albuquerque, New Mexico. Ruppel, F. J. (2003). Teaching principles of microeconomics using a modified Socratic learning method: Reflections of a first-time user. Kentucky Journal of Economics and Business, 22, 36–52. Salkind, N. J. (2003). Exploring research. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. Solovyova, M. (2007). Introduction to Socratic dialogue. Respectus Philologicus, 11(16), Strauss, L. (1964). The city and man. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press. Strauss, L. (1987). Plato. In L. Strauss & J. Cropsey (Eds.), History of political philosophy (pp. 33–89). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. doi:10.7208/chicago/9780226924717.001.0001 Tucker, A. A. (2007). Leadership by the Socratic Method. Air & Space Power Journal, 6, 1-10. Retrieved from http://www.airpower. au.af.mil/airchronicles/apj/apj07/sum07/tucker. html#tucker Waterfield, R. (2009, January). The historical Socrates. History Today, 59(1), 24–29. 19

 Ancient Thinking and Modern Challenges

Zuckert, C. (2006, August). Why Socrates and Thrasymachus become friends. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, Marriott, Loews Philadelphia, and the Pennsylvania Convention Center Philadelphia, PA.

KEY TERMS AND DEFINITIONS Action Research: A type of research, often done by educators, that seeks to solve problems through observing and collecting data on environments, programs, or human interaction for the purpose of addressing an issue. Critical Thinking: The ability to acquire knowledge or understanding through a selfreflective process of thinking. Elenchus: A dialectical activity in the Platonic dialogues where an initial argument held by the interlocutor is refuted through a dialectical ex-

20

change with Socrates; the following positions held by the interlocutor cannot then logically follow from the original argument. Platonic Dialogues: Famous ancient dialogues about first principles between Socrates and his interlocutors. Socratic Method: A teaching methodology that emphasizes dialectical exchange among students. The method uses probing questions to guide a dialogue about a text or concept. 21st Century Pedagogy: Teaching methodologies that are learner centered. These pedagogical practices emphasize collaboration, dialogue, problem-solving, creativity and synthesizing information. 21st Century Skills: A set of skills (critical thinking, global competence, imagination, communication, collaboration and ethical decision making) that are necessary for the global challenges of this century.

21

Chapter 2

Critical Thinking and Character Dana Delibovi Lindenwood University, USA

ABSTRACT This chapter advances the view that critical thinking and character must be redefined as mutually reinforcing capabilities, and taught in the light of this redefinition. After an analysis of how critical thought and character came to be separated into independent skill sets, the chapter surveys the limited efficacy of skills-based, character-neutral education in critical thinking. Next, the chapter presents rationales and methods for uniting critical thinking and character in higher education, drawing upon philosophical, sociological, and pedagogical evidence in support of this unification. Educational recommendations and directions for future research round out the chapter. Included among these recommendations is an emphasis on relationship-building as an instructional model to integrate education in character and critical thinking. Ultimately, the chapter makes the case that critical thinking cannot be taught effectively to students who have not developed the character necessary to face the consequences of critical thought.

INTRODUCTION Discussions of critical thinking often begin by invoking the philosopher Socrates (Bloom, 1987; Emerson, 2013; Lai, 2011; LaPoint-O’Brien, 2013; Vaughn, 2013). This chapter will be no exception, since Socrates embodies the relentless questioning, consideration of evidence, and logical search for truth that defines critical thought (Vaughn, 2013). It is worth pointing out, however, that Athens executed Socrates in 399 BC, in large measure because his critical thought exposed the defects of some powerful people (Plato, 1989a). Death, imprisonment, or ostracism awaited others who thought critically, from Sir Thomas More to

Aleksander Solzhenitsyn. The willingness to think critically is always a risky business, even when lethal only to our own cherished prejudices and myths. Critical thinking thus demands courage, honesty, resolve, and restraint —a catalog of virtues summed up since ancient times as character (Aristotle, 1941). To learn to think critically, young adults must have, or must develop, the character required to take the risks imposed by critical thought. Critical thinking, in turn, allows students to reason morally, furthering character development. Thus, critical thought and character work together in an ascending spiral that reinforces both. Educators, government leaders, and business executives currently support initiatives to boost

DOI: 10.4018/978-1-4666-8411-9.ch002

Copyright © 2015, IGI Global. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.

 Critical Thinking and Character

critical thinking at every educational level (Arum & Roksa, 2011; Kanter, 2010; Lai, 2011; Moore, 2010; Taylor, 2010; Vaughn, 2013). Experts have called for improved critical thinking among college students since the 1980s (Bloom, 1987; Kurfiss, 1988), a time when, interestingly enough, other commentators began to champion character education (Lickona, 1991; Morrill, 1980). Despite these efforts, those of us concerned with young learners have observed a dual, generational decline in both critical thinking and character. What we have missed is that we cannot teach one without the other. In approaching the problem, educators—the author of this chapter included—have treated critical thinking as a unified, tactical skill set that can be taught in eponymous courses or integrated into the curricula of various disciplines. However, ample evidence suggests that critical thinking cannot be taught effectively to students who have not developed the character necessary to face the consequences of critical thought.

THE RELATIONSHIP OF CRITICAL THOUGHT AND CHARACTER DEVELOPMENT Separated at Birth: Reasoning and Virtue in Modern Education The belief that young adults lack an adequate ability to think critically is based on a large and growing body of research and expert consensus. The burgeoning of this literature has been accompanied by an ever-growing literature on character education, much of which has expressed a belief that young people lack adequate character. As a result, school-based programs to develop critical thinking abound at every level, from the new Common Core State Standards Initiative (2014) to workshops to enable post-secondary educators to train students in critical thought (Foundation for Critical Thinking, 2014). Also proliferating are programs in character education; examples

22

include ‘blended’ programs of positive behavior support and character education (Sugai & Homer, 2006) and, at the college level, the development of consortia and institutes to create courses promoting classic moral virtues (Maryland Center for Character Education, 2014). If this history is any guide, young people’s need to improve critical thinking skills has paralleled a need to improve character, suggesting a link between the two. Indeed, one of the opening salvoes in the critical-thinking movement, Bloom’s (1987) The Closing of the American Mind, specifically linked reasoning to the development of virtues, blaming the loss of both on an emotionally charged combination of German Nihilism and ‘the Sixties.’ Bloom’s bombast aside, he did identify an important relationship between critical thinking and character; he called his exploration of critical thought “a meditation on the state of our souls,” (p. 19) and claimed that replacement of traditional virtues (like industriousness and honesty) by permissiveness and moral relativism both resulted from and nourished a decline in our powers of reasoning. Despite observations that critical thinking and character have a shared trajectory, educational efforts to foster critical thinking tend to proceed on a different track from educational efforts to promote character. Each set of efforts has been mechanistic, focused on the memorization and practice of skill sets particular either to analytic thought or to behavior that displays character. The educational needs for critical thinking and character development were born at the same time, but were separated at birth for the purpose of pedagogy. The tone was set early on, in a 1988 highereducation report developed for the United States Department of Education (USDE) by Kurfiss. The report, entitled Critical Thinking: Theory, Research, Practice, and Possibilities, gave a nod to Bloom but effectively ignored his concern for virtue, focusing instead on the need to build “argument skills, cognitive processes, and intellectual

 Critical Thinking and Character

development” (Kurfiss, 1988, p. iii) Kurfiss’ (1988) two-part rationale for teaching students to think critically remains a commonplace to this day: first, students need to think critically to meet the demands of contemporary life and work; second, “there is increasingly compelling evidence of serious deficiencies in the ability to reason among college students and the limited influence of college education on critical thinking skills,” (p. 1) a claim based upon educational studies conducted in the early-to-mid 1980s. Kurfiss made plain a concept that continues to activate current efforts to teach critical thinking: that this kind of thought consists predominantly of a set of identifiable, separable, and teachable skills with specific application within each academic discipline: Educators in every discipline value critical thinking skills of one form or another . . . For example, chemists most value the ability to draw sound inferences from observations, critically analyze and evaluate previous research, and generate new questions and experiments, while English professors most value the ability to elaborate an argument and develop its implications, understand, analyze and evaluate arguments, support general assertions with details, and recognize the central thesis in a work. (p. 3) Kurfiss (1988) pointed out that such skills are valued, expected, yet seldom taught directly and explicitly to students. Thus, teaching of the right skill set became the task and goal of educators. This is a view carried down from that time to the present—going on 30 years now. It has informed countless books, articles, and programs in multiple academic disciplines. In 1990, for example, the work of psychologist Healy, speculated that young people’s thinking was hampered by neural changes wrought by a decline in reading, an uptick in television watching, and a lack of interaction in social and natural environments (Healy, 1990). The ability to reason had been eroded by the

de-skilling inherent in modern life. It could be encouraged by training in cognition and a focus on cooperation, problem-solving, and construction of knowledge in the classroom, with computers playing an important role (Healy, 1990). Decades later, philosopher Mulnix (2012), who has recognized that certain traits of character may be conducive to critical thought, nevertheless defined effective education in critical thinking to be a matter of argument mapping, formal-argument structuring, and writing education. Mulnix described her own view of critical thinking as skill within the realm of informal logic, in which students can be trained; she wrote that “critical thinking fundamentally consists in acquiring, developing, and exercising the skill of being able to grasp inferential connections holding between statements” (pp. 464-465). Mulnix’s approach to the teaching of critical thinking within the philosophy curriculum reflects the strategy embraced by many educators in this discipline, a point underscored by the teaching texts developed by philosophers Weston (2008) and Salmon (2012). It is an approach that I have in the past adopted in my own course design on critical thinking. Perkins and Solomon (1989) analyzed the psychological bases of “cognitive skills,” and determined that cognitive-skill development is best accomplished by the “intimate intermingling of generality and context-specificity in instruction” (p. 24). In simpler terms, general education, such as literacy instruction, must accompany the development of technical expertise in a field, such as medicine, to maximize the ability to think and solve problems. Quitadamo and Kurtz (2007) agreed, demonstrated that training in writing improved “critical thinking skills” (p. 140) among undergraduate biology students. These authors made an exceptionally clear statement of the skills-oriented approach to critical thinking: A variety of national stakeholders, including business and educational leaders, politicians, parents, and public agencies, have called for long-term

23

 Critical Thinking and Character

transformation of the K–20 educational system to produce graduates who are well trained in science, can engage intelligently in global issues that require local action, and in general are better able to solve problems and think critically. Specifically, business leaders are calling for graduates who possess advanced analysis and communication skills, for instructional methods that improve lifelong learning, and ultimately for an educational system that builds a nation of innovative and effective thinkers…Education leaders are similarly calling for institutions of higher education to produce graduates who think critically, communicate effectively, and who employ lifelong learning skills to address important scientific and civic issues. (Quitadamo & Kurtz, 2007, p. 140) In these remarks, an important subtext to the ‘skills’ message emerges. Critical thinking is a set of skills needed for commercial activity. We must teach students such skills, because the business world needs critical thinkers. The vocational application of critical thinking may have done much to separate critical thought from the development of character, and to make critical thinking instruction more mechanistic. To think critically is to ‘perform’ in a world of global industrial competitiveness; education must address “a growing concern over the effectiveness of higher education teaching practices and the decreased science (and math) performance of U.S. students relative to other industrialized countries” (Quitadamo & Kurtz, 2007, p. 140). In the report, A Test of Leadership, the USDE (2006) asserted that “employers report repeatedly that many new graduates they hire are not prepared to work, lacking the critical thinking, writing, and problem-solving skills needed in today’s workplaces” (p. 3). Business leaders have rallied to the charge. Microsoft Chairman Bill Gates supported the adoption of Common Core State Standards precisely because they will help train Americans in the skill set (Stephanopoulos, 2014). The Business Roundtable, a consortium of

24

executives, partnered with the Association of Chief Human Resource Officers (ACHRO) to create a series of online videos called JobSTART101, which focus on critical thinking and communication skills (Business Roundtable & Human Resource Policy Association, 2014; Taylor, 2010). Critical thought is now less about character, and more about commerce. This is so, despite the fact that, over the last several decades, concern over character has followed a remarkably similar trajectory to that of the critical thinking movement. In 1980, Morrill (1980), striking a chord that Bloom would later echo, argued for a needed “reemergence” (p. 1) of moral education with an emphasis on “formation of character” at the university level (p. 7). Morrill, like Bloom, decried the loss of the “historical commitment” (p. 1) to moral education within American colleges and universities, resulting from the upheavals of the 1960s and early ‘70s. Insightfully, Morrill did not engage in 1960s youth-bashing, but pointed out a shift in educational approach toward specialization and fragmentation that occurred during this era, which diminished the overt expression of virtue in education: Liberal education, even in small colleges, increasingly was under the dominance of highly defined disciplines whose subject matter and methods had become steadily more specialized. The disciplines were evolving into second-order endeavors, increasingly preoccupied with their own logic, language, and literature. For example, sociologists were becoming more interested in sociology than in society, and philosophers were devoting more attention toward proper philosophical analysis than to the nature of truth and reality. Humanists and scientists were becoming ever more removed from any direct relationship with questions of value and matters of immediate human significance. (Morrill, 1980, pp. 3-4) Morrill (1980) went on to argue that this increasing academic specialization, in addition to

 Critical Thinking and Character

deemphasizing virtue and character development, also increased the commercialization of education, further diverting attention from character. As students of the 1960s demanded “relevance” in higher education (Morrill, 1980, p. 4), colleges, universities, and society as a whole responded by making higher education more vocational and increasingly focused on career preparation. This response, which began in earnest in the early 1970s (Morrill, 1980), is a key feature of higher education today. Exposure to the virtues took a back seat to vocational education, with the result that character development stalled. Morrill’s observations highlight an odd conceptual state of affairs that has persisted for decades. We bemoan both the lack of critical thinking and the lack of character in our students, yet our separation of the two in the interest of educational specialization may have actually caused the problem. Since the 1980s, publications and programs on character education have been legion. Most, in one form or another, treat character education as a kind of specialized training, in which the behaviors we associate with good character can be taught and reinforced. Lickona (1991), in his influential book, Educating for Character, established the character-education curriculum as a combination of didactic instruction in rules, positive and negative behavioral reinforcement, and expression of authority by the classroom teacher. Central to this approach is the notion of penalties and rewards—rewards for following rules and penalties that accrue when students break the rules (Lickona, 1991). By 2002, Damon declared that “from K through 12 schools to college campuses, instructors are paying attention to students’ values and are accepting responsibility for promoting students’ character” (Damon 2002, p. vii). Damon, along with several scholars whose work he anthologized, espouse the concept that character resides in virtues developed through strong relationships, philosophic dialog, and able example, yet at the same time praise behaviorist programs that levy positive or negative results for

rule-following or rule-breaking. Examples include the Character Counts program or the codes of conduct in Damon’s own Youth Charter Project (Damon, 2002; Damon & Gregory, 1997). Other theorists, such as Berkowitz (2005) and Murray (1995), also view character as a goal achievable by a targeted skills. The work of Lickona (1991) and others is not monolithic in its emphasis on specialized skills, and does include a clear recognition that relationships and concepts have important roles in character development. The application of this work, however, has generally resulted in the behavioralskills training programs commonly conceived as character education. These include the popular curriculum programs described under the rubric of positive behavioral interventions and supports (PBIS). The USDE has spearheaded PBIS, and offers numerous services for implementation of behavior modification programs. The primary methodology of such programs is, in USDE’s (2014) formula: an application of a behaviorally-based systems approach to enhance the capacity of schools, families, and communities to design effective environments that improve the fit or link between research-validated practices and the environments in which teaching and learning occurs. Attention is focused on creating and sustaining primary (school-wide), secondary (classroom), and tertiary (individual) systems of support that improve lifestyle results (personal, health, social, family, work, recreation) for all children and youth by making problem behavior less effective, efficient, and relevant, and desired behavior more functional (p. 1). PBIS programs implemented at the elementary through secondary levels focus on desired behavioral outcomes as the definitive feature of character; concepts of virtue are presented without analysis, in the form of key attitudinal words (e.g., courage, honesty, cleanliness) and

25

 Critical Thinking and Character

examples of respect (PBIS Missouri, 2014; Social and Character Development Research Consortium, 2010). In higher education, a similar shift toward overt behavioral control to overcome deficiencies in student character has occurred, exemplified by the relatively new practice of factoring class attendance into student grades and the use of automated plagiarism checking systems like Turnitin. It is worth noting alternatives to this approach. One such alternative has been advocated by Noddings (2002, 2005). Noddings argued that moral and character education at every level could be delivered most effectively if an overarching concept of ‘caring’ were attached to every subject in the curriculum, from literature to mathematics. Noddings’s (2002; 2005) project followed John Dewey’s views on the need for an educational model in which “school life organizes itself on a social basis” (Dewey, 1959), and included critical analysis and philosophic dialog on virtue and the problems of moral living. Noddings’s approach, however, has not been the model adopted by most institutions, very likely due to practical concerns, such as cost and the need to realign the entire curriculum in the process of implementation. Another alternative, advocated as far back as Aristotle (1941), and more recently suggested by the work of Gilligan (1993), Kohn (2012), Nodding (2002; 2005), and White (2010), is the notion that character is a species of reasoning rather than a set of behavioral skills and associated rules of conduct in which a student can be trained. But these approaches are in the minority, with most efforts at character education aptly described, in the words of Kohn (2012) as a dogged effort to “drill students in specific behaviors” (p. 165).

Meager Results of SkillsBased, Character-Neutral Training in Critical Thinking The need to enhance students’ ability to think critically has been at the forefront of educational policy for more than 30 years. Despite the

26

emphasis on training in critical thinking skills, educators and business and government leaders continue to bemoan the lack of critical thought at all educational levels. Our approach to critical thinking is not working. The failure of our efforts at the college and university level became abundantly clear with the 2011 publication of Arum and Roksa’s (2011) report of their seminal longitudinal study, Academically Adrift. This study analyzed a large dataset—the Determinants of College Learning (DCL), which was created in partnership with the Council for Aid to Education (CAE). The core data collection instrument was the Collegiate Learning Assessment (CLA) consisting of three, open-ended evaluations—a performance task and two analytical writing tasks. The CLA’s design specifically assessed core outcomes in critical thinking and the related activities of analytical reasoning, problem solving, and writing. Freshmen at a total of 24, four-year colleges in the United States completed the CLA in 2005, with a follow-up in spring 2007 of the same students’ sophomore year. At the time of follow-up, the Social Science Research Council (SSRC) joined the study to collect additional data on students’ academic performance, college experience, socioeconomic background, and secondary-school characteristics. The initial sample included a total of 2362 students; complete datasets were available for 2322 students. Results of this study prompted Arum and Roksa (2011) to conclude that, despite a stated educational aim of teaching students to think critically, commitment to this aim “appears more a matter of principle than practice . . . the end result is that many students are only minimally improving their skills in critical thinking, complex reasoning, and writing during their journeys through higher education” (p. 35). The study found that students in the sample started out with generally modest capacities to think critically, but improved their critical thinking and associated abilities by only 7 percentile points from the time they enter college

 Critical Thinking and Character

through the end of their sophomore year. Mean scores on the CLA for all students studied increased only 3%—a “barely noticeable impact” (p. 35)— from the start of college to the end of sophomore year (Figure 1), with inequalities in performance at the start of college persisting through two years of college among African American, Latino, and other students who, because of family background, ethnic group, and high-school opportunity, entered college at an academic disadvantage. A limitation of the study included a change in the score cap from 1600 to 1800 from 2005 and 2007 assessments, which slightly but non-significantly

depressed 2007 mean score, because 65 of 2322 students scored above 1600 in 2007; changes to data as the result of the rise in the score cap were of “negligible magnitude” (p. 153) and did not alter the study’s substantive findings. Another limitation was the potentially data-deforming effect of student motivation to complete the CLA; however, reported levels of motivation and exertion showed only small differences among students and were distributed evenly across the population, so that the research team found no effect on substantive study findings.

Figure 1. Comparison of student performance in critical thinking and associated reasoning and writing from the start of freshman college year (2005) to the end of sophomore college year (2007); results of the College Learning Assessment (CLA) in a study jointly conducted by the Council to Aid Education (CAE) and the Social Science Research Council (SSRC) in 2322 students (Arum & Roksa, 2011, Table A2.1).

27

 Critical Thinking and Character

The work of Arum and Roksa (2011) supported the observations of smaller studies and anecdotal reports that show our generation-long effort to improve critical thinking has not yielded the results we seek. In the early 1990s—a decade after the first warnings on the need for critical thinking—researcher Kuhn (1991) reported that most of a set of 160 adults could not provide a justification for an opinion. Fourteen years later, van Gelder (2005), revisited this study to explain the continuing deficits in critical thinking, as illustrated by the lack of “a general grasp of the notion of evidence” (p. 42). Seven years after that, Mulnix (2012) identified the same problem among college students. Collaborations of government, education, and business have also failed to find adequate solutions: the lack of critical thinking, identified in 1988 by the USDE (Kurfiss, 1988) was still decried 18 years later (USDE, 2006), motivating the adoption of Common Core State Standards (2014). The popular literature mirrors academic work, as exemplified by Tyre’s (2012) recent and wellreceived reporting on the value of analytic writing education and Shenkman’s (2008) question: ‘Just how stupid are we?’ Reading about critical thinking in the lay press raises the concern that perhaps critical thinking was always absent in the lives of most American adults, with, as Shenkman suggested, our “level of ignorance remaining constant over time” (p. 18). Anecdotal evidence, admittedly limited, argues against this view. After de Tocqueville (1945) visited America in 1831, he remarked at length on the admirable “good sense” (p. 329) and sound general education of the populace, factors that, he thought, contributed to the maintenance of democracy. More recently, social critic Kunstler (2010) has written on an anecdote from history that portrays the loss of critical thought. He wrote that our current “inability to decode the clear and present dangers to civilized life” (p. 2)—in other words, our incapacity to think critically about our nation’s sociopolitical problems,

28

is a failure of leadership and authority without precedent in the American story . . . [In] the leadup to the Civil War, a strenuous public debate was able to focus on the salient question of the day, namely whether human slavery would continue in this country. Lincoln and Douglas parried for hours in the hot sun, arguing unscripted in complete sentences without the aid of Teleprompters or offstage spin doctors. Yet no one above age of nine failed to understand what was at issue. (p. 2) Historian Allen C. Guelzo (2008) echoed these observations, pointing out that “Illinoisans turned out in crowds of 15,000 to 20,000” to hear Lincoln and Douglas debate, “listening with an intensity that would rival that of an ‘American Idol’ audience” (p.2). Regardless of the possibility that Americans were never able to think critically, the question remains: why can’t students in higher education think critically now, after decades of educational emphasis on critical thought? One important reason—and the thesis of this chapter—may be found in the separation of critical thinking and character into isolated, skills-based training initiatives that has marked our pedagogy. I include my own pedagogy in this criticism. Having taught critical thinking and informal logic at the college level, I can attest that my skill-oriented approach produced meager outcomes for most students. Although a majority could feed-back logical forms and answer highly structured questions, by the end of the course only a handful could organize and argue a point based on observed evidence. These successful students were usually people who had this capacity coming into the course. The experience left me wondering what went wrong. Research and reflection have convinced me that healing the division between critical thought and character—essentially, a return to older notions of how we foster reason—will be a step toward improving education in critical thinking.

 Critical Thinking and Character

Rationales for Reuniting Critical Thought and Character Development When Bloom (1987) issued his challenge to improve critical thought in higher education, and allied such improvement with the development of virtue and the soul, he reflected an ancient philosophical view that reason and character are integrated functions. The relationship between reason and character is mutual: virtue supports and sustains human reason, and reason, in turn, guides us to virtue. Plato (1989b), in Republic, used Socrates to voice the idea that human reason—our “beautiful” and quasi-divine faculty—is nurtured and sustained by the exercise of “justice,” an overarching virtue that contains all manner of moral goodness (p. 817). Plato (1989a) was profoundly influenced by the example of Socrates, the champion of critical thinking who famously stated that “a life without this sort of examination is not worth living” (p. 23), and who also had the courage, honesty, and tenacity to follow a line of reasoning to some very unpopular truths. The Socratic example has been repeated throughout history whenever heroic people have suffered persecution because of their well-reasoned beliefs. Aristotle adopted much of Plato’s concept, but expanded and ensconced it in a detailed argument (Aristotle, 1941). Reason is the supreme human faculty, yet the most masterful exercise of reason is the active life of virtue. This is a life marked by moral virtues like courage, temperance, and generosity, as well as intellectual virtues like wisdom. Therefore, a person who reasons well is a person with a virtuous character. That reason and virtue go hand in hand is apparent in Aristotle’s idea that we identify virtuous choices of action through a process of reasoning, rather than through lock-step adherence to a set of rules—which, in any event, cannot be firmly laid down. “[T]he whole account of matters of conduct must be given in outline and not precisely,” wrote Aristotle (1941, p. 953). “[Q]uestions of what is

good for us have no fixity, any more than matters of health” (p. 953). Instead, Aristotle argued that we must determine the virtuous course of action case by case, via a form of moral reasoning that has come to be known as the Doctrine of the Mean. When confronted with a decision that requires the virtue of courage, for example, we seek to do what is the mean or moderate point between two related extremes—a display of cowardice on the one hard and a display of rashness or foolishness on the other. When intervening to stop a fist fight, the courageous choice of action requires us to examine critically all factors in the situation, including our own physical strength, location, availability of help, and psychological motivations or intentions, and then choose an action somewhere between running away (cowardice) and gleefully joining the melee (rashness). Obviously, people would need to be able to perform this kind of critical thinking rapidly and accurately, which is why Aristotle stresses constant practice combined with deference to the able example of those in a society who are considered especially good at such reasoned choices of action (Aristotle, 1941). The Doctrine of the Mean establishes an intimate link between the virtues that comprise character and the hard work of rational, critical thought. Because virtue is a mean between two extremes, it must be elicited by reasoning ability; it is therefore: no easy task to be good. For in everything, it is no easy task to find the middle, e.g., to find the middle of a circle is not for everyone but for him who knows; so too, anyone can get angry—that is easy—or give or spend money; but to do this to the right person, to the right extent, at the right time, with the right motive, and in the right way, that is not for everyone, nor is it easy; wherefore goodness is…rare and laudable and noble. (Aristotle, 1941, p. 963) Other philosophers of education have made a connection between critical thinking and character.

29

 Critical Thinking and Character

In Emile, Rousseau (1969) extolled the merits of developing in children a stalwart character and an independent, evidence-based thought process—to be “hard-working, temperate, patient, stable and courageous” and also capable of thinking so critically that “[n]othing fantastic or conventional” is accepted without question, and the mind is “not swayed by accepted opinion” (p. 93). The virtues and reasoning described by Rousseau work together to forge an admirable 18-year-old, endowed with the “active benevolence,” “kindly feelings,” and “justice” needed to do good deeds, which in turn provide experiences and outcomes from which the young adult can draw his or her “own conclusions” (p. 113). In doing this, “in addition to college lore,” the 18-year-old will “acquire the still more important ability of applying . . . knowledge to the purposes of life” (p. 113). Plato, Aristotle, and Rousseau describe what I term an ascending spiral of character development and critical thinking. By nurturing character—courage, honesty, kindness, and the like—we become more able and willing follow a line of reasoning to its potentially unpleasant, even dangerous conclusions. For example, a person of courage and honesty is more capable of changing, on the basis of evidence and analysis, a racial prejudice instilled in childhood than a person who lacks these virtues; we have all met people who lack the courage even to consider at a different viewpoint, lest it conflict with a cherished belief. Conversely, by practicing critical thought, we become better at moral reasoning, further strengthening character. Under such a view, critical thinking and character are not separable skill sets, but complex faculties that are intrinsically linked and mutually reinforcing. They cannot be mechanistically conveyed by training in behaviors and proficiencies. Two seminal—and quite different—educational theorists of the late 19thh to early 20th century, Dewey (1959) and Vygotsky (1978), opposed any project in education that, for training purposes,

30

reduces complex actions like critical thought to a set of mechanical skills. In addition, both Vygotsky and Dewey believed that critical thought develops dynamically with the social mores of emulation and helpfulness. Vygotsky (1978) argued that any “complex choice response”—any choice of conduct or methodology that requires assessment of multiple stimuli—cannot be reduced to “a chain of separate processes which may be arbitrarily added and subtracted” (pp. 66-67). Rather, any complex choice—writing a paper, completing a calculation, arguing an unpopular point—results from a dynamic interaction of external stimuli and internal conceptual and social development. This dynamic interaction, Vygotsky believed, is the only description that enables us to make sense of the experimentally observed processes of learning. To paraphrase one of Vygotsky’s (1978) own examples, a child learning to use copy-and-paste commands on a computer does not simply repeat the same mechanical process over and over. Instead, the increasing speed, dexterity, and creativity in application occur because, what began as an effort to follow external stimuli, such as auditory or printed directions, soon morphs into a response to internal stimuli, which may include memory, a social (including moral) motivation to emulate a teacher or caregiver, and a nascent conceptual understanding the structure and rules of computing. Vygotsky’s experiments also showed that adult learners, with a larger pool of memory and social experience, are more inclined than children to ask questions and study the directions for a complex task before beginning: children always dive in, while many adults hesitate until they gain the conceptual understanding of “the entire system of relations as a whole,” (p. 88) a system that adults fully expect to find based on prior experience. In both children and adults, the complex choice response is never mechanical, but is ultimately conceptual and social. Applied to education, this view demands we de-emphasize training in skills

 Critical Thinking and Character

and focus instead the way human learning actually occurs—a process by which critical thought (problem solving) is conditioned through emulation and other aspects of social development. A primate can learn a great deal through training by using its mechanical and mental skills, but it cannot be made more intelligent, that is, it cannot be taught to solve a variety of more advanced problems independently . . . ‘human learning presupposes a specific social nature and a process by which children grow into the intellectual life of those around them’. (p. 88) Dewey’s (1959) vision of a proper education was one that resembled social and work life in the larger community, in which the exchange of ideas advances along with important social virtues like helpfulness. In contrast, education based on the “mere absorption of facts” (p. 40) leads away from virtue toward secrecy and cheating. Critical, evidence-based thought, leading to high-quality work, develops in in tandem with character. Helping others, for example, is a virtue that makes critical thought possible across a group of students: Where school work consists in simply learning lessons, mutual assistance, instead of being the most natural form of cooperation and association, becomes a clandestine effort to relieve one’s neighbor of his proper duties. Where active work is going on, all this is changed. Helping others, instead of being a form of charity that impoverishes the recipient, is simply an aid to setting free the powers and furthering the impulse of the one helped. A spirit of free communication, of interchange of ideas, suggestions, results, both successes and failures of previous experiences, becomes the dominating note of the recitation. So far as emulation enters in, it is in the comparison of individuals, not with regard to the quantity of information personally absorbed, but with reference to the quality of work done—the genuine community standard of value. (Dewey, 1959, p. 40)

A reasonable objection at this juncture is that, while character development and critical thinking may work together, character is not the sole determinant of critical thought. For example, van Gelder (2001) has argued that “critical thinking is valuable, rare, and hard to teach” (p. 540) because we do not give students enough of the right kind of practice. According to van Gelder, proper practice involves general thinking skills rather than content-area–specific problem solving, which can be accomplished by properly structured use of computer technology. Other commentators have stressed the importance of very frequent practice in analytic, nonfiction reading and writing accompanied by instruction (Arum & Roksa, 2011; Tyre 2012). Research by Greenfield (2009) suggested that formal education, from elementary school through college, must increase opportunities for book-reading and auditory learning. The purpose of these opportunities is to counterbalance the losses in “reflection, analysis, critical thinking, mindfulness, and imagination” (p. 71) that have occurred due to the multitasking and constant interaction encouraged by modern digital media. Still others have emphasized that critical thinking can only be taught effectively if it is taught in every discipline; science education, for example, must include practice in scientific writing and argumentation (Vieira, 2011). While each of these alternatives offers methodological advantages, the alternatives do not negate the need to unite critical thinking with character development. Current deficits in critical thinking may be over-determined, with multiple causes that include but are not limited to separation from character development. Misapplication of technology, abandonment of analytic writing, and lack of cross-disciplinary emphasis in critical thinking may all contribute to the problem—but correction if these deficits may not be effective if the methodology retains a skill-driven, characterneutral approach. Regardless of specific educational tools, without an environment that builds the character to avoid “conformity,” students “may

31

 Critical Thinking and Character

even cease to think critically altogether” (Kohn, 1992, p. 130). Philosopher Vaughn (2013) echoed this claim, citing the need to reduce egocentrism and to find the strength to resist conformity as prerequisites for critical thought. The forgoing survey—from Socrates to Vaughn—has important implications for education. Critical thought has consequences, which are sometimes unpleasant or difficult. Anticipating and confronting these consequences requires good character. We cannot ask our students to think critically if they lack the honesty, courage, and perseverance to follow a chain of reasoning that conflicts with cherished social, economic, political, or religious beliefs. Conversely, it may be difficult to develop the character needed to think critically without the realization that virtue, in large measure, requires critical thought in the form of moral reasoning. Critical thinking and character are integrated functions that cannot be separated without doing damage to both—which is perhaps a fair description of the situation we face today. We need a pedagogic approach that unites the two in an ascending spiral.

DEVELOPING THE CHARACTER TO THINK CRITICALLY How, then, can educators forge a connection between critical thinking and character? First, it may be useful to define critical thinking in such a way as to show overtly its link to character. Second, it is worth evaluating the elements of character—that is, the virtues—that are conducive to critical thought. At the same time, it is instructive to examine the ways in which critical thought informs and nurtures character. This second step identifies the ascending spiral of critical thinking and character development, in which the two abilities reinforce one another. Third and finally, educators must explore methods, notably those that rely on modeling and relationship-building, to transition from concept to practice and improve

32

outcomes for students. There is ample support in older philosophical literature for these steps, as well as in the work of several current educational and philosophical theorists.

Defining Critical Thinking as a Human Faculty That Requires Character Critical thinking has been defined as a systematic, rational evaluation of beliefs, theories, events and behaviors (Vaughn, 2013). This definition demands, to paraphrase Duckworth (1987), “the having of uncomfortable ideas” (p. 33). According to Vaughn (2013), critical thinking requires us to confront and overcome a set of psychological and philosophical obstacles—essentially, the process of building a character that can restrain emotions and endure risk and discomfort. Vaughn has written that [w]e should expect then that critical thinking will often be difficult and even unpleasant (as painful truths sometimes are), and indeed it is. But there are ways to (1) detect errors in our thinking (even subtle ones), (2) restrain the attitudes and feelings that can distort our reasoning, and (3) achieve a level of objectivity that makes critical thinking possible. (p. 33) Historically, critical thinking has been defined along these lines. As discussed above, Plato (1989b) believed that moral and civic virtue was a practice essential for the development of the rational part of the human soul. This process is embodied in the example of Socrates, who chose execution rather than suppressing his critical analyses. In Plato’s (1989a) Apology, a chronicle of Socrates’s defense at his trial in Athens, Socrates describes himself as wandering Athens, quizzing the elite and powerful to gain evidence for the Delphic oracle’s strange prophecy: Socrates was the wisest of all Athenians. In doing so, Socrates proved that all the supposedly wise people were

 Critical Thinking and Character

not nearly as wise as they believed, eventually explaining the oracle’s claim in this elegant line of reasoning: “The wisest of you men is he who has realized, like Socrates, that in respect of wisdom he is really worthless” (Plato, 1989a, p. 9). Reaching this point in critical thought required the virtue of humility; it also took courage, since Socrates’ fierce pursuit of the truth aroused in many powerful people “hostility of a particularly bitter and persistent kind” (Plato, 1989a, p. 9). This hostility, built over decades, contributed to criminal charges, trial, and execution of Socrates at an estimated age of 70 years, in 399 BC. Although he considered the suggestion of exile from Athens, along with spending “the rest of your life in quietly minding your own business,” Socrates rejected this option, because “examining both myself and others is really the best thing that a man can do” (Plato, 1989a, p. 23). A person of character is not only able to pursue critical thought, he or she is obliged to do because it is the best way to live. Built into Plato’s idea is the notion of both critical thinking and character as kinds of human faculties. We display these faculties as practices and ways of living that are “never just a set of technical skills,” as noted by ethicist MacIntyre (1981, p. 180). To think critically is to engage in relationships of the mind—some friendly, as was that of Plato and Socrates, some adversarial, as was that of Socrates and the Athenian power clique. To think critically is to choose how to approach and respond to the social and natural world around us. On this view, it is hard to imagine divorcing critical thought from character, since character helps us navigate both pleasant and conflicted relationships. Socrates could not have practiced his analytic “lifestyle” without the friendliness and good humor that encouraged others to talk with him and without the bravery to press on when some people balked. The connection of critical thought and character were a given for the ancient Greeks. Describing the work of Plato’s younger contemporary, Aristotle, MacIntyre wrote that “[a] ccording to Aristotle . . . excellence of character

and intelligence cannot be separated. Here Aristotle expresses a view characteristically at odds with that dominant in the modern world” (p. 145). As a working definition of critical thinking, then, I propose something ‘at odds’ with the current view that critical thinking is merely a skill set that can be taught apart from character development. Critical thinking, on my definition, is the faculty of systematic, rational evaluation that we practice in social relationships, and which is allied with the faculty of character (i.e., virtues) that we practice in social relationships. On this definition, it is relationships—happy, indifferent, or combative—that mediate the connection between critical thinking and character. This point anticipates recommendations I will make later on.

The Virtues of a Critical Thinker Vaughn (2013), in his extensive work on the teaching of critical thought within the discipline of philosophy, has identified a number of traits that hinder students from thinking critically. These include self-interested thinking; self-fabricated evidence; taking things personally; conformity to the group; prejudice and bias; relativism (the notion that truth is only what is true ‘for me,’ ‘for you,’ or ‘for this social group’); and stringent skepticism that leads to cynicism (‘nothing is certain, so why bother thinking about it’). For instance, students may adopt a view solely because it supports their personal interests, biases, or needs, and may find it difficult to change their view on the basis of evidence. In other words, they will be, in such a case, unwilling to engage in critical thinking. This is illustrated in an example that occurs frequently in a philosophy course I teach. One of the philosophers studied is Kant (1964), who clearly set forth the idea that human happiness is found in the satisfaction of instinctual desires for food, shelter, sex, health, and companionship, rather than in higher-order activities dictated by reason, such as kind, generous, or right action. According to Kant, experience shows us that

33

 Critical Thinking and Character

personal sacrifice—a loss of happiness, even outright pain—is part and parcel of right action. Helping a sick child, for example, requires us to be willing to forgo a party, a day at the beach, or a cozy afternoon with a book in favor of messiness, crying, and boredom. Despite the stress Kant places on this idea, many students in my class repeatedly write and say that Kant believed that people should do kind, generous, and right actions because these actions make us happy. A handful of students persist in this erroneous interpretation of Kant throughout the course. The reason seems to be an inability to overcome personal interest and the biases of upbringing. Many people are raised with the idea that right action leads to happiness. Indeed, it is very comforting to think that, if we do the right thing, we will be happy, and this concept provides a strong incentive for good behavior. Thus, some students are unable to evaluate and critique Kant on the basis of what he actually says, because they cannot entertain an idea that conflicts with their ingrained beliefs. Vaughn’s (2013) list of obstacles, combined with examples from my own experience, suggest four traits of the student who is capable of thinking critically: 1) awareness of one’s own and others’ unsupportable prejudices; 2) willingness to discard or modify cherished assumptions or ideologies on the basis of evidence; 3) non-conformity— the acceptance that an evidence-based or logical belief must be championed despite the fact that it annoys others and may threaten relationships or status; and 4) judgment and decision-making free of unrecognized self-interest. These four traits require virtues—an old-fashioned word for the components of character. The virtues of a critical thinker include the courage to resist conformity or to consider uncomfortable alternative ideas; the humility to question one’s own core beliefs; the honesty to admit that a beloved idea is wrong; the patience to follow a train of evidence or complete a logical argument; the prudence to argue one’s views appropriately and without personal attacks on those who disagree; the kindness and tolerance

34

to recognize that others may not share one’s views; the unselfishness to put aside the motives of selfinterest in favor of a clear look at evidence and an logic; and the justice and equanimity to engage fairly and openly with other people in the process of critical examination. The prerequisite for thinking critically is living virtuously—developing the virtues that have been our culture’s hallmarks of character since the time of Aristotle (1941). At first glance, this inventory of virtues seems like a tall order. Although we speak easily about character as an abstract term, thinking about the concrete virtues that comprise character feels literary and archaic—more the province of ancient heroes than of modern college students. Yet the virtues are as necessary today as they ever were. MacIntyre (1981) made a compelling case that reclaiming the virtues may help us reclaim a number of useful traditions, including the tradition of clear, logical reasoning. Moreover, the virtues have a certain modernity to them, since they are not a batch of ossified rules, but traits we develop to improve our ability to make sound, case-by-case judgments (Aristotle, 1941). We need not shy away from the virtues; they are what we really mean when we talk about character. A review of some modern pedagogic literature demonstrates the role of virtues in educational settings. Dewey (1959) strongly emphasized the virtues of “unselfishness,” (p. 40) “openness” (p. 42) and a “spirit of service,” (p. 49) as worthy of development in the school. Noddings (2002) has stressed the need to instill and overarching attitude of caring, which embodies many virtues, such as the desire to alleviate another’s pain (kindness), sympathy, and friendliness. In her work, she emphasized the value of Aristotelian thought on virtue, and the connection of virtue to “morally directed” (p. 40) critical thinking in the school setting—that is, critical thought applied to classroom issues of ethics and the right treatment of others. The virtues of a critical thinker are also identified by the elegant, interesting, yet often overlooked literature on critical thinking in nursing

 Critical Thinking and Character

education. Nurse-educators have been refreshingly dubious on our ability to teach critical thinking (Mangena & Chabeli, 2005; Raymond-Seniuk & Profetto-McGrath, 2011; Riddell, 2007). These theorists pointed out that critical thinking, despite being “featured in the nursing literature for the past 20 years” (Riddell, 2007, p. 121) remains ill-defined. These authors also pointed to a lack of evidence that students can be taught in an academic setting to think critically, as well as a paucity of information on how critical thinking works in daily nursing practice (Raymond-Seniuk & ProfettoMcGrath, 2011; Riddell, 2007). Raymond-Seniuk & Profetto-McGrath (2011) have suggested that, to confront the vagaries and challenges of education in critical thinking, nurse-educators must explore critical thinking in relation to issues of personhood, nurses’ views of truth, and the nature of nursing. These explorations may often hinge on questions of virtue: helping others, considering “values” and “human situations,” in determining the truth of a claim (p. 48), and displaying the compassion and prudence required to practice the art of nursing. These authors described how critical thinking and the virtue of helpfulness work together; moreover, these faculties develop in mutual, unselfish relationships—a perspective that dovetails with the definition given earlier in this chapter: Dualism espouses that mind and body are seamlessly connected and that sensory perceptions and motor skills are inseparable . . . from a dualistic perspective, each human being experiences the world differently, without similarities to other individuals. Critical thinking in nursing…appears incongruent with this perspective. The main reason for this incongruency is the dualistic tendency to focus on one individual’s experiences without considering similarities of those experiences to other individuals. Since critical thinking . . . predicts and transforms knowledge as one aspect of quality nursing care, it is suggestive of a relational

process. Critical thinking based on a dualistic perspective would be so personalized that the overall goal of nursing, doing good for others, would be lost. Individuals could not learn critical thinking from this perspective because they might not consider undertaking similar processes and actions not driven from their own interpretation. (Raymond-Seniuk & Profetto-McGrath, 201, p. 48) A final argument for virtues as essential to critical thinking comes from the literature on cross-cultural determinants in the teaching of critical thought. Much has been written, for example, on the supposed lack of critical thinking skills among Asian students (Higher Education Academy, 2014). This perspective however, has been robustly criticized on the grounds that it views critical thinking as a “mechanistic demonstration of a certain skill set” (Higher Education Academy, 2014, p. 1), failing to recognize that “critical thinking includes a deep knowledge of oneself, which takes both intellectual courage and humility” (Mason, 2008, p. 3). When critical thinking is defined to include the virtues that comprise character, it is apparent that Asian students are every bit as capable of critical thought as other students, even though they may express it by excelling at different skills sets, such as active listening and analytic note taking as opposed to verbal participation in class (Chuah, 2010; Ryan & Louie, 2007). A similar analysis is suggested in the case of working-class students by in the research of Rubin (1992). Working-class parents (who often have received only rote and non-critical education in reading and math) may stress that kind of learning for their children. These parents may also expect teachers to be “tough disciplinarians,” who will demand deference from children (Rubin, 1992, p. 126). When children from working-class families succeed in entering higher education, they may be more reticent, less fluid in their interactions, and less skilled in verbal presentation than students from middle- and upper-class families.

35

 Critical Thinking and Character

This does not mean, however, that these students lack the ability to think critically—we simply must look beyond a narrow, skills-based definition of critical thinking. So far, this section has examined the role of virtues in making it possible for students to think critically. It is important to be reminded, however, that critical thinking also helps students develop the virtues from which good character is made. Virtue and critical thought interact in a mutually reinforcing, ascending spiral. A student needs to develop virtues like courage and honesty to think critically. Then, as a critical thinker, the student becomes more adept at moral reasoning, further developing virtues. This concept is implied in Noddings’ (2002) concept of morally directed critical thinking, which is in turn indebted to Aristotle (1941). The ascending spiral of critical thinking and virtue appear in Aristotle’s description of the active life of virtue. We begin in childhood to practice virtue. Then, as we grow, we learn from respected people the reasons why they behave as they do. Ultimately, we can use that reasoning to become even more adept at the practice of virtue.

EDUCATION THAT FUSES CHARACTER AND CRITICAL THOUGHT: EXPLORATIONS, SOLUTIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS What pedagogic methods could enable us to reunite critical thinking and character development in higher education? To explore this question, the philosophic beginning is a good place to start. Aristotle (1941) had a lot to say on how a young person develops the faculties of critical thinking and character. Aristotle believed that we develop virtues like courage or justice as a kind of habit, which is why “it makes no small difference, then, whether we form habits of one kind or another from our very youth; it makes a very great difference, or rather all the difference” (p. 952). Against

36

this background of character development, we also receive didactic and observational learning needed to cultivate rationality and sound thinking. In this regard, Aristotle paid significant to what he termed “practical wisdom,” (p. 1034) the ability to deliberate, decide, and communicate properly in each situation. Practical wisdom is very much akin to what we consider critical thinking: the capacity to solve the problem, plan the action, organize the project, and explain the outcomes in professional, business, and social life. Character development must accompany the development of practical wisdom, because “the work of man is achieved only in accordance with practical wisdom as well as moral virtue, for virtue makes us aim at the right mark and practical wisdom makes us take the right means” (p. 1034). Moreover, as the process of ‘aiming for the right mark’ itself requires reasoning to determine what is right in each case—part of the ascending spiral in which virtue enables critical thinking which in turn enables greater virtue. For Aristotle (1941), what is required to make this happen is a combination of 1) role-modeling of moral virtue—mimicking the actions of “the just and temperate person”— plus opportunities for practice of virtue and 2) teaching—which also implies “experience and time” (pp. 952, 956) for the development of practical wisdom as well as more abstract reasoning and logic. Although this may be an appealing formulation, translating it to the setting of modern higher education, seems, on the surface, to be utterly unworkable. Aristotle addressed the tutelage of youth—and upper-class youth at that—in a small, traditional society. How can university educators, in an era that welcomes diversity and individual expression, function as exemplars of virtue? How can we, or our students, find the time to structure and analyze opportunities for the practice of virtue? And how can these methods of character development coincide with good teaching to develop reasoning, which Aristotle admits is a time-intensive pursuit?

 Critical Thinking and Character

I believe these are serious and legitimate questions. It will be very difficult to align character development and critical thinking in higher education. I do not, however, think such an alignment is impossible, for two primary reasons. First, virtue, as characterized by Aristotle (1941), is fully compatible with diversity and individuality. Second, a single pedagogic tool—relationship building— can meld the habit-creation needed for character development with the teaching needed to convey logic, reasoning, organization, and other aspects of thinking. As discussed earlier in this chapter, and coinciding with the proffered definition of critical thinking, relationships mediate the development of both critical thought and character. Building relationships is an educational approach that manifests in many ways: richer student-faculty interactions, the building of consensus and tradition across the entire school community, and teaching driven by concrete examples, experiments, guided problem-solving, and writing. In utilizing these methods, educators are not conveying a skill set, but encouraging practice our human faculties of character and critical thinking.

Virtue and Diversity The beauty of Aristotle’s (1941) concept of character is that moral virtue is not about following rigid rules. Instead, a person of virtue judges what is right case by case, using that instrument of moral reasoning, the Doctrine of the Mean. Some people, because of length or type of life experience, may perform this case-by-case determination better than other people. Aristotle did not imply that morality is a free-for-all of relativism—all people should aim for the mean between extremes of action if they are to be virtuous. He did suggest, however, that there may be variations in judgment based on deliberative powers. For example, as a young person, I thought that the right way to solve a problem was always to tackle it head on, usually with a strong expression of my opinion. I believed that this aggressive approach side-stepped the vi-

cious pitfall of cowardly avoidance. Now, I can see that, in many cases, my actions were foolish, not courageous. I could comprehend one vice (the deficiency of cowardice) but not the other vice (the excess of rashness). I am better now at finding the mean, cases by case, when deciding how to respond to problems—tackle right away, wait a bit, or ignore altogether. I wrote ‘better’ at finding the mean, not perfect—and that is what makes Aristotle’s (1941) view very useful in an era of diversity. To be role-models of virtue, university educators do not have to follow a set of rigid moral rules—rules that people from other cultures, ethnic and racial groups, sexual orientations, and socioeconomic classes may not support. Educators only need to show they are engaged in the effort to get better and better in their character and decisionmaking—to make decisions that are ever more courageous, kind, unselfish, and patient—while encouraging students to engage in such an effort as well. It is worth noticing once more that this process is itself a way to foster critical thinking, since moral reasoning requires critical evaluation of each situation.

Relationship-Building as a Pedagogic Tool In Academically Adrift, Arum and Roksa’s (2011) seminal demonstration that college students are not learning to think critically, the authors note that an important deficit in today’s university is faculty-student engagement. Their data set showed that, in semester prior to survey, 31% of students met with a faculty member outside of class only once or twice and 9% never met with a faculty member outside of class at all. Factors that increased students’ risk for no faculty-student interaction outside of class included attendance at a less-selective college, parental education at a level of high-school or less, a language other than English spoken at home, bottom quintile SAT/ ACT performance, and Asian or Hispanic ethnic

37

 Critical Thinking and Character

group. Arum and Roksa suggested that facultystudent collaboration may not be robust enough to support the development of critical thinking in higher education. Although this is an area that requires more study, to determine whether degree of collaboration affects “mastering complex skills like critical thinking, complex reasoning, and writing” (p. 133), the findings are congruent with other studies that raise a red flag in faculty-student ‘disengagement’ (Boyer, 1990; Kuh, 2003). Anecdotally, disengagement is a current phenomenon, exacerbated by student employment, the rise of the university ‘fun’ culture, loss of sociability in favor of electronic media, time and publication pressures on faculty, and the increased use of adjunct faculty (Arum & Roksa, 2011). Enhancing student-faculty relationships would serve several important purposes in an educational effort that unites critical thinking and character. Such relationships provide informal, ongoing role modeling of character, along with additional teaching time. Such relationships also represent natural opportunities for students (and faculty) to practice virtue and reasoning, especially when faculty overtly stress and reinforce such expectations as student’s courtesy, honesty, or courage in the face of difficult ideas. For example, when speaking with an individual or small group, an instructor can model patience and humility when dealing with an idea that is hard to understand, while guiding students as the consider ways to clarify the idea. Structural changes at college and universities may be needed to attain the full flower of studentfaculty relationships. Reduced workloads for tenured and full-time faculty would be helpful, as would a redefinition of adjunct or contingent faculty. It may be time to retire the term ‘adjunct’ and replace it with ‘consulting,’ pay these faculty members as independent, expert consultants, and shift academic culture to professionalize consulting faculty along the lines of attorneys or therapists in private practice. Universities may evaluate programs, events, and even architectural designs

38

on the criterion of how well they encourage collaboration. While working for these long-term changes, I recommend that university educators find simple and immediate ways to increase oneto-one or small-group interaction with students. I have increased interactions somewhat by a few changes to my methods: •

•

•

•

Requiring students to submit homework in paper form rather than electronically, so that I have a piece of paper to hand to a student and go over face to face just before or just after class. Directly asking specific students or small groups to meet with me for a few minutes in the classroom after other students have left. Breaking the classroom into groups of four or five students once weekly, to tackle a problem together; during this process, I visit with each as many groups as I can during the class. Regularly encouraging students to email me questions or drafts for my comments prior to an assignment due date.

Another tool to build relationships is to foster school-wide community consensus and tradition. ‘Community’ has become educational jargon, arousing suspicion that the term is meaningless. However, a description given by MacIntyre (1981) goes to a long way to restoring meaning: For I am never able to seek for the good or exercise the virtues only qua individual. This is partly because what it is to live the good life concretely varies from circumstance to circumstance even when it is one and the same conception of the good life and one and the same set of virtues which are being embodied in human life . . . I am someone’s son or daughter, someone else’s cousin or uncle; I am a citizen of this or that city, a member of this or that guild or profession; I belong to this clan, that tribe, this nation. Hence what is good

 Critical Thinking and Character

for me has to be good for one who inhabits these roles. As such, I inherit from the past of my family, my city, my tribe, my nation a variety of debts, inheritances, rightful expectations and obligations. These constitute the given of my life, my moral starting point. This is in part what gives my life its own moral particularity. (MacIntyre, 1981, pp. 204-205) Here, MacIntyre (1981) reminds us that relationships in the community are what form a person’s character, the wellspring of a life of virtue. While MacIntyre does not believe that people must blindly accept every dictate of the community, he does believe it is misguided to ignore or belittle community tradition in favor of individualism. “I am born with a past, wrote MacIntyre, “and to try to cut myself of from that past, in the individualist mode, is to deform my present relationships” (p. 205). Communities are not ossified in their traditions, however. They change, and the change reflects consensus based on time, place, and conditions. In recent years, MacIntyre has become a proponent of recognizing that, in today’s world, every student’s socioeconomic need for vocational as well as liberal-arts education.1* In other words, the university community must adopt a new consensus based on current economic realities, while working to sustain tradition. Consensus and tradition are often at odds; this conflict is part of the dynamism of communities. MacIntyre’s (1981) work brings philosophic clarity to the pedagogy of community-building. When Noddings (2002)—who cited both Aristotle and MacIntyre in her work—talks about the caring school community, she sees the school as a place where institutional traditions are respected and promulgated along with consensus of current students, their families, faculty, and administrators. Kohn (2012) also supports the building of such caring communities, as embodied in the Child Development Project (Schaps, 2002), as a replacement for top down, behavioral, skills-driven character education programs.

A great advantage of community building is that it seamlessly combines critical thinking and character development. Questions and conflicts between community tradition and consensus will arise, and such conflicts are themselves a proving ground for both virtue and critical thinking. For example, a college mathematics department may invite students to a meeting about mathematics and computer software development. During the meeting, faculty may encourage students to discuss their vocational needs and concerns. A debate may ensue about the number of course offerings in applied versus theoretical mathematics—an opportunity for students to think critically and at the same time practice restraint, kindness, and courage in the presence of people (professors included) who may not share their views. Events of this type, along speaker and film series and student-faculty conferences or clubs, are simple ways to build community. Note that these are live, in-person events rather than online events; I speculate that an obstacle to building community in the university, and elsewhere, is the seductive but fragmenting pull of digital media (Rushkoff, 2013), a subject worthy of more research. To forge relationships that support critical thinking and character development in higher education, we may need to rethink the classic lecture-only format for college courses. This format may work well for students already wellschooled in analytic thought and the virtues of their society—an elite group of students that no longer represent the enrollment of many universities. Anecdotally, I can attest that I have had much greater educational success in philosophy classes when I began to incorporate lots of time for guided in-class writing and small-group or partnership problem-solving. This approach is sometimes placed under the rubric of the ‘flipped’ classroom, although it does not necessitate on-line lectures that are becoming part of the flippedroom paradigm (Honeycutt & Garrett, 2014). In older educational parlance, I am advocating a constructivist approach, in which students have

39

 Critical Thinking and Character

the opportunity to try out ideas and techniques and get immediate feedback, guidance, examples, and counterexamples from teachers and other students. Constructivism is a term often limited to early childhood and elementary settings, but I have come to believe its concepts are very useful for today’s adult learners. Mulnix (2010) suggested constructivism in education on critical thinking when she advocates modeling and practice of arguments. A study by Shim and Walczak (2012) reported that, at the college level, the one pedagogic practice that yielded both self-reported and objectively tested gains in first-year students’ critical thinking was the instructors’ asking of challenging questions. Asking difficult or complex questions, and then urging students to work to find the answer, is the essence of constructivism. Using the college classroom to experiment, problem-solve, write, and create examples is an optimal way to foster the practices of virtue and critical thinking. For example, in my philosophy classes, one activity I conduct is to have students write for 10 minutes on a problem of reasoning, then to work in teams to ask one another structured questions on what they wrote.2† I guide the process by first giving a short lecture on writing process and on displaying kindness and fairness when team members disagree on point of ethics; I also visit personally with as many teams as I can, to provide more guidance and share examples of the moral reasoning in action. This activity gives every student a chance to practice critical thinking, via written and verbal reasoning, in an environment where they can get feedback and correction, not just from me but also from other students. They can also practice virtues (courage, kindness, and tolerance, for example) and observe models of virtue in other students and, if I am doing my job properly, in me. Using the team and small group approach, combined with my visits to groups, means that every student has the chance to engage in critical thought and character development—not

40

just those few students capable of raising their hand during a lecture or in a whole-class question and answer session. Although this example comes from the discipline of philosophy, I believe it has crossdisciplinary application. In a science or accounting class, students could work in small groups to complete and discuss a complex calculation, with the same opportunities for role-modeling and practice of virtue and critical thinking. Granted, such a method can only be used in classes of less than than 30 to 40 students; 100-plus person classes cannot accommodate constructivism. I would ask these questions, however: Are very large lecture courses really helping our students develop into people of character who can think critically? Can I, as a university educator, effectively model virtue and my give my students the opportunity to think critically in such a large class?

FUTURE RESEARCH DIRECTIONS All of my solutions and recommendations are presented speculatively. They are based on educational literature and my experience, but the specific interventions I support have not been prospectively studied to prove their effectiveness. I believe my recommendations are valid in principle, but require experimental support. Ideally, controlled trials could determine the efficacy of constructivist techniques or show the community-building in-person versus online communication. Longitudinal studies at one or multiple universities could assess whether increasing levels of student-faculty interaction and community building improve critical thinking and character development. Assessment modalities in such studies might include student-reported character development in diaries or questionnaires and meaningfully improved scores on tests like the CLA. Such studies take time and significant

 Critical Thinking and Character

resources. As a cost-effective alternative, I propose documentation and anecdotal reporting of any measurable changes in critical thinking in a single course, with learning objectives and teaching techniques designed to accomplish the following: increase student-faculty interaction, promulgate and respect both tradition and the consensus of the micro-community of the classroom, and utilize a constructivist approach. Such anecdotal reports could supply a set of techniques for universities and academic departments to consider. More research is also needed on the formation of critical thinking itself in students’ school experience. For example, a valuable question for research is whether increased assessment and standardized testing of students, starting at the elementary level, correlates with improvement or deficits in critical thinking and character observed in higher education. Another useful area of research would be a retrospective study that aims to quantify a central observation of this chapter: the parallel erosion of character and critical thinking that has occurred since the 20th century.3‡ As mentioned earlier in this chapter, it is meaningful to consider whether Americans have actually declined in this way. It might be that what looks like decline is in reality the current demand of society for better thinking and better character. Another fruitful area of research might be the challenge set forth by both Greenfield (2009) and Rushkoff (2013): What role does digital media play, if any, in hampering critical thought, character, and the relationships required for both?

CONCLUSION For over three decades, educators, businesspeople, legislators, and pundits have stressed the need to improve critical thinking. Despite widespread efforts to help students think critically, we have failed to make adequate progress toward this educational objective. One compelling reason for our failure lies in a skills-oriented approach,

which ignores the role of character development in critical thought. Students cannot think critically if they have not developed the character necessary to face the often challenging consequences of critical thought. Pedagogy that unites critical thinking and character development is therefore essential in higher education.

REFERENCES Aristotle. (1941). Nicomachean ethics. In R. McKeon (Ed.), The basic works of Aristotle (pp. 929–1126). New York, NY: Random House. Arum, R., & Roksa, J. (2011). Academically adrift: Limited learning on college campuses. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Berkowitz, M. W., & Bier, M. C. (2005). What works in character education: A research-driven guide for educators. Washington, DC: Character Education Partnership. Bloom, A. D. (1987). The closing of the American mind. New York, NY: Simon and Schuster. Business Roundtable & Human Resource Policy Association. (2014). JobSTART 101. Smart tips and real world training. Retrieved from http:// jobstart101.org Chuah, S.-H. (2010). Teaching East-Asian students: Some observations. Retrieved from http:// www.heacademy.ac.uk/resources/detail/subjects/ economics/teaching-east-asian-students Common Core State Standards Initiative. (2014). Do the Common Core State Standards incorporate both content and skills? Retrieved from http:// www.corestandards.org/about-the-standards/ frequently-asked-questions/#faq-2323 Damon, W. (2002). Introduction. In W. Damon (Ed.), Bringing in a new era in character education (pp. i–xxii). Stanford, CA: Hoover Institution Press.

41

 Critical Thinking and Character

Damon, W., & Gregory, A. (1997). The Youth Charter: Towards the formation of adolescent moral identity. Journal of Moral Education, 26(2), 117–130. doi:10.1080/0305724970260201 de Tocqueville, A. (1945). Democracy in America. New York, NY: Alfred A. Knopf. Dewey, J. (1959). The school and society. In M. S. Dworkin (Ed.), Dewey on education (pp. 33–90). New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Duckworth, E. (1987). ‘The having of wonderful ideas’ and other essays on teaching and learning. New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Emerson, M. K. (2013). A model for teaching critical thinking. ERIC Online Submissions. Retrieved from http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ ED540588.pdf Foundation for Critical Thinking. (2014). Higher education: long-term professional development. Retrieved from http://www.criticalthinking.org/ pages/higher-education/431 Gilligan, C. (1993). In a different voice: Psychological theory and women’s development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Greenfield, P. M. (2009). Technology and informal education: What is taught, what is learned? Science, 323(5910), 69–71. doi:10.1126/science.1167190 PMID:19119220 Guelzo, A. C. (2008). Lincoln-Douglas: The real thing. Washington Post. Retrieved on March 22, 2014 from http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/01/ AR2008020102661.html Healy, J. M. (1990). Endangered minds: Why our children don’t think. New York, NY: Simon and Schuster. Higher Education Academy. (2014). Critical thinking. Retrieved from http://www.heacademy.ac.uk/resources/detail/internationalisation/ isl_critical_thinking 42

Honeycutt, B., & Garrett, J. (2014). Expanding the definition of a flipped learning environment. Faculty Focus Online. Retrieved from http:// www.facultyfocus.com/articles/instructionaldesign/expanding-definition-flipped-learningenvironment Kant, I. (1964). Groundwork of the metaphysic of morals. New York, NY: Harper & Row Publishers. Kanter, M. (2010). Undersecretary Martha Kanter’s remarks at the Association of American Colleges & Universities Annual Meeting. Retrieved from http://www2.ed.gov/news/ speeches/2010/01/01212010.html Kohn, A. (1992). No contest: The case against competition. New York, NY: Houghton Mifflin Company. Kohn, A. (2012). A critical examination of character education. In A. C. Ornstein, E. F. Pajak, & S. B. Ornstein (Eds.), Contemporary issues in curriculum (5th ed.; pp. 161–181). Boston, MA: Pearson Education. Kuhn, D. (1991). The skills of argument. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511571350 Kunstler, J. H. (2010). Scary people, scary times. Retrieved from http://truth-out.org/archive/component/k2/item/91752:james-howard-kunstler--scary-people-scary-times Kurfiss, J. G. (1988). ASHE-ERIC higher education report: Vol. 2. Critical thinking: Theory, research, practice, and possibilities. Washington, DC: Association for the Study of Higher Education. Lai, E. R. (2011). Critical thinking: A literature review. Pearson’s Research Reports. Retrieved from http://images.pearsonassessments.com/ images/tmrs/CriticalThinkingReviewFINAL.pdf

 Critical Thinking and Character

LaPoint-O’Brien, T. (2013). Action research: The development of critical thinking skills. ERIC Online Submissions. Retrieved from http://files. eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED540359.pdf Lickona, T. (1991). Educating for character: How our schools can teach respect and responsibility. New York, NY: Bantam Books. MacIntyre, A. (1981). After virtue: A study in moral theory. Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press. Mangena, A., & Chabeli, M. M. (2005). Strategies to overcome obstacles in the facilitation of critical thinking in nursing education. Nurse Education Today, 25(4), 291–298. doi:10.1016/j. nedt.2005.01.012 PMID:15896414 Maryland Center for Character Education. (2014). Values courses, character education & community service in higher education programs. Retrieved from http://www.mdctrcharacter.org/colleges. shtml Mason, M. (2008). Critical thinking and learning. In M. Mason (Ed.), Critical thinking and learning (pp. 1–11). Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishing. doi:10.1002/9781444306774.ch1 Moore, K. (2010). The three-part harmony of adult learning, critical thinking, and decision-making. Journal of Adult Education, 39(1), 1–10. Morrill, R. L. (1980). Teaching values in college. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, Inc. Publishers. Mulnix, J. W. (2012). Thinking critically about critical thinking. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 44(5), 464–479. doi:10.1111/j.14695812.2010.00673.x Murray, M. C. (1995). Character education: An ethical choice for higher education. The Vermont Connection, 16, 58-68. Retrieved from http:// www.uvm.edu/~vtconn/v16/murray.html?tp=true

Noddings, N. (2002). Educating moral people: A caring alternative to character education. New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Noddings, N. (2005). The challenge to care: An alternative approach to education. New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Perkins, D. N., & Solomon, G. (1989). Are cognitive skills context-bound? Educational Researcher, 18(1), 16–25. doi:10.3102/0013189X018001016 Plato. (1989a). Socrates’ Defense (Apology). In E. Hamilton & H. Cairns (Eds.), Plato: Collected dialogs (pp. 3–26). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Plato, . (1989b). Republic. In E. Hamilton & H. Cairns (Eds.), Plato: Collected dialogs (pp. 575– 844). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports - Missouri. (2014). Some valued behaviors and attitudes. Retrieved from http://pbismissouri. org/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/Valued_Behaviors_Attitudes. pdf?9d7bd4 Quitadamo, I. J., & Kurtz, M. J. (2007). Learning to improve: Using writing to increase critical thinking performance in general education biology. Cell Biology Education—Life. Sciences Education, 6(2), 140–154. doi:10.1187/cbe.06-11-0203 Raymond-Seniuk, C., & Profetto-McGrath, J. (2011). Can one learn to think critically?—A philosophical exploration. The Open Nursing Journal, 5, 45–51. doi:10.2174/1874434601105010045 PMID:21760871 Riddell, T. (2007). Critical assumptions: Thinking critically about critical thinking. The Journal of Nursing Education, 46(3), 121–126. PMID:17396551 Rousseau, J.-J. (1969). The Emile of Jean-Jacques Rousseau (W. Boyd, Trans.). New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

43

 Critical Thinking and Character

Rubin, L. B. (1992). Worlds of pain. New York, NY: Basic Books. Rushkoff, D. (2013). Present shock: When everything happens now. New York, NY: Penguin Group. Ryan, J., & Louie, K. (2007). False dichotomy? ‘Western’ and ‘Confucian’ concepts of scholarship and learning. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 39(4), 404–417. doi:10.1111/j.14695812.2007.00347.x Schaps, E. (2002). Community in school: Central to character formation and more. Presented at the White House Conference on Character and Community, June 12, 2002. Retrieved from http:// www2.ed.gov/admins/lead/safety/character/ schaps.pdf Shenkman, R. (2008). Just how stupid are we? Facing the truth about the American voter. New York, NT: Basic Books. Shim, W.-J., & Walczak, K. (2012). The impact of faculty teaching practices on the development of students’ critical thinking skills. International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 24(1), 16–30.

Taylor, M. (2010). Schools, businesses focus on critical thinking. Wall Street Journal. Retrieved from http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB100 01424052748703882304575466100773788806 Trye, P. (2012). The writing revolution. Atlantic Monthly. Retrieved from http://www.theatlantic. com/magazine/archive/2012/10/the-writingrevolution/309090/?single_page=true United States Department of Education. (2006). A test of leadership: Charting the future of U.S. higher education. Retrieved from http://www2. ed.gov/about/bdscomm/list/hiedfuture/reports/ final-report.pdf United States Department of Education. (2014). Tertiary level prevention. Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports. Retrieved from http:// www.pbis.org/school/tertiary-level van Gelder, T. (2001). How to improve critical thinking using educational technology. Presented at the 18th Annual Conference of the Australasian Society for Computers in Learning in Tertiary Education. Retrieved from http://www. http:// ascilite.org.au/conferences/melbourne01 van Gelder, T. (2005). Critical thinking: Some lessons from cognitive science. College Teaching, 53(1), 41–46. doi:10.3200/CTCH.53.1.41-48

Social and Character Development Research Consortium. (2010). Efficacy of schoolwide programs to promote social and character development and reduce problem behavior in elementary school children. Alexandria, VA: National Center for Education Research.

Vaughn, L. (2013). The power of critical thinking: Effective reasoning about ordinary and extraordinary claims. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Stephanopoulos, G. (2014). Bill Gates on education (transcript). Retrieved from http://abcnews. go.com/ThisWeek/video/week-bill-gates-education-22932237

Vieira, R. M., Tenreiro-Vieira, C., & Martins, I. P. (2011). Critical thinking: Conceptual clarification and its importance in science education. Science Education International, 22(1), 43–54.

Sugai, G., & Homer, R. R. (2006). A promising approach for expanding and sustaining schoolwide positive behavior support. School Psychology Review, 35(2), 245–259.

Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

44

 Critical Thinking and Character

Weston, A. (2008). A rulebook for arguments. Indianapolis, IN: Hackett Publishing Company. White, D. A. (2010). Gifted education: Thinking (with help from Aristotle) about critical thinking. Gifted Child Today, 33(3), 14–19.

ADDITIONAL READING

Fliegel, R., & Holland, J. (2013). Quantifying learning in critical thinking. The Journal of General Education, 62(2-3), 160–203. doi:10.1353/ jge.2013.0015 Healy, J. M. (1999). Failure to connect: How computers affect our children’s minds—and what we can do about it. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster. King, P. M., & Kitchener, K. S. (1994). Developing reflective judgment: Understanding and promoting intellectual growth and critical thinking in adolescents and adults. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, Inc. Publishers.

Antonaros, M., Barnhardt, C., Holsapple, K., Moronski, K., & Vergoth, V. (2008). Should colleges focus more on personal and social responsibility? Initial findings from campus surveys conducted for the Association of American Colleges & Universities as part of its initiative, Core Commitments: Educating Students for Personal and Social Responsibility. Washington, DC: Association of American Colleges & Universities; Retrieved from http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED501068.pdf

Kohlberg, L. (1981). The philosophy of moral development: Moral stages and the idea of justice. New York, NY: Harper & Row.

Association of American Colleges & Universities. (2005). Liberal education outcomes: A preliminary report on student achievement in college. Washington, DC: Association of American Colleges & Universities.

Lickona, T., Schaps, E., & Lewis, C. (2007). CEP’s eleven principles of effective character education. ERIC Online Submissions. Retrieved from http:// files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED505086.pdf

Bybee, R. W., & Fuchs, F. (2006). Preparing the 21st century workforce: A new reform in science and technology education. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 43(4), 349–352. doi:10.1002/ tea.20147 Chomsky, N. (1969). Aspects of the theory of syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Coles, R. (1986). The moral life of children. New York, NY: Atlantic/Grove Press. Elder, L., & Paul, R. (2010). Critical thinking: Competency standards essential for the cultivation of intellectual skills, part 1. Journal of Developmental Education, 34(2), 38–39.

Kohn, A. (2011). Feel-bad education and other contrarian essays on standards, grading, and other follies. Boston, MA: Beacon Press.

MacIntyre, A. (1989). Whose justice? Which rationality? Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press. Malnarich, G. (2008). Increasing student engagement through faculty development: A practice brief based on BEAMS project outcomes. Washington, DC: Institute for Higher Education Policy; Retrieved from http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ ED539701.pdf McCrae, N. (2011). Nurturing critical thinking and academic freedom in the 21st century university. International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 23(1), 128–134. Moore, B. N., & Parker, R. (2011). Critical thinking (10th ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

45

 Critical Thinking and Character

Nagel, T. (1979). Mortal questions. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Noble, K., & Henderson, R. (2011). The promotion of ‘character’ and its relationship to retention in higher education. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 36(3), 79–91. doi:10.14221/ ajte.2011v36n3.3 Noddings, N. (2011). Philosophy of education (3rd ed.). Boulder, CO: Westview Press. Pascarella, E. T., & Terenzini, P. T. (2005). How college affects students: A third decade of research. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, Inc. Publishers. Rowles, J., Morgan, C., Burns, S., & Merchant, C. (2013). Faculty perceptions of critical thinking at a health sciences university. Journal of the Scholarship or Teaching and Learning, 13(4), 21–35. Schick, T., & Vaughn, L. (2013). How to think about weird things: Critical thinking for a new age (7th ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill. Thayer-Bacon, B. (1998). Transforming and redescribing critical thinking: Constructive thinking. Studies in Philosophy and Education, 17(2-3), 123–148. doi:10.1023/A:1005166416808 Thorman, J., Gable, S., Fidalgo, P. S., & Blakeslee, G. (2013). Interaction, critical thinking, and social network analysis (SNA) in online courses. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 14(3), 294–318. Vygotsky, L. (2012). Thought and language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Williams, B. (2006). Ethics and the limits of philosophy. Abingdon, UK: Routledge. Willingham, D. (2007). Critical thinking: Why is it so hard to teach? American Educator, 31(2), 8–19.

46

KEY TERMS AND DEFINITIONS Character: The human faculty composed of those traits we call virtues, such as courage, honesty, patients, and kindness. Community: Network of relationships within various social groups, including the college or university, through which consensus and tradition develop (MacIntyre, 1981). Questions and conflicts between community tradition and an emerging new consensus may arise; these questions and conflicts are fertile ground for the practices of good character and critical thinking. Constructivism: An educational philosophy that views learning as constructed by students through experience, practice, and interaction (Duckworth, 1987). Critical Thinking: Systematic, rational evaluation of beliefs, theories, events and behaviors (Vaughn, 2013); redefined in this chapter as the faculty of systematic, rational evaluation that we practice in social relationships, and which is allied with the faculty of character (i.e., virtues) that we practice in social relationships. Problem-Solving: Ability to clarify, organize, resolve, or redirect the approach to a life situation or challenge in reasoning; an essential part of critical thinking. Skills: Technical or mechanical abilities in which students can be trained; in contrast to skills, faculties are broad human capabilities mediated through social relationships. Virtues: The catalog of specific traits that make up character; Aristotle (1941) identified virtues through his Doctrine of the Mean, in which the virtue is the mean or middle between two related extremes. Examples: courage is the mean between cowardice and rashness; honesty is the mean between dishonesty and rudeness/bluntness.

 Critical Thinking and Character

ENDNOTES

1



2

I am indebted to David Brown, Michael Carper, and Joseph Steineger of Lindenwood University for this insight. I thank Jacqueline Wuertenberg of Lindenwood University (retired) for this technique,



3

which has worked very well and inspired me to create more group and team activities for my classes. I am indebted to Lynda Leavitt of Lindenwood University for these innovative research questions.

47

48

Chapter 3

Critical Thinking, Socratic Seminars, and the College Classroom John D. Long Lindenwood University, USA

ABSTRACT In many college classrooms, the requirement that students engage in critical thinking is missing. Students have become point gatherers and not thinkers. The Socratic Seminar, derived from the teaching techniques of Socrates, is a proven method to increase the critical thinking in class, and out. This structured discussion is not a debate. This chapter includes a description of, the purpose for, and successful strategies for conducting a Socratic Seminar, based on the researcher’s experiences. The use of a foundational reading grounds the discussion on a common reference point. The purpose of the seminar is to improve the quality of discussion by having the students be more precise in their questions and answers. Questioning clarity, precision, accuracy, relevance, depth, and breadth of statements forces graduate students to move past the shallow parts of discussion to areas which more fully explore a topic. Graduate level work requires this depth of understanding and this method improves their ability for in-depth discussion.

INTRODUCTION Picture a professor standing in front of a classroom. That is easy to do; it happens almost every day of the week. Now picture that same professor asking her class what they think about a topic they were assigned to read about as homework following the last class session. Again, it’s not hard to imagine. Now picture the class looking back blankly at the teacher. This part is easy to picture if you have ever stood in front of a college classroom, because it

has probably happened to you as well. The teacher, with rising frustration, rephrases the question and ultimately calls on a student she hopes knows the answer, or simply answers the question herself. Sound familiar? It was to me as I transitioned to the college classroom as a fulltime professor after serving in public education for 25 years. I knew there was both a need for helping the students develop and demonstrate their critical thinking skills and a method to facilitate both. The method is the

DOI: 10.4018/978-1-4666-8411-9.ch003

Copyright © 2015, IGI Global. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.

 Critical Thinking, Socratic Seminars, and the College Classroom

Socratic Seminar. This method has risen and fallen in popularity in various classrooms around the globe over the last 2,000 years and is worth the time and effort it takes to develop the skills needed to implement it in a wide variety of college classrooms from the undergraduate to the doctoral level. Like many college professors, I felt I had been hired because of my subject matter expertise. As a retired K-12 teacher, principal, and superintendent, I felt prepared to share with aspiring teachers and administrators the lessons I had learned in a career of public education in several states. That sharing often involved my explaining the realities of education from my perspective, or lecture, punctuated with case studies demonstrating the veracity of my words, or war stories. My desire to have my students think and demonstrate their thinking was not helped by this teaching method. As Maiorana (1991) said: Many teachers believe that the purpose of education is to learn facts, ideas, and skills and to learn to think critically. Yet the road followed by most classroom teachers in the delivery of subject matter has been straight, narrow, and unbroken and has emphasized rote learning, not critical thinking. That road began in Sicily around 450 B.C. as the art of rhetoric. It survives to this day in many forms including the classroom lecture. (p. 53) I take slight solace in knowing I am falling back on a multi millennial old instructional method. I am saddened that the method I chose was the wrong one. Instead, I should have been using an instructional technique of similar vintage: The Socratic Seminar. In this chapter we will briefly explore the origins of the Socratic Seminar, tie it to the widely known Bloom’s taxonomy, discuss in a straightforward manner how this can be implemented in college classrooms to great advantage, and finally discuss why this proven method is not more readily utilized in colleges today.

BACKGROUND Socrates as a historical figure dates to his birth in 469 BCE and his death by execution in 399 BCE in Athens (Ahbel-Rappe, 2009). While Socrates was many things, including a philosopher and a teacher, what he was not was a writer. He did not take the time to write his philosophies and beliefs. All of the thoughts attributed to Socrates were written down by others. Some of these writers had actually studied with him, as in the case of Plato. There is speculation that other writers perhaps had never even met him personally (Ahbel-Rappe, 2009). This leaves us with images of a man that may, or may not, be entirely accurate. However, we will press forward with what are the most commonly accepted tenets of his philosophy and leave the arguments about the historical accuracy to another day and venue. According to Cookson (2009), “Socrates believed that we learn best by asking essential questions and testing tentative answers against reason and fact in a continual and virtuous circle of honest debate” (p. 8). The need for, and importance of, questioning is then held as the central tenet of his philosophical practice. While true, it does not adequately explain the translation of his philosophy into the current classroom. A closer reading of the quote does shed some light on the actual practice, specifically the need for the questioning to be ‘continuous’ and ‘virtuous.’ The use of questions as a means of gaining knowledge is well known. However, the person asking the question in a typical classroom is the student, with the teacher providing answers based on her own experience or knowledge. While this might be sufficient in some instances, such as fact based questions, it does not always result in the desired learning if the desire is for a more nuanced answer. In our efforts to educate the students in our classrooms we should consider for a moment the origin of the word educate. “Interestingly, the word educate comes from the Latin educere = e’,

49

 Critical Thinking, Socratic Seminars, and the College Classroom

out + ducere, to lead, draw, bring. Thus the word means ‘to draw or bring out’ not to ‘pump in’” (Ferguson, 1986, p. 217). So if we are to draw out the information ‘from’ those students in our classes and not pump in information ‘into’ our students we need to look at who is asking, and who is answering the important questions. Part of the quote from Cookson (2009) involves the statement of “tentative answers” (p. 8). This is something that holds in most any classroom. The instructor asks a question and the students tentatively answer. Yet this is not what I believe that Socrates was referring to when he spoke of student answers. This is much more in line with the modern day notion of a classroom where the professor and the students play a drawn out game of ‘guess what is in my head.’ The professor asks a question and the students pose a variety of answers based on, hopefully, their reading or research, or often, make a wild guess on the spur of the moment. Once a student says the magic words the professor nods her head in approval, and then she fills in some of the detail missing from the answer. Meanwhile the class busily writes down the words that are spoken for later inclusion on the upcoming exam. The tentative answers referred to by Cookson are in response to a more in-depth question on the part of the teacher. This question is often only partially answered by the student or even several students. Instead of having the teacher fill in the missing portion of the more complete answer, the teacher asks a follow up question to cause the students to look at the issue in more detail or in light of additional information that has been mentioned by a classmate. Thus the initial answer is tentative because it is ‘incomplete,’ not because the student is ‘hesitant.’ How these follow-up questions are used will be discussed in greater detail later in the chapter. Teachers everywhere need to consider their method of instruction and in fact their purpose in class. In his essay, Take a Bold Pause, author Kevin Cashman (2013) states, “What might happen if instead of having all the answers, we had all the

50

best questions to engage in optimal discovery?” (p. 8). The purpose of the normal class is easily defined: to help students grow in the knowledge of a given subject. On a macro level this would be course information, and on a more micro level it could be information about a specific portion of that course information. Certainly, the professor could simply tell the class what they needed to know. However, this is not always the best way for someone to learn crucial information. Telling someone the stove is hot, and to not touch it, represents the high water mark in many instances of this level of interaction. The simple ability to recall factual information is not enough for thorough mastery of any subject. In an era of smartphone technology the word ‘Google’ is no longer a proper noun referring to a technology company and is more commonly used as a verb to refer to the act of searching on the Internet for information. This electronic search is standard practice for most students in the classrooms of today. It also, more importantly, means that the recall of facts is inadequate for showing mastery of any particular subject and should instead be used as a starting point for more in depth learning, as recall has become the job of a machine, not a person. With the wealth of information that is accessible at the touch of a keyboard or phone touchscreen it is easy to become overwhelmed by the available information, when considering most any topic. A Google search of the term ‘critical thinking’ results in about 47 million results in just 0.23 seconds. Unfortunately, the overwhelming amount of information is not always of sufficient depth or quality to suffice in the college classroom. It fails to address the ‘so what’ questions that we often ask students to answer. At least I should say, that we ‘should’ ask our students to answer. Lord (2012) states this succinctly when he says, “Most college instructors get sidetracked into covering the content instead of teaching students to think” (p. 70). This is certainly true, as outside of professors of philosophy, most professors are

 Critical Thinking, Socratic Seminars, and the College Classroom

hired to share their expertise in a content area and not to teach how to think. And yet, each of us hopefully arrived in the classroom as a result of our ability to think in addition to our ability to recall discrete facts, snippets of information, or even the opinions of others. If the goal is to get students to think and perhaps do so by asking them questions, it is useful to classify the various complexities of questions that could be posed. By retreating all the way to 1956 we revisit the work of Benjamin Bloom, whose iconic taxonomy remains the gold standard for codifying types of questions. Beginning with the lowest level of thought on the part of the student and working towards the most complex we have the following: In order to truly have students thinking about the content of the classes where they are enrolled, the teacher must focus her attention on the questions in the top portion of the pyramid described by Bloom, as illustrated by Goldsmith (2014); specifically levels 4 (Analysis), 5 (Evaluation), and 6 (Creation). This begs the obvious question of ‘how’, which is answered again by Lord (2009):

So, how can professors get students to think at a higher level? The best way to answer this is to break the question into two parts. First, what doesn’t seem to work? Second, what does seem to work? What doesn’t seem to work is lecture, the instructional method most professors use in traditional college courses. (p. 70) Lord (2009) goes on to explain that this will involve a change in how the teachers prepare and how they teach when in front of students. This seems most certainly true. He states, “Teaching through inquiry doesn’t come automatically, professors have to think of instruction in a different way” (p. 70). This change in instructional style is one where the teacher asks the questions and the students answer, not a style where the teacher presents material in lecture format and the students ask clarifying or recall questions. It involves critical thinking. What is critical thinking? Other than being the topic of not only this chapter, but also this book, there are multiple definitions that have been put forward. For my purposes, I prefer the definition

Figure 1. Bloom’s Taxonomy. Diagram from Goldsmith, 2014, p. 31

51

 Critical Thinking, Socratic Seminars, and the College Classroom

from Goodman (2006), “ Critical thinking is using reasoned argument to look at fact, story or statement to check if there is an alternative fact, story, or statement” (p. 81). Students are bombarded with a variety of facts, stories, and statements on a daily basis. If we are to help them learn to think critically about this increasing load of information we can best do this through helping them reflect on what they hear or read. Cookson (2009) states, “Critical reflection enables us to see the world from multiple points of view and imagine alternate outcomes” (p. 11). The ability to see an alternative to whatever is presented is a key requirement for thinking critically and for moving up Bloom’s taxonomy. Critical reflection is not always an easy or natural activity for students. Often they need coaching to be able to start, and successfully continue, down the path of critical reflection. One way to help them is to engage in Socratic questioning. Paul and Elder (2007) have this to say: “The key to distinguishing it from other types of questioning is that Socratic questioning is systematic, disciplined, and deep and usually focuses on fundamental concepts, principles, theories, issues, or problems” (p. 36). Instructors must attempt to engage their students in a meaningful way that simultaneously moves up the taxonomy and deeper into the content of the course. By moving past recall and application the students are forced to consider what they know, and more importantly what they know about the facts they find. They are moved to consider alternate theories, relationships, and motivations. They postulate how the sometimes overwhelming amounts of information can be filtered into useful formats for future issues. From these considerations comes a depth of understanding that is part of critical thinking. Paul and Elder (2007) go on to state “The art of Socratic questioning is intimately connected with critical thinking because the art of questioning is important to excellence of thought” (p. 36).

52

USING SOCRATIC SEMINARS IN THE COLLEGE CLASSROOM Issues, Controversies, Problems The ‘idea’ of a Socratic Seminar is hopefully an appealing one at this point. However like many things in a quality educational experience, the idea is often removed from the ‘actuality’ of a Socratic Seminar. In this section I will discuss the issues, controversies, and problems with implementing this highly effective style of instruction and learning, beginning with my own experiences and ending with how to implement this in your own classroom. If you remember back to where this chapter began with a class giving the professor a blank stare in response to questions asked, you will know why I embarked on this journey. I had taught for a number of years at the doctoral level in educational administration, and only on a few occasions had I experienced the blank looks on the faces of my classes that I encountered my first semester of teaching undergraduate education classes. Not to pick on undergraduates. I can certainly remember blank looks on the faces of doctoral students, as well; just not as often, and mostly involving school finance. Because I wanted these aspiring teachers to think critically about issues they would be facing in their future careers, it was important to get them to engage with the material. Asking these aspiring professionals to reflect on their own experiences in the classroom seemed a logical place to start. Logical it may have been, but successful it was not. These millennial students were more interested initially in ‘What do I need to do, write down, or say to get an A?’ and not ‘How do I become the best teacher I can be?’ This may have been a shock, or even a disappointment to me, but is likely not to those of you reading who have more experience in college classrooms than I. Undaunted, I decided that was simply not an

 Critical Thinking, Socratic Seminars, and the College Classroom

acceptable answer to the question of ‘Why are you in this class?’ The answer to that question would be developed over time, contain nuance, differ by student, and serve as the bedrock of their career as educators. So, I set the bar somewhat high for myself with the ‘bedrock of their career’ kind of talk. I actually told my students that my goal for them was that they be the best rookie teacher in their school when they finished their first year in the classroom. In order to do that, they had to know more than the basics. More than the facts. More than what the textbook said. They had to know at a deep level those things, plus what worked in practice, why what they were learning was important, how to modify their instruction on the fly, and how to positively impact the students in their care. Most importantly, they had to know how to ‘think’. I settled on the Socratic Seminar because before, when I asked them questions, the students who had been conditioned to provide simple straightforward answers resorted to doing just that. And make no mistake, most of the students had been trained by 13 years of K-12 education in that method of answering teacher-asked questions. My students in that first semester of Socratic Seminars were gracious, and I owe them a debt of gratitude. My initial efforts were not nearly as successful as my latest efforts several years later. I often think that if anyone learns something in the first year of a new teacher’s class, other than the teacher, it is a bonus. While my students claimed to have learned, I know I learned more than they ever did. The use of what is sometimes referred to as the ‘Socratic method’ is more than just the use of Socratic Seminars. It involves a teaching style that revolves around questions. Paul and Elder (2008) describe three categories of Socratic questions that can be used in the classroom. The first of these are the spontaneous variety. This type of question is simply interjected into normal classroom discussion and flow as the opportunity presents itself. Consider this example from one of my classes of a student describing his favorite teacher (an exercise

I used in the class). They make a statement about how Mrs. Smith was their favorite teacher. I ask ‘why?’ They pause and say, ‘I don’t know, I just liked her.’ But unwilling to let it go at that superficial level, I follow up with, ‘Because she didn’t take your lunch money?’ That bit of humor breaks the ice and they say ‘No, because she seemed to really care about me as a person.’ ‘Great.’ I say, ‘So, how did she demonstrate that she cared about you as a person?’ The student thought for a moment and said, ‘When I struggled, she noticed and offered to help or at least asked about what was going on.’ I continue to push, ‘Think for a second about the teacher that you liked the least in your academic career. How did she deal with those times when you were struggling?’ After an instant the student says, ‘I don’t think she even noticed or if she did, just told me to get to work.’ So into this point of comparison we continue to move, ‘So the difference is caring, or notice, or moving away from the subject of the class, or what?’ Now the student has to think, and it is easy to see the wheels turn in his mind. ‘It was all of them,’ he says. ‘I think she made me know it mattered that I was there and she showed that in how she treated me.’ Still unwilling to turn away I asked, ‘Do you think you were special to her, or was she a great teacher who treated all students as special?’ His answer was, ‘I think she was a great teacher who treated all her students as special.’ ‘Wonderful.’ I said, ‘Now you have a concrete example of how a great teacher treats students, and why it is important.’ That exchange represents the power of spontaneous Socratic questioning if the teacher is prepared to push the students to deeper levels of thought. The second category of Socratic questioning according to Paul and Elder (2008) is the exploratory variety. This type of questioning is useful for a classroom when a new concept, topic, or unit is introduced in class. The class engages in a discussion about what they already know about a topic. Typically, students know more than they initially think they do about almost any given

53

 Critical Thinking, Socratic Seminars, and the College Classroom

topic that comes up in class. Drawing connections to existing knowledge is done through questions about the topic. The pedagogy people would call this scaffolding. Building a ladder from where the student is currently to where you as the teacher want them to go. Picture a doctoral class beginning a lesson on ethics. Asking most students to describe what they know about the concept of ethics would result in a few students making a few one-sentence statements. At least, this was my experience with the subject. The why of this seems evident: students don’t want others to know how much, or little, they know about a topic. They also typically have a concern about whether their ethical beliefs will be in alignment with those of the rest of the class or me as the professor. When the subject of ethics was brought up, many students in my class felt like their own knowledge was very limited, but they quickly attributed more knowledge to their classmates than the classmates attributed to themselves. They made comments such as ‘Bob was a philosophy major, he probably knows all about this’ or ‘Suzy is smart, I bet she has thought about this.’ However, by taking time to ask questions that drew parallels to things they already knew, the students discovered that they knew a lot about ethics. What they lacked were the labels that philosophers place on ethical concepts. Once I gave a definition and asked for student-generated examples, the discussion was off and running. Understand that asking for student examples is great, but that does not make the discussion a Socratic one. What makes it a Socratic discussion is the follow-up questions that cause the student to further clarify their examples, meaning, or understanding. One of the terms we discussed was ‘applied ethics.’ When this term was first defined for the class as the examination of controversial issues such as abortion or animal rights, I asked if anyone had an alternate example that might illustrate this concept in a relatively straightforward manner. One student volunteered an example of more pay for teachers. That was nice as far as it went, but further clarification was

54

needed. So I asked them ‘Does that example bring real controversy to the equation?’ The students thought about that for a while, and I waited. ‘We are likely all in agreement in this room as we are all in the education business,’ one said. ‘True, but is it controversial in your neighborhood? Is anyone putting a bumper sticker on their car?’ I asked. The general answer was no, it wasn’t controversial to that level. ‘So what about teacher pay is that controversial?’ I wanted to know. ‘Merit pay’ someone volunteered. Instantly, hands shot up and people began to voice issues with the good and bad of that concept. Some in the class were in favor and some opposed. Examples and questions flowed freely. Ultimately, by inclusion of additional student examples people were able to more accurately identify their own level of knowledge on the topic of applied ethics, as it related to schools in particular. This in turn guided their research during the following week for a full-blown Socratic Seminar on ethics, where they were able to demonstrate their growing knowledge on the topic. The third category of Socratic questioning according to Paul and Elder (2008) is the focused variety. In this type of questioning the students engage in a discussion on a single topic, article, or situation. The students focus on moving deeper into the subject and try to gather information about the topic from a variety of perspectives, discern the author’s intent or underlying meaning or motivation, or evaluate a problem and look for implications or solutions. This variety of questioning is what is more readily identified as a ‘Socratic Seminar’. In a Socratic Seminar these topics, articles, or situations are the solitary focus of the discussion. The teacher will pose an opening question about the item at hand and the class takes the discussion from there. If that were all there was to this, it would be an easy task. Simply give the students a copy of the Gettysburg Address, ask a question, and let the learning begin. Unfortunately, students from all grade and ability levels tend to get off topic as the example of one student leads to the

 Critical Thinking, Socratic Seminars, and the College Classroom

comment of another, and suddenly the seminar on the implications of the speech has digressed into a spirited debate on the price of popcorn at the local multiplex. This is where the difficulty comes in for the professor. How to allow the students to take the conversations in productive directions that might be different from where the professor originally thought they might go. Students are free to construct their own meaning and make their own connections to the knowledge they bring into the room with them. However, striking the balance between that academic freedom and keeping the students moving on a productive path is more easily said than done. Knowing when to intervene with a clarifying question or a follow-up consideration is part art and part science. Later in the chapter we will look at multiple methodologies that have successfully been used to guide students through a Socratic Seminar on a wide variety of topics. In addition to the three categories of Socratic questioning, it is important and instructive to take a look at different question types that can be used to go more deeply into a topic. To achieve the excellence of thought that Paul and Elder (2008) described earlier, sometimes students need to be given direction about what types of questions need to be asked and answered. Chin, in 2007, listed six that I have found to be very helpful. When looking at the topic, article, or situation each of these questions will cause the student to look more deeply, consider options they may not have considered previously, and ultimately ‘think’ more fully. She states that a “disciplined thinker” will engage in: 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) 6)

Questioning clarity Questioning precision Questioning accuracy Questioning relevance Questioning depth Questioning breadth. (pp. 32-33)

Each of these six categories, if explored by the student, will cause that student to consider more

fully the issue at hand. If a class were to consider a socially relevant situation, like the recent one in Ferguson, MO, involving the shooting death of an unarmed 18-year-old African American male by a white police officer, how might these questions be useful? That death was followed by several weeks of protests, looting, and conflict that resulted in the closure of many of the local schools and non-stop media coverage. In a situation, such as this where opinions can be very strong and very firmly held, the act of questioning the opinions and motives of others can be a difficult proposition in the best of circumstances. A well thought out Socratic Seminar in an environment where students have developed skills in questioning each other, and answering with precision while maintaining an environment of mutual respect, is perhaps the best circumstances for having such a discussion. In my area, this event materially affected the students in my classroom. Many served as administrators or teachers in districts that decided their best option was to close or delay the start of the school year. Others lived in the affected community and had to watch as the nightly news showcased the most difficult situation the community had ever faced. Now, picture a news story on the national news serving as the basis for the seminar. As the students begin to dissect what was said and shown in the news report, they ask the six questions above. For Questioning clarity, they notice when the reporter repeatedly uses St. Louis, when in fact this is a suburb of St. Louis that is located 20 miles or so from the Arch, yet in some cases is portrayed as other than that. For Questioning precision, they might ask questions about the autopsy report and what was released, as the direction the young man was facing is pivotal in the beliefs and the discussion of the community. When Questioning accuracy, they ask about the statements made by both police spokespeople and community organizers. Statements were often vague, seemed self-serving, or were simply believed to be untrue by people on both sides of the issue. For Questioning relevance, they ask

55

 Critical Thinking, Socratic Seminars, and the College Classroom

about information that was released about the personal life and history of the deceased and the police officer. For Questioning depth, they ask how a two-minute story can capture more than a slice of the conflict and the people involved in it. When Questioning breadth, they ask why other elements of the story of which they are aware are not being reported. All of these questions can be asked in an environment where questioning is not just allowed, it is required. Moreover, the others in the seminar do their best to answer the questions asked drawing from their own experience, the knowledge of what they have read and seen, the nuance and word choice of the initial news story, and the comments of their peers. Is such a conversation pleasant? No, not really. But it is powerfully important, and in a graduate level course it is the type of real life experience that students need to address. As I said to several of my students who were administrators in the affected area who had participated in Socratic Seminars in my classes, ‘You really were never trained for dealing with riots outside your schools by community members.’ Their response was heartening, ‘No, but you trained me how to think and to figure out what questions were important to not just ask, but get answered.’ That makes the payoff well worth the effort. Other than the time and effort required, there are certainly other problems to consider. Chief amongst these are the students who simply do not want to work for their education. There is a certain subset of the student population who want to be entertained and feel by paying their tuition they have purchased a ticket to that particular show. Students who want to be told what to write down, or better yet to have you write down all the really important parts for them. Students who want a classroom devoid of conflict or controversy, as it is messy and makes them uncomfortable. A well-run Socratic Seminar has a real chance to disappoint students in all three of those ways. If your school gives students the opportunity to make comments at the end of the course, you run

56

the risk of hearing negative comments about the work the students had to do relative to the work the teacher did. Little do they realize the work that goes into constructing a well-run seminar. Unfortunately, students of this ilk are not likely to be satisfied by the thought or effort behind many things that happen in class. I strongly suggest that while you remain aware of their concerns, you press forward nonetheless. A second more practical problem is the source material. I want to address the difficulty of finding quality source material. While a well written poem or editorial might serve as the basis for a quality Socratic Seminar, finding just the right one on a topic that you wish to have students discuss is sometimes very difficult and very time consuming. If you are a last minute preparer for class, you will find this an endless source of frustration, or you will go forward with poorly chosen source material. The least successful seminars I have conducted could trace directly back to poor quality source material. What constitutes quality source material? First, it needs to be of a manageable length. Trying to dissect a novel before tomorrow’s class would not prove successful, for example. There are two problems. The first is the time it would take to read the novel compared with the time available. The second problem is the need for students to be focused on the same words and passages from which they are constructing meaning. In a novel length work this becomes more difficult, as students draw small passages from all over the book. A second problem is one of controversy, or at least some form of difference of opinion. In a graduate school administration preparatory program class an editorial, although perhaps of the correct length, claiming that school administrators are the problem with American education would not be fertile ground for discussion, as the students in the program would most all take the opposite side of the argument with no one defending the editorial. This leads to everyone in the seminar agreeing with very little to discuss. A better source might be an editorial about a school consolida-

 Critical Thinking, Socratic Seminars, and the College Classroom

tion plan or law to do away with teacher tenure. There would at least be different positions taken in class, leaving the possibility of discussion. A third problem is students doing the homework needed to prepare for the seminar. Many students today are conditioned to walk into a classroom with whatever knowledge they have in their head. The concept of putting in prior preparation for a discussion that might go any number of directions is problematic for them, at best. I have had some students who did not prepare at all, even to the point of not reading the assigned article. I have had other students prepare and insist on inserting their prepared point or factoid regardless of the appropriateness of the inclusion. Neither is acceptable. In the Solutions and Recommendations section I will discuss how to deal with both of these types of students.

Solutions and Recommendations When embarking on the process of including Socratic Seminars in your classroom you have to first ask yourself ‘why?’ Specifically, what are you hoping to accomplish with the inclusion of this strategy? Perhaps, it is as simple as trying to get your students to ‘think.’ Perhaps, it is to use this as a problem-solving tool. Using this method allows people to question what ‘everybody knows. . .’ that can lead to novel solutions to problems that seemed unsolvable previously. When I began using Socratic Seminars, I told my students the goal was to improve the quality of their discussion. That was as deep as it got with them. I did not say they would think more, remember quotes, be more precise in their language, listen more attentively, or process information faster. All of those things are occurring, but that isn’t what I expressed. I just said I wanted them to improve the quality of their discussion. Here is how that is framed. Picture you are at a party, the lunch table, or the local coffee shop. The conversation turns to education and the problems

that currently face schools and colleges. Suddenly, they turn to you and say, ‘You’re an educator. What do you think about all this?’ From that point on all eyes and ears are on you. You are the expert in the room and your opinion matters more than many, if not most. You won’t have the luxury of saying, ‘let me Google that and I’ll get back to you.’ No, they want an answer. An informed answer, and they want it now. The Socratic Seminar, if done correctly, allows students the opportunity to develop the skills they need to be the professional in the conversation. One of the things that I stressed to my classes was echoed by Keegan (2013) recently, “The focus of a Socratic Seminar is to have students discuss, not debate, the topics related to the articles” (p. 50). This is an important distinction for teachers to teach and for students to learn. The purpose of the seminar is to have a quality ‘discussion’ not to win a ‘debate.’ The distinction is that in a debate there is an interchange of information, with the object being to win an argument. One victor, one vanquished. In a discussion there is interchange of information with the object being to convince the other person as to the veracity of your points. The ‘winner’ of a discussion, such as it is, is the person who changes their mind. Why? Because they walked away with new information and an improved view, that is why they changed their mind. They gained something while the other person is fundamentally unchanged. On the doctoral level, where I now teach, my students know they will ultimately be required to defend their dissertation in front of a group of doctoral faculty. They report that this is why many of them struggle to complete their dissertation. They are simply afraid of the prospect of standing in front of a group of soon-to-be professional peers and, not only explaining succinctly what they have done, but also answer questions from their teachers. I struggled to believe this was true, but I now know it is in fact accurate. This was why I implemented Socratic Seminars in my doctoral

57

 Critical Thinking, Socratic Seminars, and the College Classroom

classes. The ability to listen, react, answer, and do it with limited time and preparation is a skill that is perhaps more valuable than any other I can impart to my students. As I have pointed out previously, there are a number of ways to infuse the ‘Socratic method’ into a college classroom. Asking questions to draw out student knowledge and to allow students to make connections on their own is one easy way. However, my preferred method is the Socratic Seminar. The Seminar takes some set-up work on the part of the teacher, as well as preparation on the part of the students. Let’s look more closely at the steps in the process. As you review your syllabus or course outline the logical place to insert a seminar is someplace where you would normally have a discussion with the students. This might be in a section where current events are discussed or where new advances in the field are introduced. While these areas are the obvious choices, they are far from the only choices. Consider any area where there is a disagreement among the experts about a topic, either from a factual or ethical standpoint. Take for example, the issue of Global Warming. After a lengthy debate, the scientific community is in agreement that Global Warming is a real occurrence and humans are responsible. That would be a great topic . . . in 2004. But now, in 2014 it is such a settled argument that to attempt to have a Socratic Seminar on this topic would not lead to much discussion if the emphasis was on whether this is really happening. Yet, there is still room to explore this issue. Not the root cause, but instead the solution. Students in the hard sciences, political sciences, or business could participate in a seminar about the implications or the solutions, just not the veracity. Keep this important point in mind as you choose a topic: If there are not at least two sides to the issue or if there is no room for interpretation, there will be no successful Socratic Seminar. Once the area in the course for the seminar is identified, you will need to make a decision about

58

how to proceed. There are actually multiple ways to conduct the actual seminar. The first option is to choose a topic of interest and importance, such as the example above, and have the students conduct their own research in preparation for the seminar. One drawback I have found to this style of seminar is that students will often come into the room with strongly held opinions and beliefs based on their research. Getting them to move off of these positions and not having the seminar turn into a debate can take some finesse on the part of the professor. One way to combat the closely held belief is to look for examples where the student prefaces their words with statements like ‘everyone knows’ or ‘we can all agree.’ These statements need to be caught, and refuted, by the members of the class actually in the discussion with the student. Initially you might need, as the teacher, to point them out and say, ‘that is an example of something you need to be listening for. Don’t let people paint with the broad brush.’ After a few times interjecting, the typical class will either avoid those types of comments or pounce on the people who make them and ask for a rephrasing of their point. A word on the people who come in unprepared for this type of seminar; frankly I don’t let them participate. If I find someone comes into class without doing the required research, I ask them to move out of both circles and to sit and watch. If the discussion is good, this will be bothersome enough to the student that they will not repeat their lack of preparation. The classroom banishment has worked well the few times I have had to use it. A second stylistic option is to conduct the seminar based only upon the material presented in class and the students’ own knowledge. While this can be less preparation for the students, it can also prove problematic if they do not feel adequately equipped for the seminar. A third option is a compromise between the first two options. In this format I give the students the topic at the beginning of the class period and 15 to 20 minutes to conduct whatever research they can in that time. The upside to this plan is that those

 Critical Thinking, Socratic Seminars, and the College Classroom

students with no real grounding in the subject can educate themselves on the basics in that time frame. Those that bring in more previous background knowledge will be able to use their time to supplement what they know or capture some quotes or facts that might prove useful. The fourth option is to give the students a written document. This is a fertile area, especially in the humanities, where the evaluation of an existing piece of literature, poetry, essay, or editorial is useful for existing course objectives. These documents will lend themselves to evaluation and interpretation about the author’s intent, meaning, clarity, etc. Looking at the six questions from earlier in the chapter will give you multiple avenues to consider for analysis. Consider the example of an editorial in the local newspaper. Often these are written with a particular philosophical or political slant. Assuming for a moment that everyone in your class is not of the exact same political ideology and that the topic of the editorial is of some interest, this should be something that could serve as a foundational document for a seminar. A fifth option is the use of a visual foundational item, such as a painting or video. Consider the famous Picasso painting Guernica depicting part of the horror of the Spanish Civil War in the 1930s. The painting has such richness of detail and is visually interesting enough to allow students to tie this work into not just a study of Spanish Civil War, but conflict in general. Being able to draw parallels between his work and current situations would be a worthwhile exercise. A key point to remember is made by Tredway (1995), “Substantive texts also help students explore their relations with others and gain intellectual and emotional maturity” (p. 27). His point here is well taken. By connecting the discussion to a substantive text the students will be forced to analyze not only the text, but their own beliefs, feelings, and constructs. They will also be forced to come to some level of understanding of these items in their classmates. This hopefully makes them realize that everyone does not share all of their beliefs.

Once the format of the seminar is settled, the next issue to decide is the opening question. This key question will serve as the foundation for the discussion to follow and I refer to it as the ‘Touchstone Question.’ In my experience this is the second most difficult part of the process, following the selection of foundational source material. In addition to being the opening question that the students respond to, this first question will be the one that serves as a touchstone for the entire seminar. As the students move through their dialogue they need to be constantly aware of the touchstone question. This means for you as the teacher that this question has to have some intellectual heft and be able to carry the discussion forward. Consider for a moment the question ‘Is it ethically acceptable to give a student a grade they did not earn?’ If this is the touchstone question in the discussion of ethics in my education class I might struggle to generate much conversation. The typical teacher or administrator who is in the class will most likely say, ‘No,’ and be done with it. Perhaps in a psychology or sociology class, this might generate more conversation, but in a group of educators likely it will not. So, with that inadequate question in mind you need to ask yourself what about Ethics and Schools do you want the students to explore. Perhaps, it is grading in general or grade inflation. Maybe, it is the role of special education in the classroom or even academic honesty. Whatever the case, the question needs to be refined to allow for a lengthy and more nuanced discussion. In my experience, I have found my least successful discussions were founded on a weak touchstone question. Keep in mind two important words when forming these touchstone questions: Why and How. Both of these questions lend themselves to lengthier explanations, more interpretation, and greater difference of opinion. Contrast these with the rest of the journalism 101 questions of Who, What, Where, and When. Each of these can often be answered by a short sentence or single name. Consider the word ‘Who’ in your touchstone

59

 Critical Thinking, Socratic Seminars, and the College Classroom

question. If you were to ask, ‘Who is responsible for . . .,’ the answer can come back with the name of a single individual or perhaps a group. Your actual question is answered, but I doubt that was the answer you were looking for. More likely you really want to know, ‘Who do you think is responsible for . . ., and why are they responsible?’ This expands the range of possible answers from individuals and groups to evaluating the group’s actions or inactions, considering outside influences, social and financial considerations, etc. This has enough heft to sustain the conversation as a touchstone question. With the topic, foundational material, and touchstone question determined, it is time to move into the mechanics of the Socratic Seminar itself. I prefer a whole-class model. While I have read of small group discussions to help those students who are reluctant to participate, I think the benefit of the entire class hearing the input from every class member is important. Perhaps, using the small group format initially as a training tool might be appropriate, but I encourage you to move to entire class discussions as soon as possible. The first step is to establish ground rules for the Socratic Seminar. Every class can benefit from the discussion needed in determining their own rules. With that said, there are certain rules that need to be in place for every class. The first of these is that the seminar is a discussion and not a debate. This singular point will eliminate several potential problems including the desire to ‘win’ the debate. There is no winning a discussion; there is only the act of having a discussion, which is entirely different. Another advantage to this ground rule is it clarifies the expected tone of the discussion. Some of the more negative aspects of a debate, such as innuendo and accusation should be minimized. The next ground rule I insist upon is politeness. This is not the political correctness that often passes as politeness in our society, but actual politeness. This means the volume is modulated, the tone is neutral-to-positive, and

60

name-calling is eliminated. I remind the students that these are their classmates, and we are here to learn together. Teaching in a doctoral program, I remind the students that many of these classmates will be colleagues and potential employees or employers, and how they act now will be remembered for better or worse. One note on politeness and interruption: Generally these two things do not go together. However, some students like to speak at great length, which actually harms the flow of the discussion, so I remind the participants to moderate their own length and that other participants have the right to interrupt to ask a clarifying question or make a related point if there are no natural pauses. This is a major issue for many students who try to be respectful of others, and by the time they can get a word in the conversation has moved on from where their point would have been appropriate. In this same vein the students have to be willing to simply speak up. There is no moderator, typically, and no one is going to call on you, you have to volunteer what you know. The frame of reference I give them is the faculty lunch table. We can be respectful of the opinions of others, give everyone a chance to speak, and engage in a back-and-forth dialogue. The final ground rule I insist upon is in the area of precision. It is not acceptable to make broad generalizations such as, ‘Everybody knows that . . ‘ and ‘It’s obvious . . .’” or the dreaded ‘Research says . . .’ I expect my classes to jump in immediately to call the person out for imprecise language because, ‘Everyone does NOT know,’ and ‘It might not be obvious to everyone here,’ and ‘What research?’ By emphasizing the precision in the language we are also training the students to be more active listeners in other situations, and to self-modulate their own use of sweeping generalizations, as well as vague or imprecise language. My final suggested ground rule is that everyone has to contribute at least one thought to the discussion. I strongly suggest that if someone seems hesitant to contribute, one of the more outgoing or verbal members of the dis-

 Critical Thinking, Socratic Seminars, and the College Classroom

cussion specifically asks them for their opinion. This will typically get them engaged and make sure their voice is heard. With the ground rules now in place, the next step is the mechanics of the discussion portion of the seminar. I use what is a traditional Socratic Seminar method of two concentric circles. In this method the inner group does the talking while the outer circle listens, watches, and takes a few notes during phase one. I have used a variety of methods to select who begins in each circle, including random selection, distribution of verbal students equally to both groups, as well as student self-selection. The chairs are physically moved so that the groups are in the two circles. This allows the participants to see each other and facilitates the discussion. I typically write the touchstone question on the board. I do this because it allows the participants to refer back to what large question they are discussing. After I read the question to them, I usually remind them that their conversation is between the people in the inner circle only, and not with the outer circle members or me. This is initially difficult for some of them. They have been trained over time to seek the teacher’s approval or clarification. I try very hard to not get into their conversation, but it is sometimes hard for me to hold back. I do know that when I REALLY want to interject, it is probably the worst time to do so. I recall a counseling class I took where they said the story you just feel you HAVE to tell is more about your needs and less about the client’s needs. I believe the same is true here. The premise of the Socratic Seminar is that the students possess the skills and knowledge to construct their own meaning. If you, as the professor, interject points into the discussion it will soon come to be expected of you, and it defeats the purpose. One possible exception that you could handle in two different ways. Occasionally, a question will arise about a law or fact. Two options are to allow the students to access the Internet to find the answer

themselves or to simply clarify the law or fact for them if they ask. If the issue is pivotal in their discussion, I have interjected the answer. This ties in to the question of supplemental information. I have held Socratic Seminars where students have no notes, limited notes, unlimited notes, all the way through allowing them to access any desired information including the Internet. The answer to the supplemental question for me hinges on the purpose of the seminar. My overarching purpose has been to improve the quality of their conversation. As such, when we are in conversation we typically do not have access to notes or the questions to be asked in advance. With that in mind, I prefer that no notes be used. However, if you are conducting a seminar for a different purpose, such as solving a problem, it might be completely appropriate to allow access to accurate information to aid in better decision-making. After the touchstone question is given, the participants will usually jump in and discuss the topic for a while. I will tell them their time frame in advance, and with an hour-long period I usually give this first phase 20 minutes or so. If the discussion slows down, or if the discussion goes astray, the teacher has to jump in with a supplemental question or a refocusing question. Sometimes these can be generated on the fly; however, it is better if you try to anticipate how long the initial discussion will last and have alternate avenues for the discussion to take. In terms of refocusing, sometimes all that is needed is to restate the touchstone question. Other times, focusing in on a portion of the broader touchstone question that remains unexplored is needed. While this phase one portion is going on, half of the class is sitting out in the outer circle listening. Sometimes that is very difficult for them to do. Often a point will be made that they feel compelled to comment upon. I remind them the answer is, ‘no,’ their turn will come in phase two. So, what are they taking notes on or

61

 Critical Thinking, Socratic Seminars, and the College Classroom

paying attention to? First and foremost, they are listening to the content of the conversation. But more than that, they are paying attention to the mechanics of the conversation. They are tracking who is talking, and who is not. Who addresses whom during the discussion? Are some people monopolizing the conversation? Does anyone act as a facilitator during the conversation to refocus the conversation or draw the non-participants in? At the end of the first discussion found in phase one, I inform the inner circle that their time to talk has come to an end and it is now the outer circle’s turn. I ask the members of the outer circle two questions, and I insist that every member of the outer circle provide an answer. The first question is, ‘In light of our goal to improve the quality of our conversations, what did you notice the inner circle doing well?’ The comments are expected to be specific, positive, and addressed where appropriate to specific individuals. Typically, there are a lot of ‘I think they did good overall,’ as an intro. However, I do not let it go at that and insist on specific things they noticed that improved the quality of the conversation. As you could imagine, there are a variety of answers. The best answers however are when they say things like, ‘I really noticed that Sally made an effort to keep the conversation focused when she said . . .’ or ‘I appreciate that Billy took the time to ask Tim’s opinion because Tim was not speaking up.’ After that round of comments from everyone in the outer circle I ask, ‘In light of our goal to improve the quality of our conversations, what did you notice the inner circle doing that needs to improve?’ This question is often more problematic for people to answer. The outer circle does not really want to publically find fault, but that is a shortsighted view. If they really want to improve the quality of the conversation, then what needs improving? This is where comments such as, ‘I noticed Beth only spoke to Tom and vice versa, without really addressing anyone else.’ And, ‘Frank was so passionate about this topic that he spoke for way too long each time he spoke.’ Or, ‘People were

62

using generalities like ‘everybody knows’ and no one was correcting them.’ This portion of the circle is really a key time for achieving the goal of improving the quality of the conversation. Here is where improvements are made, successes celebrated, and effort acknowledged. Sometimes, a new ground rule will be suggested. If the class agrees, it is added going forward. Often when the problems in this phase are pointed out, the inner circle wants to defend their honor. I don’t let them. Just as the outer circle must listen to what is being said without comment, the inner circle has to hear the positive and the negative without comment. If this is delivered in a professional manner, the class quickly gets used to hearing the feedback. We typically take a short break, and the two circles switch places with the inner circle moving outside and the outer circle moving in. I will then ask a touchstone question for the new inner circle. Sometimes this is a follow-up question to the original touchstone question, and sometimes it is only tangentially related to the original question. Regardless of the question, the process now repeats with Phase Two, in which the inner circle discusses the question and the outer circle watches and prepares comments on the quality of the conversation. During the comments section to follow the discussion, often people will note that the second group did a better job of having the conversation. This is actually a desired outcome. The outer circle had the benefit of just watching another group make an attempt that was then critiqued. Because of the proximity of their conversation to their own critique, they are usually very much aware of the shortcomings and pitfalls that group one encountered. That informs their own conversation, typically in a positive way. One other common event following the end of phase two is an informal discussion about which question was easier or more interesting to answer. There is often disagreement on this point. If this portion is done well, there is often a desire, or even a need, for additional conversation to occur. Because there is a limit to the time

 Critical Thinking, Socratic Seminars, and the College Classroom

available, I began using an electronic discussion board as a follow up. After the Socratic Seminar in class I will construct, typically on the fly based on the discussion that occurred, a question for their consideration. They are required to respond to this question with 150 to 200 words within the next 72 hours. I have not required them to respond to the posts of others, only the original post. The idea of this final question is one of culmination. I will ask how they might implement an idea that was discussed or whether the discussion has changed their opinion on an issue. The students appear to perceive this as valuable based on their comments, but it is really as much for me as the professor, as for them as the student. This is where I find out what part of the discussion really resonated with them. Often it is not the portion I thought would resonate, so the information is good for me to have instructionally.

FUTURE RESEARCH DIRECTIONS The issue of Critical Thinking is far from a new one in the college arena. The problem is not one of awareness or the desire to promote critical thinking. The larger issue is two-fold. The first part is the pushback by some students, parents, and faculty to a rise in the student-effort level required when ‘academic rigor’ is increased. The second part is determining the most effective way to actually increase the critical thinking done by students who are not used to exercising that portion of their brain. Both of these issues merit a continuing look by the academic community. The issue of academic rigor is one that is a rising tide on many college campuses. It would be nice to say that the discussion is foremost on all campuses, but I know that to not be true. Certainly, some colleges or universities feel they already have sufficient rigor to both challenge their students and to defend their academic reputations. Others are simply uninterested in having a conversation about a topic that will result in more effort being

asked of them. While that is disappointing to a person who has devoted his adult life to education, it is not unexpected. So, I am prepared to ignore those at both ends of the spectrum on this topic, and instead focus on the fertile ground found in the middle. This middle ground includes those people who see the need to begin, or continue, to ask their students to ‘think’ in class. To ‘think’ on assignments. To ‘think’ on exams. This is not a radical idea, just not always a popular one. The advent of high stakes testing in the United States has caused many public schools to focus on the content expected to be included in the state exams. Because the consequences for inadequate performance rest mostly on the district and its employees and not on the student in most states, this decision is one of short-term self-preservation. Falling test scores cost adults jobs. Not being able to think critically does not cost students in the short term, just in the long term once they have left the halls of their high school. This makes the decision at the K-12 level a more obvious one. When these students matriculate to a college or university they often arrive with no training or experience in critical thinking. They are well versed in the methods of point accumulation that result in high grade point averages. This is important to them because it helps them get into colleges and universities in the first place. So, why do the colleges and universities want to ask them to ‘think’? Because that is what we were originally designed to do. This is the basis of any traditional liberal arts education. Certainly, there are other forms of higher education that train people for specific jobs, such as engineering, teaching, nursing, or the like. But at its foundation, colleges were designed to be places where you developed your ability to ‘think’. You had to learn a certain amount of subject matter content, more fully master the language of your county or others, and be able to communicate what you knew in written and verbal formats, in order to be successful. The requirement was not regurgi-

63

 Critical Thinking, Socratic Seminars, and the College Classroom

tation of what you were told, but a synthesis of what you were told, what you read, and thoughts of your own. So, what research is needed to examine this portion of the problem? The first step would be a frank examination of the policies of any given college or university that was interested in the idea of increasing the students’ critical thinking usage and ability. The policies reviewed would include the entrance requirements because while the opportunity to pursue higher education should be a fundamental right, the ability to attend any given institution should not be. Secondly, the policies on continuation should be examined. This involves looking at what grade point averages (GPA) are required to stay in good standing. What happens when they fall below that threshold is also key. A GPA slip should not automatically result in removal. Academic Probation certainly has its place on campus. However, much like any other rule in society, with repeated violations comes increased sanctions. Eventually, and this is part of the research problem, the student who repeatedly falls short must be removed from the college. Turning to the professors, more study is needed on the actual instruction, assignments, and grading practices of the people traditionally located in the front of the classroom and not just a look at the students in the back of the classroom. I realize this touches on the tradition of ‘Academic Freedom.’ I am in favor of the concept of allowing the teaching of controversial ideas or the taking of unpopular positions by faculty members without sanction. However, the words ‘Academic Freedom’ do not give an employee the right to not teach, to not help students grow in their academic abilities, to not benefit from their time in the course. If a professor is instructionally deficient, they need to be removed. The next step would be to examine the policies and procedures on ‘plagiarism’ and ‘academic honesty.’ A careful examination of these two issues can turn up interesting and useful data about who is teaching what, as well as which students are availing themselves of the learning

64

opportunity provided and which are merely collecting points. When a professor asks the same multiple choice questions every semester on an exam and provides the exact same writing prompt every semester, she has made it very easy for the students to cheat. Cheat her with the submission of someone else’s work from their previous efforts and cheat themselves by not taking the time and effort to ‘think’ for themselves and thus grow in both their knowledge and abilities. Determining testing styles and writing assignments touches on the question of Academic Freedom I know. However, not making the effort to assist students in their development touches on Academic Malpractice on the part of the professor. This is a nice segue to the second general topic of what research is needed on how to increase the instruction in, and use of, critical thinking in our college and university classrooms. The review of the types of assignments typically given on a campus can inform of the need for change. Designing courses that actually teach critical thinking, and evaluating their effectiveness is a starting point. Like any other skill, the skill of critical thinking must be taught to, and developed in, most people. Certainly there are some students who will naturally arrive at the point where their critical thinking skills are already sufficiently developed, but I suspect they are the rare minority. Instead, we need to assess the skill level of the students in a systematic way. By assessing where they are in this skill set as they arrive on campus we could better know how to develop their skills. My university currently assesses English and mathematics skill levels of all incoming students. Why not critical thinking skill? I understand the pushback against more testing. It seems we are already spending a lot of time and effort on placement tests. However, if this is an important skill, should we not assess it as well? Most students take only one math class their entire college career unless their major requires more. Yet we subject them to a placement test to determine which one class that should be. If we are to ask the students to think

 Critical Thinking, Socratic Seminars, and the College Classroom

critically in EVERY class, should we not spend a little time seeing if they are able to do so now or if they require instruction? Instruction in this vital topic could be done in a stand-alone class certainly. However, integrated instruction would likely prove more effective. Many professors teach multiple sections of the same class. Conducting some action research by varying the instructional methods between the two classes, with one being traditional and the other being infused with Socratic Seminars and more inventive writing assignments, and then comparing the results could yield very valuable information for that professor. Few true professionals are uninterested in improving their professional practice. Those that are uninterested are a discussion for another day. Those that want to improve need to be given the tools and skills needed to put critical thinking into practice. Many universities have instructional improvement centers. One interesting piece of research could be looking at which schools in that university use that resource and what practices they implement in their classrooms. Voluntary implementation is typically preferable, but is not always a practical path. Having data to show who is doing what would be instructive.

CONCLUSION The college classroom is historically a place where students go to learn at a deeper level than they have previously. This is often a life altering experience for them. They are exposed to books, scholars, and ideas that they previously only heard about, if they were fortunate. They were asked to move up Bloom’s Taxonomy to higher levels of thought, even if the education department were the only people describing it that way. The critical thinking that was expected was a part of college life. Unfortunately, the techniques for teaching and practicing critical thinking seem to be los-

ing ground in many institutions. College is not always seen as the place where a student goes to ‘think,’ but instead as a required stop on a journey to someplace else, or a path to a paycheck, or the precursor to another institution of higher learning. What has been lost is the belief in the need for students to become independent critical thinkers. They are rapidly becoming a group who only want to write down what they were previously told so they can collect the points and move on. This is more than sad. It represents a loss in our ‘intellectual capital’ that ultimately will have serious repercussions in both our academic and economic worlds. The use of the Socratic Seminar is a time-tested method for increasing the critical thinking being done in a classroom. While it does require extra preparatory effort on the part of the professor, I believe the end results are well worth the effort expended. We will have to instruct not just students, but teachers, about how to utilize this method. In a world of instantly available information masquerading as knowledge, the ability to have a true discussion on a substantive issue, with professional colleagues, is a needed skill. My own journey with Socratic Seminars has resulted in some of the most satisfying classroom experiences of my career. To watch students wrestle with ideas and see that real learning has taken place over the span of only 60 minutes is gratifying. To have those same students tell me that the Socratic Seminar was their favorite part of the course is telling. But to have them write me to say that they will be incorporating the Socratic Seminar in their own classes and schools is culture changing.

REFERENCES Ahbel-Rappe, S. (2009). Socrates: A guide for the perplexed. London: Continuum.

65

 Critical Thinking, Socratic Seminars, and the College Classroom

Cashman, K. (2013, February). Take a bold pause. Leadership Excellence, 30(2), 8.

Tredway, L. (1995, September). Socratic seminars: Engaging students in intellectual discourse. Educational Leadership, 31(3), 26–29.

Chin, C. (2004, December). Questioning students in ways that encourage thinking. Teaching Science: The Journal of the Australian Science Teachers Association, 50(4), 16–21.

ADDITIONAL READING

Cookson, P. (2009, September). What would Socrates say? Educational Leadership, 67(1), 8–14.

Berrett, D. (2013, August). The many faces of the freshman seminar. The Chronicle of Higher Education, 59(44), A16–A20.

Ferguson, N. (1986, December). Encouraging responsibility, active participation, and critical thinking in general psychology students. Teaching of Psychology, 13(4), 217–218. doi:10.1207/ s15328023top1304_13

Boghossian, P. (2006, December). Behaviorism, constructivism, and Socratic pedagogy. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 38(6), 713–722. doi:10.1111/j.1469-5812.2006.00226.x

Goldsmith, J. (2014, June). Revisiting the lecture. Talent &Development, 68(6), 31. Goodman, B. (2006, February). How to ask an intelligent question. Nursing Standard, 20(24), 81. PMID:16526167 Keegan, N. (2013, November). Socratic seminar and creating prior knowledge. Library Media Connection, 50–51. Retrieved from http://www. librarymediaconnection.com/pdf/lmc/ reviews_ and_articles/featured_articles/Nikki_November_December2013.pdf

Copeland, M. (2005). Socratic circles: Fostering critical and creative thinking in middle and high school. Portland, ME: Stenhouse Publishers. Elder, L., & Paul, R. (2007, December). Critical thinking: The art of Socratic questioning, part II. Journal of Developmental Education, 31(2), 32–33. Gose, M. (2009, Winter). When Socratic dialogue is flagging: Questions and strategies for engaging students. College Teaching, 57(1), 45–49. doi:10.3200/CTCH.57.1.45-50

Lord, T. (2008, June). I am in the thinking business. Journal of College Science Teaching, 37(6), 70–74.

Mangrum, J. (2010, April). Sharing practice through Socratic Seminars. Phi Delta Kappan, 91(7), 40–43. doi:10.1177/003172171009100708

Maiorana, V. (1990/1991). The road from rote to critical thinking. Communication Review, 11(2), 53–63.

Ormell, C. (2012, June). The curiously personal enterprise of philosophy. Prospero, 18(2), 31–41.

Paul, R., & Elder, L. (2007, September). Critical thinking: The art of Socratic questioning, part I. Journal of Developmental Education, 31(1), 36–37. Paul, R., & Elder, L. (2008, March). Critical thinking: The art of Socratic questioning, part III. Journal of Developmental Education, 31(3), 34–36.

66

Schneider, J. (2012, September). Socrates and the madness of method. Phi Delta Kappan, 94(1), 26–29. doi:10.1177/003172171209400105

KEY TERMS AND DEFINITIONS Academic Freedom: The ability of faculty members to teach controversial issues or espouse

 Critical Thinking, Socratic Seminars, and the College Classroom

controversial opinions without fear of loss of their job. Not to be confused with the ability to not teach effectively. Academic Honesty: The requirement that a person’s work be their own. Academic Rigor: The concept of the depth of thought required for classwork or assignments, not the amount of work. Critical Thinking: “ Critical thinking is using reasoned argument to look at fact, story or statement to check if there is an alternative fact, story, or statement” (Goodman, 2006). Debate: A formal argument guided by specific rules. Discussion: An informal verbal exchange guided only by interest and a few general guidelines including rules of civility.

Intellectual Capital: The sum total of the thoughts and non-tangible production of a group or country. Plagiarism: Presenting the work of someone else as your own. Socratic Method: The use of questioning as the principal force for instruction. Based on the teachings and techniques of Socrates. Socratic Seminar: Using the Socratic method in a formal structure to discuss issues or solve problems. This typically occurs over at least an hour and involves the use of multiple groups. Touchstone Question: The foundational question for a Socratic Seminar. The entire seminar revolves around this one complex question.

67

68

Chapter 4

The Erosion of Critical Thinking Development in Post-Secondary Education:

The Need to Return to Liberal Education Michael Robert Hepner St. Louis Community College, USA

ABSTRACT A quick look at virtually any list of college-level learning outcomes will almost certainly uncover the desire to develop critical thinking skills. While prioritizing the development of critical thinking skills on campuses nationwide is a noble cause, issues quickly arise because the definition of critical thinking varies widely amongst the different disciplines, so this chapter provides a history of the idea of critical thinking in higher education, as well as various critical thinking development strategies and assessment instruments. This chapter also outlines the need for the academe to move from simply mentioning the development of critical thinking skills in various institutional documents to prioritizing such skills through the return of liberal education.

INTRODUCTION The history of critical thinking encompasses many important areas in the history of higher education and post-secondary theory, and, while each area can certainly stand on its own, this chapter presents an amalgamated perspective. Unfortunately, for all of the research into the development of critical thinking skills in post-secondary education, little consensus has been reached amongst the disciplines on what exactly constitutes critical

thinking, much to the detriment of college students, graduate schools and employers. True development of critical thinking skills has slowly eroded from the post-secondary landscape; and while this chapter covers some of the issues involved in the development of such skills, it is in no way an exhaustive list, but instead it highlights some of the most pertinent issues in higher education today and provides a platform from which improvements in the development of critical thinking skills in higher education can be made.

DOI: 10.4018/978-1-4666-8411-9.ch004

Copyright © 2015, IGI Global. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.

 The Erosion of Critical Thinking Development in Post-Secondary Education

BACKGROUND The Slow Erosion of Critical Thinking Skills in American Undergraduate Education A brief examination of college mission statements almost always reveals the goal of improving undergraduate students’ critical thinking skills. In fact, according to former Harvard University President Derek Bok (2006), various “nationwide polls have found that more than 90 percent of faculty members in the United States consider it (critical thinking) the most important purpose of undergraduate education” (pp. 67 – 68). Such a goal is admirable as most employers and highly regarded graduate schools seek evidence of solid critical thinking skills in potential employees and students (Kavanagh & Drennan, 2008; Saavedra & Saavedra, 2011; Yeh, 2001). Post-secondary education in America was originally patterned after the offerings of the medieval university, a pattern that persisted with great success since its creation around the year 1200 in Paris, Oxford, and Bologna. The medieval university curriculum was bi-level in nature and centered on the trivium (grammar, rhetoric, and logic) and quadrivium (arithmetic, geometry, astronomy, and music). All students were required to take the same courses to meet graduation requirements. At the medieval university, students explored higher-order skills, known as majors today, only during graduate studies, which were then limited to medicine, theology, and law. In explaining his Idea of a University, which is modeled after the medieval university, Newman (1852) posited that liberal education should not be contrasted with the word ‘useful’, as is commonly done; instead, he determined that cultivating the intellect is an end distinct and sufficient in itself. Newman posited that a child’s business when he or she goes to school is to learn and store up facts and that the child’s intellect is little more than a receptacle for storage. However, upon passing

from school to the university, students are moving from storing intellect to cultivating knowledge the development of critical thinking skills, which for Newman is the “indispensable condition of expansion or enlightenment of the mind” (p. 130). A pivotal point in the history of higher education was when Harvard University instituted the nation’s first undergraduate elective system in 1900 after a proposal published by then-president Charles Eliot (1899) in the Atlantic Monthly. Dr. Eliot had studied the elective-based system in Europe and pushed for its adoption in the United States. Arum and Roksa (2011) note that the effects of Dr. Eliot’s decision to move to an elective-based system are being felt today as expressed by the comments of former Harvard University President Derek Bok (2006) in which he pointed out that “many students graduate college today without being able to write well enough to satisfy their employers, reason clearly or perform competently in analyzing complex, non-technical problems” (p. 3). Dr. Bok’s comments are supported by various datasets that have shown a slow erosion of American undergraduate critical thinking skills.

EROSION OF CRITICAL THINKING SKILLS Granting college degrees to students with minimal critical thinking skills only dilutes the worth of the degree and downgrades the overall need for higher education as illustrated by Halpern (2007). Halpern notes that undergraduate students are able to earn (emphasis added) a college degree without making any gains in their critical thinking ability by asking her reader to consider a developmental psychology course that may be found at almost any post-secondary institution in the United States. The professor of such as class could ask the students to list each stage of Piaget’s theory of cognitive development, including the age range for each stage and an example of a cognitive task that somebody within that age range should be able

69

 The Erosion of Critical Thinking Development in Post-Secondary Education

to accomplish. Halpern explained that, although there is an opportunity to provide an example in the answer to this question, the answer still only requires basic recall because the example provided on the exam will most likely be the example that was presented in class. “If this is the extent of students’ knowledge, they are unlikely to be able to use Piaget’s conceptualization of cognitive development in any applied setting” (Halpern, 2007, p. 1) and have thus made no gains in the development of their critical thinking skills. Part of postsecondary education’s contemporary role no doubt is to impart specific subjectmatter knowledge in the form of courses leading to a specialized degree; however, higher education should not abandon its role in fostering general intellectual or cognitive competencies and skills, which are certainly lacking in the aforementioned example provided by Halpern (2007). Pascarella and Terenzini (1991) have noted that “These cognitive skills go by a number of different names, such as reasoning skills, critical thinking, intellectual flexibility, reflective judgment, cognitive complexity, etc… and they differ somewhat in the types of problems or issues they address” (p. 114). The terms offered by Pascarella and Terenzini embrace the notion that these skills can be used in a variety of situations, so when they are not developed, as in Halpern’s developmental psychology example, the learner will not be able to utilize the knowledge learned in that class with theories learned in other classes or even in situations presented in everyday life. Thus, although today’s college and university students are steeped in the concepts of their areas of specialization, the applicability of those concepts in real-world situations is lost. These students are receiving college degrees without knowing how to properly apply such concepts to varying situations. Unfortunately, academia did not take heed of the warnings when Eliot and the rest of American higher education moved from liberal education to elective-based education, which is why, according to Arum and Roksa (2011), many students

70

“come to college not only poorly prepared by prior schooling for highly demanding academic tasks, but – more troubling still – they enter college with attitudes, norms, values and behaviors that are often at odds with academic commitment” (p. 3). At the time President Eliot was instituting the elective system at Harvard, Father Timothy Brosnahan, President of Boston College, wrote about the dangers of such a system in the January 13, 1900 issue of the Sacred Heart Review: The young man applying for an education is told to look out on the whole realm of learning, to him unknown and untrodden, and to elect his own path. To do thus with judgment and discrimination, he must know the end he wishes to reach; he must moreover know himself – his mental and moral characteristics, his aptitudes, his temperament, his tastes; and finally, he must know which of the numberless paths will lead him to the goal of his ambition… He is “strongly urged to choose his studies with the utmost caution and under the best advice.” But these provisions do not modify the general character of the system. He must distinctly understand that it is no longer the province of his Alma Mater to act as earthly province for him. Circumstances have obliged her to become a caterer. Each student is free to choose his intellectual pabulum (nourishment), and must assume in the main the direction of his own studies. If he solves the problem wisely, to him the profit; if unwisely, the same Alma Noverca (Step-mother) disclaims the responsibility. (Brosnahan, 1900, p. 9) Boning (2007) argued that liberal education was splintered by Eliot, and by the mid-1900s, little continuity remained between the courses required for a college degree earned by different students at the same institution which is what Father Brosnahan was fighting against when he opposed degree specialization and the establishment of a set of general education requirements. We see today that general education at colleges and universities across the nation simply are not

 The Erosion of Critical Thinking Development in Post-Secondary Education

developing the critical thinking skills they were designed to develop. Unfortunately for American students, Dr. Eliot did not push to download liberal education into American high schools, which was done in Europe when colleges and universities on that continent moved toward an elective based system. Today we find that many high school students are entering college without strong writing skills, as evidenced by a 2003 National Center for Education Statistics study in which only 22% of high school seniors had persuasive writing skills that were considered competent, while only 9% had excellent writing skills. Bean (2011) argued that writing skills and critical thinking skills are not two isolated skill sets; instead, they are inseparable skills because “formal academic writing requires analytical and argumentative thinking” (p. 22). Analytical and argumentative thinking are both skills that many within the academy recognize as integral to developing solid critical thinking skills (Ennis & Weir, 1985; Facione, 2000; Facione, Facione, & Giancarlo, 1996; Halpern, 1998; Paul, 1992; Paul & Edler, 2002; Willingham, 2007). Furthermore, according to a 2006 report from the United States Department of Education titled A Test of Leadership: Charting the Future of U.S. Higher Education, researchers found that American college students scored relatively low on the National Assessment of Adult Literacy. The conclusion can be drawn, then, that those same students lack critical thinking skills because, according to Olson (1994), literacy is an instrument in the development of cognition and critical thinking ability. Many scholars in the field of early childhood development recognize that literacy development begins at a very young age, even before a child formally learns to read (McMunn-Dooley & Matthews, 2009; Alexander, 2006; Clay, 1966), which means that any early deficiencies in literacy will signal further deficiencies in cognitive ability and critical thinking later in life. This is problematic because American students, by and far, are not only enrolling in post-secondary

institutions without critical thinking skills, but are being granted college degrees without developing the critical thinking skills necessary to do well in most mid-level corporate positions or to succeed in highly competitive graduate programs. Of the 8,675 graduating sophomores at 51 American community colleges who took the Educational Testing Service’s (ETS) Academic Profile Test in 2004, only 11% scored in the marginal range, and a mere 3% of the scores were considered proficient. This trend continued as documented by the 2005 Association of American Colleges and Universities (AACU) study, which found that only 6% of college and university seniors graduate with critical thinking skills considered proficient. However, a tremendous disconnect exists between these survey results and the perceptions of those graduating seniors, as the same AACU survey found that 87% of those seniors believed that college contributed a great deal to improving their critical thinking ability. This sort of trend is nothing new as Adler (1982) concluded that students are not learning in college and that “the educational process in America is either a rather pleasant way of passing time until we are ready to go to work, or a way of getting ready for some occupation, or some combination of the two” (p. v).

SELLING SHORT GENERAL EDUCATION Many colleges and universities have seemingly lost sight of the importance of their core curriculum, also widely known as general education, which is designed to accomplish the same critical thinking development as liberal education while giving students a chance to focus on degree specialization without adding additional time to the standard four-year baccalaureate degree. Liberal education may seem to be unimportant because students are not learning a skill that can be immediately performed and quantified. However, liberal education is certainly vital as it was developed to

71

 The Erosion of Critical Thinking Development in Post-Secondary Education

give students a “broad knowledge of the wider world (e.g. science, culture and society)” and “a sense of social responsibility, as well as strong and transferable intellectual and practical skills such as communication, analytical, and problemsolving skills” (Association of American Colleges and Universities [AACU], 2005). According to Brint (2009), faculty and administration need to better communicate the importance of general education because “core curriculum, on average, comprises approximately 30% of the undergraduate curriculum and therefore represents an important feature of the academic experience” (p. 605). According to an American Council of Trustees and Alumni (ACOTA) 2009 report, even the once important core curriculum has seen better days as “rather than offering a true liberal education designed to liberate the mind, (the schools included in the study) are in effect leaving it up to students to figure out what they will need—and families are paying dearly for the privilege of a do-it-yourself curriculum” (p. 13). The ACOTA report surveyed 100 post-secondary institutions and included the top 20 National Universities and top 20 Liberal Arts Colleges as reported in the 2009 U.S. News & World Report America’s Best Colleges rankings, as well as 60 major public universities from all 50 states. The results of their research found that “25 received an F for their core curricula, 17 got Ds, and 20 got Cs. Only 33 out of the 100 earned Bs, and only 5 out of the entire group earned an A” (ACOTA, 2009, p. 12). Despite Arum and Roksa’s (2011) argument that some educators from the nation’s most prestigious colleges and universities have recognized deficiencies in the higher education offered today, namely in that students are graduating without critical thinking skills, those same educators recognize that core curriculum is shrinking to make room for increased requirements within areas of specialization. Arum and Roksa argued that there is a need to protect the core curriculum as colleges and universities move further away from

72

higher education’s foundation in liberal education by lowering the number of credits within the core curriculum.

THE FATE OF CORE CURRICULUM AND GENERAL EDUCATION REQUIREMENTS It is no secret that post-secondary education in American is becoming more technical. Students intend to hurdle general education requirements quickly so they can start courses for their major. Those, after all, are the courses that are seemingly prioritized by faculty and staff. Perhaps the move toward dismissing general education and core curriculum is a residual fear of falling behind the Soviets after Sputnik. Perhaps it’s the result of modern-day budgetary issues. Whatever the reason, many post-secondary institutions are helping students circumvent general education by reducing the number of required courses. Colleges and universities have outlined their general education requirements in various ways. Gaff and Wisescha (1991) found that most institutions require two writing courses, one math course, four courses in the humanities, a single fine arts course, two courses in the hard sciences, and three courses focusing on the social sciences. However, Latzer (2004) noted that even those courses are being cast aside because of student demand and the increasing call for faculty members to teach within their areas of specialization. Newton (2000) pointed out that this has had a profound effect on college and university faculty: The general education program is a reflection of a college faculty’s perceptions, interests and ambitions. The rise of specialization and departmentalization has had a profound effect on faculty roles in leading universities nationwide. Primary identification and loyalty have shifted from the university to the professional specialty. The most significant reference group has become

 The Erosion of Critical Thinking Development in Post-Secondary Education

other members of one’s discipline rather than one’s university colleagues, and the department has supplanted the university as the primary source of authority and rewards. Researching teachers have been replaced by teaching researchers. Specialists with only passing interest in knowledge outside their disciplines have supplanted faculty who were not intimidated by involvement in integrative programs that took them beyond their specialties. (Newton, 2000, p. 168) This trend only leads to an increasingly watered down core curriculum in which students are forced to listen to a ‘sage on the stage’ who feels mandated to teach lower-level courses and either expressly, or not expressly, limits the amount of discourse allowed. Newton (2000) wrote that “with little attraction and few rewards for senior faculty, especially in larger universities, general education courses have often become the domain of graduate students and part-time teachers” (p. 168), which only serves to reinforce the notion amongst faculty and undergraduate students that general education is simply a set number of courses to get out of the way before the real work in their area of specialization can begin. As the tools used by most workers in business and industry today become more technical (Price & Reece, 1991), and as post-secondary institutions continue to tighten their budgets, undergraduate institutions are cutting courses deemed unnecessary, which many times includes courses within the core curriculum. Of course, core curriculum courses are those that are intended to bolster a student’s critical thinking ability (Justice, Rice, Roy, Hudspith & Jenkins, 2009; Facione, Sanchez, Facione & Gainen, 1995), so one should wonder why Idaho State University approved changes to its core curriculum in 2012 to address state budget issues that resulted in a reduction of their core curriculum from 61 credit hours to 40 credit hours while maintaining the stipulation that all students who graduate with a four-year degree must earn at least 120 total credit hours (Idaho

State University, 2012). The reduction in the core curriculum made way for the students to focus more on their areas of specialization rather than the development of their critical thinking skills through core curriculum. In addition to the changes in the core curriculum at Idaho State University, the University of Arkansas at Fayetteville’s Fulbright College of Arts and Sciences planned in 2010 to reduce its core curriculum from 66 hours to 35 hours in order to make way for more specialized courses and to reduce costs by having faculty concentrate on their own areas of specialization while in the classroom (University of Arkansas, 2010). In addition, University of Chicago President Hugo F. Sonnenschein cited financial issues when he proposed a measure, which was later approved, that gradually reduced the university’s core curriculum from 63 credit hours to 54 credit hours (Chicago Maroon, 2004). This sort of reduction in core curriculum, along with the assumed erosion of undergraduate critical thinking ability, is most likely why Bok, as cited in Arum and Roksa (2011), stated that college graduates may not be receiving all of the benefits that traditionally have been associated with the awarding of a college degree because “colleges and universities, for all of the benefits they bring, accomplish far less for their students than they should” (p. 3).

DEFINING CRITICAL THINKING The slow erosion of critical thinking skills is only complicated when it comes to defining what exactly constitutes critical thinking skills. Scholars in various disciplines have been discussing critical thinking for centuries; however, even today, critical thinking does not have a universal definition (Kennedy, Fisher, & Ennis, 1991), with much of the debate raging amongst philosophers and psychologists (Lewis & Smith, 1993). These two academic disciplines have developed several definitions of critical thinking and each discipline

73

 The Erosion of Critical Thinking Development in Post-Secondary Education

uses terms such as “critical thinking” and “higher order thinking” interchangeably (Halpern, 1993). Further investigation muddies the quest for a singular definition as terms such as “reasoning,” “argumentation,” “critical reflection and judgment,” “problem solving,” and “metacognition” all are used seemingly interchangeably amongst different academic disciplines. Although, on the face of it, there are an infinite number of scholarly works on critical thinking ability, or articles that cover critical thinking ability under a different name, there is no definitive answer to the question: What exactly are critical thinking skills? Two distinct disciplines, philosophy and psychology, deal with the development of critical thinking skills more than most others. While philosophers tend to focus on the behaviors and actions of the thinker, as well as the product of the thinker (Thayer-Bacon, 2000), psychologists tend to focus on the cognitive process of the thinker more than the product (Sternberg, 1986). While these two academies have debated in academic publications to find a superior definition of critical thinking, researchers in education have noted the importance of gleaning from both groups in order to develop their critical thinking theory and determine how to convey critical thinking skills to students (Kuhn, 1992; Weinstein, 1995; Condon & Kelly-Riley, 2004).

Philosophy-Based Definitions Philosophers have been attempting to define and promote critical thinking since the world was warned about the dangers of subpar education and the resulting lack of critical thinking skills in 380 BCE (Jowett, 2009). Plato claimed that education of the mind is perhaps the best practice for a good life. Socrates offered the following warning in the Protagoras to those who may be lured into pursuing a substandard education: O my friend, pause, and do not hazard your dearest interests at a game of chance. For there is far

74

greater peril in buying knowledge than in buying meat and drink: the one you purchase of the wholesale or retail dealer, and carry them away in other vessels, and before you receive them into the body as food, you may deposit them at home and call in any experienced friend who knows what is good to be eaten or drunken, and what is not, and how much and when; and then the danger of purchasing them is not so great. But you cannot buy the wares of knowledge and carry them away in another vessel; when you have paid for them you must receive them into the soul and go your way, either greatly harmed or greatly benefited. (Jowett, 2009, p. 30) Perhaps one of the greatest analogies for developing critical thinking skills is the Cave Analogy provided by Socrates in Plato’s Republic, in which Socrates explained the process of coming to know what is good through the development of critical thinking skills, though this term is not mentioned explicitly. Socrates described a cave in which humans are chained facing a wall from birth; behind them, passing puppeteers cast shadows on the wall in front of the prisoners with figurines and other items they are carrying. Because the prisoners know nothing else, they assume that the shadows constitute the entire realm of reality; however, what they see is only a small part of the world. Glaucon, Socrates’ interlocutor, easily grasped the idea behind the analogy and realized that education, or more specifically, liberal education of the mind, is meant to free the prisoners from their false opinions and convictions, as opposed to chaining them within the cave as did their earlier education (Jowett, 2009). Socrates documented the various reactions of the prisoners if unchained and allowed to learn of the rest of the world. He described the prisoners as pained and disoriented by their new world, overwhelmed by rebellion without reason, and blindness that would force them to return to the comfort of the cave. Socrates also spoke of rough transitions into the new world that would result

 The Erosion of Critical Thinking Development in Post-Secondary Education

in resentful prisoners wanting to fight. The best way to enter into this new world of knowledge is slowly so that the prisoner’s eyes can adjust to see the shadows, then reflections in the water, then things themselves and the night’s sky, and finally, the sun, an image of the good and what is. Once the prisoner is able to focus on what is, he will be happier than ever and never want to return to the cave. The cave no longer will be a place of solace, but instead a place where the remaining prisoners will hate and revolt against the former prisoners and refer to them as delusional because the reality of the remaining prisoners is still limited to the shadows in the cave (Jowett, 2009). Just as Plato was adamant that the cave was not the ideal setting for critical thought, contemporary scholars, such as Sternberg (1986), focus on the product that is developed by ideal critical thinkers under the perfect circumstances. In fact, Facione (1990) developed a representation of the ideal critical thinker as part of the Delphi Report, in which she claimed a critical thinker must be a person who is inquisitive, open-minded, flexible, has a desire to be well-informed and has the ability to suspend judgment in order to consider alternate perspectives on important issues. In addition, Lewis and Smith (1993) and Sternberg (1986) focus on the thinker’s ability to conform to the formal rules of logic, which, if done correctly, not only sets up the perfect conditions for critical thinking, but will also produce superior behaviors, actions and products of the thinker as each will be at its best within the confines of the formal rules of logic. Philosophy scholars in the 1970s introduced informal logic as a specialized branch of logic that focuses on the development of skills and techniques for the critical evaluation and coherent presentation of arguments in a way that is sensitive to the contexts in which they occur (Fogelin, 2005). Furthermore, informal logicians, such as Johnson (1996), tend to analyze critical thinking

in a broader sense and incorporate competencies outside the field. Johnson sifted through the many definitions of critical thinking and found common threads, including: A reflective skeptical or questioning attitude, a sensitivity to value- or ideology-laden assumptions, an insistence on appropriate supporting grounds before accepting disputable claims, an appreciation of the various criteria applicable to good reasoning and argument (whether general or subject dependent), skill and judgment in the analysis and evaluation of claims and arguments, and a disposition to be self-reflective, sensitive to one’s own possible biases or assumptions. (Johnson, 1996, p. 46) Obviously, in Johnson’s philosophy-based analysis, he has placed emphasis on the skill of informal logic and the need to develop and exercise that skill. Modern day scholars, such as Possin (2008), a philosopher who is widely known for his critical thinking theory, describe the “dichotomy among scholars, many of whom believe critical thinking is basically formal logic, while those at the other end of the spectrum believe it is simply meta-cognition, or merely reflecting on what one happens to be thinking or experiencing” (p. 203). In one of his earlier works, Possin (2002) extrapolated a definition of critical thinking in which he declared that critical thinking is the “practice of requiring, assessing and giving cogent reasons for one’s beliefs, values and actions” (p.12). Other philosophy scholars have attempted to define critical thinking and have developed similar definitions. Paul and Elder (2002) wrote that critical thinking is thinking “in which the thinker improves the quality of his or her thinking by skillfully taking charge of the structures inherent in thinking and imposing intellectual standards upon them” (p. xx). Whatever definition is upheld, most likely

75

 The Erosion of Critical Thinking Development in Post-Secondary Education

it includes the notion that critical thinking is a deeper, more reflective type of thinking that is done for the betterment of the whole. Several definitions from philosophy scholars work well with this dissertation, given its methodology, because they embrace both philosophical and cognitive approaches to critical thinking. Had this project relied solely on philosophy, Paul’s 1992 definition of critical thinking would rank highest amongst the many because it is widely accepted amongst philosophers, but unlike many philosophers and informal logicians, Paul has avoided many of the technical aspects of logic (taxonomies, explanations of concepts, and breakdowns of argument analysis) and has focused on reasoning in everyday situations and incorporated work from multiple academic disciplines. Paul (1993) distinguished between what he called “weak sense” and “strong sense” critical thinking, interjecting moral concern, pervasive bias, and egocentric thinking into his theory. He expanded this notion by making the distinction between sophistic and true critical thinkers. Sophistic, or weak sense, thinkers are those who attempt to use critical thinking skills to defend their own interests by uncovering fallacies in the arguments and reasoning of others instead of applying those same skills to their own arguments. True critical thinkers are unbiased thinkers who apply thinking skills to their own argument in order to find the truth. Paul certainly was not the first philosopher to posit that the purpose of critical thinking skills is to find the truth. Truth is abundantly emphasized in the education and liberation of the mind throughout Plato’s Protagoras and Republic. The ancient philosophers were worried that young minds may be ruined by those who do not seek the truth and that subpar education would lead young people to live less than virtuous lives. In fact, according to Socrates in Plato’s Republic, knowledge of good is the ultimate virtue, without which the attainment of other virtues is impossible. In order to be

76

deemed morally excellent, Socrates believed it is important to possess the virtues of wisdom, courage, moderation and justice, and possessing any of those virtues is impossible without the sturdy foundation provided by liberal education and critical thinking skills (Grube, 1992, p. 4.427d). Furthermore, according to Adler (1959), a highly touted supporter of developing critical thinking skills through liberal education, “critical thinking goes beyond simply parting facts, nor is it solely concerned with the development of cognitive skills, but instead, liberal education makes good men and good men act nobly” (p. 2). Good men who act nobly will certainly live the virtuous lives discussed by Socrates. Like Adler, Paul (1993) has recognized that critical thinking can be defined in numerous ways, and although those definitions may differ, they should not be seen as mutually exclusive of a particular discipline. Paul (1993) attempted to bridge the gaps between the disciplines by providing a multipurpose definition of critical thinking in which the thinker is “thinking about thinking while thinking to make their thinking better” (p. 91). Paul further wrote that critical thinking is: A unique kind of purposeful thinking in which the thinker systematically and habitually imposes criteria and intellectual standards upon the thinking, taking charge of the construction of thinking, guiding the construction of the thinking according to the standards, assessing the effectiveness of the thinking according to the purpose, the criteria, and the standards. (Paul, 1993, p. 21) Both of these definitions focus on the metacognitive principles of critical thinking and the importance of assessing critical thinking, either one’s own or that of one’s interlocutor, to weed out bias, unrecognized assumptions or the irrationality that most people infuse into argumentation. Others, such as Resnick (1987), have developed philosophy-based theories of critical thinking

 The Erosion of Critical Thinking Development in Post-Secondary Education

that seek to guard humans against their natural tendencies toward accepting fallacies and drawing inappropriate conclusions because it is less taxing than the effort needed to, as Paul (1993) would write, be a strong sense thinker.

Psychology-Based Definitions Unlike the philosophers, those in psychology who have studied critical thinking skills have done so mainly from a developmental and/or cognitive theoretical approach. Hanley (1995) described the “two components of critical thinking as maximizing the efficiency and accuracy of one’s cognitive and metacognitive skills” (p. 68). Unlike many cognitive theorists, Halpern (1996) has employed the term “critical thinking” instead of “thinking skills,” which is popularly used to label the higher-order thinking skills that most philosophers label as critical. Cognitive and developmental psychologists (Halpern, 1996; Choi, 2004; Levy, 2010), as opposed to those in the philosophy community, are more apt to find that critical thinking is a subset of, or on the same level as, problem solving. Halpern (1996), as an example of a psychologist’s approach to critical thinking, has defined critical thinking as “thinking that is purposeful, reasoned and goal directed. It is the kind of thinking involved in solving problems, formulating inferences, calculating likelihoods, and making decisions” (p. 5). Halpern (2007) wrote that “the main component of critical thinking is the conscious reflection on the process of thinking and the evaluation of one’s own thinking process” (p. 11). Like Halpern, other psychologists, by and far, have emphasized the cognitive skills involved in thinking critically; however, a growing dimension of psychologists recognize the disposition of the thinker, as well. Sternberg and Grigorenko (2007) noted that most within the psychology discipline view critical thinking in terms of skills, but they also not that “attitudes, or dispositions, are at least as important as skills. Someone may have the skills needed

to think critically, but simply fail to apply these skills to the problems he or she confronts” (p. 295). Bensley, Crowe, Bernhardt, Buckner, and Allman (2010) used the growing body of critical thinking research in psychology to formulate a definition in their recent article on teaching and assessing critical thinking skills: We defined critical thinking as reflective thinking involved in the evaluation of evidence relevant to a claim so that a sound conclusion can be drawn from the evidence (Bensley, 1998). CT requires both skills in using rules and criteria for making reasoned judgments (Lipman, 1991) and the dispositions to use those skills (Halpern, 1998). (Bensley et al., 2010, p. 91) Willingham (2007) has also defined critical thinking, but his definition seems to pull from both philosophy and psychology. He notes that the important aspects of critical thinking are “seeing both sides of an issue, being open to new evidence that disconfirms your ideas, reasoning dispassionately, demanding that claims be backed by evidence, deducing and inferring conclusions from available facts, solving problems, and so forth” (p. 8). Willingham is perhaps most adamant about the two disciplines coming to a consensus in order to appropriately define critical thinking.

An Attempt at Consensus Although philosophers and psychologists disagree as to what exactly the term critical thinking entails, most researchers agree on some foundational facets of critical thinking, most of which regard the various behaviors and/or dispositions that a critical thinker must possess. Behaviors include the ability to analyze evidence or arguments (Ennis & Weir, 1985; Facione et al., 1996; Facione, 2000; Halpern, 1998; Paul, 1992; Paul & Elder, 2002). In addition, many researchers across various disciplines believe that a critical thinker must be well versed at making inferences and successfully

77

 The Erosion of Critical Thinking Development in Post-Secondary Education

master various types of logic (Ennis & Weir, 1985; Facione, 1990; Paul, 1992; Willingham, 2007), as well as making sound judgments or evaluations when presented with an argument (Adler, 1982; Case, 2005; Facione, 1990; Facione, 2000; Lipman, 1988; Tindal & Nolet, 1995). Finally, many scholars also believe that true critical thinkers must have the ability to make sound decisions and be adept at problem solving (Ennis & Weir, 1985; Case, 2005; Halpern, 1998; Willingham, 2007). Other critical thinking abilities that are generally accepted by the various disciplines include identifying assumptions (Ennis & Weir, 1985; Facione, 1990; Paul, 1992) and interpreting and explaining different issues (Facione, 1990; Paul & Elder, 2002), reasoning verbally, and viewing an argument from multiple angles (Ennis & Weir, 1985; Paul & Elder, 2002; Willingham, 2007). Furthermore, in addition to appropriate behaviors, critical thinking dispositions are also a critical facet that have been recognized by both disciplines (Facione, 1990). Scholars generally agree that critical thinkers must be open-minded and fair-minded (Bailin, Case, Coombs, & Daniels, 1999; Ennis & Weir, 1985; Facione, 1990, 2000; Halpern, 1998). In addition, other behaviors deemed critical by both academies include the desire to reason (Bailin et al., 1999; Ennis & Weir, 1985; Paul, 1992; Willingham, 2007) and be well informed (Ennis & Weir, 1985; Facione, 1990; Paul, 1993). Although various disciplines, namely psychology and philosophy, continue to disagree over the various behaviors and dispositions a critical thinker must possess, one major attempt has been made to synthesize the study of critical thinking across the disciplines. The American Philosophical Association conducted a multi-disciplinary investigation into which facets of critical thinking are universal in an attempt to achieve a consensus definition of critical thinking for the purposes of instruction and assessment (Facione, 1990). The 46 experts who were summoned for this task and who produced the subsequent report, commonly

78

known as the Delphi Report, were called from a variety of disciplines, including more than half (52%) from philosophy, while 22% were from education, 20% from the social sciences, including psychology, and about 6% from the physical sciences. Facione (1990), in the Delphi Report, defined critical thinking as “one among a family of closely related forms of higher-order thinking, along with, for example, problem solving, decision making, and creative thinking” (p. 13). The participants who joined together to provide the substance of the Delphi Report were able to reach a consensus on critical thinking and provided the following elongated statement: We understand critical thinking to be purposeful, self-regulatory judgment which results in interpretation, analysis, evaluation, and inference, as well as explanation of the evidential, conceptual, methodological, criteriological, or contextual considerations upon which that judgment is based. Critical thinking is essential as a tool of inquiry. As such, critical thinking is a liberating force in education and a powerful resource in one’s personal and civic life. While not synonymous with good thinking, critical thinking is a pervasive and self-rectifying human phenomenon. The ideal critical thinker is habitually inquisitive, well-informed, trustful of reason, open-minded, flexible, fair-minded in evaluation, honest in facing personal biases, prudent in making judgments, willing to reconsider, clear about issues, orderly in complex matters, diligent in seeking relevant information, reasonable in the selection of criteria, focused in inquiry, and persistent in seeking results which are as precise as the subject and the circumstances of inquiry permit. Thus, educating good critical thinkers means working toward this ideal. It combines developing critical thinking skills with nurturing those dispositions which consistently yield useful insights and which are the basis of a rational and democratic society. (Facione, 1990, p. 2)

 The Erosion of Critical Thinking Development in Post-Secondary Education

This 187-word statement shows that the disciplines were able to work together to form a consensus on what constitutes critical thinking. However, because the statement is so long and includes so much in terms of cognitive and affective domains, the reader can get a sense of the debate and tension within the process (Facione, 1990). Although a consensus was reached, the debate will certainly continue, especially in the realm of undergraduate education.

FIGHTING ROTE MEMORIZATION IN THE CURRENT SYSTEM Students who are exposed to liberal education will naturally awaken their invaluable critical thinking skills in a teacher/interlocutor situation in which the teacher and students are free to engage in dialogue with each other. Professors who embrace a teacher/interlocutor relationship, much like those relationships that are an integral part of liberal education, will certainly do more to impact a student’s life than will a professor who provides a wide range of theory and then mistakes rote memorization skills for learning, or even worse, a professor who purposely refuses to acknowledge the differences between rote memorization and true learning. Newman (1856) described the university as the following: A place to which a thousand schools make contributions; in which the intellect may safely range and speculate, sure to find its equal in some antagonist activity, and its judge in the tribunal of truth. It is a place where inquiry is pushed forward, and discoveries verified and perfected, and rashness rendered innocuous, and error exposed, by the collision of mind with mind and knowledge with knowledge. (p. 16) Those collisions certainly are restrained, if not nonexistent, in large lecture halls where the lessons revolve around the truth as found by others

instead of the truth found by the very students in the room, which includes the examination of primary sources and the use of Socratic dialogue in the classroom. Today’s students learn in an environment in which sound bytes and opinion often are mistaken for rational discourse and facts. Martha Nussbaum (2010), a Professor of Philosophy at the University of Chicago, has relied on Thucydides’ example of people who are too easily influenced by moving rhetoric and bad arguments and how such is having a harmful effect on post-secondary education. Thucydides told the story about the fate of the rebellious colonists of Mytilene. Under the influence of the demagogue Cleon, who spoke to them of slighted honor, the Assembly voted to kill all of the men of Mytilene and to enslave the women and children. The city sent a ship to Mytilene with such orders; however, after another orator, Diodotus, calmed the people and urged mercy, the city was forced to send a second ship to stop the first. Much in the way the Assembly voted to kill all of the men of Mytilene without rational discourse on the situation, undergraduates may wholeheartedly accept what is taught in the classroom with little or no thought, namely because what is taught has come from a source they believe they can trust. Nussbaum (2010) rightly has pointed out that “irresolution is frequently compounded by deference to authority and peer pressure and that people are easily swayed by the fame or cultural prestige of a speaker, or by the fact that the peer culture is going along with the speaker’s ideas” (p. 50), which is why universities promoting lecture halls with a sage on the stage and reliance on textbooks are dangerous to students and the overall learning process. Nussbaum (2010) continued by noting that such influence is not a danger when people are engaged in Socratic dialogue of critical inquiry. “The status of the speaker does not count; only the nature of the argument” (Nussbaum, 2010, p. 51). Finding an army of modern-day scholars who see both the benefits and dangers of liberal educa-

79

 The Erosion of Critical Thinking Development in Post-Secondary Education

tion is not difficult. Current theories supporting liberal education are similar to those that have been held throughout history. Humphreys (2006) has defined modern-day liberal education to include, among other attributes, “creative thinking, teamwork, problem solving, civic knowledge and engagement, ethical reasoning and action, synthesis and advanced accomplishment across general and specialized studies” (p. 3). Whereas the pre-20th-century scholars mentioned did not include much discussion of creativity, teamwork or advanced accomplishments across specialized studies, plenty of scholars agree that the goals of modern-day liberal education need to include such progressive ideas if it is to survive at all. Bereiter (1997), an education researcher and professor emeritus at the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education at the University of Toronto, has welcomed a transformation of liberal education that includes a careful synthesis of new ideas and enduring principles. Bereiter recognized the need to retool liberal education because it will not survive in a globalized society with rapid technological changes. It is imperative, according to Bereiter, that “schools transform into workshops for the production of knowledge” (p. 2). Liberal education, in his view, needs to transform into a knowledge society organized around the production of knowledge in the same sense that an agrarian society is organized around agriculture production and an industrial society is organized around manufacturing. Bereiter’s theory of liberal education coincides with what Humphreys (2006) called for, namely, “the abandonment of bureaucratic structures in which a worker’s responsibility is defined by routine tasks and where nonroutine problems are referred to a higher level” (Bereiter, 1997, p. 6). Bereiter calls for replacing such structures with mission-oriented teams that solve problems and generate new knowledge within working groups. These are skills (creative thinking, teamwork, problem solving, synthesis and advanced accomplishment across general and specialized studies) that can be used across

80

employment disciplines much in the same way that critical thinking developed by liberal education can be used across educational disciplines. Such skill is important when competing for employment in the ever-changing, technology-laden, employment market of the 21st century and existing in the knowledge-driven economy that demands the development of a highly-educated workforce that can adapt to change and is viewed as essential for future prosperity (Harvey, Moon, & Geall, 1997). In his article, Bereiter (1997), in his quest to promote the development of new knowledge, seemingly endorsed Socratic dialogue, which is at the center of traditional liberal education. Although Bereiter felt as if he were introducing a retooled version of liberal education, his ideas fall right in line with what Socrates promoted in all of his teacher/interlocutor interactions, namely, the development of critical thinking skills that can be used across disciplines in a manner that prepares students to use those skills in all aspects of life. Nussbaum (2010) notes that all undergraduates are required to pass a set of courses in philosophy and other subjects in the humanities because “such courses will stimulate students to think and argue for themselves, rather than to defer to tradition and authority” (p. 48). Nussbaum (2002), perhaps one of the most ardent supporters of liberal education and the humanities, has expressed fear that the “illumination and human understanding that the humanities have given, and are still giving, to our undergraduates and our culture, may gradually be lost to the university’s bottom line” (p. 47). Unlike Martin (1994), who felt that liberal education is the enemy of feminist studies, Nussbaum (2002) has embraced liberal education because of the “positive influence it provides on the role feminist, gender, racial and ethnic subjects have in society as liberal education serves as the adhesive that holds together these different disciplines and teaches us to live together with dignity as rational animals” (p. 39). The problem with liberal education is that people try diligently to avoid its challenges.

 The Erosion of Critical Thinking Development in Post-Secondary Education

People, according to Nussbaum (2002), “buy into intellectual strategies aimed at turning away from the reality of our human lives and we comfort our minds with reductive pseudo-sciences that fool the mind into thinking it is elegant and active, while in truth it is lazy and evasive” (p. 39). The fooled mind, which is the product of a lack of liberal education and of the critical thinking skills liberal education helps to develop, poses a danger to more than just higher education; in fact, according to Nussbaum (2002), public policy made without the influence of the humanities is likely to be cramped and crude. The cultivation of the imagination that comes with the “study of literature, the cultivation of the ethical sensibility that comes with the study of philosophy and religion, these are essential equipment for citizens and policy makers in a world increasingly united, and driven forward, by profit motive” (Nussbaum, 2002, p. 48). Nussbaum (1997) also posited that “we have not produced truly free citizens in the Socratic sense unless we have produced people who can reason for themselves and argue well, and who understand the difference between a logically valid and logically invalid argument” (p. 35), all of which are the products of liberal education. Martin (1994), perhaps liberal education’s most influential critic, described liberal education as a “theory of curriculum that is seriously deficient” (p. 171) and perhaps outdated as it was built to be a service to men; therefore, liberal education is an affront to the feminist movement because of its inherent gender bias. This gender bias is obvious in that the “intellectual disciplines into which a person must be initiated to become an educated person exclude women and their works, construct the female to the male image of her and deny the truly feminine qualities she does possess” (Martin, 1981, p. 101). Liberal education, according to Martin (1994), does not connect with women because such curriculum “ignores feelings and emotions and other so-called ‘noncognitive’ states and processes of the mind. It also ignores ‘knowing how’, it excluded education for

action and it relies on a conception of education that divorces mind from body” (Martin, 1994, p. 186). Martin (1994) further argued that women cannot separate their minds from their bodies as can men; therefore, this divorce of mind and body is one of the biggest challenges and frustrations for any woman who chooses to pursue a degree that includes any traditional humanities-based coursework.

DEVELOPING AND ASSESSING CRITICAL THINKING ABILITIES Specific instructional strategies, such as those including a high level of student and instructor interaction, are central themes to developing critical thinking skills in undergraduate students. For instance, several researchers have found that improving an undergraduate’s critical thinking skills requires explicit instruction (Case, 2005; Facione, 1990; Halpern, 1998; Paul, 1992). Another instructional technique, collaborative learning, is mentioned throughout the research as one that is instrumental in developing critical thinking skills (Heyman, 2008; Paul, 1992; Thayer-Bacon, 2000). Dillenbourg, Baker, Blaye, and O’Malley (1996) used their work to highlight that these instructional strategies rely upon the social interactions produced in the classroom to enhance the participating students’ critical thinking skills. Bailin et al. (1999) supports the work of Dillenbourg et al. (1996) and argues that the ability to respond constructively to others during a group discussion is fundamental in the development of critical thinking skills. According to Bloom (1956), education scholars have formulated a multi-part process by which students learn, which has been standardized to include six basic learning objectives, including knowledge, comprehension, application, analysis, synthesis, and evaluation. Furthermore, according to Weisel (2009), critical thinking skills take students beyond memorization, comprehension,

81

 The Erosion of Critical Thinking Development in Post-Secondary Education

and application of facts. “Students must be able to analyze certain situations using information they know as well as the information that is still needed that a well thought out conclusion can be reached. Synthesis and evaluation are integral to the development of critical thinking” (Weisel, 2009, p. 161). Weisel (2009) developed a study in which she sought to determine whether critical thinking skills can be taught successfully in an introductory business class in what seems to be an answer to both Bereiter (1997) and Humphreys (2006) who make calls to institute various facets of liberal education in specialized courses. Her hypothesis was that these skills can be taught by focusing on specific issues through the development of the ability to analyze problems. Weisel’s (2009) research model included introducing critical thinking skills using a four-part rubric that scored the ability to develop facts, determine missing information that would be helpful in making a decision, analyze ambiguities present in the fact pattern that might impact the decision, and, finally, to reach a conclusion. Although her technique for teaching critical thinking skills has not been researched, Weisel (2009) found that there “were statistically significant gains in the critical thinking ability of those students who were part of the treatment group, which included a 37% gain in the number of students who could identify any missing information in the exercises” (p. 166). Kaul and Pratt (2010) described how learning communities featuring collaborative inquiry and discovery helped to improve their students’ critical thinking abilities; however, their study lacked an instrument to measure any gains in such abilities, a common weakness among studies with this aim. Halpern (1993) posited that weak assessment instruments contribute to many of the problems encountered when attempting to determine the effectiveness of various models for the development of critical thinking skills. Halpern argued that assessment instruments must be developed

82

to measure slight increases in the critical thinking skills and dispositions of those being tested. Generally, two approaches exist for undertaking the challenging task of assessing students’ critical thinking abilities outside of the laborious path of collecting and evaluating student portfolios (Possin, 2008). Those looking to assess students’ critical thinking skills can either: 1) use commercially available standardized tests, or 2) design an assessment instrument that meets the needs of the particular project. In order to reduce validity and reliability issues, most researchers and faculty members who are interested in assessing their students’ critical thinking skills choose to employ a commercially available instrument, such as the California Critical Thinking Skills Test, the Watson-Glaser Critical Thinking Appraisal, the Cornell Critical Thinking Test, or the Ennis-Weir Critical Thinking Essay Test. While the California, Cornell, and WatsonGlaser tests are convenient in that they are multiple-choice tests and can be graded by machine, those tests cannot determine how well a student has developed major facets of critical thinking ability, such as their ability to generate clear and well-reasoned written/oral arguments, nor can those exams determine a student’s ability to resolve open-ended problems. Browne and Keeley (1986) questioned the validity of multiple-choice critical thinking exams as a whole because those taking the exams are not free to determine their own questions or apply their own evaluative criteria. In addition, two years later, Keeley and Browne stated that perhaps the best way to evaluate critical thinking skills is through student-generated written responses. For instance, although the Watson-Glaser test has been lauded for its validity and reliability (El Hassan & Madhum, 2007), Wagner and Harvey (2006) offer criticism because there is one section of the test that provides only two multiple-choice answers for each question, so success can be chalked up to guessing rather than critical thinking ability. Other scholars criticize

 The Erosion of Critical Thinking Development in Post-Secondary Education

multiple-choice exams because they do not allow for individual responses, which can lead to a lot of guessing, and “guessing what an anonymous writer of a test item had in mind isn’t higher-order thinking” (Brady, 2008, p. 67). Brady (2008) and Brunt (2005) both suggest that written responses, such as those produced by the Ennis-Weir test, require analysis, evaluation, argument and evidence, and therefore assesses higher-order thinking. While no test can claim to fully measure all aspects of critical thinking ability, the Ennis-Weir test seems to have been carefully crafted and recrafted to weed out issues of validity and reliability while testing the major aspects of critical thinking, namely, interpretation and analysis, the detection of fallacies and assumptions and inference (Ennis & Weir, 1985). In addition, a host of scholars have praised the Ennis-Weir test because it requires the test-taker to employ higher-order thinking skills while formulating a written response, which is more thorough than multiple-choice exams (Dunitru, 2012; Oermann, 1999; Werner, 1991).

Solutions and Recommendations: Returning to Our Roots in Liberal Education The field of scholars clamoring for improved critical thinking skills amongst students is growing well beyond those housed in the humanities and liberal arts. The business college at the University of West Florida, on behalf of the Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business, was given the task in 2002 of developing an assessment instrument that measures business students’ critical thinking ability. The faculty and administration settled on the development of a summative capstone course to assess critical thinking skills based on the work of Maki (2004). The capstone course revolved around students solving unstructured problems with no single correct answer, namely in the form of case analyses that culminated in a written case intended to demonstrate the student’s level of business

understanding and ability to apply best practice business concepts in varying situations. After the first few rounds of the capstone experience, the business faculty realized that students were completing the program without any meaningful gains in their critical thinking ability, which led the faculty to investigate expanding the capstone project over the entire course of a student’s undergraduate career (Peach & Mukherjee, 2007). By the end of the project, the faculty “found that meaningful assessment is a continuous process that requires sound research, documentation, interventions and an allocation of significant academic resources” (Peach & Mukherjee, 2007, p. 4), but in the end, such an investment of time and resources is critical in producing highly-regarded business students. The need for improved critical thinking skills amongst college and university undergraduates has not escaped faculty members in the so-called hard sciences either. Researchers in the science programs at the University of Florida have begun to call for a move toward fostering their students’ critical thinking abilities instead of simply measuring their penchant for rote memorization. In science, inquiry-based learning, which is much like Socratic dialogue, is the preferred instructional method used to facilitate cognitive development in students. The popularity of inquiry-based learning at the University of Florida stemmed from a federally-funded grant project initiated in 2000 to develop an instructional model and skills assessment instrument for teaching and evaluating critical thinking skills in undergraduate biology courses at the university. The program at the University of Florida flourished because the students who were exposed to the instructors who overtly taught critical thinking and inquiry-based learning had significantly higher gains in their critical thinking skills than their counterparts in classes focusing on rote memorization (Friedel & Irani, 2008). However, because the scope of the research is limited, and because the study has not been replicated, the authors only cautiously rec-

83

 The Erosion of Critical Thinking Development in Post-Secondary Education

ommend inquiry-based teaching at the university until more data become available. Pittendrigh (2007) detailed Montana State University’s steps toward more liberal education, the primary element of which was their adoption of a canon of books to be read by all first-year undergraduates in a seminar-style class utilizing Socratic dialogue. This is extraordinary because MSU, a mid-sized public university with approximately 12,000 students, 800 faculty members and a thriving research program, is not the type of institution typically associated with such a move. Liberal education usually is reserved for small liberal arts colleges with small or nonexistent research agendas and strong humanities programs. Nevertheless, although Montana State University retained the specialized degrees they offered, “the university succeeded in replacing a cafeteria style core curriculum with a new curriculum, CORE 2.0, focused on student learning, inquiry and research. The process of revising the general education curriculum took six years, from 1998 through the implementation of CORE 2.0 in 2004” (Pittendrigh, 2007, p. 35). Although CORE 2.0 more closely mimics Newton’s Scholarly Discipline Model, this example shows that even large universities have recognized the need to improve their students’ critical thinking ability and their understanding that they can rely on liberal education to do so. According to Pittendrigh (2007), CORE 2.0 was established to improve critical thinking and communication skills, as well as to encourage active engagement and an understanding of diverse perspectives. As part of CORE 2.0, the university instituted a freshman seminar class with a reading list that included Plato’s Apology, Galileo’s Letter to the Grand Duchess Christina, Jonathan Winer’s Beak of the Finch, and Leslie Silko’s novel Ceremony. Unlike the core curriculum at many colleges and universities, Pittendrigh (2007) noted that the “faculty were clear that the Letters and Science seminar should be intellectually challenging, should incorporate perspectives

84

from the three broad disciplinary areas in the college—humanities, social sciences, and natural sciences—and should be taught by tenured and tenure-track faculty” (p. 36). The faculty quickly recognized the importance of offering high-quality education to MSU students from the start, and that led to a sense of common purpose amongst faculty from different disciplines. Pittendrigh (2007) explained that the faculty members were encouraged to shed their status as experts in their fields and to collaborate with their colleagues and the students in order to facilitate learning amongst everyone involved with CORE 2.0. The learning environment flourished as the faculty members were involved in interpreting the texts alongside the students and teaching the students to examine evidence and build supported arguments after asking meaningful questions. A real sense of collegiality was built as “the faculty met weekly to discuss course readings, engaging in cross-disciplinary conversations about course texts, ideas, and teaching. For many, the weekly staff seminar became one of the most enjoyable aspects of teaching the course” (Pittendrigh, 2007, p. 36). Although the program at MSU is not true to the Great Books Model as defined by Newton (2000), the canon of texts, reliance on Socratic dialogue, collaboration and sense of community amongst faculty members, as well as the greater gains in critical thinking skills of the students, are certainly benefits of the Great Books Model. “Other benefits of CORE 2.0 included the development of skills in discussion, teamwork, and writing, as students practiced applying intellectual skills to problem solving and decision making” (Pittendrigh, 2007, p. 55). The work of both ancient philosophers and modern-day scholars makes clear that liberal education has a role in American universities that stretches beyond a decreasing core curriculum. Reducing liberal education is dangerous for colleges and universities as they vie for a portion of graduating high school seniors whose parents have

 The Erosion of Critical Thinking Development in Post-Secondary Education

a large role in their children’s college selection. Parents are more likely to concern themselves with the quality of education provided by a particular school; however, on the issue of whether students learn better at one institution verses another, Olson (1994) found that “despite increased attention to student learning results by colleges and universities and accreditation agencies, parents and students have no solid evidence, comparable across institutions, of whether students learn more at one college than another” (p. 14). This may not be an immediate issue for colleges or universities in regards to the admissions process, as much of that process focuses on dazzling prospective students with an array of student activities, but if recent trends continue, one can expect to see liberal education “replaced by some form of vocationalism, in disguise perhaps, or migrate into other environments, such as Master of Arts in Liberal Studies programs, for adults who recognize what they missed in their undergraduate education” (Connor, 1998, p. 6). Montana State University has discovered great value in a strong core curriculum and general education meant to provide students with a breadth of learning experiences and a broad knowledge base that sharpens the students’ problem-solving, interpersonal, oral and written communication skills, and cultural and linguistic literacy (Jones et al., 1994). However, some schools, such as the University of Arkansas at Fayetteville’s Fulbright College of Arts and Sciences, plan to reduce its in order to make way for more specialized courses and to reduce costs by having faculty concentrate on their own areas of specialization while in the classroom (University of Arkansas, 2010). These two examples show that no consensus exists regarding the value of a strong core curriculum; the topic is generally in a state of flux. In fact, 57% of the 479 schools surveyed by Ratcliff, Johnson, La Nasa, and Gaff (2001) were restructuring their general education programs, with many more planning to follow suit. Post-secondary institutions

struggle to build solid general education programs using introductory courses from various academic departments because seasoned professors prefer not to teach lower-level courses (Aloi, Gardner, & Lusher, 2003). The faculty at Montana State University prioritized the use of tenure or tenuretrack professors in their core curriculum program to help ensure that the quality of the program did not fall by the wayside and that the faculty members recognized that the program was invaluable. Drastic changes may not be required to develop the critical thinking skills that undergraduates so desperately need. It would be wise for college administrators to discontinue the practice of assuming that a master’s degree, doctorate, or other terminal degree automatically signals that the holder is competent in the classroom and that individual professors should be given the discretion to develop their own teaching methods. Surveys such as Gardiner’s (1994) on producing dramatic gains in student learning show that close to 90% of instructors feel as if their teaching methods are above average (p. 57). While one can almost be certain that the content most professors are teaching is current simply because members of academe tend to stay abreast of the latest research, one cannot be so certain that professors are learned in different teaching methods, such as collaborative learning, experiential learning, problem-based learning, etc., so the university must turn its attention to teaching professors about instructional best practices. Typical faculty orientation and training days include welcome speeches from various college officials and an introduction to student support services and student activities, as well as quick lessons on the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA), accreditation, sexual harassment prevention, and campus safety. This sort of training is invaluable as it serves as an orientation to the institution and its culture; however, these types of sessions only partially fulfill the instructor induction best practices as outlined

85

 The Erosion of Critical Thinking Development in Post-Secondary Education

by Lyons (1996). Lyons stresses that instructors need adequate training in fundamental teaching and classroom management, both initial and ongoing professional development, and recognition for quality work. Unfortunately, Gappa and Leslie (1993) found there is rarely any mandated training for instructors in areas such as learning styles, formative and summative assessment, or classroom management, all of which are fundamental to the learning process and are included in instructional best practices. Gappa and Leslie (1993) concluded that “where faculty do not have the proper tools to do their jobs (i.e., training and support)… it is usually because the institution has failed in some significant way to provide what is needed” (p. 13). The role of colleges and universities before the elective-based system became prominent after 1899 was not necessarily to teach students a certain skill, but instead to teach students to find the truth for themselves, thus naturally developing their critical thinking ability. Students who are predominately exposed to lectures and PowerPoint presentations that only promote rote memorization are not necessarily held to the expectation of reading the assigned material and partaking in Socratic dialogue, or any classroom dialogue for that matter. Dialogue is essential in awaking a student’s critical thinking ability as they have the opportunity to analyze primary documents and theories from various angles. Imparting critical thinking skills requires instructors to move away from simply presenting information in a lecture format and to, as described by Hativa (2000), act more as a chairperson, guide, listener, observer, monitor, initiator, summarizer, and referee (p. 111). Instructors must cease simply talking to their students and start listening to and talking with their students as they discover their own learning process. These skills do not come naturally for most instructors, but they can certainly be learned during instructor induction sessions based on instructional best practices.

86

FUTURE RESEARCH DIRECTIONS Hepner (2012) conducted research for his doctoral dissertation in which he directed a mixed methods study using the Ennis-Weir Critical Thinking Essay Test to compare the critical thinking skills of students at two schools that use two different curriculums. The first school, Panther College (The name of the institution has been changed to maintain the anonymity of the institution) in the Midwest, is a contemporary institution that offers a core curriculum and degree specialization while primarily relying on secondary sources in the classroom. The second school, Burgundy College (The name of the institution has been changed to maintain the anonymity of the institution) in New England, promotes liberal education by employing a canon of Great Books and a Great Books curriculum, primary sources and Socratic dialogue in the classroom and exclusively offers a bachelor’s degree in liberal arts. Upon assessing the students’ critical thinking skills, and after controlling for their initial academic abilities by comparing individual college entrance exam scores, along with the sample population’s mean high school and college grade point averages, Hepner combed the qualitative data gathered from the students to find any factors, such as patterns in high school and collegiate extracurricular involvement, classroom behavior, and study habits, which may have contributed to any differences found in the critical thinking ability of the two sample populations. Although the study is hampered by generalizability issues as a total of only 25 students at both institutions chose to participate, the study still serves as a basis for future research. The hypothesis in this study was designed to find whether the sample population at Burgundy College would produce higher scores on the Ennis-Weir test when compared to the scores produced by the sample population at Panther College. Both populations completed the test without any preparation beforehand and both sample populations rated the

 The Erosion of Critical Thinking Development in Post-Secondary Education

Ennis-Weir test as being relatively simple on a scale of 1-10 with a sample mean score of 2.363 (s=1.206) at Panther College and a sample mean score of 2.357 (s=0.841) at Burgundy College. This serves to show that the students at one school did not feel as if they were at a disadvantage to the students at the other school because of the particular exam used for this project. Overall scores on the Ennis-Weir test can range from -9 to +29. The mean score for the Panther College sample population was 20.545 (s=5.410), and the mean score for the Burgundy College sample population was 25.857 (s=1.231), as shown in Table 1. Any statistical analysis beyond the stated mean and standard deviation is inappropriate because of the small sample populations involved. However, it is apparent that the Burgundy students scored, on average, 5.312 points, or 14 percentage points, higher than their colleagues at Panther College. In addition, when the Ennis-Weir test scores were broken down by subscale, as show in Table 2, there were observable differences between the two sample populations’ scores in all areas measured, including the ability to evaluate an argument, deduction, inference, assumption recognition, and interpretation as shown in Table 2.

The researcher conducted chi square tests of independence with a 0.05 level of significance on the Ennis-Weir test subscale scores, and as a result, the researcher cannot assume that the subscale scores are dependent on the institution attended. Based on the aforementioned observable differences, it appears that utilizing a curriculum focused on liberal education, which was used by medieval universities, has a strong positive effect on an undergraduate student’s ability to think critically when faced with a common reasoning task. The aforementioned findings may also suggest that students who experience a Great Books may be better prepared to take a critical thinking test, such as the Ennis-Weir test, because they are trained to assess open-ended exercises in which critical thinking skills are necessary for success. Instructors in Great Books programs are more likely to employ open-ended questions on exams and during class sessions in order to force students to support statements with evidence and encourage students to make connections between different disciplines (Rothman, 2002). Whether the difference resulted explicitly from the content of the particular texts and documents used in the Great Books curriculum at Burgundy College, or from the training received from specific instructors in

Table 1. Ennis-Weir Test Scores Panther College Test Score Means

20.545 (5.410)

Burgundy College 25.857 (1.231)

Table 2. Ennis-Weir Test Subscale Scores Panther College Evaluation of Argument

2.41 (0.649)

Burgundy College 2.80 (0.401)

p-value .941

Deduction

2.20 (0.588)

2.50 (0.510)

.984

Inference

2.16 (0.937)

2.71 (0.468)

.912

Assumption Recognition

2.25 (0.965)

2.64 (0.633)

.991

Interpretation

2.41 (0.792)

2.71 (0.468)

.965

87

 The Erosion of Critical Thinking Development in Post-Secondary Education

a particular course or set of courses, such as logic or philosophy, is a question that requires further explanation through future research. The major findings of Hepner’s project are that sample population of students at Burgundy College outperformed the sample of students at Panther College on the Ennis-Weir Critical Thinking Essay Test although the two sample populations were almost identical in regards to age, gender, family income, type of high school attended, race/ethnicity, class standing, and the size of their hometown. The two sample populations had similar high school grade point averages, college entrance exam scores, and cumulative college grade point averages, as well. There were observable differences in the way the students in the two sample populations think about their critical thinking ability in that the Panther College students often confused critical thinking ability with rote memorization while the Burgundy College students often used definitions that have been accepted in academe. Furthermore, the sample of students at Burgundy College are more satisfied with their undergraduate experience than the sample of students at Panther College. Although Bok (2006) noted that it is “impressive to find faculty members agreeing almost unanimously that teaching undergraduates to think critically is the principal aim of undergraduate education” (p. 109), critical thinking has become little more than a catchphrase in education that, when heard, conjures the notion of good teaching and a quality education. As shown in Hepner (2012), post-secondary institutions need to move from creating an entertaining educational experience and instead refocus their efforts on academics to truly cultivate critical thinking skills. Bok (2006), noted that the sheer volume of information in today’s world makes it nearly impossible to know what is most important to teach, so it is best to teach our undergraduates how to ask pertinent questions in order to come to carefully thought-out decisions. While it is evident that students who were exposed to the Great Books curriculum and who

88

were trained to analyze primary sources and documents through the use of Socratic dialogue scored higher on the Ennis-Weir test, it is not known at what rate the Burgundy College students’ critical thinking ability progresses over their four years at the institution. One possible direction for future research would be a longitudinal study that tracks a sample population’s entire undergraduate career to determine whether there is continual improvement. This data also would help determine whether the Burgundy College students’ critical thinking skills can be attributed to the overall Great Books curriculum, or perhaps a specific course or series of courses, such as logic and philosophy. Further research should also be conducted regarding whether instituting a Great Books curriculum to wholly replace a school’s core curriculum would give undergraduates a firm foundation of critical thinking skills before they move on to their specialized degree programs. Furthermore, in the same vein, further research should be conducted on college honors programs that purport to develop a student’s critical thinking ability without introducing students to the Great Books curriculum, in an attempt to discover whether a Great Books format would be more challenging and enjoyable to those students. Teaching aimed at developing a student’s critical thinking skills is not an easy task, and administrators can no longer assume that an advanced degree signals knowledge of sound teaching methods; therefore, further research must be conducted on faculty knowledge of best practices in student learning and education. Such research may uncover the need to imbed an instructor training course into PhD programs or provide further professional development on college campuses aimed at teaching instructors how to develop critical thinking skills. The research may also uncover a need to provide instructors with ongoing support as they learn to make the content of their courses more challenging and rewarding for their students.

 The Erosion of Critical Thinking Development in Post-Secondary Education

CONCLUSION As colleges and universities in the United States move further away from higher education’s foundation in liberal education by slashing the core curriculum, students are losing their opportunity to develop critical thinking skills through the use of primary documents and Socratic dialogue in the classroom. They will more than likely be resigned to graduate with a degree that no longer signals that the holder is an educated individual, but instead a degree that simply signals persistence, attendance, and the ability to memorize concepts, if only temporarily to get themselves through to the next exam. Educators and post-secondary administrators need to heed this warning and not only develop instructor induction and training that encourages the use of primary documents and Socratic dialogue in the classroom, but create an environment in which the core curriculum is viewed more as a priority than a bother.

REFERENCES Adler, M. J. (1959). An introduction to the Great Books and to Liberal Education. Chicago, IL: Encyclopedia Britannica, Inc. Adler, M. J. (1982). The Paideia Proposal. New York, NY: MacMillan. Alexander, P. A. (2006). The path to competence: A lifespan developmental perspective on reading. Paper commissioned by the National Reading Conference. Retrieved from http://www.nrconline. org/publications/ThePathToCompetence.pdf Aloi, S. L., Gardner, W. S., & Lusher, A. L. (2003). A framework for assessing general education outcomes within the majors. The Journal of General Education, 52(4), 237–252. doi:10.1353/ jge.2004.0009

American Council of Trustees and Alumni. (2009). Do college students get a well-rounded general education? Retrieved November 10, 2012, from http://www.goacta.org/news/do_college_students_get_well_rounded_general_education Arum, R., & Roksa, J. (2011). Academically adrift: Limited learning on college campuses. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Association of American Colleges and Universities. (2005). Liberal education outcomes: A preliminary report on student achievement in college. Retrieved from http://www.aacu. org/ press_room/press_releases/2005/Outcomes.cfm Bailin, S., Case, R., Coombs, J. R., & Daniels, L. B. (1999). Conceptualizing critical thinking. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 31(3), 285–302. doi:10.1080/002202799183133 Bean, J. C. (2011). Engaging ideas: The professor’s guide to integrating writing, critical thinking and active learning in the classroom. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Bensley, D. A. (1998). Critical thinking in psychology: A unified skills approach. Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole. Bensley, D. A., Crowe, D. S., Bernhardt, P., Buckner, C., & Allman, A. L. (2010). Teaching and assessing critical thinking skills for argument analysis in psychology. Teaching of Psychology, 37(2), 91–96. doi:10.1080/00986281003626656 Bereiter, C. (1997, May/June). Education in a knowledge society. Paper presented at the meeting of the Liberal Education in a Knowledge Society, LaSalle, IL. Bloom, B. S. (Ed.). (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives, Handbook I: The cognitive domain. New York, NY: David McKay Co, Inc.

89

 The Erosion of Critical Thinking Development in Post-Secondary Education

Bok, D. (2006). Our underachieving colleges: A candid look at how much students learn and why they should be learning more. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Connor, W. R. (1998). Liberal arts education in the 21st century. Retrieved from http://www. hunter. cuny.edu/fysh/documents/Connor%20Liberal%20 Ed%20Address.pdf

Boning, K. (2007). Coherence in general education: A historical look. The Journal of General Education, 56(1), 1–16. doi:10.1353/jge.2007.0008

Dillenbourg, P., Baker, M., Blaye, A., & O’Malley, C. (1996). The evolution of research on collaborative learning. In E. Spada & P. Reiman (Eds.), Learning in humans and machine: Towards an interdisciplinary learning science (pp. 189–211). Oxford, UK: Elsevier.

Brady, M. (2008). Cover the material – or teach students to think. Educational Leadership, 65(5), 64–67. Brint, S. (2009, November/December). General education models: Continuity and change in the U.S. undergraduate curriculum, 1975 – 2000. The Journal of Higher Education, 80(6), 606–642. Brosnahan, T. (1900, January 13). President Eliot and Jesuit Colleges. Sacred Heart Review, 36(18), 8–10. Browne, M. N., & Keeley, S. M. (1986). How college seniors operationalize critical thinking behavior. College Student Journal, 20, 389–395. Brunt, B. (2005). Models, measurement, and strategies in developing critical thinking skills. Journal of Continuing Education in Nursing, 36(6), 255–262. PMID:16372714 Case, R. (2005). Moving critical thinking to the main stage. Education Canada, 45(2), 45–49. Choi, H. (2004). The effects of PBL (Problem Based Learning) on the metacognition, critical thinking, and problem solving process of nursing students. Taehan Kanho Hakhoe Chi, 34(5), 712–721. PMID:15502436 Clay, M. M. (1966). Emergent reading behavior. Doctoral dissertation. Auckland, New Zealand: University of Auckland. Condon, W., & Kelly-Riley, D. (2004). Assessing and teaching what we value: The relationship between college-level writing and critical thinking abilities. Assessing Writing, 9(1), 56–75. doi:10.1016/j.asw.2004.01.003 90

Dunitru, D. (2012). Critical thinking and integrated programs. The problem of transferability. Procedia: Social and Behavioral Sciences, 33(1), 143–147. doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.01.100 Educational Testing Service. (2010). Academic profile comparative data. Retrieved from http:// www.ets.org/proficiencyprofile/scores/compare_data/ El Hassan, K., & Madhum, G. (2007). Validating the Watson-Glaser Critical Thinking Appraisal. Higher Education, 54(3), 361–383. doi:10.1007/ s10734-006-9002-z Eliot, C. W. (1899, October). Recent changes in secondary education. Atlantic Monthly, 84, 436–437, 443. Ennis, R. H., & Weir, E. (1985). The Ennis-Weir Critical Thinking Essay Test. Pacific Grove, CA: Midwest Publications. Facione, P. A. (1990). Critical thinking: A statement of expert consensus for purposes of educational assessment and instruction. Research findings and recommendations. Newark, DE: American Philosophical Association. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 315423). Facione, P. A., Sanchez (Giancarlo), C.A., Facione, N.C., & Gainen, J. (1995). The disposition toward critical thinking. The Journal of General Education, 44(1), 1–25.

 The Erosion of Critical Thinking Development in Post-Secondary Education

Facione, P. A. (2000). The disposition toward critical thinking: Its character, measurement, and relation to critical thinking skill. Informal Logic, 20(1), 61–84. Facione, P. A., Facione, N. C., & Giancarlo, C. A. (1996). The motivation to think in working and learning. New Directions for Higher Education, 1996(96), 67–79. doi:10.1002/he.36919969608 Fogelin, R. J. (2005). The logic of deep disagreements. Informal Logic, 25(1), 3–11. Friedel, C., Irani, T., Rudd, R., Gallo, M., Eckhardt, E., & Ricketts, J. (2008). Overtly teaching critical thinking and inquiry-based learning: A comparison of two undergraduate biotechnology classes. Journal of Agricultural Education, 49(1), 72–84. doi:10.5032/jae.2008.01072 Gaff, J. G., & Wisescha, A. (1991). Assessing the reform of general education. The Journal of General Education, 40, 51–68. Gappa, J. M., & Leslie, D. W. (1993). The invisible faculty. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers. Gardiner, L. F. (1994). Redesigning higher education: Producing dramatic gains in student learning. ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report, 23(7). Grube, G. M. A. (1992). Plato’s Republic. Indianapolis, IN: Hackett Publishing Company, Inc. Halpern, D. F. (1993). Assessing the effectiveness of critical thinking instruction. The Journal of General Education, 42(4), 238–254. Halpern, D. F. (1996). Thought and knowledge: An introduction to critical thinking (3rd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Halpern, D. F. (1998). Teaching critical thinking for transfer across domains: Dispositions, skills, structure training, and metacognitive monitoring. The American Psychologist, 53(4), 449–455. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.53.4.449 PMID:9572008

Halpern, D. F. (2007). Is intelligence critical thinking? Why we need a new definition for intelligence. In P. Kyllonen, I. Stankov, & R. D. Roberts (Eds.), Extending intelligence: Enhancement and new constructs (pp. 349–370). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum Associates, Inc. Hanley, G. L. (1995). Teaching critical thinking: Focusing on metacognitive skills and problem solving. Teaching of Psychology, 22(1), 68–72. doi:10.1207/s15328023top2201_21 Harvey, L., Moon, S., & Geall, V. (1997). Graduates’ work: Implications of organizational change on the development of student attributes. Industry and Higher Education, 11(5), 287–296. Hativa, N. (2000). Teaching for effective learning in higher education. London, UK: Kluwer Academic Publishers. doi:10.1007/978-94-0100902-7 Hepner, M. R. (2012). Evaluating the critical thinking skills and academic characteristics of undergraduate students at two post-secondary institutions utilizing two different curriculum models (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). St. Charles, MO: Lindenwood University. Heyman, G. D. (2008). Children’s critical thinking when learning from others. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 17(5), 344–347. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8721.2008.00603.x PMID:20936054 Humphreys, D. (2006). Making a case for liberal education. Washington, DC: Association of American Colleges and Universities. Idaho State University. (2012). General education requirements revision at Idaho State University: timeline and approval channels. Retrieved from http://www.isu.edu/acadaff/ pdf/General%20 Education%20History%20and%20Advisory%20 Timeline.pdf

91

 The Erosion of Critical Thinking Development in Post-Secondary Education

Johnson, R. H. (1996). The rise of informal logic. Newport News, VA: Vale Press. Jones, E. A., Hoffman, L. M., Ratcliff, G., Tibbets, S., & Click, B. A. (1994). Essential skills in writing, speech and listening, and critical thinking for college graduates: Perspectives of faculty, employers and policymakers (National Center for Postsecondary Teaching, Learning and Assessment Project Summary). University Park, PN: Pennsylvania State University Press. Jowett, B. (2009). Plato’s Protagoras. Rockville, MD: Ferenity Publishers, LLC. Justice, C., Rice, J., Roy, D., Hudspith, B., & Jenkins, H. (2009). Inquiry-based learning in higher education: Administrators’ perspectives on integrating inquiry pedagogy into the curriculum. Higher Education, 58(6), 841–855. doi:10.1007/ s10734-009-9228-7 Kaul, G., & Pratt, C. (2010). Undergraduate research learning communities for first-year and lower-division students. Practice. Washington, DC: Association of American Colleges and Universities. Kavanagh, M. H., & Drennan, L. (2008). What skills and attributes does an accounting graduate need? Evidence from student perceptions and employer expectations. Accounting and Finance, 48(2), 279–300. doi:10.1111/j.1467629X.2007.00245.x Kennedy, M., Fisher, M. B., & Ennis, R. H. (1991). Critical thinking: Literature review and needed research. In L. Idol & B. F. Jones (Eds.), Educational values and cognitive instruction: Implications for reform (pp. 11–40). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Kuhn, D. (1992). Thinking as argument. Harvard Educational Review, 62(2), 155–178. doi:10.17763/haer.62.2.9r424r0113t670l1

92

Latzer, B. (2004, October 8). Common knowledge: The purpose of general education. The Chronicle of Higher Education, B20. Retrieved from http:// chronicle.com/article/Common-Knowledge-thePurpose/12903 Levy, D. A. (2010). Tools of critical thinking: Meta thoughts for psychology (2nd ed.). Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland Press. Lewis, A., & Smith, D. (1993). Defining higher order thinking. Theory into Practice, 32(3), 131–137. doi:10.1080/00405849309543588 Lipman, M. (1988). Critical thinking—What can it be? Educational Leadership, 46(1), 38–43. Lipman, M. (1991). Thinking in education. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Lyons, R. (1996). A study of the effects of a mentoring initiative on the performance of new, adjunct community college faculty (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Orlando, FL: University of Central Florida. Maroon, C. (2004, October 31). Gradual changes define the university. The Chicago Maroon, Retrieved from http://chicagomaroon. com/2004/10/31/gradual-changes-define-theuniversity/ Martin, J. R. (1981). The ideal of the educated person. Educational Theory, 31(2), 97–109. doi:10.1111/j.1741-5446.1981.tb00954.x Martin, J. R. (1994). Changing the educational landscape: Philosophy, women and curriculum. New York, NY: Routledge. McMunn-Dooley, C., & Matthews, M. W. (2009). Emergent comprehension: Understanding comprehension development among young literacy learners. Journal of Early Childhood Literacy, 9(3), 269–294. doi:10.1177/1468798409345110

 The Erosion of Critical Thinking Development in Post-Secondary Education

Newman, J. H. (1852). The idea of a university. In F. Turner (Ed.), Rethinking the Western Tradition (1 – 233). New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Newman, J. H. (1856). Works of universities. London, UK: Longman, Brown, Green and Longmans. Newton, R. R. (2000). Tensions and models in general education. The Journal of General Education, 49(3), 267–272. doi:10.1353/jge.2000.0023 Nussbaum, M. C. (1997). Cultivating humanity: A classical defense of reform in liberal education. Boston, MA: Harvard University Press. Nussbaum, M. C. (2002). Humanities and human development. Journal of Aesthetic Education, 36(3), 52–81. doi:10.2307/3333596 Nussbaum, M. C. (2010). Not for profit: Why democracy needs the humanities. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Oermann, M. (1999). Developing and scoring essay tests. Nurse Educator, 24(2), 29– 32. doi:10.1097/00006223-199903000-00010 PMID:10410022 Olson, D. R. (1994). The world on paper: The conceptual and cognitive implications of writing and reading. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press. Pascarella, E. T., & Terenzini, P. T. (1991). How college affects students: Findings and insights from twenty years of research. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers. Paul, R., & Elder, L. (2002). Critical thinking: Tools for taking charge of your learning and your life. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. Paul, R. W. (1992). Critical thinking: What, why, and how? New Directions for Community Colleges, 1992(77), 3–24. doi:10.1002/cc.36819927703

Paul, R. W. (1993). Critical thinking: What every person needs to survive in a rapidly changing world (J. Willsen & A. J. A. Binker, Eds.). Santa Rosa, CA: Foundation for Critical Thinking. Peach, B. E., Mukherjee, A., & Hornyak, M. (2007). Assessing critical thinking: A college’s journey and lessons learned. Journal of Education for Business, 82(6), 313–320. doi:10.3200/ JOEB.82.6.313-320 Pittendrigh, A. (2007). Reinventing the core: Community, dialogue and change. The Journal of General Education, 5(1), 34–56. doi:10.1353/ jge.2007.0013 Possin, K. (2002). Critical thinking. Winona, MN: The Critical Thinking Lab. Possin, K. (2008). A guide to critical-thinking assessment. Teaching Philosophy, 31(3), 201–228. doi:10.5840/teachphil200831324 Price, W., & Reece, B. (1991). Adult vocational education: Its changing environment and new directions. Journal of Vocational and Technical Education, 1(7), 36–43. Ratcliff, J. L., Johnson, D. K., La Nasa, S. M., & Gaff, J. G. (2001). The status of general education in the year 2000: Summary of a national survey. Washington, DC: Association of American Colleges and Universities. Resnick, L. B. (1987). Education and learning to think. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. Rothman, R. (2002). A test worth teaching to: The IB’s course guides and exams make a good marriage. American Educator, 26(2), 28–36. Saavedra, A. R., & Saavedra, J. E. (2011). Do colleges cultivate critical thinking, problem solving, writing and interpersonal skills? Economics of Education Review, 30(6), 1516–1526. doi:10.1016/j.econedurev.2011.08.006

93

 The Erosion of Critical Thinking Development in Post-Secondary Education

Sternberg, R. J. (1986). Critical thinking: Its nature, measurement, and improvement. National Institute of Education. Retrieved from http://eric. ed.gov/PDFS/ED272882.pdf

ADDITIONAL READING

Sternberg, R. J., & Grigorenko, E. L. (2007). Teaching for successful intelligence: To increase student learning and achievement (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Browne, M. N., & Keeley, S. M. (1988). Do college students know how to ‘think critically’ when they graduate? Cape Girardeau, MO: Southeast Missouri State University.

Thayer-Bacon, B. J. (2000). Transforming critical thinking: Thinking constructively. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

Carr, D. (2009). Revisiting the liberal and vocational dimensions of university education. British Journal of Educational Studies, 57(1), 1–17. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8527.2009.00425.x

Tindal, G., & Nolet, V. (1995). Curriculum-based measurement in middle and high schools: Critical thinking skills in content areas. Focus on Exceptional Children, 27(7), 1–22. University of Arkansas. (2010, May). Officials defend requirements reduction. The Victoria Advocate. Retrieved from http://www.victoriaadvocate.com/news/2010/may/02/bc-ar-universitycore-curriculum Wagner, T., & Harvey, R. (2006). The WatsonGlaser Critical Thinking Appraisal. Retrieved from http://pearsonassess.com/hai/Images/dotCom/HTC/WG/SampleQuestions.pdf Weinstein, M. (1995). Critical thinking: Expanding the paradigm. Inquiry: Critical Thinking across the Disciplines, 15(1), 23-39. Weisel, M. S. (2009). Can CT skills be successfully taught to undergraduate business students in an introductory business class? Proceedings of the Northeast Region Decision Sciences Institute (NEDSI), 161–166. Werner, P. (1991). The Ennis-Weir Critical Thinking Essay Test: An instrument for testing and teaching. Journal of Reading, 34(6), 494–495. Willingham, D. T. (2007). Critical thinking: Why is it so hard to teach? American Educator, 109(4), 8–19.

94

Ashcraft, M. H. (2005). Cognition (4th ed.). Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Pearson Prentice Hall.

Dewey, J. (1933). How we think: A restatement of the relation of reflective thinking to the educative process. Boston: D.C. Heath. Ennis, R. H. (2008, March). Nationwide testing of critical thinking for higher education: Vigilance required. Teaching Philosophy, 31(1), 1–26. doi:10.5840/teachphil20083111 Evans, W. (2009). Iris Murdoch, liberal education and human flourishing. Journal of Philosophy of Education, 43(1), 75–84. doi:10.1111/j.14679752.2009.00666.x Facione, P. A., & Facione, N. C. (2013). Critical thinking for life: Valuing, measuring, and training critical thinking in all its forms. Inquiry: Critical Thinking Across the Disciplines, 28(1), 5–25. Freeland, R. M. (2009). Liberal education and effective practice: The necessary revolution in undergraduate education. Liberal Education, 95(1), 6–13. Gini, A. (2008). Liberal education in an interdependent world. Continuing Higher Education Review, 72, 85–93. Haack, S. (2002). The same, only different. Journal of Aesthetic Education, 36(3), 34–39. doi:10.2307/3333595

 The Erosion of Critical Thinking Development in Post-Secondary Education

Halpern, D. F. (2013). Critical thinking across the curriculum: A brief edition of thought and knowledge. New York: Routledge.

Maki, P. (2004). Assessing for learning: Building a sustainable commitment across the institution. Sterling, VA: Stylus.

Hatcher, D. L. (2011). Which test? Whose scores? Comparing standardized critical thinking tests. New Directions for Institutional Research, 43(149), 29–40. doi:10.1002/ir.378

McMillan, J. H. (1987). Enhancing college students’ critical thinking: A review of studies. Research in Higher Education, 26(1), 3–29. doi:10.1007/BF00991931

Hepner, M. R. (2013). Good thing I’m not a history major. The Public Discourse. Retrieved from http:// www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2013/04/7909/

Paul, R., & Elder, L. (2004). The thinker’s guide to the nature and functions of critical and creative thinking. Dillon Beach, CA: The Foundation for Critical Thinking.

Heyman, G. D. (2008). Children’s critical thinking when learning from others. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 17(5), 344–347. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8721.2008.00603.x PMID:20936054 Jackson, M., Ignatavicius, D., & Case, B. (2006). Conversations in critical thinking and critical judgment. Sudbury, MA: Jones & Bartlett Publishers. Keeley, S. M., & Browne, M. N. (1986). How college seniors operationalize critical thinking behavior. College Student Journal, 20, 389–395. Knežić, D., Wubbels, T., Elbers, E., & Hajer, M. (2010). The Socratic dialogue in teacher education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 26(4), 1104–1111. doi:10.1016/j.tate.2009.11.006 Levy, D. A. (2010). Tools of critical thinking: Metathoughts for psychology (2nd ed.). Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland Press. Lewis, A., & Smith, D. (1993). Defining higher order thinking. Theory into Practice, 32(3), 131–137. doi:10.1080/00405849309543588 Loes, C. N., Salisbury, M. H., & Pascarella, E. T. (2014). Student perceptions of effective instruction and the development of critical thinking: A replication and extension. Higher Education. doi:10.1007/s10734-014-9807-0

Schneider, B., & Stevenson, D. (1999). America’s Teenagers: Motivated but Directionless. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. ten Dam, G., & Volman, M. (2004). Critical thinking as a citizenship competence: Teaching strategies. Learning and Instruction, 14(4), 359–379. doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2004.01.005 U.S. Department of Education. (2006). A test of leadership: Charting the future of U.S. higher education. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office. Weingartner, R. H. (2007). On the practicality of liberal education. Liberal Education, 93(3), 28–31. Wyman, R. (2005). America’s history through young voices: Using primary sources in the K-12 social studies classroom. New York, NY: Pearson Education Inc. Yeh, S. (2001). Tests worth teaching to: Constructing state-mandated tests that emphasize critical thinking. Education Researcher, 30(9), 12–17. doi:10.3102/0013189X030009012

KEY TERMS AND DEFINITIONS Critical Thinking: The “Delphi Report,” a research project developed by 46 scholars across

95

 The Erosion of Critical Thinking Development in Post-Secondary Education

various disciplines, defined critical thinking as “purposeful, self-regulatory judgment which results in interpretation, analysis, evaluation, and inference, as well as explanation of the evidential, conceptual, methodological, criteriological, or contextual considerations upon which that judgment is based” (Facione, 1990, p. 2). Degree Specialization: Commonly known as an academic “major” in the United States, degree specialization refers to a student’s concentration within one academic discipline. Great Books Curriculum: A curriculum employing a canon of books and primary documents that best express the foundations of Western civilization. Liberal Education: “Liberal Education is an approach to learning that empowers individuals and prepares them to deal with complexity, diversity, and change. It provides students with broad knowledge of the wider world (e.g. science, culture, and society) as well as in-depth study in a specific area of interest. A liberal education helps students develop a sense of social responsibility, as well as strong and transferable intellectual and practical skills such as communication, analytical and problem-solving skills, and a demonstrated

96

ability to apply knowledge and skills in real-world settings” (AACU, 2005). Primary Sources: “The materials that were created by those who participated in or witnessed the events of the past” (Potter, 2003, p. 372). Secondary Sources: A secondary source is an outside interpretation or analysis of an event from the past (Wyman, 2005). Socratic Dialogue: “A philosophical group dialogue in which the participants, guided by a facilitator and a number of ground rules, strive to reach a consensus in answering a fundamental question on the basis of a real-life example or incident with the purpose of achieving new insights” (Knezic, Wubbles, Elbers, & Hajer, 2010, p. 1106). Trivium: The trivium was a major part of the medieval university consisting of grammar, logic, and rhetoric, all of which were taught first to new students before they moved on to the Quadrivium. Quadrivium: The Quadrivium consisted of four subjects at the medieval university, arithmetic, geometry, music, and astronomy, which, along with the trivium, formed the seven liberal arts, which were set apart from the practical arts, such as medicine, theology, and law.

Section 2

98

Chapter 5

Critical Thinking Skills in Virtual Learning Environments Julie M. Little Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis (IUPUI), USA Charles Feldhaus Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis (IUPUI), USA

ABSTRACT As the increase in the growth of online education continues with the expansion of both online courses and programs within higher education, the most recent challenge faced by educators is how to incorporate the basic skill of critical thinking into synchronous and asynchronous virtual courses successfully. For instructors, it is then crucial to understand the correlation between critical thinking and an online learning environment. The greater goal of this chapter is to better understand the intersection of critical thinking within online delivery systems and virtual learning environments. This chapter also examines the various barriers and challenges to successful integration of delivering critical thinking courses online, while at the same time building on existing critical thinking research in an effort to connect existing critical thinking concepts to current new media and web 2.0 tools in order to reach the ‘digital native’ in the online course.

INTRODUCTION With the growth in what is referred to as ‘online learning’ in recent decades, faculty are now challenged with the increased use of technology both in and out of their classrooms. Use of learning management systems (LMS), web 2.0 tools, social media and networks, MOOCs and fully online programs are increasing in popularity within higher education institutions. At the same time, the intersection of what technology can bring to

the traditional college course and program seems to have no boundaries. This includes ‘live’ courses, global classrooms, online simulations and labs, etc. As courses within both the asynchronous and synchronous virtual environments have continued to mature, the development of the curriculum has also progressed so that higher order thinking, evaluation and analysis have become present to much greater measure. In an attempt to understand to what extent this advancement of reflective thought and examina-

DOI: 10.4018/978-1-4666-8411-9.ch005

Copyright © 2015, IGI Global. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.

 Critical Thinking Skills in Virtual Learning Environments

tion may be present within virtual education currently, this chapter will begin by deconstructing both the elements of critical thinking and virtual learning within higher education so that each may be explored as separate constructs followed by their intersections within the barriers and challenges encountered as well as the integration that faculty may choose to incorporate. It is from this examination that a clearer understanding of how higher order analysis and thinking can be achieved within a virtual environment. Suggestions for dealing with the ‘digital native’ student are also offered including current methods of teaching and learning online.

BACKGROUND Critical Thinking Defined Thinking is a part of human nature; everybody does it. However, there are numerous stories that illustrate the fact that humans don’t always think critically. Whether intentions are good or bad, humans often don’t think ahead and consider consequences. According to Moore and Parker (2007), the thing about critical thinking that distinguishes it from other forms of thinking is that if you aren’t doing it, you may end up wishing you had. We’ve all heard about the thief who falls through the ceiling of the building he intends to rob and gets stuck for hours as the authorities arrive the next morning to arrest him. We’ve all had the friend who cooks for a large gathering of friends and relatives and completely ruins the meal by either over or under cooking the main course. We’ve all had the friend that just can’t solve the Rubik’s Cube or play a competitive game of chess. Whether the issue is small or large, simple or complex, crucial or trivial; humans often loose time, money, resources and reputation because of shoddy thinking that ends with shoddy results. Many authors have created a variety of definitions for critical thinking and often those

definitions have a common thread. As early as 1941, famed educator Edward Glaser completed a seminal study on the development of critical thinking (Glaser, 1941). He defined critical thinking as a compilation of three things, 1) an attitude of being disposed to consider a thoughtful way the problems and subjects that come within the range of one’s experiences, 2) knowledge of the methods of logical inquiry and reasoning, and 3) some skill in applying those methods. Glaser (1941) posited that critical thinking called for a persistent effort to examine any belief or supposed form of knowledge in the light of the evidence that supports it and the further conclusions which it tends. Of course the ability to recognize problems and find workable solutions to those problems by gathering information, recognize assumptions, comprehending language and context with accuracy, analyzing and interpreting data, and arrive at reasoned conclusions is also paramount to Glaser’s findings. More recent definitions of the term critical thinking include research by Scriven and Paul (1987) that asserts critical thinking as an intellectually disciplined process of actively and skillfully conceptualizing, applying, analyzing, synthesizing and/or evaluating information gathered from or generated by, observation, experience, reflection, reasoning, or communication, as a guide to belief and action. Scriven and Paul (1987) also believe that critical thinking is based on universal intellectual values that transcend subject matter divisions including clarity, accuracy, precision, consistency, relevance, sound evidence, good reasons, depth, breadth and fairness. Linda Elder (2011) defines critical thinking as self-guided process, self-disciplined thinking which attempts to reason at the highest level of quality in a fair-minded way. She asserts that those who think critically consistently attempt to live rationally, reasonably, and empathically. Most importantly, critical thinkers never strive to think simplistically about complicated issues and always consider the rights and needs of relevant others.

99

 Critical Thinking Skills in Virtual Learning Environments

They embody the Socratic principle relative to the ‘unexamined life’ and recognize the complexities in developing as thinkers committing themselves to the life-long practice of self-improvement (Elder, 2011). In short, critical thinking is considered an art form by most researchers and is the ability to analyze and evaluate thinking (others or your own) with a view toward improving that thinking. According to Moore and Parker (2007), above all else, thinking critically means screening your ideas to see if they really make sense.

Theoretical Framework for Critical Thinking Key elements of the theoretical framework for thinking critically include both thought and reasoning. According to Paul and Elder (2008) eight elements of thought and reasoning including purpose, question at issue, information, interpretation and inference, concepts, assumptions, implications and consequences, and point of view exist. They believe these levels of thought lead to reasoned critical thinking and inquiring questions relative to the eight elements of thought. For instance, if all reasoning has purpose, then can the purpose be stated clearly? What is the objective of your reasoning? Does your reasoning focus throughout on your goal? Is your goal realistic? These basic questions should be asked and answered for all the eight elements of thought and for reasoning to take place. For purposes of this chapter and the research-based critical thinking framework based on thought and reasoning, we call these the 5 w’s and an h: who, what, when, where, why and how. Critical thinking must have a framework and levels of thought should be defined, so the 5 w’s and an h can be asked and answered to arrive at reasoned conclusions. Thinking critically means screening your beliefs to see if they really make sense. Critical thinking requires evaluating and weighing the arguments for and against the claims that express

100

beliefs (Moore & Parker, 2007). Researchers also have developed a framework for levels of thought that Paul and Elder (2008) call lower order thinking, higher order thinking and highest order thinking. Level 1 is considered lower order thinking is often unreflective, requires low to mixed skills levels, frequently relies on gut intuition and is largely self-serving. Level 2 is considered higher order thinking and is selectively reflective, requires high skill levels, lacks critical thinking vocabulary and is inconsistently fair. Highest order thinking, or Level 3, is explicitly reflective, requires the highest skill level, routinely uses critical thinking tools in analyzing and assessing thinking and is consistently fair. According to the model developed by Paul and Elder (2008), lower order thinking is often distinguished from higher order thinking. But higher order thinking can be inconsistent in quality; fair or unfair. To think at the highest level of quality, humans need both intellectual skills and traits. Critical thinkers routinely apply intellectual standards including clarity, accuracy, relevance, logicalness, breadth, precision, significance, completeness, fairness and depth to the elements of thought and reasoning. The application of intellectual standards to the elements of reasoning then requires the critical thinker to develop intellectual traits that include intellectual humility, intellectual autonomy, intellectual integrity, intellectual courage, intellectual perseverance, intellectual empathy, confidence in reason and fair-mindedness.

USE OF VIRTUAL LEARNING IN EDUCATION As higher education continues to advance into the twenty-first century, the use of technology both in the traditional classroom and beyond has become more of a standard than a novelty. Those currently teaching are now faced with a continuous stream of innovation in regards to instruction; and

 Critical Thinking Skills in Virtual Learning Environments

often no longer have a choice to opt out of its use. Given these circumstances, a closer examination of the current state of the use of technology within higher education is then necessary to comprehend its great impact on student learning skills.

Online Learning The greatest advancements within higher education and the use of technology concern the growing trend in online or what some call ‘virtual learning’. This specific method of learning can trace its earliest foundation back several decades; and owes its inception to what is referred to as distance learning or what we think of as traditional correspondence courses, first developed for student convenience (“Evaluation of Evidence-Based Practices”, 2010). Correspondence courses were first created to provide students additional course and degree options beyond the traditional classroom; which proved beneficial to those working or in the military (Donaldson et al., 2013). What we know as distance learning today began its transformation much later, during the 1990’s dot. com era (Nanfito, 2013), with the introduction of advancing computer technology and the ability to incorporate audio and video technology to the paper and pen course (Pastore, 2012). These advances have now enabled an explosion of online courses and programs that provide students with a multitude of options for learning. Online learning can simply be defined then as “educational coursework that allows students and teachers alike to interact via the internet in a variety of ways.” Of course, it is vital to remember given its history that online learning and “how it comes to be defined is in perpetual change as technological advancements impact how education is delivered and received” (Pastore, 2012, p. 187). So as we understand that technology is ever-evolving and advancing, we also then accept that learning will continue to progress within this environment as well.

Given these circumstances a number of additional developments have occurred within this realm. Beyond the standard online course, entire programs have now grown for various majors. In some instances, students may not even step foot on a campus to earn their degree. Advancing technologies have also provided both education and instructors new tools and methods of delivery and learning for students within those courses. The result of the evolution of that one, simple correspondence course has resulted in such innovation as blended or hybrid learning, the development of MOOCs (Massively Open Online Courses), the use of social networking in the classroom, and finally, the use of more hand-held technologies for student and instructor convenience. We can also credit the technology progression to the development, and then improvement, of learning management systems used for both course and program management in higher education today.

Blended/Hybrid Learning As noted, a result of fully online, electronic courses was the eventual development of blended or hybrid learning. The expansion into combining the ‘brick and mortar’ classroom and technology is credited to students often feeling ‘disconnected’ in a fully online course due to two main factors, lack of ‘communication and guidance’, which often existed in such early online courses. Previous studies have also indicated that students were often less satisfied with their online courses than the traditional, face-to-face experience (Oh & Park, 2009). These factors led instructors to search to find a better approach with the use of the technological advancements so that students were more engaged within their courses. The result was a blended or hybrid course, developed from a mix of both online and faceto-face components. Advantages of this type of instruction mirror that of both fully online courses and their traditional counterparts. Convenience,

101

 Critical Thinking Skills in Virtual Learning Environments

often a factor with online learning, is one of the principal reasons to include the technology portion of the collaboration (Donaldson et al., 2013). More often than not, in today’s college classrooms a large percentage of students are “nontraditional, attempting to balance family, jobs, and university life” (Dziuban, Moskal & Hartman, 2005). Enhanced contact or interaction, often a factor with face-to-face instruction, is the main reason to include some sort of direct classroom experience or instructor contact to the course as well. Similar to the fully online course where an instructor takes advantage of resources typically outside of the traditionally classroom, “web resources, and course management systems offer easier access to both students and faculty through discussion groups and email, and they also allow access to material and experts who might not be available otherwise” (Dziuban, Moskal & Hartman, 2005, p. 5). This provides opportunities for students to not only participate more in the learning environment than one might expect within the technological realm, but also possibly give them the prospect to learn more than their face-to-face counterparts due to the access to supplemental resources and experts. Not surprisingly, there are many different interpretations and definitions of blended or hybrid learning that have emerged through the last 20-30 years. Bonk & Graham (2006) offer the following explanation of blended learning despite the wide differences in definitions, citing the three most commonly mentioned explanations: “(1) combining instructional modalities (or delivery media) (Bersin & Associates, 2003; Orey, 2002a, 2002b; Singh & Reed, 2001; Thomson, 2002), (2) combining instructional methods (Driscoll, 2002; House, 2002; Rossett, 2002), and (3) combining online and face-to-face instruction (Reay, 2001; Rooney, 2003; Sands, 2002; Ward & LaBranche, 2003; Young, 2002).” They then offer this definition, which we will use for purposes of this chapter:

102

“Blended learning systems combine face-to-face instruction with computer-mediated instruction” (Bonk & Graham, 2006, p. 5). The possibilities to develop a blended course are as varied as its definitions (Garrison & Kanuka, 2004). Of course, there is a main desire of most course designers to balance the two main elements, either the face-to-face or online component, versus simply adding to the dominant one. With this in mind, course combinations can range from various aspects of each. Traditional face-to-face classroom features include synchronous factors that feature immediate, shared communication in a collaborative environment. The use of lectures and presentations is often popular along with group work and varying assessments (even still by paper) are applied. Videos may be shown or case studies may be read with discussion following. Within an online environment, both the use of asynchronous and synchronous elements may be utilized so that students may either be left to self-managed study or have some guidance and engagement. Videos, cases, recorded lectures, simulations all may be uploaded for the students to view and then either comment on, prepare for a synchronous discussion later or apply to an assignment. Given the tools available in most learning management systems today, even group work may be accomplished online if it is organized well. The main goal of the course designer should be solid instructional strategy of the course (Oh & Park, 2009). Naturally then, no two courses learning designs will be similar – or should they be (Garrison & Kanuka, 2004). Clearly, hybrid or blended courses can meet the needs of the critical thinking learner and answer the 5 w’s and an h embedded in the critical thinking theoretical framework.

MOOCS Often given the title of ‘disruption’ to the traditional model of higher education, MOOCs

 Critical Thinking Skills in Virtual Learning Environments

(Massively Open Online Courses) had a robust entrance into the ever popular online education environment in 2011 with the launch of Stanford’s first large, mass course, in artificial intelligence (Donaldson et al., 2013; Nanfito, 2013; Young, 2013). Professor Sebastian Thrun offered his free course with 10 hours of work each week for students including: video lectures, eight homework assignments and two exams. The catch? Those taking the course online for free would receive grades, just as the Stanford campus students did – but upon completion of the course the online students would only receive a certificate bearing an official Stanford seal, no course credit. Neither Professor Thrun nor his colleagues were quite sure how the enrollment numbers might fall for this first attempt for online learning in their area, but within a day the course had 5000 registered and within a week they had hit 60,000. The final number registered when the course began was 160,000. Given that Sebastian Thrun had “long been on the cutting edge of artificial-intelligene research—having designed self-driving cars and other robotics projects—and had fast become a Silicon-Valley insider as a leader of Google’s secretive research facility, Google X” it was not hard to guess why the enrollment numbers had grown to the depths that they had (Young, 2013, p. 152). In the end, only 20,000 students finished Thrun’s course; a mere fraction of those that began it several months prior (Nanfito, 2013). Interestingly enough, Professor Thrun’s Stanford course was not the first online attempt for the masses. Columbia University led an effort around 2000 by creating a ‘for-profit’ company called Fathom.com in hopes of selling both courses and lectures online. This was followed by an even larger $100 million effort by MIT called OpenCourseWare, which allowed open access for no charge to all of its course materials such as lecture notes and syllabi (Nanfito, 2013; Young, 2013). Since no credit or recognition was offered in conjunction for accessing the free course mate-

rials, it was deemed an inadequate substitute for taking the actual MIT course. Thus, the majority of those accessing the materials turned out to be those either seeking additional study materials or those in higher education seeking to understand how those at MIT instructed so that their own courses might be improved (Young, 2013). In the end, MIT’s efforts grew more outside of the US by leading an international alliance of universities offering courses online. “By 2009, The Chronicle ran a story noting that at least one university was closing its free-course effort because of a lack of financial support” (Young, 2013, p. 373). Of course, what these early efforts into mass distribution of higher education did do was lead us to the MOOCs we see today. Most MOOCs are comprised of varying components similar to other online courses such as videos, lectures, quizzes, online assignments, and discussion forums where students can answer either questions for each other or questions posed by the instructor. One distinguishing factor is that most grading is automated for ease of instructor facilitation due to the large number of students enrolled (Young, 2013). Given the courses are free, for non-credit, have quite a bit of work designated that must be submitted on time like any other course and graded, and that students often have to search for additional help on the subject matter from either fellow students, the internet, book, etc., not surprisingly the drop-out rates for these type of courses is extremely high (Donaldson et al., 2013; Young, 2013). Comparable to credited, online courses and learning, MOOCs are “constantly changing and evolving by the instructors, institutions, and companies which create MOOCs and the students who learn from” them (Donaldson et al., 2013, p. 2). However, MOOCs do provide access to online education, a privilege previously reserved only for those students that could afford to pay tuition at traditional institutions (Donaldson et al., 2013). Given the fact that both the use of mobile devices and smart phones

103

 Critical Thinking Skills in Virtual Learning Environments

has increased in recent years, even countries with primitive internet service may embrace MOOCs in the near future increasing online education’s reach even further (Nanfito, 2013). That first course attempt from Stanford led to a media sensation on the topic of MOOCs with both the New York Times and Wired Magazine featuring stories about not only what Stanford was accomplishing in the classroom, but also the underlying message of technology disruption for higher education following a similar pattern within the newspaper and record industries. Similarly, the New York Times had run a story on MIT’s online efforts some ten years earlier (Young, 2013). But besides the hype, MOOCs are still in an early phase of proving to be worth their innovation. Quality remains the key factor that sets aside those innovations that both succeed and fail within this technology realm. Currently the fate of MOOCs is unknown with those on both sides (those that favor a change in the status quo of higher education and those that do not) spending a great deal of both time and money promoting their agendas (Donaldson et al., 2013). What is known is the fact that the MOOC environment is favorable to the development of both peer evaluation and assessment, and often encourages comprehensive peer discussion on course topics as students substitute instructor interaction with peer dialogue.

campus courses, so that it is a complete system of record and communication for both instructors and university administrators. Learning management systems comprise several higher level features for universities including: • • •

Course management – creation and support of course curriculum within the system Administrative features – enrollment, grade submissions, reports and management of users Communication - messaging and announcements (Coates, James & Baldwin, 2005; Nanfito, 2013; Pastore, 2013).

Within individual courses contained inside of an LMS, there are a number of elements that may be present as instructors may choose to incorporate and use various features in their courses. Possibilities include: • •

•

Assessments – including written assignments, tests and quizzes, rubrics, etc. Communication – both synchronous and asynchronous possibilities by email, discussion forums and chats, posted announcements, course calendar, student feedback Course Content – resources such as lectures, videos, podcasts, PPT’s, internet links Instructor Resources – grading capabilities, reporting, student tracking (Coates, James & Baldwin, 2005. Nanfito, 2013; Pastore, 2013)

Learning Management Systems (LMS)

•

It then becomes important to understand where all of this learning in higher education is now occurring for students, whether registered in an official university class on campus, online, in a hybrid or MOOC – a learning management system (LMS) is often in place to store and deliver program content. A learning management system is essentially an administrative structure that houses and distributes curriculum (Pastore, 2013). An LMS may be used for both online and traditional

Examples of common LMS platforms used both previously and currently in higher education are Blackboard, Canvas, Moodle, Sakai and WebCT (Coates, James & Baldwin, 2005: Nanfito, 2013). The technology within this area also continues to evolve rapidly, so that both instructors and students reap the greatest benefits from the

104

 Critical Thinking Skills in Virtual Learning Environments

advancements applied to the curriculum. Other advantages of the LMS include its ability to be customized for both the programs it represents and the courses it encompasses, while providing students access to greater amounts of resources than previously imagined possible. These systems are also able to be linked to other university programs for convenience of use (Coates, James & Baldwin, 2005). But what may be the greatest purpose of adopting LMS platforms within higher education institutions concerns the “disorder associated with academic independence and autonomy in the teaching and learning process” which “can appear chaotic and anarchic.” The LMS offers a solution to this managerial issue by “regulating and packaging pedagogical activities by offering templates that assure order and neatness, and facilitate the control of quality” (Coates, James & Baldwin, 2005, p.25).

Social Media Current young adults “are the first generation to have grown up with the influx of social media allowing them to feel at ease with conducting most of their social lives online” (Donaldson et al., 2013, p. 21). Often called ‘digital natives’, current students more often embrace technological changes than previous generations, often called ‘digital immigrants.’ This has enabled course designers to then incorporate various new technological advancements under the umbrella of what has been referred to as web 2.0 within their courses in pursuit of greater student engagement and communication goals given the enthusiasm of students for various social media (Mason & Rennie, 2008). The use of web 2.0 within higher education follows a progressive list of previous media launched for the purpose of improving ‘teaching and learning’ including: broadcast television, videoconferencing and videotaped lectures; PC based training; use of artificial intelligence that could interact with the learner; and asynchronous

learning that could be conducted from anywhere at any time (Mason & Rennie, 2008). What is unique about web 2.0 tools of today is that “they are connected through hyperlinking so that other users discover the content and link to it, thus the web grows organically as a reflection of the collective activity of the users” (Mason & Rennie, 2008, p. 114). This allows for users to construct their own unique experiences online versus simply navigating previous organized and set content. In addition, users are often exposed to collaborative opportunities that emphasize team work, a sense of community, communication (Mason & Rennie, 2008), and share various resources (Nanfito, 2013) frequently providing for a sense of evaluation and analysis with others. Examples of social media currently in use comprise a variety of technology: blogs, wikis, podcasts, e-portfolios, social networking (such as Facebook, LinkedIn, Google+ and Twitter), RSS feeds, photo sharing (Flickr), video sharing (YouTube), online forums and discussions, video messaging, instant messaging, e-books, and online gaming (Anderson, 2007; Mason & Rennie, 2008; Nanfito, 2013). Many, if not all, of these tools may be incorporated into the institution’s learning management system to at least some capacity (link or embedded.) It is important though for instructors to realize that not all the technology may be second nature to students as many still may require training (Mason & Rennie, 2008) or at least some sort of directions for use – even for those considered ‘digital natives’, something many instructors are often not prepared for when implementing the tools for the first time. What is also not certain is just how long most of these new innovations will last, especially within the realm of education. Furthermore, given the debate whether the information contained within these web 2.0 tools is worth preserving (Anderson, 2007), only time will tell if most of these new technological tools will be a passing fad or growing evolution in regard to pedagogical advancements in higher education and those who teach critical thinking.

105

 Critical Thinking Skills in Virtual Learning Environments

BARRIERS AND CHALLENGES TO CRITICAL THINKING ONLINE As the critical thinking framework explains, critical thinking includes a variety of deliberative processes aimed at making informed, and hopefully wise decisions about what to believe and do. Having performed a deep, thorough content analysis on three separate critical thinking textbooks (Rudinow & Barry, 2008; Wright, 2011; Moore & Parker, 2014) it was clear that common elements of critical thinking were apparent in all three works. While in no particular linear order, each book contained the following: 1. An introduction to critical thinking that included at minimum a definition/discussion of what critical thinking is and a discussion of critical thinking standards, benefits and characteristics; authors also discussed how critical thinking is learned and the theoretical frameworks or protocols of critical thinking. 2. Critical reading and writing; the use of language and an introduction to logical thinking, reading and writing; reading for structure (dependency and subordination) and reading for reasoning (paraphrasing) were often addressed; 3. All of the books included numerous chapters on the concept of argument; most started with argument identification and analysis; often the concept of persuasion through rhetoric was addressed either just before or after argument identification and analysis; 4. Inductive and deductive arguments and reasoning were significant elements of all three books and topics included argument identification, argument analysis, argument structure, varieties of arguments, deductive arguments and categorical logic, inductive arguments and prediction, causal arguments, diagnostic questions, concepts, refinements and investigation, truth functional logic and

106

analysis, evaluating fallacies, and evaluating various types of evidence to support critical thinking. While the aforementioned concepts are common learning targets for those who teach critical thinking, logic, reasoning and higher order thinking skills, the looming question that must be addressed is, “can critical thinking be taught effectively using an online format, and if so, what are best practices?” This argument has been raging for years, and each camp has research to back claims that their way is best. Thomas Russell (2001) produced a seminal book asserting that there was no significant difference between the same course taught online or face-to-face. In his original text published in 2001, Russell examined 355 research reports, summaries and papers that documented no significant difference in student outcomes based on the mode of delivery (faceto-face or distance). More recently, the WICHE Cooperative for Education Technologies (WCET) developed a website to catalogue additional research and includes studies published after the release of the Russell book. In addition to studies that document no significant difference in student outcomes, the WCET website also includes studies that do document significant differences in students outcomes based on mode of delivery. The search of the WCET website (http://www.nosignificantdifference.org/) in all four areas, 1) better results through technology, 2) better results in the classroom, 3) mixed results and 4) no significant difference, revealed exactly 1 study (Newman, Johnson, Cochrane & Webb, 1996) from 1996 that showed mixed results. In this experimental design study comparing student outcomes in a critical thinking course delivered using both face-to-face and online methods it was found that students in the computer supported online course brought in more outside world material, linked ideas to solutions and contributed less. However, the level of critical thinking in the online course was higher

 Critical Thinking Skills in Virtual Learning Environments

and had a higher ratio of important statements. Students in the face-to-face course were better at generating new ideas. Clearly, educational researchers have not been interested in research on certain content specific courses such as critical thinking or the most effective delivery methods for critical thinking courses. With only a single study from 1996 on critical thinking on the WCET website, it is clear that more research needs to be designed and developed to add to the paucity of existing research. However, there are more informed data sources from those authors who create critical thinking textbooks. To answer the fundamental question of whether it is better to teach critical thinking online or faceto-face, it must be realized that challenges exist in teaching any course. Surely, there are unique challenges when teaching critical thinking and the tendency to ‘teach like you were taught’ is one of them. Many current professors were taught using the lecture model and often, they teach students using that same model. While not impossible to teach critical thinking using lectures, to maximize learning, it is important to ensure that students are exposed to a variety of pedagogies and methods and that they are given the opportunity to demonstrate the ability to think critically (Wright, 2011). For instance, argumentation can be demonstrated by professors or students in written form using essay and exposes’, in verbal form using speeches and debates and in the form of multi-media messaging using recorded images, sound and testimony. All of the above can be used in either face-to-face or online critical thinking courses if the teacher facilitating the course is willing to step away from lecturing and be creative. Debates do not have to be held face-to-face in a traditional classroom. They can be facilitated using Skype, Adobe Connect or other synchronous online methods, but the faculty member must be committed to acquiring the necessary technical and facilitation skills to construct high quality student learning experiences.

According to Moore and Parker (2014), regardless of the method of delivery, faculty should illustrate critical thinking principles rather than explain them. Those who have traditionally lectured should consider changing their methods to rely more on examples and real life scenarios, not explanations. Additionally, it is important to keep in mind that critical thinking should include a variety of deliberative processes aimed at making decisions and what actions to consider. Traditionally these processes have centered on evaluation of arguments but include much more. Moore and Parker (2014) believe that the best way to teach critical thinking is to incorporate formal and informal logic, with a variety of skills and topics useful in making sound decisions about claims, actions and practices. One way to do this is to teach critical thinking through the use of images, current events and short stories. Of course this can be done in a face-to-face classroom or in an online environment.

The Online Environment Often one of the first challenges for an instructor in regards to student embracement of critical thinking in courses is the online learning environment itself. Depending on the learning management system (LMS) and its structure, the students may or may not embrace the tools present; causing a significant delay in any possible critical thinking application built into the course. When we see this example, we often think of students who may represent an older generation, one who is not as familiar with technology; but the truth is that all generations may be tested by the technology today and instructors need to be prepared to address these concerns. Many students feel more ‘comfortable’ within certain technology realms such as social media, while learning management systems or other programs may be unfamiliar to them causing them to delay or even avoid use. As Anderson (2007) explains, the ‘network effect’

107

 Critical Thinking Skills in Virtual Learning Environments

is a term used to describe increased value to a service or in this case, technologies, as more and more users embrace and begin to use them. So in essence, various forms of social media may have this effect versus the more uncommon learning management systems and programs students are introduced to as they enter college. When given a choice, a student will then embrace the more familiar social media application over the less familiar LMS to complete their course work. This should be taken into consideration as instructors construct pedagogical activities within their courses. “As one lecturer recently found out, it is easier to join with the herd and discuss this week’s coursework online within Facebook (a popular social networking site) than to try and get the students to move across to the institutional VLE” (virtual learning environment) (Anderson, 2007, p. 21). A second issue often not addressed by many administrators or instructors when planning their programs or courses online is student readiness or preparedness for online learning. Have students mastered enough basic skills to lead their learning online? Do they understand enough about the online learning environment to navigate it well? Are students left to direct their own online degree progression? Within more traditional campus programs, student readiness is most often established by a combination of academic advisors, placement exams, prerequisite courses and preceding grades. Depending on the online program, any number of these instruments may be absent leaving the student to determine a final assessment of their abilities; this is especially true for most of the MOOCs established (Donaldson et al., 2013). There are problems with students self-evaluating for online courses at inappropriate levels – too low and they will “become disinterested”, too high and they may “become discouraged and give up” (Donaldson et al., 2013, p. 15). Some sort of guidance is ultimately necessary so that students will then engage within their courses at the appropriate level, allowing them the freedom to then participate in higher order activities. Likewise,

108

students need adequate training within the LMS program so that they understand the tools and system enough to navigate confidently through it for their course so that the system itself is not proving to be a distraction to the pedagogical activities set by the instructor. Finally, a significant issue within the virtual environment prohibiting both critical thinking and the advancement of learning online itself is also one experienced within the traditional classroom, academic misconduct. As in all educational settings, cheating and plagiarism are concerns faced by instructors, but in online courses and programs they are often harder to detect and prevent. Students within online courses have had the ability to seek out sources within the internet, their books, and other students while writing papers or taking exams online. Instructors, meanwhile, have had to rely on their learning management systems to help provide programs to detect such misconduct. Software such as Turn-it-in and webcams can be applied within the curriculum to ease such instances; honor codes or pledges, either as prompts or as written statements by students, may also be required while submitting work within the course. Approved proctors and facilities may also provide some guarantee to those taking either traditional pen and paper exams or exams on computers (Young, 2013). Unfortunately, both courses with large rosters (such as those in MOOCs) and courses that feature peer grading of assignments or discussions remain issues for concern as both are difficult to control for instructors (Young, 2013).

The Curriculum The second area of concern in relation to critical thinking challenges within an online setting is within the actual virtual curriculum or course. Given online learning’s history, best practices have now been established when creating an online course. Those instructors that take the time to learn about proper online course design soon discover it is quite different than a traditional classroom

 Critical Thinking Skills in Virtual Learning Environments

as it must contain “a variety of content delivery methods, a variety of learning activities, a wealth of activities for practicing new learning, and a significant amount of peer interaction” (Donaldson et al., 2013, p. 13). Not all instructors or administrators bother to learn about solid online instruction, but instead launch a poorly designed course missing various elements mentioned. Currently this can be found in the growing trend of MOOCs, introduced quickly to keep up with the rapid pace of competition often without much thought to student learning outcomes. Of course, there are also some better designed MOOCs available that pattern their courses from the proper online instructional designs. A secondary topic of concern within the area of curriculum involves how difficult students often find online learning itself. Students within a virtual learning environment must actively seek out vast amounts of information at any given time as their instructor interface is more limited than in the traditional classroom environment. In turn, they then must process this information “into a form that can then be verbalized and applied towards their own work.” Students who lack the skills to adequately complete this task online often suffer in virtual learning and are less successful in adapting to this type of environment (Donaldson et al., 2013, p. 32), which will then prevent any higher order/reflective thinking from occurring. These types of students would be best served in a traditional setting where the instructor can provide more guidance in their day-to-day learning.

Fear of Teaching and Learning Online One final area of concern for many faculty who have never taken an online course and taught only traditional, face-to-face courses, is the fear of technology. Not only do they fear the actual learning management technology (LMS) required to create the course content, they fear the online identity others have told them they must create to reach

the millennial generation. Certainly, the university will have resources necessary to get through the creation of an online course, as most universities have Center’s for Teaching and Learning that can provide assistance. However, the concept of creating a digital identity often feels more like marketing or branding than scholarship, and to the more traditional professor it is sometimes a concept they disdain or are unfamiliar with. According to Croxall (2014) scholars who harbor these fears should realize that students and peers often won’t or don’t read published work. Also, the work that was published traditionally in print journals and academic presses was scarce. That is no longer the case with the advent of the internet. Scholarship is no longer difficult to find or to share and more importantly, scholarship has taken many forms including blogs, social media and web sites. Croxal (2014) suggests scholars create their own websites to share research, presentations, teaching materials and curriculum as opposed to letting a third party from the university take charge of a professor’s online identity. Having their own cite allows professors to share work with colleagues and students more quickly and efficiently, and will reduce fear of being branded or marketed by a third party. Another fear that is often cited by faculty is that building the necessary online identity requires significant technical expertise and time. Croxall (2014) asserts that content management systems like WordPress, Drupal, and Tumblr make it easy for academics to share their work without getting bogged down in the details of HTML and CSS. If scholars have the material they want to put on the website, and most do in the form of CV’s, bio’s, short descriptions of research projects and syllabi, then a website can be built using the aforementioned tools in less than hour. As importantly, when you build your own online identity, you get to choose how you are represented and what represents you. Finally, the issue of intellectual property often arises from scholars who are timid about placing

109

 Critical Thinking Skills in Virtual Learning Environments

their unfinished or in-process work online for others to see. The protective feeling that scholars have about their research is understandable as it is not only tightly connected to identity, but often is an important expectation of employment (Croxall, 2014). However, the flip side of this concern is that by publicizing the work that professors are involved in, they stake a claim on that line of scholarship. If unscrupulous others did attempt to plagiarize work, a record of online publication whether via blog, website or course management system is proof positive that your efforts were public and accessible. When teaching a critical thinking course, it would be an asset to provide recent ideas and scholarly work, whether finished or in progress, to students so they might use critical thinking tools to analyze, synthesize and provide additional insights. Students becoming ‘co-researchers’ is much easier and effective when using online tools to share ideas.

METHODS OF INTEGRATNG CRITICAL THINKING ONLINE Student engagement in a synchronous or asynchronous course delivery mode is paramount to student learning. In this section we will address some of the methods used by authors and teachers to engage students in a critical thinking course and discuss some of the ways to overcome challenges associated with teaching critical thinking online including reaching those deemed ‘digital natives’.

Creating a Sense of Community/ Sharing Knowledge Whereas there were once borders and boundaries to the traditional classroom as created by the instructor, even that is now subject to the continuous access and power of being connected to others via the internet, Twitter, instant messaging, email, etc. With the ease of access to the never-ending list of communication tools and information, students

110

can essentially create their own learning experiences challenging faculty and their resources set within the course content. Instructors must be prepared to accept, and even include these new sources and ideas as free-flowing information that may add to the knowledge of the course (Boettcher & Conrad, 2010; Mason & Rennie, 2008), eventually encouraging critical thinking. Within the traditional classroom it has been common for students to develop relationships with fellow students and to create a ‘sense of community’ within their course. This happens quite naturally over time as students get to know one another, sharing information about each other, working on their assignments together, spending time in groups within the course and discussing course topics with each other and the instructor. Researchers have long determined the academic benefits to a healthy course environment (Boettcher & Conrad, 2010; Mason & Rennie, 2008). What exactly is a ‘community’ within a course? According to Boettcher & Conrad (2010) it is when you build “a sense of shared understanding, knowledge of one another, and mutual support, even if values are not shared.” To elaborate even further, there are two main goals of the community in particular within online courses which are to build both ‘knowledge and competencies’ within students, while at the same time, creating an atmosphere of ‘mutual respect’ so that ideas may be shared freely among its participants (Boettcher & Conrad, 2010). This same level of course engagement and sense of community within online courses must be purposely planned as it is not as natural for students in an asynchronous environment to build a kinship of their own. Within online courses, and especially within the MOOC realm, the sense of community is of utmost importance as it is quickly gone when students are not entering the actual physical classroom but it is essential in “enhancing meaningful learning” (Donaldson et al., 2013, p. 65) and ultimately be achieved through several strategic methods employed by the

 Critical Thinking Skills in Virtual Learning Environments

instructor including the use of discussion boards and peer evaluations; both methods that also foster critical thinking (Donaldson et al., 2013). Simple class introductions in the form of a discussion forum within the LMS or other software, in the beginning of the course, allows students to reveal personal information about themselves so that they can better get acquainted with each other and discover what they may share in common including professional experience, hobbies, family, pets, or other individual information including a photo (Boettcher & Conrad, 2010). Taking steps to start the course off by creating a ‘sense of community’ right away permits online students the similar experience their face-to-face counterparts have in establishing friendships and relationships in order to work towards creating higher order thinking and reflection within discussions, assignments and/or groups projects. Discussion boards or forums (depending on the learning management system) are often used in not only creating a sense of community within an online course, but also as a means of sharing higher order knowledge among its students. These discussions whether constructed by the instructor or the individual students may lead to best chance at analysis and evaluation within both the thought process and topic at hand. For instance, in many MOOCs discussion boards provide peer interaction within the course. These interactions supplement the instruction provided by the faculty member conducting the MOOC and are often simply students answering questions for other students or supplying additional resources on the internet (Young, 2013). But these discussions may also lead to in-depth dialogue on topics as students begin reflective thought as conversations develop. This would also be true of any online course with an open discussion board that students may use for interaction purposes in the course. By allowing this shared knowledge, instructors are creating an environment that builds toward ‘thought and reflection’ of the topic or question posed (Boettcher & Conrad, 2010). And in order

to maximize reflective thought, analysis and evaluation from students, Boettcher & Conrad, (2010) recommend the use of the following techniques when facilitating discussion forums: (1) creating open-ended questions in order to allow for exploration and application of course concepts; (2) use of the Socratic method of probing in order to gain a deeper understanding of the topics; (3) ask clarifying questions about both what students understand and lack knowledge of; (4) stagger due dates of student responses and offer either a midpoint summary or encouraging comments; finally, (5) provide guidelines and instruction for the discussion while at the same time providing choice and options so that students may customize their responses and learning. Naturally given the technologies currently available, one final option for facilitating discussion in the hopes that students will emulate traditional classroom interaction is with the use of synchronous chat, especially within some sort of videoconferencing software. This real-time dialogue conducted between students and the instructor includes both facial expressions and tone of voice which can add to the depth of the discussion. With the use of such technology, not only discussion may take place but also debate and online presentations (Mason & Rennie, 2008). And most remarkably, often the discussions and debates online offer increased participation by students due to the ability of the online course and the technology in use to mask both diversity of the individuals present (age, race, gender, socioeconomic status, geographical location, sexual orientation, etc.) and those where English is not their first language. Depending on the technology and method chosen, students have the time to review what they will say before responding including both their grammar and spelling as well as reflective thoughts (Donaldson et al., 2013). Another method that can be successfully employed by instructors within an online course to encourage not only community building, but also to provide analysis and evaluation of higher-order knowledge is peer-to-peer assessments also known

111

 Critical Thinking Skills in Virtual Learning Environments

as peer evaluations or reviews. Peer review within an online course encourages students to work and learn from each other, building upon the knowledge given as learning happens both at the individual and collective levels. As mentioned earlier, within an online environment the socialization and discussion process is often not as natural and as quickly established as in the traditional classroom; for that reason, the advantage of peer reviews is that it sends the messages to students that learning within the online course is both a “social and collaborative experience” (Boettcher & Conrad, 2010). If the peer review process is put into use within an online course, no longer will students withdraw to the background, left on their own to develop ideas and facilitate their learning. Instead, they are forced into the forefront of the curriculum where their work is then considered by both their instructor and peers. “Not only will it be evaluated, but it will be discussed, tested, and altered”, which may result in students changing their stance on a topic as they learn through collaboration with others (Donaldson et al., 2013, p. 49).

Teaching and Learning Tools Online There are several additional teaching and learning tools and assessments that can be used to incorporate critical thinking within an online course. These include such tools as the use of rubrics, e-portfolios, wikis, blogs, learning assessments and measurements. With the large array of tools available to instructors today, Mason & Rennie (2008) suggest that “courses which exploit web 2.0 technologies and approaches can also be challenging and demanding if they require critical thinking skills and develop knowledge rather than mere information management” (p. 154). A method to assign points to students for discussions, papers, projects or other work in an online course with clearly defined parameters is called a rubric. Rubrics are usually set up as a matrix with several desired characteristics outlined for students in one column followed by various point

112

scales in the next columns that students may earn based on their level of participation or contribution. Various measures may be included within rubrics such as time, quantity, quality, content, spelling/ grammar, etc. (Boettcher & Conrad, 2010). Of course, rubrics can get quite specific depending on the assignment or discussion. Instructors can define factors for students that include higher order activities including: • • • •

Engagement and responsiveness to other students Demonstrating original thoughts and insights to the field Identifying unusual or unique patterns and relationships Identifying and establishing links to current happenings. (Boettcher & Conrad, 2010)

Overall, rubrics may be designed for discussions with varying levels of demonstrating critical thinking skills as Pallof and Pratt (2003) explain with the lowest levels met with students offering questions; at the next level students begin to give ideas or hypothesis; this is then followed by levels concerning conclusions or deductions based on evidence; and final higher levels might include “expressing an opinion on the relevance of an argument”, proposing solutions or demonstrating how students are “processing information and developing new skills” (as cited in Boettcher & Conrad, 2010). Of course, it is recommended no matter how a rubric is constructed, that it is distributed to students at the beginning of the course and little to no alterations are completed to it during the course period for consistency. As one of the more progressive learning assessments that are no longer used by only art and writing majors (Pastore, 2012), the e-portfolio is quickly becoming recognized as an assessment tool that enables both the faculty advisor and students to “reflect, assess, recommend, and plan an unfolding educational program” (Nanfito, 2013).

 Critical Thinking Skills in Virtual Learning Environments

Not only does the e-portfolio allow for continuous review and accountability, but also progression and mastery within the program. Of course, the e-portfolio may also be used project-specific, instead of for a students’ entire academic programs, but either way can contain a variety media such as papers, videos, photos, audio files, websites, wikis, etc. (Pastore, 2012). Students embrace the concept as they contribute throughout their degree programs, often presenting final realworld projects included within their portfolios during job interviews (Pastore, 2012). Faculty concerned with the promotion of critical thinking online should remember to include this skill within their students’ e-portfolio so that students include examples from previous work from both peers and self-assessment in the program as well as in final project examples (Mason & Rennie, 2008). As previously mentioned, the e-portfolio can also be used for project-specific assignments allowing for large, creative projects that contain critical thinking elements to be showcased including group projects. Both Wikis and Blogs (or online journals) provide an excellent opportunity for students to work collaboratively demonstrating higher order thinking and analysis of the topic at hand. Both of these offer a student-centered approach in which active learning is applied so that students become self-aware and are able to reflect on various topics, their assignments or the program itself (Pastore, 2012). Wikis are websites that can be both structured and edited collaboratively by their users which also makes them ‘fluid and flexible’ with their information. One of the most famous Wikis happens to be Wikipedia, the free, online encyclopedia that has made popular the use of Wikis as a valuable tool for sharing complex information (Mason & Rennie, 2008). Similarly, blogs or online journals can have preset templates, enabling reflection and also review from both peers and instructors. As blogs have been in use in the academic arena “for over a decade”, the latest blogging web software to gain popularity includes

“WordPress, Movable Type and Live Journal” (Nanfito, 2013). Strengths of blogging within an online course for students are the emphasis on both “writing and self-reflection” with the ability to share those thoughts openly with others (peers, the instructor and even experts) while encouraging critical thinking and analysis of various topics so that the combination of both the individual and the group collaboration can stimulate “critical self-reflection in a rich learning environment” (Mason & Rennie, 2008, p. 63).

Teaching the ‘Digital Native’ The terms ‘digital native’ and ‘digital immigrant’ were first introduced and have influenced a plethora of research since that time. Prensky (2001) believes that education is the single largest problem facing the digital world because digital immigrant instructors are struggling to teach a generation of digital native students who speak an entirely different language and possess a unique set of digital skills and intuitiveness. This generational conflict has been hashed and rehashed in the last 12 years or so, but what is clear is that just because digital natives have grown up using smartphones and playing Xbox does not mean they are tech savvy. Recent research (Bennett, Maton and Kervin, 2008; Hargittai, 2012; White and LeCornu, 2009) found that the narrative about young people being tech smart is false. Very few students are really born digital, and the differences of young and old are often cultural differences and a lack of cultural competency by those labelled digital natives and digital immigrants. Simply put, digital immigrants lack cultural capital in the digital culture. For those brave souls wishing to teach critical thinking online, it is vitally important to use all aspects of technology available. As mentioned earlier, most learning management systems have a plethora of multi-media tools that should help to make those students who really are tech savvy comfortable with the critical thinking material.

113

 Critical Thinking Skills in Virtual Learning Environments

It is crucial that a variety of current, up to date, relevant images are used throughout an online critical thinking course. It’s not that students won’t read, but if the reading is enhanced by using visual images and multi-media the chances of student success are enhanced. Instructors must remember that from pop-up books, to Kindle Fires, to video games, to billboards and advertisements in digital magazines, the digital native is comfortable multi-tasking and receiving multiple messages from multiple forms of media. The online critical thinking class can exploit this to the advantage of the learner. For instance, when talking about deductive and inductive arguments, why not show images from university advertisements? How about showing video clips from the Jon Stewart show, Fox News and MSNBC? It will quickly be apparent to students that there are stark differences between inductive and deductive arguments. Similar images can be used to illustrate other aspects of the critical thinking process including persuasion through rhetoric, fallacies, and moral/legal reasoning. More importantly, to build a sense of community-shared knowledge (Donaldson, 2013), make sure that students research and develop or find images that illustrate the appropriate critical thinking concepts. This kind of creativity and freedom will not only help students think critically, it will help them think creatively as they build a community of learners for the online classroom. Additionally, it will help faculty better stay within and understand the critical thinking theoretical framework of the 5 w’s and an h. Finally, it is important to note that many universities are embracing a student-centric approach and revamping entry-level survey courses that introduce students to a body of disciplinary knowledge. In some universities, critical thinking courses reflect this change. Those who teach critical thinking using student centered pedagogy move away from content based courses and toward building experiences from what students already know. To embrace this prior knowledge allows

114

students to reconcile what they have already internalized and experienced with new information using a variety of technology that students have been exposed to. According to Arnett (2013) college is tailor-made for the journal of self-discovery that traditional age students are ready to pursue. He believes these students want to know who they are and how they got there, and pioneered the theory of emerging adulthood at the turn of the century (Arnett, 2004). Teaching critical thinking to a generation that places a premium on using technology and the process of finding themselves can have significant impact.

Using Multi-Media Whether we like it or not, the digital screen age is not going away anytime soon. Millennials, those students born between the years of 1980 to 2001, are exposed to thousands of images daily. They can access those images from a plethora of devices including cell phones, computers, digital games, billboards, signs and yes, even books. When teaching critical thinking whether face-to-face or in an online environment, professors should consider the impact that the use of multi-media assignments and virtual simulations might have on student learning. While writing is an important skill, it is clear that millennials are living more and more of their lives with less and less of the printed page. To engage students, initiate a sense of community both in and out of the classroom and to create a body of shared knowledge, faculty must consider integrating more audiovisual content during lectures, presentations and student assignments. According to Ledonne (2014) there are three major reasons that all syllabi should include some multimedia production student assignments: 1) media production engages a variety of skills and learning styles, 2) media production can deepen student engagement in the topic, and 3) media production is sharable long after final grades are posted. The key thing that critical thinking

 Critical Thinking Skills in Virtual Learning Environments

faculty must embrace when developing these assignments is that grades should be based on assignment outcomes and content, not the quality of the production. In a critical thinking course, it would be illusory to grade students on professional composition, cinematography, audio quality or voice over talent. Most important to a multi-media assignment in a critical thinking course would be the choices that students made in presenting their scholarship using visual rhetoric. Also, the ability to extend thoughts from written and spoken words to a visual medium would be a key standard by which to evaluate student performance. The fact is, all key elements of critical thinking including argumentation, rhetoric, reasoning, prediction and logic can be demonstrated in many ways, and a written essay is just one of them. Multi-media should be adopted as another. Using multi-media will require an interdisciplinary approach for critical thinking faculty. Challenges will be unique to each professor and each institution, but there are some basic guidelines that should be considered (Ledonne, 2014): •

• • •

•

Make friends with institutional instructional technology and/or centers for teaching and learning to make sure you and your students have access to relevant technology; Invite a cinema studies or media arts colleague to give a guest lecture before the assignment; Find other faculty who share an interest in media production assignments and for study groups; Consider having a media savvy teaching assistant or research assistant show you and your students the basics of various multimedia tools including iMovie, Photoshop or Audacity; Find out where media production equipment and software is available on campus and have this information readily available for students as you give them the assignment;

•

Use the existing wealth of online resources available; there are tutorials, examples, and multi-media how-to instructional videos that can really help

Creating Virtual Worlds If the creation of a multi-media based critical thinking assignment goes well, faculty may want to take the next step and delve into the virtual world. Often called massively multiplayer online world (MMOW) this game based world could very well be a game changer for teaching critical thinking. MMOW’s are computer based simulated environments that are often three-dimensional and allow users to take the form of avatars that are visible to others using the system. Avatars can be textual, two or three-dimensional or live video avatars with auditory and touch sensations (Wasko, et al, 2011). Users access a computer simulated world which can present various stimuli who in turn can manipulate elements of the modeled world and this experience a degree of presence in that world (Castronova, 2007). Such modeled worlds have their have their own worlds and can exist in the fantasy or reality of the genre. Communicating between users can include text, graphical icons, visual gestures, sound, touch, voice command and balance senses and all communication is synchronous and in real time so that synthetic worlds seem very real (Castronova, 2007). Clearly, virtual worlds present a powerful new opportunity for instructors of critical thinking allowing for continuous social interactions which often serve as a basis for collaborative education. Virtual worlds and virtual classrooms can give teachers the opportunity to have greater levels of student participation that is familiar and customized to the needs of the millennial. A well designed virtual classroom can also allow users with special needs to access the same learning materials from home that they would be receiving if physically present. More importantly, the amount of feedback to both participant and teacher that can be built

115

 Critical Thinking Skills in Virtual Learning Environments

into virtual worlds and classrooms is much more robust than a typical written reflection or test. Virtual worlds can also provide a level of flexibility for faculty who choose to utilize them. Critical thinking faculty can use existing virtual worlds such as second life or games such as World of Warcraft to determine if students are making critical, logical and strategic decisions within that context. Faculty can also create specific scenarios that evolve around important critical thinking concepts and see how students react to these scenarios. Whether using existing models or creating new ones, critical thinking faculty can benefit by incorporating virtual worlds and classrooms into their teaching (Wasko, 2011).

CONCLUSION The majority of college students today are much more technologically proficient than their instructors, have regularly used the internet for assignments, and frequently use email (Dziuban, Moskal, & Hartman, 2005) among other communication tools (twitter, Facebook, etc.) Given these facts, it is crucial that both faculty and administrators begin to understand where technology may take teaching and learning within the next decade. As online learning has grown past the simple, correspondence course and is now reaching new levels, understanding if what students have previously been taught in a face-to-face classroom can be applied and constructed well in a virtual environment is essential for future growth within higher education. Currently there is still a considerable drive from institutions to offer courses and even full programs online. Of course, as research has proven in the last few decades, an effective online student is one that possesses ‘motivation, initiative, and confidence’ as without these characteristics, students will be challenged to learn within an

116

online environment (Donaldson et al., 2013). As this chapter discussed incorporation of both critical thinking skills and engagement activities adds to a student’s motivation and initiative while taking classes online. Given this evidence, it then becomes apparent that these types of activities are not only beneficial but essential to the online curriculum. With so much technology available to faculty currently, an instructor is not limited in their instructional framework when incorporating critical thinking skills within their courses or while constructing a separate critical thinking course. Possibilities include the simple use of the university’s learning management system, social media incorporation, use of wiki’s, blogs or other online journals, and synchronous chats via various software programs. More complex use of gaming software and virtual worlds may even be constructed and used. The important point here to realize is that critical thinking can be achieved in both an asynchronous and synchronous virtual environment if faculty take the time to construct well-developed pedagogical activities.

REFERENCES Allen, E., & Seaman, J. (2010). Learning on demand: Online education in the United States 2009. Needham, MA: Sloan Consortium. Anderson, P. (2007). What is Web 2.0? Ideas, technologies and implications for education, JISC report. Retrieved from: http://www.jisc.ac.uk/ media/documents/techwatch/tsw0701b.pdf Arnett, J. J. (2004). Emerging adulthood: The winding road from late teens through the twenties. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Arnett, J. J. (2013). When will my grown-up kid grow up? Loving and understanding your emerging adult. New York, NY: Workman Publishing.

 Critical Thinking Skills in Virtual Learning Environments

Bennett, S., Maton, K., & Kervin, L. (2008). The digital native debate: A critical review of the evidence. British Journal of Educational Technology, 39(5), 775–786. doi:10.1111/j.14678535.2007.00793.x Boettcher, J. V., & Conrad, R. M. (2010). The online teaching survival guide: Simple and practical pedagogical tips. Kindle Edition. Bonk, C., & Graham, C. (2006). The handbook of blended learning: Global perspectives, local designs. San Francisco, CA: John Wiley & Sons. Castronova, E. (2007). Exodus to the virtual world: how online fun is changing reality. London, UK: Plagrave Macmillan Publishing. Clarà, M., & Barberà, E. (2013). Learning online: Massive open online courses (MOOCs), connectivism, and cultural psychology. Distance Education, 34(1), 129–136. doi:10.1080/015879 19.2013.770428 Coates, H., James, R., & Baldwin, G. (2005). A critical examination of the effects of learning management systems on university teaching and learning. Tertiary Education and Management, 11, 19-36. Croxall, B. (2014). Tired of tech: Avoiding tool fatigue in the classroom. Writing & Pedagogy, 5(2), 249–268. doi:10.1558/wap.v5i2.249 Croxall, B. (2014, April 25). How to overcome what scares us about our online identities. The Digital Campus: The Chronicle of Higher Education. Donaldson, J., Agra, E., Alshammari, M., Bailey, A., Bowdoin, D., Kendle, M., & Wressell, L. et al. (2013). Massively open: How massive open online courses changed the world. Kindle Edition.

Dziuban, C., Moskal, P., & Hartman, J. (2005). Higher education, blended learning, and the generations: Knowledge is power: No more. Elements of quality online education: Engaging communities. Needham, MA: Sloan Center for Online Education. Elder, L. (2011). Critical thinking: Tools for taking charge of your learning and your life (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Prentice Hall Publishers. Garrison, D. R., & Kanuka, H. (2004). Blended learning: Uncovering its transformative potential in higher education. The Internet and Higher Education, 7(2), 95–105. doi:10.1016/j.iheduc.2004.02.001 Glaser, E. M. (1941). An experiment in the development of critical thinking. New York, NY: Columbia University. Hargittai, E., & Hsieh, Y. P. (2012). Succinct survey measures of web-use skills. Social Science Computer Review, 30(1), 95–107. doi:10.1177/0894439310397146 Ledonne, D. (2014, April). Multimedia assignments: Not just for film majors anymore. The Digital Campus: The Chronicle of Higher Education. Mason, R. & Rennie, F. (2008). The e-Learning handbook. Taylor and Francis. Means, B., Toyama, Y., Murphy, R., Bakia, M., & Jones, K. (2009). Evaluation of evidence-based practices in online learning: A meta-analysis and review of online learning studies. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Planning, Evaluation, and Policy Development. Moore, B. N., & Moore, R. (2014). Critical thinking. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill Publishing.

117

 Critical Thinking Skills in Virtual Learning Environments

Nanfito, M. (2013). MOOCs: Opportunities, impacts, and challenges massive open online courses in colleges and universities. Kindle Edition.

White, D. S., & Le Cornu, A. (2011). Visitors and residents: A new typology for online engagement’. First Monday, 16(9). doi:10.5210/fm.v16i9.3171

Newman, D. R., Johnson, C., Cochrane, C. & Webb, B. (1996). An experiment in group learning technology: Evaluating critical thinking in face-to-face and computer-supported seminars. International Computing and Technology: An Electronic Journal for the 21st Century, 4(1), 57-74.

Wright, L. (2011). Critical thinking: An introduction to analytical reading and reasoning. New York, New York: Oxford University Press.

Oh, E., & Park, S. (2009). How are universities involved in blended instruction? Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 12(3). Pastore, R. (2012). Online learning: An instructional technology class’s exploration of online teaching and learning. Kindle Edition. Paul, R., & Elder, L. (2008). The miniature guide to critical thinking concepts and tools. Foundation for Critical Thinking Press. Prensky, M. (2001). Digital natives, digital immigrants. On the Horizon, 9(5), 1–6. doi:10.1108/10748120110424816 Rudinow, J., & Barry, V. (2008). Invitation to critical thinking. Independence, KY: Cengage Learning. Russell, T. (2001). The no significant difference phenomenon: A comparative research annotated bibliography on technology for distance education. Chicago, IL: International Distance Education Certification Center Press. Scriven, M., & Paul, R. (1987). Critical thinking as defined by the National Council for Excellence in Critical Thinking. 6th Annual International Conference on Critical Thinking and Educational Reform, Sonoma State University, Rohnert Park, CA. Wasko, M., Teigland, R., Leidner, D., & Jarvenpaa, S. (2011). Stepping into the internet: New ventures in virtual worlds. Management Information Systems Quarterly, 35(3). 118

Young, J. (2013). Beyond the MOOC hype: A guide to higher education’s high-tech disruption. Kindle Edition.

ADDITIONAL READING 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 metaanalysis. Review of Educational Research, 78(4), 1102–1134. doi:10.3102/0034654308326084 Bean, J. C. (2011). Engaging ideas: The professor’s guide to integrating writing, critical thinking, and active learning in the classroom. John Wiley & Sons. Bell, F. (2011). Connectivism: Its place in theoryinformed research and innovation in technology-enabled learning. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 12, 98–118. Retrieved from http://www.irrodl.org/ index.php/irrodl/index Bernard, R. M., Abrami, P. C., Lou, Y., Borokhovski, E., Wade, A., Wozney, L., & Huang, B. et  al. (2004). How does distance education compare with classroom instruction? A meta-analysis of the empirical literature. Review of Educational Research, 74(3), 379–439. doi:10.3102/00346543074003379 Bullen, M. (2007). Participation and critical thinking in online university distance education. International Journal of E-Learning & Distance Education, 13(2), 1–32.

 Critical Thinking Skills in Virtual Learning Environments

Cottrell, S. (2005). Critical thinking skills. Developing effective analysis and argument. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Fisher, A. (Ed.). (2011). Critical thinking: An introduction. Cambridge University Press. Garrison, D. R., & Anderson, T. (2003). Elearning in the 21st century: A framework for research and practice. London: Routledge. doi:10.4324/9780203166093 Graham, L., & Metaxas, P. T. (2003). Of course it’s true; I saw it on the Internet!: Critical thinking in the Internet era. Communications of the ACM, 46(5), 70–75. doi:10.1145/769800.769804 Janis, I. (1982). Victims of groupthink. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin. Jeong, A. C. (2003). The sequential analysis of group interaction and critical thinking in online. American Journal of Distance Education, 17(1), 25–43. doi:10.1207/S15389286AJDE1701_3 Kaattari, J., & Trottier, V. (2013). Guide to technologies for online learning. Community Literacy of Ontario. Kindle Edition. Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (2000). Choices, Values and Frames. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Neely, P. W., & Tucker, J. P. (2010). Unbundling faculty roles in online distance education programs. Contemporary Issues in Education Research, 3(6), 17–24. Retrieved from http:// journals. cluteonline.com/index.php/CIER/article/viewArticle/211 Palloff, R. M., & Pratt, K. (2009, December). Assessing the online learner: Resources and strategies for faculty. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Paul, R. W., & Binker, A. J. (1990). Critical thinking: What every person needs to survive in a rapidly changing world. Sonoma, CA: Sonoma State University Center for Critical Thinking and Moral Critique Pidd, M. (2009). Tools for thinking. Chichester, UK: Wiley. Suter, W. N. (2011). Introduction to educational research: A critical thinking approach. Sage (Atlanta, Ga.). Tallent-Runnels, M. K., Thomas, J. A., Lan, W. Y., Cooper, S., Ahern, T. C., Shaw, S. M., & Liu, X. (2006). spring). Teaching courses online: A review of the research. Review of Educational Research, 76(1), 93–135. doi:10.3102/00346543076001093 Thayer-Bacon, B. J. (2000). Transforming critical thinking: Thinking constructively. Teachers College Press. Tiwari, A., Lai, P., So, M., & Yuen, K. (2006). A comparison of the effects of problem‐based learning and lecturing on the development of students’ critical thinking. Medical Education, 40(6), 547–554. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2929.2006.02481.x PMID:16700770 U.S. Department of Education, Office of Planning, Evaluation, and Policy Development. (2010, September). Evaluation of evidence-based practices in online learning: A meta-analysis and review of online learning studies (ID: CSD5650). Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved from http:// www2.ed.gov/rschstat/eval/tech/evidence-basedpractices/finalreport.pdf Using data to improve online courses. (2011, May 15). Distance Education Report. Retrieved from http://www.magnapubs.com/newsletter/ story/5718/

119

 Critical Thinking Skills in Virtual Learning Environments

Watson, W. R., & Watson, S. L. (2007). An argument for clarity: What are learning management systems, what are they not, and what should they become? TechTrends, 51(2), 28–34. http://www. springerlink.com/content/r1ur45g5t3225553/ doi:10.1007/s11528-007-0023-y Weiler, A. (2005). Information-seeking behavior in Generation Y students: Motivation, critical thinking, and learning theory. Journal of Academic Librarianship, 31(1), 46–53. doi:10.1016/j. acalib.2004.09.009

KEY TERMS AND DEFINITIONS Blended/Hybrid Learning: Learning systems that combine face-to-face instruction with computer-mediated or virtual instruction. Critical Thinking: Critical thinking is the ability to analyze and evaluate thinking (others or your own) with a view toward improving that thinking. According to Moore and Parker (2007), above all else, thinking critically means screening your ideas to see if they really make sense. Digital Native: Digital natives, people born after 1980, are characterized as having access to networked digital technologies and the skills to use those technologies since birth. Major parts of their lives and daily activities are mediated by digital technologies including social interaction, friendships, civic activities, and hobbies.

120

Learning Management Systems: Learning Management Systems (LMS) are administrative structures that house and distribute curriculum. An LMS may be used for both online and traditional campus courses, so that it is a complete system of record and communication for instructors, students and university administrators. MOOC: A Massive Open Online Course (MOOC) is an online course aimed at unlimited participation and open access via the web. Social Media: Users that are connected through hyperlinking so that other users discover the content and link to it. The worldwide web grows organically as a reflection of the collective activity of the users. This allows for users to construct their own unique experiences online versus simply navigating previously organized and set content. In addition, social media users are often exposed to collaborative opportunities. Virtual Learning Environment: An electronic educational technology system based on the worldwide web that models conventional inperson education by providing equivalent virtual access to classes, class content, tests, homework, grades, assessments, and other external resources. It is also commonly a social space where students and teachers can interact synchronously or asynchronously through threaded discussions or chat rooms.

121

Chapter 6

Developing an Assessment Program to Measure Critical Thinking:

A Case Study at a Small, Online College Caulyne N. Barron Dunlap-Stone University, USA

ABSTRACT This chapter posits that the assessment cycle is a valuable part of the discussion of teaching critical thinking skills in post-secondary settings. Acknowledging that critical thinking is a crucial skill for post-secondary students, the chapter ties accreditation mandates to the need to include robust outcomes assessment measures in college programs that teach critical thinking. The chapter traces one small, nationally-accredited online college’s efforts to develop a robust assessment plan to measure how well students met general education and program objectives, particularly those related to critical thinking skills in a business program. The efforts to comply with accreditation standards and to demonstrate a culture of assessment resulted in a culture shift that sought meaningful data about how well the college was educating its students and meeting its mission.

INTRODUCTION This chapter describes how one small, nationallyaccredited online college incorporated accreditation mandates centered on outcomes assessment into a successful and robust assessment program. Beginning in 2009, Dunlap-Stone University’s accrediting body, the Distance Education and Training Council (DETC), incorporated standards requiring member institutions to demonstrate

compliance with specific outcomes assessment measures. Beyond completion rates and student satisfaction rates, a written document and evidence of data collection were required to meet the intent of the standard. The college used this requirement as an opportunity to formalize assessment across the program, particularly in the general education and business program outcomes. This chapter describes the process the college used to 1) evaluate accreditation requirements, 2) develop a

DOI: 10.4018/978-1-4666-8411-9.ch006

Copyright © 2015, IGI Global. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.

 Developing an Assessment Program to Measure Critical Thinking

plan to meet the requirements, and uses a specific outcome, critical thinking skills to illustrate 3) the operationalization of the assessment cycle and 4) the change in organizational culture.

BACKGROUND Higher education is moving towards an outcomes assessment model, often triggered by accreditation requirements (Lubinescu, Ratcliff, & Gaffney, 2001; Peach, Mukherjee, & Hornyak, 2007). Pedagogical changes, particularly in distance education, have required the development of defined outcomes to assure the quality of the programs offered (Swail & Kampits, 2001). Yet, often it is the institutions themselves that define the course and program outcomes most appropriate to their institution and their mission. The need to assess specific outcomes is rooted in accreditation mandates (Bresciani, 2006; Driscoll & Cordero de Noriega, 2006; Taras, 2005). Accrediting bodies therefore seek evidence that there is a process of reflection that led to the establishment of the outcomes and that there is an assessment cycle in place to measure, meet, and revise those outcomes when necessary. This chapter describes these processes as they were operationalized at a small, nationally accredited online institution, Dunlap-Stone University (DSU). Founded in 1995, the college was first accredited by the Accrediting Commission of the Distance Education and Training Council (DETC) in 2003. In 2009, DETC revised its standards surrounding outcomes assessment, and the college sought to revise its assessment program to comply with accreditation standards. According to the DETC Accreditation Handbook, Policy C.14. (2013), “Institutions are expected to have in place a formal written and actively executed plan for conducting outcomes assessment and satisfaction studies…” While DSU had informally measured industry-related outcomes, retention, student satisfaction, and progress through courses and

122

programs, few specific measures were in place that would meet the DETC standard. At the time, the Phoenix, Arizona based college offered a single bachelor’s degree program, a Bachelor of Science in International Trade Management. This chapter documents the process of compliance through the development of an outcomes-based assessment model centering on student critical thinking skills.

Methodology This case study was developed from a series of notes, interviews, and documents reviewed by those involved in the process of developing an assessment plan for the college. The college leadership approved the inclusion of the institution without conditions of anonymity. Case studies pull different sources of data to create the most complete picture of a specific context (Yin, 2009). Aligned with Creswell (2007), clear boundaries were created to narrow the scope of the case. As Woodside (2010) recommended “asking participants for explanations and interpretations of ‘operational data’” key players were interviewed and the researcher kept reflective journals throughout the process (p.6). Using Stake’s (1995) process of categorical aggregation, the study distilled the essence of the experiences and trends within the case boundaries. “Stakeholders checks enhance the credibility of the findings by allowing participants and other people… to comment on or assess the research findings, interpretations, and conclusions” (Thomas, 2006, p. 244). Further, Creswell (2007) suggested that researchers can develop “naturalistic generalizations” to present an in-depth picture of the case (p. 157). It should be noted that case studies are not gereralizable to different contexts or populations because the studies are inductive, naturalistic, and not intended to be representative of other settings (Yin, 2009). The findings are specific to the context of this college and this subject matter at a specific point in time. Therefore, no assumptions should be made about the transferability of

 Developing an Assessment Program to Measure Critical Thinking

the findings to other settings. The validity and credibility of any case is dependent on the data itself. Researcher bias, always a factor when the researcher studies their own institution or a process in which they were deeply involved, was mitigated through thick description, member checking, and triangulation of data. The material is presented as a narrative—a snapshot with the luxury of hindsight—in an effort to document a process in the hopes that others can use the lessons learned and recommendations to develop their own assessment programs informed by the process at the study site.

Accreditation The regulatory environment of higher education includes what is commonly referred to as a triad of regulatory oversight: state licensing agencies, private accrediting agencies, and the federal government. The accreditation system in the United States is an external, private, and nongovernmental function. The process dates to the late nineteenth century and there are currently at least 19 institutional accreditors and 61 programmatic accreditors, with some recognized by the US Department of Education, others by the Council for Higher Education Accreditation (CHEA), or by both (Eaton, 2010). These organization are typically structured as membership organizations, and institutions “constitute the membership and governance of the association,” building accreditation as a peer-review process (Graca, 2009, p. 664). There are six regional accrediting bodies (whose membership is geographically determined) and a number of national accrediting bodies (whose membership is often centered on a specific type of institution), like DETC. Each group is viewed equally by the US Department of Education and CHEA, although regional accreditation is viewed more favorably, perhaps because of its longer history and large number of traditional institutions in their membership.

Each accrediting body, as a private entity, falls under state corporation law and their powers are derived from their articles of incorporation, bylaws, and rules (Kaplin & Lee, 2007). Each organization develops its own processes and standards of accreditation, and these are evaluated and enforced through self-study and peer review processes, vesting power in the peer-review process while maintaining institutional autonomy (Wood, 2006). Their powers are “enforced through private sanctions embodied in their articles, bylaws, and rules, the primary sanctions being the withdrawal and denial of accreditation” (Kaplin & Lee, 2007, p. 647). The relationship between the federal government and accreditation bodies is important in the discussion of outcomes assessment. Federal agencies formally recognize accrediting bodies, and their reasons for doing so are tied to programs such as federal financial aid. In the 1950s, private accreditors were assigned a “gatekeeper” role, asserting the quality of programs for the dispersal of federal funds for student loans and grants (Eaton, 2010). The 1969 case, Marjorie Webster Junior College v. Middle States Association of Colleges and Secondary Schools, Inc. cemented the “quasi-governmental role” of accrediting bodies, finding “because accreditation is such a central component of qualification for most government financial assistance to [institutions of higher education], the accrediting association are fulfilling the governmental function of regulating higher education” (Graca, 2009, p. 647-648). The National Advisory Committee on Institutional Quality and Integrity (NACIQI) oversees the risks associated with federal student aid fraud and quality standards, and recommends to the US education secretary which accrediting bodies should and should not be recognized by the federal government (Bennett et al., 2010; Nelson, 2011). The government can therefore impact how these private entities operate. Eaton (2007) wrote at length about the increasing federalization of

123

 Developing an Assessment Program to Measure Critical Thinking

accreditation through this oversight. Benjamin (1994) wrote of the “transformation of accreditation from voluntary self-assessment to external monitoring of institutional performance” (p.34). Eaton, Fryshman, Hope, Scanlon and Cros (2005) noted that these are private organizations originally established to provide services to the member organizations, not the public. But, there is a certain level of consumer protection inherent in the current focus on institutional performance and outcomes. The use of public funds means that it is impossible to separate the regulatory structures from questions of quality. Graca (2009) asserted that regulatory agencies are “increasingly demanding more measurable and exacting student outcomes from institutions of higher education” (p.642). National accrediting agencies currently require more reporting of quantified student achievement measures such as completion and placement rates, whereas regional bodies “utilize a much different process-oriented approach that assesses whether their accredited institutions are themselves appropriately setting goals for student achievement and measuring against these goals” (Pelesh, 2010, p. 99).

OUTCOMES ASSESSMENT Davenport (2001) noted that in the past, accreditation was centered on processes and inputs, and that the conversation has shifted to outputs and outcomes. Leimer (2011) wrote that despite the fact that all of the regional accrediting bodies required that “higher education institutions develop and sustain a culture of evidence-based decisionmaking and continuous improvement” that there are few models that assist them in doing so (p.1). In her work, she examined the organizational complexities of integrating institutional research processes that were tied to accreditation. The trend toward collecting more data is evident in the growth of the offices and processes used to manage the mandates.

124

A key construct in the discussion of outcomes assessment is this idea of a culture of evidence. This can be defined as evidence an institution presents “to articulate its claims about what is important regarding students and student learning, develop specific evidence regarding students’ learning, and assess students’ knowledge and skills” and further recognizing as an institution that “all major elements of a student’s education are subject to assessment” (Bardo, 2009, p. 53). Documentation and the ability for organizations to demonstrate this process is a concrete manner are the keys to this culture of evidence. There are two key terms that are at the core of the concept of “outcomes assessment.” First, an outcome is generally described as “a specified knowledge, skill, ability, or attitude that a student has achieved as a result of taking a course or program” (Accrediting Commission of the Distance Education and Training Council [DETC], 2014, p. 11). It is concrete and measurable. Often, this is described by stating at the completion of this course or program, the student will be able to… Second, defined by Angelo (1995), assessment is: an ongoing process aimed at understanding and improving student learning. It involves making our expectations explicit and public; setting appropriate criteria and high standards for learning quality; systematically gathering, analyzing, and interpreting evidence to determine how well performance matches those expectations and standards; and using the resulting information to document, explain, and improve performance. When it is embedded effectively within larger institutional systems, assessment can help us focus our collective attention, examine our assumptions, and create a shared academic culture dedicated to assuring and improving the quality of higher education. (pp. 7-9) It is important to note the cyclical nature of Angelo’s definition. The idea that an objective is

 Developing an Assessment Program to Measure Critical Thinking

articulated, that data is collected and interpreted against the objective, and then that information is used to inform the process is the key takeaway. Often referred to as a feedback loop, the cycle continues and the process is constantly refined. Together, the terms outcomes and assessment combine to communicate the idea that institutional processes can be evaluated to measure and improve student learning in specific areas. This is the central focus of an outcomes assessment program. The micro-level assessment is used as a quality measure for the institution as a whole. Rather than counting books in a library or listing incoming student SAT scores, colleges have begun to collect meaningful data about how well they are meeting their missions.

CRITICAL THINKING Critical thinking skills are core academic skills (Bers, 2005; Bissell & Lemons, 2006; Minter, 2010; Razaee, Farahian & Ahmadi, 2012). Critical thinking been described as an explicit outcome for postsecondary education (Office of Outcomes Assessment, University of Maryland University College [UMUC], 2006). Yet, a concise definition of what exactly critical thinking is can be elusive. Dewey (1933) described it as “active, persistent, and careful consideration of any belief or supposed form of knowledge in the light of the grounds that support it and the further conclusions from which it tends” (p.118). It has been called “the cognitive engine which drives problem-solving and decision-making” and at its core are the “cognitive skills of reasoning, evaluation, analysis and inference” (Whitten & Brahmasrene, 2011, p. 1). In their survey of the literature, Shaw and Holmes (2014) wrote that underpinning the work of critical thinking seminal authors Halpern (2003), Petress (2004), and Facione (2011) is the what, or application of logical and reasoned thinking grounded in evidence; the why, examining the

value of critical thought to justify the expansion of new ideas; and the how, the processes used to “promote thoughtful judgment, reflective decision-making, and evidence-based reasoning” (p. 101). The Association of American Colleges and Universities (n.d.) defined critical thinking as “the habit of mind characterized by the comprehensive exploration of issues, ideas, artifacts, and events before accepting or formulating an opinion or conclusion” (p.1). Clearly, there is no single concise definition. Shaw and Holmes (2014) went on to describe the academic perspectives surrounding critical thinking as being rooted in Bloom’s taxonomy. Bloom’s is a common assessment tool (Keshavarz, 2011; McNeil, 2011). Educators construct objectives stating what it is a student is expected to learn was categorized along an increasing range of complexity, and they infer that the higher levels signify greater critical thinking skills (Ennis, 1993). Bloom’s taxonomy moves from the recall of information (knowledge) through understanding or discussing the knowledge (comprehension) to using the information (application), then recognizing trends (analysis), using these concepts to create new ideas (synthesis), and culminated in assessing the knowledge (evaluation). In short, listing the steps to bake a cake demonstrates less critical thinking skills than evaluating how best to execute the steps in a particular situation, dependent on the type of cake, ingredients and tools available. Moving from the general and somewhat vague ideas encompassed by a taxonomical approach, Ennis (1993) provided a detailed (though one he labeled “abridged”) definition of critical thinking and one that was central when developing a definition for DSU: In reasonably and reflectively going about deciding what to believe or do, a person characteristically need to do most of these things (and do them independently):

125

 Developing an Assessment Program to Measure Critical Thinking

1. Judge the credibility of sources. 2. Identify conclusions, reasons, and assumptions 3. Judge the quality of an argument, including the acceptability of its reasons, assumptions, and evidence. 4. Develop and defend a position on an issue. 5. Ask appropriate clarifying questions. 6. Plan experiments and judge experimental designs. 7. Define terms in a way appropriate to the context. 8. Be open-minded. 9. Try to be well informed. 10. Draw conclusions when warranted, but with caution. (p. 180) Ennis went on to explain that the definition of critical thinking was not enough, but that the purposes behind the assessment of critical thinking also have to be articulated. He suggested that educators should understand their students’ level of critical thinking, give feedback to their students so that they can be better critical thinkers, motivate them to be better, use assessment to help teachers teach better, research the instruction process, among others (Ennis, 1993). Critical thinking skills often challenge faculty and administrators when they seek to measure them (Behar-Horenstein & Niu, 2011; Connors, 2008; Peach, Mukherjee, & Hornyak, 2007; Riggs & Hellyer-Riggs, 2014), especially in distance education settings (Leppa, 2004) and when tied to accreditation (Cavaliere & Mayer, 2012). Even once a definition is articulated, it can be a challenge to identify an appropriate measure of a subjective skill. What does critical thinking look like in practice? Examining it as an outcome, what are the specific and measurable items that can be described? While there are standardized assessments (Ennis, 1993; Whitten & Brahmasrene, 2011), they can be flawed in practice (Possin, 2013) or may measure elements that differ with an institutional definition (Stassen, Herrington, &

126

Henderson, 2011). Bardo (2009) predicted that the outcomes assessment model would move many general education courses and skills towards a standardized assessment measure, but it seems unlikely at this time that it would be a skill set best measured by a standardized exam. As a side note, it is important to note that while DSU is not currently seeking AACSB accreditation, the business program accreditor is a driving force in many business programs’ efforts to assess critical thinking. In fact, Cavaliere and Mayer (2012) suggested it is “one of the top ten most popular learning goals adopted by AACSB accredited business schools” (p. 362).

RUBRICS McLaughlin and Moore (2012) wrote that critical thinking could be integrated into the assessment of college-level writing through the use of rubrics. According to DETC (2014), a rubric is a “scoring tool” and “a set of written criteria linked to learning objectives that is used by the instructor to assess a student’s performance” on subjective assignments (p. 13). More specifically, Stevens and Levi (2005) wrote that rubrics “divide an assignment into its component parts and provide a detailed description of what constitutes acceptable or unacceptable performance for each of those parts” (p. 3). There are multiple exemplar rubrics to guide faculty in their assessment of critical thinking in specific assignments and for institutions to evaluate their instruction. For example, the Association of American Colleges and Universities offers their “VALUE Rubric” with the goal to “position learning at all undergraduate levels within a basic framework of expectations such that evidence of learning can be shared nationally through a common dialog and understanding of student success” (p.1). Additional links to sample rubrics are provided at the end of this chapter. Effective rubrics describe the desired skill or behavior and then provide a range of abilities or

 Developing an Assessment Program to Measure Critical Thinking

demonstrated characteristics about performance. For example, no/limited proficiency through to high proficiency with intermediary steps described for each set of skills. Stevens and Levi (2005) noted that the use of a rubric in and of itself can promote critical thinking among students. They wrote that “students may notice for themselves the patterns of recurring or ongoing improvement in their work,” specifically, improving their performance and “ability to think, reason, and make judgments based on an independent, accurate accumulation of data” obtained through rubric-based feedback (p. 21). They went on to describe the process of creating rubrics as one of reflecting on the desired performance from students, listing the specific learning objectives that should be demonstrated, grouping and labeling to develop the rubric dimensions, and application to set the performance parameters (Stevens & Levi, 2005). A detailed description of the mechanics of rubric creation are outside the scope of this discussion, but they were an important part of DSU’s assessment process.

DUNLAP-STONE UNIVERSITY In 2009, Dunlap-Stone University, a small, nationally accredited, for-profit, online college, sought to better articulate the skills and knowledge that its undergraduate business students were expected to gain through their studies at the college. At the time, the college offered a single undergraduate degree, Bachelor of International Trade Management, and had about 50 students working toward their degree. Originally a degree-completion program in its initial accreditation in 2003, the college had added general education courses to its catalog to offer the full set of courses required for the bachelor’s degree. The college roots its curriculum design process in Bloom’s (1956) taxonomy, and branded its business programs as ‘professionally significant.’ This positions the cur-

riculum in experiential learning models (Hamilton & Klebba, 2011), delivered via distance education best practices for student learning and engagement. DSU is accredited by the Accrediting Commission of the Distance Education and Training Council (DETC), recognized by both the US Department of Education and CHEA. DETC had required accredited schools to supply specific outcome measures in the past: those related to completion, progress through the course or program, and student satisfaction. Yet, with the requirement to create written and actionable plans and demonstrated data collection, the college began to develop a more robust assessment program. The educational leadership sought to define the skills and knowledge (and general education requirements outside the major) were meant to promote. These included communication skills, cultural awareness, an understanding of the scientific method, among others. According to President Dr. Donald N. Burton (2014), the goal was to encapsulate “what a well-educated, wellreasoned, well-rounded person knew” (personal communication), including the idea of thinking critically.

Evaluating the Accreditation Requirements The President, Chief Academic Officer, and volunteer faculty began constructing their assessment plan in 2009. The Chief Academic Officer is the author of this chapter and much of the process described is presented from her notes and documents during this process. The requirements to meet the accreditation mandate were reviewed. DETC’s Policy C.14 (Policy on Student Achievement and Satisfaction) was carefully reviewed to define and describe the elements required to demonstrate compliance. The policy was closely tied to Standard V (Student Achievement and Satisfaction) which stated “The institution verifies/demonstrates student success and satisfaction

127

 Developing an Assessment Program to Measure Critical Thinking

using valid and reliable assessment techniques.” Using C.14, the committee noted the following opportunities to assess student outcomes: 1. Outside independent assessment. Because the general makeup of the curriculum was novel (international trade management) there were no existing third party exams outside of a partner organization to demonstrate or compare DSU students to a normed average. Therefore this was judged not to be the best measure for DSU. 2. Professed student satisfaction. This was an area of data collection that was already in place and measured through student end of course surveys. DETC required schools to ask students three questions: 1. Did you achieve, or will you achieve upon completing your studies, the goals you had when you started this course or program? 2. Would you recommend these studies to a friend? 3. All things considered, where you satisfied with your studies with us. Prior to the outcomes assessment effort and since that time, DSU’s students regularly affirmed their satisfaction at rates above 95%, well above the required 75% satisfaction rate. 3. Completion rates. This measure became a normed benchmark, comparing institutional completion rates at similar institutions. Rather than an outcome, this was considered a part of a general review of an institution, though schools report this data every year. These measures aligned with the sections of Standard V: A. Achievement of Student Learning Outcomes and Benefits: The institution articulates student learning outcomes independent of delivery method, has a systematic and ongo-

128

ing process for assessing student learning, and provides documented evidence that shows that the results are used to improve programs, curricula, instruction, faculty development and services. B. Student Satisfaction: The institution documents that students are satisfied with the instructional and educational services provided. C. Progress through the Course or Program: The institution documents that students complete their studies at rates that compare favorably to those of courses/programs offered by similar DETC accredited institutions. The Policy went on to clarify that the institutions must provide “a formal written plan for regularly conducting student learning outcomes” and “documentation that it follows the plan.” The Policy offered guidance that when developing an assessment plan, an institution should consider “1) what it wants students to be able to do or know, 2) how it knows they can do it or know it, and 3) how it will use the information to improve teaching and learning.”

Developing a Plan The committee had its guidelines and a reasonable starting place. The goal was a written document to provide guidance to measure program and general education outcomes, student satisfaction, and completion. Meeting asynchronously and telephonically, the committee set out to write a position statement that would be the basis of the assessment plan. The Framework for Assessment at Dunlap-Stone University beginning with the assertion that “the courses [the college] offers within each of its programs must contribute to student learning and equip students with the skills necessary to succeed academically and profession-

 Developing an Assessment Program to Measure Critical Thinking

ally.” Building from a number of sources, but most prominently Palomba and Banta (1999), the statement sets forth an eight-step assessment process: 1. Development of Program Goals: Each new program is developed with input from stakeholders to determine the program objectives. Additionally, the general education core competencies are incorporated into each degree program at DSU. 2. Identification of Specific and Measurable Program Outcome/Core Competencies: Each program’s curriculum is developed with thoughtful consideration of the learning outcomes defined by subject matter experts and stakeholders in step 1. 3. Determine Evidence of Student Learning: Beyond the simple conferral of a passing grade, additional evidence is identified for each program objective/core competency. Evidence may be formative or summative, qualitative or quantitative. 4. Validation of the Metric: Through testing, stakeholder input, and quantitative evaluation, each metric must be evaluated to determine the degree to which it accurately assesses the program. 5. Collection and Analysis of Data: Assessment is an ongoing process, therefore the collection and analysis of the data sets collected from the assessment metrics should be ongoing and not a one-time event. A range of academic and administrative personnel are responsible for collecting data. 6. Interpret Results and Suggest Changes: Without thoughtful interpretation, assessment data cannot improve practices. Therefore on an annual basis, DSU’s curriculum team suggests program changes based on the assessment data. These changes can be to the assessment measure, curricular changes or changes to the learning objective/ core competency.

7. Implement Changes: Once any changes have been recommended, the DSU academic personnel implement the suggest changes. 8. Restart the Assessment Cycle: Once changes have been made, the cycle restarts. Assessment should be a continuous cycle of improvement, not episodic. The statement identified two types of data that could be collected and two levels of learning that could be assessed: qualitative and quantitative data and formative and summative assessment. Qualitative data is numerically based and is analyzed using statistical methods, such as grade point averages, grades earned by students within a class, exam scores, etc. (Stassen, Doherty, & Poe, 2001). Qualitative data is descriptive and not numerically-based. Qualitative data sets include writing samples, evaluations, portfolio assessment, observations, student self-assessment and performance-based assessment (Stassen, Doherty, & Poe, 2001). Qualitative assessments may be converted to quantitative data through the use of descriptive rubrics that allow the results to be classified within set boundaries. Formative assessment takes place while the students are learning, which summative assessment takes place after the learning event has taken place. The college compiled these position statements and was asked to clarify with more specifics. Again, the goal was not a philosophical document but to demonstrate a plan that could be operationalized. As is the trend in accreditation, they did not want to know what the administration said it would do, but rather evidence that it was being done.

Operationalizing the Plan For the purposes of this work as an exemplar case study, the process has been distilled to the college’s efforts to define critical thinking and develop formative and summative means of measuring student achievement throughout an undergraduate

129

 Developing an Assessment Program to Measure Critical Thinking

business curriculum. It is important to note that the process was much broader, encompassing all of the general education core competencies and program objectives.

Development of Program Goals The goal for the critical thinking core competency was implicit in the development of the general education core competencies. It began with articulating what critical thinking is. The senior academic leadership looked at other colleges’ general education outcomes and the literature, and developed a critical thinking definition by asserting that students should demonstrate a process or methodical reasoning when they think critically. Notes from these meetings highlighted the need for “research,” “understanding source materials,” “using evidence,” an “ability to infer and analyze.” The faculty and staff wanted students—most of whom were non-traditional adult learners who were well established in their careers—to improve and formalize their writing and demonstrate a greater level of information literacy and better use of sources. It was clear that those skills were clearly tied to their critical thinking skills. The committee centered on the core competency of “Critical Analysis and Reasoning,” defined as “the ability to arrive at reasoned and supportable conclusions using sound research techniques, including inference, analysis, and interpretation.”

Identification of Specific and Measurable Program Outcomes/ Core Competencies Knowing that these were skills that the college wanted to include within its assessment program, the second step was to identify a means to measure the current level of critical thinking. Peach, Mukherjee, and Hornyak (2007) suggested that there is no standard assessment for critical thinking, and that it is up to faculty to determine

130

the criteria to assess it. Others have noted the flaws in collegiate assessment exams that may be a measure for critical thinking skills (Possin, 2013). There were a number of factors that were evaluated as possible data sources to establish a baseline, listed in Table 1.

Student GPA Facione (2011 as cited by Shaw & Holmes, 2014) suggested that there is a correlation between student grade point averages and their critical thinking skills. Student GPA was included as a metric for review. Quarterly, anonymized reports of degree seeking students were generated and compared throughout the program. Program requirements included the need for enrolled, degree-seeking students to maintain a C-average in their major coursework and to maintain an overall 2.0 in the program to maintain satisfactory academic progress (SAP). While this was a non-specific measure of a student’s individual critical thinking skills, it was readily available data within the college.

Survey of Faculty The college then asked faculty to rank the skills of their students as an aggregate. This was done in an annual survey of instructional faculty. Faculty were provided the learning outcome definition of specific general education core competencies and asked to rate if the students’ performance agTable 1. Measures of Critical Thinking Skills Measure

Data Collected

Student G.P.A

Quarterly reports, anonymized student GPA for SAP

Faculty Appraisals

Faculty survey, collected annually

Student Discussions

Random samples, rubric assessments

Written work

Random samples, rubric assessments

 Developing an Assessment Program to Measure Critical Thinking

gregate was ‘basic,’ ‘developing,’ ‘proficient,’ or ‘advanced’ based on the performance definitions provided in Table 2. Provided with a definition from the general education outcomes, overall, faculty noted that the current student’s critical thinking skills were basic or developing rather than proficient or advanced even in the final courses of the program. While outliers existed among the student population, the overall skills were viewed as low.

Online Discussions and Written Work DSU offers a highly interactive, discussion-driven online environment. This is achieved in part by the requirement that students and faculty participate in asynchronous discussions five days per week. Lai (2012) described how participation in online discussion is a way to demonstrate critical thinking skills in higher education settings. She suggested that the active learning component of online discussions, coupled with the opportunities Table 2. Levels of performance definitions in faculty surveys Performance Level

Description

Basic

The students in this class demonstrate an understanding, but are not yet able to apply the core competency

Developing

The students in this class demonstrate increasing understanding of this core competency and begin to apply the competency to the course’s learning outcomes with assistance.

Proficient

The students in this class demonstrate a solid understanding of the core competency and are able to apply them to the course’s learning outcomes without assistance.

Advanced

The students in this class demonstrate exemplary performance and skillful application of the core competency within this course.

for reflection and constructivist learning derived from interactions with peers, was central in the development of critical thinking skills. Online discussions offered opportunities for faculty to determine how successful students were in the “performative, demonstrable aspects of critical thinking” using specific performance appraisals (Lai, 2012, p. 936). Effective discussion questions mirror sound instructions techniques and require students to “hypothesize, speculate, generalize, create, and evaluate while providing opportunities for identifying and solving problems” (Terry, 2012, p. 67). Yet, there was no set rubric for evaluating how well students were doing this. The committee recommended the creation of discussion rubrics centered on the application of readings, development of well-reasoned positions based on available information, and thoughtful exchanges of ideas. Most Dunlap-Stone University coursework in the business program utilized vague grading criteria that was not specific to the assignment. Capstone projects, or end of course papers were rarely accompanied by specific grading rubrics prior to the assessment process. This was an area of demonstrated need for the committee. Without a standardized performance measure, it was impossible to assess specific criteria evenly.

Determine Evidence of Student Learning The definition developed by the committee provided two major areas for consideration in written work: sound research and supportable conclusions. DSU had to align its assessment around these two major ideas and figure out how to measure them. This was done through the development and beta testing of rubrics. Rubrics were created in three major areas: online discussions, written assignments, and the capstone project for the business

131

 Developing an Assessment Program to Measure Critical Thinking

program. Each centered on the use of sources and evidence as well as the ability to demonstrate an analytical process.

Online Discussion Rubric The first question the committee had was how the critical thinking element could be assessed in the online discussions. They listed “using sources, including the text or readings,” “using examples and evidence,” and “making connections and drawing conclusions” as the criteria to include in the rubric. Table 3 presents an overview of these skills as the committee described them. The rubric itself has changed over time, but this was the initial vision from the committee. The committee suggested that quarterly, courses in all areas could be randomly assessed using the rubric. By examining a week’s worth of discussion post in representative classes, each student could be scored in their critical thinking skills from 1 (basic) to 4 (advanced) and a class composite could be drawn from that score. Qualitative examples of strong or weak skills could also be compiled as examples.

Written Assignment Rubric Similar to the online discussion rubric, written assignment grading criteria needed to be revised to reflect the critical thinking elements. And, similarly, once they were revised, random samples were collected to evaluate student learning on a regular basis. While each assignment is different, the critical thinking skills needed to be included in the grading criteria for major written works. For example, Table 4, a sample grading rubric for a short paper in a leadership class, includes specific criteria and allows the instructor to determine how to rate the student’s performance within each section. Alternately, Table 5 presents an example for a final paper in a lower-level general education course that relies on descriptions of different levels of performance to guide the instructor during grading.

Capstone Project Rubric Finally, the capstone project needed an effective evaluation tool that also included critical thinking

Table 3. Critical thinking discussion question rubric Skill Level

Description

Basic

The student uses insufficient examples or evidence. There are few or no appropriate citations or sources. The student does not make connections between ideas or show their application beyond a basic setting. The student may list elements, but does not apply them. The student’s engagement in the classroom discussion shows only a minimal understanding of the topic.

Developing

The student uses some examples and evidence, and clearly references at least some of the required reading. The student makes some connections between the ideas within the discussion, beginning to apply the concepts to their examples. The level of engagement meets the course requirements quantitatively (number of posts), but is still developing. The student has clearly read the assigned materials but still needs to demonstrate their analysis and application.

Proficient

The students uses ample examples and evidence, referencing the required reading and some outside sources. There are connections between ideas that are articulated not only in their narrative, but also in their engagement with their peers and their instructors, extrapolating key concepts and applying them to novel situations. There is evidence that the student is making inferences and analyzing the material and the situation.

Advanced

The student deftly uses examples that are novel and demonstrate that they have evaluated the key concepts from the reading and a significant number of other sources to examine alternate viewpoints or other facets of a topic. Sources are appropriate and ample and many are from outside the assigned readings. The student is engaged in a dialogue with their peers that demonstrates a thorough understanding of the topic and the ability to apply it to a range of situations. There is both qualitative and quantitative evidence of the student’s level of engagement and analysis.

132

 Developing an Assessment Program to Measure Critical Thinking

Table 4. Sample grading rubric that assigns point values for required elements Points Possible

Criteria

7

Paper includes the required elements:      • Describes the organization      • Describes the project, including the identification of a specific goal, measures for the goal, whether it is realistic or should be modified, the resources required, the timeline and the process to determine these elements.

6

Paper integrates core concepts, incorporates readings, and cites sources:      • Includes each of the five areas from the text      • Identifies challenges and solutions      • Includes references to class readings and outside sources      • Cites sources correctly and includes a bibliography

3

College-level academic writing:      • Contains few/no spelling or grammatical errors      • Is well formatted, professionally presented      • The paper is logical in its organization and flow and demonstrates analysis and thought

16

TOTAL POINTS

Table 5. Example of a rubric with different performance levels Area Assessed

0 Points

1 Point

2 Points

3 Points

Controlling Idea (Thesis Statement)

One or more of the thesis statement elements is weak or missing. The focus of the work is not presented.

One of the elements of the thesis statement is weak and does not accurately present the scope of the work.

Thesis statement includes a subject and focus, provides a strong foundation for the knowledge presented.

Thesis is clearly delineated including a subject and focus, and presents a strong direction for the work.

Conclusions Reached

A conclusion is not made from the evidence offered.

Some detailed conclusions are reached from the evidence offered.

Several detailed conclusions are reached from the evidence offered.

Numerous detailed conclusions are reached from the evidence offered.

Information Gathering

Information is gathered from course materials only, which are used sparingly if at all.

Information is gathered from limited course materials, with some outside sources.

Information is gathered from multiple appropriate sources.

Information is gathered from multiple appropriate sources and properly cited.

Outline, Mechanics, Usage, Grammar, Spelling [MUGS]

Weakly organized and 4 or more errors in MUGS.

Well organized, but demonstrates illogical sequencing, or structure errors or 2 to 3 errors in MUGS.

Well organized, but demonstrates illogical sequencing, or structure errors, and 1 error in MUGS.

Well organized, demonstrates logical sequencing and structure with no errors in MUGS.

Student Total

Other rubrics were similarly developed or edited to reflect critical thinking skills.

elements. The committee examined the capstone guidelines and sought to incorporate the core critical thinking skills it had outlined. A comparative performance matrix was developed to include a

range of program outcomes, including critical thinking for the capstone project in the Bachelor of Science in International Trade Management Program, reflected in Table 6.

133

 Developing an Assessment Program to Measure Critical Thinking

Table 6. Example of a capstone project rubric for a business plan Element

Beginning (1)

Developing (2)

Proficient (3)

Advanced (4)

Content and clarity

Does not fulfill minimal expectations of project as outlined. Content is not complete and not organized. No order or system of components in Business Plan.

Fulfills minimal expectations of project as outlined. Content is somewhat disorganized. Erratic order/system of components in Business Plan.

Fulfills minimal expectations of project as outlined. Content is somewhat disorganized. Erratic order/system of components in Business Plan.

Covers all aspects of the project as outlined. Content is very well organized. Business Plan is written in concise and systematic format with headings and subheadings.

Quality of information

No supporting research or inappropriate sources. Ineffective description of venture or business idea.

Minimum supporting research. Incomplete discussion of venture or business idea.

Plan supported by adequate research. Complete description of plan follows a logical progression.

Appropriate supporting research pertaining to plan. Complete and effective analysis and logic.

Professionalism

Assignment is not submitted on time or lacks professional formatting and syntax. Incomplete sentences, poor use of grammar and punctuation in over half of Plan. No supplemental or supporting materials (charts, graphs, tables) are included.

Assignment is submitted on time and is generally professional. Incomplete sentences, fair use of grammar and punctuation in one fourth to one half of Plan. No supplemental and supporting materials (charts, graphs, tables) are included.

Assignment is submitted on time and conveys professionalism. Complete sentences, correct use of grammar and punctuation. Some supplemental and supporting materials (charts, graphs, tables) are included.

Assignment is submitted on time and overall demonstrates professional formatting and syntax. Complete sentences, correct use of grammar and punctuation. Appropriate supplemental and supporting materials (charts, graphs, tables) are included.

Validation of the Metric Knowing this would be an iterative process, the committee used the literature as a means of validating the metrics. The sample sizes and intent of the research was not to create exact measures that could be generalized to other settings, but to learn about the college’s educational effectiveness and document a process for DETC. Yet, at face value each seemed reasonable. There were multiple measures in place to see how well the critical thinking skills the college sought to instill or develop were progressing over time.

Collection and Analysis of Data Data collection for the first year was a part of the learning process. The student GPA data was tabulated quarterly, and faculty surveys were collected once a year. While envisioned as a quarterly process, the in-depth use of the rubrics

134

as an assessment tool (rather than as a grading tool) became a challenge with limited personnel resources. A sampling of each took place on an ongoing basis, rather within fixed windows. The quantitative data was generated for comparable tables in an annual assessment report, but representative qualitative data was also included to demonstrate present levels within each of the measured objectives. To create a more robust data collection process, additional data, including student end of course evaluations, alumni surveys, and student testimonials were also included. As the assessment plan stated, “An abundance of evidence should be present to demonstrate that our goals are being met.”

Interpret Results and Suggest Changes The abundance of evidence was something that the committee could not fully anticipate prior to data collection. The committee began with the

 Developing an Assessment Program to Measure Critical Thinking

DETC mandated assessment data as a big-picture snapshot about the overall institutional success. Students were expected to respond favorably to the mandated questions at rates higher than 75%. Students were expected to maintain a GPA over 2.0. Faculty were expected to rate students higher over time in their critical thinking skills. And the baseline data collected through the rubrics should improve over time as the expectations were better communicated to students and opportunities to coach students in those areas were identified. With each compilation of data, it was understood that the information was useless if there was not a corresponding interpretive statement and recommendations for changes. The committee identified three major areas where changes could take place: changes to program curriculum to develop core competencies through new courses, changes to course materials to teach and provide opportunities to practice emerging skills, and the development of additional resources to aid struggling students.

Implement Changes The first assessment cycle simply established the measures and began the data collection process. There was no data to compare it to as a whole, therefore there were few recommendations from the first cycle beyond the rubric changes. Accordingly, few major changes took place during the first assessment cycle. Instructors were trained to use the rubrics and more thoughtfully engage their students regarding a range of skills articulated in the core competencies, including critical thinking. Subsequent cycles have produced other changes. From the development of a critical thinking course requirement for students enrolling in associate’s degree programs, to the development of more robust library resources, and integration of the use of those tools in low-stakes assignments, there have been a number of positive changes.

Each is looked upon as one more step toward providing a better educational environment for DSU’s students.

Restart the Assessment Cycle The assessment process is not a one-time report or an episodic process. It is an ongoing cycle that restarts itself after each set of changes. The next step was to determine if the goals were still appropriate, or if they needed to change based on the data collected. This could then send revisions through the whole process. The object is to ask the questions and remain open to what the data says, rather than our expectations of how things are.

Creating a Culture of Assessment The committee did not set out to fundamentally change how the college looked at how it educated students. There was no underlying goal of transformative change or a culture shift. However, the accreditation mandates did change Dunlap-Stone University. Rather than assuming that robust data collection or meaningful institutional assessments were outside the scope of the college’s finite resources, the committee looked at what it wanted to know and how it could reasonably be assessed. By asking what outcomes were most important, the college stopped assuming their students were well-prepared, but instead asked how they could show that they were. Data collection was no longer seen as a chore, but something that could be an everyday approach to making sure DSU was meeting its missing and delivering the product that its students expected. Tasks that were intuitive, like asking for student feedback and providing grading guidelines to faculty, became a part of a larger conversation. Since that time, the assessment cycle of the business programs at the college has been praised by accreditation evaluators as a model program.

135

 Developing an Assessment Program to Measure Critical Thinking

SOLUTIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS The difficulties of assessing critical thinking are well documented (Bers, 2005; Brookfield, 1997; Coleman, Mason, & Steagall, 2012; Ralston & Bays, 2013) and a practical approach from this chapter may present a model of a process to inform practitioners in diverse settings. The easiest means to measure critical thinking skills was to include rating items in major student works across the major and general education curriculum. Assigning values to critical thinking tasks in assignment rubrics was an important means of building the skills into the whole curriculum. DSU offered both formative and summative assignments in its courses and programs. Weekly discussions requiring student participation five days per week, as well as weekly written assignments offer students the opportunity to engage in low-stakes, less formal opportunities to hone their communication and critical thinking skills by presenting their ideas and engaging in a dialogue with their peers and their instructor. But larger assignments, such as capstone papers or portfolios offered a place to formally assess critical thinking skills. Three major rubrics were developed as the foundation for the assessment of critical thinking skills. The first was a discussion question rubric. The second was a written assignment rubric. The third was the development of a capstone project rubric. Training for faculty in their use was incorporated into the faculty training program. The specifics of each were meant to provide multiple measures (often incorporating multiple outcomes) that represented the core values and mission of the college. They are not intended to be exemplars appropriate for every setting, but a place to begin a conversation about what will work in other settings. Finally, to incorporate the most varied input and range of ideas, it was important to have a mix of faculty and administrative input into the process. The work is scholarly in nature, requiring a high level of expertise, with clear goals and

136

expectations, that needs to be documented and disseminated (Diamond, 2008). Involving faculty was critical to an assessment process that worked and was valued.

FUTURE TRENDS If the metrics tied to gainful employment and college costs are any indication, the higher education space is going to be more outcomes and metrics driven. The need to assess program outcomes and objectives in a concrete manner that demonstrates a culture of evidence is only going to become more profound. Regional accreditors may not be as prescriptive as DETC as to the types of data that should be collected, but seem to err on the side of documentation and data. Written plans and publically accessible reports, and comparative metrics across similar institutions are likely as outcome assessment moves from the realm of institutional improvement into that of consumer protection.

CONCLUSION This chapter is a case study describing how one institution addressed accreditation mandates to develop an assessment program, using critical thinking outcomes to illustrate the process. Beginning with an evaluation of what was required to comply with the accreditation changes, the chapter shows the process from the development of an assessment program to the execution of the first cycle. This included defining critical thinking, developing a program to measure the skills, adding descriptive rubrics to the process, and creating a culture shift within the organization that was based on an abundance of evidence. The examples illustrate one approach that may help others begin a dialogue about what assessment of critical thinking (or other skills) might look like at their institution.

 Developing an Assessment Program to Measure Critical Thinking

REFERENCES Accrediting Commission of the Distance Education and Training Council. (2014). Glossary. In Accreditation handbook. Washington, DC: Distance Education Training Council.

Bissell, A. N., & Lemons, P. P. (2006, January). A new method for assessing critical thinking in the classroom. Bioscience, 56(1), 66–72. doi:10.1641/0006-3568(2006)056[0066:ANMF AC]2.0.CO;2

Angelo, T. A. (1995). Reassessing and defining assessment. AAHE Bulletin, 48(2), 7–9.

Bresciani, M. J. (2006). Outcomes-based academic and co-curricular program review. Sterling, VA: Stylus.

Association of American Colleges and Universities. (n.d.). Critical thinking VALUE rubric. Retrieved from http://www.aacu.org/value/rubrics/ pdf/CriticalThinking.pdf

Brookfield, S. D. (1997). Assessing critical thinking. In Assessing adult learning in diverse settings (pp. 17–29). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Bardo, J. W. (2009). The impact of the changing climate for accreditation on the individual college or university: Five trends and their implications. In P. M. O’Brien (Ed.), Accreditation: Assuring and enhancing quality (pp. 47–58). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. doi:10.1002/he.334 Behar-Horenstein, L. S., & Niu, L. (2011, February). Teaching critical thinking skills in higher education: A review of the literature. Journal of College Teaching & Learning, 8(2), 25–42. Benjamin, E. (1994, July/August). From accreditation to regulation: The decline of academic autonomy in higher education. Academe, 80(4), 34–36. doi:10.2307/40250640 Bennett, D. L., Lucchesi, A. R., & Vedder, R. K. (2010, July). For-profit higher education: Growth, innovation and regulation [White paper]. Retrieved from Center for College Affordability and Productivity: http://www.centerforcollegeaffordability.org/uploads/ForProfit_HigherEd.pdf Bers, T. (2005). Assessing critical thinking in community colleges. In C. M. McMahon (Ed.), Critical thinking: Unfinished business (pp. 15–25). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Cavaliere, F., & Mayer, B. W. (2012). Flooding the zone: A ten-point approach to assessing critical thinking as a part of the AACSB accreditation process. Education, 133(2), 361–366. Coleman, B. J., Mason, P., & Steagall, J. W. (2012, July/August). Does a business curriculum develop or filter critical thinking? American Journal of Business Education, 5(4), 412–416. Connors, P. (2008). Assessing written evidence of critical thinking using an analytic rubric. Journal of Nutrition Education and Behavior, 40(3), 193–194. doi:10.1016/j.jneb.2008.01.014 PMID:18457791 Creswell, J. W. (2007). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among the five approaches (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Davenport, C. A. (2001). How frequently should accreditation standards change? In J. L. Ratcliff, E. S. Lubinescu, & M. A. Gaffney (Eds.), How accreditation influences assessment (pp. 67–82). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Dewey, J. (1933). How we think: A restatement of the relation of reflective thinking to the educative process. Boston, MA: D.C. Health.

137

 Developing an Assessment Program to Measure Critical Thinking

Diamond, R. M. (2008). Designing and assessing courses and curricula: A practical guide (3rd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Driscoll, A., & Cordero de Noriega, D. (Eds.). (2006). Taking ownership of accreditation: Assessment processes that promote institutional improvement and faculty engagement. Sterling, VA: Stylus. Eaton, J. S. (2010, September/October). Accreditation and the federal future of higher education. Academe, 96(5), 21–24. Eaton, J. S., Fryshman, B., Hope, S., Scanlon, E., & Crow, S. (2005, May/June). Disclosure and damage: Can accreditation provide one without the other? Change, 37(3), 42–49. doi:10.3200/ CHNG.37.3.42-49 Ennis, R. H. (1993, Summer). Critical thinking assessment. Theory into Practice, 32(3), 179–186. doi:10.1080/00405849309543594 Graca, T. J. (2009). Accreditation’s legal landscape. Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 33(8), 642–649. doi:10.1080/10668920903034925 Hamilton, J. G., & Klebba, J. M. (2011, December). Experiential learning: A course design process for critical thinking. American Journal of Business Education, 4(12). Kaplin, W. A., & Lee, B. A. (2007). The law of higher education (4th ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Keshavarz, M. (2011). Measuring course learning outcomes. Journal of Learning Design, 4(4). doi:10.5204/jld.v4i4.84 Lai, K. (2012, December). Assessing participation skills: Online discussions with peers. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 37(8), 933–947. doi:10.1080/02602938.2011.590878

138

Leimer, C. (2011, April). Wave of the future? Integrating IR, outcomes assessment, planning, program review, and accreditation. Paper presented at the Western Association of Schools and Colleges, San Francisco, CA. Retrieved from http://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED521064 Leppa, C. J. (2004). Assessing student critical thinking through online discussions. Nurse Educator, 29(4), 156–160. doi:10.1097/00006223200407000-00011 PMID:15273595 Lubinescu, E. S., Ratcliff, J. L., & Gaffney, M. A. (2001). Two continuums collide: Accreditation and assessment. In J. L. Ratcliff, E. S. Lubinescu, & M. A. Gaffney (Eds.), How accreditation influences assessment (pp. 5–21). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. McLaughlin, F., & Moore, M. (2012). Integrating critical thinking into the assessment of college writing. Teaching English in the Two-Year College, 40(2), 145–162. McNeil, R. C. (2011, Fall). A program evaluation model: Using Bloom’s taxonomy to identify outcome indicators in outcomes-based program evaluations. MPAEA Journal of Adult Education, 40(2), 24–29. Minter, M. K. (2010, August). Critical thinking concept reconstructed. Contemporary Issues in Education Research, 3(8), 33–42. Nelson, L. A. (2011, June 3). Your guide to gainful employment. Inside Higher Ed. Retrieved from http://www.insidehighered.com Office of Outcomes Assessment, University of Maryland University College. (2006, Spring). Critical thinking as a core academic skill: A review of the literature. University of Maryland University College, 1-13.

 Developing an Assessment Program to Measure Critical Thinking

Palomba, C. A., & Banta, T. W. (1999). Assessment essentials: Planning, implementing, and improving assessment in higher education. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Stassen, M., Herrington, A., & Henderson, L. (2011). Defining critical thinking in higher education: Determining assessment fit. To Improve the Academy, 30, 126-141.

Peach, B. E., Mukherjee, A., & Hornyak, M. (2007, July/August). Assessing critical thinking: A college’s journey and lessons learned. Journal of Education for Business, 82(6), 313–320. doi:10.3200/JOEB.82.6.313-320

Stevens, D. D., & Levi, A. J. (2005). Introduction to rubrics: An assessment tool to save grading time, convey effective feedback, and promote student learning. Sterling, VA: Stylus.

Pelesh, M. L. (2010). Markets, regulation and performance in higher education. In G. C. Hentschke, V. M. Lechuga, & W. G. Tierney (Eds.), For-profit colleges and universities: Their markets, regulation, performance and place in higher education (pp. 91–107). Sterling, VA: Stylus. Possin, K. (2013, January-February). A fatal flaw in the collegiate learning assessment test. Assessment Update, 25(1), 8–12. Ralston, P. A., & Bays, C. L. (2013, Fall). Enhancing critical thinking across the undergraduate experience: An exemplar from engineering. American Journal of Engineering Education, 4(2), 119–126. Riggs, L. W., & Hellyer-Riggs, S. (2014). Development and motivation in/for critical thinking. Journal of College Teaching & Learning, 11(1). Shaw, C. S., & Holmes, K. E. (2014, May). Critical thinking and online supplemental instruction: A case study. Learning Assistance Review, 19(1), 99–119. Stake, R. E. (1995). The art of case study research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Stassen, M., Doherty, K., & Poe, M. (2001). Program-based review and assessment: Tools and techniques for Program Improvement. Retrieved from http://www.umass.edu/oapa/publications/ online_handbooks/program_based.pdf

Swail, W. S., & Kampits, E. (2001). Distance education and accreditation. In J. L. Ratcliff, E. S. Lubinescu, & M. A. Gaffney (Eds.), How accreditation influences assessment (pp. 35–48). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Taras, M. (2005, December). Assessment-summative and formative--some theoretical reflections. British Journal of Educational Studies, 53(4), 466–478. doi:10.1111/j.14678527.2005.00307.x Terry, D. R. (2012). Assessing critical-thinking using articles from the popular press. Journal of College Science Teaching, 42(1), 66–70. Thomas, D. R. (2006, June). A general inductive approach for analyzing qualitative evaluation data. The American Journal of Evaluation, 27(2), 237–246. doi:10.1177/1098214005283748 Whitten, D., & Brahmasrene, T. (2011). Predictors of critical thinking skills of incoming business students. Academy of Educational Leadership Journal, 15(1), 1–13. Wood, A. L. (2006). Demystifying accreditation: Action plans for a national or regional accreditation. Innovative Higher Education, 31(1), 43–62. doi:10.1007/s10755-006-9008-6 Woodside, A. G. (2010). Case study research theory, methods, practice. Bingley, U.K.: Emerald Group.

139

 Developing an Assessment Program to Measure Critical Thinking

Yin, R. K. (2009). Case study research: Design and methods (4th ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Sage.

ADDITIONAL READING Barak, M., & Yehudit, J. (2009, October). Enhancing higher order thinking skills among inservice science teachers via embedded assessment. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 20(5), 459–474. doi:10.1007/s10972-009-9141-z Becher, M. (2013, November). Instruction coordinators and higher education accreditation: A study of awareness and assessment documentation use. Journal of Academic Librarianship, 39(6), 573–581. doi:10.1016/j.acalib.2013.04.003 Brodie, P., & Irving, K. (2007, February). Assessment in work-based learning: Investigating a pedagogical approach to enhance student learning. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 32(1), 11–19. doi:10.1080/02602930600848218 Bullen, M. (1998, Fall). Participation and critical thinking in online university distance education. Journal of Distance Education, 13(2), 1–32. DeLuca, C., & Bellara, A. (2013, September). The current state of assessment education: Aligning policy, standards, and teacher curriculum. Journal of Teacher Education, 64(4), 356–372. doi:10.1177/0022487113488144 Drisco, J. W. (2014, Summer). Competencies and their assessment. Journal of Social Work Education, 50(3), 414–426. Dunn, K. E., Rakes, G. C., & Rakes, T. A. (2014, May). Influence of academic self-regulation, critical thinking, and age on online graduate students’ academic help-seeking. Distance Education, 35(1), 75–89. doi:10.1080/01587919.20 14.891426

140

Fletcher, R., Meyer, L., Anderson, H., Johnston, P., & Rees, M. (2012, July). Faculty and Students Conceptions of Assessment in Higher Education. Higher Education, 64(1), 119–133. doi:10.1007/ s10734-011-9484-1 Hardy, K., & Meyer-Griffith, K. (2012, October). Meeting accreditation requirements: Are you serving distance learners? Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 16(5), 7–18. Hassanien, A. (2007, July). A qualitative student evaluation of group learning in higher education. Higher Education in Europe, 32(2/3), 135–150. doi:10.1080/03797720701840633 Lai, K. (2012, December). Assessing participation skills: Online discussions with peers. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 37(8), 933–947. doi:10.1080/02602938.2011.590878 Macpherson, K., & Owen, K. (2010, January). Assessment of critical thinking ability in medical students. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 35(1), 41–54. doi:10.1080/02602930802475471 Mjoset, L. (2006). A case study of a case study: Strategies of generalization and specification in the study of Israel as a single case. International Sociology, 21(5), 735–766. doi:10.1177/0268580906067838 Moskal, P., Ellis, T., & Thomas, K. (2008, June). Summary of assessment in higher education and the management of student-learning data. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 7(2), 269–278. doi:10.5465/AMLE.2008.32712624 Oliver, C. (1991). Strategic responses to institutional processes. Academy of Management Review, 16(1), 145–179.

 Developing an Assessment Program to Measure Critical Thinking

Rezaee, M., Farahian, M., & Ahmadi, A. M. (2010, May). Critical thinking in higher education: Unfulfilled expectations. BRAIN: Broad Research in Artificial Intelligence & Neuroscience, 3(2), 64–73. Roska, J., & Arum, R. (2011, March/April). The state of undergraduate learning. Change, 43(2), 35–38. doi:10.1080/00091383.2011.556992 Scanlon, E., & McComis, M. S. (2010). Accreditation and accountability: The role of for-profit education and national accrediting agencies. In G. C. Hentschke, V. M. Lechuga, and & W. G. Tierney (Eds.), For-profit colleges and universities: Their markets, regulation, performance, and place in higher education (pp. 109-144). Sterling, VA: Stylus. Secolsky, C., & Denison, D. B. (2011). Handbook on measurement, assessment, and evaluation in higher education. Retrieved from ERIC Database. Smith, G. F. (2014, June). Assessing business student thinking skills. Journal of Management Education, 38(3), 384–411. doi:10.1177/1052562913489028 Stedman, N. L., & Adams, B. L. (2012, June). Identifying faculty’s knowledge of critical thinking concepts and perceptions of critical thinking instruction in higher education. NACTA Journal, 56(2), 9–14. Wehlburg, C. M. (2013, March/April). ’Just right’ outcomes assessment: A fable for higher education. Assessment Update, 25(2), 1–16.

Yiamouyiannis, A., Bower, G. G., Williams, J., Gentile, D., & Alderman, H. (2013, October). Sport management education: Accreditation, accountability, and direct learning outcome assessments. Sport Management Education Journal (Human Kinetics), 7(1).

KEY TERMS AND DEFINITIONS Accreditation: The self-study and peer-review process that assures institutional quality in the United States. The process is managed through an assessment of how well institutions adhere to standards of accreditation and policies established by each accrediting body. Assessment: An ongoing process aimed at understanding and improving student learning by collecting data and deriving institutional improvement processes as a result. Critical Thinking: The ability to arrive at reasoned and supportable conclusions using sound research techniques, including inference, analysis, and interpretation. Outcome: The knowledge, skills, abilities, or attitudes that a student is expected to have achieved after completing a course or program. Rubric: A scoring tool that includes written criteria linked to learning objectives to assess performance.

141

142

Chapter 7

University Teachers’ Interactions with Their Online Students at an Australian University Shamsul Arifeen Khan Mamun University of Southern Queensland, Australia P. A. Danaher University of Southern Queensland, Australia Mohammad Mafizur Rahman University of Southern Queensland, Australia

ABSTRACT This chapter focuses on teacher-student interactions in the context of the use of digital technologies for online teaching and learning in an Australian university using thematic analysis and focus group discussion data. Cotemporary scholars agree that the factors influencing teacher–student interactions in online environments are diverse and multiple and are framed by a complex set of historically grounded and socially mediated forces. One potentially fruitful way to interrogate these factors and forces is to draw on aspects of affordance theory, by examining the kinds of relationships that are (and are not) afforded by particular digital technologies in those online environments. More broadly, affordance theory emerges as a useful conceptual lens for understanding the influences on and the impacts of teacher– student interactions using digital technologies in online environments. Those influences and impacts in turn are crucial to (re-)visioning digital futures in the context of students’ learning outcomes in tertiary education, and to advancing critical thinking in higher education.

INTRODUCTION Online teaching and learning in higher education is expanding globally, including Australia. The driving forces behind the popularity of online

learning are both economic and social. The main economic force is online education is cheaper compared to the face-to-face (F2F) education (Martínez-Caro, 2011) and the main social force is widening access to or participation in higher

DOI: 10.4018/978-1-4666-8411-9.ch007

Copyright © 2015, IGI Global. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.

 University Teachers’ Interactions with Their Online Students

education and higher education completion rate (Bolliger & Wasilik, 2009; OECD, 2005). However, economic and social forces are interlinked with each other. Because of cheaper education, demand for education is increasing and on the other hand, to the met the demand more and more higher education institutions are supplying of online degree program. Further to that, in Australia the profit motive also has promoted the expansion over the last twenty years (Norton, 2012). For example, Open University of Australia runs as a for-profit business (Norton, 2012). As in tertiary higher education, critical thinking is an important learning outcome (Stassen, Herrington, & Henderson 2009), where interaction between students and teachers play an important role. The interaction between student-teacher has taken a new dimension in the context of online teaching and learning context. The main objective of this chapter is to under the critical issue(s) from the perspective of academics in an Australian university. The motivation of this study is in the coming day, the increasing numbers of higher education institutions’ will be engaged in online education. This will create further demand for online education according to the economic law - Say’s law of market. The law first appeared in a book entitled ‘General Theory of Employment, Interest, and Money’ written by John Maynard Keynes (Hollander, 1987). The law state that ‘Supply creates its own demand’. It means that while any education product is produced in a society, a consumer finds out the product. Over the next decade, F2F academic degree program may be fading away and the demand for online academic degree program will be rising (Mann & Hennebery, 2014). Consequently, it is imperative to investigate the critical issue entailing the interaction between teachers and students. Online education is a process and using the process students and teachers interact with each other via Internet-based learning technologies (Curran, 2008). To keep the Internet-based education technology higher education institutions are

investing heavily on information and communication technology (ICT). So that, the state-of-the-art ICT as a medium of instruction can facilitates the interaction between the academics and students in the online teaching and learning process. The tremendous achievements in ICT such as Broadband Internet has further have facilitated the probability of expansion of online education in the last two decades. The use of various types of ICT tools and services in teaching and learning process has become so widespread that a technology biased education system has been in place globally (Isman, 2006; Korucu & Alkan, 2011). Though such techno-biased education may marginalise the students coming from the low-socioeconomic backgrounds; in the coming years, the growth of technology-based degree program continued to be an accepted mode of education globally. In the context of given global changing higher education scenario, the Australian Government has promulgated its’ Digital Future Vision 2020, including tertiary higher education too. The vision is to expand online education opportunity by the year 2020 (Department of Broadband Communications and the Digital Economy, 2011). The policy goal is: By 2020, Australian schools, TAFEs, universities and higher education institutions will have the connectivity to develop and collaborate on innovate and flexible educational services and resources to extend online learning resources. (Department of Broadband Communications and the Digital Economy, 2011 p. 5)

AN OVERVIEW Australia in 2020 ‘University’ and ‘higher education’ are synonymous literately; but university is a particular type of higher education enterprise that provides higher education. In Australia, there are 39 full universi-

143

 University Teachers’ Interactions with Their Online Students

ties except the Open University of Australia as per the year 2014 (Australia’s Universities, 2014). The distributions of these universities are as follows: New South Wales has 10, Victoria has eight, Queensland has 8, South Australia has 3, Western Australia has 5, National, Tasmania and Northern Territory has 1 each, and Australian Capital Territory has two universities. The other higher education enterprises are colleges, institutions, and schools authorized by the Australian government that comply with the Australian Higher Education Qualification Framework (Department of Industry, Innovation, Science, Research and Tertiary Education, 2012). Australian universities offer a range of undergraduate and post-graduate degree programs through different modes of education: full-time or part-time. In addition, some universities offer degree programs which associate full-time study with periods of employment. These programs cover many disciplines such as the humanities, social sciences, education, physical and life sciences, mathematics, information technology, visual arts, engineering, health sciences, commerce, economics, law and agriculture. The Australian government’s vision is Australia will be a digital economy by the year 2020 and, with the end in view the Australian government has been expanding National Broadband Network (NBN) providing high speed Broadband Internet facilities to one hundred percent homes, education institutions, and businesses across the Australia (Department of Broadband Communications and the Digital Economy, 2013). It is expected that the expanded Broadband Internet will ‘turbocharge’ the economy, including higher education. International experiences show that the increased use of online education increases the availability of education services, and thus increase participation rates in higher education (Department of Broadband Communications and the Digital Economy, 2011). In Australia, the data shows that 81 percent of higher education students were studying internally (on-campus), 12 percent were studying exter-

144

nally and the remaining 7 percent were studying through internally and externally (multimodal) programs by the year 2010 (Austrlian Bureau of Statistics, 2012). By the year 2013, participation rate in higher education increased by 40 percent (Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2013). Overall, the enrolment for online distance education has never fallen below 5 percent of total enrolments (Norton, 2012). Norton (2012) has showed that since 1970 the proportion of online students enrolled for online education increased steadily with a dip between 1990 and 2000, and 2009 and 2010. This was due to the decreasing international student enrolment for off-campus courses (Norton, 2012). On the other hand, the rapid rise of overall growth of off-campus higher education was due to the improved education technology such as Internet, via which students have been capable of accessing their desired academic lessons avoiding delays. Technological innovation made the off-campus attractive to the potential students; consequently, students with substantial work and family responsibility became interested in university degree course, overall demand for off-campus higher education increased (ibid). In order to keep the interests uphold the universities have been installing state-of-the-art technological devices and software. University-sponsored eLearning environments started growing rapidly based on the state-of-theart technology. For instance, in the University of Southern Queensland, one of the sixteen regional universities, has installed the eLearning environments that include: The USQ Study Desk, ePortolio, Virtual classrooms, Presentation capture, Electronic assignment submission, Plagiarism, Content authoring, Materials repository, Video conferencing, Media services, Copyright, and Bring Your Own Devices. Teachers and students have been using the diverse types of devices and services for learning, including institution-sponsored software and social software like Facebook, Twitter, YouTube etc. (Murphy et al. 2013). As a result, unlike tradition

 University Teachers’ Interactions with Their Online Students

teaching-learning process, where communication and interaction between teachers and students take place F2F inside a class room, online teachinglearning process engage teachers and students in a communication that works anywhere anytime (Murphy et al., 2013).

THE ISSUE The introduction of eLearning environment has made a transition from traditional class-roombased teaching to technology-based teaching, and the transition has generated several changes, including changes in learning environments. Teachers’ traditional role in the class-room is changed (Prestridge, 2012). The ever-increasing uses of various technologies have changed the traditional nature of works of a teacher. The most notable change is in teaching method. Though the implementation of eLearning environment in the classroom has increased co-operative learning and student cantered discussion (Smeets et al., 1999), each teacher has started working additional work which is attributed to the use of ICT in his or her work place and/ or beyond his or her work place. The lists of ICT-related works involves learning new software application and communication techniques with students on diverse learning spaces effectively, specifically preparing digital contents for teaching students online, F2F and both. Further to this, there is a daily communication with the students by Email. The extended ICT-related works has created a requirement for new types of skill for teachers in either ICT which is very different from teaching students online or F2F (Smeets et al., 1999). Studies suggest that, currently, the excessive work pressure (or in other words ‘over-workload’) of the teaching staff has been a major issue (Winter et al., 2000). Studies further suggest that due to the changing working climate of teaching modalities such as web-based learning, flexible delivery and research responsibilities, the teacher’s perception

of their working hours has been changed; and they (teachers) have started labelling the extended work as a ‘excessive work pressure’ (Winter & Sarorros, 2002). Such labelling is a demonstration of negative (demotivating) work environment in the universities, which might be attributed to the increasing use of educational technology (or ICT) in teaching and learning Therefore, in the context of the use of ICT in teaching and learning process, a contesting working environment has emerged in universities. In one hand, education policy makers and entrepreneurs are expanding online education opportunities; on the other hand, academics are feeling the pinch of increasing work pressure. As a result, it has become an imperative to understand academics’ post-ant experience of using ICT in teaching student online (Xu & Meyer, 2007). The reason is academics (teaching) staffs play the main role of teaching and the non-teaching staffs plays the main role supporting the teaching staffs and students. These two mutually exclusive groups are not substitutable in a university. Unless, satisfactory working conditions are not created for the teaching staffs, students’ learning outcome may be suffered adversely (Bolliger & Wasilik, 2009); consequently, the expansion of online education opportunities may be problematic. In the past couples of years, some studies have explored barriers or challenges faced by academics for teaching students online. These studies have reflected predominantly academics’ perceptions in the USA and a few in the Malaysia (e.g. Berge, 1998; Bolliger & Wasilik, 2009; Churchill et al., 2012; Jamian et al., 2011). To our best of knowledge, a comprehensive study is lacking in Australia.

BACKGROUND In the early 2012, Australian Government had declared collaborative research network (CRN) grants for selected regional universities to de-

145

 University Teachers’ Interactions with Their Online Students

velop research capacity of the regional universities. One successful grant recipient has been the University of Southern Australia (USQ). Under the management of USQ, the Australian Digital Futures Institute has initiated a project that aim at identifying the effects of the use of ICT on teaching and learning in the Australian universities. This research is an initiative of the project. The research of such initiatives was as follows. First, the Australian government has taken initiative to expand online education based on the potentiality of National Broadband Network (NBN) facilities (Department of Broadband Communications & the Digital Economy 2011). The expansion of online education depends upon academic’s satisfaction level and other related attributes. Therefore, understanding the challenges academics might experience while teaching students online has become inevitable. It is already stated that, academic’s satisfaction, along with other related attributes are important factors for expansion of online education opportunities successfully (Northrup 1997; Sloan Consortium, 2002 Cited in Bolliger & Wasilik, 2009, p.104).

Finally, as academics are believed to digital immigrant (Albion, Maroulis, & Jamieson, 2010), the regular auditing the effects of the use of ICTs will assist the university management to make the best use of technology in education (Albion, Maroulis, & Jamieson-Proctor, 2010).

DEFINITIONS AND SCOPE OF THE STUDY Nowadays, various types of states-of-the art information and telecommunication devices/tools such as iPad, iPod, computer server, laptop computer, tablet PC, pocket phones, smart phones, portable media player, digital media receiver and services such as broadband internet, WiMAX are used in education. Moreover, institutional sponsored software known as learning system management (LMS) are in used too. A typical LMS is presented in the Figure 1. LMS refers to a group of software designed to provide a range of administrative and pedagogical services related to formal education setting (OECD, 2005). Other terms are used to describe

Figure 1. eLearning environments at the USQ (Adapted from www.usq.edu.au)

146

 University Teachers’ Interactions with Their Online Students

the systems: virtual learning environments, and the course management systems. The institutionlisted learning management system differs from country to country and institution to institution. A portal refers to a single gateway to a range of academic and administrative information/services, typically with single sign-on. Common functionality includes searching the course catalogue, course registration, access to assessment results, library access and course syllabus. Our observation is that the most commonly used software in the Australia universities are Study Desk, Moodle, and Blackboard Collaborate. Apart from institutional software, Social Software like Facebook, Twitter, Skype, SharePoint etc. are used. This software is used in teaching and learning unofficially in the sense that institution does not sponsor them, this software is free of charge. In this paper, we define ICT narrowly that includes ICT applications only. This application encompasses both official and non-official teaching and learning management software like Moodle, Backboard Collaborator, E-mail, Blog that are in used by the university faculties mandatorily. Previous studies have defined ICT in different ways in their studies. For instance, Jamin, Jalil, & Krauss (2011) have defined ICT in terms of two objects: tools and applications in the context of Malaysian universities. Meyer (2012) has defined ICT in the context of applications, which cover a variety of web-based approaches - online discussions, group projects, and university’s learning management system. Following Meyer (2012), we have defined ICT as the application of university sponsored learning management system, including social software. Furthermore, a few studies have used ICTs to support teaching and learning is referred as e-learning or online learning or mobile learning. Hence the concepts of eLearning and online learning are used interchangeably (Martínez-Caro,

2011). Following the previous study, we have used the ‘online teaching’ and ‘eLearning’ interchangeably. Further, by the term ‘online teaching’ this study includes fully online, mixed online and trivial online presence as per OECD definition (OECD 2005, p.21). For this research, University of Southern Queensland (USQ) is selected as a case because the current project is sponsored by the project office. Moreover, the USQ is recognised as a leader in online teaching already (Albion, Maroulis, & Jamieson, 2010). USQ has a very good reputation worldwide for its online mode of teaching and learning. In cognition of its role, in distance education, USQ won Prize of Excellence in 1999 from the Executive Committee of the International Council for Open and Distance Education (ICDE), which is based in Oslo, Norway (Reushle & McDonald, 2000). Therefore, we believe that the USQ is the good place to study teacher’s experiences in teaching students online.

THEORETICAL DISCUSSION Universities must be considered multi-product enterprises, typically produce three types of outputs: teaching, research and services (Cohn & Cooper, 2004). To produce the teaching output, academics (only teaching staff) interact with the students either F2F or online or both F2F and online. The interactions between the academics and the students that take place on different eLearning environments generate a new technological relationship between inputs and outputs. Here the inputs are students, academics, non-academic staffs, and educational consumables; and the outputs are graduate students (Cohn & Copper, 2004). In this digital age, the differential relationship is attributed to the university-specific resources, including eLearning environment. Education economists

147

 University Teachers’ Interactions with Their Online Students

study the technological relationship by applying the theoretical framework of production and cost borrowed from the core discipline of economics. Because the cost function entails all information of the technological relationships between inputs and outputs (Cohn & Cooper, 2004). In this study, we explore the relationship between the inputs and intermediaries i.e. LMS rather than outputs. The intermediaries contribute to the final teaching output i.e. graduates. This is a relationship between human and LMS which is an object. There are two non-contesting theories to study the interaction between the academics and the LMS in a natural setting. These two theories are: (a) Gibson’s affordance theory and (b) Amartaya Sen’s capability theory. Affordance theory is used widely as theoretical foundation in education to research into the application of LMS in education. The capability theory is yet to be adopted as theoretical foundation to study the same. Both theories have substantial similarity rather than dissimilarity as a valid theory to analyse the use of technology in teaching and learning in a university context.

AFFORDANCE THEORY In an education institution, there are three groups of humans: students, teachers, and administrations. Irrespective of groups, the interaction between human and LMS in a natural setting is the best studied by the Gibson’s affordance theory, a theory that states a relationship between animals and objects (Jamian et al., 2011). In Gibson’s terms: Something that refers to both the environment and the animal in a way that no existing term does. It implies the complementary of the animal and the environment. (Hammond, 2010, p. 127) Norman (1988), first, adopted the theory to study the interaction between ICT and human (Jamian, Jalil, & Krauss, 2011). According to Norman,

148

the term affordance refers to the perceived and actual properties of the thing, primarily those fundamental properties that determine just how the thing could possibility be used. (Norman, 1998, p. 9) Later on M. Bower (2008) has distinguished the difference between Gibson’s and Norman’s theoretical foundation stating that Gibson’s idea of affordances refers to perceived utility (perceived benefit), while Norman’s idea refers to usability. Explaining the term ‘usability’, Bowen further added that usability represents the functionality that an object provides to a user, while usability represent the actual use of functionality by the users in order to achieve certain task (Huijuan et al., 2013). So, Norman gave an emphasis on objective-based activities that is achievable by the use of LMS. Drawing on the Gibson’s affordance theory, Hammond (2010) has argued that affordances of ICT are always relative to some desirable goals or strategies regarding teaching and learning. Affordances arise because of the real physical properties and symbolic properties of the LMS related hardware and software. Physical properties of ICT are real properties and the symbolic properties are the perceptions of the users. The relationship between affordances and symbolic properties are implicit and the relationship can be considered positive or negative affordances (Conole & Dyke, 2004). In another words affordance of any object (here LMS) can be either good or bad (Gibson 1979, p.127 Cited in Jamian, Jalil, & Krauss 2011). Kay et al. (2006) have examined the affordances of computers for the students studied in K-12 and undergraduate class in the United Kingdom. The research has found the evidences that the affordances of computer between the two cohorts of students were different from each other’s. The researchers have observed that in two different perspectives, two different types of attitudes toward computer cause a significant difference

 University Teachers’ Interactions with Their Online Students

between the group’s approach to computers and their usage. This means that the applications of ICT differ from the perspectives to perspective. This differential application is known as ‘affordances’ in literature (McLoughlin & Lee 2007, p. 666). Therefore, the nature of affordance may depend upon the socioeconomic and demographic characteristic of users and the perspective of the use of the object. For example, to an undergraduate the affordances of computer are learning and communication tools, in contrast, to a K-12 student the affordance of computer is online or off-line gaming tools. Furthemore, Faculty members think of technology as technology. Students think of technology as an environment. Faculty uses technology as tools for presenting content. Students use of technology as tools for exploring, communicating, and socialising. (J. L. Hartman et al., 2007, p. 66) Hence, the interaction between ICT and human may be examined from three perspectives (Jo Shan, 2013): student’s perspective, teacher’s perspective, and administrative perspective. In this study, the relationship between academics and LMS is examined from the perspective of academics only.

CAPABILITY THEORY Capability theory is associated with the work of Nobel-prize winner economist Amartya Sen and philosopher Martha Nussbausm (Johnstone, 2007). The theory is created in the disciple of welfare economics, criticising the old theory of utility or satisfaction that focus on individual access to goods and services. From the capability theorist’s perspective ‘utility and access to resources matter, but they are matter in a partial way or instrumental way, rather than constitutively, “access to well-being is matter here” (Johnstone,

2007, p.75-76). According to the theory, human well-being is determined by the freedom of choice (or functionalities). The freedom of choice can be positive (for example, receiving education, achieving good health, earning a living) and/ or negative (intimidation, threat, violence etc.). The positive freedom of choice enhances the quality of life or individual well-being; on the other hand, the negative freedom of choice reduces the individual well-being. In his recent statement, Sen (2010) has taken up the positive freedom of choice discussing the application of mobile telephony in human life and its contribution to human capability. In Sen’s term when mobile telephony is used to call someone, it enhances functionalities of both the caller and the recipient positively (Coeckelbergh, 2010). On the other hand, if someone is intimidated over mobile telephony the recipient’s freedom of choice should be adversely affected. In the two instances, though the means are same but the functions are different. The relationship between the means and functions depend upon the conversion factors (Robyns 2005) which differs from people to people. The factors that are often cited as having an influence on ICT use are: gender, age, income, education level and skills (International Telecommunication Union, 2011). Therefore, the analytical framework of the capability approach provides very abstract tools to evaluate the impact of any policy or program on human being (Robeyns, 2005).

Similarity and Dissimilarity With regard to the interaction between the human and LMS, both the affordance and capability theories have the following similarities: First, both theories focus on application of LMS. In affordance theory, the theorists have used the term ‘usability’, and in the capability theory, the theorists have used the term ‘capability’.

149

 University Teachers’ Interactions with Their Online Students

Secondly, Affordance theory is only concerned with the environment created for the human and ICT interaction; whereas Sen’s theory is concerned with the impact on the human because of the interaction between LMS and human. Finally, both theories focus on differential socioeconomic factors that serve as determinants of ICT and human interaction.

Reasons for Selecting Affordance Theory The usefulness of the LMS can be seen as a product of a whole learning process rather than in isolation from the learning context (Day & Lloyd, 2007). The perception of the academics and the university’s arrangement for teaching are two essential elements of learning contexts. In a constructivist learning contexts, the role of academics is to create a supporting learning environment so that the learners can use features in line with their abilities to achieve learning outcomes (Kennewell, 2001). The desired learning environment can be created by the academics if the academic are comfortable with the technology, i.e. LMS, because academics’ perceptions about the LMS might affect the action integrating LMS in eLearning environment. It is very important to assess the existing academics’ perceptions of (over-)workload to determine the barriers to successful transformation of inputs into outputs.

LITERATURE REVIEW Organisation Climate and Workload University is a non-profit social enterprise. Between the 1980s and 1990s, the expansion of higher education opportunities within the universities altered the internal management pattern of the universities globally, including in Australia. A dominant pattern has emerged which is called

150

corporation and enterprise model (Ramsden, 2006). Other models are Collegium, and Bureaucracy (McNay, 1995, cited in Ramsden, 2006). Consequently, the university governance has been changed from self-governance model to business corporate model. The other types of the models are collegium and bureaucracy which has become obsolete nowadays. The Australian universities have been structured as companies under the State or Commonwealth law (Harman & Treadgold, 2007). The university governance now looks for return from the investment in education. Once upon a time, the investment was a social responsibility free from any predetermined economic objectives. Nowadays academics around the world are under pressure to perform the best with fewer resources - more students to teach, more research publications to produce, and social services to provide (Boyer, Altbach & Whitelaw, 1994), “Academic feels less in charges of their own destinies” (Ramsden, 2006, p. 351). In is argued in literature added that in the UK and Australian universities, the academic ability of students have declined due to the increasing demand for academic’s time and energy (Ramsden, 2006). As a result, a corporatelike organisational climate of the academics has started to emerge as a concern for the academics and the university governances. Literatures argue that the use of ICT in education had made academic stressful (B. L. Bower, 2001). The stressful working conditions hamper academics’ teaching and research productivity because academic’s satisfaction and student’s learning outcome were highly correlated (J. Hartman et al., 2000). The stressful situation arises from the use of frequent communication and collaboration which is one of main affordances of ICT (Conole & Dyke, 2004). The university governance is concern because education institution is to manage resources, including human resources in a productive and efficient manner in order to achieve their objective(s) similar to a natural corporate enterprise (Arabac, 2010).

 University Teachers’ Interactions with Their Online Students

Therefore, academic requires additional time teach students online. Winter and Sarros (2002), in their influential academic work has identified two types of working climates in the Australian universities: positive (motivating) and negative (demotivating) organisational climate. The study conducted a national survey in 1998 to collect data for the research. The research has provided the evidence that over-workload has been responsible for negative work environment for academics. In contrast, McMurray and Scott (2013) have examined the determinants of organisational climate for academia in the Australian university analysing primary data that are drawn from 145 academics of a single university in Australia. The study has used factor analysis and provided the evidences that organisational support, fairness, trust, innovation, and recognition influence organisational climate, but academic workload is a personal issue rather than organisational issue. There are other studies that have examined the organisational climates in the universities (e.g. B. L. Bower, 2001; Churchill et al., 2012; Gaver, 1991; Huijuan et al., 2013; Idris & Wang, 2009; Jamian et al., 2011; Kay et al., 2006; McLoughlin & Lee, 2007). These studies have discussed both positive and negative relationships between the ICTs and human, based on diverse and multiple perceptions toward the use of ICT in teaching and learning process. In a qualitative research study, Katrhina A. Meyer (2012) has examined the influence of the use of ICT on teaching and research productivity in an American university. The research evidences have been online teaching increase academics’ workload of teaching and thereby increase teaching productivity. From the institutional point of view, though the phenomena reveal positive affordances of ICT, on the contrary, from the faculty’s point of view the phenomena reveals negative affordances of ICT. Other instances of positive affordance is provided by McLoughlin and Lee (2007) who has examined

three types of affordance with regard to the use Web 2.0 and social software in tertiary teaching and learning. The affordances are pedagogical, social, and technological affordances. The study has argued that the positive affordances of social software are sharing, communication, and information discovery. Regarding the use of Facebook, the study has concluded that it supports interaction in different scopes (such as peer-to-peer, small group and whole class) and communication in different formats (asynchronous and synchronous). Contrary to McLoughlin, other studies have shown the negative affordance of Facebook in teaching and learning online. For instance, studies (Karpinski et al., 2013; Kirschner & Karpinski, 2010; Paul et al., 2012) have showed that a substantial statistically significant negative relation between social network sites (SNS) use (per miniature/per day) and cumulative grade point average (CGPA) in the USA and in the European countries during the periods of study. These studies have used quantitative research methodology. The research by Karpinshi et al (2013) was based on quantitative survey data collected from the undergraduates and graduate students across the USA and the Europe. The research by Paul et al. (2012) was based on the survey data collected from business students in a large state university in USA. The research by Kirschner and Karpinski (2010) was based on the data collected from the undergraduate and graduate college students of a large Midwestern university in the USA. Other studies have highlighted the negative affordances of ICT too. For instance, Kirschner and Karpinski (2010) have invested the factors responsible for negative impacts of the use Facebook on student’s academic result. The findings have been - The use of Facebook has increased student’s mistake while processing information circulated by the fellow students on the Facebook, which is a negative affordance of social software.

151

 University Teachers’ Interactions with Their Online Students

Jamian et al. (2011) have analysed the working environment in a Malaysian public university where the various ICT tools have been used in teaching and learning. The researchers have divided the ICT-created environments into two types: ICT application-related and ICT toolsrelated. The research was carried out among the selected lecturers who were teaching within a blended learning environment. Based on qualitative research methodology (semi-structured interviews and focus group discussions), the study found the evidences of both positive and negative (hidden) affordance of ICT in teaching students online. The most notable negative affordance was technical difficulties associated with the learning management system (LMS). Though the study did not identify the types of barriers, in the early 20th Century in a study, Berge (1998) has identified three types of barriers: technical, cultural, and time-related for teachers to teach students online. Berge further has concluded that time barrier was not as significant as the cultural and technical barrier. In another recent study, a team of researchers has explored the barrier to adaptation of ICT in teaching in the USA (Lin et al., 2014). Based on mixed research method, the research has found the evidences that technical difficulties was the most important barrier to adopt ICT for teaching Chinese language in the classroom in the USA. In a very recent study, Stendal et al. (2013) have discussed the social affordance of ICT for people with lifelong disability. The research has indicated that the virtual world may help the disadvantaged disabled people to participate in education and be included in the society. Using the qualitative methods the study results indicate that people with lifelong disability perceive that they have reached a larger and diverse network by the use of virtual world.

152

The Use of ICT and Workload A body of studies documented the effect of the use of technology on faculty workload in the USA (e.g. Betts, 1998; J. Hartman et al., 2000; Rockwell et al., 1999), Australia (Reushele & McDonald, 2000; Samarawickrema & Stacey, 2007), and Iceland (Heijsra & Rafnsdottir, 2010). In American context, a study has claimed that Many faculty members report that they are devoting more time to their work and that their work time is spread over a larger portion of the day because they can communicate with students via e-mail or through a course management system. (Hartman, Dziuban & Brophy-Ellison 2007, p. 66) In Australia in a study Reushle and McDonald (2000) has documented their evaluation about an online education project implemented in the University of Southern Queensland. The evaluation concluded that the teaching students online had a significant effect on the academic staff’s workload. Because the academic staff were managing a large section of diversified students engaged in diversified mode of educations, and the teacher’s teaching and non-teaching related functions had increased substantially. Samarawickrema and Stacey (2007) has found research findings that has been consistent with the findings of Reushle and McDonald (2000). Samarawickrema and Stacey (2007) have investigated the factors that has enabled and impeded the adaptation of web-based learning management system in an Australian university (Monash University of Australia). The evidences have been the web-based teaching significantly has impacted on teachers’ working time, and has served to impede developing learning resources for web environments, maintaining communication through email, course preparation, moderation, and resources collection. In another study that was carried out in Iceland, researcher analysed effects of the use of

 University Teachers’ Interactions with Their Online Students

Internet and other ICT technologies on their work and family life (Heijstra & Rafnsdottir, 2010). The research set up the evidence that though all sorts of email communication between the teachers and students had improved interactions between them, it is proliferated teacher’s workload substantially. From the foregone studies, we have learned that the negative affordances for the use of ICT in teaching students online are increasing workload for the teachers. Furthermore, the workload issue is measured and explored analysing academics’ perception toward workload.

Determinants of Organisational Climate and Workload A few studies have speculated that a number of factors, including faculty’s socioeconomic, demographic, and professional factors influence faculty’s perception about workload (Xu & Meyer, 2007). Xu and Meyer (2007) have examined the factor related to technology use in teaching by university faculty in the USA. As a dependent variable the researchers have used a combined measure for two measures: Web use and E-mail to capture the use ICT. They also divided the independent variables into four blocks: institutional, demographic, professional, and teaching, research and service productivity. Hierarchical multiple regression analysis was applied to analyses the data. The research findings suggest that age and Internet access have been important factors related to faculty use of technology. The research further suggests that faculty with higher teaching loads were using both email and web relative more; on the other hand, faculty with higher research productivity were using email relatively more often than websites. Katrina A. Meyer and Xu (2007) further investigated the issue within the framework of Bayesian Networking Model and Bayesian Statistics and found the evidences that the faculty’s highest degree and teaching/research field also had influences on the use of technology.

A research study (Mahdizadeh et al., 2008) examined the factors that determine the use of eLearning environment by the university academics in Netherland. The study used quantitative data drawn from the Wageningen University. Based on factor analysis, the study has identified that faculty time has been an influential factor that has influenced the teacher’s opinions about e-learning environments. This study provides a direction that academic’s teaching load is a determinant of faculty perception about the working environment and workload issue. In the given context of changing organisational model and the increasing use of ICT (or the affordances of ICT) within the universities, the academics’ actual experiences of working conditions are not explored in depth in Australia. We address the issue in our study, based on in-depth field survey about the university academics (teaching) staff’s perception about the (over-)workload issue. From this survey, we develop a theory and compare them with previous studies. The theory will be used full to design quantitative study in the future. A conceptual framework based on the previous study is presented in Figure 2. The figure demonstrates that the previous studies present three types of short-coming with regards to the interaction between the students and academic (teaching) staff online. They are Pedagogical, Technical, and Institutional. Over-workload is an institutional factor that works as a de-motivating factor for the academics’ involvement in online teaching. The remaining part of the paper we use the framework to explore the issue in an Australian university.

RESEARCH APPROACH AND DATA COLLECTION There are many qualitative research approaches. Creswell (2009) has discussed five types of qualitative approaches only for qualitative research (Creswell 2009): Ethnography, Grounded Theory,

153

 University Teachers’ Interactions with Their Online Students

Figure 2. Conceptual framework Source: Authors’ development

Case Studies, Phenomenological Research, and Narrative Research approaches. Tis study has used Ethnography research approach. Ethnography is an approach that enables the researcher to examine a group of people in a natural setting. In such a situation, no pre-developed questionnaire is administered among the participants to collect the data (Creswell 2009). The research process is flexible and typically evolves contextually in response to the lived realities encountered in the field setting (LeCompte & Schensul 1999, cited in Creswell 2009, p. 13). We use ethnographic approach because we have been interested in studying a sub-population who is university teaching staffs of the total university population in a natural setting. The general features of the ethnographic research are (Creswell 2009):

154

• • • • •

Researcher(s) study the people’s behavior in their normal environment and not under experimental conditions Researcher(s) collected data from different sources by observation and conversations The focus is in a group Researcher(s) analyses data by interpreting meaning of talks Finally, researchers describe cultures

There are three major ethnographic techniques: Triangulation, Participant observation, and Field notes (Creswell, 2009). Field notes is a record of the researcher’s ideas of the lives, peoples, and events that is the focus of the study. In order to gather the notes we have conducted three focus group discussions (FGD). The members of each FGD have been academics teaching staffs of the

 University Teachers’ Interactions with Their Online Students

University of Southern Queensland, Australia. FGD is a very useful ethnographic approach to provide insight into ex-post perceptions about online teaching based on different opinions observed among different individuals or parties involved in the process (Stewart & Shamdasani, 1990). The aim of group discussion is to establish rapport with participants and to gather data on the working experiences of the USQ teaching staffs from their talk in several group meetings took place in the USQ campus where there have been working. In our ethnographic study, we simply narrate the ex-post experiences of the teaching academics and derive major themes. We also have checked whether the major themes are consistent with the previous themes. We have interpreted the data collected to build-up a theory inductively. After extensive examination of the narratives and patterns of talk, we have pull together elements from the interviews and build-up a framework for further quantitative research.

Ethical Issues Research ethics is an important issue in research (Hesse-Biber & Leavy, 2006, cited in Creswell 2009). Our data collection activities have been a subject to the approval by the USQ Ethics office. We have written to the Ethics Office for approval in this regards and received approval prior to data collection. In our letter to the Ethics officer, we have stated about the purpose and questions of our study. We also have specified the sponsorship of our study in order to set up trust and credibility of the study. We have maintained ethical issue during the periods of data collection. At the outset of each focus group discussion, we have distributed ‘consent form’ prepared based the USQ template to the participants and received their consent in written format duly signed by the participants. In the consent form, we have included the followings: •

Purpose of the research

• • • •

Their potential benefit Notation of risks to the participants Assurance the participant can withdraw anytime Provision of names of persons to contact if questions arise

To analyse and interpret the data we have given full attention to ethical issues undertaking the following steps: • • •

Anonymity of the respondents Privacy of the data Maintaining accurate account of the data

SAMPLING AND DATA COLLECTION We have used non-probability purposeful sampling technique (Bernard & Ryan, 2010; Tashakori, 1998). Here the unit of analysis is individual academic staffs who have been engaged in teaching and research only. We have used purposeful sampling because we are interested in selecting participants who are capable of recollecting memories and talk. The previous studies have used the sampling methodology to investigate the influences of online teaching on teaching and research productivity. The example is the study of Meyer’s (2012). Though this sampling method did not ensure representativeness of the population, it is proved effective in securing trust and cooperation from the participants. The participants have been invited to participate in the FGDs based on the personal connection with the academic staffs. Reponses to the invitation have been voluntary. We have formulated three focus groups, including participants based on their interest and availability. In order to ensure effectiveness of each FGD, the principal investigator has taken the charge of a coordinator to coordinate talk, keep time, and coordinate different lines of arguments. Each focus group discussion has lasted for sixty minutes. Finally, focus group discussions have been audio-

155

 University Teachers’ Interactions with Their Online Students

recorded, and notes have been taken by the principal investigator. A professional organisation has been hired to transcribe audio-taped transcriptions. The statements about online teaching experience and practices in different areas of teaching had been developed after the analysis of transcripts of audio-recorded discussions and notes. In December 2013, four hundred sixty six academic (teaching and research) staffs from two faculties were available for interview. The faculties are Faculty of Business, Law, Education & Arts and Faculty of Science and Engineering. An eligibility criterion for inclusion of the participants in this study was: (i) teachers’ active participation in online teaching and (ii) teachers were willing to participate in the survey. An overview of the participants is presented in Table 1.

QUALITATIVE DATA ANALYSIS STRATEGY We have used a generic form of data analysis to categorise major themes emerged from the FGDs (Creswell, 2009). We have used content analysis of responses to the open-ended questions and have created ninety two unique codes to represent teachers’ perceptions about their interaction with students for teaching online. Each code is related to each theme mentioned at least once by the participants in the FGD. At the outset of the FGD, the participants were asked about the elements of LMS used by them to interact with students for teaching. Next, we

asked the participants to talk about their experience of using the ICTs to interact students online in a natural setting. Based on data, we categorise the information into three groups following Idris and Wang’s (2009) classification strategy. Idris and Wang (2009) have examined the affordance of ICT higher education grouping the participants into three groups: temporal issues; pedagogical issues; and technical issues.

Findings At the outset of the FGD the participants were asked about the specific elements of the LMS they use to interact with students online. The participants of the view that Study Desk is the most common LMS used widely by the academic to upload teaching materials disperse audio and video recorded lectures, and other online teaching related activities. In addition to the Study Desk, 40 percent of the participants have informed that they have used Moodle; 13 – 20 percent has used email and social software like Facebook, Twitter, Blog, and Skype for teaching.

Outcome 1: Temporal Limitations In the FGD, the participants talked about the increasing volume of workload. Sixty percent of participants have talked about their working time and its related matters, including email, course preparation time, asynchronous teaching time, and using multiple teaching platforms (i.e. Facebook).

Table 1. An overview of the participants of the focus group Date

Venue

Number

Gender

Area of teaching

02/12/2013

USQ

05

Male: 5

Economics, Teacher education Pedagogy, Engineering

27/11/2013

USQ

06

Male: 3 Female: 3

Finance, Teacher education Pedagogy, Engineering

11/11/2013

USQ

05

Male: 4 Female: 01

Engineering, Teacher education, Pedagogy

156

 University Teachers’ Interactions with Their Online Students

Increasing Workload Katrina A. Meyer (1998) has defined ‘faculty workload as time spent on professionally appropriate activities’ (p. 39). In this paper, by the word ‘workload’ we have meant time spent by the academic for teaching and research following the definition of Mayer (1998). In an academic context, a faculty member refers to ‘workload” as distribution of multiple duties assigned. The duties entail teaching, research, and service related activities. In the USQ, an academic (teaching) staff are expected to work 37.5 hours per week over a 46 week period (University of Southern Queensland, 2010). This is an indicative hours only, not measured definitely as it is measured for professional staff (National Tertiary Education Union, 2014) The work encompasses activities in teaching and teaching-related activities, research, and service to the university and community and profession (University of Queensland 2010). In our focus group discussion, 56 percent participants (nine participants out of sixteen) have expressed their concerns about the increasing workload (or over-workload). It is happened because of one-to-one interaction in online teaching environment. In a F2F teaching mode, a teacher can handle many students’ query simultaneously. For instance, while a student raises a query everybody listen to the question and the reply given by the teacher. Such interaction remains absent in an online teaching mode. Therefore, a large class size in an online mode of teaching creates limitation for a faculty, though such a large class size often considered as opportunities in literature (Meyer, 2012). In the focus group discussion, a participant has claimed that The other thing is workload to teach online is actually more work… (FGD 2) The reason for increased workload is that in a classroom when one student asks a question, then everyone hears the answer. Whereas when on study, desk one

person will post a question and not everyone will look at it, even though it’s there, they don’t look at it. (FGD 3) Other notable experiences emerged from the discussions were: Managing time is definitely a major issue. As I said before, the online environment has a far higher workload and implications than teaching on-campus. Setting boundaries for my students so they know; don’t email me after 5:00 pm Friday unless you’re happy to get a response at 9:00 am Monday. This is my time. (FGD 1) Moreover, in the FGDs the participants talked about the consequences of increasing workload too. A participant claimed that I have people who focus on the weekend area. And I allocate extra hours for that sort of engagement, whereas others who I know in my team have young families, I say don’t worry about the weekend I’ll be doing it, Deb will be doing it whatever. So that sort of area I think is just something that needs to be taken account of in our teaching loads. (FG2) One participant said that I never switch off. (FGD 3) As a limitation, which is a bad affordance of the use of ICT in teaching students online, ‘time’ has already been an issue in the past literature (Heijstra & Rafnsdottir, 2010; Reisman et al., 2001; Xu & Meyer, 2007). In Australia, increasing workload has received attention as an issue too (Beerkens, 2013). Therefore, our findings are very consistent with the past research findings. It is learned from the FGDs that the university management never consider this as an issue, alternatively “teachers are push on status as if their workload is diminishing” (FGD 2). “Online teachings is not adequately

157

 University Teachers’ Interactions with Their Online Students

recognised” (National Tertiary Education Union, 2014 p. 7)

The Use of Social Software From the FGDs we have found that four participants out of sixteen (25 percent) were engaged in Facebook, Wikis, and Skype to interact with their online students. The participants who were active on Facebook were very critical about their experiences. They were of the view that teaching and learning on social software was very risky, because interaction among students on social software results in quick dissemination of incorrect knowledge or ideas. One participant has claimed that: students learn in so many spaces, they take their learning into Facebook, Twitter and so on. And there they end up with misconceptions and misinformation put out there into the broader spaces. That sometimes it is hard to reign that back in and to reinforce the accurate message. (FGD2). Similarly, another participant has expressed his view by opposing learning on social media like Facebook. The participant stated that Another thing that comes up from time to time, and I’m sure my colleagues have experienced it as well, is when the students go outside the university system to social media to discuss and work on the course. They are talking to each other and giving wrong information and instead of using the platform that’s been provided for them, where they get the right answers all the time….that creates havoc in that outer environment. (FGD 1). So, it is emerged that misconception and misinformation spread very quickly over the social media. This might have an effect on students’ learning outcome negatively, as it is found in

158

the previous empirical studies (e.g. Karpinski et al., 2013; Kirschner & Karpinski 2010; Paul et al., 2012.). Particularly our study finding is in consistent with the findings by Kirschner & Karpinski (2010) on this specific point - misconception spreads quickly through Facebook users. Therefore, the qualitative and quatitative research findings give a wake-up call to the proponents of online education. The affordances of mobile technologies in terms of its unique opportunities for students to engage

The Use of Email StudyDesk and Moodle have in-built e-mail facilities. While a student and /or a teaching staff posts any message on the StudyDesk and Moodle, the message is communicated with the group memebers immediately. Such an instant messeaging facility has made the email an usefull mediam of communicantion between the student and teachers. Therefore, academic (teaching) staff receives email from the students in any point of time as soon as a student posts any query on the StudyDesk. Therefore, the general wisdom is if the number of students in any course is high, there is a probability that the volume of emial will be high. Regarding this phenomena, a mixed reaction is expressed by the participants. Fourty percent of the participants have expressed their concerned about the increasing volume of Email. For instance a participant has claimed that: I think two years ago I had a student who was studying economics as a part of her MBA course with Business Economics. Before the start of the semester, she started sending me email and ended up with a total of 72 – 75 emails. I responded to her all email. ….the Faculty of Business only allocated thirty minutes for a student consultation; but I spent 750 minutes for a student.(FGD 1)

 University Teachers’ Interactions with Their Online Students

Another participant has added to the previous perception stating that we always encourage students not to communicate through email. Put your enquiry to Study Desk so that other students will look at it. So not all students will look at email, not all people ask the questions, but when we put the answer, they look. So, if the students communicating only through emails that is time. (FGD 1)

Outcome 2: Pedagogical limitations Large Class Size Large class size is a distinct characteristic of the online teaching. Because of the large class size, online education is claimed cost-effective. The cost-effectiveness of teaching online education is not achievable in F2F teaching. The participants in the FGD discussions have identified engagement with large class size as a critical issue. According to the participants’ information, in the USQ, the academic (teaching) staffs handle a class having students as big as seven hundred for a course in a semester. Though a large number of students in a class generate additional revenues for the university, teachers are given disproportionate share to deliver the services and this is termed as ‘general business issue’ (FGD 2). However, the large class size for online teaching affects teachers’ teaching capability and thereby, may affect student management adversely. Thirty five percent participants have expressed their concerned about the large class size. For example, a participant has claimed that I was trying to replicate seminar style teaching where you basically get students to research or topic or prepare basically a report of some sort and the present that to class and one of the challenges is how do you do that in an online environment. (FGD 2)

Another participant has claimed that One of the problems I find is it’s very difficult to gauge where everyone is at. It’s impossible. Whereas if you have it on campus you can see who’s there and not there. And you can see who’s there and fallen asleep! I know what you mean and those sorts of things whereas online you have no idea. I can go look at logs and yes they’ve logged in, logged out, but for a big course you aren’t going to check every student. It’s just not possible, and are they really engaging? Not being able to see where students are at is a big issue. (FGD 2) Academic disciplines are different from each other... For instance, engineering courses are different from economics courses. So, the different courses require different delivery techniques. But the common featured Study Desk on the LMS is not suitable for customised presentation for different courses. Hence, the FGD participants have found the Study Desk problematic in the existing format. The participants have been of the view that the course-specific demand is rarely met on the LMS. The participant has claimed that I do notice that students often say different subjects will have different layouts of Study Desk and I think that’s really good because that’s how we prefer to teach and we would set our classrooms up differently, but I do understand that it can get really confusing for people. (FGD 3) About the given perspective another participant stated that online teaching processes involved on numerical based courses and it’s hard to interact easily in an online environment with discussion forums and not all students interact. (FGD 1) Another participant from another focus group stated that

159

 University Teachers’ Interactions with Their Online Students

I would think that we need technology to do things that will work very well for my kind of course (finance). We are now being forced to record our lectures, I actually do not like something if it is forced on me. (FGD2) The most serious pedagogical issue identified by the FGD participants have been students often do not interact on the Study desk or Moodle for their learning. They (students) leave the Study desk and go to Facebook or Twitter to interact their follows and /or teachers. The twenty-percent participants have expressed the view that LMS are as attractive as Facebook. For instance, one participant has claimed that Study Desk, Staff Desk are not as attartive as Facebook. (FGD 2)

The FGD participants have of the view that they have dealt with situation where students have purchased assignment and copied from the web sources and pasted. Though many software available in the market to deal with the issue too, teachers find it difficult to check each assignment using software. However,

Outcome 3: Institutional Limitations In the FGD, forty percent of the participants were of the opinions that the lack of technical support has been a critical issue for teaching online effectively. We classify them into technical issues and non-technical issues in our writing.

Technical Limitations

Plagiarism is a considered cheating in the academic world. Each university has its own policy in this regards. The participants were asked about their perception as to whether plagiarism has increased among the online students. The participants have expressed contrasting views about plagiarism. Not everybody thinks that plagiarism has increased. Moreover, some participants said, due to technological development it has become easy to check the issue. One participant stated that

One major theme has emerged from the FGD that has been technical issue involving the use of LMS. As technology is dynamic in nature, hence new technology is being replaced the old one continuously. New technology means new features, which implies that a new additional skill is required to handle the technology. Teachers, who have been using a certain type (or version) of LMS for a certain period, often felt the disruption in their duties when they come across a new system is in place. Some teachers have found it hard to catch up with the time to train themselves for the new arrival. A participant has stated that

We have cases where students have admitted they purchased their whole assignment. What can you do? There is no way of detecting that, at all. (FGD 1)

I use our Study Desk and the Moodle 2 downgrade and it’s been very challenging, some of the things that no longer work that you could rely on once upon a time. (FGD 2)

Increasing Plagiarism

Another view was that It’s easier to plagiarise. You just copy and paste. I know of some cases where people have been caught and were asked why do it. (FGD 1)

160

Another participant stated that I’ve found that USQ it’s not necessarily the technology itself, it’s what USQ opens up within that technology. So for example there are lots of things we can do in Moodle that USQ shuts off and doesn’t let us do. So it’s not necessarily the

 University Teachers’ Interactions with Their Online Students

tool itself and even, even things like at USQ we enable a student to have an email for life, but we don’t support that for our staff members. (FGD 2) Another participant stated that So, ICT systems should work for us the way we want to deliver the product. The previous version, the upgrade version of Moodle which was 1.9 …, if you graded someone and you didn’t really feel like giving them a grade …., the new system if you go to grade someone and don’t give them a grade, and just go save and next, gives them full marks. (FGD 2) Enriching the view further, a participant stated that I have spent, I have spent 6 hours arguing with ICT to get this thing fixed. That is an example of ICT in general, I’m not, not having a go at them, but it’s an example of what happens. They fiddle with something, break core business has huge impact for the way we deliver things, and it’s happening everywhere. (FGD 2)

Non-Technical Limitations Faculties are ordinary human being. They work being motivated by the positive reinforcement (B. L. Bower, 2001). Faculties who are engaged in online teaching are compensated for their work similar to the faculties who are engaged in face-to-face teaching. Majority participants have been of the view that though their engagement in online teaching has increased their workload they (academic teaching staff) have not been compensated for their extra time proportionately. This has created a frustration among the faculties. A participant has claimed that you had a course that switched from on campus to external or on campus to online, do you know what they do? They would remove workload. (FGD2)

Adding similar view another participant has claimed that When you’ve got 600 people, okay you work that out? Ah that is ½ a million dollars per semester coming in, don’t try and get me to deliver a course with $15,000 expenditure, can’t be done. Okay if I’m bringing in ½ a million dollars, I will spend $80,000 to $100,000 to deliver that course, the university can have the rest. The business model and analytics are all out of whack. So those are the sort of general business issues that I think need to be resolved, and it’s not just this university, I’m saying this is a general issue. (FGD 2) Another participant has been of the view You’ve got 54 students but only 2 of them are on campus. So, we’re going to push everyone online and we’ll give you half the number of hours to deliver the course. I’m sorry it doesn’t wash. (FGD 2)

CONCLUSION Government support for higher education is in transition in Australia. The most current event has been, the Australian government has declared its 2104-2015 year budget, where it has given policy directives towards deregulated tuition fees for the public university from 2016, replicating the American model of university education. The deregulation attempt has consolidating the market concept of education replacing the social concept of education. As a result, competition among the universities looming large for a greater share of pie (i.e. increasing number of students) so that the universities generate sufficient revenue for its sustainability along with other strategic option lowering the supply cost of education. Expanding online education is an effective strategy for its large scale of economies. Along with strategic option, the objective of the universi-

161

 University Teachers’ Interactions with Their Online Students

ties has changed. Nowadays, commercial viability or feasibility of a degree program is considered actively before a degree program is offered. The social need of education has faded away. Therefore, the Australian higher educations, including university education are in transition along with global transition in higher education. The corporate and enterprise model of university is getting its strong footage on the economic principle of minimum cost and maximum benefit. As a result, the universities are adopting strategy of lowering the cost of education by offer more and more degree programs online. Such strategy has pushed the academic (teaching) staff to teach more students, publish more research papers and to take responsibilities that are more social. Consequently, the academics are feeling the pinch of over-workload. Academics (teaching and non-teaching) staffs are critical agents in all academic institutions. They (academics) influence the integration of education technology into the pedagogy very actively. Therefore, academics’ satisfactions about their working condition are crucial expanding e-learning opportunity successfully. Many pre-

vious studies have highlighted the issue of over workload predominantly in the USA. Piecemeal studies have been carried out in other countries, including Australia. This research is an initiative to investigate the issue – academics’ workload, in an Australian university. The novel contribution of the research is to contribute theoretically to the existing body of literature. This paper has defined ICT by the university-sponsored LMS and social software like Facebook, Twitter, Blog, and Skype. The main research question of this study is the effects of ICT on the academic (teaching) staff to teach students online. This paper has used Gibson’s affordance theory to investigate the influences of the use of LMS on teacher’s interaction with online students. The data for this study is collected from the University of Southern Queensland by the end of November 2013. We have collected qualitative data based on FGD. Three FGD took place during the survey period and each FGD has lasted around fifty five minutes. To analyse the data, Ethnography approach is adopted. In the Ethnographic study, we have narrated simply the academics’ of teaching

Figure 3. A theoretical framework of interaction between academics and LMS in a university Source: Author’s development

162

 University Teachers’ Interactions with Their Online Students

students online. After extensive examination of the talk of the academics, we have categorised them into major themes, based on temporal limitations, pedagogical limitations, and technical limitations. Later on, we have discussed the findings under the aforementioned three categories. Figure 3 presents the interrelationship among the themes. The model (Figure 3) shows a direct and mediation effects of the use LMS on teachers engaged in teaching students online. The major findings are: Firstly ‘Anywhere anytime’ type learning concept, that proponents of online learning often argue as an advantage of online learning, is in fact a disadvantage for teachers. For teachers, the affordance of the LMS is frustrating largely due to the over-workload. Such excessive workload is not recognised by the academic administrator in their administrative mechanism. The finding is very consistent with the previous literature findings. The driving forces behind the over- workload are attributed to a number of factors: • • • •

lack of synchronize teaching and learning time; large class size; increasing volume of Email; interaction on multiple platforms; and Lack of technical support.

Secondly, we have found that teaching and learning on the university, designated LMS is desirable. Beyond this arrangement learning on social software like Facebook, affect students learning achievement adversely; because misconception and misunderstanding spreads through quickly among the students and faculties cannot handle the matter quickly. These findings unveil the reason behind the negative relation between the use of social network and students’ learning outcome. This finding is also a warning to the proponents of online teaching and learning process. Similar

findings may be found for the users of other social networking software too. Thirdly, though online education is quite popular for low cost education, the popularity is achieved at the cost of large class size. Though large class size is an issue for quality learning outcome for face-to-face teaching and learning process, it is unclear why this is not an issue for online learners. Fourthly, technical difficulties are inevitable problems faced by the academics to interact with students online. These problems are ICT equipment and software related issues. The problem take away scare time of the academics and compelled them to work prolonged hours to made up the scheduled lessons or teaching program. The academics have expressed the view that the relevant ICT support units are not as fast as it has been expected due to the administrative issues involved in here. Finally, university administrators are another critical factor in the overall teaching and learning management system. Therefore, the administrators’ clear unequivocal perception of the real situation rather than perceived situation is necessary to keep the success of the online teaching afloat. Suggestion for the future study might be exploring the administrator’s experiences about the teacher’s engagement in online teaching.

REFERENCES Arabac, I. B. (2010). Academic and administration personnel’s perceptions of organizational climate (sample of educational faculty of Firat university). Procedia: Social and Behavioral Sciences, 2(2), 4445–4450. doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2010.03.709 Australia’s Universities. (2014). University profiles. Retrieved from https://www.universitiesaustralia.edu.au/australias-universities/universityprofiles#.U5-6_lfCZVA

163

 University Teachers’ Interactions with Their Online Students

Australian Bureau of Statistics. (2013). Education and work, Australia, May 2013 (Catalogue no. 6227.0). Canberra, Australia: Australian Bureau of Statistic. Austrlian Bureau of Statistics. (2012). Year book Australia, 2012. Canberra, Australia: Australian Bureau of Statistics. Beerkens, M. (2013). Facts and fads in academic research management: The effects of management practices on research productivity in Australia. Research Policy, 42(9), 1679–1693. doi:10.1016/j. respol.2013.07.014 Berge, Z. L. (1998). Barriers to online teaching in post-secondary institutions: Can policy changes fix it? Retrieved from http://ww.westga. edu/~distance?Berge12.html Bernard, H. R., & Ryan, G. W. (2010). Analyzing qualitative data: Systematic approach. New York, NY: Sage. Betts, K. S. (1998). An institutional overview: Factors influencing faculty participation in distance education in postsecondary education in the United States: An institutional study. Retrieved from http://www.westga.edu/~distance/ betts13.html Bolliger, D., & Wasilik, O. (2009). Factors influencing faculty satisfaction with online teaching and learning in higher education. Distance Education, 30(1), 103–116. doi:10.1080/01587910902845949 Bower, B. L. (2001). Distance education: Facing the faculty challenge. Retrieved from http:// www.westga.edu/~distance/ojdla/summer42/ bower42.html Bower, M. (2008). Affordance analysis–matching learning tasks with learning technologies. Educational Media International, 45(1), 3–15. doi:10.1080/09523980701847115

164

Churchill, D., Fox, B., & King, M. (2012). Study of affordances of iPads and teachers’ private theories. International Journal of Information and Education Technology, 2(3), 251–255. doi:10.7763/ IJIET.2012.V2.122 Coeckelbergh, M. (2010). Human development or human enhancement? A methodological reflection on capabilities and the evaluation of information technologies. Ethics and Information Technology, 13(2), 81–92. doi:10.1007/s10676-010-9231-9 Cohn, E., & Cooper, S. T. (2004). Multi-product cost functions for universties: economies of scale and scope. In G. Johnes & J. Johnes (Eds.), International Handbook on the Economics of Education (pp. 579–612). Cheltenhamd, UK: Edward Elgar. Conole, G., & Dyke, M. (2004). What are the affordances of information and communication technologies. ALT-J. Research in Learning Technology, 12(2), 113–124. doi:10.1080/0968776042000216183 Creswell, J. W. (2009). Researcg design: qualitative and quantitative approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Curran, C. (2008). Online learning and the university. In W. J. Bramble & S. Panda (Eds.), Economics of distance and online learning: theory, practice, and research (pp. 26–51). New York, NY: Routledge. doi:10.4324/9780203892985.ch3 Day, D., & Lloyd, M. (2007). Affordances of online technologies: More than the properties of the technology. Australian Educational Computing, 22(2), 17–21. Department of Broadband Communications and the Digital Economy. (2011). au20: National Digital Economy Strategy (pp. 1-80). Canberra, Australia: Government of Australia. Department of Broadband Communications and the Digital Economy. (2013). Advancing Australia as a digital economy. Canberra, Australia: Author. Retrieved from http://apo.org.au

 University Teachers’ Interactions with Their Online Students

Gaver, W. W. (1991). Technology affordances. Retrieved from http://dl.acm.org/citation. cfm?id=108856 Hammond, M. (2010). What is an affordance and can it help us understand the use of ICT in education? Education and Information Technologies, 15(3), 205–217. doi:10.1007/s10639-009-9106-z Harman, K., & Treadgold, E. (2007). Changing patterns of governance for Australian universities. Higher Education Research & Development, 26(1), 13–29. doi:10.1080/07294360601166786 Hartman, J. L., Dziuban, C., & Brophy-Ellison, J. (2007). Faculty 2.0. Retrieved from http://www. educause.edu/ero/article/faculty-20 Hartman, J. L., Dziuban, C., & Moskal, P. (2000). Faculty satisfaction in ALNs: A dependent or independent variable. Retrieved from http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1. 137.6606&rep=rep1&type=pdf Heijstra, T. M., & Rafnsdottir, G. L. (2010). The Internet and academics’ workload and work–family balance. The Internet and Higher Education, 13(3), 158–163. doi:10.1016/j.iheduc.2010.03.004 Hollander, S. (1987). Classical economics. Oxford, UK: Blackwell. Huijuan, F., Chu, S., & Wenxia, K. (2013). Affordances and constraints of a wiki for primary-school students’ group projects. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 16(4), 85–96. Idris, Y., & Wang, Q. (2009). Affordances of Facebook for learning. International Journal of Continuing Engineering Education and Lifelong Learning, 19(2), 247–255. doi:10.1504/ IJCEELL.2009.025031 International Telecommunication Union. (2011). Measuring information society (pp. 1-174). Geneva, Switzerland: Author.

Isman, A. (2006). Computer and education. Sakarya University Journal of Education. Retrieved from http://library.usask.ca/find/ejournals/view. php?id=2670000000312284 Jamian, M., Jalil, H. A., & Krauss, S. E. (2011). Malaysian public university learning environemnts: Assessing the conduciveness through ICT affordances. Procedia: Social and Behavioral Sciences, 35, 154–161. doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.02.074 Jo Shan, F. (2013). ICT in education: A critical literature review and its implications. International Journal of Education & Development using Information & Communication Technology, 9(1), 112-125. Johnstone, J. (2007). Technology as empowerment. Ethics and Information Technology, 9(1), 73–87. doi:10.1007/s10676-006-9127-x Karpinski, A. C., Kirschner, P. A., Ozer, I., Mellott, J. A., & Ochwo, P. (2013). An exploration of social networking site use, multitasking, and academic performance among United States and European university students. Computers in Human Behavior, 29(3), 1182–1192. doi:10.1016/j. chb.2012.10.011 Kay, W., Wagoner, D., & Ferguson, L. (2006). Technology affordances: The ‘real story’ in research with K-12 and undergradute learners. British Journal of Educational Technology, 37(2), 191–2009. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8535.2005.00528.x Kennewell, S. (2001). Using affordances and constraints to evaluate the use of information and communications technology in teaching and learning. Journal of Information Technology for Teacher Education, 10(1 & 2), 101–116. doi:10.1080/14759390100200105 Kirschner, P. A., & Karpinski, A. C. (2010). Facebook® and academic performance. Computers in Human Behavior, 26(6), 1237–1245. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2010.03.024

165

 University Teachers’ Interactions with Their Online Students

Korucu, A. T., & Alkan, A. (2011). Differences between m-learning and e-learning, basic terminology and usage of m-learning in education. Procedia: Social and Behavioral Sciences, 15, 1925–1930. doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2011.04.029 Lin, C.-Y., Huang, C.-K., & Chen, C.-H. (2014). Barriers to the adoption of ICT in teaching Chinese as a foreign language in US universities. ReCALL, 26(1), 100–116. doi:10.1017/ S0958344013000268

Meyer, K. A. (2012). The influence of online teaching on faculty productivity. Innovative Higher Education, 37(1), 37–52. doi:10.1007/ s10755-011-9183-y Meyer, K. A., & Xu, Y. J. (2007). A Bayesian analysis of the institutional and individual factors influencing faculty technology use. The Internet and Higher Education, 10(3), 184–195. doi:10.1016/j.iheduc.2007.06.001

Mahdizadeh, H., Biemans, H., & Mulder, M. (2008). Determining factors of the use of e-learning environments by university teachers. Computers & Education, 51(1), 142–154. doi:10.1016/j. compedu.2007.04.004

Murphy, A., Farley, H., Midgley, W., Carter, B., Lane, M., & Hafeez-Baig, A. (2013). An exploration of acccess to and use of mobile technologies for learning activities among higher education students. In Research colloquia and showcase. Springfield, Australia.

Mann, J. T., & Hennebery, S. R. (2014). Online versus face-to-face: Students’ preferences for college course attributes. Journal of Agriculture and Applied Economics, 46, 1–19.

National Tertiary Education Union. (2014). Proposed USQ academic division academic workload allocation model: NTEU feedback. Retrieved from https://www.nteu.org.au/library/view/id/5842

Martínez-Caro, E. (2011). Factors affecting effectiveness in e-learing: An analysis in production management courses. Computer Applications in Engineering Education, 19(3), 572–581. doi:10.1002/cae.20337

Norman, D. A. (1998). The psychology of everyday things. New York, NY: Basic Books.

McLoughlin, C., & Lee, M. J. W. (2007). Social software and participatory learning: Pedagogical choice with technology affordances in the Web 2.0 era. Retrieved from http://www.ascilite.org.au/ conferences/singapore07/procs/mcloughlin.pdf McMurray, A., & Scott, D. (2013). Determinants of organisational climate for academia. Higher Education Research & Development, 32(6), 960–974. doi:10.1080/07294360.2013.806446 Meyer, K. A. (1998). Faculty workload studies: Perspectives, needs, and future directions. (ERIC digest). Retrieved from http://www.ericdigests. org/1998-3/workload.html

166

Norton, A. (2012). Mapping Australian higher education. Research report. Melbourne: Grattan Institute. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). (2005). E-learning in teriary education: where do we stand? Paris: Author. Paul, J. A., Baker, H. M., & Cochran, J. D. (2012). Effect of online social networking on student academic performance. Computers in Human Behavior, 28(6), 2117–2127. doi:10.1016/j. chb.2012.06.016 Prestridge, S. (2012). The beliefs behind the teacher that influences their ICT practices. Computers & Education, 58(1), 449–458. doi:10.1016/j. compedu.2011.08.028

 University Teachers’ Interactions with Their Online Students

Ramsden, P. (2006). Managing the effective university. Higher Education Research & Development, 17(3), 347–370. doi:10.1080/0729436980170307 Reisman, S., Dear, R. G., & Edge, D. (2001). Evolution of web-based distance learning strategies. International Journal of Educational Management, 15(5), 245–251. doi:10.1108/09513540110396913 Reushle, S., & McDonald, J. (2000). Moving an Australian dual mode university to the online environment: A case study. Retrieved from http:// eprints.usq.edu.au/4360/ Robeyns, I. (2005). The capability approach: A theoretical survey. Journal of Human Development, 6(1), 93–117. doi:10.1080/146498805200034266 Rockwell, S. K., Schauer, J., Fritz, S., & Marx, D. B. (1999). Incentives and obstacles influencing higher education faculty and administrators to teach via distance. Retrieved from http://www. westga. edu/~distance/rockwell24.html Samarawickrema, G., & Stacey, E. (2007). Adopting web-based learning and teaching: A case study in higher education. Distance Education, 28(3), 313–333. doi:10.1080/01587910701611344 Smeets, E., Mooij, T., Bamps, H., Bartolomé, A., Lowyck, J., Redmond, D., & Steffens, K. (1999). The impact of information and communication technology on the teacher. Retrieved from http:// www. pgce.soton.ac.uk/ict/NewPGCE/PDFs/ The%20impact%20of%20ict%20on%20the%20 teacher.pdf Stassen, M. L., Herrington, A., & Henderson, L. (2011). Defining critical thinking in higher education. In J. E. Miller& J. E. Groccia (Eds.), To improve the academy: Resources for faculty, instructional, and organizational development (vol. 30). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass

Stendal, K., Munkvold, B. E., Molka-Danielsen, J., & Balandin, S. (2013). Social affordances for people with lifelong disability through using virtual worlds. Retrieved from http://ieeexplore.ieee. org/ xpls/abs_all.jsp?arnumber=6479938&tag=1 Stewart, D. L., & Shamdasani, P. N. (1990). Theory and practices. London: Sage. Tashakori, A. (1998). Mixed methodology: Combining qualitative and quantitative approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. The Department of Industry. Innovation, Science, Research and Tertiary Education. (2012). Higher education standards framework (thresholds), 2011. Canberra, Australia: Author. University of Southern Queensland. (2010). Work allocation policy and procedure. Retrieved from www.usq.edu.au Winter, R., & Sarros, J. (2002). The academic work environment in Australian universities: A motivating place to work? Higher Education Research & Development, 21(3), 241–258. doi:10.1080/0729436022000020751 Winter, R., Taylor, T., & Sarros, J. (2000). Trouble at Mill: Quality of academic worklife issues within a comprehensive Australian university. Studies in Higher Education, 25(3), 279–294. doi:10.1080/713696158 Xu, Y., & Meyer, K. A. (2007). Factors explaining faculty technology use and productivity. The Internation and Higher Education, 10(1), 41–52. doi:10.1016/j.iheduc.2006.10.004

ADDITIONAL READING Amichai-Hamburger, Y., & Hayat, Z. (2011). The impact of the Internet on the social lives of users: A representative sample from 13 countries. Computers in Human Behavior, 27(1), 585–589. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2010.10.009

167

 University Teachers’ Interactions with Their Online Students

Black, A. P., & Baker, M. (2011). The impact of parent advocacy groups, the Internet, and social networking on rare diseases: The IDEA League and IDEA League United Kingdom example. Epilepsia, 52(suppl.2), 102–104. doi:10.1111/j.15281167.2011.03013.x PMID:21463291 Blas, T. M., & Serrano-Fernández, A. (2009). The role of new technologies in the learning process: Moodle as a teaching tool in Physics. Computers & Education, 52(1), 35–44. doi:10.1016/j. compedu.2008.06.005 Brine, J., Wilson, I., & Roy, D. (2007). Using Moodle and other software tools in EFL courses in a Japanese IT university. Retrieved from http:// ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpls/abs_all.jsp?arnumber= 4385225 Bussieres, J. F., Metras, M. E., & Leclerc, G. (2012). Use of Moodle, ExamSoft, and Twitter in a first-year pharmacy course. American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education. Retrieved from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/ PMC3386045/ Cheon, J., Lee, S., Crooks, S. M., & Song, J. (2012). An investigation of mobile learning readiness in higher education based on the theory of planned behavior. Computers & Education, 59(3), 1054–1064. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2012.04.015 Ferro, E., Helbig, N. C., & Gil-Garcia, J. R. (2011). The role of IT literacy in defining digital divide policy needs. Government Information Quarterly, 28(1), 3–10. doi:10.1016/j.giq.2010.05.007 Gumus, S. (2012). Investigating the factors affecting information and communication technology (ICT) Usage of Turkish students in PISA 2009. Procedia: Social and Behavioral Sciences, 64, 219–227. doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.11.026

168

Flanigan, E., Clarry, J., & Peterson, R. (1997). Impact of economic, cultural, and social factors on Internet usage in selected European and Asian countries. Retrieved from http://www.gbv.de/dms/ tib-ub-hannover/242103553.pdf Georgieva, E. S., Smrikarov, A. S., & Georgiev, T. S. (2011). Evaluation of mobile learning system. Procedia Computer Science, 3, 632–637. Gutierrez, E., Trenas, M. A., Ramos, J., Corbera, F., & Romero, S. (2010). A new Moodle module supporting automatic verification of VHDL-based assignments. Computers & Education, 54(2), 562–577. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2009.09.006 Holbl, M., & Welzer, T. (2010). Students’ feedback and communication habits using Moodle. Electronics and Electircal Engineering, 6(102), 63–66. Igari, N. (2014). How to successfully promote ICT usage: A comparative analysis of Denmark and Japan. Telematics and Informatics, 31(1), 115–125. doi:10.1016/j.tele.2012.10.001 James, J. (2009). Information technology use among individuals in rich and poor countries: The disappearing divide. Telematics and Informatics, 26(4), 317–321. doi:10.1016/j.tele.2009.03.002 Karpinski, A. C., Kirschner, P. A., Ozer, I., Mellott, J. A., & Ochwo, P. (2013). An exploration of social networking site use, multitasking, and academic performance among United States and European university students. Computers in Human Behavior, 29(3), 1182–1192. doi:10.1016/j. chb.2012.10.011 Lam, P., Csete, J., & Carmel, M. (2010). Costs of e-learining support: an investigation across 139 small projects. In M. Khosrow-Pour (Ed.), WebBased Education: Cocepts, Methodologies, Tools, and Applications (pp. 1347–1360). New York, NY: Information Science Reference. doi:10.4018/9781-61520-963-7.ch091

 University Teachers’ Interactions with Their Online Students

Njenga, J. K., & Fourie, L. C. H. (2010). The myths about e-learning in higher education. British Journal of Educational Technology, 41(2), 199–212. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8535.2008.00910.x Novo-Corti, I., Varela-Candamio, L., & RamilDiaz, M. (2013). E-learning and face to face mixed methodology: Evaluating effectiveness of e-learning and perceived satisfaction for a microeconomic course using the Moodle platform. Computers in Human Behavior, 29(2), 410–415. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2012.06.006 Ozdamli, F., & Cavus, N. (2011). Basic elements and characteristics of mobile learning. Procedia: Social and Behavioral Sciences, 28, 937–942. doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2011.11.173 Popa, I., Paraschiv, D. M., Belu, M. G., Tudor, C., Dorobantu, R. V., & Langa, C. A. (2010). The on-line learning, a viable alternative to the classic course delivery style: The Moodle platform. Quality Management in Higher Education, 2, 601–604. Riddell, W. C., & Song, X. (2011). The role of education in technology use and adoption: evidence from canadian workplace and employee survery. Working paper no. 83. Vancouver, BC: University of British Columbia. Sheskin, D. J. (2011). Handbook of parametric and non-parametric statistical procedure (5th ed.). London: Chapman and Hall/CRC. Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: grounded theory procedures and techniques. Yew York, NY: Sage. van der Westhuizen, D. (2005). ICT in education. Education as Change, 9(2), 1–4. doi:10.1080/16823200509487113

Yang, Y. F., & Lin, N. C. (2010). Internet perceptions, online participation and language learning in Moodle forums: A case study on nursing students in Taiwan. Innovation and Creativity in Education, 2(2), 2647–2651. Yousef, A. B., & Dahmani, M. (2008). The impact of ICT on student performance in higher education: Direct effects, indirect effects and organisational changes. (Research Monograph). Retrieved from http://www.uoc.edu/rusc/5/1/dt/ eng/benyoussef_dahmani.pdf

KEY TERMS AND DEFINITIONS E-Learning: refers to the use of ICT to enhance and to support teaching and learning in tertiary education. The teaching and learning include online provision and campus-based or other distance based provision of teaching and learning. Information and Communication Technology (ICT): refers two components: information technology (IT) and communication technology (CT). IT refers to computer hardware and software, including tablet, personal digital assistance (PDA). CT refers to Internet facilities, including smart phone. Learning Management System (LMS): refers to web-based course management system, including Moodle, and Backboard Collaborate. It is run on a university server that is accessible by an individual via computer and internet. Social Software: refers to software available free on the Internet. It includes Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, Skype, etc.

van Deursen, A. J. A. M., & van Dijk, J. A. G. M. (2009). Improving digital skills for the use of online public information and services. Government Information Quarterly, 26(2), 333–340. doi:10.1016/j.giq.2008.11.002

169

Section 3

171

Chapter 8

Academic Service-Learning as a Pedagogical Tool and Strategy: Promoting Critical Thinking among Pre-Service Teachers Estanislado S. Barrera, IV Louisiana State University, USA Margaret-Mary Sulentic Dowell Louisiana State University, USA

ABSTRACT This chapter presents academic service-learning (AS-L) as a pedagogical tool and strategy for promoting critical thinking among pre-service teachers. The results of the two cases discussed reveal that many well-intentioned young education majors’ frames of reference about urban education indicate a dissonance of experience. Public urban education in the US is becoming increasingly stratified with teachers representing White, female, middle income backgrounds and resultant perspectives, but public school children in the United States represent families of color and communities that are predominantly poor. AS-L truly promotes critical thinking about teaching and learning, especially when the tensions surrounding difference surface. Findings indicate that pre-service teachers must first overcome bias, negative expectations, and stereotypes before they synthesize the elements of the instructional process that leads to achieving reflective praxis.

INTRODUCTION Public urban education in the United States (US) is becoming increasingly bifurcated with teachers representing White, female, middle income backgrounds and resultant perspectives while urban public school populations primarily consist

of children in the US from families of color and communities that are predominantly poor (Au, 2006; Ayres & Ford, 1996; Compton-Lilly, 2004; Delpit, 1995; Freedman, Simons & Casareno, 1999; Ladson-Billings, 1994, 1995; Sulentic Dowell, 2008, 2009, 2012). This dynamic gives rise to tensions between the lived experiences of

DOI: 10.4018/978-1-4666-8411-9.ch008

Copyright © 2015, IGI Global. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.

 Academic Service-Learning as a Pedagogical Tool and Strategy

teachers which can be markedly different than the lived experiences of the students with whom they teach (Barnes, 2006; Cochran-Smith, 2000; Delpit, 1995; Irvine, 2003; Ladson-Billings, 1994). One example of this can be found at Louisiana State University (LSU) in the School of Education where the majority of the elementary education candidates are White, female, and from middle-income households preparing to teach in public school districts that are predominantly Black and populated with students from lower socio-economic backgrounds. This dissonance of experience between teacher and student is exacerbated by the fact that the participants’ personal K-12 school experiences reflect parochial education environments. This dissonance requires pre-service teachers to think critically about their practice and the decisions they will make in the classroom. The purpose of this study was to investigate how pre-service teachers’ engagement with academic service-learning (AS-L) promoted critical thinking (CT). Figure 1. Kolb’s Experiential Learning Process.

172

THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK For the purpose of this study, we turned to Kolb’s (1984) experiential learning theory to guide our research. Building on Dewey’s (1910, 1916, 1933) work, Kolb’s (1984) model outlines how learning involves the translation of experiences through the process of reflection into understanding, which is then applied through active experimentation in the form of new experiences (See Figure 1). ZuberSkerritt (1992), found it to be a “comprehensive theory which offers the foundation for an approach to education and learning as a lifelong process and which is soundly based in intellectual traditions of philosophy and cognitive and social psychology” (p. 98). Highlighting the significance of reflection, Anderson and Adams (1992) supported that Kolb’s theory “is rooted in a theory of learning that affirms all major aspects of active learning, usefully accounting for an array of individual and culturally derived differences” (p. 25).

 Academic Service-Learning as a Pedagogical Tool and Strategy

More recently, Healey and Jenkins (2007) found that “the experiential learning theory affirms the importance of experiential activities, such as fieldwork and laboratory sessions” (p. 186). Specifically, they felt Kolb’s theory “makes explicit the importance of encouraging students to reflect and providing them with feedback to reinforce their learning” (p. 186). Applying this theory, our study used various modes of reflection to gain an understanding of how our pre-service teachers think critically while in the field. Kolb’s (1984) cycle process—reflection on concrete experiences, thought observations, abstract conceptualization, and active experimentation—leads to inclusion of reflective activities prior to, during, and after service as part of AS-L assignments.

BACKGROUND Critical Thinking in Education Education has enjoyed a long tradition of promoting critical thinking hailing back to the Greek philosopher, Socrates, who over 2,500 years ago utilized a technique of inquisitive and investigative questioning. He established the significance of asking questions that delved deeply and required more extensive thinking; questions that demand the importance of seeking out evidence and that examine both assumptions and resultant reasoning. His method of questioning, known as “Socratic Questioning,” is often considered a prime CT teaching strategy (Benson, 2000; Guthrie, 1968). Educational philosopher, Dewey (1910, 1916, 1933) sustained the tradition of promoting CT among students, identifying learning to think as a fundamental purpose of education. He recognized that curriculum focused on building thinking skills would benefit the individual learner, the community, and the entire democracy. Specifically, Dewey (1916) defined CT as “reflective thought” and stated, “The sole direct path to enduring improvement in the methods of instruction and learning

consists in centering upon the conditions which exact, promote, and test thinking” (pp. 179-180). In a similar vein, Glaser (1941), a prominent educational psychologist, proposed that the ability to think critically involves three elements: 1. Dispositions likely to consider thoughtful ways to solve problems including considerations of ones experiences, 2. Knowledge of logical inquiry and reasoning, and 3. Skill application of those methods. (p. 54) Considering the work of Dewey and Glaser then, we establish that a primary aim of education is to promote critical thinking. Generally speaking, one of the aims of higher education is to also increase university students’ ability to think critically. Thus, a common thread from early learning to post-secondary education is to promote critical thinking among all students. Narrowing the lens to our field, we posit that a major goal within teacher education is to expand pre-service teachers’ existing frames of reference by promoting critical thinking. In fact, education’s rich tradition of promoting critical thinking among students carries over to students who become teacher education candidates and this ability to think critically is paramount for pre-service teachers who eventually become inservice teachers who promote critical thinking among their own students. Therefore, the purpose of this case study was to examine the dispositional shifts of a group of elementary pre-service teachers who were in their initial entrée into teaching and to understand if AS-L as a pedagogical tool and strategy could promote CT.

Critical Thinking in Higher Education The need to improve CT among students in higher education has long been supported by research and continues to still be identified as a high-level need (Halper, 1998; Kuhn, 1999; Miri, David & Uri,

173

 Academic Service-Learning as a Pedagogical Tool and Strategy

2007). In most cases, CT can be conceptualized as higher order thinking skills. Most often related to traditional terms associated with cognitive skills such as analysis, evaluation, and synthesis (Bloom, Englehart, Furst, Hill, & Krathwohl, 1956). Thus, when these cognitive skills are applied the result is the development of problem solving, inferring, estimating, predicting, generalizing, and thinking creatively. Teachers who promote critical thinking nurture reflectiveness in students by posing questions that encourage and inspire thinking which is vital to knowledge construction. According to the National Council for Excellence in Critical Thinking (1987),

ment, and evaluate field experiences and clinical practice so that teacher candidates and other school professionals develop and demonstrate the knowledge, skills, and professional dispositions necessary to help all students learn. (2012)

Each discipline adapts its use of critical thinking concepts and principles. The core concepts are always there, but they are embedded in subjectspecific content. For students to learn content, intellectual engagement is crucial. All students must do their own thinking, their own construction of knowledge. Good teachers recognize this and therefore focus on the questions, readings, activities that stimulate the mind to take ownership of key concepts and principles underlying the subject.

Academic Service-Learning

For teacher educators, the application of CT as a student to the transmission of CT as a teacher is a crucial step. One way that this is accomplished is through the field experiences the pre-service teachers participate in as they are learning to be teachers. These opportunities provide an authentic context for pre-service teachers to begin to think like teachers and to apply the concept of CT to the classroom arena. In addition to the benefits thus outlined, courseembedded AS-L aligns with the National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE) standards for field experiences. NCATE Standard 3 explicitly links the role of field experiences with teacher education candidate preparation: Standard 3: Field Experiences and Clinical Practice - The unit and its school partners design, imple-

174

Although NCATE does not identify any particular or exact types of placements, the accreditation body does recognize the importance of school-level partners working together with university teacher education faculty and in tandem with teacher preparation programs to shape field experiences that prepare pre-service teachers to reach and teach all students.

To cultivate sensitivity toward diversity, many researchers demand coherent and relevant culturally responsive theory, pedagogy, and experiences throughout the entire teacher preparation sequence. For almost ten years, AS-L has been identified as a way to facilitate preparation for urban teaching (Allam & Zerkin, 1993; Anderson & Guest, 1995). Butin (2003) further supported this approach as he focused on four notions of AS-L: cultural, political, post-constructuralist, and technical. As described by Butin’s conceptualization, this AS-L experience was labeled as a cultural AS-L. Throughout this study, AS-L was a method for deepening students’ awareness, respect, and acceptance of diversity (Butin, 2003). This study is a prime example of AS-L as pedagogy in the context of two undergraduate literacy methods courses where course learning goals and objectives were internalized through carefully selected and sequentially structured field experiences.

Academic ServiceLearning in Education A carefully crafted, strategic, and sequential set of field experiences safeguard that pre-service teachers enter the workforce as culturally responsive

 Academic Service-Learning as a Pedagogical Tool and Strategy

teachers (Barnes, 2004; Cochran-Smith, 2000; Gay, 2000; Irvine, 2003; Larkin & Sleeter, 1995; Mason & Schumm, 2003; Villegas & Lucas, 2002). One way to accomplish this is through AS-L. This pedagogical tool is powerful in that it links meaningful, course-embedded service with academic learning, individual growth, and community responsibility. Leading scholars have drawn attention to the efficacy of incorporating AS-L into teacher education coursework (Boyle-Baise & Kilbane, 2000; Root, 1994, 1997; Root, Callahan, & Sepanski, 2002; Spencer, Cox-Petersen, & Crawford, 2005). Unlike traditional field education programs where service is likely performed as an addendum to students’ coursework, AS-L integrates service within the course (Kuhlmann, 2006; Sulentic Dowell, 2008, 2009; Villegas & Lucas, 2002). Teacher education programming is improved in terms of sufficiently preparing students to teach successfully in urban environments by delivering strategically focused, intentional AS-L activities, situated in urban schools and communities, that provide pre-service teachers opportunities to experience cultural, linguistic, and economic diversity firsthand. Courses with AS-L components influence pre-service teachers’ dispositions, which result in improved classroom practice (Boyle-Baise, 2002; Tai-Seale, 2001). AS-L is addresses both the tensions created by difference in background and the gap between students and teachers created by contrasting backgrounds by engaging university students in courseembedded, structured, opportunities that scaffold experiences, which in turn, broaden their cultural spheres and widen perspectives. Simultaneously, such AS-L experiences not only synthesize course objectives through experiences, but also provide a reciprocal benefit to service recipients. These AS-L activities embedded in coursework can help students to internalize course objectives and deepen content knowledge through authentic experiences while also providing reciprocal ben-

efits to service recipients (Kendall, 1990). Within designated AS-L courses, objectives are matched to the common needs of the community partner in order to achieve mutual benefits for the students as well as the partner, specifically K-12 institutions (Tai-Seale, 2001). To explicitly address the educational impact of culture, ethnicity, language, and economic difference with pre-service teachers, we purposefully chose Westside Elementary (pseudonym used) as a site for AS-L and cultivated a partnership founded on strong relationships with the administrator, instructional coaches, and grade level in-service teachers. Aware of the demographics and educational experiences of our pre-service teachers, we knew that Westside Elementary would not only benefit from a partnership, but the children’s diverse backgrounds and needs amplified the need to forge a field experience placement that would challenge our pre-service teachers preconceived notions and foster CT, while at the same time benefitting the school and the children. Within these two courses’ field experiences, opportunities were intentionally sequenced and carefully structured for pre-service teachers to synthesize pedagogical knowledge gained from previous courses, current course objectives, and authentic challenges and demands of the classroom setting—achieving praxis. Specifically, objectives from the two courses implementing AS-L for a literacy foundations course were matched to needs of first and second grade students at Westside Elementary. The first course concentrated on reading, writing, and speaking. The second course focused on assessments specific to literacy, how assessment drives instruction, and reporting findings. Through our relationship with Westside Elementary, we were asked to provide instructional support that ranged from academic concerns such as lack of ability to decode, disfluency, comprehension issues, and writing weaknesses. Additionally, we were asked to assist with behavioral concerns that consisted of attention seeking behaviors

175

 Academic Service-Learning as a Pedagogical Tool and Strategy

and impulsiveness. For this cohort of education majors, these field experiences provided practical and authentic opportunities to apply classroom concepts about culturally appropriate practices. The components of this AS-L partnership is supported by Lee (2007) who advocates that those who elect to teach in urban schools will flourish and succeed if they understand both the content and pedagogy of their discipline and if they possess specific knowledge about their urban students’ language, culture, community, and sociocultural experiences. She asserts that content knowledge “is both rigorous and complex” (p. 120), and teachers in urban systems must possess the ability to craft instruction that accommodates and facilitates students’ ways of knowing. Such teaching demands CT. Again, Lee’s research reaffirms our approach as she insists thtat teachers must weave content knowledge, pedagogical practice, and what students know and value from [their] everyday settings to support in-school learning so that “differences between community-based and school-based norms can be negotiated by both students and teachers” (p. 15).

Reflection and Critical Reflection (CR) Reflection is an important part of both CT and AS-L (Bringle & Hatcher, 1999, 2002; Eyler, Giles, & Schmiede, 1996; Hatcher & Bringle, 1997). Reflective practices are also integral to the development of pre-service teachers and professional growth of in-service teachers as they provide avenues to process new knowledge in a structured, non-threatening manner. However, developing metacognitive practices can also occur at different levels ranging from simple forms of journaling and summarizing to more complex forms that involve analysis and syntheses. One example of the later is critical reflection (CR). Critical reflection occurs when the thoughts and

176

actions are analyzed resulting in the validity of their presuppositions and assessments being challenged, resulting in new learning experiences (Hatcher & Bringle, 1997). As a crucial component of AS-L pedagogy, CR is a facilitated process in which faculty provide students with a way to integrate their new experiences in the community—in this case field experiences—with the theories and models explored in the classroom. Eyler, Giles, & Schmiede (1996) found that this process of CR documents student experience using a more analytical framework because reflection is most meaningful when it is structured and connects experiences to classroom learning and the larger issues considered in a course. With this approach, optimal opportunities for reflection are carefully crafted and strategically designed to be integrated throughout the duration of the course. When designed in such a manner, reflection activities guide students in the examination of their perspectives, assumptions, biases, and stereotypes about themselves, community, and the organizations and people they are working with. This was the case with our pre-service teachers and the students at Westside Elementar. These metacognitive activities allowed pre-service teachers to explore the relationships and power differentials between and among bias, privilege, prejudice, oppression, and core causes of inequality within the AS-L they engaged in, as well as the academic content they were studying (Eyler, Giles, & Schmiede, 1996). Overall, a directed approach to reflection, such as CR, both challenge and support new learning throughout the reflective process.

Reflective Devices Hatcher and Bringle (1997, 2002) suggest many forms of reflection to incorporate into coursework and field experiences. Depending on course goals and objectives and the kinds of experiences that

 Academic Service-Learning as a Pedagogical Tool and Strategy

are structured, different forms of reflection can be facilitated. We selected the following activities to capture reflection about field experiences.

practice as AS-L scholars led us to this timely study. The following overarching questions bracketed this study:

Personal Reflections

1. How does AS-L components embedded in field experiences provide opportunities for pre-service teachers to think critically? 2. How do structured, sequential reflections influence pre-service teachers’ abilities to think critically?

A personal reflection allows students to write freely about their experiences, typically at intervals. In course 1, students submitted an end of course reflection that captured the field experience as a whole. In addition to traditional reflections, Facebook was also used as a means of submitting reflections about the pre-service teachers’ experiences during the AS-L events. Course 2 utilized structured reflections at three intervals throughout the course. These personal reflections can either be submitted at intervals to the instructor, or they can be kept as a reference to use at the end of an extended experience to gain an understanding of the experience as a whole (Hatcher & Bringle, 1997).

Critical Incident Reflections In this type of reflection, students focus on analysis of a particular event that occurred during field experience. Providing prompts or guiding questions direct the thinking, requiring students to consider their thoughts and reactions in order to articulate the action they plan to take in the future. This method is particularly suited to preservice teachers who are gaining experience that both challenges existing frames of reference but also requires assimilation of new knowledge into future actions, such as lesson plans (Hatcher & Bringle, 1997).

RESEARCH QUESTIONS Our interests in adequately preparing pre-service teachers to teach in urban environments and our

METHODS An embedded case study (Stake, 2006, 2010; Yin, 2009) was selected as the study design. Embedded case studies focus on smaller units of analysis rather than examining the case as a whole. In this embedded design and analysis, we specifically focused on the pre-service teachers’ critical thinking skills as they engaged in two courses that had AS-L partnerships for their field experiences.

Setting The setting for this study was the field experiences site for pre-service teachers who were enrolled in two literacy courses within their initial block of professional practice courses. Westside Elementary is an urban elementary school situated in southern Louisiana, the same city in which LSU is located and part of the local parish-wide (county) school system. According to the Louisiana Department of Education (LA DOE) (2014), 83.73% of the local school system’s total student population qualify for free and reduced lunch. Westside Elementary’s enrollment during the 2013-14 school year fluctuated between 382 to 392 students in grades kindergarten through 5th grade. Based on current data, 193 kindergarten through 5th grade students qualified for either free or reduced lunch, according to NCES data base. The student body

177

 Academic Service-Learning as a Pedagogical Tool and Strategy

represented the following demographics: 46.2% of the students identified as White; 41.9% of the students identified as Black; 1.6% of the students enrolled identified as Hispanic; 5.7% of the student body identified as Asian; 1.0% of students enrolled at Westside identified as American Indian; and 1.0% of the students identify as Hawaiian and/ or Pacific Islander. A total of 3.8% of students enrolled self-identified as multiracial. In addition 5% of the student population qualified for special education services and 1.0% qualified and received services for limited English proficiency. While race, ethnicity, and income level are important factors to consider, we also offer other circumstances that further describe Westside students and the families and communities from which they hailed. According to demographic and assessment data, the principal, Nancy Curry (pseudonym used), stated that the student population displayed a diverse range of abilities, family configurations, and backgrounds. Students enrolled at Westside ranged from those who exhibited characteristics of gifted and talented to students who were two to three instructional levels below their grade placement. Some students came from families in high-income brackets while many others lived at or below the poverty line. The principal stated that this diversity was welcomed and cherished, but presented instructional challenges. This was especially true in terms of differentiating instruction—particularly in regards to delivery of instruction. With respect to the field experience placements for AS-L, each course partnered with a different grade level. Course 1 worked specifically with

second grade that consisted of three classes. Course 2 partnered with first grade, which also had three classes. The pre-service teachers worked with the students in their respective classrooms as well as in other locations throughout the school’s campus that were conducive to the instructional activities scheduled for each particular day. Additional locations included the cafeteria, library, interior and exterior corridors, and picnic tables outside by the playground.

Participants There were a total of 26 participants that were candidates in the Elementary Grades Teacher Education Program (grades 1-5). All of the participants were concurrently enrolled in the two co-requisite literacy courses during the Spring 2014 semester. Course 1 was for six hours of credit and concentrated on pedagogy related to reading, writing, and oral communication. Course 2 was a three-hour, credit bearing, reading assessment course. The participants were all in their early to mid-20’s. The participants’ demographics were 25 females and 1 male. Of the 25 females, 21 were White, 2 were Black, and 2 were Hispanic. The single male participant was Black (see Table 1). It is worthy to note that the demographics of this study’s participants mirror national teacher demographics.

Data Collection For the purposes of this study, two courses were used as the embedded units of analysis, and

Table 1. Participant demographics Ethnicity Gender

White

Black

Hispanic

Total

Female

21

2

2

25

Male

1

1 26

178

 Academic Service-Learning as a Pedagogical Tool and Strategy

represented two distinct AS-L partnerships with differing field experiences. To distinguish these two embedded units, the six-hour credit course that focused on reading instruction was labeled as course 1 and the three-hour credit course that focused on literacy assessment was labeled course 2. Data sources included various forms of reflections completed after each field experience, as well as A-SL partnership products that included a progress monitoring report from course 1 and the recommendation section of final reports from course 2. Additionally, we referred to observations during class discussion and while engaged in field experiences and informal interviews with Westside’s principal to triangulate our data.

Reflections As we have established, reflections were an integral part of fostering CT by our pre-service teachers and therefore were considered the primary data source for this study. Collection of the participants’ reflections began within the second week of the semester for both courses and continued at different intervals throughout the semester, respective of each course. The following describes the reflective process for both course 1 and 2.

1. Teaching requires critical thinking—applying analyzing, synthesizing, and evaluating. Reflect on the critical thinking you did today during your field experience. 2. Teaching requires us to identify problems and find solutions to those problems. Identify and discuss a problem you encountered today during your field experience. 3. According to Bonnie Potts (1994), critical thinking skills should “travel well.” How does this relate to your field experience today? 4. How has today’s field experience helped you to clarify any misunderstandings or misconceptions of topics covered in class? 5. What has today’s field experience added to your knowledge and understanding of teaching as a pre-service teacher?

Course 1 Reflections

The participants were required to submit their reflections immediately after completing their two-hour field experience for that scheduled day. In addition to their reflections, the participants also had the option of uploading photographs that supported their replies. For the end-of-course summative reflection, the participants were given three guiding questions to respond to that encompassed the entire semester. The guiding questions were:

In course 1, both formative and summative endof-course reflections were collected. Formative reflections took the form of the participants replying to ten Facebook posts submitted by the respective researcher. For the purpose of this study, only five of the ten Facebook reflections were analyzed because they pertained specifically to CT and their field experiences. The five that were not analyzed addressed other topics pertinent to the course goals and objectives. The following Facebook posts submitted by the researcher served as prompts for the pre-service teachers’ replies:

1. How did working with children impact your understanding of how to teach reading and writing? Could you have reached this level of understanding without the field experience and AS-L partnership (just classroom lectures)? 2. What was the ONE most significant thing that you learned about how children develop as readers and writers? 3. Providing the Progress Monitoring Reports to the teachers was the main part of our AS-L

179

 Academic Service-Learning as a Pedagogical Tool and Strategy

partnership. What did you learn about the relationship between assessment and instruction by completing this report? The participants were given a week to complete these after the completion of all of our field experience visits to the elementary campus. Course 2 Reflections In course 2, students completed an initial, medial, and final reflection. Prompts were also used for these interval reflections:

of the students they worked with during one-toone tutoring. Copies of these reports were given to the respective teachers of the second grade students as well as to each individual parent(s) or caregiver. For the purpose of this study, each pre-service teacher’s section that recommended future instruction was analyzed for evidence of CT by the participants. Final Report of Tutoring Recommendation Section

Students were given one week to respond to each prompt after it was assigned.

As the AS-L component of course 2, students completed a Final Report of Tutoring and Instruction that was shared with the three first grade teachers and with families of the students tutored. Within this Final Report, students were asked to provide recommendations based on three goals they established which were generated from assessments they learned to administer as part of the course. These final recommendation sections were also examined and coded for instances of critical thinking.

AS-L Partnership Products

Observations

As part of our AS-L partnership, the 26 participants completed reports summarizing what each one accomplished as a pre-service teacher while conducting one-to-one tutoring with each student they were assigned to. For course 1, the pre-service teachers completed a progress monitoring report. For course 2, the tutoring recommendation section of a formal case study written about each individual student that was tutored was used. The following sections provide details for both of these reports:

In addition to the various forms of reflections and AS-L partnership products, we also conducted observations at different events throughout the semester. During class discussions and while engaged in field experiences, observation field notes were collected for the purpose of triangulating data. For course 1, a total of 30 observations were completed during the ten field experience visits. These observations resulted in rich field notes—there were no audio- or video-recordings collected to protect the identity of the children of Westside Elementary. The observations ranged from 15 to 30 minutes each and were conducted when the pre-service teachers were engaged in whole-class instruction, small-group instruction, one-to-one tutoring, or administration of an informal reading assessment. A total of ten two hour field experiences equaling a total of 20

1. Initial reflection prompt: What surprised you? 2. Medial reflection prompt: What have you learned about yourself and teaching? 3. Final reflection prompt: How has your thinking about teaching changed?

Progress Monitoring Report for In-Service Teacher and Parent(s) Through the partnership established with Westside Elementary, participants in course 1 prepared a report summarizing all of the assessment data, identified areas of growth, skills targeted, and recommendations for future instruction for each

180

 Academic Service-Learning as a Pedagogical Tool and Strategy

hours were completed for course 2. One session was an orientation session and the remaining nine sessions were divided into the following activities: 45 minutes of whole group instruction, 45 minutes of small group instruction, and 30 minutes of one-to-one tutoring. In an effort to triangulate data, observations were conducted during nine of the semester’s field experience sessions as well as during class discussions for course 2. Ten 1.5 hour field experiences totaling 15 hours were completed for course 2. A total of 26 individual observations occurred with each LSU student being observed as they tutoring one-to-one. Typically, observation lasted 10-15 minutes. Field experience session 1 was devoted to an orientation conducted by Westside’s literacy coach and the remaining nine sessions were divided into the following segments: 60 minutes of viewing a teacher-led teaching activity following by small group, teacher-directed instruction conducted within each of the first grade classrooms followed by 30 minutes of one-to-one tutoring in one of Westside’s common spaces: the computer lab, the cafeteria, or the school library.

Informal Interviews During preplanning sessions with the school principal about field experiences, we recorded thoughts and ideas generated during discussions. In addition, during the ten weeks of field experience we engaged in numerous informal conversations with the principal. We made it a point to record salient thoughts from these informal conversations related to critical thinking.

ANALYSIS Qualitative studies should align analytical processes with researchers’ identified paradigms and preferred methods (Koro-Ljungberg, YendolHoppey, Jude Smith, & Hayes, 2009). For this study, our analysis was based on Denzin and

Lincoln’s (2011) constructivist paradigm. Analysis was conducted according to Creswell’s (1998) and Glaser and Strauss’ (1967) constant comparative method involving a continuous cycle of conception and categorization. Analysis included coding each data source line-by-line, then examining codes that correlated, collapsing codes into code concepts. Analysis of code concepts led to themes. Point of saturation occurred when no new themes emerged. Analysis within the embedded design provided us the opportunity to create thick, rich descriptions (Geertz, 1973; Chiseri-Starter & Sunstein, 2006) of the pre-service teachers’ developing ability to think critically about instructional decisions. The most ideal approach for analyzing case data is relying on the theoretical propositions of the case (Yin, 2009), which for this study was AS-L as pedagogy for preparing pre-service teachers.

Phase I Initially, we coded reflections line-by-line separately, coding our respective course reflections. We coded instances broadly using open coding. We inductively employed open coding, recording all words and phrases that indicated critical thinking. Our respective observations were also coded separately employing inductive open coding.

Phase II Once we had individually coded our reflections and individual observations, we came together as a team to share coding. This led us to examine codes and code categories from reflections and further refine final themes. Additionally, we compared observation field notes to triangulate findings from reflections (Charmaz, 2000; Creswell, 2007). Through prolonged engagement with the respective grade levels at the school (one academic semester), side-by-side examination of individual codes and code categories, both researchers collecting and analyzing data, and obtaining significant feedback of our analysis

181

 Academic Service-Learning as a Pedagogical Tool and Strategy

and case write-ups from one another and colleagues, we addressed credibility, transferability, dependability, and conformability in our analysis (Creswell, 2007; Stake, 2006, 2010).

LIMITATIONS Typical reasons students give regarding engagement in AS-L include: aiding others in need, experiencing personal satisfaction, providing assistance to a community, and improving society. Many university faculty view AS-L as a way to impact dispositions through intentional and strategic experience with “others.” However, this method can promote a sense of noblesse oblige, actually reinforcing stereotypical views (BoyleBaise, 1998; Boyle-Baise & Sleeter, 2000). The counterargument is that AS-L upholds paternalistic, tolerant, even ‘missionary’ orientations. Like Boyle-Baise and Efiom (2000), we posit that White, female, privileged university students from middle-class southern backgrounds whose involvement in poor, urban situation with an ethnic, cultural and economic strata differing from their backgrounds, can perceive AS-L as ‘do-gooder’ deeds completed in impoverished and marginalized communities. Additionally, we face many colleagues and a direct supervisor who question research aspects of AS-L’s sustained community impact, how to document learning as well as how to evaluate the benefit to recipients. Bias is an issue in qualitative work and in teacher preparation courses with an AS-L component. Specifically, our role as the instructors of these pre-service teachers must be taken into account because teachers’ actions, perceptions, and beliefs impact learning situations. For example, our enthusiasm for the placement at Westside could have biased students’ involvement, class discussion comments, and reflections. This leaves us to wonder, if the participants simply learned what was projected and acceded to what we advocated

182

as important, or did this AS-L experience truly impact their dispositions and ability to improve critical thinking?

FINDINGS Our findings indicate that AS-L truly promotes critical thinking about teaching and learning, especially when tensions surrounding difference in life experience surface. Three themes emerged from data analysis. Those themes were: (1) overcoming bias, negative expectations, and stereotypes, (2) synthesizing the elements of the instructional process, and (3) achieving reflective praxis.

Overcoming Bias, Negative Expectations, and Stereotypes The first theme, overcoming bias, negative expectations, and stereotypes reflected pre-service teachers’ initial dispositions. A total of 58 codes contributed to the code category, reflecting preservice teachers’ stereotypical thinking. The codes (see table 2) represented negative perspectives about urban students, urban schools, and urban education in general. However, considered as a theme, these codes and resultant code category also comprised the smallest number of codes overall. In course 2, the initial reflection asked students to comment on the orientation session as well as their first teaching field experience which included shadowing a first grade teacher while she conducted a large-group reading lesson, a small-group instructional activity that was teacherdirected, and the initial meeting with their child on a one-to-one tutoring session where they began administering assessments. Pre-service teachers began classes on January 16 and were asked to respond to the following prompt on February 6: What surprised me? Preservice teachers’ responses indicated an overall negative disposition toward the placement, the

 Academic Service-Learning as a Pedagogical Tool and Strategy

Table 2. Codes, code categories, and themes from analysis of data sources for course 1 and 2 Code

Code Category

Expected chaos (19) Low expectations (19) Expecting students to have the same values and life experiences (13) Expecting bare walls (3) Surprised at being welcomed (2) Surprised students were engaged (1) Child isn’t creative (1)

Pre-service teachers’ stereotypical thinking (58): this included the pre-service teachers stating prejudice or negative attitude towards the urban education environment, facilities, teachers, and students.

Overcoming Bias, Negative Expectations, and Stereotypes (58)

Determining student needs (145) Understanding range of ability (20) Assessment informs teaching (3)

Data-Driven Decision Making (168): this includes using data—formal and informal—to identify the instructional and individual needs of the student and how data sources influence instruction

Synthesizing the Elements of the Instructional Process (342)

Lesson planning (71) Time management (12) Planning and pacing instruction (7)

Lesson Design (90): this included selecting materials and resources, identifying standards and strategies, and determining the method and sequence, and adapting originally planned instruction or process. This could be attributed to student’s needs, changes in schedule or logistics, or being asked to do something not prepared for prior to the instructional event.

Synthesis of knowledge (76) Applying previous knowledge (8)

Application and Synthesis (84): this included the pre-service teacher applying and synthesizing knowledge from other educational courses he/she previously took or is currently taking.

Developing as a teacher (113) Realistic view of teaching (37) Teaching as an evolving process (28) Teacher impact in the classroom (22)

Evolving as a Teacher (200): this includes the pre-service teacher evaluating his/her own ability to deliver instruction and the overall process of developing into a teacher.

Improving future instruction (104) The importance of self-reflection (35) Choice as motivator (21)

Reflective Practitioner (160): this included the pre-service teacher evaluating her teaching to improve the quality of instruction for the future.

field experiences, and urban schooling. Pre-service teachers’ reflections contained comments about being surprised regarding the general condition of the building, indicating they expected disrepair and neglected physical conditions. For instance comments such as: “I was surprised the school was clean” to “the classroom was clean and orderly” to one pre-service teacher who reflected, “The campus, along with the first grade classroom I worked in, was clean and organized. Everything was vibrant and full of color!” revealed that preservice teachers expected dilapidated conditions

Theme

Achieving Reflective Praxis (360)

at the school. In essence they were surprised the school was clean and orderly, and that classrooms were inviting spaces, uncovering bias about urban schools. Several pre-service teachers were also surprised at they were received by faulty and staff into Westside and were actually welcomed in the classrooms to which they were assigned. A reflective comment, culled from initial reflections epitomized this view: “I was very surprised to see how welcoming everyone was to us.” We interpreted these kinds of reflections as indicative

183

 Academic Service-Learning as a Pedagogical Tool and Strategy

of pre-service teachers’ feelings of difference at being in a school that was so markedly different from their elementary schools. These initial reflections also indicated that pre-service teachers held low expectations for the first graders with whom they were assigned to work. A total of 19 codes were recorded from the initial 26 reflections that displayed pre-service teachers’ lack of expectation for these first graders. For instance, reflections about what surprised them that indicated a lack of expectation included the following example: I was surprised at how well the students answered some of the [teacher’s] questions. They went into greater detail that I expected, and if they had trouble with a question, they were able to find the answers with prompting from the teacher. Other pre-service teachers displayed similar dispositions regarding expectations and revealed low expectations with reflective comments such as: “I was surprised at how much the children were writing.” and “I was surprised at how well the students were able to formulate thoughtful sentences.” to “One thing that surprised me during my first visit was how excited my student was about reading and writing.” Another reflection contained the following: “The students did not complain … like I assumed they would do, when assigned a difficult task.” When we compared such reflections to field notes of class discussions and observations of small group class discussions about initial visits, pre-service teachers frankly shared that they did not expect learning to occur or that “students would not be able to do anything academic.” These reflections clearly indicated that pre-service teachers possessed low expectations regarding urban students. In many reflections, pre-service teachers indicated that they were surprised that the students with whom they were interacting possessed life experiences that differed from their

184

lived experiences as children. For example, one pre-service teacher responded, “I was shocked to learn that my student hated reading and had very little confidence concerning any type of reading.” She went on to explain that as a child she had loved to read assuming in her response that her experience as a child was universal experience. Another pre-service teacher reflected similarly as she stated in her reflection: What was even more shocking to me was that he said the only person who read to him was himself. I asked him if his parents ever do [read to him] to which he replied “no” and in a matter-of-fact manner. My parents always read to us as children, and I believe that his hatred of reading may spawn from his lack of being read to. Even his love for books is not near the level of mine. Clearly, both students compared their lived experiences to what they were learning about their students and expressed surprise and shock when the students’ views and experiences differed from theirs. This inability to accept background as simply different versus to judge background as less than acceptable, indicated a negative disposition. Expectations regarding behavior were also noted in reflections. Pre-service teachers seemed surprised that students complied with directives, behaved in classes and when walking between classes, and followed school rules. For example, reflective comments such as: “I was surprised at how well spoken and well-mannered he was,” characterized pre-service teachers expectations. Interestingly, reflections that indicated biases, conveyed negative expectations, and specified stereotypical views of urban students were confined to initial reflections in course 1. We postulate this occurred because of the open-ended prompt and that reflections in course 2 were highly structured. No additional negative comments were coded in subsequent reflections.

 Academic Service-Learning as a Pedagogical Tool and Strategy

Synthesizing the Elements of the Instructional Process The second theme to emerge from analysis of the data was the pre-service teacher’s ability to synthesize the elements of the instructional process. Data sources from course 1 for this theme included Facebook reflections, summative end-of-course reflection, and the instructional recommendations from the progress monitoring report. Data sources from course 2 for this theme included beginning, medial, and end reflections as well as recommendations section from the final report of tutoring prepared by the pre-service teachers. Three code categories were identified: (1) data-drive decision making with 168 codes, (2) lesson design with 90 code instances, and (3) application of course knowledge with 84 codes. Overall, there were a total of 342 codes for this theme (see table 2). The pre-service teachers’ responses significantly addressed issues involving data-driven decision making. Specifically, they reflected on using both informal and formal assessment data to identify the instructional and individual needs of the students they were working with during the field experience visits. One pre-service teacher reflected, “I continuously evaluate and assess my student as we are working, so if I notice something she is not understanding I can provide support or address it in an upcoming lesson.” Another noted, “I analyzed his responses on a graphic organizer he completed, which helped me understand his thought process and evaluate how well he comprehended the text he read.” In addition to informal evaluation of the students’ abilities, the pre-service teachers also used formal assessment data to evaluate their students’ needs. After completing the administration of the Developmental Reading Assessment (DRA) (1997), a pre-service teacher posted to Facebook: Today, I administered the DRA to my second grade student and gained so much insight into her reading abilities for both fiction and non-fiction

texts. This is an eye opener because I will have to now be aware of the strategies and scaffolds I implement depending on if the books we read are fiction or not. Another example of this is when a pre-service teacher reflected: I discovered how much student’s reading and writing levels varied in a single classroom… Some students could write long paragraphs with complete sentences, correct spelling, and neat handwriting, but other students could barely complete one sentence. The teacher’s instruction had to be differentiated to meet all the needs of each student in her classroom. What was significant was that the pre-service teachers thought critically about how assessment—both formal and informal—was informing instructional decisions they made. They also become keenly aware of the fact that students represent a wide range of ability levels, which the pre-service teachers needed to be able to address. The following quote, from course 1 initial reflection, signified a beginning understanding of range of abilities, One thing that shocked me as I was grading tests was the range of ability that exits in the [first grade] classroom. Some students were so advanced that Ms. Hill had to provide them with a completely different and more complex list of spelling words. On the other hand, some students could barely spell one word. While a mere 20 occurrences of this code might suggest it was not significant, we interpreted such comments to reflect a growing understanding of diversity of skill and range of experience that can exist in any given class at any grade level. Realizing that instruction needed to be differentiated was a prime instance of critical thinking. Field notes from observations recorded during class

185

 Academic Service-Learning as a Pedagogical Tool and Strategy

discussions revealed that pre-service teachers were increasingly able to think critically about assessment. Field notes also indicated that preservice teachers were realizing that whole group instruction was not always effective in terms of meeting individual needs. Lesson design was another code category developed through collapsing initial codes. This code category addressed pre-service teachers’ responsibilities that included lesson planning, adapting instruction on the spot, time management, and the planning and pacing of the instruction itself. Pre-service teachers realized that, “lesson planning was a lot more involved and required being aware of so many things . . . the right materials, books of high interest to the students, and having a back up plan.” The pre-service teachers also highlighted timing and pacing of instruction as important emerging skills. They realized that “everything had to be timed, [they] had to be as specific as possible with every instruction.” The pre-service teachers also learned the importance of being flexible and problem solving when they were asked to do something by the in-service teacher they were assigned to. This often required the pre-service teacher to adapt the pre-planned lesson or abandon it all together and accomplish something entirely different. For instance, one pre-service teacher shared: My student was absent for the one-to-one tutoring so, Mrs. Wilson decided that I would work with a student I had never met before. At first I was so nervous because everything I had planned and chosen was based on my student’s reading level, strengths and weaknesses. Even the books were on the things he likes to read. I had to quickly determine my new students needs and luckily I had some extra books that were backup. Other instances of problem solving included pre-service teachers needing to find a new location to work with their student because “the cafeteria

186

was being used for 4th grade PE” or having to reorganize their lesson plan because the teacher “asked if a lesson she taught could be retaught during my teaching time.” In short, being flexible illustrated pre-service teachers’ growing abilities to think critically about what was happening around them as they came to understand the dynamic and generative aspect of teaching. Field notes from class discussions supported this growing ability to think critically about what was happening while teaching and the need to be flexible. As previously discussed, another code category that was identified represented the participants’ ability to think critically as they applied their knowledge and understandings of key concepts and ideas from previous courses taken as well as the two courses that are a part of this study. The field experiences and the academic service-learning partnership allowed the pre-service teachers to “use strategies such as read alouds and assessment procedures that were learned from multiple classes.” One pre-service teacher noted that her “whole lesson was made up things [she] learned from her classes at LSU, otherwise [she] wouldn’t have any idea of even where to begin.” Field notes of observations during both class discussions and field experiences illustrated how the pre-service teachers demonstrated their ability to think critically as they problem solved and synthesized what they had learned in order to not only plan instruction, but to adjust it to fit any changes that they might encounter. Through analysis, pre-service teachers’ critical thinking skills expanded in terms of their ability to analyze data and subsequently plan instruction based on assessment data. They also demonstrated critical thinking in their abilities to design lessons that involved selecting the appropriate materials, resources and activities as well the developmentally appropriate sequence and pacing. Finally, they processed their existing knowledge to create new plans for learning.

 Academic Service-Learning as a Pedagogical Tool and Strategy

Achieving Reflective Praxis The third and final theme that emerged from our study was achieving reflective praxis. Similar to the previous theme, data sources from course 1 for this theme included Facebook reflections, summative end-of-course reflection, and the instructional recommendations from the progress monitoring report. Data sources from course 2 for this theme included beginning, medial, and end reflections as well as recommendations from the final report of tutoring prepared by the preservice teachers. There were a total of 360 codes that were synthesized into two code categories: evolving as a teacher with 200 codes and reflective practitioner with 160 code instances. The first code category, evolving as a teacher, addressed the pre-service teachers ability to be selfreflective regarding his or her teaching practices and becoming a teacher. Pre-service teachers noted that they found themselves, “having to always think critically as a teacher.” Specific attention went to reflection as a means of improving and developing into a better teacher. One pre-service teacher reflected, “I have evaluated my own teaching and I know that I still need more improvement. For instance, I need to be aware of my learning style as well as that of my students.” The pre-service teachers displayed this constant awareness of needing to improve—“It was challenging to not only accept where I went wrong, but to figure out how to improve or better myself as a teacher.” Another offered, “I also like to evaluate my own teaching and figure out what I could potentially do to be a better teacher.” One pre-service teacher even noted that she needed to be aware of needing to improve, because if not, her student would let her know. This was made evident by this reflection: I constantly have to evaluate my own teaching, because if I don’t I know my students will. One of my students already told me that she did not like that I babied her and tried to do too much for her.

She was right! I was not adjusting my teaching style to the abilities of my students. In addition to reflecting on their own experiences, the pre-service teachers also recognized that reflecting with other pre-service teachers was beneficial because “sharing ideas with other [preservice teachers] will help improve as a teacher.” Some even found that reflecting with those who are in-service teachers was also helpful. One pre-service teacher noted, “I have found that it is important to evaluate my teaching abilities and share them with other [pre-service teachers] and family members that are teachers so that I can become a strong teacher.” For some, these reflections went even deeper. Critically evaluating their experiences went even further than their development as a future teacher. One pre-service teacher noted how it also changed his life: Today at Westside, I was given a student that helped me learn to become a better teacher in the future as well as an overall better person. I have gained patience and confidence in my abilities to instruct. I have also taken huge steps forward in becoming a more responsible individual and [pre-service teacher] because of this experience. These reflective practices provided opportunities for the pre-service teachers to think critically about themselves as developing teachers and for some, to think about themselves as maturing adults. Analysis of the recommendation chapter of the final report of tutoring prepared in course 2 also revealed how pre-service teachers were developing as teachers. Of the 26 final report recommendations sections submitted, 20 sections representing 20 of the pre-service teachers were evaluated and scored as excellent. In essence, 20 pre-service teachers were able to succinctly and accurately synthesize assessment data onto meaningful instructional lessons and then to integrate

187

 Academic Service-Learning as a Pedagogical Tool and Strategy

the two into recommendations for families that incorporated low cost and low time home activities. Field notes supported this growing development as teachers. In particular, during class work sessions, pre-service teachers demonstrated an increasingly sophisticated ability to concisely and correctly synthesize assessment data onto significant instruction. The second code category, reflective practitioner, addressed the pre-service teachers reflecting on previous instruction in order to improve future instruction. In a way, this could be considered learning from their mistakes. This was made evident as one pre-service teacher expressed, “I only hope to keep on improving my lessons and ability to instruct as we continue to have our field experiences.” Another offered, “I know that I need to create more detailed lesson plans for myself in the future. I am not anticipating some of things my students will do and that is keeping me from giving them good instruction.” One pre-service teacher not only shared what she reflected on, but she also was transparent in how she self-reflected: At the end of each field experience session I reflect. I evaluate myself by asking—did that practice help the student? Did I advance their reading skills by doing what I planned? Truthfully, sometimes the answer to those question is no, but that only helps me plan better for the next time. These reflections demonstrated a growing awareness within the pre-service teachers that not only focused on their need to improve but also on how go through the process of reflecting in order to improve.

SOLUTIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Given the increasing scrutiny of both public education, reform agendas, and the dim public view of the preparation of teachers as portrayed by media

188

reports, this study contributes to the literature regarding how to improve teacher education. An increase of authentic experiences in classrooms and structured mentoring by skilled practicing teachers led to the improvement of critically reflective praxis in this study. We suggest that all field experiences include AS-L components to deepen knowledge, expand pre-service teachers’ frames of reference, and to better and more realistically prepare teachers for urban settings as a solution. We also suggest that AS-L partnerships serve as a viable means for developing CT among the students engaged in authentic experiences as they work with the community partner. Like all apprenticeships, this means that pre-service teachers learn form more experienced teachers. In this partnership, Westside teachers ranged from veteran teachers to those with 2-3 years of experience but all had classroom experience and the ability to mentor the pre-service teaching novices. In terms of recommendations, we offer that partnerships that integrate AS-L activities be considered by Colleges of Education. Teacher education faculty should be strongly encouraged to seek out field placements and partners that value the work of preparing the next generation of teachers. This includes in-service teachers that recognize the power of reflection and are willing to participate in reflection. This study also highlights the efficacy of AS-L as a pedagogical method. In our research, we report that many well-intentioned young education majors’ frames of reference about urban education indicate a dissonance of experience. Findings included a shift in pre-service teachers’ dispositions regarding public school students in terms of an expansion of their cultural frames of reference and understandings. Finally, pre-service teachers’ perceptions regarding cultural capital also became more expansive. Our findings indicate that AS-L truly promotes critical thinking about teaching and learning, especially when the tensions surrounding difference surface.

 Academic Service-Learning as a Pedagogical Tool and Strategy

FUTURE RESEARCH DIRECTIONS As we suggest that field experience needs to be reconsidered and that teacher education faculty should be strongly encouraged to seek out field placements and partners that would integrate AS-L and especially reflection into teacher preparation coursework, we believe this is a rich research agenda to consider. In addition, the trend to hire alternatively certified, inexperienced teachers and principals typifies the charter environment in Louisiana and in many urban centers. The rapid expansion of charter schools in the state of Louisiana coupled with political claims of desperately needed educational reform, result in fertile research opportunities as well.

CONCLUSION Nothing is more important than children; they are a peoples’, a culture’s, and a nation’s most precious resource. Thus, the preparation of teachers emerges as a crucial area of need. In this study, we examined how AS-L components embedded in field experiences provided opportunities for pre-service teachers to think critically. In tandem, we also investigated how structured, sequential reflections influenced pre-service teachers’ abilities to think critically. Results from this study point to the efficacy of both reflection as practice and AS-L as a pedagogical method to prepare pre-service teachers to teach effectively in urban environments.

REFERENCES Allam, C., & Zerkin, B. (1993). The case for integrating service-learning into teacher preparation programs. Generator, 13, 11–13.

Anderson, J., & Guest, K. (1995). Linking campus and community: Service leadership in teacher education at Seattle University. In B. Gomez (Ed.), Integrating service-learning into teacher education: Why and how? (pp. 11–30). Washington, D. C.: Council of Chief State School Officers. Anderson, J. A., & Adams, M. (1992). Acknowledging the learning-styles of diverse student populations: Implications for instructional design. In N. Chism & L. Border (Eds.), Teaching for diversity (pp. 19–33). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. doi:10.1002/tl.37219924904 Au, W. (2005-06). Conversations on quality: An interview with Gloria Ladson-Billings. Rethinking Schools, 20, 36-37. Ayers, W., & Ford, P. (1996). City kids, city teachers. New York, NY: The New Press. Barnes, C. (2006). Preparing pre-service teachers to teach in a culturally responsive way. Negro Educational Review, 57(1-2), 85–100. Benson, H. (2000). Socratic wisdom. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Bloom, B., Englehart, M. D., Furst, E. J., Hill, W. H., & Krathwohl, D. R. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives: The classification of educational goals. New York, NY: McKay. Boyle-Baise, M. (1998). Community service learning for multicultural education: An exploratory study with preservice teachers. Equity & Excellence in Education, 31(2), 52–60. doi:10.1080/1066568980310207 Boyle-Baise, M. (2002). Multicultural service learning. New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Boyle-Baise, M., & Efiom, P. (2000). The construction of meaning: Learning from service learning. In C. R. O’Grady (Ed.), Integrating service learning and multi-cultural education in colleges and universities (pp. 209–226). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

189

 Academic Service-Learning as a Pedagogical Tool and Strategy

Boyle-Baise, M., & Kilbane, J. (2000). What really happens? A look inside service-learning from multicultural teacher education. Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning, 7, 54–64. Boyle-Baise, M., & Sleeter, C. (2000). Community-based service learning for multicultural teacher education. Educational Foundations, 14, 33–50. Bringle, R., & Hatcher, J. (1999). Reflection in service-learning: Making meaning of experience. Educational Horizons, 77, 179–185. Bringle, R., & Hatcher, J. (2002). Campus–community partnerships: The terms of engagement. The Journal of Social Issues, 58(3), 503–516. doi:10.1111/1540-4560.00273 Butin, D. (2003). Of what use is it? Multiple conceptions of service learning within education. Teachers College Record, 105(9), 1674–1692. doi:10.1046/j.1467-9620.2003.00305.x Charmaz, K. (2000). Grounded Theory: Objectivist and constructivist methods. In N. Denzin & Y. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed.; pp. 435–454). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Chiseri-Strater, E., & Sunstein, B. (2006). Fieldworking: Reading and writing research (4th ed.). Boston, MA: Bedford/St. Martin’s. Cochran-Smith, M. (2000). Blind vision: Unlearning racism in teacher education. Harvard Educational Review, 70(2), 157–185. doi:10.17763/ haer.70.2.e77x215054558564 Compton-Lilly, C. (2004). Confronting racism, poverty, and power: Classroom strategies to change the world. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. Creswell, J. (2007). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Delpit, L. (1995). Other people’s children. New York, NY: The New Press.

190

Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. (2011). Introduction: The discipline and practice of qualitative research. In N. K. Denzin & Y. Lincoln (Eds.), The Sage handbook of qualitative rearch (pp. 1–20). Los Angeles, CA: Sage. Developmental Reading Assessment. (1997). Boston, MA: Pearson Learning. Dewey, J. (1910). How we think. Lexington, MA: D.C. Heath. doi:10.1037/10903-000 Dewey, J. (1916). Democracy and education: An introduction to the philosophy of education. New York, NY: Macmillan. Dewey, J. (1933). How we think: A restatement of the relation of reflective thinking to the educative process. New York, NY: D.C. Heath. Eyler, J., Giles, D., & Schmiede, A. (1996). A practitioner’s guide to reflection in servicelearning: Student voices and reflections. San Diego, CA: Learn & Serve American National Service-Learning Clearinghouse. Freedman, S., Simons, E., Kalnin, J., & Casareno, A. (1999). Inside city schools. New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Gay, G. (2000). Culturally responsive teaching: Theory, research, and practice. New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Geertz, C. (1973). The interpretation of cultures: Selected essays. New York, NY: Basic Books. Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. New York, NY: Aldine de Gruyter. Glaser, E. (1941). An experiment in the development of critical thinking. New York, NY: Teacher’s College Press. Guthrie, W. K. C. (1968). The Greek philosophers from Thales to Aristotle. London, UK: Routledge.

 Academic Service-Learning as a Pedagogical Tool and Strategy

Hatcher, J., & Bringle, R. (1997). Reflection: Bridging the gap between service and learning. College Teaching, 45(4), 153–158. doi:10.1080/87567559709596221

Ladson-Billings, G. (2000). Reading between the lines and beyond the pages: A cultural relevant approach to literacy teaching. In M. A. Gallego & S. Hollingsworth (Eds.), What counts as literacy: Challenging the school standard (pp. 139–152). New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

Healey, M., & Jenkins, A. (2007). Kolb’s experiential learning theory and its application in geography in higher education. The Journal of Geography, 99(5), 185–195. doi:10.1080/00221340008978967

Larkin, J. M., & Sleeter, C. (1995). Developing multicultural teacher education curricula. Albany: State University of New York Press.

Irvine, J. J. (2003). Educating teachers for diversity: Seeing with a cultural eye. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

Lee, C. D. (2007). Culture, literacy, and learning: Taking bloom in the midst of the whirlwind. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

Kendall, J. (Ed.). (1990). Combining service and learning: A resource book for community and public service. Raleigh, NC: National Society for Internships and Experiential Education.

Louisiana Department of Education. (2014) Retrieved from: http://www.louisianabelieves.com/

Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Koro-Ljungberg, M., Yendol-Hoppey, D., Jude Smith, J., & Hayes, S. (2009). (E)pistemological awareness, instantiation of methods, and uninformed methodological ambiguity in qualitative research projects. Educational Researcher, 38(9), 687–699. doi:10.3102/0013189X09351980 Kuhlmann, G. (2006). Rules of engagement. Spectator (London, England). Kuhn, D. (1999). A developmental model of critical thinking. Educational Researcher, 28(1), 16–26. doi:10.3102/0013189X028002016 Ladson-Billings, G. (1994). The dreamkeepers: Succesful teaching for African-American students. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Ladson-Billings, G. (1995). Toward a theory of culturally relevant education. American Educational Research Journal, 32(3), 465–491. doi:10.3102/00028312032003465

Mason, P. A., & Schumm, J. (Eds.). (2003). Promising practices for urban reading instruction. Newark, DE: International Reading Association. Miri, B., David, B.-C., & Uri, Z. (2007). Purposefully teaching for the promotion of higherorder thinking skills: A case of critical thinking. Research in Science Education, 37(4), 353–369. doi:10.1007/s11165-006-9029-2 National Council for Excellence in Critical Thinking. (1987). Retrieved from http://www.criticalthinking.org/pages/defining-critical-thinking/766 National Council for the Accreditation of Teacher Education. (2012). NCATE Unit Standards. Retrieved from http://www.ncate.org/Standards/ NCATEUnitStandards/UnitStandardsinEffect2008/tabid/-476/Default.aspx Potts, B. (1994). Strategies for teaching critical thinking. Practical Research, Assessment, and Evaluation, 4(3). Retrieved from http://pareonline. net/getvn.asp?v=4&n=3 Root, S., Callahan, J., & Sepanski, J. (2002). Building teaching dispositions and service-learning practice: A multi-site study. Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning, 8(2), 50–60.

191

 Academic Service-Learning as a Pedagogical Tool and Strategy

Root, S. C. (1994). Service learning in teacher education: A third rationale. Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning, 1(1), 94–97. Root, S. C. (1997). School-based service: A review of research for teacher educators. In J. Erickson & J. Anderson (Eds.), Learning with the community: Concepts and models for service-learning in teacher education (pp. 42–72). Washington, DC: American Association for Higher Education. Spencer, B. H., Cox-Petersen, A., & Crawford, T. (2005). Assessing the impact of service-learning on preservice teachers in an after-school program. Teacher Education Quarterly, 32(4), 119–135. Stake, R. E. (2006). Mutliple case study analysis. New York, NY: Guilford. Stake, R. E. (2010). Qualitative research: Studying how things work. New York, NY: Guilford. Sulentic Dowell, M.-M. (2008). Academic-service learning as pedagogy: An approach to preparing pre-service teachers for urban environments. The Journal of Teaching and Learning, 5, 1–21. Sulentic Dowell, M.-M. (2009). Transformative opportunities for community engagement within teacher education: Creating opportunities for pre-service teachers for urban environments in post-Katrina New Orleans. Journal of Community Engagement and Higher Education, 1(1), 1–10. Sulentic Dowell, M.-M. (2012). Addressing the complexities of literacy and urban teaching in the United States: Strategic professional development as intervention. Teaching Education Journal, 23(1), 40–49. Tai-Seale, T. (2001). Liberating service learning and applying new practice. College Teaching, 49(1), 14–18. doi:10.1080/87567550109595839 Villegas, A., & Lucas, T. (2002). Educating culturally responsive teachers: A coherent approach. Albany: State University of New York Press.

192

Yin, R. (2009). Case study research design and methods (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Zuber-Skerritt, O. (1992). Action research in higher education: Examples and reflections. London, UK: Kogan Page.

ADDITIONAL READING Berger Kaye, C. (2010). The complete guide to service learning: Proven, practical ways to engage students in civic responsibility, academic curriculum, & social action. Minneapolis, MN: Free Spirit. Billig, S., & Furco, A. (2002). Service learning through a multi-disciplinary lens. Greenwich, CT: Information Age. Blanchard, P., & Sulentic Dowell, M-M. (2010). Science and literacy as social responsibility: A transdisciplinary approach to service, learning, and teacher preparation. Literacy and Social Responsibility eJournal, 3(1), 8-22. Brannon, D. (2013). Using service-learning to increase pre-service teachers’ sense of self-efficacy regarding parent involvement. Journal of Service Learning in Higher Education, 2, 24–36. Bringle, R., & Phillips, M. (2003). The measure of service learning: Research scales to assess student experiences. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Butin, D. (Ed.), Service-learning in higher education: Critical issues and directions. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan. doi:10.1057/9781403981042 Collins, K. M. T., Onwuegbuzie, A., & Jiao, Q. G. (2007). A mixed methods investigation of mixed methods sampling designs in social and health science research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1(3), 267–294. doi:10.1177/1558689807299526

 Academic Service-Learning as a Pedagogical Tool and Strategy

Conrad, D., & Hedin, D. (1991). School-based community service: What we know from research and theory. Phi Delta Kappan, 72(10), 743–749. Darling-Hammond, L., & Snyder, J. (1990). Reframing accountability: Creating learner-centered schools. In A. Lieberman (Ed.), The changing contexts of teaching: 91st Yearbook of the National Society of the Study of Education (pp. 11–36). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Deeley, S. J. (2010). Service-learning: Thinking outside the box. Active Learning in Higher Education, 11(1), 43–53. doi:10.1177/1469787409355870 Dewey, J. (1938). Experience and education. New York, NY: Collier. Eyler, J. (2001). Creating your reflection map. In M. Canada (Ed.), Service-learning: Practical advice and models, (Series # 114, pp. 35-43). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass New Directions for Higher Education Series. doi:10.1002/he.11.abs Eyler, J., & Giles, D. E. (1996). A Practitioners guide to reflection in service learning. Nashville, TN: Vanderbilt University. Eyler, J., & Giles, D. E. (1999). Where’s the learning in service learning? San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Furco, A. (1996). Service-learning: A balanced approach to experiential education. In B. Taylor (Ed.), Expanding boundaries: Serving and learning (pp. 2–6). Washington, DC: Corporation for National Service. Gallego, M. (2001). Is Experience really the best teacher?: The potential of coupling classroom and community-based field experiences. Journal of Teacher Education, 52(4), 312–325. doi:10.1177/0022487101052004005

Halpern, D. F. (1998). Teaching critical thinking for transfer across domains. The American Psychologist, 53(9), 449–455. doi:10.1037/0003066X.53.4.449 PMID:9572008 Herrmann, S. L. (2011). Holding on to transformation: Reflections on global service-learning. In B. J. Porfilio & H. Hickman (Eds.), Critical service learning as a revolutionary pedagogy: A project of student agency in action (pp. 273–295). Charlotte, NC: Information Age. King, J. (2004). Service-learning as a site for critical pedagogy: A case of collaboration, caring, and defamiliarization across borders. Journal of Experiential Education, 26(3), 121–137. doi:10.1177/105382590402600304 LeCompte, M. D., Preissle, J., & Tesch, R. (1993). Analysis and interpretation of qualitative data. Ethnography and Qualitative Design in Educational Research, 2, 234–278. Lima, M. (2013). Building playgrounds, engaging communities: Creating safe and happy places for children. Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press. Meyers, S. A. (2009). Service learning as an opportunity for personal and social transformation. International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 21(3), 373–381. Milner, H. R. (2010). Start where you are, but don’t stay there: Understanding diversity, opportunity gaps, and teaching in today’s classrooms. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press. Peterson, C. (1995). Community service learning project and the interactionbetween the student teacher and cooperating teacher. Unpublished master’s thesis, The University of Iowa.

193

 Academic Service-Learning as a Pedagogical Tool and Strategy

Strand, K., Marullo, S., Cutforth, N., Stoecker, R., & Donohue, P. (2003). Principles of best practice for community-based research. Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning, 9(3), 5–15. Sulentic Dowell, M.-M. (2010). Inventing pedagogy and methods: Opportunities for service and learning. In A. Cooksey & K. T. Olivares (Eds.), The preparation of pre-service teachers for urban classrooms: Quick hits for service learning (pp. 19–21). Indianapolis: Indiana University Press. Sulentic Dowell, M.-M. (2011). Pre-service teachers’ experience with classroom libraries: Urban teacher preparation in post-Katrina New Orleans. Journal of Balanced Reading Instruction, 18, 21–28. Sulentic Dowell, M.-M. (2011). Pre-service teachers explore pedagogy & service-learning in a place called New Orleans East: Assumptions, tensions, & innovation in a post-Katrina charter school. In N. Webster & T. Stewart (Eds.), Cultural dynamics and tensions within service-learning (pp. 237–256). Charlotte, NC: Information Age. Sulentic Dowell, M-M., & Bach, J. (2012). A comparative case study of service-learning in teacher education: Rethinking benefits and challenges of partners and placements. PRISM: A Journal of Regional Engagement, 1(2), 184-199. Vavasseur, C., Hebert, C. R., & Naquin, T. (2013). Pre-Service teachers serving students: Servicelearning through virtual tutoring: A case study. Journal of Service Learning in Higher Education, 2, 47–61. Webster, N., & Stewart, T. (Eds.), Cultural dynamics and tensions within service-learning. Charlotte, NC: Information Age.

194

KEY TERMS AND DEFINITIONS Academic-Service-Learning (AS-L): Academic-Service-Learning is a pedagogical tool and strategy. Service-learning addresses critical community needs, builds student leadership skills, and reinforces course content. Its academic context inside a classroom enriches students’ service experiences by raising questions about real-world concerns and promoting critical thinking about civic responsibility. Case Studies: A case study is a qualitative research design, an empirical inquiry that investigates a phenomenon within real-life context. Field Experiences: Field experiences, a critical aspect of the teacher preparation process, provide teacher education candidates with supervised real-time teaching practice. Pedagogy: Pedagogy is defines as the function and/or work of a teacher, it is the art and science of teaching, and often refers to instructional methods. Pre-Service Teachers (PST): Pre-service teachers are teacher education candidates who have completed all undergraduate core courses and have been admitted to a teacher education program wherein coursework and field experiences are sequentially structured and lead to final student teaching internship. Professional Practice: Professional practice refers to specific teaching courses that are part of a sequence of courses designed to prepare teacher education candidates to teach. Reflection: Reflection is the act of thinking about personal involvement in an event including what action will be taken in future similar situations. Urban Education: Urban education refers to the specific situations, factors, elements, and unique demands that characterize teaching and learning in large metropolitan areas.

195

Chapter 9

Developing Meaning-Making to Promote Critical Thinking Sarah E. Schoper Western Illinois University, USA Craig E. Wagner Buena Vista University, USA

ABSTRACT Promoting critical thinking is a demand today’s teachers are asked to meet (Association of American Colleges and University [AAC&U], 2005; Hart Research Associates, 2013), yet doing so requires that teachers themselves are critical thinkers. In order to critically think, teachers must have the capacity to make meaning complexly. Making meaning complexly allows for individuals to consider experiences from multiple perspectives and make responsible, ethical decisions for the common good. In other words, complex meaning making allows for critical thinking. Thus, a method for promoting critical thinking is to develop complexity in how meaning is made, and one way to do so is to implement the learning partnerships model (Baxter Magolda, 2004). This chapter explores using the learning partnerships model in the classroom to engage in the development of how one makes meaning, so as to develop critical thinking.

INTRODUCTION Critical thinking is dependent upon an individual’s capacity to make meaning of their experiences in complex ways. Seeing the world as simply black or white, or allowing the environment to fully dictate one’s thinking, for example, can result in decision making that fails to consider the fuller picture. More complex reasoning, alternatively, allows individuals to see and consider multiple

perspectives, make responsible decisions for the common good, and advocate in an increasingly diverse world. Thus, the greater one’s capacity to make meaning in complex ways, the greater one’s ability is to think critically. Furthermore, a more complex way of making meaning enables individuals to assist others in developing their own critical thinking abilities just as someone knowledgeable in physics is better equipped to teach physics than someone with no experience in the matter. As it is

DOI: 10.4018/978-1-4666-8411-9.ch009

Copyright © 2015, IGI Global. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.

 Developing Meaning-Making to Promote Critical Thinking

harder to lead someone to a place one has never been, it is similarly difficult to develop a person’s critical thinking when one is unable to think critically themselves. Hence, it is a necessity for those preparing others, including teachers, to be critical thinkers if they are to assist others in the development of critical thinking. With time and purpose, increasing one’s ability to critically think can be fostered. Indeed, this chapter’s objective is to explore a method designed to intentionally facilitate growth in critical thinking and complex meaning making: the learning partnerships model (Baxter Magolda, 2004).

BACKGROUND Perhaps more than in the past, today’s teachers are asked to develop their students’ abilities to think critically (AAC&U, 2005; Hart Research Associates, 2013). Yet, a recent article in the Huffington Post indicates that institutions of higher education are, “not preparing graduates for the kinds of interdisciplinary critical thinking roles they will be asked to play in the work force or as citizens” (Kerry, 2013, para 6). Additionally, a report produced by Northeastern University (2013) stated that 62 percent of respondents said colleges were only doing a “fair” or “poor” job of preparing graduates for the work force (p. 8). In spite of the preparation graduates are receiving from institutions of higher education, employers continue to look for, “skills of communication and critical thinking, innovation and collaboration, integrity and responsibility” (Krislov and Volk, 2014, para 13). Thus, while today’s teachers are being asked to develop critical thinking skills within their students, it does not appear as though the teachers themselves are prepared as critical thinkers. Assisting others in developing an ability to critically think requires that those who do so are also critical thinkers. Kegan (1994) raised this point by asking, “Are we willing to support people’s moves to places we ourselves have already

196

been? Are we able to be good company on the path to fresh discoveries no longer fresh to us?” (p. 292-293), which highlights that individuals helping develop others need themselves be already developed. Zull (2002) also builds upon the claim that teachers must become critical thinkers in order to cultivate critical thinking in others by discussing the connection between the physical brain and the learning process. Zull speaks about the importance of teachers showing their students what it is that teachers hope students will learn, saying, “People see what we show, and when they truly see, when their eyes are opened, they will not need our explanations” (p. 147). This is not to mean that teachers should do the work for their students, but, rather, identify and explore examples that effectively illustrate and role model the points deemed most important. Zull asks, “What do we really want our students to learn? … We should show what we hope our students will eventually be able to do themselves” (p. 147). Successful teachers must have the capacity for critical thought and then demonstrate that ability for their students. Hence, the process of preparing students who desire to become teachers must intentionally develop critical thinking ability if the goal is to have them develop critical thinking within their own students. Developing greater capacity to critically think requires a greater capacity to make meaning complexly, which is discussed next.

How Meaning Is Made Researchers such as Dewey (1925), Montessori (1948), and Piaget (1974) all explored the process of how meaning is made, and each focused their research primarily on the meaning making process of children. In fact, the meaning making of adults was not considered until researchers such as Kegan and Baxter Magolda began exploring the topic by building upon this earlier research. Nonetheless, understanding the process of meaning making in adults is important to intentionally designing environments that promote complex reasoning.

 Developing Meaning-Making to Promote Critical Thinking

Robert Kegan Robert Kegan’s (1994) research on the evolution of the meaning making process involves a structure comprised of three intertwined dimensions – cognitive, interpersonal, and intrapersonal – which influence how a person makes sense of information, how they see themselves in relation to others, and a person’s internal value and belief system, respectively. In Kegan’s structure, the three intertwined dimensions are continually used to take in information, make sense of experiences, and evolve toward greater complexity as individuals encounter various experiences. This evolution of the meaning making systems involves the processing of one’s assumptions, values, and beliefs through a subject-object balance. According to Kegan what is subject are, “those elements of our knowing or organizing that we are identified with, tied to, fused with or embedded in”, and what is object are, “those elements of our knowing or organizing that we can reflect on, handle, look at, be responsible for, relate to each other, take control of, internalize, assimilate, or otherwise operate upon” (p. 32). Thus, transformation in how one makes meaning occurs by moving what is subject to that which is object, and through this transformation how an individual makes meaning increases in complexity because an individual can now more consciously interact with what is object. Such raised consciousness can allow individuals to consider multiple perspectives, notice systems at work, and navigate and allocate resources responsibly; in other words, critically think. Throughout Kegan’s research, he shares the metaphor of bridge building to assist in the development of complexity in how meaning is made, which he describes as an “ingenious blend of support and challenge” (p. 42). When attempting to create this environment, Kegan cautions that challenge can become ineffective if it “is confined to a small aspect of the student’s life, or if it is inconsistent in the order of complexity it demands, or if it is too far out of, or too easily within, reach”

(p. 42). Kegan asserts that adolescents, as well as most adults, are often provided significant challenge, however, he notes that the support they receive is often inadequate. To counter this, Kegan offers the following, it is not necessarily a bad thing that adolescents [and adults] are in over their heads. In fact, it may be just what is called for provided they also experience effective support. Such supports constitute a holding environment that provides both welcoming acknowledgement to exactly who the person is right now as he or she is, and fosters the person’s psychological evolution. As such, a holding environment is a tricky transitional culture, an evolutionary bridge, a context for crossing over. It fosters developmental transformation, or the process by which the whole (‘how I am’) becomes gradually a part (‘how I was’) of a new whole (‘how I am now’). (p. 43, italics in original) Yet, despite these clues, it can be unclear how to easily translate his theory into practice within the classroom. What is understood from Kegan’s research is that those using it to guide their practice must consider carefully and intentionally both the challenge and support they are providing.

Jennifer Garvey Berger Jennifer Garvey Berger (2012) discusses the evolution of Kegan’s (1994) meaning making structure as an individual’s movement toward greater complexity within the cognitive, interpersonal, and intrapersonal dimensions. This movement involves passing through four minds, starting with the self-sovereign mind, where everything is about a person’s own needs and wishes, followed by movement to the socialized mind, where the external environment determines everything. In the socialized mind, the ability to begin seeing the perspectives of others emerges, however, those of the socialized mind unconsciously adopt the views of others around them as their own. Society

197

 Developing Meaning-Making to Promote Critical Thinking

often expects and encourages the passage into these two forms of mind. With time and certain conditions, a person may move to the self-authored mind where an individual determines their own values and beliefs while seeing others’ views as important and worth considering. Finally, Jennifer Garvey Berger posits that an individual can transition into a self-transforming mind where they see themselves as made up of parts of everything, both positive, negative, and everything else. As one moves through Garvey Berger’s forms of mind, one’s ability to critically think increases in capacity. For example, individuals operating with the self-sovereign mind would only be able to think insofar as the topic they are considering relates to them and their needs. Their ability to think critically is severely limited because their form of mind is unable to take on the viewpoints of others and see a larger picture. This is a less critical place than individuals a bit further along on the continuum, for example, those who operate from the self-authored mind. Those operating from the self-authored mind can consider the topic in reference to their own values as well as from the perspective of others, which is a more critical way of thinking. Garvey Berger offers the tools of listening without judgment, working on the process of one’s own way of making meaning, and intentionality as ways to develop complexity in how meaning is made and thus promote critical thinking abilities. Although these tools are perhaps a bit more helpful than the notion of challenge and support offered by Kegan (1994), they can still be a bit ambiguous to implement in the classroom.

James Zull and Jack Mezirow Other researchers that discuss the development of greater complexity within how meaning is made include Zull (2002) and Mezirow (2000). Zull (2002) speaks specifically about the biological and transformational changes to the brain that deep learning brings about as he addresses the connec-

198

tion between the physical brain and Kolb’s (1984) experiential learning cycle. Specifically, Zull addresses the importance of engaging the whole learning cycle, a process that includes active testing, concrete experiences, reflective observation, and abstract hypothesis (Zull, 2002). Engaging the whole learning cycle has potential to lead to physical transformation within the brain’s neuronal structure, and such physical transformations are what Mezirow (2000) defines as transformative learning. Transformative learning is, according to Mezirow (2009), “learning that transforms problematic frames of reference to make them more inclusive, discriminating, reflective, open, and emotionally able to change” (p. 22). Similar to Zull’s (2002) noting the importance of reflective observation, Mezirow (2000) notes that critical reflection is necessary for learning to be transformative; “We can think about our experience – muse, review, and so on – but to reflect critically, we must also examine the underlying beliefs and assumptions that affect how we make sense of the experience” (Merriam, Caffarella, & Baumgartner, 2007, p. 145). Both Zull (2002) and Mezirow (2000, 2009) identify diverse experiences, epistemological reflection, and participation as methods for developing greater complexity in meaning making. All of the aforementioned authors note that the more complexly individuals see and understand their world, the greater the amount they can notice, consider, question, and engage in their experiences. Each also offers tools for developing such complexity. For example, Kegan (1994) offers the concept of building a bridge of challenge and support, Garvey Berger (2012) discusses the importance of listening and intentionality, and Zull (2002) and Mezirow (2000, 2009) identify active engagement and reflection as important factors to incorporate. It is developing this increased ability to notice, consider, question, and engage in the environment that lends itself to robust critical thinking, and is necessary for teachers being asked

 Developing Meaning-Making to Promote Critical Thinking

to develop critical thinking within their students. This makes the development of complex meaning making an imperative for those hoping to promote critical thinking.

What Is Critical Thinking? Critical thinking involves the analysis of difficult problems, the determination of relevant information, and the consideration of multiple, often conflicting perspectives; it requires an individual to think complexly about their world (Foundation for Critical Thinking, 2013). Critical thinking is not only what a person thinks about any given topic, but also how they think about those topics. Thus, how a person makes meaning is of significance to their ability to critically think. For example, one can know quite a bit about mathematics, but if one is unable to critically think and therefore make meaning complexly, this knowledge may be difficult to apply in areas of one’s life beyond the context in which it is learned and is always used. However, with the capacity to critically think, one can more easily apply mathematical concepts to a broad array of their lived experiences, understand a variety of ways to use mathematics to approach situations, and consider innovative ways to use mathematics. This approach is quite different than simply being told to apply an equation or action to a controlled problem articulated on a classroom worksheet or test. It is this quality – the connection to not only what a person thinks about, but also how they think about it – that connects critical thinking to how individuals make meaning.

THE LEARNING PARTNERSHIPS MODEL Although Kegan (1994), Garvey Berger (2012), Zull (2002), and Mezirow (2009) offer insight into how to develop greater complexity in how meaning is made and, thus, promote critical thinking

abilities, it can still be challenging to translate their assertions into effective classroom practice. A more easily incorporated approach to advancing the development of complexity in how individuals make meaning is the learning partnerships model created by Baxter Magolda (2004). The learning partnerships model also integrates the aspects necessary to promote complex meaning making developed by Kegan (1994), Garvey Berger (2012), Zull (2002), and Mezirow (2000, 2009). Derived from Baxter Magolda’s longitudinal study, which spans over 25 years, the model was created out of a need to develop the ability for complex meaning making and therefore critical thinking. Specifically, according to Baxter Magolda, critical thinking begins when an individual reaches Garvey Berger’s (2012) self-authored mindset. Describing some of the reasoning behind the LPM’s creation and importance, Baxter Magolda (2001) wrote, Despite the difficulty of this transformation [to a self-authored mind] in contemporary society, the need for self-authorship has never been greater. The diversity of our society and the global community requires that we be able to appreciate and work effectively with multiple perspectives. The recognition of inequity demands that we reevaluate the balance of our individual goals and our responsibility to the community. The increasing interdependence of people within our society and the world community makes addressing these issues imperative. The speed with which information and technology changes requires us to think in complex ways to keep pace. Self-authorship is necessary not only for survival in the 21st century but for the ability to offer leadership to model new forms of adult life and citizenship. (p. 25) The above paragraph connects critical thinking to meaning making. The very capacities that typically signify critical thinking coincide with those of complex meaning making, and the development of complex meaning making inherently leads to

199

 Developing Meaning-Making to Promote Critical Thinking

development of critical thinking. Therefore, intentional use of the learning partnerships model has potential to advance how one makes meaning and their ability to critically think.

Connections to the Meaning Making Structure In order to help individuals develop their meaning making and ability to critically think, the learning partnerships model is comprised of three principles and three assumptions (Figure 1). Each principle is specifically tied to an assumption and both are designed to connect to one of the dimensions individuals use to make meaning (cognitive, interpersonal, and intrapersonal) identified by Kegan (1994). Exploring Baxter Magolda’s (2004) model in more detail, the principle of “validating the learners’ capacity to know” is connected to the assumption of portraying “knowledge as complex and socially constructed,” and through this principle and assumption, challenge and support are provided to the cognitive dimension (p. 4142). Baxter Magolda discusses this principle and assumption and what it means for educators by describing this process as showing an “interest in learners’ experiences and having respect for their beliefs” (p. 42). Such validation invites participants into the knowledge construction process, conveys

that their ideas are welcome, and offers respect that boosts their confidence in themselves. This principle and assumption includes affirming the individual’s knowledge and ability to create future knowledge, and it also pushes the learner to look for complexities in their environment while revealing the process in which knowledge is created. Another principle in the learning partnerships model is, “situating learning in the learner’s experience” and it is connected to the assumption that “self is central to knowledge construction” (p. 42). This principle and assumption are intentionally designed to challenge and support the development of the intrapersonal dimension. Enacting this principle and assumption asks the educator to create avenues for the learner to utilize the experiences in their life, both past and present, in an attempt to more firmly build their new knowledge. Baxter Magolda noted that, “participants perceived the use of their current knowledge and experience as a sign of respect” and that by using their own experience, “it simultaneously gave them a foundation for enhancing their learning or work” (p. 43). This principle and assumption makes clear that who the learner is and what they know must both be involved in the knowledge construction process. Finally, the third principle asks educators to “define learning as mutually constructing meaning” and it is connected to the assumption “share authority and expertise” (p. 42). Together,

Figure 1. Baxter Magolda’s (2004) learning partnerships model contains three assumptions and three principles. Each assumption and corresponding principle relate to one of the three dimensions of meaning making.

200

 Developing Meaning-Making to Promote Critical Thinking

these challenge and support the development of the interpersonal dimension (p. 42). In Baxter Magolda’s research, this principle and assumption “welcomed participants as equal partners in knowledge construction, helped them clarify their own perspectives, and helped them learn how to negotiate with others” (p. 43). In this, the students and teacher are invited to share knowledge and experiences as collaborators in the students’ learning through this principle and assumption. Furthermore, the students are pushed to expand what they consider in their decision making and learning as educators and peers share their authority and expertise. By connecting to each of the dimensions, and doing so in a manner that specifically invites both challenge and support, the learning partnerships model provides a method for one to reflect and discover what is subject to them and, subsequently, helps it become object. The process of moving what is subject to what is object transforms how one makes meaning as individuals begin to recognize and have choice over their epistemological framework (Kegan, 1994). Specifically, the principles offer a measure of support to the learner as they tie directly into those items that they have as object. Thus, these principles provide the firm ground upon which individuals can securely make the difficult and uncomfortable journey into exploring their inner and outer world. The assumptions of the learning partnerships model provide the challenge by stretching learners’ meaning making abilities and ask them to confront their own assumptions and beliefs to which they are subject. It is in this way that the model connects to the whole meaning making structure Kegan (1994) and Garvey Berger (2012) identified.

Connections to Zull and Mezirow Beyond engaging the meaning making structure discussed in Kegan (1994) and Garvey Berger (2012), the learning partnerships model also involves the functioning of the whole brain and

Kolb’s learning cycle as discussed by Zull (2002), as well as the process of renegotiating one’s frames of reference discussed by Mezirow (2000, 2009). For example, Zull discusses the importance of using an individual’s past experiences by saying, “The single most important factor in learning is the existing networks of neurons [existing knowledge] in the learner’s brain. Ascertain what they are and teach accordingly” (p. 93). In looking at the learning partnerships model, this biological concept parallels the principle and assumption that connect to the intrapersonal dimension: “situating learning in the learner’s experience” and “self is central to knowledge construction” (Baxter Magolda, 2004, p. 42). The physical neuronal connections made by the brain is one of Zull’s (2002) overarching themes as he shares how it is the system the brain uses to make meaning. According to Zull, when new knowledge is forming within the brain, it forms within the context of existing networks. Therefore, it is much harder to learn something if there is no potential connection existing within the brain. Mezirow (2000, 2009) speaks to the process of using and building on the neuronal network as renegotiating one’s frames of reference used to make meaning. This is why both Zull (2002) and Mezirow (2000, 2009) identified metaphors as being so powerful. They provide an opportunity to understand the form or function of something new by highlighting the similarity to that which a person already understands. The development of how a person makes meaning or critically thinks is a physical process of change in the brain, and using the learning partnerships model can assist educators in promoting this physical change. Another way Zull affirms Baxter Magolda’s (2004) learning partnerships model is by emphasizing that in order for students to learn, they must act. What this action looks like can vary dramatically, but action must be a part of their learning. Action, as Zull (2002) notes, “changes the abstract into the concrete. We convert our mental ideas into physical events. Action forces our mental constructs out of our brains and into the reality

201

 Developing Meaning-Making to Promote Critical Thinking

of the physical world” (p. 208). Although present throughout the learning partnerships model, the active role of students is especially clear in the interpersonal principle and assumption, “define learning as mutually constructing meaning” and, “sharing authority and expertise” (p. 42). In the previous paragraph the power of metaphors in the learning process was discussed because of how they connect to people’s current neuronal networks and thus knowledge. Establishing such a connection is an example of action that the learner can take by working to connect what they know to what they are learning with those helping them to learn. Another way to look at the third principle and assumption listed in Figure 1 is that shared authority can easily act as a concrete experience upon which the student builds and reflects. The task of mutually constructing meaning asks the student to create potential hypotheses from the authority and, given this is a mutual construction, subsequently formulate a plan and act upon it. It is worth noting that even the deceptively simple undertaking of speaking one’s thoughts can serve as active testing and begin the learning cycle within the brain. After all, verbalizing one’s thoughts engages multiple parts within the brain including those associated with categorizing experiences and sensory data, searching for patterns and creating abstract hypotheses, action and movement, and, after that has been done, collecting the new sensory data and starting anew (Zull, 2002). Similar connections to the learning cycle can be made for each of the other principles and assumptions comprising the learning partnerships model. If these few examples were not enough to illustrate the connection, Zull (2002) shares the story of a memorable personal experience for himself in college. This story fully encapsulates all of the learning partnerships model as well as all parts of the learning cycle. When Wall [Zull’s professor] called on me, I discovered that he took me just as seriously as

202

any other student. He listened carefully and asked a question about a part of my idea that I hadn’t expressed well. I clarified the idea in better language, and when he understood, Wall nodded and suggested that I pick up a book … in his office after class. I was filled with confidence as Prof. Wall and I exchanged ideas. We were having a conversation, a comfortable back-and-forth as though we were peers. As the class went on, I could see that Wall was headed in exactly the direction I had suggested. My ideas were good! That was the most successful class in my college life. It wasn’t what I learned that made it successful. Rather, it was the fact that learning came alive for me. I had entered into the action. (p. 212, italics in original) In this experience alone, Zull’s professor shared authority and expertise, validated Zull’s ability to know, demonstrated that knowledge is socially constructed and complex, and mutually constructed meaning with Zull helping him feel like a peer. Zull felt confidence in his ability to share meaningfully with his professor, and the class, and saw himself as an important contributor in the moment. Furthermore, the conversation between Zull and Professor Wall built upon Zull’s existing knowledge as made evident by Wall integrating Zull’s thoughts into the future direction of the classroom discussion. Lastly, a quick glance at Zull’s story can highlight use of the learning cycle. Right at the outset of the story, Zull chose to raise his hand. This, in itself, is an action to test an abstract hypothesis, which at this time was that of, “I might have something to offer in this discussion”, or, “I have something I want to say.” This was decided through hearing the classroom discussion and piecing together his thoughts on the subject. In this very short span of time and one seemingly small decision to raise his hand, Zull learned two powerful things: his professor

 Developing Meaning-Making to Promote Critical Thinking

took him seriously and his thoughts were valid. Through Zull’s engagement in the learning cycle through the employment of the learning partnerships model, Zull began the process of developing increased critical thinking abilities. There is one final tie-in between Zull and the learning partnerships model that is worth mentioning. Zull confirms the importance of educators being complex thinkers themselves and role modeling that behavior for their students when he notes the existence of “mirror neurons” (p. 195). Research has found that similar neuronal networks within the brain fire both when an action is observed and when that action is performed. For example, many of the same neurons that fire when a person runs (or dances, or makes popcorn, or…) also fire when that same person sees another individual running, or dancing, or making popcorn. This, as Zull shares, indicates humans’ natural propensity to imitate those around them and by doing so lends further credence to the power of role modeling complex meaning making and critical thinking. In summary, educators who engage all six of the principles and assumptions posed by Baxter Magolda (2004) are capable of creating an environment that ties in firmly not only to the whole meaning making structure identified by Kegan (1994) and Garvey Berger (2012), but also the learning cycle and physical brain functioning as discussed in Zull (2002) and Mezirow (2000, 2009). Baxter Magolda (2004) points out that the learning partnerships model must be implemented in its entirety in order to promote development of more complex meaning making since the cognitive, interpersonal, and intrapersonal dimensions are intertwined within the structure individuals use to make meaning. By doing this fully, educators help students move what is subject to object and it is through the process of moving from subject to object that development of complex, critical thinking occurs. Thus, a piecemeal approach to implementing the learning partnerships model cannot work. Rather, incorporating all three principles

and all three assumptions into the classroom has potential to increase a person’s capacity to make sense of their world and, thus, deepen their ability to think critically. In the next section, attention is turned to what it can look like to employ the LPM within the classroom environment.

LEARNING PARTNERSHIPS IN THE CLASSROOM As noted in the previous section, in order to appropriately implement the learning partnerships model into an environment, all six principles and assumptions must be included and integrated throughout the classroom experience. To do this, four specific strategies for incorporating the model are discussed in detail next. The four strategies include: shaping the classroom environment, creating the syllabus, structuring assignments, and evaluating assignments. Each strategy was implemented by the authors into a graduate level course and is discussed in such detail so as to be transferable to other classroom environments. The goal of the following section is not to provide a checklist by which educators must abide in order to develop critical thinking and complexity of thought but rather to serve as a guide and starting point for educators looking to develop complexity of thought in their students.

Shaping the Environment Four specific considerations involved in shaping an environment that incorporate the learning partnerships model include: the physical setup of the room, images displayed in the room, the use of group norms, and the use of an active learning pedagogy. Although not everyone is able to physically alter the arrangement of the room, discussing the physical setup is still worthwhile as doing so might allow for innovative ideas about what can be done within any possible physical constraints. The last three considerations discussed – images,

203

 Developing Meaning-Making to Promote Critical Thinking

group norms, and active learning pedagogy – are potentially more easily transferable to various classroom environments.

Physical Environment The most accessible classroom environment is one that provides a measure of flexibility in the physical environment, e.g., one in which the chairs and desks are moveable, as well as an environment in which the amount of students is accommodated. Such flexibility allows for arranging the chairs or desks in a circle for the students. The circle is not only for the students, however. The circle is also for the instructor to sit with their students. This circular arrangement sends a message to the students that the instructor is part of the group and not the only individual responsible for bringing knowledge into the classroom environment. Structuring the room so that all members of the classroom environment face each other therefore permits the instructor and students to share authority and expertise with each other. It also allows for greater opportunities to mutually construct meaning amongst and between all members of the classroom environment. Furthermore, arranging the room so that all classroom participants (instructor and students) are physically at the same level sends the message that the students, too, bring knowledge with them into the classroom and that knowledge is complex and socially constructed. An environment in which the students and instructor sit at the same level and face each other encourages students to share their thoughts not just with the instructor, but also with peers as they work to make sense of the classroom content. Sitting in a circular arrangement might cause the students to at first be uncomfortable, especially if they have not been previously asked to look at their peers during class discussions. Early on, the students might express a desire for the instructor to stand at the head of the room with all desks aligned in that direction. Explaining the purpose behind the classroom design can assist in help-

204

ing students adjust and make clear the desire for them to bring their experiences and knowledge to the classroom environment. Experience teaching within multiple classes designed intentionally in this manner illustrates that students become quite comfortable facing one another. Even more, from time to time students may intentionally and publically ask to sit by the instructor sending a message that the instructor is just as much a part of the circle as the students. Students are not the only parties affected by this change; instructors, too, might find it initially uncomfortable to join their students at an equal level where everyone faces each other. Traditional education socializes everyone that the instructor’s place is at the front of the classroom with all of the students facing the instructor. It might help for instructors to share with the students that they are trying out a new method in the classroom, as well as the reasons for the change. This not only models risk taking for the students, but it establishes an environment supportive of vulnerability and co-construction.

Images Considering the images that are displayed in the classroom environment is also important. Zull (2012) discusses the importance of images in the meaning making process, as well as their importance to problem solving, creative thinking, and idea generation within the learning cycle. (Please note that the term “images” here is not limited to photographs or pictures. Rather “images” entails anything visually represented and/or that students are able to see with their own eyes.) At the beginning of the semester, a classroom’s walls often contain minimal decorations, however, as the semester progresses, students can engage in a variety of active learning activities supportive of the day’s lesson plan where they work together to create images, diagrams, charts, or other items to display what they are learning. One example of such an activity is asking students in small groups

 Developing Meaning-Making to Promote Critical Thinking

to discuss the assigned course material for the day, visually draw how they see the process or key takeaways being discussed by the author(s), and then present to the entire class their drawing and its meaning. Subsequently, the results of these activities can be hung on the walls each class period, and it can become a group norm, which are discussed next, for students to help hang and remove the created items before and after each class. The figures that the students create can then be used throughout the semester in various classroom discussions, thereby situating the learning in the learners’ experiences and allowing the students to make sense for themselves of what the images mean related to the course content. In this way, all aspects of the learning partnerships model are engaged. Experience with this method demonstrates that often students begin to take pride in their visual representations decorating the classroom, and when the created items are not posted students will ask why they are not. Additionally, hanging the outcomes of such classroom activities up on the walls throughout the semester allows students to recall past classroom discussions more easily, as well as share with the instructor in the responsibility of making connections between various course materials as the semester progresses. The created items are often referenced throughout the class and can serve as a starting point for different information. Another way to incorporate images into the classroom environment is to ask the students specifically what the course content reminds them of and ask them to share how they are connecting the course content to their own experiences. Doing so allows others in the classroom environment to create visual images in their mind. Allowing for space in the classroom where such images are discussed engages all parts of the learning partnerships model. This example also highlights that the creation of images does not always need to be outwardly physical in their manifestation.

Group Norms Establishing group norms is another technique that can be incorporated into the classroom environment in an effort to integrate the learning partnerships model. They can also work in conjunction with the aforementioned discussion of the physical classroom layout. The first day of class is an ideal time to set the class group norms as they help to establish the learning environment for the rest of the semester. Group norms are a list of active statements that the students and instructor create to guide the dynamics in the classroom in order to maximize the learning. Examples of such norms could be setting up the classroom prior to and after class, as well as allowing individuals to share their thoughts fully before beginning to speak. There is no specific set number necessary to complete a list of group norms, rather the list is complete when all classroom participants have completed making their contributions. As previously stated, instructors can also participate in setting the groups norms, although they must be mindful of the power dynamic that exists between themselves and the students. One way for instructors to be heedful of this power dynamic when attempting to contribute is to phrase their ideas as thoughts for consideration, for example, “What if we…?” It is important, though, that the instructor participates in the creation of the group norms as doing so demonstrates that the classroom learning will be co-created. After discussing the course expectations and syllabus on the first day of class, opening up the conversation to the creation of group norms allows for co-creating the learning environment with the students and sends the message that the learning to be done will be achieved through shared authority. Apart from establishing learning to be a shared process, it also conveys the belief that knowledge is socially constructed. Revisiting the norms throughout the semester and encouraging students to use them to structure confrontations about violations of the norms help create additional learning opportunities.

205

 Developing Meaning-Making to Promote Critical Thinking

Kegan and Lahey (2001) refer to such group norms as public agreements and stated, ‘without agreements, there can be no violations’. There can be private objection, certainly. People can feel personal outrage at the acts of others in organizational life. (‘I can’t believe you went over my head and took that to him without talking to me about it! How could you do such a thing?’) ‘How could you do such a thing?’ is the voice of personal outrage. But in the absence of publicly shared agreements, an honest reply (though seldom given) could be, ‘I never agreed I wouldn’t.’ (p. 112, italics in original) Hence, the creation of group norms, or public agreements, allows for understandings to be mutually shaped, rather than assumed, and creates opportunities for learning through discussion when breaches of the norms take place. Such violations, and even the establishment of group norms, literally situates the learning in the learners’ experiences, involves their self, and validates that they do indeed bring knowledge with them to the learning process. Experience with group norms shows that quite often students will create a list of norms and treat them as though they are rules with the expectation that the instructor enforce them, as well as punish those who do not follow them. Discussing the purpose of the group norms, and role modeling how to use them constructively to confront a violation, might be necessary for students to engage fully in their use. Furthermore, at times students might question the purpose of the group norms stating that they have no need for them. It can be helpful at those times to remind the students that without mutually established norms, the norms of society will be left to guide the classroom experience. Allowing the norms of society to fully guide the classroom environment is problematic because, not only do people have different experiences and interpretations of what society deems correct or

206

appropriate, but those norms privilege some and disadvantage others. As such, society’s norms are not ideal for an inclusive learning environment.

Active Learning Pedagogy Active learning pedagogy involves all of the learning cycle processes noted by Zull (2002) which include active testing, concrete experiences, reflective observation, and abstract hypotheses. The previously mentioned example of a classroom activity in which students are asked to construct a visual example of course content in small groups and then explain it to the larger class is one such example of active learning pedagogy. In this example, students move through the learning cycle as they are being asked to reflect on what they have read, create an idea of what it means to them, visually demonstrate their understanding, and create a visual example. The cycle continues as the students share with the class their understanding of the visual representation and again as a discussion about it ensues. Active learning pedagogy acknowledges the importance of welcoming feelings into the learning environment. Hence, in the above activity students were strategically placed in small groups in order to help create a more relaxed feeling for completing the activity. As Zull (2002) articulates, we should remember that the fear and pleasure machinery in our brains are at work all the time. In basic ways, they run our lives, as they have for millions of years…Our emotions still seem very important and if we want to help people learn, ‘we must expect to encounter emotion, and we must take it seriously’. We cannot dismiss the learner’s emotions, even when they seem trivial or unjustified to us. (p. 52, italics in original) Active learning pedagogy does not just acknowledge the importance of feelings in the learning process, but it also involves designing various

 Developing Meaning-Making to Promote Critical Thinking

learning activities to include all of the senses. Engaging the senses intentionally is imperative, as it is through the senses that information to process is received (Zull, 2011). Through the incorporation of feelings, senses, and the whole learning cycle, active learning pedagogy connects to the six components of the learning partnerships model. This type of pedagogy validates that students bring knowledge with them to the learning environment, helps create a feeling that is respectful and welcomes risk taking, situates the learning in the students’ experiences, and shares experience and authority. Co-creating the learning experience, making the self central to knowledge construction, and portraying knowledge as complex and socially constructed continues to convey a relaxed yet alert atmosphere, as well as welcomes in engagement of all the senses. Active learning is not necessarily a pedagogical approach students are used to, as it involves them fully in the learning cycle. Often students are used to being engaged in one or two aspects of the learning cycle one. For example, students are often told what the information is that they need to know, and asked to repeat that information in a variety of ways. This perpetuates a system in which “We are used to ‘getting’ information, but not so used to thinking about ‘doing’” (Zull, 2011, p.16). Yet, to complete the learning cycle action must be incorporated into the learning environment. Resistance to putting what is being learned into action may call for the instructor to explain the purpose of active learning pedagogy to the students. It also requires instructors to continually consider how they are engaging the students, which does mean that fully scripted, step-by-step lesson plans for the semester are not possible. Intentional preparation is still quite important, so this is not to say that lesson plans should be left to chance and impulse. Rather a rigid course plotted out for all to take in uniformity, where each stop is carefully planned and timed to the minute, is not congruent with active learning pedagogy. Active learning pedagogy that is congruent with the

learning cycle and the learning partnerships model looks more like a relaxed journey of adventure and discovery. The destination should always remain in sight along with certain important attractions, but the group should be allowed to get there more naturally, allowing for the occasional unanticipated but beneficial detour. This latter approach succeeds in at least one very important way over the former, however well intentioned, in that it considers the needs, experiences, and input of all involved in the classroom. As Wheatley (2006) wrote, We know that the best way to create ownership is to have those responsible for implementation develop the plan for themselves. No one is successful if they merely present a plan in finished form to others. It doesn’t matter how brilliant or correct the plan is – it simply doesn’t work to ask people to sign on when they haven’t been involved in the planning process. (p. 68) If all individuals within the classroom are needed as collaborators in their own learning, and the learning of their classmates, as suggested by the learning partnerships model, then it is quite important that flexibility and participation are built into the classroom environment. Luckily, since the brain is designed to engage in the whole learning cycle, active learning is not only possible to implement, but it can be much more enjoyable and transformational for those involved than when only parts of the learning cycle are engaged. Experience with active learning pedagogy results in students greatly appreciating and preferring the method after a slight period of adjustment.

Creating the Syllabus The learning partnerships model can also be used to guide the creation of the syllabus. One way of validating that the students bring knowledge with them to the learning environment and acknowledging that knowledge is complex and socially constructed is through the tone in which the syl-

207

 Developing Meaning-Making to Promote Critical Thinking

labus is written. Writing a syllabus that speaks with the student readers as opposed to at them conveys a belief that the students are capable of knowledge construction, not that they are passive vessels. For example, writing, “In general, your ideas, comments, suggestions, questions, grade challenges, etc. are welcome. Your discretion in these matters is expected, however. No part of your grade will be based on anything other than your coursework and attendance” as the participation policy (Honolulu Community College, n.d.) might convey the idea that students need only be present and complete assignments to successfully complete the course. Any other contributions, as this statement says, are nice, but unnecessary. An example of a statement that incorporates the LPM and speaks with the students might say the following: Active participation means you bring your insights and contribute them to the class discussion. This necessitates preparing in advance. It also means engaging actively with the thoughts of your colleagues—listening carefully, responding openly, and making connections amongst others’ contributions. This course is designed for active participation, which means that full participation of every individual is necessary in discussions, readings, activities, and assignments. Each individual in the course is responsible for helping others learn, as well as for their own learning. Because every group is a diverse one, we will work to ensure that a variety of ideas within the parameters of the course are respectfully explored and discussed. Creative controversy will be encouraged and supported. (Schoper, 2013b, p. 1) Using such phrasing not only seeks to situate the learning in the students’ experiences, but it does so through acknowledgement of the self and conveying the belief that the self is continually welcomed. In order for students to understand the participation policy, students must consider how they are going to participate in the course,

208

and that participation in the course is more than simply attending the class. Finally, the tone of the participation policy sends the message that learning is mutually constructed, and it acknowledges that authority and expertise will be shared. Another example is attendance policy. One example of such a policy is, Attendance will be graded as follows: No absences A+ One absence A Two absences B Three absences C Four or more absences F Absences for which a medical or court excuse is provided (professional letterhead required) will be recorded but not figured in the attendance grade. Likewise, one absence for which advance notice is given by phone or in person will not be figured in the attendance grade. ‘Any significant tardy or early departure from class will be figured as a half absence. Also, anyone who has more than four class-long, unexcused absences will receive an “F” grade for the COURSE’. Keep in mind that this is an occupational course, and attendance is important here just as it will be in the employment for which this course is in part designed to prepare you.. (Honolulu Community College, n.d., italics in original) An alternative attendance policy that welcomes students as partners and asks them to acknowledge their role in learning could look like this: You are expected to attend and be on time for each class unless prior permission for an absence has been obtained from [name of instructor]. Missing class without prior permission can result in [name of instructor] lowering your participation grade, as it is difficult to participate in class when you are not present. You are expected to come to

 Developing Meaning-Making to Promote Critical Thinking

class prepared to contribute to class discussions, to listen respectfully to others, and to use the helping skills that you are learning in this class in your interactions with each other. You should apply skills, knowledge, and theories from other courses whenever possible. (Schoper, 2013b, p. 8) Again, connections to the learning partnerships model can be heard within the second policy that were not present in the first attendance policy shared.

Structuring Course Assignments Using the learning partnerships model to structure course assignments can result in a variety of assignments. For example, weekly reflections are one course assignment that can incorporate the learning partnerships model. Weekly reflections can be designed so that students reflect on their own lived experiences by asking them to share connections they are making to their experiences, to share connections they are making to other course content and courses, and to discern what the course information means for their professional practice. In each of these components, connections to the learning partnerships model are made as incorporating each requires the self to be central to knowledge construction, that knowledge is portrayed as complex and socially constructed, and that authority and expertise are shared. With this, each assumption and principle are incorporated in the weekly reflection papers. Assignments that feature presentations can also incorporate the learning partnerships model in design. Allowing students to select topics, and share their reason for doing so within the boundaries of the course content, validates their capacity to know, and can begin the process of allowing them to situate the learning in their experience. Rather than simply asking students to present or facilitate course content from the assigned authors’ perspectives, asking them to incorporate their

own critique of the course materials into their presentation helps connect what they are learning to their self, as well as allowing for them to consider authority and expertise. This does not mean that students should be able to share whatever it is that they want from their own perspective and have it be considered valid. Rather, students are asked to come to their perspective using depth and complexity. Specifically, students are asked to consider and incorporate into their presentation what the author is saying, the authors’ thoughts in reference to their own lived experience, as well as other course material, and then evaluate all of it for connections, disconnections, and areas for future exploration. Such a complex process encourages students to become complex in and critical of how they make meaning. A specific example of an assignment that incorporates the learning partnerships model is the following:

Critique of Your Perspective Paper Select to attend an activity/event/experience on campus, which involves a student group (e.g., by race, SES class, sexual orientation, ablebodiedness, political persuasion, etc.) with whom you are unfamiliar. Write a paper examining the perspective you experienced. Include in your analysis a discussion of your perspective and how this helps and hinders your professional practice. Each of us stands in a particular relationship to the world. The only way you can truly understand the students with whom you work is to understand your standpoint. This standpoint has a tremendous influence on how you relate to the theory and practice in the field. An aspect of this paper is to expose your “standpoint” on the world to yourself. As you develop this paper, you are encouraged to share this paper with a trusted classmate so he/she can provide insights to help you understand your standpoint on the world. (Schoper, 2013a, p. 6)

209

 Developing Meaning-Making to Promote Critical Thinking

In this assignment, students are asked to consider the experience within the context of their own lives. They are validated as knowers, and the learning is mutually constructed between their new perspective, their old perspective, and their own professional practice. Thus, the self is central to the knowledge construction, knowledge is portrayed as complex and socially constructed, and students are asked to share in expertise of the experience and its meaning. Another example of an assignment that incorporates the learning partnerships model is the following description of an “Effective Engagement in Active Learning” assignment: This assignment is intended to help you structure your active learning using knowledge about yourself as a learner. It also offers an opportunity to reflect on your progress and synthesize what you gained from the course. The assignment includes four parts: 1. Identify and describe your learning preferences (e.g., the extent to which you express your ideas, how you listen to others, do you “think out loud” or wait until you have something settled to share, how willing you are to disagree and engage in creative conflict—anything that represents a way you prefer to learn). This is intended to help you define your strengths and areas of growth within our learning environment. (3-5 pages) 2. Develop a few (between 3-6) important goals that will help you engage effectively in our learning environment. These should reflect the comparison of your learning preferences in #1 to the norms we develop for our class. For example, one likely group norm will be to share perspectives; if you prefer to learn via listening, a goal that will help you expand your learning preferences might be sharing at least one idea per class session. Attach a

210

one-page bullet point handout of your goals to be distributed to the other [program] faculty. (2-3 pages with page 3 or 4 being the goal sheet.) 3. Write a narrative that assesses your progress on the goals in part #2 over the course of the semester. Speak to what you accomplished on each goal as well as what you did not accomplish and your thoughts on why. (5-7 pages) 4. During this course, you participated in a variety of learning experiences. These activities were designed to build an understanding of student affairs as a profession. Identify three experiences from the semester that helped you to learn more about the profession of student affairs. Explain what you learned, as well as why you learned what you did. (approx. 3-5 pages). (Schoper, 2013a, p. 5) This assignment spans the course of the semester, and asks students to consider deeply what they are doing to assist in their own learning. Thus, their self is central to knowledge creation in this assignment, they are asked to situate it in their experience, and they are validated as knowers. The mutual construction of meaning occurs through the connection to the group norms. In this way the assumption that knowledge is complex and socially constructed is made, and guides the student as they work to fulfill the assignment. Experience with each of these assignments is that students often at first find them easy. It is not until they work through the completion of each part of the assignment that they discover that it will take work on their part to determine what their thoughts are, and how it is that they are coming to have their thoughts. Furthermore, developing to such a place where students are able to and comfortable incorporating who they are and the experiences that they have into their

 Developing Meaning-Making to Promote Critical Thinking

assignments, can sometimes also lead students to wondering about why they are not invited to do the same things in their assignments for other courses.

Evaluation of Assignments The evaluation of assignments in the learning partnerships model moves beyond simply giving students a letter grade or some equivalent symbolic representation of a grade, e.g. a check plus or check minus. Although it is the instructor’s place to evaluate students’ course work, it is still important to consider the purpose of such evaluation. If the purpose is for the student to learn, then it must be acknowledged that, no outside influence or force can cause a brain to learn. It will decide on its own. Thus, one important rule for helping people learn is ‘to help the learner feel she is in control’. This is probably the best trick that good teachers have. (Zull, 2002, p. 52, italics in original) Allowing the learner to feel in control still allows for rewarding students for providing the correct knowledge or desired responses, and therefore, it does not mean giving students full control and abandoning all evaluation. Rather it means viewing evaluation as more of a conversation between the instructor and the student. Yes, grades must still be incorporated, but assignment feedback must also include asking important epistemological questions. Earlier it was established that the ability to critically think was comprised of both what in relation to content, as well as how the person came to make sense of that content. Therefore, assignment feedback must attend to both the what of the content, as well as how the individual came to make meaning of the content. Using the six components of the learning partnerships model can assist in this process. Ensuring that feedback validates that students are capable of

knowledge construction and situating the feedback in students’ experiences might look like noting places where what the student shared is important or pointing out disparity between different parts of the assignment where the student did well and where they might need to improve. Another way to mutually construct the meaning of the assignment with the student is through the creation of a learning contract: A learning contract is a document in which the student gives percentage weights to some of the required assignments. For other assignments, the instructor may choose to give percentage weights. This process allows the student and the instructor to participate in the determination of the assignments’ meaning. A final way to mutually construct the meaning of the assignments is to spend time in class each week pointing out connections between the course content and the purpose of future assignments, as well as asking students their thoughts about connections they see between course content and coursework.

FUTURE RESEARCH DIRECTIONS Developing the capacity to critically think in teachers is essential and requires teachers to make meaning complexly. No longer will simple information transfer fit the demands placed upon teachers, for reasons such as advances in technology, more diverse students, and increasing accountability measures. Instead, teachers must know how to successfully navigate a diverse environment for the common good of all. Incorporating the learning partnerships model into the classroom environment is one way to promote critical thinking and create an inclusive learning environment. Research has been conducted as to the implementation of the learning partnerships model, although much of the research has been conducted by Baxter Magolda herself (2012, 2004,

211

 Developing Meaning-Making to Promote Critical Thinking

Figure 2. The Learning Contract.

2000, 2001), or has primarily been situated within the context of student affairs practice (Pizzolato, 2008; Pizzolato & Ozki, 2007). Future areas of research could include assessing the outcomes of using the learning partnership model to guide not only a teacher preparation program classroom experience, but also an entire teacher preparation program. It is important to note that throughout the discussion of meaning making and critical thinking, it was not intended to imply that developing critical thinking and complex meaning making requires sacrificing course content. Quite the contrary, instead the learning partnerships model allows for depth to be added to the course content in such a manner that it enhances the course content and entire experience. Another area of research could be to explore the impact for the instructor on the incorporation of the learning partnerships model into a course so as to more deeply understand the impact of the model from a perspective other than that of the students’ learning.

212

CONCLUSION Critical thinking is imperative in creating successful, versatile, and open-minded individuals, which includes those preparing to be teachers. Critical thinking is widely applicable to a myriad of situations and there is very little that it does not impact. One’s capacity to critically think literally changes the world around them. The number of potential actions one can see and perform increase as a person’s capacity for critical thought increases. As such, the potential outcomes visible to the critical thinker far outweigh those seen by individuals who see their world, its inhabitants, and themselves in simpler terms. This influence is dramatic and, quite literally, life changing. With that in mind, for those who have been called to the field of education, wherever that may be, and who have hopes of better preparing those they teach, helping students develop a larger capacity to critically think is of paramount importance.

 Developing Meaning-Making to Promote Critical Thinking

It is not only critical thinking that warrants attention; the complexity with which one makes meaning is of similar importance. The connections between meaning making and critical thinking are many and have been implied, if not stated outright, for some time. Three authors that speak about this extensively include Kegan (1994), Garvey Berger (2012), and Baxter Magolda (2001, 2004). The concept of meaning making is based around the tenet that everyone uses three intertwined dimensions to make meaning of their life’s experiences. These dimensions include the cognitive, interpersonal, and intrapersonal, and they impact how one makes sense of information, how one sees oneself in relation to others, and a person’s internal value and belief system, respectively. It is the development of these dimensions that can lead to a change in critical thinking, and, while each of the aforementioned authors all speak to the ways one can develop greater complexity, it is Baxter Magolda’s learning partnership model that provides the most clear and transferable framework. The learning partnerships model involves three principles and three assumptions which provide the student with support and challenge, respectively. Each relate to one of the three dimensions of meaning making, and, in doing so, work together to promote critical thinking and complexity of mind. Beyond being grounded in a very strong theoretical perspective, the learning partnerships model is supported by a longitudinal study lasting over 25 years. In order to work successfully, the framework provided by Baxter Magolda (2004) asks educators to “portray knowledge as complex and socially constructed,” “validate learners’ capacity to know,” show students that the “self is central to knowledge construction,” “situate learning in learner’s experience,” “share authority and expertise,” and “define learning as mutually constructing meaning” (p. 41). Experience using the learning partnerships model confirms what Baxter Magolda posits:

The assumptions and principles that constitute the Learning Partnerships Model are consistent with scholarship on how to promote student development and learning. They are also inherent in scholars’ descriptions of culturally inclusive pedagogy. As a result, the model holds substantial promise for transforming higher education to promote self-authorship [and, thus, critical thinking] during college. (p. 61) Beyond being grounded in robust research and providing powerful and transformative learning experiences for students and educators alike, the learning partnerships model proves itself to be an incredibly versatile tool. The flexibility of the learning partnerships model means that it can be integrated into the learning environment in a multitude of formal and informal ways. The ways described herein list only select areas of the learning environment; certainly, there are other avenues for its implementation that exist. The potential areas mentioned focused on four overarching themes: shaping the classroom environment, creating the syllabus, structuring assignments, and evaluating assignments. The learning partnerships model is a proven tool in helping develop more complex meaning making. Developing inner complexity within students takes work and intention, and it is not something that happens instantaneously. Just as it takes students time to develop critical thinking themselves, it likewise will take educators time to hone their skills to promote this growth within students. Even then, the process will likely remain an ever-evolving one, for new students entering the classroom will bring fresh and unique experiences and knowledge, constantly altering the educator’s challenges and opportunities. Experience with the learning partnerships model has yielded a classroom full of excitement and learning for both students and the educator. New perspectives are regularly shared, and, as students adjust to this approach to learning, they find deep satisfaction

213

 Developing Meaning-Making to Promote Critical Thinking

from the challenge to stretch their thinking and appreciation for the support to come as they are. Challenges remain, of course, as learning and trying on new, more complex ways of seeing the world are not easy, but for the educator and students willing to work and sit in the discomfort, the prize can be rewarding. Indeed, the ability for an individual to critically think about their world and stand firmly on the ground where they make meaning is a life-giving capacity. Surely, it is a worthwhile and noble goal for educators to seek to give this gift to their students. The real trick, however, is not giving this gift; it is finding a way to help students stand up and take it on their own. The learning partnerships model is here to assist educators build the bridge with students to critical thinking.

REFERENCES

Baxter Magolda, M. B. (2012). Building learning partnerships. Change: The magazine of higher learning, January/February, 32-38. Dewey, J. (1925). Experience and nature. IL, Peru: Carus Publishing Company. Foundation for Critical Thinking. (2013). Defining critical thinking. Retrieved from http://www. critical thinking.org/pages/defining-criticalthinking/766 Garvey Berger, J. (2012). Changing on the job: Developing leaders for a complex world. Stanford, CA: Business Books. Hart Research Associates. (2013). It makes more than a major: Employer priorities for college learning and student success. Retrieved from: http://www.aacu.org/leap/pdfs/LEAP_Report_FINAL.pdf Honolulu Community College. (n.d.) Retrieved from http://www2.honolulu.hawaii.edu/facdev/ guidebk/teachtip/syllab-4.htm

Association of American Colleges and Universities. (2005). Liberal education outcomes: A preliminary report on student achievement in college. Retrieved from http://www.aacu.org/leap/ pdfs/LEAP_ Report_FINAL.pdf)

Kegan, R. (1994). In over our heads: The mental demands of modern life. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Baxter Magolda, M. B. (2000). Creating contexts for learning and self-authorship: Constructivedevelopmental pedagogy. Nashville, TN: Vanderbilt University Press.

Kegan, R., & Lahey, L. L. (2001). Seven languages for transformation: How the way we talk can change the way we work. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Baxter Magolda, M. B. (2001). Making their own way: Narratives for transforming higher education to promote self-authorship. Sterling, VA: Stylus Publishing.

Kerry, B. (2013, Dec. 5). Higher Education: On a Crash Course for Reinvention. Retrieved from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bob-kerrey/ higher-education-reform_b_4377488.html

Baxter Magolda, M. B. (2004). Learning partnerships model: A framework for promoting selfauthorship. In M. B. Baxter Magolda & P. M. King (Eds.), Learning partnerships: Theory and models of practice to educate for self-authorship (pp. 37–62). Sterling, VA: Stylus Publishing.

Kolb, D. (1984). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, Inc.

214

Krislov, M., & Volk, S. S. (2014, April 7). College is still for creating citizens. Retrieved from http://chronicle.com/article/College-Is-Still-forCreating/145759/%29

 Developing Meaning-Making to Promote Critical Thinking

Merriam, S. B., Caffarella, R. S., & Baumgartner, L. M. (2007). Learning in adulthood: A comprehensive guide. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Mezirow, J. (2000). Learning to think like an adult: Core concepts of transformation theory. In Learning as transformation: Critical perspectives on a theory in progress. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Mezirow, J. (2009). Transformative learning theory. In Transformative learning in practice: Insights from community, workplace, and higher education. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Schoper, S. E. (2013c). Learning contract. Macomb, IL: Western Illinois University. Wheatley, M. J. (2006). Leadership and the new science: Discovering order in a chaotic world. San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler Publishers. Zull, J. E. (2002). The art of changing the brain. Sterling, VA: Stylus Publishing. Zull, J. E. (2011). From brain to mind: Using neuroscience to guide change in education. Sterling, VA: Stylus Publishing.

Montessori, M. (1948). The discovery of the child. Madras: Kalkshetra Publications Press.

ADDITIONAL READING

Northeastern University. (2013, Sept. 17). Innovation imperative: Enhancing higher education outcomes. Retrieved from http://www.northeastern. edu/innovationsurvey/pdfs/Northeastern_University_ Innovation_Imperative_Higher_Ed_Outcomes_Poll_Deck_FINAL_Delivered.pdf

Association of American Colleges & Universities. (2007). College learning for the new global century: A report from the national leadership council for liberal education and America’s promise. Retrieved from http://www.aacu.org/ leap/documents/GlobalCentury_final.pdf

Piaget, J. (1974). Origins of intelligence in children (2nd ed.). International Universities Press.

Association of American Colleges & Universities, & Council for Higher Education Accreditation. (2012). New leadership for student learning and accountability: A statement of principles, commitments to action. Retrieved from http:// www.newleadershipalliance.org/images/uploads/ new%20 leadership%20principles.pdf

Pizzolato, J., & Ozaki, C. C. (2007). Moving toward self-authorship: Investigating outcomes of learning partnerships. Journal of College Student Development, 48(2), 196–214. doi:10.1353/ csd.2007.0019 Pizzolato, J. E. (2008, March/April). Advisor, teacher, partner: Using the learning partnerships model to reshape academic advising. About Campus: Enriching the Student Learning Experience, 13(1), 18–25. doi:10.1002/abc.243 Schoper, S. E. (2013a). CSP 552 Section 001: Introduction to College Student Personnel, Syllabus, Western Illinois University, Macomb, IL. Schoper, S. E. (2013b). CSP 555 Section 001: Counseling theories and practices for college student personnel, syllabus, Macomb, IL: Western Illinois University.

Bain, K. (2004). What the best college teachers do. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Baxter Magolda, M. B. (2000). Creating contexts for learning and self-authorship: ConstructiveDevelopmental Pedagogy. Nashville, TN: Vanderbilt University Press. Baxter Magolda, M. B. (2008). Educating students for self-authorship: Learning partnerships to achieve complex outcomes. In C. Kreber (Ed.), The University and its disciplines: Teaching and learning within and beyond disciplinary boundaries (pp. 143–156). New York, NY: Routledge.

215

 Developing Meaning-Making to Promote Critical Thinking

Baxter Magolda, M. B. (2008). Learning partnerships: A gender-inclusive model for undergraduate teaching. In J. K. Allen, D. R. Dean, & S. J. Bracken (Eds.), Most college students are women: Implications for teaching, learning, and policy (pp. 29–53). Sterling, VA: Stylus. Baxter Magolda, M. B., Creamer, E. G., & Meszeros, P. S. (2010). Development and assessment of self-authorship: Exploring the concept across cultures. Sterling, VA: Stylus Publishing. Baxter Magolda, M. B., Henry Hall, M., & Daloz Parks, S. (2009). Authoring your life: Developing an internal voice to navigate life’s challenges. Sterling, VA: Stylus Publishing. Doyle, T., Zakrajesk, T., & Loeb, J. H. (2013). The new science of learning: How to learn in harmony with your brain. Sterling, VA: Stylus Publishing. Hodge, D. C., Baxter Magolda, M. B., & Haynes, C. A. (2009). Engaged learning: Enabling selfauthorship and effective practice. Liberal Education, 95(4), 16–23. Ignelzi, M. (2002). Making meaning in the teaching and learning process. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 2000(82), 5–14. doi:10.1002/tl.8201 Keeling, R. (2004). Learning reconsidered. Washington, DC: American College Personnel Association & National Association of Student Personnel Administrators. Keeling, R. P. (Ed.). (2006). Learning reconsidered 2: A practical guide to implementing a campuswide focus on the student experience. Washington, DC: ACPA, ACUHO-I, ACUI, NACADA, NACA, NASPA, & NIRSA. Kegan, R. (2009). What “form” transforms? A constructive-developmental approach to transformative learning. In K. Illeris (Ed.), Contemporary theories of learning: Learning theorists in their own words. New York, NY: Routledge.

216

Kegan, R., & Lahey, L. L. (2009). Immunity to Change: How to overcome it and unlock the potential in yourself and your organization. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Mezirow, J. (2006). An overview on transformative learning. In P. Sutherland & J. Crowther (Eds.), Lifelong learning: Concepts and contexts (pp. 24–38). New York, NY: Routledge. Palmer, P. J., Zajonc, A., Scribner, M., & Nepo, M. (2010). The heart of higher education: A call to renewal. San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass. Pizzolato, J. E. (2005). Creating crossroads for self-authorship: Investigating the provocative moment. Journal of College Student Development, 46(4), 624–641. doi:10.1353/csd.2005.0064 Pizzolato, J. E., & Ozaki, C. C. (2007). Moving toward self-authorship: Investigating outcomes of learning partnerships. Journal of College Student Development, 4(2), 196–214. doi:10.1353/ csd.2007.0019 Rogers, J. L., Magolda, P. M., Baxter Magolda, M. B., & Knight-Abowitz, K. (2004). A community of scholars: Enacting the Learning Partnerships Model in graduate education. In M. B. Baxter Magolda & P. M. King (Eds.), Learning partnerships: Theory and models of practice to educate for self-authorship (pp. 213–244). Sterling, VA: Stylus. Taylor, E. W., & Cranton, P. et al. (2011). The handbook of transformative learning: Theory, research, and practice. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Taylor, K., Marienau, C., & Fiddler, M. (2000). Developing adult learners: Strategies for teachers and trainers. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Thomas, I. (2009). Critical thinking, transformative learning, sustainable education, and problem-based learning in universities. Journal of Transformative Education, 7(3), 245–264. doi:10.1177/1541344610385753

 Developing Meaning-Making to Promote Critical Thinking

Wagner, T., Kegan, R., Lahey, L. L., Lemons, R. W., Garnier, J., Helsing, D., & Vander Ark, T. et al. (2005). Change leadership: A practical guide to transforming our schools. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Wheatley, M., & Frieze, D. (2011). Walk out walk on: A learning journey into communities daring to live the future now. San Francisco, CA: BerrettKoehler Publishers.

KEY TERMS AND DEFINITIONS Cognitive Dimension: One developmental dimension within the meaning making structure that pertains to how one makes sense of information. Critical Thinking: A way of thinking in which an individual successfully navigates through complex problems with competing perspectives by determining relevant information. Epistemological: How one has come to know what one knows. Interpersonal Dimension: One developmental dimension within the meaning making

structure that pertains to how one sees oneself in relation to others. Intrapersonal Dimension: One developmental dimension within the meaning making structure that pertains to one’s internal beliefs and values system. Learning Process: The completion of the learning cycle that includes active testing, concrete experiences, reflective observation, and abstract hypothesis. Meaning Making Structure: A structure comprised of the cognitive, interpersonal, and intrapersonal dimensions of development that an individual uses to make sense of their experience through a subject object balance on a continuum that develops from simple to complex. Meaning Making: The process with which one engages their meaning making structure to make sense of their inner and outer worlds. Self-Authorship: The mindset one needs to reach in order to begin the process of critical thinking.

217

218

Chapter 10

Mapping Problems to Solutions: Logic Modeling in a Graduate Teacher Leadership Course Tara Loraine Shepperson Eastern Kentucky University, USA April Blakely Eastern Kentucky University, USA

ABSTRACT Faculty used visualization and inquiry methods to help teacher leaders in a master’s course design problem-to-solution exercises. These assignments were based on an actual educational issue present in their school. By developing both a problem and solution model, students were able to experience realworld problem-based learning. This chapter presents theories supporting the approach, examples of exercises, and some lessons learned after working with 300 students over two years. Although taught online and to geographically dispersed students, the logic model exercise replicated many aspects of clinical experiences and provided professional skill development. The value of using logic models to represent real-world phenomena and to provide authentic learning experiences to teacher leaders is discussed.

INTRODUCTION Next generation, PK-12 teachers are asked to not only lead instruction in their classroom, but also to act as leaders within their school and community. The constant call for reform and increased accountability has placed teachers in roles as instructional experts and facilitators of group change. These new teacher leaders are expected to scrutinize student data, adopt new instructional methods, and work with students, teachers, administrators,

and parents to improve student achievement. As teachers are increasingly viewed as key drivers in educational reform, their roles have expanded from teachers of students to facilitators of change (Hall & Hord, 2015). Often, education graduate students already work in schools. This was the case with the majority of students in the courses discussed in this chapter. Therefore, faculty focused academic work on fostering knowledge and skills for professional practice, so that students were able to:

DOI: 10.4018/978-1-4666-8411-9.ch010

Copyright © 2015, IGI Global. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.

 Mapping Problems to Solutions

• • • •

Break down and analyze student achievement data; Use empirical evidence for decision-making; Consider implications of human interaction and organizational behaviors; and, Generate alternative strategies to improve school practice.

One method often used in business and health sciences to teach organizational and human interaction is logic modeling. A logic model graphically describes participants, activities, and results of a program. “Program” is a generic term to identify a wide range of activities within an organization or institution. Educational policies, curricula, and interventions are all types of programs common in schools. The logic model is simply the conceptual and graphical representation of the resources used (money, people, and space), the activities carried out (participants and actions), and goals (short and long term outcomes and impact). This chapter describes the use of logic models in a master’s level, teacher leadership course titled Leading Achievement Change. The authors outline the way logic models are incorporated into the online course and how the exercise provides an authentic learning experience situated in schools. It offers elements of clinical modeling and problembased learning that transcend their online delivery, offering what the faculty members conclude is an authentic and practical learning opportunity.

BACKGROUND Teacher Leaders Reforms, beginning with No Child Left Behind and heightened under the Common Core State Standards (2010) place teachers and other instructional specialists under increased pressure

to show improved student achievement. Schoolbased efforts include a variety of non-instructional endeavors. These may be oriented around analysis of student data, coordinating programs within the school, and working with others to improve teaching practices. These roles demand that teachers have the skills to coach others, review and dissect data sets, organize new programs, and work collaboratively with fellow teachers, administrators, and other district personnel (Donaldson et al., 2008). Situated as mentors or lead teachers, individuals find themselves in new roles outside of the more autonomous traditional role of classroom instructor (Lortie, 1975). Currently, many teachers, even those very young or new to a school, may be asked to act as a mentor or reformer working with others to change instructional behavior or improve programs. Increasingly, teachers must be capable of taking on a widening range of professional activities (Galloway & Lesaux, 2014). The sense that teachers must serve what Lukacs and Galluzzo (2014) referred to as “agents of school change” (p. 11) appears to be a relatively new concept. Murphy (2005) reports a transition in teachers’ responsibilities over the past few decades. Teacher leaders in the 1970s and 1980s were departmental chairs. By the 1990s, teachers were asked to take on more responsibility in less formal leadership roles as curriculum developers and instructional coaches. In the last 20 years, literature encourages teacher leaders to be essential actors in the re-culturing, transformation, and organizational development of schools (Hall & Hord, 2015). Leonard, Petta, and Porter (2012) reported changing roles are due, in part, to popularity of theories about shared leadership and learning organizations that permeate educational leadership literature (Fullan, 2001; Sergiovanni, 1998). This also fits the national agenda of reform and accountability that has become the new mainstay in educational policy and practice (Ryan & Feller, 2009).

219

 Mapping Problems to Solutions

Problem-Based Learning Problem-based learning (PBL) is described as experiential learning focused around the investigation and resolution of often messy, real-life problems (Torp & Sage, 2002). Learning using this approach is roughly organized in three stages. The first stage requires students to understand the problem by defining, describing, and clearly stating the problem. Then, learners must complete exploratory research, gather data, and generate possible solutions to the problem. In the third stage, students must select the resolution that best fits the situation, and present a case supporting their conclusion. It is the problem that provides the impetus from which the learner structures the investigation, selects appropriate resources, and is motivated to develop solutions (Abdalla & Gaffar, 2011). Learners are guided by instructors, but largely self-direct their own learning. Decisions about the inquiry evolve as additional information and knowledge is gained. Fundamentally constructivist in nature, PBL forces students to plan, reflect on, and regulate their strategies and tasks, resulting in deeper learning (Flavell, 1979). Literature indicates some conceptual differences between problem-based and project-based learning, although many researchers consider them similar methods that engage learners, use systematic inquiry and structured methods, and resolve authentic real-world questions (Markham, Larmer, & Ravitz, 2003; Savin-Baden, 2000). Use of the method to guide inquiry is reported to have lagged in higher education, except in medical training and less often in science teaching (Lee, Blackwell, Drake, & Moran, 2014). The method originated at McMaster University in 1969 and is now widespread in medical and health clinical training for development of diagnostic skills (Barrows, 1996). In other disciplines, problem-based learning has been found effective for teaching difficult content, and has been advocated in science because it parallels the scientific process (Allen & Tanner, 2003). In PK-12, there is little

220

systematic research about how problems are used to orient learning for students, with more discussion about how teachers learn to implement the methods. Frank and Barzilai (2004) found that both motivation and interdisciplinary knowledge acquisition increased with PBL, although teachers had to be trained on how to develop lessons. In general, PBL has been lauded as bringing together the goals of both liberal arts and professional education because it demands action and complex and critical thinking (Savery, 2006). Research has found that problem-based learning provides the cognitive scaffolding necessary to assimilate new knowledge and undertake self-directed learning. In their synthesis of meta-analyses, Strobel and van Barneveld (2009) reported that problem-based learning does not improve memorization, or short term knowledge acquisition and recall. Both instructors and students reported preferring PBL to more traditional didactic learning methods. Students taught using problem-based strategies were found to obtain better conceptualization and performance skills than those taught traditionally. Job-related understanding and skill development also increased. Professional students taught using PBL were found to have better applied knowledge, longer-term skill retention, and overall superior clinical performance.

Online Learning In a traditional teacher-centered classroom, instructors have a monopoly on information delivery. In online courses, with instant access to vast data resources and information, students gain knowledge from an array of sources. Online courses are more collaborative, contextual, and active (Murphy, Mahoney, Chen, Mendoza-Diaz & Yang, 2005). Therefore, faculty must adjust pedagogy in online instruction to facilitate learning, while guiding students toward solutions. Constructivistbased instructional design helps adult learners learn in this more complex online environment.

 Mapping Problems to Solutions

Constructivist Learning

Instructional Strategies

Constructivist learning arose from Piagetian and Vygotskian perspectives (Palincsar, 1998). It emphasizes the impact of constructed knowledge on the learner’s active, reflective thinking. While Piaget focused on individual cognitive constructivism, Vygotsky stressed that sociocultural systems have a major impact on learning (Siegler, 1998). Social constructivist theory supports knowledge as socially situated and socially constructed through reflection on one’s own thoughts and experiences, and through hearing others’ ideas. Dewey (1938) added that individual development is dependent upon environmental context and supported learning from real-world interactions. Lave and Wenger (1991) asserted that learning is situated socially through learners’ active participation in routine, patterned activities. In the constructivist learning environment, students are encouraged in active engagement. They discuss, argue, negotiate ideas, and collaboratively solve problems. Because of their rich life and employment experience, the social, authentic constructivist learning environment is ideal for online coursework.

Many traditional instructional strategies translate well to constructivist online learning environments. The course in which logic modeling is used requires students to engage in collaborative, contextualized learning by simulating and assuming an authentic role that has real-world applications (Martens, Bastiaens & Kirschner, 2007). Faculty scaffold into the course instructional strategies, which are designed to create a gradual release of responsibility to learners. Lecture. Lectures assist students in gaining foundational knowledge. Online lectures are presented in a variety of ways. Lecture notes can be placed on a web page for the learner to review. Notes can be packaged for download from the Internet. With the introduction of visual and auditory media, dissemination of information is enhanced by the lectures. Instructors can further improve presentations with auditory narration, podcasts, and shared videos. Discussion. Discussion is an instructional strategy favored by adult learners because it is interactive and encourages participatory learning. Discussion boards encourage learners to analyze alternative ways of thinking and assist learners in exploring their own experiences to develop better critical thinking. Case Study. Case studies require learners to draw upon their prior experiences and link to future experiences. Students select a problem that is relevant to their experience. They report facts regarding the problem, the environmental context, and the participants involved. To find resolution, learners must be aware of their own perceptions and opinions in order to consider broader concepts regarding how to implement change. One advantage of the case study method is that it emphasizes practical thinking to assist learners in applying broad principles to their own case.

Adult Learners Successful adult learning depends greatly upon individuals’ maturation and experiences (Mezirow, 1991, 1997; Wang, Sierra & Folger, 2003). The focus of adult learning should be on assisting them to become independent thinkers, rather than passive knowledge-receivers. Adult learners also require motivation to sustain their learning (Priest, 2000). To achieve this, course curriculum must match individual adult learning needs, interests, abilities, and experiences. As Knowles (1990) asserts, learners gain knowledge more effectively when instructional activities are designed with consideration of their life context.

221

 Mapping Problems to Solutions

Problem-based Projects. Projects give students an opportunity to pursue special interests. Projects provide students with practical experience and a sense of accomplishment. They make learning more relevant. Products can be shared with others in the class and critiqued by peers and the instructor. Many times the learner has an opportunity to use the project in a real-world application, lending increased enthusiasm and effort to the project. Problem-based learning projects help learners achieve rigor and relevance in assignments.

Visualization Data visualization is the practice of concisely representing data in graphical forms to communicate information or aid in analysis (Evergreen & Metzner, 2013). Information may be conceptual (concept maps) or it may be analytical (data dashboards). Data visualization enhances data comprehension, and allows for greater pattern recognition. Visualization can change the abstract and complex to clear, elegant, and understandable data (Azzam & Evergreen, 2013). Use of graphs and maps to present data is ancient, recorded back to early Egyptians who constructed town plats, astronomy, and geographical cartography (Friendly, 2009). By the 1800s, geological strata, distributions of disease, and mappings of other large data sets were presented in visual formats. Flow charts were first documented in the 1920s, although pie charts and other visual formats were cited in the literature much earlier (Tufte, 1983). More recently, visual displays have been used to simplify the presentation of very complex information, and the practice has been enhanced by increasingly sophisticated digital technology (Kistler, Evergreen, & Azzam, 2013). The result has been the integration of conceptual and analytical design in the scientific research in a way that promotes comprehension of systems, processes, and causality. Visualization for quantitative data analysis and display has grown exponentially over the last

222

decade (Lysy, 2013). Until recently, quantitative display was used less in this format than qualitative data, which more readily relies on rich descriptive text and pictures (Wallgren, Wallgren, Persson, Jorner, & Haaland, 1996). Miles and Huberman (1994) pointed to the benefit of graphical display for qualitative analysis, which by its nature is messy, needs reduction, conclusion drawing, and enhanced verification (Leech & Onwuegbuzie, 2007).

Logic Models in Education One of the first official uses of logic models was tied to the 1965 passage of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, which increased federal funding for schools and required accountability for public monies (Provus, 1971). At the time, university researchers and school administrators bemoaned the lack of techniques to adequately evaluate and report on educational programs (Shepperson, 2013). As a result, educational researchers and other social scientists expanded the use of analytical and visual tools (Stake, 1967; Stufflebeam, et al., 1971; Weiss, 1972). By the 1990s, the use of reasoning chains or other logical analysis frameworks were commonplace. Among the most popular were traditional linear cause and effect logic models that were used for planning, evaluation, outcomes assessment, and to activate change in organizational behavior. McLaughlin and Jordan (2004) suggested that logic model construction involves five basic stages. To build a logic model, relevant information first must be collected; then, the goals or anticipated results of the program can be described. Armed with that information, the key elements of the program can be selected, drawn into a logic model, and then reviewed and verified. It is recommended that construction begin with a basic logic model diagram. Although simple in form, the process is more daunting than it appears because it demands careful consideration of multiple levels and interactions at once. One

 Mapping Problems to Solutions

of the key advantages to using logic models is that they offer a focus for stakeholder discussion and review that may produce information about perspectives that otherwise might not be revealed (Shepperson & Hemmer, 2013). There is little evidence that teacher preparation programs have traditionally used logic models. A 1986 edition of the journal New Directions for Program Evaluation presented an overview of evaluation preparation with no direct mention of logic modeling in educational courses, although it may have been part of planning and implementation methodologies (Sanders, 1986). A more recent review evaluating graduate programs did not specifically look at logic modeling. It is likely that advanced students use multiple visualization techniques, including logic modeling.

Logic Model Approaches When considering a method for visually representing a program, there are three recognized approaches to logic modeling. Each considers one of three primary goals in creating the model: (1) program planning, (2) evaluation, and (3) implementation.

Theory Approach Theory approach models emphasize the theory of change that influences the design and planning for a program. They strive to provide detailed explanations of the reasons for embarking on a program. Often, they elaborate on the research data and ideas that generated the innovation. Theory approach models add additional parts to the logic model that explore the problem or issue addressed by the program and describe the reason for selecting certain types of solution strategies. Key to such models is a representation of how and why one thinks a program will function. Often they are built to represent big ideas in the conceptualization of a program. They are a good tool in strategizing for grant proposals. Theory approach models are

most useful in describing programs before they are implemented, as they assist in defining the theory on which the program rests.

Outcomes Approach Outcomes approach models focus on the early aspects of program planning and attempt to connect the inputs/resources/activities with the desired outputs, into a workable program. These models often subdivide outcomes and impact over time to describe short-term (1 to 3 years) outputs, long-term (4 to 6 years) outputs, and outcomes (7 to 10 years) that may result from a given set of activities. Although outcome approach models are developed with a change theory in mind, change is not emphasized explicitly. Outcome approach models are useful in designing effective evaluation and reporting strategies. Evaluation facilitates an ongoing learning cycle that starts with planning, leads into data collection, analysis and reflection, and then creates action and improvement. Logic models are the foundation of planning and the core of any evaluation process. As evaluators and/or program planners make strategic decisions based on evaluation findings, the cycle of planning is refreshed. Evaluation serves many purposes. It supports program and strategic planning, it helps communicate goals and progress, and it serves as a basis for ongoing learning to strengthen a program. Figure 1 illustrates how the logic model serves as the foundation for future evaluation plans.

Activities Approach Activities approach models focus on the details of the implementation process. A logic model of this type links the various planned activities together by mapping the process of program implementation. These models describe what a program intends to do and, as such, are most useful for the purposes of program monitoring and management. Activity approach models provide the detailed steps neces-

223

 Mapping Problems to Solutions

Figure 1. Evaluation planning.

sary for program implementation. In externally funded programs, it shows what will actually occur if the program is funded. Models that emphasize a program’s planned work are most often used to inform management planning activities. Regardless of the approach, logic modeling provides stakeholders with a road map describing the sequence of related events connecting the need for the proposed innovation or program with its intended results. Mapping a proposed program helps one visualize and understand how human and financial investments contribute to achieving intended program goals. Thus, logic modeling provides useful information about program functioning that can contribute to program success.

Real-World Applications In the course, logic modeling allowed clinical practitioners to visualize strategies for rethinking a school program. The process enabled the application of critical and creative thinking, which made explicit the reciprocal connections among school practice, program, and policy. The exercise required the consideration of theories of human behavior and social interventions in a way that featured teacher leadership actions and teacher capacity to facilitate and produce meaningful change (Alter & Egan, 1997). By understanding the underlying logic of a program, teachers left

224

the class better equipped to investigate problems, select feasible solutions, and initiate change in order to improve student achievement. The process also increased teachers’ understanding of underlying assumptions and influences, which guide and sometimes hinder programs (Parsons & Schmitz, 1999). Policies are the most prevalent intervention for social services, especially education, because they are derived from national and state legislative policies that allocate funds for major initiatives (Owen, 2007). Currently, federal Race to the Top legislation and implementation of the common core curriculum has forced quick changes in instruction, more specialized interventions, and increased accountability for both teachers and administrators. Even for states that opted out of federal standards, the common core has led to revisions in sequencing and rigor of core subjects. Modern schools and classrooms are part of a large, highly regulated, and ever evolving social institution. Therefore, evaluating any single aspect of education requires studying the connecting components of the educational system of policies at the federal, state, district, and school level. Program design is rarely devised independently by schools. Federal, state, and district policies dictate much of how school programs work. Therefore, underlying program theories must include a discussion of policies because they intertwine with

 Mapping Problems to Solutions

program characteristics. In the example included in this chapter of an after-school tutoring program, decisions about benchmarks of success, instructional methods, and even curriculum are a result of required components set by state and district procedures influenced by federal legislation. It is not useful to look at educational programs in a vacuum without also considering policies and procedures. Chen (2005) suggests policies are an environmental component of a program. Other theorists view policies as potential objects for evaluation in themselves and a major factor influencing educational program design (Ryan & Feller, 2009).

TEACHING WITH LOGIC MODELS Logic models are a frame for thinking about program change because they clearly and visually represent an idea or ideal of how a program works. They portray the relationships or linkages among the key elements of a program or bounded activity and offer a roadmap about how activities lead to outcomes. Other terms for logic models include concept maps, action maps, and idea frameworks (Knowlton & Phillips, 2013). The logic model essentially is a concept map, which was defined by Trochim (2000) as an organized building of an area of interest that illustrates the resources and results in a pictorial manner that suggests relationships and causal linkages. This underscores its use as a somewhat idealized and simplified facsimile of an intricate system that seeks to show relationship and causation, from actions to consequences. Because schools are complicated systems, and student achievement is the result of many factors, it was decided to devise a representational system that focused on key elements that did not overwhelm the student user. The logic model exercise in the Leading Achievement Change course is one in a series of five courses in leadership that, along with

seven additional content courses, ensure teachers graduate with increased discipline knowledge and leadership skills. The structure of the program supports professional practice and a clinical model for instruction. In the leadership core courses, students are expected to use their school sites to conduct leadership inquiry. Classes are offered in 8-week formats so that teachers only focus on one course at a time. This aids them in concentrating on the course while often working full-time. Practical application is emphasized and culminates in a capstone project, which builds upon inquiry and research already conducted in previous courses. Because courses are offered entirely online, and teachers enrolled in the course work from many districts throughout the state and beyond, discussion boards, blogs, journals, and video chat sessions are incorporated into course delivery systems. This offers collaborative interaction, shared ideas, and instructor-led and peer-directed consultation. There is continuity in content and learning objectives that work to support teachers as they become increasingly comfortable taking on the myriad leadership roles facing them in public schools.

Idealized Versus Actual Models There is ample evidence in the research literature to recommend use of logic models for educational, community health, and quality of life projects (Brown, 2013). One of the benefits is that this method enables users to see the theoretical connections between the idealized theory of programs and the actual implementation of programs. At their most basic, programs contain two major sections. Owen (2007) refers to these as the documented plan as opposed to the plan in action (see Figure 2). The first is the intentional effort taken to change a situation or service. For social programs, these generally refer to organized attempts to improve or alleviate a social ill. The plan in action is the program as it is actually being carried out.

225

 Mapping Problems to Solutions

Figure 2. Documented or ideal plan and plan of action.

Program Theory The real value of logic models is the visual ways in which they present a model of what is actually taking place with a program and what difference it seeks to make. This is commonly referred to as the program theory. To make an assessment about how well a program is doing or whether it is reaching its intended goals, there must first be clarity regarding what the purposes and processes of the program are. Bickman (1987) defined program theory as the “plausible and sensible model of how a program is supposed to work” (p. 66). Other definitions include descriptions of program theory as blueprints of desired outcomes, projections of anticipated impacts, or displays of the processes by which programs reach goals.

Theory of Action Program theory assumes a causal relationship between the program’s activities and its results. If an activity is carried out, then the desired outcome will result. These interactions are an important part of logic models. They represent the interconnectedness of systems and sequences of activities leading to a specific outcome. Wandersman and Linney (1991) described the logic model as a logical series of statements that link a problem to the community in which it exists, the activities that are necessary to address the problem, short-term outcomes that would result from these activities, and the long-term outcomes of these activities (or, the goals of the program).

226

Basic Elements of Logic Models A logic model is a visual depiction of the systematic relationship between the resources, activities, outputs and outcomes of a program. While there are many ways in which logic models can be presented, the purpose of constructing a logic model is to assess the “if-then” (causal) relationships between the elements of the program. If the resources are available for a program, then the activities can be implemented. If the activities are implemented successfully, then certain outputs and outcomes can be expected. While logic models are used mostly during the evaluation stage of a program, they show great promise when used during planning and implementation. Typically, logic models are presented as a diagram, resembling a flow chart that contains a series of boxes linked via connecting one-way arrows. For example, manuals published by the United Way (1996) and the W. K. Kellogg Foundation (2000) include the following components: 1. Inputs, sometimes referred to as Resources, include the human, financial, organizational, and community resources that need to be invested in a program so that it will be able to perform its planned activities. 2. Program Activities are what the program does with the resources. Activities are the processes, tools, events, technology, and actions that are an intentional part of the program implementation. 3. Outputs are the direct products of program activities, usually measured in terms of the volume of work accomplished (e.g., the number of classes taught, number of group meetings held, number of pamphlets distributed) and the number of people reached (e.g., the number who attended each meeting or the number who received written materials).

 Mapping Problems to Solutions

4. Outcomes are the benefits or changes in the program participants’ behavior, knowledge, skills, status, and level of functioning. Programs often posit a chain of outcomes that are linked to each other in a logical sequence over time, with immediate or short-term outcomes leading to intermediate outcomes that in turn lead to long-term outcomes. For example, it may be expected that new knowledge and increased skill (immediate outcomes) will lead to modified teaching pedagogy (intermediate outcomes), which will lead, in turn, to improved student achievements (long-term outcomes). 5. Impact is the fundamental intended or unintended change occurring in organizations, communities or systems because of program activities during a defined period. Frequently, impact is measured over three to five years. Inputs or resources to the program usually appear in the first box at the left of the model, while the impacts appear on the far right. In the middle, the major program activities are presented, followed by the intended outputs and outcomes from each activity. Figure 3 presents the basic format of a generic logic model. Actual models are generally more complex as programs often contain a variety of activities, each of which may require additional inputs that lead to specific outputs. These are directed at common or separate outcomes and impact. Different researchers have produced different stages of the logic model, producing three to six distinct steps (Julian, 1997, Savas, Fleming & Bolig, 1998).

Course Conceptualization The logic model approach integrated into the master’s teacher leader course was designed for the study of change theory and to provide training in applying theories and techniques to improve student achievement in school settings. The course was one in a series on research and leadership whose members were generally employed teachers who sought graduate degrees. As working professionals, they had regular access to and experience in PK-12 schools. Historically, the course had been offered both in face-to-face classrooms, through distance video transmission, and recently entirely online. As part of the course requirements, class members were assigned research into improving student achievement in an actual school setting and received field experience credits. Learning objectives, as indicated in the syllabus, included various assignments oriented around identifying problems, understanding school contexts, and designing solutions. Students were expected to identify a problem that impacted student achievement; analyze how state, district, and school policies and practices may influence the problem under investigation; conduct a case analysis of the situation; and finally propose a workable solution to ameliorate the problem. The problem and solution were detailed in a written report and graphically represented by a problem and solution logic model. Class members were required to develop two models, using the same schematic drawing for each. The first, labeled the problem logic model, represented an existing problem with student achievement and detailed what quantitative and

Figure 3. Basic logic model.

227

 Mapping Problems to Solutions

qualitative measurements empirically indicated that a problem existed. The second logic model showed a plausible solution for improvement, again with clear measurements and indicators of difference. Students received the models in a MS Word template for easy input. The complex and dynamic relationships between actors, actions, outcomes and other elements of programs were displayed in a straight-forward graphical manner. Together, these logic models, illustrated in Figures 4, 5 and 6, somewhat replicate written case analyses focused on improvement. Scriven (1981) referred to these investigations as formative evaluations, designed to help a program find its footing or to revamp and improve an established Figure 4. Ideal logic model.

228

school practice. In either case, something that takes the money, time, personnel, or other resources of the school should directly, or indirectly, improve learning and achievement for students, and is therefore a central focus of the education course entitled Leading Achievement Change.

Problem to Solution Over several assignments, class members identified a problem at a self-selected school (often the school where they worked). They collected both research literature and site-based data about the problem and its associated program. This information allowed class members to construct the

 Mapping Problems to Solutions

Figure 5. Problem logic model.

problem logic model. They communicated with fellow teachers, administrators, or other stakeholders, gained greater understanding of the problem as its situational context within the school, and considered plausible solutions. One solution was selected and presented in the solution logic model as one component of a larger project paper. Class work supported progressive steps in the logic model development. Early readings focused on general concepts of change, reform movements

in contemporary school contexts, and the growing demands on teachers to implement effective teaching in their classroom and schools. Hall’s and Hord’s (2011) principles of change were used to emphasize that change is a process, not an event in time, and requires a process of introduction and acceptance that may vary by individuals and institutions involved. Discussions included perspectives that lasting change starts with a few key facilitators, but that a critical number of teach-

229

 Mapping Problems to Solutions

Figure 6. Solution logic model.

ers and administrators are needed for successful transformation to occur at the school level (Kotter, 2012, Rogers, 2003; Senge, 2013).

Inductive Reasoning The goal of the logic model exercise was to ensure class members developed research they could potentially develop for their culminating capstone master’s research project. Focus was on feasibility and practicality. The process involved highly inductive reasoning. Students began by detailing specific observations and measurements about their school. They gathered data to expose existing

230

patterns that, through an exploratory hypothesis, indicated the nature of the problem (Creswell, 2009). Only with these steps completed did students begin to devise general conclusions about the program in question and select one change theory as the most applicable.

Change Theories To help students develop implementable solutions, class readings focused on the roles of communication and collaboration in effecting change, group dynamics within organizations, and classic theories of change. First, students were asked to think

 Mapping Problems to Solutions

of schools and the larger educational structure as a system that Hall and Hord (2015) warned has “rules, procedures and authorities that have to sign off before something can be done” (p. 210). Students considered the interdependencies among levels of the educational complex and how small changes impacted larger systems (Smith & O’Day, 1991; Jenlink, Reigeluth, Carr & Nelson, 1996). Students were asked to look at schools holistically but to consider implementing change locally, in ways in which they have authentic control of their practice. Diffusion of innovation, an established sociological theory of change, places change within social systems. Essentially, this theory states that innovations are spread and adopted through lines of communication. Rogers (2003) categorized the rates at which people are likely to adopt an innovation using a bell-curve distribution model that suggested relatively few individuals were either very early or very late adopters. Ryan and Gross (1943) developed an S-curve that graphed the point of critical mass at which the number of users propel the innovation toward common practice. The theory points out that someone seeking change must clearly communicate benefits and usability, move forward with a smaller group of early adopters, and understand that, over time, a useful innovation will be broadly accepted. Organizational development focuses on the interaction of people within the school organizations to strategize and implement for on-going improvement. Students often find the premise of organizational development (OD) difficult to grasp because it incorporates varied approaches that focus on training, planning, and applying new knowledge within an institution, district, school, or classroom (Hall & Hord, 2015). Key elements of OD include team and group work and decisionmaking, the use of data to gauge needs, and other processes to assess organizational health and efficiency (Garmston & Wellman, 2008). Students learned strategic ways to investigate organizational performance and culture (Mertler, 2012).

Model Construction Construction of the logic models was an iterative process that was not systematic but focused on the interaction of components. Students had the opportunity to revise and reframe the components to more clearly indicate interface among participants, activities, and outcomes. For the purposes of discussion, however, components of the logic model and processes of constructing the problem and solutions models are outlined as eight major steps.

Step 1: Identifying a Problem This assignment was to identify a problem that is localized at a level where teacher leaders could evoke change. The first assignment asks students what they would like to improve at their school. Caveats are given that 1) what concerns them must be something that they can impact, and, 2) the focus is on student academic achievement. Coupling these two requirements forced class members to carefully consider what situation offered a workable framework. An example given to students was that they should not state a nebulous or nonconcrete problem like “students are from underprivileged homes.” Underprivileged background lacks a clear problem statement and therefore renders solutions difficult. Students were asked to sharpen their area of concern so that a teacher leader could respond to the problem and develop indicators of success that are measureable. For example, using the ideal logic model represented in Figure 4, a teacher leader might identify a problem in program delivery that hinders intended outcomes. Figure 5 presents a partial logic model representing this problem visualization.

Step 2: Describing the School Setting One of the first assignments asked class member to develop a short description of the selected school. Information was obtained through numerous

231

 Mapping Problems to Solutions

sources including the school report card, part of state educational agencies database that reports school and student characteristics including demographic and achievement information. This assignment allows teacher leaders to complete a brief environmental scan to develop better awareness understanding of context relevant for logic model development. For example: Wandering Grove Elementary School is the newest elementary school in Amblin County School District, having opened in 2006 in the rural countryside of southern Amblin County. Located in southeastern Kentucky, the school serves approximately 585 students ranging from preschool through 5th grade. Of these students, 92.1% are white, 2.0% are Asian, 3.7% are Hispanic, and 2.2% are black. The majority (61.8%) of the student population qualify for the school’s free/reduced lunch program. In 2013, Wandering Grove Elementary ranked better than 78.9% of elementary schools in Kentucky. It also ranked third among 9 ranked elementary schools in the Amblin County School District. In 2013, the average mathematics score was 52.9 and the average reading score was 57.1, as measured by K-PREP test scores. K-PREP tests are blended norm-referenced and criterionreferenced measures that provide national percentiles and student performance levels of “novice,” “apprentice,” “proficient”, and “distinguished.” The vision for the school is that the faculty, staff, students and parents of Wandering Grove can all work together to ensure that every student will be able to achieve their highest potential. The school’s vision is expressed through the motto, “Together we will achieve greatness.”

Step 3: Inputs, Activities, Outputs, and Outcomes Linkages The central feature of logic models is its graphical representation of the program activities and outcomes, including the products and long term results. An essential assumption in logic modeling

232

is that it represents the interaction of the components. In this case, the term “logic” refers to the “relationship between elements and between an element and the whole” (Community Tool Box, n.d.). A large focus of the modeling exercise is in defining those elements that interact and impact the problem under investigation. This serves two purposes. For the problem model, it clarifies the program’s strategies and determines which features are relevant to the problem. For the solution model, it forces prioritization of resources and careful alignment from inputs to outcomes.

Step 4: Participants and Activities Students were asked to include participants next to their activities and actions. This provided detail about who was performing what act, and made it clearer when solutions included changing the roles of specific groups or individuals. It also allowed more detail of specific actions, including those being conducted by para-professionals, specialists, or small groups of students.

Step 5: Measurements of Change Educational accountability is based on the concept that student achievement is measurable, and that changes in programs should show improved performance. In the long term, achievement is often gauged by standardized test scores. More immediate measurements of progress are needed in the short term as well. Short term measurements included both quantitative and qualitative ways that the teacher can formatively assess whether the solution is working. In developing a solution plan, teacher leaders note small but meaningful changes in behavior and performance. For example, schools without previously aligned curriculum now show an increase in the number of teachers with instructional plans based on grade and subject standards. Schools with low parental involvement can measure an uptick in methods and occurrences of teacher-parent conferences.

 Mapping Problems to Solutions

Schools with high truancy rates see attendance increase after implementation of solution plans. Some plans seek better collaboration between regular classroom and special education teachers. These plans may use a simple survey to indicate how teachers perceive communications. Often, class members struggle to figure out how to measure short term changes. It is valuable to give specific examples and have them consider many types of formative assessments taking place throughout a semester or academic year. This allows teacher leaders to consider both empirical data and perceptions as ways to gauge change. While formal test scores and other typical measures of accountability are required, this exercise emphasizes the value of interim and informal measurements of change as much as those formally required.

Step 6: External Influences and Policies To acknowledge the presence and potential influence of forces outside their classroom or school, the class members were asked to outline policies that directly impacted their identified problem area by filling out the lower right hand box entitled External Factors: (policies and practices that relate to area of concern). In all cases, external policies were found to be influential. Occasionally other external factors were listed, including influences from the neighboring communities, parents, or site-based councils.

to scrutiny and discussion. Evaluation literature suggests that without understanding these explicit theories, it is difficult to make change because these act as central drivers for any program. In this box, the teacher leaders often mention instruction for professional development or teacher meetings as ingrained school practices.

Step 8: Solution Presentation Specifically, the solution model shows the work to repair existing discrepancies between activities and results. While often subtle in character, solution models require detailed analysis of the program in question and careful consideration of all aspects of a program, from resources, to activities, to anticipated outcomes. Although one of the culminating exercises for the class, these models have been the basis for action research projects later in a student’s capstone research course. Regardless of whether the exercise is revisited, the solution model represents deep critical thinking and reflection about practices in schools. It also reinforces planning, research, and evaluation skills for teachers who seek to take on leadership roles in their school. The solution model represented in Figure 6 outlines a plan of action to repair weaknesses in the program. The goal is to retool the program components identified as hindering program success in achieving outcomes.

Solutions and Recommendations

Step 7: Program Assumptions

Visualization

At the bottom left of the logic model, there is a box entitled assumptions. This box provides space to list suppositions or beliefs about how the intervention or program works within the school setting. Assumptions are tacit beliefs held to be true but rarely discussed. In the process of defining and describing these unstated understandings, these notions are brought to the forefront and laid open

When used to communicate, inform, and engage, data visualization can make the abstract and complex clear, elegant, and understandable. Examples of visualization techniques include sketches, artist renderings, physical models, maps, photos, diagrams, charts, and tables. New technology has made the provision of visual images easy, fast, and of high quality. Mapping a school program

233

 Mapping Problems to Solutions

helped students understand how human and financial investments, assumptions, and policies both contribute to and hinder program goals. The logic model exercise required systematic thinking and planning to accurately describe programs. At the same time, it was technically simple exercise that allowed for quick and effective communication and worked in a short semester format. Logic modeling facilitated students’ and professors’ abilities to build collaborative conversations about school programs, values and beliefs, and change processes. This resulted in engaged discussion and real-world application. As technology, instructor aptitudes, and student expectations change, it is anticipated that more interactive and technologically rich formats will be available. The value of these changes will depend on ensuring that the core goals of the learning experiences are met and developed over time. This will demand institutional will to ensure training, infrastructure, and software capabilities that align to changes in the course design and technical structure.

Online Learning Successful online learning accommodates varied learning styles and provides opportunities for selfdirected and collaborative learning. Instructors who use the vast resources and capacities of online learning facilitate powerful, effective courses geared to specific learner outcomes. Moreover, self-directed learning allows many learners to develop more independent, responsible learning styles and habits, which are particularly important for current or next generation PK-12 teachers. Online courses are not without challenges, however. Learners may have trouble adjusting to the course, taking responsibility for their own learning, and keeping pace with the large amount of communication generated online (Harmon & Jones, 2000). It is also difficult to predict how

234

learners will perceive the designed activities and whether these activities are motivational (Martens et al., 2007). Conrad (2008) noted that learners seldom demonstrated the benefits they acquired from participating in online learning activities in their workplace, which is of particular concern in this practitioner program. Additional assessments may need to be built to better monitor the impact of learning as it relates to the workplace.

Problem-Based Learning Literature shows a close association between the logic model exercise and elements of PBL. Scott (2014) outlined major characteristics to include self-directed and reflective learning, derived from authentic problems in familiar settings. By focusing on a problem in the teacher’s own school, the transfer of learning was likely to be more successful and to have greater long term impact. The students maintained their professional sense of control because the instructor worked more as a collaborator than authority figure. The process provided valuable skills to the class members who learned new techniques for clarifying problems and creating plausible solutions. The renowned academician and psychologist Robert Sternberg (2003), in his three-part theory, argues that intelligence is often wrongly measured only by the ability to analytically resolve problems that have single correct answers. His treatise suggests that the ability to apply knowledge to solve newly presented problems and to create solutions for real-world contexts highlights resourcefulness and practical intelligence. The nature of school teaching today seems highly aligned to the benefits of a PBL approach in its focus on learning, continual questioning, reforming and reconstructing, and ultimately improving student achievement. Several limitations are worthy of note with PBL. Students who are unfamiliar with the approach may get frustrated with the shift in responsibility for

 Mapping Problems to Solutions

their own learning (Lee, Blackwell, Drake, & Moran, 2014). The value of PBL is based on partnering with the outside community, which requires time and effort (Markham, Larmer, & Ravitz, 2003). Interaction among students is important, and for online courses requires a well-designed system of communication. For teacher education, PBL may be a dramatic shift for students used to a system that highlights “how to teach” over an inquiry approach; this may cause discomfort. Albanese (2000) found that students were prone to learn less content and score lower on standard exams than students taught with methods that are more traditional. Albanese (2000) also found evidence of greater gaps in learning and unconventional reasoning processes from PBL students. Because the faculty has not researched the differences in results when students are taught using the logic model, PBL approach, and other methods, it is difficult to ascertain comparative differences. Contextual learning theory suggests that student engagement improves when newly learned concepts are related to real-world situations (CORD, 2012). In practical terms, the course may have been successful in part because of the enthusiasm of a few instructors who developed a course well beyond its master syllabus or collegerequired components. Again, this raises questions about widespread use of the course in higher education. Faculty in higher education may also be less willing to adequately prepare the class because departments question whether required content knowledge is learned, and without clear assessments, it is more difficult to monitor and grade student results (Loyens, Magda, & Rikers, 2008). While more research in varied learning environments is needed to distinguish the advantages and limitations of PBL for teacher education, what is apparent, is that many students appreciate directing inquiry around their work, reflecting in a safe way about improvements, and using an authentic and familiar setting to expand their knowledge and skills.

Teacher Leaders With every aspect of the logic model exercise, profound advantages to students were observed as they gained a sense of themselves as teacher leaders. As the second of five leadership courses, it was also one of the first leadership courses that explicitly asked students to transfer classroom learning to on-the-job practice. Limitations were also noted as students worked through their program problems and solutions.

Sense of Ownership Leadership by teachers implies that school improvement is their responsibility. That responsibility requires the capability to look at student learning in a comprehensive manner, beyond an individual classroom or discipline, usually with the help of others in the school, and ultimately in a manner that impacts the climate and culture of the entire school community. Students in the courses clearly embraced the notion of responsibility for student performance. It appears that the course activities only heightened their sense of responsibility. Many students worked in schools with limited resources and student populations that, by nearly every definition, would be called “at-risk.” Students arrived in the class with a strong sense of duty, and based on course evaluations, it seemed that students truly valued the logic model exercise as another means to strengthen their tool kit in helping their students and schools.

Situational Analysis According to Lukacs and Galluzzo (2014), teachers serving as change agents must understand their school setting. The logic model exercise and its problem identification to solution process require students to complete a situational analysis. According to Funnell and Rogers (2011), this allows the program evaluator to comprehend the problem, distinguish the causes, and gauge consequences.

235

 Mapping Problems to Solutions

Ideally, a good analysis goes beyond presenting the problems and identifies strengths and openings available with minor adjustments. In most cases, class members did look at small changes that might provide big improvements. In a few cases, students seemed stuck on the idea that site-based councils, the principal, or other “authorities” needed to suggest and lead the change. Overall, however, the logic model exercise showed that students were able to make suggestions for change that seems reasonable and practical within real school settings.

Administrative and SchoolWide Support As Hargreaves and Fink (2006) note, the vision of a professional learning community is one in which the entire school is involved in making change and improvement. During the exercise, students had limited obligations to engage other school members, although the majority did at least enlist the opinion of other teachers and administrators, and in several cases brought their selected problem up in group and professional learning settings. Interestingly, teachers most often appealed to other teachers for advice, supporting literature that defines the central role of teachers in formulating change within their schools. A weakness was that no firm commitments to carry out the solution models were fostered in the course. Additionally, instructors did not assess how confident students really felt about carrying through with their solution ideas (Pucella, 2014). Students were made aware that their inquiry could be further developed later for their culminating capstone course, and while there are reports this has been done, no firm counts have been made. Some students remained reticent in roles as engineers of change. Others clearly stated that their school ethos did not support discussion around improvement. These students specifically noted lack of support from other teachers and building administrators.

236

Targeted Goals and Examples The course included new knowledge previously not covered in teacher education. Readings purposely focused on theory and practice to facilitate school change, and specifically around 1) identifying problems; 2) mapping innovations; 3) human perceptions and reactions to change; 4) theories of change; and 5) leading change in schools. For nearly all students these were new avenues of study and far removed from discipline-specific or instructional techniques that occupy most of teacher education. Therefore, it could be expected that the material presented new perspectives to many in the classes. This forced many class members to design and recalibrate logic models. Initially, they were either so targeted in scope as to not constitute any real change, or more often, attempted to pursue too large of a change. These ideas might range from increasing parental involvement at the school to changing district-mandated reading programs. Such sweeping problems and solutions were not readily amenable to in-school changes and, under instructor guidance, were adjusted. These attempts show how earnest class members were in affecting change, and that prior examples may influence student solutions. Cognitive psychology postulates that the examples given may influence the designs students develop (Jansson & Smith, 1991). This fixation effect may be particularly strong for students presented with new material, asked to construct assignments in unusual ways, and on topics outside of their experiences (Agague et al., 2013). If only a few rather constrained examples are provided, students will produce constrained designs. If expansive examples are made available, according to fixation effect theory, more creative solutions will be presented. This suggests that instructors have additional responsibility to make sure examples, course materials, and discussions provide enough guidance but do not enforce conformity.

 Mapping Problems to Solutions

Collective Inquiry

Problem-Based Learning

Perhaps one the most striking weaknesses with the course was that the logic modeling and other assignments were carried out on an individual basis. Because the course was online and students were spread across districts and states, little attempt was made to have students collaborate outside of discussions and blogs that covered general experiences and shared advice. Although physical constraints existed, future investigations should explore means to better group students to support, collaborate, and develop meaningful online cooperation to increase learning potential. A characteristic of effective teacher leaders is their ability to participate in and guide collective inquiry, allowing for critical engagement around pedagogical issues (Goddard, Goddard, & Tschannen-Moren, 2007). Without ensuring the inclusion of that component, the course failed to provide a major learning experience.

Meta-analyses over forty years show that PBL improves skill development and long term knowledge retention. Its adoption in both PK-12 and higher education has been uneven, however. Its attractiveness is complicated by educational trends favoring uniform curriculum and quick, measurable outcomes. Perhaps most challenging, there is little evidence that this learning strategy immediately translates into better standardized test scores (Savery, 2006). On the other hand, there are undercurrents that suggest that PBL will grow in popularity as clinical training and on-the-job learning expands. The exponential upsurge in online learning also means that schools will increasingly need to come up with alternative ways to engage students by bridging their offline world with their online learning environment. The growing interest in clinical training models for teaching and other professions suggests that PBL may expand across disciplines. Researchers (Hung, 2011; Schmidt, Rotgans, & Yews, 2011) noted that PBL represents leadership on the part of students to monitor and make decisions about their own learning. It suggests that the strategy identifies the traits of self-directed learning and reflection that are most important for effective teacher leaders. They have suggested more rigorous studies about the interacting attributes of PBL. With the growth in distance teaching, applied practitioner learning, and emphasis on leadership skills, it seems likely that PBL will emerge, although perhaps under a different term, as an approach to ensure relevant professional training. Future research will need to recognize key design features of PBL and carefully differentiate the multiple factors that make up this approach because of its potential to provide answers to complex questions about training future teachers and leaders.

FUTURE RESEARCH DIRECTIONS Visualization in Online Learning Whether and how an online course helps adult learners learn more authentically and meaningfully deserves further examination. The insertion of visual learning models has been proven to make the abstract and complex more clear. Pairing visualization strategies with constructivist, problem-based situational learning appears to result in authentic school change. However, longitudinal research to track teacher leaders’ utilization of logic modeling after completion of their master’s degrees has not occurred. What is clear is that online training for teachers will increase in the future, and tools that enhance technological and distance learning environments will grow in importance. How they serve practitioners in the field will need further investigation.

237

 Mapping Problems to Solutions

Teacher Leaders If teachers are to enact reforms, it is important to determine how they are being trained to undertake those roles and whether calls for changes in education are being heeded. School teaching now extends well beyond the classroom, and teachers need to be prepared with these new skill sets (Garii, 2008). In graduate programs, teachers should receive exercises around shared decision-making (Vescio, Ross, & Adams, 2008). Graduate education must be situated or embedded within the job, so that learning experiences are authentic extensions of real-world school constructs. This illustrates a change in advanced teacher education from learning how to teach to focusing on inquiry, reflection, and critical thinking skills. While research into teacher leader education remains sparse, it is believed that graduate programs increasingly are taking seriously recommendations to link university coursework with school practice, and focusing on situated professional learning (Katzenmeyer & Moller, 2009; York-Barr & Duke, 2004). More research into what is actually happening in graduate education is needed in order to confirm that university education ensures highly contextualized learning experiences.

CONCLUSIONS The definition of teacher leader remains rather fluid, ranging from a highly effective master teacher to someone who takes on duties previously held by administrators. In just a few years, teacher leader programs show substantial changes. Master’s level programs for teachers are on the upswing in some states, perhaps more because of state credentialing requirements than genuine teacher interest in pursuing leadership training. There is an increased focus on ensuring effective teachers with leadership capabilities. One

238

approach has been to adopt the clinical model that focuses on practical learning directly related to job duties. The logic model process offered value for teacher leader instruction. Class members were tasked to use real-world observation to target a problem, gather information, describe and explain the problem and its broader program, and develop a solution. Data was collected from school reports cards, student achievement data, personal observation, discussion with follow teachers, and informal interviews with school administrators. Furnished with information, class members made judgments on what could or could not work in their school, and from that, they developed a change model designed for improvement. Impacts were two-fold. First, students were able to use real life situations as the foundation to research and build feasible plans to solve existing problems. Second, class members applied new information and skills to integrate practice and theory, and discussed larger issues around school organization, policy, and practice. Literature suggests that teachers can gain leadership abilities only by moving beyond their individual classroom and gaining insights into the larger professional picture. The logic model exercise was designed to give teachers a safe opportunity to investigate and research, critique and dissect, exchange ideas and interact with others, and consider changes to specific programs. Because logic models are graphical in nature and require systematic thinking to develop and interpret, they aid in accurately describing and reflecting on programs. Their visual representation points out areas of strength, helps identify potential pitfalls or weaknesses, and allow imagined scenarios for improvement. This approach appears meaningful for modern teachers who must be effective teachers, managers, leaders, and visionaries. If graduate education in teacher leadership is to serve one purpose, it ap-

 Mapping Problems to Solutions

pears that it must help teachers develop new habits of the mind that include the capacity to generate questions, seek answers, provide criticism, and generate solutions (Mezirow & Associates, 2000). Transformation in schools appears politically and culturally tied to this shift in teachers as leaders.

REFERENCES Abdalla, M. E., & Gaffar, A. M. (2011). The seven steps of PBL implementation: Blueprints in health professional education series. Retrieved from https://www.academia.edu/1215059/ THE_SEVEN_STEPS_OF_PBL_IMPLEMENTATION_TUTORS_MANUAL Agague, M., Kazakci, A., Hatchuel, A., Weil, B., Poerel, N., & Cassotti, M. (2013). The impact of type of examples on originality: Explaining fixation and simulation effects. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 48(1), 1–12. doi:10.1002/jocb.37 Albanese, M. (2000). Problem-based learning: Why curricula are likely to show little effect on knowledge and clinical skills. Medical Education, 34(9), 729–238. doi:10.1046/j.13652923.2000.00753.x PMID:10972751 Allen, D., & Tanner, K. (2003). Approaches to cell biology teaching: Learning content in contextProblem-based learning. Cell Biology Education, 2(2), 73–81. Retrieved from 10.1187/cbe.03-04-0019 Alter, C., & Egan, M. (1997). Logic modeling: A tool for teaching critical thinking in social work practice. Journal of Social Work Education, 33(1), 85–102. Azzam, T., & Evergreen, S. (2013, Winter). Editors’ notes. Data visualization, part 2. New Directions for Evaluation, 140(140), 3–4. doi:10.1002/ ev.20070

Barrows, H. S. (1996). Problem-based learning in medicine and beyond: A brief overview. In L. Wilkerson & W. Gijselaers (Eds), Bringing problem-based learning to higher education: Theory and practice. New Directions for Teaching and Learning Series, 68, (3-11). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. doi:10.1002/tl.37219966804 Bickman, L. (1987, Spring). The functions of program theory. New Directions for Program Evaluation, 33(33), 5–18. doi:10.1002/ev.1443 Brown, C. A. (2013). Use of logic models to plan and assess graduate internship experiences. TechTrends, 56(6), 37–43. doi:10.1007/s11528012-0612-2 Chen, H. T. (2005). Practical program evaluation: Assess and improve program planning, implementation, and effectiveness. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Common Core State Standards Initiative. (2010). Common Core State Standards for English language arts & literacy in history/social studies, science, and technical subjects. Retrieved from www.corestandards.org/ assets/CCSSI_ELA%20 Standards.pdf Conrad, D. L. (2008). From community to community of practice: Exploring the connection of online learners to informal learning in the workplace. American Journal of Distance Education, 22(1), 3–23. doi:10.1080/08923640701713414 CORD. (2012). What is contextual learning? The Center for Occupational Research and Development. Retrieved from http://www.cord.org/ contextual-learning-definition/ Creswell, J. (2009). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. Los Angeles, CA: Sage.

239

 Mapping Problems to Solutions

Darling-Hammond, L., & McLaughlin, M. W. (1995). Policies that support professional development in an era of reform. Phi Delta Kappan, 76(8), 597–604. Dewey, J. (1938). John Dewey experience & education. London: Collier Books. Donaldson, M. L., Johnson, S., Kirkpatrick, C. L., Marinell, W. H., Steele, J. L., & Szczesiul, S. (2008). Angling for access, bartering for change: How second-stage teachers experience differentiated roles in schools. Teachers College Record, 110(5), 1088–1114. Evergreen, S., & Metzner, C. (2013, Winter). Design principles for data visualization in evaluation, Data Visualization, Part 2. New Directions for Evaluation, 140(140), 5–20. doi:10.1002/ ev.20071 Flavell, J. H. (1979). Metacognition and cognitive monitoring: A new area of cognitive-developmental inquiry. The American Psychologist, 34(10), 906–911. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.34.10.906 Frank, M., & Barzilai, A. (2004). Integrating alternative assessment in a project-based learning course for preservice science and technology teachers. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 29(1), 41–61. doi:10.1080/0260293042000160401 Friendly, M. (2009). Milestones in the history of thematic cartography, statistical graphics, and data visualization. Retrieved from http://www. math.yorku.ca/SCS/Gallery/milestone/milestone. pdf Fullan, M. (2001). Leading in a culture of change. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Funnell, S. C., & Rogers, P. J. (2011). Purposeful program theory: Effective use of theories of change and logic models. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

240

Galloway, E. P., & Lesaux, N. K. (2012). Leader, teacher, diagnostician, colleague, and change agent: A synthesis of the research on the role of the reading specialist in the era of RTI-based literacy reform. The Reading Teacher, 67(7), 517–526. doi:10.1002/trtr.1251 Garii, B. (2008). A teacher’s job doesn’t only happen in the classroom: Preservice teachers, the classroom, and the school. Action in Teacher Education, 30, 81-92. doi: org/10.1080/0162662 0.2008.10463483 Garmston, R., & Wellman, B. (2008). The adaptive school: A sourcebook for developing collaborative groups. Norwood, MA: Christopher Gordon. Goddard, Y., Goddard, M., & TschannenMoren, M. (2007). A theoretical and empirical investigation of teacher collaboration for school improvement and student achievement in public elementary schools. Teachers College Record, 109(4), 877–896. Hall, G. E., & Hord, S. M. (2011). Implementing change: Patterns, principals, and potholes (3rd ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson. Hall, G. E., & Hord, S. M. (2015). Implementing change: Patterns, principals, and potholes (4th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson. Hargreaves, A., & Fink, D. (2006). Sustainable leadership. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Harmon, S. W., & Jones, M. G. (2000, April). A qualitative analysis of situated Web-based instruction. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association (AERA), New Orleans, LA, 24–28. Hung, W. (2011). Theory to reality: A few issues in implementing problem-based learning. Educational Technology Research and Development, 59(4), 529–552. doi:10.1007/s11423-011-9198-1

 Mapping Problems to Solutions

Jansson, D. G., & Smith, S. M. (1991). Design fixation. Design Studies, 12(1), 3–11. doi:10.1016/0142-694X(91)90003-F Jenlink, P. M., Reigeluth, C. M., Carr, A. A., & Nelson, L. M. (1996). An expedition for change: Facilitating the systematic change process in school districts. TechTrends, 41(1), 21–30. doi:10.1007/BF02812078 Julian, D. A. (1997). The utilization of the logic model as a system level planning and evaluation device. Evaluation and Program Planning, 20(3), 251–257. doi:10.1016/S0149-7189(97)00002-5 Katzenmeyer, M., & Moller, G. (2009). Awakening the sleeping giant: Helping teachers develop as leaders. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. Kistler, S., Evergreen, S., & Assam, T. (2013, Fall). Toolography. New Directions for Evaluation, 139(139), 73–84. doi:10.1002/ev.20068 Knowles, M. (1990). The adult learner: a neglected species. Houston, TX: Gulf Publishing. Knowlton, L., & Phillips, C. (2013). The Logic Model Guidebook: Better strategies for great results (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Kotter International. (2012). The 8-Step Process for Leading Change. Retrieved from http:// www.kotterinternational.com/our-principles/ changesteps Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511815355 Lee, J. S., Blackwell, S., Drake, J., & Moran, K. A. (2014). Taking a leap of faith: Redefining teaching and learning in higher education through project-based learning. Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-Based Learning, 8(2). doi:10.7771/1541-5015.1426

Leech, N. L., & Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (2007). An array of qualitative data analysis tools: A call for qualitative data analysis triangulation. School Psychology Quarterly, 22(4), 557–584. doi:10.1037/1045-3830.22.4.557 Leonard, J., Petta, K., & Porter, C. (2012). A fresh look at graduate programs in teacher leadership in the United States. Professional Development, 38(2), 189–204. doi:10.1080/19415257.2012.6 57826 Lortie, D. C. (1975). Schoolteacher: A sociological study. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Loyens, S. M. M., Magda, J., & Rikers, R. M. J. P. (2008). Self-directed learning in problem-based learning and its relationships with self-regulated learning. Educational Psychology Review, 20(4), 411-427. Retrieved from10.1007/s10648-0089082-7 Lukacs, K. S., & Galluzzo, G. R. (2014, February). Beyond empty vessels and bridges: Toward defining teachers as the agents of school change. Teacher Development: An International Journal of Teacher’s Professional Development, 18(1), 11–106. doi:10.1080/13664530.2013.856338 Lysy, C. (2013, Fall). Developments in quantitative data display and their implications for evaluation: Data Visualization, Part 1. New Directions for Evaluation, 139(139), 33–51. doi:10.1002/ ev.20066 Markham, T., Larmer, J., & Ravitz, J. (2003). Project based learning handbook: A guide to standards-focused project based learning (2nd ed.). Novato, CA: Buck Institute for Education. Martens, R., Bastiaens, T., & Kirschner, P. A. (2007). New learning design in distance education: The impact on student perception and motivation. Distance Education, 28(1), 81–93. doi:10.1080/01587910701305327

241

 Mapping Problems to Solutions

McLaughlin, J., & Jordan, G. (2004). Using logic models. In J. S. Wholey, H. P. Hatry, & K. E. Newcomer (Eds.), Handbook of Practical Program Evaluation (2nd ed.; pp. 7–32). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Mertler, C. A. (2012). Action research: Improving schools and empowering educators. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Mezirow, J. (1997). Transformative learning: Theory to practice. New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education, 74(74), 5–12. doi:10.1002/ ace.7401 Mezirow, J. et al. (2000). Learning to think like an adult: core concepts of transformational theory. In J. Mezirow (Ed.), Learning as transformation: Critical perspectives on a theory in progress (pp. 3–33). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Murphy, J. (2005). Connecting teacher leadership and school improvement. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. Murphy, K. L., Mahoney, S. E., Chen, C. Y., Mendoza-Diaz, N. V., & Yang, X. (2005). A constructivist model of mentoring, coaching, and facilitating online discussion. Distance Education, 26(3), 341–366. doi:10.1080/01587910500291454 Newcomer, K. E., Hatry, H. P., & Wholey, J. S. (2004). Meeting the need for practical approaches: An introduction. In J. S. Wholey, H. P. Hatry, & K. E. Newcomer (Eds.), Handbook of Practical Program Evaluation (2nd ed., pp. xxxiii–xliv). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Owen, J. M. (2007). Program evaluation: Forms and approaches. New York: The Guildford Press.

242

Palincsar, A. S. (1998). Social constructivist perspectives on teaching and learning. Annual Review of Psychology, 49(1), 345–375. doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.49.1.345 PMID:15012472 Parsons, B. A., & Schmitz, C. (1999, November). Everything you wanted to know about logic models but were afraid to ask. A paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Evaluation Association, Orlando, FL. Pease, M. A., & Kuhn, D. (2011). Experimental analysis of the effective components of problembased learning. Science Education, 95(1), 57-86. doi.org.10-1002/sce.20412 Priest, L. (2000). The story of one learner: a student’s perspective on online teaching. In K. W. White & B. H. Weight (Eds.), The online teaching guide: a handbook of attitudes, strategies, and techniques for the virtual classroom (pp. 37–44). Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon. Provus, M. M. (1971). Discrepancy evaluation for educational program improvement and assessment. Berkeley, CA: McCutchan. Pucella, T. J. (2014). Not too young to lead. The Clearing House, 87, 15-20. doi: . 2013.81852410/1080/00098655 Ravitz, J. (2009). Introduction: Summarizing findings and looking ahead to a new generation of PBL research. Interdisciplinary Journal of Problembased Learning, 3(1), 4–11. doi:10.7771/15415015.1088 Rogers, E. M. (2003). Diffusion of innovations. New York, NY: The Free Press. Ryan, B., & Gross, N. C. (1943). The diffusion of hybrid seed corn in two Iowa communities. Rural Sociology, 8, 15–24.

 Mapping Problems to Solutions

Ryan, K. E., & Feller, I. (2009). Evaluation, accountability, and performance measurement in national education systems: Trends, methods, and issues. In K. E. Ryan & J. B. Cousins (Eds.), The Sage International Handbook of Educational Evaluation. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. doi:10.4135/9781452226606.n10 Sanders, J. R. (1986). The teaching of evaluation in education. New Directions for Program Evaluation, 29(29), 15–27. doi:10.1002/ev.1416 Savas, S. A., Fleming, W. M., & Bolig, E. E. (1998). Program specification: A precursor to program monitoring and quality improvement: A case study from Boysville of Michigan. The Journal of Behavioral Health Services & Research, 25(2), 208–216. doi:10.1007/BF02287481 PMID:9595883 Savery, J. S. (2006). Overview of PBL: Definitions and distinctions. Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-based Learning, 1(1), 9–20. doi:10.7771/1541-5015.1002 Savin-Baden, M. (2000). Problem-based Learning in Higher Education: Untold Stories. Buckingham, England: SRHE and Open University. Schmidt, H. G., Rotgans, J. I., & Yew, E. H. J. (2011). The process of problem-based learning: What works and why. Medical Education 45(8), 792-806. Retrieved from 10.1111/j.13652923.2001.04035.x Scott, K. S. (2014, October). A multilevel analysis of problem-based learning design characteristics. Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-based Learning, 8(2). doi:10.7771/1541-5015.1420 Scriven, M. (1981). The logic and methodology of evaluation. Inverness, CA: Edgepress.

Senge, P. M. (2013). Give me a lever long enough…and single-handed I can move the world. In M. Grogan (Ed.), The Jossey-Bass reader on educational Leadership (3rd ed., pp. 3–16). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Sergiovanni, T. J. (1998). Leadership as pedagogy, capital development and school effectiveness. International Journal of Leadership in Education, 1(1), 37–46. doi:10.1080/1360312980010104 Shepperson, T., & Hemmer, L. (2013). Defining actions and values: Participatory logic modeling by alternative school teachers. Kentucky Journal of Excellence in College Teaching and Learning, 96, 96–103. Shepperson, T. L. (2013, March). Prevalence of evaluation method courses in education leader doctoral preparation. International Journal of Educational Leadership Preparation, 8(1). Retrieved from http://www.ncpeapublications.org/ attachments/article/546/ Shepperson_pdf.pdf Siegler, R. S. (1998). Children’s thinking. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. Smith, J., & O’Day, J. (1991). Putting the pieces together: Systematic school reform (CPRE policy brief). New Brunswick, NJ: Eagleton Institute of Politics. Stake, R. E. (1967). Toward technology for the evaluation of educational programs. In R. W. Tyler, R. M. Gagne, & M. Scriven (Eds.), Perspectives of curriculum evaluation (pp. 1–2). Chicago, IL: Rand McNally. Sternberg, R. (Ed.). (2003). Why smart people can be so stupid. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

243

 Mapping Problems to Solutions

Strobel, J., & van Barneveld, A. (2009). When is PBL more effective? A meta-synthesis of meta-analysis comparing PBL to conventional classrooms. Interdisciplinary Journal of Problembased Learning, 3(1), 44–58. doi:10.7771/15415015.1046 Stufflebeam, D. L., Foley, W. J., Gephart, W. J., Guba, E. G., Hammond, R. L., Merriman, H. O., & Provus, M. M. (1971). Educational evaluation and decision making. Itasca, IL: Peacock. Torp, L., & Sage, S. (2002). Problems as possibilities: Problem-based learning for K-16 educators (2nd ed.). Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Trochim, W. (2000). The research methods knowledge base (2nd ed.). Cincinnati, OH: Atomic Dog Publishing.

Wallgren, A., Wallgren, B., Persson, R., Jorner, U., & Haaland, J. A. (1996). Graphing statistics & data: Creating better charts. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Wang, M., Sierra, C., & Folger, T. (2003). Building a dynamic online learning community among adult learners. Educational Media International, 40(1/2), 49–61. doi:10.1080/0952398032000092116 Wandersman, A., & Linney, J. A. (1991). Prevention plus ITT. Rockville, MD: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Office for Substance Abuse Prevention. Weiss, C. (1972). Evaluation. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Tufte, E. (1983). The visual display of quantitative data. Cheshire, CT: Graphics Press.

York-Barr, J., & Duke, K. (2004). What do we know about teacher leadership? Findings from two decades of scholarship. Review of Educational Research, 74(3), 255–316. doi:10.3102/00346543074003255

United Way of America. (1996). Measuring program outcomes: A practical approach. Alexandria, VA: United Way of America.

ADDITIONAL READING

Vescio, V., Ross, D., & Adams, A. (2008). A review of research on the impact of professional learning communities on teaching practice and student learning. Teaching and Teacher Education, 24(1), 80–91. doi:10.1016/j.tate.2007.01.004 W. K. Kellogg Foundation. (2000). Logic model development guide. Battle Creek, Michigan: Author. Walker, A., & Leary, H. (2009). A problem based learning meta analysis: Differences across problem types, implementation types, disciplines, and assessment levels. Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-based Learning, 3(1), 12–43. doi:10.7771/1541-5015.1061

244

Carnegie Forum on Education and the Economy. (1986). A nation prepared: Teachers for the twenty-first century: The report of the Carnegie Forum on Education and The Economy’s Task Force on teaching as a profession. Washington, DC: The Forum. Desimone, L. (2009). Improving impact studies of teachers’ professional development: Toward better conceptualizations and measures. Educational Researcher, 38(3), 181–199. doi:10.3102/0013189X08331140 Fairman, J. C., & MacKenzie, S. V. (2012). Spheres of teacher leadership action for learning. Professional Development in Education, 38(2), 229–246. doi:10.1080/19415257.2012.657865

 Mapping Problems to Solutions

Hallinger, P., & Lu, J. (2011). Assessing the instructional effectiveness of problem-based management education in Thailand: A longitudinal evaluation. Management Learning, 42(3), 279-299. Doi:org/10.1177/1350507610388596 Holmes Group. (1986). Tomorrow’s teachers: A report of the Holmes Group. East Lansing, MI: Author. Krajcik, J. S., & Blumenfeld, P. (2006). Projectbased learning. In Sawyer, R. K. (Ed.), The Cambridge Handbook of the Learning Sciences (pp. 317-333). New York: Cambridge NCATE. (2010, November.). Transforming teacher education through clinical practice: A national strategy to prepare effective teachers. Report of the Blue Ribbon Panel on clinical preparation and partnerships for improved student learning. National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education, Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved from: http://www.ncate.org/LinkClick.aspx? file ticket=zzeiB1OoqPk%3d&tabid=715 Pease, M. A., & Kuhn, D. (2011). Experimental analysis of the effective components of problembased learning. Science Education, 95(1), 57-86. doi.org.10-1002/sce.20412 Teach to Lead. Advancing teacher leadership remarks of U.S. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan at the National Board on Professional Teaching Standards Teaching and Learning Conference. (2014). Retrieved June 14, 2014 from http://www. ed.gov/news/speeches/teach-lead-advancingteacher-leadership Wirkala, C., & Kuhn, D. (2011). Problembased learning in K-12 education: Is it effective and how does it achieve its effects? American Educational Research Journal, 48(5), 1157– 1186. Doi.org/10.3102/0002831211419491 doi:10.3102/0002831211419491

KEY TERMS AND DEFINITIONS Critical Thinking: Reasoned and disciplined thought based on the synthesis of information in order to form a judgment. Inputs: The resources made available to complete a program, including personnel, money, and space. Logic Model: A graphical portrayal of a program, intervention, or service that typically includes the resources, activities, and outcomes presented to show connection and causation among components. Formats may vary, but most are often used to depict a program for planning, evaluation, or group review. Outcomes: A description of what a program achieves in the short or long term, usually in terms of knowledge, attitudes, and behavioral changes. Outputs: Outputs represent the direct results or products of program activities. If appropriate outputs occur, then there is a logical expectation of specific outcomes and impacts. Problem-Based Learning: An instructional approach in which students must apply knowledge and skills to solving an identified problem often situated in the real world and with more than one correct answer. Program Theory: Represents the underlying assumptions and expectations for how a program, intervention, or service will be conducted and what the results and impact will be. Stakeholders: Person, groups, or organizations that are affected by a program or service. Stakeholders may participate directly in a program or be indirectly served. Teacher Leader: A term applied to teachers who take on leadership roles and additional professional and decision-making responsibilities in their schools. Visualization: The act or process of interpreting data into visual terms such as pictures, graphs, or simulations. Visualization allows clearer communication of an abstract or complex concept.

245

246

Chapter 11

Teaching Critical Thinking and the Role of Team Teaching Stephen D. Brookfield University of St. Thomas, USA

ABSTRACT Critical thinking pedagogy is usually conceived as a solo teacher working with multiple students. Yet, if we take seriously the finding that students benefit enormously from seeing their instructors model critical thinking in front of them, and telling them that this is what they are doing, then team teaching represents a missed opportunity in this pedagogy. Instructors teaching as part of a team can show students how to ask questions of each other, how to disagree without condemning a peer, how to open each other up to multiple perspectives, and how to point out assumptions that each other holds. When all members of a teaching participate in all planning, instruction and evaluation, then students can see a critical dialogue unfolding before them. After laying out research on how students learn to think critically this chapter outlines the benefits of team teaching for both students and faculty members.

INTRODUCTION This chapter goes to the coalface of critical thinking – to exploring how students experience critical thinking viscerally as well as cognitively. My purpose is to explore how critical thinking actually takes place in students’ hearts and minds. Its’ starting point is with a truism about college level learning. As is the case with most learning, students say they find it easiest to learn how to think critically when that process is sequenced incrementally. It works best when students begin by mastering basic critical thinking protocols, and then over time applying these protocols to their

own reasoning and actions. But it is also important to consider the timing of when to move students forward into a primary focus on critical thinking. There are two clear schools of thought on this, and both have validity, so let me review them briefly. The first school holds that although in the best of all possible worlds it would be desirable for every act of learning to involve critical thinking, this is not how learning happens. Before you can think critically about something you need to have studied that ‘something’ enough so that you have sufficient information and understanding to begin to make critical judgments about it. This information and understanding is what R.S. Peters

DOI: 10.4018/978-1-4666-8411-9.ch011

Copyright © 2015, IGI Global. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.

 Teaching Critical Thinking and the Role of Team Teaching

(1973) described as the grammar of a subject. The grammar of a subject is its basic building blocks of content (the minimal information everyone needs to know about a subject) and its’ epistemology (the procedures and standards applied in the subject to judge whether knowledge has been legitimately established). To Peters, learning the content and epistemological grammar of a subject is the first step in a project that culminates with students being able to think critically about the subject. This first school of thought argues that before this grammar is learned it is unrealistic to expect students to be able to think critically about a topic. So most programs which have critical thinking as one of their goals should begin with a fairly traditional process of information transmission, when students are assimilating basic content and learning how to judge what counts as legitimate knowledge in the area. This is why most introductory courses are of the survey type, where students are provided with a map of the subject that helps them understand the intellectual and skill terrain it covers. This first school of thought argues that critical thinking happens only after students learn how to read this map. The second school of thought argues that it is always possible to incorporate critical thinking into courses introducing students to a new subject area. For example, proponents of teaching basic language skills who draw on the methodology of Paulo Freire (2005) point out that he developed a process whereby peasants could learn to read and write while concurrently becoming aware of power dynamics in their communities, and becoming alert to their own oppression. Ira Shor’s (1987) brilliant work on using students’ everyday experiences to teach critical thinking falls into this vein, as when he helped students understand the workings of monopoly capitalism by analyzing the burgers they ate in the college cafeteria. In many freshman orientation courses there is a similar opportunity for students to do some basic critical thinking as they clarify a host of assumptions they hold about college life – how important it is to belong to a

fraternity, what they think their teachers expect of them, how many hours of homework per week is realistic, and so on. Even in more traditional, content-heavy disciplines, this second school argues that some element of critical thinking can be incorporated from the beginning. For example, when students learn the basics of a new language, one of the first things they learn are the rudiments of grammar such as declension, or the presence of masculine and feminine nouns. It is easy to communicate that this are clearly human constructions, reflecting a culture’s internal dynamics. When setting up an introductory science experiment, it is simple to teach how the methodology being used reflects assumptions the scientific community has about how to generate reliable knowledge. When teaching trainee nurses how to give an injection, the assumptions about why this is the correct way are usually clarified.

BACKGROUND My position on integrating critical thinking into one’s teaching is that it is always possible to some degree, even if only fleetingly. Just in the act of explaining the first class is arranged the way it is, why the first homework assignment is structured the way it is, or why the syllabus is organized a particular way, you are letting students see that you are working from assumptions you hold about the best way to teach the class. So the question is not whether or not critical thinking can be incorporated into the teaching of introductory courses, but rather the degree to which this is possible. There are particular times in a course or classroom when critical thinking – clarifying and checking assumptions by viewing material from different perspectives – is particularly important. Some of these are … * When Skills or Knowledge Have to be Applied in the Real World – here students have to determine how to make abstract knowledge, or

247

 Teaching Critical Thinking and the Role of Team Teaching

general skill sets, learned in a classroom fit a real life situation. To do this the student has to be able to know which assumptions to follow, what cues to look for, and what evidence to take most seriously. * When Independent Judgment is Needed – here students are required to work through a complex theoretical problem, conceptual analysis, or mass of contradictory data and judge what is the most accurate interpretation or justifiable action. Given that this parallels the work conditions that most graduates will enjoy, this is a survival necessity for college students to learn. * When Alternative Interpretations & Perspectives Are Possible – here students are presented with data, texts or situations in which it is important to learn about the multiple ways these things can be understood. * When Actions & Decisions Need to Be Informed – here students are asked to explain the rationale for their actions so that they recreate the chain of reasoning that led them to a particular proof, a textual conclusion, or a decision to act in a certain way. This is particularly emphasized in applied skills courses. * When Rapid Judgments Are Called For – this is particularly the case in courses that seek to mimic the real conditions of the workplace, where students will be required to make quick judgments about how to react to situations where they lack all the relevant data (such an engineering or human services professions). * When Students Are Encouraged to See Themselves as Knowledge Generators – if a course objective is to get students to take responsibility for generating new knowledge, or conducting new research, in their discipline, then they will have to articulate the assumptions they are working under as they set up experiments, interpret texts or design practice interventions in their fields. There is a legion of books written to help students understand what critical thinking is and how it should be applied to the learning projects described above. These tend to focus on the intel-

248

lectual processes that constitute critical thinking, and the kinds of exercises that can be developed to foster these. The majority of these texts focus on how to detect when arguments are sound or erroneous (Thomson, 2008; Fisher, 2001; Andolina, 2002; Waller, 2004; Barnet & Bedau, 2005; Chaffee, 2006; Ruggerio, 2006; Nosich, 2009). They draw strongly on the analytic philosophy and logic tradition to help students think straight (Flew, 1998), ask the right questions (Browne & Keeley, 2007), think logically (McInerny, 2005), and judge the claims of pseudo-science and superstition (Schick & Vaughn, 2002). Others explore how to apply critical thinking to moral problems (Wall, 2003), to profound ideas like freedom, justice, morality, and spirituality (Chaffee, 2008), and to questions of faith (Conrad, 2008). Still more instruct readers on how critical thinking is connected to writing (Barnet & Bedau, 2005; Cooper and Patton, 2009) and to developing good study skills (McWhorter, 2008). And some are texts of personal application, helping readers place critical thinking in the contexts of their own personal or work lives (Andolina, 2000; Paul & Elder, 2005). In this chapter I want to put aside the question of how students should practice and apply critical thinking processes and instead look at how they do it in reality. More specifically, I want to examine what students say about the kinds of activities and approaches that they feel are most useful in helping them learn to do this. My conclusions are derived from over 1,500 Critical Incident Questionnaires completed by students in courses and workshops on critical thinking taught over the past 30 years at my home institution, the University of St. Thomas (Minneapolis-St. Paul) as well as at two other institutions where I have done full time or adjunct teaching. The first is Columbia University (New York), where I worked full time from 1982-1992, and where I am still an adjunct professor, and National Louis University (Chicago), where I served as occasional adjunct faculty from 1998-2012.

 Teaching Critical Thinking and the Role of Team Teaching

THE CRITICAL INCIDENT QUESTIONNAIRE The Critical Incident Questionnaire (hereafter referred to as the CIQ) is a classroom evaluation tool I use in all my teaching. It is a five-item instrument that asks students to review their learning in class for any particular week and to answer five questions about that experience. The questions are... • • • • •

At what moment were you most engaged as a learner? At what moment were you most distanced as a learner? What action that anyone took in class did you find most helpful? What action that anyone took in class did you find most confusing? What surprised you most about the class?

This instrument can be downloaded at my home page (http:www.stephenbrookfield.com) where you will also find case study examples of its use (Adams, 2001; Glowacki-Dudka & Barnett, 2007; Keefer, 2009). In a traditional semester long course it is completed once a week. The last five minutes of the last class of any particular week are allocated for students to fill out their responses to the five questions. All CIQ’s are anonymously completed and no names are placed on the forms. A student collects them and hands them to me and I review them before the first class meeting of the following week. I make a note of the main themes that emerge, and begin the next class by sharing with the students a brief report of what the forms contain. For a more detailed review of how I use this instrument you can read Chapter (6) of Becoming a Critically Reflective Teacher (Brookfield, 1995). Five themes repeatedly emerge from these CIQ’s regarding how students learn critical thinking. First, they say they it is best developed in small groups where peers serve as critical mirrors

shedding light on assumptions that have never been checked and introducing new perspectives that have not been previously considered. It seems that students experience critical thinking primarily as a social learning process. Second, they like it when teachers model the process and draw students’ attention to how that’s happening. The place of team teaching in this modeling process will be the focus of the second half of this chapter. Third, they find it helpful to ground critical thinking in concrete experiences through case studies, critical incidents, simulations and scenarios. Fourth, they stress that the most significant moments in critical thinking happen when some kind of unexpected event or idea jolts them out of their comfort zone, what theorists of transformative learning such as Mezirow (1991, 2000) call a disorienting dilemma. Finally, they view the trajectory of how they learned critical thinking as developmental. They prefer starting with multiple opportunities to practice critical protocols in settings that are relatively non-threatening, before gradually applying this process to the student’s own life and experiences. Let me review some of these findings in detail.

CRITICAL THINKING IS A SOCIAL LEARNING PROCESS Overwhelmingly, students pick out participating in small group activities as the most engaging moments in learning to think critically. This is the theme that always attracts the most comments on CIQ surveys, with approximately 80% of participants declaring that the most helpful moments and actions were when something in a small group activity really hit home. It seems that students discover assumptions and new perspectives most meaningfully when a peer brings it to their attention. They write vividly of how helpful it is to have peers ask them questions that they had not considered before. They say how much they learned from the observations peers made

249

 Teaching Critical Thinking and the Role of Team Teaching

about their ideas, or the suggestions they offered on how to think differently about problems they were facing. This finding is remarkable in both its predictability and its frequency. Course after course, workshop after workshop, year after year, students say that it is through peer exchange in small groups that the sometimes abstract activity of thinking critically is given a level of detail that drives the process home. Discovering that critical thinking is a social learning process is hardly surprising if we consider how difficult it is to learn about our motives, assumptions and worldviews, simply by deciding we will do some deep self-examination. Becoming aware of our assumptions is a puzzling and contradictory task. Very few of us can get very far doing this on our own. No matter how much we may think we have an accurate sense of ourselves, we are stymied by the fact that we’re using our own interpretive filters to become aware of our own interpretive filters! This is the equivalent of a dog trying to catch its tail, or of trying to see the back of your head while looking in the bathroom mirror. To some extent we are all prisoners trapped within the perceptual frameworks that determine how we view our experiences. A self-confirming cycle often develops whereby our uncritically accepted assumptions shape actions that then serve to confirm the truth of those assumptions. It’s enormously difficult to stand outside yourself and look back at your life to discover how some of your most deeply held values and beliefs have led you into wrong choices. To become aware of our assumptions we need to find some lenses that reflect back to us a stark and differently highlighted picture of who we are and what we do. Our most influential assumptions are too close to us to be seen clearly by an act of self-will. One of the problems of using friends and colleagues to help you become aware of your assumptions, however, is that the people you find to serve as mirrors often share your assumptions. In this situation your conversation with them becomes an unproductive loop in which the same prejudices

250

and stereotypes are constantly reaffirmed. Just as we tend to read authors we already agree with, or have some affinity for, so we tend to seek out peers whom we know are sympathetic to, and familiar with, our orientations. Rare indeed are the people who deliberately seek out books, conversations and practices that they know will challenge or even undercut much of what they find to be comfortable and familiar. So one of the things it’s important to do as a teacher when setting up small groups for critical thinking is to make sure that the activities you design deliberately throw up information, dilemmas and perspectives that take people by surprise. The whole idea of systematically searching out assumptions is often deliberately avoided for fear of what it might lead to. No one likes to discover that ideas they have lived by for much of their life are distorted and invalid. But the process becomes more tolerable when it’s a shared one, particularly if you can see that others are struggling just like you to discover their assumptions and consider new perspectives. Generally students say that when they hear questions from a peer, or when peers contribute a variety of different responses to a problem, this is easier to live with than hearing a question, or considering a new idea, from a teacher. There are two reasons usually given for this. The first is that a peer is more likely to ask a question, or to suggest a different perspective on a problem, using language and examples closer to students’ experiences. Hence, the question or perspective is put more helpfully, and understood more accurately, when framed in familiar language that students use. As someone in his fifth decade as a teacher it is increasingly difficult for me to use examples and language my students understand easily. If I’m 60 and my student is 18 it would be very surprising if our daily lives were the same, if we watched the same TV shows, liked the same music, or used social media the same way. But students also find it easier to hear questions and consider new perspectives when they come from peers because the power dynamic is very

 Teaching Critical Thinking and the Role of Team Teaching

different to the one in place when those questions or perspectives emanate from the teacher. This is not to deny that power dynamics are also important in student-student dynamics – they obviously are. Differences of race, class and gender play themselves out in student groups, just as they do in any other situation. And every student runs into group members who try to take over the group either because they are enthusiastic about the topic, or because they are egomaniacs who love the sound of their own voices. But a teacher’s calling your assumption into question, telling you about an important perspective you have overlooked, or informing you about a piece of information whose significance you have missed, is far more threatening than hearing those same things from the most egomaniacal, blowhard student. The teacher holds your fate in her hand, she wields the power of the grade over you. So, in a strange way, when you hear a radical idea that challenges your thinking expressed by another student, it is more likely to be considered seriously than when it’s the teacher who expresses it. It is important to stress that small group activities be carefully structured. When I say that students report critical thinking to be a social learning process it is with one major qualification. The activities that students say they find to be most productive are the ones in which ground rules are clearly stated and understood, and in which the focus is on criticality. Social learning is not chatting comfortably and letting the conversation flow whichever way chance takes it. No, social learning for critical thinking focuses on students listening carefully to each other, asking questions of each other that uncover assumptions, and offering new perspectives or ideas.

TWO SOCIAL LEARNING PROCESSES FOR CRITICAL THINKING Two structured social learning processes that could easily be the bookends to a critical think-

ing sequence will hopefully explain what I mean – scenario analysis and the critical conversation protocol. Scenario Analysis asks students to read a brief fictional vignette in which a character is making a choice. Students are given three tasks to accomplish in groups. Having each read the scenario individually they (1) share the implicit and explicit assumptions each of them thinks the character in the scenario is operating under, and whether those assumptions are causal, prescriptive or paradigmatic, (2) share the different ways they think the character in the scenario could check out her assumptions, and (3) share suggestions they have for different interpretations of the scenario – ways of interpreting it that are different to the interpretation the character in the scenario places on it. This introductory exercise is short and nonthreatening, since it focuses on a fictional situation and a made up character. Some examples of Scenario Analysis I have used or observed are: * A fictional chemist who is trying to understand the cause and effect relationship in a particular chemical reaction sets up an experiment to test what she feels is a plausible hypothesis. Students reading this scenario are then asked to identify the reasoning behind the chemist’s choice of her particular hypothesis, and also encouraged to propose an alternative hypothesis that the fictional chemist could have chosen. * A mathematician formulating a mathematical proof adapts a familiar mathematical protocol that the students are familiar with to construct an equation. Students reading this scenario are then asked to identify the reasoning behind the mathematician’s adaptation of the protocol and also encouraged to propose an alternative of constructing an equation. * A fictional psychologist studying a child with learning difficulties concludes the child is autistic. Students reading this scenario are asked to identify the assumptions the fictional psychologist was operating under when he made the diagnosis, and how he could have checked out those assumptions. Students then suggest alternative diagnoses that 251

 Teaching Critical Thinking and the Role of Team Teaching

the fictional psychologist could have been made based on the information provided in the scenario. * A fictional climatologist is researching greenhouse gas emissions and concludes from studying records of iceberg movement that global warming is a hoax (or a real threat). Students read the scenario and try to identify the piece of evidence the fictional climatologist took most seriously. They try to pose alternative assessments of the existence of global warming that the climatologist might have made had he focused on different information. * A fictional triage nurse in an understaffed emergency room makes a decision about the relative seriousness of a patient’s condition based on information he gathers from the patient. Students try to identify the information that they feel was most influential in the fictional nurse’s diagnosis. They offer alternative plausible diagnoses that could have been made if the fictional nurse had focused on different information. A much more intense version of a structured social learning process designed to elicit critical thinking is the Critical Conversation Protocol. In this exercise the student brings a situation they are struggling with, and which they’d like to understand better, to a group of peers. The student describes the situation and then responds to questions about it from peers. There are careful ground rules to determine the way questions are asked, so that questions are heard as helpful requests for information, not as accusatory put-downs (as in “Are you seriously telling me that …? Or “Why on earth didn’t you …?). The peers then inform the student of the assumptions they thing she brings to her understanding of the situation. How these assumptions are reported is determined by ground rules designed to ensure the student does not feel attacked. The peers then suggest to the student different ways of understanding the situation, again following ground rules. Finally, peers tell the student directly what they think she should do and everybody does an audit of what they’ve learned from the exercise.

252

The Scenario Analysis and Critical Conversational Protocol exercises are both social learning activities in which the same critical thinking protocol is applied – hunting assumptions, considering how these might be checked, and generating different perspectives on a situation. Both benefit from the diversity of responses suggested by participants and both involve lively exchanges. But both are also clearly kept within the boundaries of the same critical thinking protocol. The intensity of the two exercises is clearly different, since there is far more at stake when a student brings a problem she is experiencing to a group with the intent of receiving critical feedback about her assumptions and interpretations. But this latter, more intense exercise is structured with ground rules designed to keep the focus on a non-judgmental approach to giving critical feedback.

MODELING CRITICAL THINKING Of the themes that emerge from students’ responses on what most helps them learn to think critically this is the one that often surprises teachers the most. I am no exception. At the beginning of my career I believed I could measure my success as a teacher by how much my students noticed me; or rather, how much they forgot I was there. If they were learning without me saying or doing very much, and if they ignored my presence, then I felt I was teaching in the best way possible. I still believe this is very valid in many situations and that, in Finkels terms, you can be very effective when you teach with your mouth shut (Finkel, 2000). But when it comes to students’ learning how to practice critical thinking, it seems that they constantly look to us to see what the process looks like. Furthermore, given the difficulties of this process, it’s important that we earn the right to ask them to do it themselves by first modeling how we try to unearth and research our own assumptions.

 Teaching Critical Thinking and the Role of Team Teaching

The modeling that students appreciate from us takes different forms. Most importantly, it seems that the more personal examples we give of how we try to think critically, the more students appreciate this. A teacher’s early disclosure of a critical thinking experience can set a tone of openness that significantly influences students’ readiness to delve into their own assumptions. For example, my disclosure at the beginning of my book Teaching for Critical Thinking (Brookfield, 2012) of how critical thinking helps me cope with my own depression is an example of this dynamic in action. My assumption in making this personal disclosure early in the book was that it would grab readers’ attention, it would provide an example of how the process looks, and it would set the right tone for a book that would interweave personal examples with generalized advice and references to research. Students also report that they find it helpful when we explain why we do what we do. They say that when it comes to a threatening activity like being asked to think critically about their long held assumptions, it inspires confidence when they see that teachers clearly have a plan for doing this, a set of reasons informing their actions. Speaking out loud about why you are introducing a particular classroom activity, why you are changing learning modalities, why you have chosen certain readings, how you decide to put students in certain groups, or why you are moving from a small group activity into a mini-lecture – all these public disclosures demonstrate to students that you are a thoughtful teacher. Knowing that they are in the hands of such a teacher builds students’ confidence. No-one likes to think that the person leading them in an activity is making it up as she goes along with no forethought, reasoning or previous experience. This is particularly the case when the teacher is asking students to engage in a risk full learning activity, as is the case with practicing critical thinking. I would venture that it is almost impossible to talk your practice out loud too much. In thousands

of Critical Incident Questionnaires collected over the years in many different courses, this is an amazingly consistent theme. Students really appreciate knowing why the teacher is doing what she is doing. They say this helps them learn whatever is being taught and also gives them the sense that they are in the hands of a trusted guide. To know why doctors wish us to take particular medications is an important element in our trusting that the doctor has our best interests at heart and that she knows what she is doing. To know the reasons why an auto-mechanic is suggesting that a certain part needs to be replaced is crucial to our trusting that we are not being conned. The same holds true for teachers. If students are to have confidence in our abilities they need to know, and trust, that there is a rationale behind our actions and choices. Having discussed two general elements in modeling critical thinking – using personal examples and explaining the reasoning behind your actions - let me review some specific examples that students have picked out over the years as being helpful. All of these are designed to demonstrate either how to uncover and check assumptions or how to view knowledge and skills from multiple perspectives.

SPEAKING IN TONGUES This activity is designed to show students how the same idea, facts, skills or content can be interpreted in different ways. It begins with the instructor posting signs around the classroom corresponding to the number of different viewpoints she wishes students to consider. So, for example, if I was teaching a lesson on the intellectual traditions informing critical thinking I might post five signs – analytic philosophy and logic, scientific method, pragmatism, psychoanalysis and psychotherapy, and critical theory. The activity starts with the teacher standing in the center of the classroom and reviewing the content in the way it is gener-

253

 Teaching Critical Thinking and the Role of Team Teaching

ally understood. Hence, I might kick off by going over the definition of critical thinking given in the syllabus and examining how the University of St. Thomas incorporates critical thinking into its mission statement. The teacher then moves to the first sign posted and explains the content as if she were someone who only thought within that framework. So if I moved to the analytic philosophy sign I would only speak about critical thinking as the evaluation of argument and detection of logical fallacies. The instructor then moves to the second sign posted and gives her understanding of the content as if she were solely concerned with that second perspective. So I would move to the scientific method sign and speak about critical thinking as the generation and testing of hypotheses and the application of the principle of falsifiability. Sometimes as I get to the different signs I will put a different hat on – maybe a Minnesota Twins hat at one, a Green Bay Packers hat at another, an LA Lakers hat at a third, and so on. Students say that bringing in a simple spatial difference – speaking the language of a different theoretical paradigm when you are at a different station in the room – helps them realize that different perspectives can be taken on the same material. A further variant on this exercise is to ask the class to generate questions about the topic after you have done your mini-review at each of the stations you have posted. You can then respond to the same question in several different ways by going to two or three of the stations and responding in the voice of someone answering just from that perspective. Finally, when you have done this a couple of times in class you can add a further complexity. This time, you divide the class into groups and ask different groups to go and stand at the different signs. You then pose a question or raise an issue about the material and you ask the groups to brainstorm for a couple of minutes on how they would answer the question, or re-

254

spond to the issue, if they operated only within the framework represented by the sign they are standing by. The exercise ends with each group giving a summary of their responses.

Assumptions Audit In this exercise teachers get into the habit of stopping a presentation they are making to compile, in front of the class, an Assumptions Audit. This is, quite simply, an inventory of the most important assumptions informing the material just presented. It can be adapted to almost any subject or topic such as … • • • • • •

Articulating your reasoning behind the way you’ve just presented a mathematical problem and demonstrated the solution Explaining how you’ve designed an experiment to measure velocity Describing how you discern the meaning of certain analogies used in a poem Summarizing the causal chain you’ve identified in a sequence of historical events Reviewing how a set of skills learned in a classroom can be applied to a real life setting Justifying why you choose one theory over others as the best explanation for a particular phenomenon

The audit works as follows. At appropriate junctures in your presentation the teachers pauses to summarize the chief assumptions embedded in the presentation she has just given. She distinguishes between explicit and implicit assumptions and then tries to list the paradigmatic, prescriptive or causal assumptions that have influenced her argument so far. She does her best to give examples of the most persuasive evidence for each of these assumptions and identifies anything that’s questionable about the assumption. This

 Teaching Critical Thinking and the Role of Team Teaching

could be pointing out that some assumptions are less evidence-based than others, or that some have never been properly tested or challenged. She also explains which assumptions are more recent, which have never changed, and which she feels most, or least, confident about.

Point-Counterpoint This team-teaching dynamic is one I explore in much greater detail in the second half of this chapter. Conducting a pedagogical point-counterpoint is possible only if you are team teaching a class. Essentially, it requires two or more people to analyze an idea, or take apart a piece of content, from discernibly different perspectives in front of the class. I usually team teach two courses a year and the point-counterpoint moments are often the ones that students pick out as the most engaging ones in class. This is where students see the faculty attempt to model what respectful disagreement and critical analysis of another’s position look like. This is extremely helpful if you are asking students to do these things as part of their own small group discussions with each other. Certain kinds of interactions are important to demonstrate when modeling point-counterpoint. Probably the most important is showing students how to pose questions that ask for evidence without attaching judgmental elements to them. Examples of these would be “can you tell me more about…?”, “why do you think that’s the case?”, “what’s the most convincing piece of evidence for that view?” or “how do you respond to Smith’s research that challenges your position?”. Other questions would seek clarification such as “if I understand you correctly you seem to be saying…” or “can I just check that I’ve followed your argument correctly?” Point-counterpoint also allows you to show you try to incorporate, or build on, your co-teacher’s comments, which, in turn, emphasizes for students the importance of careful listening. You can strive to answer questions addressed to you as fully and clearly as possible, and you should be ready to

admit when you don’t have an answer, or when you need some time to think through what you want to say. When you disagree with a co-teacher’s analysis, or you take a very different position on understanding a piece of content, you can say “I take a different view on this and here’s why I think the way I do” or “my approach doesn’t emphasize what you cover, here’s my line of analysis.” Often the greatest moments of delight for students noted on their Critical Incident Questionnaires are when two instructors publicly disagree on something. This immediately gets their attention and wakes them up.

Structured Devil’s Advocacy This is a solo version of Point-Counterpoint, one I sometimes call the Clint Eastwood Chair, after Clint Eastwood’s speech to the 2012 Republication Presidential Convention when he spoke to an empty chair in which then President Obama was notionally sitting. As part of your presentation you strive to spend some time presenting any arguments that counter your own assertions. A dramatic and theatrical approach is to state your opening position while you stand in one part of the room, and then to move to another part of the room, look back at where you were originally standing, and then direct a second set of comments back at that spot as if you were speaking to the person (yourself) who was just standing there. Here you deliberately state an alternative view, or you analyze the ideas you were just describing through a different research paradigm or a different theoretical framework. You are deliberately playing devil’s advocate with the position you’ve just stated. Structured devil’s advocacy deliberately articulates a different perspective on what you have said and opens up questions about it. You say things like “however, if look at this idea from another point of view you can see that …” or “a whole other interpretation is possible of this argument that calls many of its central assumptions into question.” You can model critical analysis by pre-

255

 Teaching Critical Thinking and the Role of Team Teaching

senting counter-arguments or rebuttals, in essence using the principle of falsifiability central to the scientific method where the purpose is to conduct an empirical confirmation or disconfirmation of a hypothesis or position. When you do this you address your imaginary other self by name and say things like “Stephen, what you’re omitting to mention is ...”, or, “Of course Stephen, you could pursue a very different line of reasoning if you argue that ...”

The Critical Incident Questionnaire (CIQ) One of the benefits of the Critical Incident Questionnaire (CIQ) described earlier is that it allows for a modeling of critical thinking. Every time you report the results of the previous week’s CIQ responses back to students you have the opportunity to model critical thinking for them. Each week as I report the form’s responses back to the students, I make the point to them that in so doing I am applying critical thinking to my own actions as a teacher. This is because I am using students’ perceptions to check the assumptions I am operating under as I set up and then teach the course. As I talk about their reactions to the last week’s class I reflect publicly on the relative accuracy of the assumptions I was working under as I set up the activities I arranged for them. I discuss the assumptions informing the assignments I designed and those underlying the specific decisions I made in the midst of the class. I keep telling them that I am trying to demonstrate critical thinking in action – publicly checking my assumptions as a teacher by reviewing through the different perceptions represented by the students in the class. If no surprises are evident in the CIQ responses, and it is clear that most people felt the class had gone well, I say that the CIQ responses are still valuable because they allow me to do confirmatory critical thinking. Confirmatory critical thinking is what happens when we research an assumption that we trust intuitively, and discover that it

256

is indeed a good one to follow. The CIQ can be confirmatory as well as challenging and often illustrates why our habitual assumptions are so well grounded. It is reassuring for students to know that critical thinking can be confirmatory, that sometimes it can lead to us committing even more strongly to assumptions we already hold. If they think that critical thinking only happens when they are forced to change everything they believed up to that point, then it is unlikely that many will wish to engage in it.

Ending Lectures and Discussions with Questions Beginning instructors are often told that the golden rule of effective lecturing is to “tell ‘em what you’re going to tell ‘em, tell em, then tell ‘em what you’ve just told ‘em”. The problem with this rule is that it commodifies knowledge as a neatly bounded package of facts or concepts. Doing this is inimical to intellectual inquiry, particularly to the student’s ability to make connections across subject areas and disciplines. Even more worryingly, ending with a summary of what has already been said establishes a sense of definitive closure, of the last word having been spoken on the subject. I argue that good lecturers end their presentations by pointing out all the new questions that have been raised by the content of the lecture, and also by pointing out which of the questions posed at the start of the lecture have been left unanswered or been reframed in a more provocative or contentious way. This prepares students for the same practice in discussion where conversation sessions can be ended by asking students to volunteer the questions the discussion has raised for them rather than by giving a summary of “what we’ve learned today in our discussion”. If possible, lecturers should spend the last 10 minutes of a lecture asking students to write down the questions the lecture has raised for them, and then find a way to make some of these public. Students can be asked to speak their questions to the whole class, or they can be asked

 Teaching Critical Thinking and the Role of Team Teaching

to share them with each other in small buzz groups of 2 or 3. If they write them down, they can pass them to the lecturer, and have the lecturer read out a random selection. As hand held devices become de rigueur in classrooms, students can send their questions anonymously and electronically to a classroom whiteboard for review. Even if none of these things are possible, your own behavior of finishing a lecture with a list of new questions the lecture raises for you, or ending with an acknowledgment of the omissions, ethical dilemmas, and contradictions that challenge what you have just articulated, is a powerful piece of modeling. I try to do this when recording lecture vignettes for the online courses I teach. You should be warned, though, that initially students will probably be very critical of this behavior. On CIQ’s they will record their frustration that the lecture didn’t end only with a clear recap of the main points. They will see your behavior of ending with questions or raising problems as unnecessarily confusing, as pulling the rug out from under their feet. Over time, as you consistently explain how doing these things is your best attempt to model the spirit of critical inquiry you are trying to encourage in learners, students’ frustration will often diminish.

SPECIFIC EXPERIENCES One of the surest ways to strike terror into someone is to ask them to tell you what their assumptions are. This is an intimidating question for the most confident of us. First, we often don’t know what our assumptions are and, second, it’s often hard to define exactly what constitutes an assumption. So the response to being asked to disclose your assumptions is often to say the first thing that comes into your head, which is often a cliché or whatever you judge to be the thing you are supposed to say. For example, if anyone had asked me what my assumptions about parenting were

when my kids were younger I probably would have said something like ‘be consistent’, ‘let them know you love them’, or ‘support them in whatever they want to do’. The first and last of these assumptions are wrong, in my opinion. First, I was often inconsistent. I would change my ‘policy’ on appropriate parenting behavior depending on the situation. Second, it is quite possible that I would sometimes judge that what my children wanted to do – eat only pizza perhaps - was wrong. Because my children are beacons of sweet reason I can’t ever remember that happening – but it is quite possible that it could have. We learn much more about what our assumptions really are when we are asked to explore highly specific experiences. For example, ask most teachers what assumptions they hold about what makes a good teacher, and what you will hear in response often mimics what their own mentors have told them, or what they have read in professional literature. They will also respond at a level of high generality, for example saying that good teachers work inclusively and treat students with respect. However, ask those same teachers to choose the day in the last month when they felt they did their best work, or the day when things went so badly they felt like quitting, and you will get a highly concrete answer. As you hear why they chose that day, and what it was about that day that was so wonderful or awful, you will receive reams of detail about the people involved, or about the dynamics of the incidents that provoked either delight or depression. These specifics are likely to tell you far more about what a person’s assumptions actually are, than if you asked them directly ‘what are your assumptions?’ So when students describe the classroom activities that they find to be the most helpful in teaching them how to think critically, they usually reference scenarios, case studies, particular experiments, simulations, specific texts – anything where they deal with a very concrete situation. It is much easier for students to describe the as-

257

 Teaching Critical Thinking and the Role of Team Teaching

sumptions they are operating under in reference to a specific activity or experience, than to talk generally about the assumptions they hold about the best way to study engineering, or what constitutes legitimate criticism in art history. If you want students to think critically you need to embed this process in very specific activities and ask a series of questions about how they completed those tasks; What inferential leaps do they make as they interpret the results of an experiment? Which evidence for confirming a hypothesis do they find the convincing? What is unpersuasive or irrelevant about other evidence? Why does one theory seem to explain a particular sequence of events better than another? Any time you can focus a student’s attention on why she made a particular choice out of the options available will be a much more fruitful entry into discussing critical thinking than talking about it in general terms.

DISORIENTING DILEMMAS A disorienting dilemma is a term usually associated with Jack Mezirow’s groundbreaking work on transformative learning (Mezirow, 1991, 2000). It describes an unexpected situation that forces you to think differently about something you have taken for granted up to that point. Mezirow’s work most frequently focuses on situations that come out of the blue and cause us to reappraise how we think about some part of life. For example, when you are fired after working diligently for years, you quickly reappraise your assumptions about institutional loyalty. When your partner suddenly leaves you, you rethink the assumptions you hold about how to nourish a healthy relationship. When someone close to you dies, or you are told you have a life-threatening condition, your priorities are usually drastically reordered. Although disorienting dilemmas are often traumatic, they can also be pleasurable. For example, unexpect-

258

edly falling in love, or becoming a parent for the first time, usually causes you to rethink what is important in life. Research on transformative learning (Mezirow & Taylor, 2009) documents how disorienting dilemmas are the most common triggers to a major reappraisal of our meaning schemes and meaning perspectives – in other words, to changing the usual ways we make sense of the local events in our lives, as well as the bigger issues. Exactly the same is true of critical thinking, at least if students’ testimonies are to be believed. Time and again, students say that it takes facing something dramatically unnerving to compel them to think in different ways about it. Those unsettling classroom moments are the ones that they remember vividly and respond to strongly. What a disorienting dilemma looks like will vary from discipline to discipline, subject to subject, topic to topic. What unites all of them is their unexpectedness. When a chemist sets up an experiment in which she assumes she knows in advance whether or not her hypothesis will be proven, and when the opposite occurs, this is a disorienting dilemma. When an English major is sure of the correct interpretation of a passage and reads an analysis that is totally different, this is the same thing. Any time a case study looks familiar to the student but the outcome of the case study is completely unexpected, this is a disorienting dilemmas. A colleague of mine used to start a course asking students to appraise a piece of work that had been generally well regarded in his field. After the students had shared their uniformly positive appraisals, he would publicly demolish the piece. That was certainly a way to shake students up early! Another colleague used to begin a unit on racism by laying down at the entrance of the classroom so students had to step over her to gain entry. For many students, the teacher admitting that he or she is wrong, or has made a mistake, is a disorienting dilemma. Seeing members of a

 Teaching Critical Thinking and the Role of Team Teaching

teaching team disagree can be equally unsettling to students from cultures where teachers are revered as guardians of certitude. The trick with designing a disorienting dilemma is that it has to be unsettling enough to shake students out of their comfort zone, but not so discomforting that those students will do their best to avoid dealing with it. One good way to introduce a disorienting dilemma is to begin by first demonstrating how you yourself dealt with something equally disorienting. As with many other things, the CIQ has been helpful for me in this regard. Sometimes I will feel good about how a class has gone only to read a CIQ response that criticizes me in a way that is both serious and wholly unanticipated. I will report this to the students and talk through how this disorienting feedback has affected me and what it means for how I conduct the class. Another thing I sometimes do is tell a teaching colleague before we teach a particular class that sometime during that class I want her to ask me the most unexpected and difficult question she can think of. It is good for the students to see me struggling to deal in the moment with a challenge from a colleague to my usual ways of thinking.

AN INCREMENTAL PROCESS The final insight that comes from students’ descriptions of how they learn to think critically, concerns the way this process unfolds over time. Basically, it seems that students across the disciplines respond best when a program or course designed to teach critical thinking begins with exercises that are nonthreatening and have little risk attached to them, primarily because the student’s own reasoning and choices are not directly at play. Then, over time, the application of critical protocols moves close and closer to a direct analysis of the student’s own thinking and actions. Hence, at the end of the program or course the students are engaged in a direct critical analysis of their own ideas and

forms of reasoning. But, in contrast to much of what I assumed to be the case for the first half of my teaching career, it is NOT a good idea to start a critical thinking sequence by focusing initially on the student’s own reasoning and experiences. This is too intimidating, too close to home, there is too much at risk. The opening phase of a critical thinking sequence should exhibit two initial features. First, there should be a clear and repeated attempt to describe in very specific terms what a critical thinking protocol looks like. My initial outline of critical thinking describes it as the hunting and checking of assumptions by viewing them from multiple perspectives. Students like as many examples as possible to be given of what this protocol looks like in action and how it can be applied to specific content. Second, students stress that an early and repeated modeling of teachers’ own engagement in critical thinking is also useful. This initial phase is one characterized by considerable teacher scaffolding; that is, teachers providing models, protocols and examples of the process that students can hang their own subsequent critical thinking activities on. The second phase kicks off with students applying these critical protocols to problems that are specific to the discipline or subject. They are given examples of experiments, theorems, texts, arguments, case studies, or concepts in their fields, and asked to apply critical analysis to them. What evidence did the designers of these experiments take most seriously? What assumptions were they making when they developed testable hypotheses about the nature of the phenomena they were investigating? How did theoreticians end up at their analyses? What kinds of reasoning (inductive, deductive, fallibilistic, analogical etc.) did the author of a text use? How could assumption hunting be applied to a particular case? Once students are in the rhythm of correctly applying critical protocols to content primarily authored by ‘others’ (usually credible scholars in the field) then the process starts to move closer

259

 Teaching Critical Thinking and the Role of Team Teaching

to the final phase in the sequence, the student’s analysis of her own experience. Now, instead of turning a critical gaze on the reasoning processes used by experts in the subject the student is asked to turn it on herself. Perhaps she is asked to lay out her chain of reasoning behind a mathematical proof she has devised, the assumptions of reliability and validity she is applying to an experimental design, or the reasons why she feels one biblical interpretation is more accurate than another. But however it is done, the emphasis is now on the student examining her own reasoning process, instead of her laying bare the reasoning of scholars and experts in the field.

THE BENEFITS OF TEACHING IN TEAMS The second half of this chapter explores how team teaching can be used to model critical thinking for students. However, it is important to clarify at the outset that team teaching is not two or three people agreeing to carve up a course into sections so that each person does thirty or fifty per cent of the sessions. Properly conducted, team teaching involves all members of the team planning the course, writing the syllabus, specifying learning objectives, conducting the class, and evaluating student work. This takes far more time than teaching solo. You need to coordinate, discuss and decide multiple matters as a group, something that adds considerably to your faculty load (Pharo, Davison, Warr, Nursey-Bray, Beswick, Wapstra & Jones, 2012). Obviously within that structure leadership roles vary so that different members of the team have responsibility for teaching certain content, drafting particular assessment rubrics or running specific exercises. But every team member is in class all the time so that she or he can complement and support whatever the lead teacher is doing. This model of teaching parallels the work reality most students will face. In the information age, working

260

in project teams is the norm, so it makes perfect sense for our pedagogy to mirror that reality. As chroniclers of team teaching (Eisen & Tisdell, 2000; Ramsey, 2008; Plank, 2011) often point out, this approach has benefits for both students and teachers where learning to think critically is concerned.

1. A Teaching Team Reaches a Wider Variety of Learners Solo teachers teach out of their preferred learning style. Although we can all expand our repertoire of teaching practices, there is always a limit to how much we can manage. I cannot turn myself into a visual teacher ready to incorporate body movement into my teaching and a Whizz at social media. I can try to broaden my skills to incorporate elements of these things but I am always working from within the framework of who I am as a learner and person. I like words so I tend to teach with words. I like order so I tend to teach with lists and itemized classroom agendas. But add another one or two teachers to the classroom and the experiential background of instruction broadens, as does the range of personalities involved. As an introvert I work well with extraverts. I can call for pauses and silence in class in a way that extraverts omit. My extraverted colleague can give necessary presentations with greater punch and energy than I am capable of. The important point is that each member of the team knows their colleague’s preferences, habits and styles, and that they keep in mind the need to provide a breadth of instructional approaches. I like to teach through narrative disclosure but have often taught with someone who is a strong theorist. He kept me from overdoing a self-indulgent use of autobiography, and I was able to punctuate his wholly theoretical explanations with narrative examples. Because we knew each of us had these tendencies this alternation worked. We were able to let students know that we brought different things to the pedagogic table.

 Teaching Critical Thinking and the Role of Team Teaching

2. Team Teaching Models Respectful Disagreement One of the meta-agendas of higher education is teaching students how to disagree in ways that keeps further communication open. This ability is at the heart of critical thinking. Models of student development that describe a critical thinking arc (Evans, Forney, Guido, Patton & Renn, 2010; Jones and Abes, 2013) stress the movement students make from dualistic, right/wrong thinking, through multiplistic relativity, to arrive at a stage of critically informed commitment. This movement involves learning to live with contradiction and disagreement, something Basseches (2005) explores in his work on the development of dialectical thinking in young adults. He reports how difficult it is for students to hold two contradictory ideas in tension without needing to decide that one is definitively correct and one clearly wrong. A teaching team can model how to explore a dialectical tension by stating different positions on an issue and then demonstrating how each member strives to understand the other’s viewpoint. Members can summarize each other’s positions, check that they have understood these correctly and ask questions designed to elicit why these positions are held. They can then critique these positions and end by summarizing how the discussion has confirmed and challenged their perspective.

3. Team Teaching Creates a Learning Environment of Risk and Uncertainty The prospect of thinking critically is often unsettling to students who sense that questioning certitudes and opening themselves up to new ways of understanding content involves risk and uncertainty. But if college is indeed a “dynamic, complex and often unsettling place” (Plank, 2011, p. 3) this dissonance can be productive in terms of fostering critical thinking. In team teaching there is no one clear source of authority and knowledge in the classroom. This can create an environment of

discovery and inquiry. For example, Ouellett and Fraser’s (2011) account of team teaching describes how one of them would have an unplanned idea in the middle of the class and ask the other in front of the students if she or he would be willing to try something new, on the spot. As they report “we were committed to modeling the intellectual and social learning and risk taking we were asking of students” (p. 76). Risk-taking involves uncertainty and pause. When a colleague asks me a question in front of the students and I do not have a good answer on the tip of my tongue, I say that I need a moment’s pause to think about this before replying. I always try to take plenty of time to think about my response as a way of socializing students to be more comfortable with periods of silence in class. Sometimes I will then say “you know I don’t have a good response for that question, I need to think more about it – can we come back to it later?” Alternatively, I will state my answer hesitatingly, maybe saying something like “I’m not really sure how to answer that, but as a first pass what I’m thinking might be the case is A.” Students need models of pause and hesitation just as much as they need confident declarations of your disciplinary authority. Team teaching allows students to see how we stumbling, pause, and double back as we try on new perspectives or understandings.

4. Team Teaching Confronts Students with a Broad Variety of Perspectives The ability to explore alternative ways of understanding content, to see things from multiple theoretical perspectives or analytical frameworks, is central to thinking critically. Indeed, this is probably the most frequently cited reason for team teaching (Eisen & Tisdell, 2000; Plank, 2011). When a solo teacher tries to convey the different viewpoints or theoretical frameworks that exist on an issue he or she is always working within

261

 Teaching Critical Thinking and the Role of Team Teaching

the confines of being a singular voice. Earlier I outlined various ways to use the geography of the classroom to underscore and emphasize how different perspectives can be taken, such as teaching from different positions in the room. But nothing beats team teaching for conveying this properly. Team teaching allows your partner to pose a question or contribute an insight that opens you up to a genuinely new way of thinking about something. After all, it is not just students who are learning about the subject in a team taught classroom.

5. Team Teaching Demonstrates Synthesis, Connection, and Integration Critical thinking that draws from the analytical philosophy tradition places a premium on the ability to synthesize and connect information, concepts and forms of reasoning drawn from multiple sources. This is why the most frequent use of team teaching happens in interdisciplinary and integrative studies seminars (Duchovic, 2011; Jessen-Marshall & Lescinsky, 2011). Here scholars from different disciplines collaborate to teach a core topic from multiple standpoints. Although this allows a variety of perspectives to be brought to bear on an issue, it also permits faculty to model synthesis and integration. Many times in team teaching a colleague with a different disciplinary training has advanced an idea, explained a concept, or reported a finding that has contained similarities or connected to something I knew. I am then able to draw that connection and show students different disciplines share fundamental parallels often hidden by disciplinary-specific language. Synthesizing and integrating knowledge and frameworks from different topics is the ultimate cognitive challenge. It is unreasonable to expect students to be able to do this without some assistance and demonstration of what this looks like. In team-teaching we can hear a colleague explain an idea or contribute some information and then show students how we connect it to our own stock

262

of knowledge. Perhaps a colleague provides an example to illustrate a concept and we see how that same example illustrates concepts we are interested in. make an integrative, meta-comment that ties together different strands of analysis.

6. It Allows Students to See the Importance of Giving Appreciation Giving appreciation is one of the least practiced dispositions of higher learning. This is unfortunate given that significant learning such as thinking more critically rarely happens in isolation. Our understanding progresses because someone poses a problem, question or contradiction to us. Or, they share a perspective that challenges our familiar ways of thinking. Academic culture requires us to show appreciation for the way someone else has helped us learn. The members of a team can demonstrate this behavior for students. We can thank each other for the good questions our colleague poses for us, for the ways that an example he provides finally clarifies our understanding of something, and for the clarity of an exposition or the different perspective she brings. This does not have to be cloying or routinized and it should always be tied to learning, in other words to how our colleague’s contribution has deepened our own understanding or suggested a new learning project for us.

THE BENEFITS TO FACULTY OF TEACHING IN TEAMS Team teaching brings benefits not just for students. I always look forward to a team-taught class in a way that’s absent when I work solo. When teaching on my own I pretty much know what I will do and say. Occasionally students’ questions can take me by surprise and I find myself explaining something in a new way that just seems to pop into my head. But these moments are pretty rare when I work solo. In a team, however, there is always an

 Teaching Critical Thinking and the Role of Team Teaching

element of the unanticipated waiting in the wings, and that makes the class more enjoyable for me. I also know that I have someone watching my back pedagogically speaking, a partner who can jump in to help me out when something I try seems to be lagging. In literature examining the experience of team teaching (Eisen & Tisdell, 2000; Plank, 2011; Jennings, 2012) it seems that three broad benefits are conferred.

1. It Provides Emotional Support In The Skillful Teacher (Brookfield, 2006) I wrote of the sense of impostorship that faculty, as well as students, feel in the classroom. In my own case impostorship – feeling like a fraud – is a permanent feature of my life. I am very hard on myself and feel that I am some kind of fraud to be regarded as competent, even expert. This external perception of competence is in stark contrast to my feelings about my practice. I usually leave class feeling that I have fallen well short of where I want to be as a teacher. Sometimes things have seemed too sluggish, sometimes I am unable to get students participating, and sometimes something takes me completely by surprise and my shock at this unexpected event means I cannot craft a good response. When any of these things happens it is always much easier to navigate if I teach with a colleague. My partner can take up the slack in a sluggish class by posing new questions, or introducing new tasks. If an activity I try falls flat and all I can think about is how badly I introduced or ran it, my teaching partner will often respond helpfully by pointing out other parts of the class that worked well.

2. It Develops Trustful Relationships In her account of team teaching a course at Luther Seminary in St. Paul, Ramsey (2008) argues that the degree to which a team-taught course is help-

ful for student learning is the degree to which the team members trust each other. Thinking about the benefits that team teaching confers for student learning, it seems to me that the trust Ramsey speaks of undergirds all of these. We cannot model disagreement or take risks unless we trust that our partner will welcome our disagreement or support our risk-taking. Again, students will only be persuaded of the legitimacy of different perspectives if we show that we take our colleague’s different viewpoint seriously. And, of course, giving appreciation is inherently trustful. In their account of co-teaching an interdisciplinary science course, Ouellett and Fraser (2011) each emphasize the vulnerability that team teaching entails. Ouellett writes how for her “Team teaching requires a certain vulnerability. I’ve found that I have to be both vulnerable and confident to make it work…to be open to compromise with and critique my partner, and yet be confident enough to stand on my own and take the best of the critique forward to influence my teaching” (Ouellett & Fraser, p. 32). Similarly Fraser writes of his fear at having a knowledgeable and capable colleague in the room watching him and of how “There is a real vulnerability that makes me strive to ensure that my information is up to date and correct in every detail …(and) to make sure my teaching style and pedagogy were flawless” (Ouellett & Fraser, p. 33). Vulnerability is the flip side of trust. The more we trust our colleagues the more we are willing to reveal our vulnerability to them. Speaking for myself, there have been precious few environments in my life where I have perceived myself to be in a trustful relationship, particularly at work. But my team teaching experiences are overwhelmingly like that. There are exceptions – times when I felt that agreements we had made were then ignored – but they are remembered much less readily than the times I felt I could trust my partner to support my pedagogy and extend my learning.

263

 Teaching Critical Thinking and the Role of Team Teaching

3. It Creates a Built-In Critically Reflective Mirror An axiomatic truth in teaching critical thinking is that it happens best when peers bring a new perspective to your attention, or help you clarify the reasons you hold an assumption. One of the core assumptions of skillful teaching is that the best teachers are themselves critically reflective. They are constantly trying to judge the accuracy of their assumptions about how best to help students learn, and constantly trying to elicit new perspectives on the class. Team teaching offers a wonderful opportunity for critical reflection. A colleague’s perspective on a class, her interpretation of classroom events and her analysis of why things did, or did not work, provide an immensely helpful lens through which we can view our practice. No solo teacher can expect to have an auctioneer’s eye that records every gesture, body change or movement in the class. In my own case, when I am trying to explain something as clearly as possible I usually look at the floor or up into the middle distance. I have one colleague who closes his eyes whenever he strives to explain a point. In such situations I, or my colleague, will miss an enormous amount of what is going on. We will fail to notice students who are trying to get into the conversation, we will miss students who are shopping online for clothes or checking Facebook, and we won’t know who is engaged, and who is falling asleep. A teaching colleague who is not taking the responsibility for leading the class at that particular moment can serve as a second eye watching out for cues we are missing. I find this particularly helpful in alerting me to students I have overlooked who have questions, or who wish to contribute in some way. Critical reflection is also particularly with understanding better the power dynamics of classrooms and the subtleties of how we exercise our own power as teachers (Brookfield, 1995).

264

When I have a colleague in the room I can model a sharing of power. One can interrupt the other without fear of retribution, and each stand their own intellectual ground without implying that a colleague’s differing view has no merit. If we break the class into small groups we can cover double the amount of groups we visit. We can keep each other’s tendency to talk too much in check. And we can make sure we hold each other to the fire of allowing maximum opportunities for students’ participation.

WHAT DO SUCCESSFUL TEACHING TEAMS TO SUPPORT CRITICAL THINKING LOOK LIKE? Good team teaching does not happen by accident. Just doubling or tripling the number of people responsible for a class does not automatically double or triple the learning students undertake. When we look at what successful teaching teams do (Fattig & Taylor, 2007; Jennings, 2012) we can see that certain very predictable elements are in place. They commit to planning, conducting, debriefing and evaluating all activities together. They know each other’s personality well enough to be able to negotiate the rhythms of their joint practice. They bring different experiences, talents and bodies of knowledge to the pedagogic table. And they exercise joint authority in the classroom.

1. Effective Teams Plan, Conduct, Evaluate, and Debrief All Activities Together This is the sine qua non of team teaching. If this condition is not in place then you have sequenced solo teaching, which can be very beneficial, but is not team teaching. Of course meeting this requirement, while it makes for an excellent learning experience for students, is more time-consuming for you. As the team teaching colleagues in Plank’s

 Teaching Critical Thinking and the Role of Team Teaching

(2011) anthology all acknowledge, it’s much easier to ‘wing it’ when you are the only teacher involved. It’s also easier to pass off incorrect explanations as accurate! Teams vary in regards to how they divide up necessary responsibilities. One person will often take responsibility for writing the first draft of the syllabus, while another will be the go-between taking care of audio-visual needs of the course. I have never worked in a team that has held joint office hours, but there is certainly no reason why that should not happen. The one activity that all should be present for is the face-to-face time with the students. Even if the topic for that day’s class is one where you feel you have little to contribute in terms of disciplinary knowledge, this can be a real advantage. You can serve a useful role as temporary learner, trying to imagine this is the first time you’ve ever heard the content and thinking about the questions students might have. You can also help make connections for the class between new material your colleague is delivering and content or skills that have already been covered. One important element of team teaching is presenting a relatively unified front where policies are concerned. This extends particularly to grading policies. Both faculty members should read and grade all student work. If this is logistically impossible and team members have to alternate taking prime responsibility for grading different assignments, then the instructor who is not marking should view maybe a ten per cent sample of the work submitted, to make sure they are on board with the grading practice of their colleague. Specifying the criteria by which students work will be assessed is crucial in any classroom, but never more so than in a team-taught course. Ideally, it should be possible for either faculty member to slot into the grading role and assign the same grade or number of points for any particular piece of work. Richter and Thomas’ (2011) describe how, in a team-taught course on “Arts and the Community”, the two of them see all student work but trade off the responsibility for giving feedback.

Another option is to divide a week’s assignments into two halves with each instructor making more extensive comments on their half, but agreeing to add brief comments to the assignments in the half they did not have responsibility for grading.

2. Skillful Teams Make Explicit Their Ways of Working Together In research for The Skillful Teacher (Brookfield, 2006) I emphasized how students value teachers making full disclosure of the reasons behind their teaching actions. When we apply this insight to team teaching it is clear that part of what makes a successful team is team members talking out loud how they see themselves working together. Part of this disclosure will certainly have to do with formal matters like assessing students’ work, the construction of the syllabus or the selection of required texts. But there should also be a discussion of how the team members acknowledge, build on, and respond to, the diverse elements each member brings. In teams in which I have worked we typically start off the course by talking about the content strengths each of us has, and what we look to gain from working with each other. We will talk about our different personalities and how these manifest themselves in our decision-making and in how we run the class. For example, my colleague Steve Preskill loves the energy of whole class discussion whilst I am always anxious to move to small group applications. As good friends for over twenty years we also have an ease joking with each other. From feedback we know we need to let students know just how much we communicate through teasing, lest it seem we are engaged in a passive aggressive attempt to belittle and sabotage each other.

3. Good Teams Exercise Joint Authority in the Classroom Although team teaching is typically conducted with one member of the team having temporary

265

 Teaching Critical Thinking and the Role of Team Teaching

responsibility for leading the class, both members need to be regarded as having roughly equal authority. There will always be times when one instructor has more knowledge or experience than another, but when this is the case the teacher with less content knowledge has an important role to play as a skillful questioner and also as an observer of the class to ensure that everybody is getting the chance to participate. When one person is clearly going to be front and center the team should tell the class they acknowledge that’s the case. If you neglect to do this students may be left wondering why the other member of the team is not saying much that particular day. For example, have team members had a disagreement just before class? Joint authority can be exercised through the lead teacher checking in with her partner to make sure that she is being understood and that her comments or activities are helping students learn required content. When I’m occupying a secondary role my more knowledgeable will frequently turn to me and ask “what do I need to go over again?”, or “what should I provide more examples for?” This way the teacher without the content credibility still has an important role to play as an advocate for students’ learning.

CONCLUSION The dynamics of team-teaching are particularly well suited to teaching for critical thinking. This approach allows for faculty to model scholarly inquiry, respectful disagreement, perspective taking, critical questioning, appreciation, embracing risk and tolerating ambiguity. As such, it should be the de-facto pedagogical approach for any institution seeking to foster critical thinking in students. Yet most team teaching exhibits a fundamental contradiction having to do with students’ evaluation of instruction. You teach a course with a colleague where students are benefitting from the interaction between the two or three of you, but

266

then you are evaluated as if you were teaching solo! To me there is nothing more frustrating than to spend many hours fine tuning the personal and pedagogic relationship with a colleague to benefit students and then never have this be evaluated. When it comes to evaluating the instructional success of a team-taught course – an important element in determining merit pay and tenure for faculty in many institutions – the protocols for assessing team and solo-taught courses should differ significantly. In team-taught courses evaluative items should ask students to assess how well the team worked together. Did they share the same understandings of assignments, grading policies, deadlines and criteria used to assess students’ work? Did they model a respectful disagreement by providing examples of critical conversation on key topics? Did they regularly share alternative perspectives and engage each other in exploring these? Did they demonstrate the giving of appreciation for each other’s specific talents and contributions in class? To what degree did they provide examples to clarify each other’s explanations? All these elements need to be present in any instrument evaluating team teaching.

REFERENCES Adams, K. L. (2001). The critical incident questionnaire: A critical reflective teaching tool.” In, Exchanges: The Online Journal of Teaching and Learning in the CSU, 2001. Retrieved on Feb. 22nd, 2014 from http://www.exchangesjournal. org/classroom/ciq_pg1.html Andolina, M. (2002). Practical guide to critical thinking. Albany, NY: Delmar/Thomson Learning. Andolina, N. (2000). Critical thinking for working students. Albany, NY: Delmar/Thomson Learning. Barnet, S., & Bedau, H. (2005). Critical thinking, reading, and writing: A brief guide to argument. Bedford: St. Martin’s.

 Teaching Critical Thinking and the Role of Team Teaching

Basseches, M. (2005). The development of dialectical thinking as an approach to integration. Integral Review, 1, 47-63. Brookfield, S. D. (1995). Becoming a critically reflective teacher. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Brookfield, S. D. (2006). The skillful teacher: On trust, risk and responsiveness in the classroom (2nd ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Brookfield, S. D. (2012). Teaching for critical thinking: Tools and techniques to help students question their assumptions. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Evans, N. J., Forney, D. S., Guido, F. M., Patton, L. D., & Renn, K. A. (2010). Student development in college: Theory, research and practice. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Fattig, M. L., & Taylor, M. T. (2007). Co-teaching in the differentiated classroom: Successful collaboration, lesson design, and classroom management. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Finkel, D. L. (2000). Teaching with your mouth shut. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. Fisher, A. (2001). Critical thinking: An introduction. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Browne, M. N., & Keeley, S. M. (2007). Asking the right questions: A guide to critical thinking. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson/Prentice Hall.

Flew, A. (1998). How to think straight: An introduction to critical reasoning (2nd ed.). Amherst, NY: Prometheus.

Chaffee, J. (2006). Thinking critically (8th ed.). Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

Freire, P. (2005). Education for critical consciousness. New York: Continuum.

Chaffee, J. (2008). The philosopher’s way: Thinking critically about profound ideas (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson/Prentice Hall.

Glowacki-Dudka, M., & Barnett, N. (2007). Connecting critical reflection and group development in online adult education classrooms. International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 19(1), 43–52.

Conrad, M. F. (2008). How to stop assumicide: How to think critically about what you believe without destroying your faith. Tallahassee, FL: The Learning Doctor. Cooper, S., & Patton, R. (2006). Writing logically, thinking critically (6th ed.). New York: Pearson/ Longman. Duchovic, R. J. (2011). Lessons learned from an interdisciplinary course in Undergraduate science. In K. M. Plank (Ed.), Team teaching: Across the disciplines, across the academy (pp. 97–118). Sterling, VA: Stylus Publishing. Eisen, M., & Tisdell, E. J. (Eds.). (2000). Team teaching and learning in adult education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Jennings, M. J. (2012). Teaching for results: Best practices in integrating co-teaching and differentiated instruction. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield. Jessen-Marshall, A., & Lescinsky, H. L. (2011). Team teaching in the sciences. In K. M. Plank (Ed.), Team teaching: Across the disciplines, across the academy (pp. 13–35). Sterling, VA: Stylus Publishing. Jones, S. R., & Abes, E. S. (2013). Identity development of college students: Advancing frameworks for multiple dimensions of identity. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

267

 Teaching Critical Thinking and the Role of Team Teaching

Keefer, J. (2009). The critical incident questionnaire: From research to practice and back again. In, Proceedings of the 2009 Adult Education Research Conference. Chicago: Dept. of Adult and Continuing Education, National Louis University, 177-182.

Ramsey, J. (2008). But can we trust the Lord? Using team-teaching to model trust within and beyond the classroom. In M. J. Hess & S. D. Brookfield (Eds.), Teaching reflectively in theological contexts: Promises and contradictions. Malabar, Florida: Krieger Publishers.

McInerny, D. Q. (2005). Being logical: A guide to good thinking. New York: Random House.

Richter, R. A., & Thomas, M. E. (2011). Arts and community: Lessons in team teaching. In K. M. Plank (Ed.), Team teaching: Across the disciplines, across the academy (pp. 55–72). Sterling, VA: Stylus Publishing.

McWhorter, K. T. (2008). Study and critical thinking skills in college (6th ed.). New York: Pearson/Longman. Mezirow, J. (1991). Transformative dimensions of adult learning. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Mezirow, J. et al. (2000). Learning as transformation: Critical perspectives on a theory in progress. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Nosich, G. M. (2009). Learning to think things through: A guide to critical thinking across the curriculum (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson/Prentice Hall. Ouellett, M. L., & Fraser, E. (2011). Interracial team teaching in social work. In K. M. Plank (Ed.), Team teaching: Across the disciplines, across the academy (pp. 73–90). Sterling, VA: Stylus Publishing. Paul, R. W., & Elder, L. (2005). Critical thinking: Tools for taking charge of your professional and personal Life (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson/Prentice Hall. Pharo, E. J., Davison, A., Warr, K., Nursey-Bray, M., Beswick, K., Wapstra, E., & Jones, C. (2012). Can teacher collaboration overcome barriers to interdiscplinary learning in a disciplinary university? A case study using climate change. Teaching in Higher Education, 17(5), 497–507. doi:10.10 80/13562517.2012.658560 Plank, K. M. (Ed.). (2011). Team teaching: Across the disciplines, across the academy. Sterling, VA: Stylus Publishing.

268

Ruggerio, V. R. (2006). Becoming a critical thinker: A master student text (6th ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth. Schick, T. Jr, & Vaughn, L. (2002). How to think about weird things: Critical thinking for a new age (3rd ed.). New York: McGraw Hill. Shor, I. (Ed.). (1987). Freire for the classroom: A sourcebook for liberatory teaching. Portsmouth, NH: Boynton Cook. Thomson, A. (2008). Critical reasoning: A practical introduction (3rd ed.). New York: Routledge. Wall, T. F. (2003). Thinking critically and moral problems. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth/Thompson Learning. Waller, B. (2004). Critical thinking: Consider the verdict (5th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson/Prentice Hall.

ADDITIONAL READING Allman, P. (2001). Critical education against global capitalism: Karl Marx and revolutionary critical education. Westport, CT: Bergin & Garvey. Bassham, G., Irwin, W., Nardone, H., & Wallace, J. M. (2007). Critical thinking: A student’s introduction (3rd ed.). New York: McGraw Hill.

 Teaching Critical Thinking and the Role of Team Teaching

Brookfield, S. D. (2004). The power of critical theory: Liberating adult learning and teaching. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Paul, R. W., & Elder, L. (2006). The thinker’s guide to fallacies: The art of mental trickery. Tomales, CA: Foundation for Critical Thinking.

Brookfield, S. D. (2012). Teaching for critical thinking: Tools to help students question their assumptions. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Paul, R. W., & Elder, L. (2006). The thinker’s guide for conscientious citizens on how to detect media bias and propaganda. Tomales, CA: Foundation for Critical Thinking.

Brookfield, S. D., & Holst, J. D. (2010). Radicalizing learning: Adult education for a just world. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Brookfield, S. D., & Preskill, S. (2004). Discussion as a way of teaching: Tools and techniques for democratic classrooms (2nd ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Diestler, S. (2005). Becoming a critical thinker: A user friendly manual (5th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson/Prentice Hall. Elder, L., & Paul, R. W. (2006). The miniature guide to the art of asking essential questions. Tomales, CA: Foundation for Critical Thinking. Elder, L., & Paul, R. W. (2010). The thinker’s guide to analytic thinking. Tomales, CA: Foundation for Critical Thinking.

Paul, R. W., & Elder, L. (2007). The thinker’s guide to the art of Socratic questioning. Tomales, CA: Foundation for Critical Thinking. Paul, R. W., & Elder, L. (2007). The thinker’s guide to how to write a paragraph. Tomales, CA: Foundation for Critical Thinking. Paul, R. W., & Elder, L. (2007). The thinker’s guide for students on how to study and learn a discipline. Tomales, CA: Foundation for Critical Thinking. Paul, R. W., & Elder, L. (2008). The thinker’s guide to how to read a paragraph. Tomales, CA: Foundation for Critical Thinking. Ruggerio, V. R. (1990). Beyond feelings: A guide to critical thinking. Mountain View, CA: Mayfield.

Holst, J. D. (2002). Social movements, civil society, and radical adult education. Westport, CT.

Shor, I., & Freire, P. (1987). A pedagogy of liberation. Westport, CT: Bergin & Garvey.

Hooks, B. (1994). Teaching to transgress: Education as the practice of freedom. New York: Routledge.

Shor, I., & Pari, C. (Eds.). (1999). Education is politics: Critical teaching across differences, K-12. Portsmouth, NH: Boynton Cook.

McMahon, C. (Ed.). (2005). Critical thinking: Unfinished business. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Vaughan, L. (2009). The power of critical thinking: Effective reasoning about ordinary and extraordinary laims (3rd ed.). New York: Oxford University Press.

Pari, C., & Shor, I. (Eds.). (2000). Education is politics: Critical teaching across differences, postsecondary. Portsmouth, NH: Boynton Cook. Paul, R. W., & Elder, L. (2005). Critical thinking: Tools for taking charge of your professional and personal life. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson/ Prentice Hall.

Willingham, D. (2001). Critical thinking: Why is it so hard to teach? American Educator, 31, 2, 8–19. Zamudio, M., Russell, C., Rios, F., & Bridgeman, J. L. (2010). Critical race theory matters: Education and ideology. New York: Routledge.

269

 Teaching Critical Thinking and the Role of Team Teaching

KEY TERMS AND DEFINITIONS Assumptions Audit: the practice of instructors stopping every 15 or 20 minutes to re-cap for students the assumptions that have informed the explanations they have been giving and the material they have been describing. Critical Incident Questionnaire: a five-item classroom response tool used to model critical thinking. Critical Thinking: the process of uncovering and researching assumptions that frame what counts as legitimate knowledge, largely by exploring multiple perspectives. Disorienting Dilemma: an event that takes students by surprise thus temporarily stimulating a new perspective on something or a desire to resolve some cognitive dissonance. Point-Counterpoint: a team-teaching tool whereby instructors ask each other questions,

270

disagree respectfully, introduce new perspectives to each other and give feedback about each other’s assumptions. Scenario Analysis: a brief fictional vignette designed to teach critical thinking by requiring students to uncover assumptions held by scholars in their field of study. Speaking in Tongues: a technique whereby teachers speak from different parts of the classroom to underscore a difference in perspectives. Structured Devil’s Advocacy: a teaching tool in which instructors move to a different place in the room and critique the presentation they have just made. Team Teaching: teaching conducted by two or more instructors where all planning, simultaneous teaching and evaluation are the responsibility of all members of the team.

271

Chapter 12

Watching TV News:

Should We Approach It Like Reality TV? Joseph Albert Cernik Lindenwood University, USA

ABSTRACT This chapter focuses on the shortcomings of learning about complex policy issues from television news. The chapter uses the Vanderbilt University Television News Archive website to examine issues raised and not raised by television news, as well as the duration of time spent on issues by news shows. Examining the limitations of television news’ ability to present and address complex public policy issues serves as a means to focus on critical thinking in the higher education setting. Two public policy issues are explored in this chapter, Constitutional interpretation and the Affordable Care Act, sometimes referred to as ObamaCare, as the means to show how limited television news is regarding presenting the often frustrating aspects of complex policy issues. Several methods used by the author to help students apply critical thinking skills are discussed. The results of these methods are also addressed.

INTRODUCTION A legendary Hollywood director, John Ford, thought he was making a movie about the image or the myth of the Old West—but there is another way to see it. Ford’s movie was, The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance, released in 1962, starring, John Wayne, Jimmy Stewart, Lee Marvin, and Vera Miles. The movie says a great deal about how certain ways of thinking sometimes set in and become patterns that are difficult to break. Starting with this movie as an insight into how to watch television news, particularly what often passes for news on the 24-hour cable news chan-

nels, provides a means to step back and think about how to approach the watching of television news—particularly cable news. The movie starts with United States Senator Ransome ‘Ranse’ Stoddard (played by Jimmy Stewart) and his wife, Hallie (played by Vera Miles) arriving by train in a western town called Shinbone to attend the funeral of Tom Doniphon (played by John Wayne). Reporters interrupt him and want to know why this well-known man is here attending the funeral of Doniphon. Stoddard takes the moment to stop and think that this is time to explain something that involved him and Doniphon, which had occurred many years earlier.

DOI: 10.4018/978-1-4666-8411-9.ch012

Copyright © 2015, IGI Global. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.

 Watching TV News

The scene changes to that earlier period many years before, where Stoddard enters Shinbone to start a newspaper. Eventually he comes into conflict with Liberty Valance (played by Lee Marvin), who symbolizes the image of the gunfighter of the Old West. Tensions between the two reach their peak when Valance calls out Stoddard to have a gunfight in the middle of the street. Knowing that Stoddard will be killed, as he is no match for Valance, Hallie races to get Doniphon to help save her true love (previously she had been Doniphon’s girlfriend). Doniphon arrives in time to hide next to the building, and as Valance draws on Stoddard, Doniphon shoots, killing Valance. The movie scene changes back to present where Stoddard is ending his story to the newspaper reporters and watches as a reporter crumples his story and throws it away. The exchange goes: STODDARD: You’re not going to use the story, Mr. Scott? REPORTER: This is the west, sir. When the legend becomes fact, print the legend. A study that analyzed the press commented in somewhat similar fashion, although not as eloquently as the exchange between Stoddard and a reporter: “Perceptions of media bias may be driven in part by assertions that the creature is real: The more discussion there is of a media bias, the more people believe that such bias exists, regardless of whether the news at a particular moment is more favorable to Democrats or Republicans” (Jamieson & Walden, 2003, p. 169) Patterns, ways of thinking, establish themselves and we need to question what we have come to accept. The term commonly used to question what we come to accept and then to challenge our reasoning is ‘critical thinking.’ The term itself is not always easy to clearly define as one writer stated, “The critical thinking literature is quite abstract and fragmented among different scholars who

272

don’t seem to talk to each other” (Nilson, 2014, p. 1). Although at its core there is the desire to instill in people, students in particular, the goal of questioning what they read or, in the case of this chapter, see on television. Another writer referred to the challenge of teaching thinking as “critical consumption and thinking skills” (Jolly, 2014, p. 1). This particular phrasing might more aptly apply to what is addressed by this chapter: Encouraging students to develop different approaches toward how they ‘consume’ television news. There are some that raise the issue of a ‘dumbing down’ of a public in general, maybe students in particular, regarding a decline in critical thinking skills—particularly as related to watching television (Williams, 2014). Newton Minnow as Chairman of the Federal Communications Commission, in May 1961, referred to television as a ‘vast wasteland’ and the phrase is still referred to often as a way to justify the denigration of television. However, I am not sure that pushing this approach toward encouraging critical thinking is always useful. The notion of looking at students and in some way inferring or implying to them that critical thinking can somehow ‘save’ them from becoming or remaining ‘dumb’ seems counterproductive. A better approach is to see television news as presenting an opportunity to open up ways of thinking. If, at its most common level, critical thinking is simply an attempt to encourage ways of questioning and thinking, then use television news as the stepping off point. This approach helps to show the limitations of watching television news, and helping by pointing a direction toward critical thinking. Television news, again particularly what seems to dominate cable news coverage imposes a liberal/conservative perspective, which needs to be challenged. The format of television news often requires the simplicity of a liberal/conservative structure that aids in avoiding nuance, dilemma, conundrum, and those things that create frustration

 Watching TV News

in how to make sense of the world around us. In the study by Jamieson and Walden, they referred to the “use [of] the metaphor of frames.” Framing, is a nice political term, where a story, an issue, is constructed, maybe to help a television viewer more easily grasp a complex issue or topic. Framing is often used by politicians and campaigns to get the public to see something from their point of view. While useful for a political campaign or even a television news show that wants to easily fit a segment about a topic into the desired minutes and seconds, this approach is not helpful in explaining complex issues to television viewers--something gets lost in the translation, and that something is important to understand regarding how to approach teaching about watching TV news. Several years ago a local television news station, where I have been a frequent political analyst over the course of more than a decade, asked me to respond to a local Tea Party organizer. This particular gentleman used his very short period of time (perhaps two minutes or less) to remark how President Barrack Obama had violated the United States Constitution by pushing his health care law (the Affordable Care Act). I was equally given about the same amount of time and could simply respond that the Constitution was filled with both some very specific language and a great deal of ambiguous terminology. The end result, I felt, was that he won the debate—assuming it was some type of a debate. He said something short and to his point, and completely filled with nonsense, and I responded in an equally short way, which I suspect was not heard or understood by most of the television audience: He won. Repeat something enough and legend becomes fact. In this case, that President Obama violated the Constitution. What in the Constitution was violated was not clear to me—even as I was participating in this television exchange. Because of the way this segment of the news was structured, I could

not ask the Tea Party representative what exactly in the Constitution he was referring to as being violated by the President. I am well aware from numerous television appearances that there are time limits to news segments, and I cannot violate the principle of doing anything that might push the boundaries of the allotted time. The point here is to not defend the policies of the Obama Administration, since one of the things, I suspect, that might be assumed by some reading up to this point, is that since I was ‘on the other side’ opposite this Tea Party representative, then I was there to support the Obama Administration policies—this was not supposed to be the case. Trying to very briefly explain how to look at and understand how to read the United States Constitution was completely lost: He won; his simple-to-understand statement was all that was needed, and the format of television news helped him: Legend becomes fact. What is needed is to get away from assuming an either/or, one-side-or-the-other, that the grass is greener on the other side of the mountain, the choice is between this and that: None of that helps you to understand how to watch television news. A simple format is very useful for television news editors, it is useful for pundits interested in holding an audience (since you, the viewer, hold the power of disinterest in your hands with your remote control ready to change to the History channel and their show on Area 51 or the Animal Planet as they search for Big Foot). It is even useful for politicians who are invited on news shows to say something that sounds thoughtful but is usually nothing more than babble, and are remarks that have been refined with the aid of a media consultant. Go watch another movie that was specifically on politics: The Candidate (released in 1972 and starring Robert Redford). Redford plays a Senate candidate in California trying to unseat the incumbent, and as the movie progresses, Redford seems

273

 Watching TV News

to get lost in empty, vacuous statements—the bread and butter of the campaign trail. After he wins the election, he turns to his media advisor and says, “What do we do now?” The liberal/conservative format serves the interests of many, but not the viewer who needs to become enlightened about the complexities of public policy. Furthermore, the liberal/conservative format does not help address problem-solving on public policy issues. Liberal/conservative can and does exist but more thought needs to be given to how it differs from what you get from television news. If you want complexity, frustration, choices that leave no one satisfied (so politics), watch Law & Order.

BACKGROUND Lindenwood University offers a short January term between the Fall and Spring Semesters. During this three week period, faculty can offer a course that is less traditional and opens up a wide variety of specific issues that can be explored, from Toast Masters Workshop to Introduction to Fly Rod Building and Trip Preparation, to God Wants You to Be Happy, to in my case, teaching a course on Watching Television News. During the January 2014 term course, I had the students watch two segments from FOX News, collectively lasting less than ten minutes, which focused on two assaults in September 2012 on the American diplomatic compound in Benghazi, Libya, in which four Americans, including the American ambassador, were killed and ten others were injured. I had the students then complete a questionnaire, which included the following: 1) Based on these two FOX New stories what do you know? 2) Regarding President Obama and Benghazi, using the following 6-point scale, where do you fall regarding blame-to-no-blame; 3) Using the following 7-point scale (very liberal to very

274

conservative) where do you place yourself, and; 4) What questions do you have after watching these two stories? The same exercise was repeated several days later, but this time the students were handed a lengthy New York Times article on the Benghazi tragedy and asked to address the same questions. The first question was, however, changed to read: Based on this New York Times article what do you know? I kept all these questionnaires for both situations, and then after going through them, gave them back to the students. Several observations about these questionnaires were: 1) Regarding the 6-point scale addressing assigning blame, student responses did not change in any significant ways. So, reading the New York Times article did not suddenly lead to some massive shift in blame away from President Obama (for those students who had assigned him blame) or toward the President (for those students who had not assigned him blame). Some reading this might assume that watching FOX News first and then reading the New York Times might lead to some recognizable shift in blame, but that was not the case. 2) Regarding the 7-point liberal to conservative scale, again there was no noticeable shift in political attitudes. But, here it might be difficult to expect any shifts just because a student sees one or two television segments or reads one newspaper article. 3) The real noticeable difference was with the first question (Based on what you saw or read, what do you know?). In the case of student responses after watching the two FOX News segments, a number of students used bullet points, responses were short and lacked any substance and were often disjointed. After reading the New York Times

 Watching TV News

article, students wrote essays, often a page in length—and there were no bullet points used whatsoever. In neither case (FOX News or the New York Times) did I suggest they use or not use bullet points to write their essays. This was decided by themselves. One student wrote after watching the two FOX News segments (using bullet points for all three statements): ‘Four American dead’, ‘Al Qaeda implications’, and ‘Won’t really know what happened’ until Hillary Clinton is put in front of the Senate. The same student, after reading the New York Times article made eight statements including the following three: ‘Mr. Stevens [the American ambassador killed] did not die at the scene but later at the hospital from too much smoke in his lungs, Witnesses say that a vehicle was traveling through the annex and the attackers moved in order for it to pass, Early rumors had Al Qaeda involved, however later allegations blamed Khattala.’ In the case of another student, after watching the two FOX News segments, the student’s responses were: ‘Senator from South Carolina isn’t happy with the progress made about the Benghazi stories, Four Americans were killed and nothing is being solved, and Senator is a Republican.’ The same student, after reading the New York Times article, wrote a one-page essay, the first three sentences of that essay were: ‘Regarding the killings in Benghazi, the article reveals in detail the views of many people and their interpretation the event. It reveals the role that Al Qaeda played in the event. Even though this article was extremely detailed, it still left a lot of unanswered questions.’

the greater coherency of their formulated understanding of an issue after reading a newspaper article, than was the case from watching TV news segments. Helping students recognize how they formulate their understanding of an issue depending on where they receive information is essential to critical thinking, where television news as a source of information can be shown as having limitations regarding what it can provide.

From the responses of these two students, it is possible to see a contrast in how each student thought through their understanding after watching a TV news show and after reading a newspaper article. Also important is that students notice

In the case of watching TV news and formulating questions, the student questions were more open-ended and not as easy for students to seek answers about on their own. Contrasted with the questions students raised after reading a newspaper

4) Regarding the fourth issue (What questions do you have?), the results were more mixed, but about half the students showed a noticeable increase in the questions that they had, and often the questions were more specific. In the case of one student, after watching the two FOX News segments, a student’s questions were: ‘What, in particular, did dissatisfy Republicans? What is their version of what happened?’ This same student had one question after reading the New York Times article: ‘I would like to know more about the role of militias in Libya and about Ansar al-Sharia in particular?’ In the case of another student, after watching the two FOX News segments, the student had three questions: ‘Who is actually responsible for the attacks? Why was the ambassador in Libya? Why hasn’t Clinton answered any of the questions asked?’ After reading the New York Times article, the student had eight questions, three of those questions were: ‘Why were the Americans not as concerned about security in Libya as much as the British? How much importance did the YouTube video have on the attacks? Why is there no answer as to who is responsible for this even after a year and a half?’

275

 Watching TV News

article where the questions are more pointed and provided a sense of direction. The way questions are asked helps in pointing toward where and how to search for some answers. When I discussed the findings in class, I presented it as a way to show students how they could begin to learn on their own. In other words, when I got to the fourth issue (What questions do you have?), I showed how they could do Internet searches to begin to address some of questions that they had raised. Certainly, an underlying theme that should run through teaching at the university level—which is part of getting to a point of believing that students are beginning to achieve some level of critical thinking—is to instill in them a confidence that they can learn on their own. What was shown through this exercise was how to begin the process of learning on your own. With that in mind, the next two sections of this chapter address issues raised on television news shows. As pointed out in the ‘Introduction’, showing the limitations of television news is a useful way to, hopefully, encourage critical thinking.

The Inkblot Called the United States Constitution Greta Van Susteren, a FOX News host, gave a response to a Federal Communications Commission (FCC) questionnaire, where the FCC was proposing to study newsrooms early in 2014. Regarding an FCC question, ‘Who decides which stories get covered?’ Van Susteren responded, “None of your business. Read the Constitution.” It can be assumed that her remarks were a reference to the First Amendment of the United States Constitution, where words refer to the Freedom of the Press. Reporters Without Borders released its World Press Freedom Index 2014 where Finland was ranked #1 out of 180 counties. The United States ranked #46, behind counties such as Ghana, Estonia, Romania, and Botswana.

276

Between reading Van Susteren’s remark on the Constitution and the World Press Freedom rankings raises the issue of how exactly to understand First Amendment rights. Obviously, to Van Susteren, the Constitution meant something, but it is not clear what exactly—she seemed to imply some level of unlimited press freedom which was missed by the United States ranking below Romania, according to Reporters Without Borders. FOX News, during March Madness 2014, decided to get creative and came up with something called ‘Constitutional Madness’ and even put a poll online asking for viewers to respond, referring to ‘all of President Obama’s constitutional violations.’ While George W. Bush was President, similar assertions were made regarding his violations of the Constitution. One web site referred to the List of Bush’s Impeachable Offenses (2012), while another site titled one of its piece’s, Constitutional violations? We had plenty with Bush (2010). When Bill Clinton was President, Timothy Lynch (1997), assistant director of the Cato Institute’s Center for Constitutional Studies, wrote an essay titled, “Dereliction of Duty: The Constitutional Record of President Clinton” (Lynch, 1997). Go back to Ronald Reagan as President and one site reflecting on Reagan’s years in office wrote, “There are many examples of Reagan’s constitutional violations throughout his two terms in office” (Lewis, 2013). No reason to cite what constitutional violations Reagan supposedly committed. By looking at the FOX News segment addressing Constitutional Madness—and looking at it in isolation without reference to Bush, Clinton, and Reagan, there might be viewers who take this seriously rather than understanding that this pattern of stating, no doubt with great conviction, that whoever is president violated something in the Constitution, will continue. Whoever gets elected President in 2016 (or 2020, 2024, 2028, 2032—pick a term) will see similar claims made against them. Imagine if FOX News had done a series addressing how different Presidents had

 Watching TV News

been accused of Constitutional violations, rather than focusing solely on Obama and pointing out this is a pattern we can expect to see in the future Examining the issue of different presidents being accused of Constitutional violations and how television news handles this issue, opens the door to what is not addressed well on television news—the complex topic of Constitutional interpretation. A segment of FOX News Sunday addressed the topic Obamacare delays. Are they legal? (Mass Tea Party, 2014). This eleven minutes and 35 seconds segment, consisted of a Democratic congressman defending the President regarding delays in implementing aspects of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) and a Republican senator criticizing the President’s actions. Watching this segment led to confusion over what the viewer was to take away from it. The Constitution was referred to, but why and how exactly was not clear. Once the host said ‘you have 30 seconds left’ it was time for these two members of Congress to try to get in their final sound bits. Somehow, if there was a policy analysis aspect to this segment, it was not clear. The host raised the issue that Obama may have decided to delay implementation of aspects of ACA for political reasons. Something Constitutional was sort of raised, and seemed to be the theme implied by the segment’s title, and then the segment ended questioning whether political considerations were the basis of Obama making a decision to delay implementation. Exactly what a viewer was to make of this segment is questionable. Obviously, a Republican viewer, or one leaning Republican, would walk away with something different than a viewer who votes Democratic (assuming the viewers were voters). It is fairly easy to find critics of President Obama and the Affordable Care Act who sees this as a violation of the Constitution, yet neither does the Constitution say anything about environmental protection laws, child labor laws, or child pornography. To look at a cable news shows, whether the O’Reilly Factor, Hannity, or

The Kelly Files on FOX News, or The Reid Report, Politics Nation, or the The Ed Show on MSNBC, difficult choices, often the meat and potatoes of a Law & Order episode, are missing from these and other news shows like them. For the most part, the hosts of these shows understand how to play to their audience. For example, in the Constitution is Article 4, Section 3 which states, “New states may be admitted by the Congress into this union; but no new states shall be formed or erected within the jurisdiction of any other state; nor any state be formed by the junction of two or more states, or parts of states, without the consent of the legislatures of the states concerned as well as of the Congress” (U.S. Constitution, 2014). Not exactly a part of the Constitution that gets a lot of play on television news like the First or Second Amendments. In 1893, in a United States Supreme Court case (State of Virginia vs. State of Tennessee) the Court wrote an opinion regarding a land swap between these two states. At issue was whether this was legal or constitutional. Did the two states receive the consent of Congress? The Court found this land swap as acceptable and in its opinion wrote, “The Constitution does not state when the consent of Congress shall be given, whether it shall precede or may follow the compact made, or whether it shall be express or may be implied” (Article 4, Section 3). Not an easy sentence to read and one which would require some airtime to explain. While Article 4, Section 3 of the Constitution is quoted above—and seems to address the issue in this case, this case did not address this part of the Constitution, but instead addressed another part, Article 1, Section 10, which states, “No state shall, without the consent of Congress, lay any duty of tonnage, keep troops, or ships of war in time of peace, enter into any agreement or compact with another state, or with a foreign power, or engage in war, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent danger as will not admit of delay.” The purpose here is not to give a lesson in Constitutional law but raise the issue that under-

277

 Watching TV News

standing Constitutional interpretation is not as easy as it appears. A CNN segment, Has Obamacare changed the court?, raised issues questioning whether there was a ‘falling out’ between Justice Antonio Scalia and Chief Justice John Roberts over the Court’s ruling finding the Affordable Care Act as Constitutional and whether Roberts would move the Court in a ‘more conservative direction’ (Meers, 2014). From this two minutes and 52 seconds segment, it is not clear what a ‘conservative direction’ means exactly. Mark Levin, a radio host who labels myself as conservative said on one episode of his show, “[it is] important to read the Constitution [it] goes to the heart of right and left” (Kingery, 2011). Well maybe so in a very general abstract way. Levin spent this particular segment talking around the Constitution, rather than addressing specific aspects of the Constitution that focus on the difficulties addressed in issues such as the border issue raised above regarding Virginia and Tennessee. It is no wonder that many assume that liberal and conservative labels can actually mean something—and they may but at very abstract levels. In a Supreme Court case, Texas v. Johnson (1989), Justice Anthony Kennedy writing in support of an individual’s right to burn the American flag—and see this as protected under the First Amendment wrote, “The hard fact is that sometimes we must make decisions we do not like. We make them because they are right.” Levin does not have to struggle with the difficulties confronting a Supreme Court justice so is free to talk in ways that are comforting and reinforcing to those listening to him and want to believe what he had to say. Levin appeared for an entire segment of Hannity on FOX News discussing a book he wrote titled The Liberty Amendments, in which he proposed eleven new amendments to the Constitution (Levin, 2014). By the end of this segment little enlightenment was added, but he no doubt helped those viewers that watched

278

and wanted to believe what he had to say assume there is a simple, not nuanced and complex way, to understand the Constitution—or even a quick fix to correcting what is supposed to be wrong with the Constitution In the case of Levin’s presentation on Sean Hannity’s show, apparently neither Levin or Hannity or any of the audience felt the need to point out that more than 11,000 proposals to amend the constitution have been made since 1789. There are 27 amendments in the constitution; ignoring the 27th (which entered under unusual circumstances) the 26th amendment was added in 1971, more than 40 years ago. During this episode of Hannity, no attempt was made by Levin or Hannity or any of the audience members to address how eleven new Constitutional amendments would actually be added to the Constitution. An audience watching this could be excused if they thought that there was, in fact, some relatively easy process to add that many new amendments and that doing so would in somewhat of a way suddenly change things, supposedly, for the better. Toward the beginning of Levin’s appearance on Hannity’s show, Hannity referred to a quote from James Madison. The quote is often cited by those that consider themselves conservatives. Madison writing in 1788, soon after the Constitutional Convention ended in what is known as The Federalist Papers wrote in defense of ratifying the Constitution to replace the Articles of Confederation that, “the powers delegated to the proposed government are few and defined” (Publius, n.d.). Sounds impressive, but quotes without context are often just cute quotes. Briefly examining this quote helps to raise issues about Constitutional interpretation and the problem of television in addressing nuance and complexity. In this particular essay by Madison in The Federalist Papers, this particular sentence appears toward the end of this essay. The first sentence reads, “Having shown that no one of the powers transferred to the federal government is unneces-

 Watching TV News

sary or improper, the next question to be considered is, whether the whole mass of them will be dangerous to the portion of authority left in the several States” (Publius, n.d.). The words ‘unnecessary and improper’ are the inverse of words found in the Constitution in Article 1, Section 8, and the very section which defines the powers of Congress. After listing specific powers of Congress, this section of the Constitution concludes by saying, “To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof” (U.S. Constitution, 2014). In politics there is a wonderful expression which deserves a great deal of attention—particularly on television news shows and receives next to none: The devil is in the details. Here in the last section detailing the power of Congress is this very vaguely worded sentence; it says nothing yet seems to cover everything. Jump ahead 31 years to the Supreme Court case of McCulloch v. Maryland. In this case Maryland tried to tax a branch office of the Second Bank of the United States, declaring they could do so since it was not spelled out in the Constitution that Congress had the power to create a bank. Reading the Supreme Court’s opinion in this case, shows the cleverness of Madison’s writing—he made his readers feel at ease since those words ‘few and defined’ seem to satisfy the fears of a new government under the Constitution. In writing the Court’s opinion, Chief Justice John Marshall noted that the word ‘expressly’ did appear in Article 1, Section 1 and since that word did not appear then it impacted how to read Article 1, Section 8 with the words ‘necessary and proper.’ True, the Constitution did not spell out that Congress could create a bank but since the word ‘expressly’ was not in Article 1, Section 1, then the creation of the bank was Constitutional since it fell under the ‘necessary and proper’ words at the end of Article 1, Section 8. As Marshall wrote:

Among the enumerated powers, we do not find that of establishing a bank or creating a corporation. But there is no phrase in the instrument which, like the Articles of Confederation, excludes incidental or implied powers and which requires that everything granted shall be expressly and minutely described. Even the 10th Amendment, which was framed for the purpose of quieting the excessive jealousies which had been excited, omits the word ‘expressly,’ and declares only that the powers “not delegated to the United States, nor prohibited to the States, are reserved to the States or to the people,” (U.S. Constitution, 2014), thus leaving the question whether the particular power which may become the subject of contest has been delegated to the one Government, or prohibited to the other, to depend on a fair construction of the whole instrument. The men who drew and adopted this amendment had experienced the embarrassments resulting from the insertion of this word in the Articles of Confederation, and probably omitted it to avoid those embarrassments. Funny how Madison, in writing his essay declaring the powers of the proposed government to be ‘few and defined’ conveniently forgot to discuss omitting the word ‘expressly’—and what leaving the word out of Article 1, Section 1 meant to interpreting the Constitution. It is not clear whether Hannity understands the nuances of what transpired between Madison’s essay and a court case 31 years later. Admittedly, he can support the position that there are limitations on the powers of the Federal government, as many have done, but what is a viewer of his show to make of him simply quoting a sentence from Madison without broader context? Hannity can declare himself a conservative, but to ignore nuance and complexity and create the impression that there is a clear black and white between a liberal and conservative approach to reading and, more importantly, understanding the Constitution simply reinforces a simplistic liberal/conservative dichotomy.

279

 Watching TV News

Does Hannity, or for that matter, Bill O’Reilly, Rachel Maddow, Al Sharpton, Megyn Kelly, and a whole host of other television talkers have an obligation to provide some degree of enlightenment, of context, to their viewers? No! This is a case of caveat emptor: Let the buyer beware.

The Frustratingly Complex, and Yet the So Simple, of Health Care Reform On August 12, 2011 the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals issued a 305-page opinion in which it declared that the Affordable Health Care (ACA) Act requiring individuals to buy insurance was unconstitutional. Well, that sounded simple enough. Here is where television news could have done a good job of addressing some of the frustrations associated with health care costs, but punted instead. Admittedly, a New York Times article published on the day this court opinion was released said little more, but television news made no attempt to develop upon the initial release of this court opinion over, for example, the twenty days left in August. On that August 12th, ABC News devoted 20 seconds to explain this court decision and NBC News also devoted 20 seconds to this case that would become part of the United States Supreme Court case that would address the Constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act. But, that evening on CNN, 2 minutes and 20 seconds was devoted to a segment titled RidUList in which a cat apparently looked like Anderson Cooper (the host of CNN), there was no coverage of this Court of Appeals case (Vanderbilt Television News Archive, 2014) This court opinion also noted that cost-shifting is part of health care financing, that unpaid health care costs (some $43 billion in 2008 or 1.7% of total health care costs) increased family health care premiums by, on average, $1,000 a year (or about 8% of an average premium). In addition, of the approximately 51 million uninsured in America, 9.4 million (18%) make between $50,000-$74,999 annually and 10.6 million (21%) make more than

280

$75,000 annually. In other words, the insured were paying to help to subsidize the health care costs of the uninsured. A local hospital near Lindenwood University, had already known this fact of life. The hospital had often sought to seek funds for unreimbursed medical care through a segment within the Missouri’s Medicaid program (known as Disproportional Share Fund). But, as the state government tried to bring Medicaid costs under control, it cut back on the amount of reimbursement hospitals were getting from this fund. As a result this hospital sought to have the local city council increase the property tax and give that money to the hospital; the city council did not increase the property tax. The point here is not to go into an extensive discussion about the complexities of health care financing but to point out that next to none of this complex and frustrating issue can be learned from television news. Notice, as with the brief discussion on the United States Constitution, that some background is needed to actually address an issue in some ways that appear closer to the complexity of the issue. Television news is much like the computers that existed in the 1980s where there was no hard drive. Once the computer was turned on again, everything needed to run a word processing program; for example, needed to be re-loaded into the computer. You cannot build upon a television news segment; each evening’s news, for example, is mutually exclusive from the evening before. In looking at the stories covered by CNN Evening News with Anderson Cooper for the month of January, 2013, there were no stories on the Affordable Care Act. It was during this month that President Obama took the oath of office and started his second term. Any number of explanations can be given why other issues mattered more. CNN covered the Lance Armstrong doping scandal, and there were numerous segments on RidUList. Yet it was well-known that the Affordable Care Act would begin to be implemented during Obama’s second term, so it seemed logical to assume that

 Watching TV News

beginning the process of addressing this issue might help viewers understand what was coming before it was suddenly upon them. Some years ago, I was asked to write an article on a bill that was before the Missouri General Assembly. The bill was an attempt to reform the state’s Medicaid program. Medicaid is a very expensive program funded by both the state government and the Federal government. Back in the 1980s, on average, it was about 6 percent of a state government’s budget. At the time I was working on this article it was approximately 25 percent (at present, it is perhaps closer to 30 percent). Therefore, figuring out ways to keep the costs of this program under control was—and continues to be—important to all 50 states. This particular bill was over 100 pages and I took extensive notes attempting to understand it. Contrary to what is heard on television news segments, where usually opponents of a bill that has become law clearly explain to the TV audience what a law will clearly do, that may not always be the case. It is not unusual to read bills that stay bills and never become law, or read bills that do become law and walk away scratching your head trying to figure out what they precisely say. After I read this particular Medicaid bill and had taken extensive notes, I made an appointment to discuss it with someone in the Missouri General Assembly intimately involved in writing it. As I began to ask several questions I was stopped and that person said, ‘Wait! You read the bill.’ Television reporters from St. Louis, Kansas City, and Springfield had all made their way to talk with this person, and all said basically the same thing, ‘Just tell me some brief description of what it says.’ As we talked, this individual wondered if any of these television reporters had any clear grasp of what they were reporting on regarding health care reform. While this bill never became law, there are elements in it that can be seen in many proposals to address health care reform, whether we classify those proposals as Democratic or Republican, liberal or conservative.

Again, as with the brief discussion on Constitutional interpretation, it is not the purpose here to extensively explain issues associated with health care reform. Henry Kissinger, the former Secretary of State and Noble Peace Prize winner made a statement about watching television news—this made in an era before 24-hour cable news took hold in this country. Kissinger said, “I almost never watch the evening news…because the things I am interested in are covered in too superficial a way. I was only interested in what they covered and for what length of time to learn what the country was getting” (Linsky, 1986, p. 61). Writing in the days before cable news shows, Michael Arlen, a television critic, wrote about what he learned about the Vietnam War from television, this in an era when CBS, NBC, and ABC dominated television news: I read in the paper a while back that sixty per cent of the people in this country get most of their news about the Vietnam War from television, so for the past couple of weeks ‘ve been looking… at the evening news shows...to see what sort of Vietnam coverage the viewers are being given. If my own experience is any guide, I‘d say that sixty percent of the people in this country right now know more about the ‘weather picture’ over major metropolitan areas than they could ever wish to know and a good deal less about Vietnam than might be useful. (Arlen, 1966, p. 6) Neither Kissinger nor Arlen was addressing health care reform or the particulars of the Affordable Care Act, yet both observations on television news apply. One television reporter I regularly worked with discussed with me the difficulties of covering health care reform on television, at one point wondering whether it was even possible to cover the subject. Jump ahead to March 2014, after the Affordable Care Act (or ‘Obamacare’ as critics and even some supporters refer to it) has begun to be implemented,

281

 Watching TV News

after some seven million uninsured (assuming that figure is somewhat correct) had enrolled in various aspects of this health care law, and look at the coverage on the CNN Evening News for that month: None whatsoever (Vanderbilt Television News Archive, 2014). Malaysian Airlines Flight 370 went down somewhere in maybe the Indian Ocean that month and a great deal of attention was devoted to this, although why it was so continuously important was never made clear. Admittedly, as any viewer of cable news shows in particular knows, there have been numerous stories on the Affordable Care Act. But one way of looking at television news coverage of health care reform is to approach it from a different perspective. What was missing from the CNN lack of health care coverage was any discussion of Republican or conservative health care reform alternatives to the Affordable Care Act. In using the same method used above to look at the month of March 2014 regarding CNN coverage (or lack of it) on health care reform, the month of April 2014 was added to an examination of CNN health care reform coverage (Vanderbilt Television News Archive, 2014) For the months of March and April 2014, health care was overwhelmingly ignored by CNN Evening News. One night’s show did, however, address the problem of a ‘secret wait list’ at a VA hospital in Phoenix and it might be considered extensive coverage from a television news perspective since it lasted 7 minutes and 20 seconds. Yet, on that same evening, Malaysian Airlines Flight 370 was addressed over the course of 19 minutes and 10 seconds. When television news does get around to addressing health care reform—and ignores any type of policy analysis of Republican or conservative alternatives to the Affordable Care act--it helps to creates by implication that, in fact, that ‘the grass is greener on the other side of the mountain.’ This notion that there is a better alternative that was not tried regarding health care reform can be somewhat frustrating and comforting at the same

282

time. The frustration can lead viewers to believe that there is a solution to their health care cost problems and it should have been tried or needs to be tried in the near future as a replacement to the Affordable Care Act. The comfort comes from a belief that a solution exists, even if viewers have absolutely no knowledge of what is included in those Republican or conservative alternatives to the Affordable Care Act and the complexities of implementing those alternatives. One Republican or conservative proposal involves letting health insurance companies sell policies across state lines. Theoretically, doing this is designed or believed to make insurance cheaper by increasing competition. Well, on the surface there sounds as though it is a good idea. The proposal to allow health insurance companies to sell insurance across state lines, for example, means that the more an insurance policy is mandated to include health-related issues that an customer might not want (e.g., maternity care for a couple not wanting children) then those mandates, as under the Affordable Care Act, can make insurance go up in price. Allowing insurance companies to sell across state lines could lead to selling cheaper insurance policies with many health-related issues left out. As healthy people start to buy the cheaper (and less covered policies), the price for more coverage can go up, which means that, sooner or later, people can be priced out of the insurance market (who need those policies with more coverage). So, an aspect of a Republican or conservative health care reform proposal can lead to increasing the uninsured as they are priced out of the healthcare marketplace. Remember, earlier in addressing the Court of Appeals case that found aspects of the Affordable Care Act unconstitutional, it also addressed the costs associated with cost-shifting because of the uninsured (Yglesias, 2013). This is frustrating and uncomfortable where viewers might be confronted with solutions that look like they are caught between a rock and a hard place. Believing in simple choices, the either/

 Watching TV News

or, the stuff that is the basis of television news’ liberal/conservative split can, ironically, sounds comforting. Some of the reason for the failure of television news to address issues such as more complicated ways of understanding health care reform or even Constitutional interpretation might be understood from a statement made by a speechwriter for Richard Nixon when he was running for President in 1968. The speechwriter wrote in a campaign white paper that, “Voters are basically lazy, basically uninterested in making an effort to understand what we’re talking about” (Gabler, 1998, p. 103). The level of intelligence assumed by television news shows might be disturbing. One writer commenting on news coverage at the local news level wrote, “Typical [news show] consultant recommendations called for ‘simplifying and limiting the treatment of complex news, and elimination of upper-class English” (Stark, 1997, p. 239). As one television reporter remarked to me once, “I can’t believe people take us seriously” (personal communication, reporter not affiliated with a TV station that the author has been affiliated with, 2000). The oddity of viewer emotion from whatever television news gives them about health care reform coverage, interspersed with their own actually frustrations with navigating the health care system or wondering and worrying about their health insurance premiums increasing and out-of-pocket costs going up, can be a combustible mix. If there are limitations and implementation problems associated with the Affordable Care Act and if, in fact, there are Republican proposals that have some merit, then it would seem that political sides could, in some way, address health care reform mutually. One study on political compromise addresses the extreme difficulties of actually reaching compromises—the stuff of politics—on basically anything (Guttman & Thompson, 2014). When a journalist tried to get John Boehner (R, OH), Speaker of the House of Representatives to use the word “Compromise,” he responded, “I

reject the word” (Rothman, 2012, p. 2). There is some acknowledge by Guttman and Thompson in their study regarding the 24/7 news cycle, but the role of television news as a major contributing culprit of political paralysis or political polarization is not really emphasized. Imagine if cable news shows spent any considerable amount of time having policy analysts (those not often associated with an organization that is less interested in detached analysis and more interested in policy advocacy) instead of pundits on their shows with specific political leanings, and they addressed ways of fixing the Affordable Care Act, rather than simply having defenders of the existing program or those that think all that is needed is to eliminate it entirely and start from scratch. How might viewers-viewers as votersbegin to let their members of Congress know how they now thought about health care reform? What viewers get from television news often aids them in how they formulate opinions on issues. One writer addressed the impact of television news on viewers: [T]elevision makes people passive, tense, and unable to concentrate; more skill is required in the act of eating than in watching television; although people assume that TV watching offers relaxation and escape, it actually leaves people in worse moods than they were in before watching television (Postman & Powers, 1992, p. 147) Any attempt to assume that there is a better future out there where viewers will receive some degree of enlightenment from television news, or particularly from cable TV news, should not hold their breath. Jeff Cohen who frequently participated in news segments on CNN, MSNBC, and FOX News stated, “Cable news is in the business of entertainment” (Cohen, 2006, p. 2). He referred to what is seen as ‘News as soap opera.’ Cohen noted a conversation he had with Joe Scarborough who co-hosts Morning Joe on MSNBC. Scarborough

283

 Watching TV News

told Cohen what a network executive told him, “If you let someone talk for more than seven seconds on your show without interruption, then you are a failure” (Cohen, 2006, p. 13n).

IMPLICATIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH The Vanderbilt Television New Archive (2014) site (available to anyone on the Internet) is a very good tool for analyzing television news. There are segments in this chapter which relied upon information gathered from this site. In my January Term course discussed in the ‘Background’ segment of this chapter, I showed students how they can count the minutes and seconds of a topic covered on a particular network, for example, over the course of a week or month and then speculate how few pages that total coverage actually amounted to, which often surprised them. Then, after getting this point across to the students, I would give them a newspaper article, perhaps slightly longer than the assumed number of pages covered by a particular news channel on an issue, and ask them to contrast the differences. As pointed out in the ‘Introduction’, an important aspect of addressing critical thinking or critical consumption and thinking skills is to confront the limitations of television news. As pointed out in the Introduction, denigration may not be useful. Here is where you can teach students to teach themselves—an important aspect of critical thinking. The notion of teaching critical thinking, where the focus is solely on the teacher and what they can do, suddenly leads to ignoring what students can do for themselves. If it is somewhat true, as several studies have pointed to, that television viewers are less likely to vote than newspaper readers, or that heavy television viewers are more likely to be depressed, than teaching critical thinking where the emphasis is on the role of the teacher, ignores fully half of the equation: Include the students.

284

CONCLUSION And You Learned What and Will Do What? Back in 1992, then CBS News anchor, Dan Rather, made an interesting statement after watching (and feeling the need to) comment on the Presidential debates between Bill Clinton and George H.W. Bush. Rather said, “When you read the LincolnDouglas debates, they jump off the page at you for the depth and substance of the argument” (Schudson, 1998, p. 140). Well, sounds good, but I have no clue what Rather had read from those Lincoln-Douglas debates. Guess Rather missed the part where Douglas said, “I believe that this government was made on the white basis…I am in favor of confining the citizenship to white men.” Or where Lincoln referred to there being ‘physical differences’ between white and black and stated, “I, as well as Judge Douglas, am in favor of the race to which I belong having the superior position…the negro after all is not entitled to all that the Declaration of Independence holds out” (Schudson, 1998, pp. 139-140). One way of thinking about how to look at television news now is to not assume that there was some golden era where news was on a pedestal. This is the first point you want to bring to teaching how to have people, in general, students in particular, approach how to watch, question, understand television news: Do not have rose-colored glasses when looking back in time for some yardstick to measure or compare against the present. During the 1950s, Edward R. Murrow was a dominate news figure on CBS News. His See It Now news show has, to this date, received praise, although viewer audience was not always high. Yet, at the same time that, he hosted See It Now, overlapping some of those years, Murrow hosted Person to Person, which was somewhat like an on-air People Magazine show. During the 1960s, a popular TV show was Candid Camera, where people, essentially made

 Watching TV News

fools of themselves in what-was-suppose-to-be just normal or spontaneous situations. In the 1970s the show was confined to more local stations, not national. The host of the show was Allen Funt. One day in the 1970s while walking toward an ice cream shop I enjoyed in New York City, I could see Funt standing out front. I was not the only person to easily recognize him. Looking in the shop window I could see a partition with a two-way mirror. It was not that difficult to figure out that Funt was filming a segment for his show using this shop. I spent some 30 minutes or so watching who decided they wanted to enter the shop, knowing that they hoped to be seen on TV. Looking through the shop’s window, it was easy to see people, who like myself (some who I might have seen before in there buying ice cream), suddenly acting oddly animated. Here is a second point to understand and bring to the attention of people, in general, students in particular: Look for how things are staged. Jeff Cohen, mentioned earlier, discussed how his ‘initial tryouts’ were well received for him to become a regular on CNN’s Crossfire. As he said, “A CNN exec told me no other candidate sparked significant grassroots support” (Cohen, 2006, p. 39). In the 1990s, Business Week management decided they wanted to get their writers on television news shows, a good way to (maybe) increase circulation. They hired a consultant to teach the writers how to make a better impression on, say, The Capital Gang (a news talk show popular then). As one writer explained it, “He said it doesn’t matter really what you say as how you say it. …No one is going to remember what you say when you’re on the talk show. What they’ll remember is how you looked and your general bearing” (Fallows, 1996, p. 102). I can testify to this point personally. Again, having done some 250 or more shows on a local TV news station, I infrequently used the word ‘crap’ just to see what was heard. Inevitably, THAT was heard but no one could remember what I had said regarding why I was on TV in the first place, even if they ran

into me within hours after I was on the air. Well, I did get some compliments on my shoes several times and my tie. Jeff Cohen noted that he asked his mother what she thought of what he had to say on a particular national cable TV show, her response was ‘I love that tie.’ If little or nothing is actually heard, what rises to the level of ‘being noticed’? Well, throw bombs. While the World Cup was underway in Brazil in the summer of 2014, Ann Coulter, a frequent celebrity level spokes-person for what is supposed to pass for a conservative position, felt the need to get in her two-cents. Coulter wrote (and it subsequently lead to her invitation to discuss it on FOX News’ Hannity) that, “If more ‘Americans’ are watching soccer today, it’s only because of the demographic switch effected by Teddy Kennedy’s 1965 immigration law. I promise you: No American whose great-grandfather was born here is watching soccer.” And then she added, “[Soccer] is a sign of decay” (Coulter). It is difficult to tell what Coulter actually believes from what she feels the need to say just to keep her name in the public eye. Regarding her comments on soccer, one has to wonder whether everything needs to be addressed in the simple liberal/conservative format. Coulter is one very rich woman and, obviously, knows the importance of publicity to help her portfolio. A well-known writer said of television new talk, “The secret of success on TV is to be noticed. Being noticed depends much more on your demeanor-snappiness, body language-than on the literal content of the words you emit”(Fallows, 1996, p. 117). Here is a third point to bring to the attention of people in general, students in particular: Pay attention to the actual language, to what is actually said. Does it make sense? Is it coherent? I was having a conversation with a local elected Republican about the Economic Stimulus Program of the Obama Administration which distributed some $800 billion to states (some of that in the form of tax cuts) to help states deal with the recession that hit the country toward the end of the

285

 Watching TV News

Bush Presidency and carried over into the start of the Obama Presidency. The state of Missouri received some $8 billion of that money and while he was highly critical of the Obama Presidency he was willing to use the money and saw (some of it at least) as helpful. As we spoke, he said he did not think of himself as ‘conservative’ but ‘conservative-ish’—degrees of conservative. I joked that he should express these nuanced views with his constituency-there was no chance that would happen. Some years ago I had made an appointment to discuss state legislative issues with a Republican state legislator. Upon entering his office I noticed a large poster of Rush Limbaugh, I immediately developed an impression about what to expect from the legislator’s mouth. After the door was shut, I was surprised to listen to him express concerns about the poor people in his district, about the need to get more state funds to support ‘safe houses’ for women suffering abuse by their husbands, about the need for health care for children. After our conversation ended I jokingly referred to the Limbaugh poster and of my impression of him formed from seeing that on his office wall. He, jokingly, referred to ‘cover’ and that it allowed him some freedom of action: As long as the image was set then he could function within some wider parameters. A Democrat strategist in Texas remarked on the image or ‘cover’ issue: [T]he Tea Party [is litmus test driven] where if you don’t demonstrate a certain level of hatred, then your motives are suspect. Your final votes on legislation don’t matter. These two politicians might be voting exactly alike-but the one the Tea Party loves is running around…screaming about how much [he] hates Obama. (Binelli, 2014, p. 54) This may come as a surprise to some reading this but if John McCain had been elected President in 2008 and Sarah Palin had been Vice President, at the end of their first Fiscal Year, they would have had the same federal budgetary

286

deficit as the Obama Administration. The key words in that last sentence are ‘Fiscal Year.’ For the Federal government, the Fiscal Year begins October 1st. So just about one month before the Presidential election in 2008, Fiscal Year 2009 (the first under the Obama Administration, the first with more than a $1 trillion deficit) began. By the time that Obama was being sworn in as President, Fiscal Year 2009 was four months old, one-third completed. Add the deficit from Fiscal Year 2009 to what had accumulated through the end of the George W. Bush Presidency and there is some reasonable argument that the total national debt today would not be all that different if McCain had been elected President. You might make a case that it might, just might, be slightly lower but not anywhere near where it was at the end of the Bush Presidency. The point of this discussion regarding conversations I had with several politicians (and, admittedly, many others) and how to look differently at the Federal budgetary deficit and accumulated national debt is to see liberal and conservative in nuanced, complex ways, to see shades of gray, maybe even overlap. Unfortunately, good luck getting any of that from television news. Sometimes, regarding television, you look for lost opportunities that could have helped to maybe alter some thinking. The Daily Show with Jon Stewart several years ago had on Senator Rand Paul (R., KY) as a guest. Senator Paul was on to, partially, plug a book he wrote and to talk about the deficit. During the 5 minute and 28 second exchange between Senator Paul and Jon Stewart, Paul noted that under former President Bush the deficit was $500 million but (at that point) was $1.5 billion (meaning under the Obama Administration). Stewart seemed to have a good grasp of some of the issues involving the budget and taxes, although here was a moment to maybe simply stop the conversation and address when the Fiscal Year begins and that a McCain Presidency would be in the same situation as the Obama Presidency. Instead the conversation went in the direction of taxes and whether the middle

 Watching TV News

class were being hurt and a broader discussion that could have contributed to challenging some of the abstract notions of liberal and conservative was missed—a lost opportunity (The Daily Show) At the beginning of this chapter, I referred to a quote from the movie, The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance. As the reporter said, “This is the west, sir. When the legend becomes fact, print the legend.” Ideology can be addressed on a level that can be quite abstract, often removed from the uncomfortable messy things that interfere with actual policy issues. Bring television news or talk show discussion down to a level where some specifics (such as Constitutional interpretation and a different way of looking at health care reform) are actually addressed and some of that ideological talk can begin to look empty and quite limiting. Jack Germond, a reporter who use to be a regular on The McLaughlin Group (on PBS) commented on some of his former colleagues, “There were some excellent newspaper reporters who switched to TV and apparently decided they no longer had to keep up with all the details to get by in their brief appearances on camera. So they quit doing the intensive reporting that made them knowledgeable” (Germond, 2004, p. 53). If what Germond says is true, we cannot expect much but babble from television news shows, conversations can only change with substantive knowledge (assuming news stations, particular cable ones will ever allow it). Another elected official (Republican, once again) commented to me, “What do you call a government critic? Well, it’s someone with a driver’s license they just don’t know where they are going.” Here is a fourth point to bring to the attention of the public in general, students in particular: Get beyond ideology. It is too easy to hear conversations tinged with politics by ordinary people that are a reflection of television talk show news and the desire is to not have life imitate art. It has become almost common to refer to polarization in politics yet when Republicans know they can easily run to FOX News and Democrats

know they can easily run to MSNBS and receive a sympathetic treatment, who gets sacrificed but a public that needs to walk away from a television news show actually being frustrated and developing an appreciation of policy choices with no easy answers. Growth in thinking comes by challenging complacency. In looking at politicians appear on cable news shows, I often get the feeling they are playing ‘second banana’ to the show’s host (it doesn’t really matter who is the host). The host often seems more interested in pontificating and acting like a bad second-rate actor or actress then in helping the audience understand and appreciate how to begin the process of grasping complicated issues often without easy solutions. Admittedly, too many people just don’t have the time to develop an understanding of a variety of specific policy issues on their own. The time it takes to develop more than a passing acquaintance with any policy issue requires a tremendous amount of time—time that most university professors have since that is what they are required to do—but a wider public does not have the time to devote to learning about many of these issues. Here is where television news lets a widespread public down. What has been presented here is, at best, a Band-Aid solution to a broader problem. Focusing on students and getting them to develop critical thinking skills ignores the need for a larger public to be introduced to methods they can use to help them find their way through an often unenlightened evening of television news.

REFERENCES Arlen, M. (1966). The living-room war. New York, NY: Penguin Books. Binelli, M. (2014, July 3). Lone star crazy. Rolling Stone. Cohen, J. (2006). My misadventures in corporate media. Sausalito, CA: PoliPoint Press.

287

 Watching TV News

Constitution, U. S. (2014). The United States Constitution online. Retrieved from http://www. usconstitution.net/const.html Constitutional violations? We had plenty with Bush. (2010, February 18). The News Item. Retrieved from http://newsitem.com/opinion/ constitutional-violations-we-had-plenty-withbush-1.625108 Coulter, A. (2014). America’s favorite national pastime: Hating soccer. Retrieved from http:// www. anncoulter.com/columns/2014-06-25.html Fallows, J. (1996). Breaking the News: How the Media Undermine American Democracy. New York, NY: Vintage Books. Fox News Videos. (n.d.). Mark Levin brings the constitution to life. Retrieved from http://screen. yahoo.com/mark-levin-brings-constitutionlife-013318184.html Gabler, N. (1988). Life: The movie, how entertainment conquered reality. New York, NY: Vintage Books. Germond, J. (2004). Fat man fed up: How American politics went bad. New York, NY: Random House. Guttman, A., & Thompson, D. F. (2014). The spirit of compromise: Why governing demands it and campaigning undermines it. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Jamieson, K. H., & Waldman, P. (2003). The press effect: Politicians, journalists, and the stories that shape the political world. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Jolly, J. (2014, September 4). News literacy vs. media literacy. Columbia Journalism Review. Retrieved from http://www.cjr.org/news_literacy/ news_literacy_vs_media_literac.php

288

Kingery, A. (2011, September). Defining conservatism (For someone who’s never read the Constitution). Retrieved from http://www.youtube. com/watch?v=uWTEzLysohQ Levin, M. (2014). Mark Levin discusses The Liberty Amendments. Retrieved from screen. yahoo.com Lewis, Ben. (2013, December 27). Reagan’s executive order on federalism: A post-mortem. Tenth Amendment Center. Retrieved from http:// blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2-13/1/reagansexecutive-order-on-federalism-a-post-mortem/#. U2fv2Wwo7IU Linsky, M. (1986). Impact: How the press affects federal policymaking. New York, NY: W.W. Norton Company. List of Busch’s impeachable offenses. (2012). DigitalDivide.net. Retrieved from http://rense. com/general 69/impeach.htm Lynch, T. (1997). Dereliction of duty: The constitutional record of President Clinton. Policy Analysis. Retrieved from http://www.cato.org/ pubs/pas/pa-271.html Mass Tea Party. (2014, March). Obamacare delays. Are they legal? YouTube video. Retrieved from http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i04f1IQyt6g Mears, B. (2014). Has ‘Obamacare’ changed the court? CNN. Constitutional Accountability Center. Retrieved from http://theusconstitution. org/news/tv-cnn-supreme-court-kicks-new-termfaces-agenda-could-be-historic Nilson, L. B. (2014, December 1). Unlocking the mystery of critical thinking. Faculty Focus. Retrieved from http://www.facultyfocus.com/ articles/instructional-design/unlocking-mysterycritical-thinking/ Postman, N., & Powers, S. (1992). How to watch TV news. New York, NY: Penguin Books.

 Watching TV News

Publius. (n.d.). The Federalist Papers. Constitutionfacts.com. Retrieved from http://www.constitutionfacts.com/us-articles-of-confederation/ the-federalist-papers/ Rothman, J. (2012, June 3). The hard truth about political compromise. The Boston Globe. Retrieved from http://www.bostonglobe.com/ ideas/2012/06/02/let-your-enemy-move-forward/ GBkp3y6yUAsSqhb6aoL01N/story.html Schudson, M. (1998). The good citizen: A history of American civic life. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. The Daily Show. (2011, March 7). Rand Paul Extended Interview, Pt 1. Retrieved from http:// www. thedailyshow.cc.com/videos/v18nt/randpaul—p--1 Vanderbilt Television News Archive. (2014). Search for CNN news segments. Search terms: health, care, Obamacare. Retrieved from http://tvnews. vanderbilt.edu/?SID=20140704826934814 Williams, R. B. (2014, July 7). Anti-intellectualism and the ‘dumbing down’ of America. Psychology Today. Retrieved from http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/wired-success/201407/antiintellectualism-and-the-dumbing-down-america Yglesias, M. (2013, November 13). Conservative health reform will also make people lose their insurance plans. Slate. Retrieved from http://www. slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2013/11/13/insurance_plan_loss_conservatives_want_it_to.html

ADDITIONAL READING An interview with Linda Elder: About critical thinking and gifted education. The Critical Thinking Community. Retrieved from http://www. criticalthinking.org/pages/an-interview-withlinda-elder-about-critical-thinking-and-giftededucation/476

Brooks, T. (2011, April 18). Is TV still a ‘vast wasteland’? Retrieved from http://adage.com/ article/ media/tv-a-vast-wasteland/227031/ Rosen, J. (2004, June 9). ‘Nobody heard what you said.’ Lesley Stahl’s Fable about Reagan and the Press. Pressthink: Ghost of the Democracy in the Media Machine. Retrieved from http://archive .pressthink.org/2004/06/09/reagan_words.html Rosenstiel, T. (2013, October 23). Six questions that will tell you what media to trust. American Press Institute. Retrieved from http://www.americanpressinstitute.org/publications/six-criticalquestions-can-use-evaluate-media-content/ Wolpert, S. (2009, January 27). Is technology producing a decline in critical thinking and analysis? UCLA Newsroom. Retrieved from http://newsroom.ucla.edu/releases/is-technology-producinga-decline-79127

KEY TERMS AND DEFINITIONS Conservative: As with the introduction to Liberal, the same applies. Conservatives tend to believe: 1) There are ways of looking at issues as good/bad and right/wrong, 2) Individuals are responsible for themselves and should not rely on the government. Regarding both Liberal and Conservative, and the problems of easily and clearly defining or explaining them, are associated with the issue of self-interest. There are those who may define themselves by these terms and feel the need to explain or define whichever term they feel allied with as somehow on a higher plain where they transcend the political environment in which they may be participating. At the same time, the ‘other’ term needs to be understood in ways that demonize it. I encourage my students to think in terms of themselves as Democrats or Republicans and to avoid using the Liberal or Conservative labels. Politics seems to be associated with nasty connotations for many who want

289

 Watching TV News

to believe they are functioning on some higher, purer plain, hence the use of the terms Liberal and Conservative These labels seem to help many people avoid thinking that what they are really doing is, in fact, participating in political activity. Admittedly, Liberal and Conservative never completely disappear, since they provide values and focus, but they need to be tempered against pragmatism, which is politics. Conundrum: An issue or problem that cannot be solved easily. Framing: Refers to a way or approach to present an issue, sometimes with the aim of getting a viewer, a listening, a voter to see an issue from a particular point of view. Ideology: An abstract way of understanding often public affairs issues. Sometimes associated with a worldview way of looking at, interpreting and understanding issues. Ideology usually comes with a set of beliefs, or values that aid in helping to provide a framework to understand and interpret issues. Liberal: Whatever explanation presented here will never be universally accepted—perhaps the problem of trying to explain or define political labels we see used on television news shows all the time without anyone stopping to explain what they mean. For the most part, liberal refers to a way of seeing the world around us, so an ideology. Liberals tend to believe: 1) There are ways of looking at issues that are not always good/bad

290

or right/wrong, 2) Government can play a positive role in helping people to reach a point where they can be responsible for themselves. Politics: An enormously complex term that is difficult to understand well. The first step is to avoid simply referring to it in a way that you can throw it aside (e.g. ‘That’s politics’). At its heart, politics involves the notion of give-and-take, compromise, a search for alternatives as opposed to fighting or not solving mutual problems that need to be addressed. How you search for solutions between and among groups that disagree, sometimes significantly with each other, inspires that search for a solution—a political solution. What needs to be understood is that the alternative to politics is, usually, a state of affairs nobody really wants—implying that one individual or one small group make all the decisions for the rest of us. Politics understands that no one individual or group has enough power to get everything that they want, so there are limitations regarding what they can achieve realistically, hence the need to think pragmatically, which means give and-take, compromise, working with individuals or groups that may not completely agree with you. Pundits: A person who gives their opinions or comments often on television news shows. Sometimes when the term is used, it is used negatively, but everyone has an opinion and the aim is to distinguish well-developed opinion from quick off-the-cuff remarks.

Section 4

292

Chapter 13

Critical Thinking as a Multifaceted Phenomenon: A Scheme of Interdisciplinary Research Platform Maria Bednarikova Slovak University of Technology, Slovakia

ABSTRACT The chapter deals with critical thinking (CT) theoretical modeling. CT is explained as a multifaceted phenomenon that should be examined systematically on interdisciplinary platform. The prototype of such a platform is that of cognitive sciences. The basic issues linked to an interdisciplinary research of CT are: relations between CT and language, logical and cognitive operations in the process of critical analysis, methods of CT and their anchoring in the methodology of science, the process of CT in relation to personal dispositions and attitudes, possibilities of development, and evaluation of CT within educational and learning processes. The possibilities of a CT development are specified in the scientific methodology classes where students are guided through propositional logic, towards the analysis of judgments and arguments so they are capable of drafting research papers that have explanatory and argumentative character. The mutual conditionality between the scientific methodology, the procedure of scientific research, and the basic thought operation of CT is stressed.

INTRODUCTION The chapter deals with an explanation of critical thinking as a multifaceted phenomenon revealing the following issues: •

The nature of thinking and thought operations (such as analysis, synthesis, induc-

• •

tion, deduction, idealization, abstraction, concretization, generalization and others) Relations between language and thinking (in the terms of formulations, syntax and semantics) Possibilities of decision making and actions on the basis of objectively provable arguments

DOI: 10.4018/978-1-4666-8411-9.ch013

Copyright © 2015, IGI Global. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.

 Critical Thinking as a Multifaceted Phenomenon

Speaking about critical thinking, there is a very important part of it – a set of personality characteristics, attitudes, cultural and social strategies such as: an effort in a holistic understanding, identifying the contexts of events, systematic skeptical and critical attitudes, impartialness and openness in a constant reevaluation of our own attitudes, willingness to compromises and others. The fundamental steps in the process of critical analysis include: recognition and definition of a problem, purposeful search for relevant information sources, sorting and evaluating (measuring their validity and reliability), the process of deductive and inductive reasoning, finding and identifying the logical errors and drawing own reasonable conclusions. Just for its great diversity and multifaceted nature, critical thinking hits the point of giving a precise definition and a theoretical model of CT. One of the most common problems is a lack of exact skill definition and CT dispositions, which results in the impossibility of constructing an empirically provable model (not to mention the absence of implementation methods of such a model within university means. In the next chapter, we will focus on: •

•

•

•

An analysis of possibilities of the CT theoretical modeling based on identifying its fundamental components and relations between them A precise identification of the key issues and components of the proposed interdisciplinary CT model (a specification of scientific disciplines dealing with the fore mentioned issues) A specification of basic methodological sources of the scientific researches and analogical application of these methodological principles in the CT process A scheme of options for development of critical thinking during university studies

BACKGROUND Nowadays, the issue of critical thinking explanation and its development possibilities is increasingly paid attention. Some authors denominate the capability of critical thinking to be the key competence for 21th century (compare Halpern, 2003, Huitt, 1995, Thomas & Smoot, 1994, Bowell & Kemp, 2002 and others). Regarding this statement it is necessary to answer the following basic and complementary questions: 1. Why is the critical thinking important and how can we define it? Function of which variables the critical thinking is? 2. Can we design the critical thinking model? 3. How can we stipulate its process character (i.e. the sequence of steps in which it evolves) while considering the stipulated importance, definition, function and model of the critical thinking? 4. How can we develop the method that can be implemented into the education process regarding the stipulated critical thinking model and process? 5. How can we measure this education method success and assess the level of capability to think critically? These questions show to be the key ones in the effort for critical thinking (hereinafter referred to as CT) understanding and study how to teach it. In various modifications they are the subject issue to the majority of specific sources dealing with CT (recently still increasing). We will try to briefly formulate potential answers. Question 1 relates to the CT importance, definition and function. Thinking is closely connected with intelligence which can be freely defined as the internally multiple as well as global ability to act purposefully, think reasonably and cope with the surroundings effectively. The ability to

293

 Critical Thinking as a Multifaceted Phenomenon

consciously focus one`s own thinking to new requirements (Bednáriková, 2013 (a), p. 9). Critical thinking is a systematic and precisely defined way of information processing. Its importance lies in achieving the planned and wanted outcomes. It is mainly the specific file of formal operations, not the file of fact knowledge. We can determine the CT importance in the field of epistemology as logically correct thinking (which allow us to differentiate between logically true and logically false statements), and in the field of practice as the prerequisite of a purposeful and focused action (which is not determined by the manipulation techniques). Many CT definitions are primarily based on this double understanding of CT. If they concentrate especially on the field of theory of knowledge, they define CT as a precisely defined file of cognitive operations or thought operations allowing us to make logically correct statements. We can introduce the following CT definitions as an example of the aforementioned definition type: • •

• •

294

Active, systematic process of understanding and evaluation of arguments; (Mayer & Goodchild, 1990, p. 4) Ability to analyze facts, generate and organize ides, defend opinions, make comparisons, make inferences, evaluate arguments and solve problems” (Chance, 1986, p. 6); Involving analytical thinking for the purpose of evaluating what is read; (Hickey, 1990, p. 175) The cognitive competences most relevant to critical thinking are metacognitive rather than cognitive-competencies. In contrast to first-order cognitive skills that enable one to know about the world, metacognitive skills are second-order meta-knowing skills that entail knowing about one’s own (and others’) knowing. (Kuhn, 1999, p. 17)

In case the authors identify the primary importance of CT in its practical purposefulness, they determine its definitions as follows: •

•

•

•

The ability to analyze people’s attempts to persuade ... and evaluate whether or not they are giving a good argument; (Bowell & Kemp, 2002, pp. 2-3) Critical thinking is the use of those cognitive skills or strategies that increase the probability of a desirable outcome. (Halpern, 2003, p. 6) Critical thinking is reasonable and reflective thinking that is focused on deciding what to believe or do. (Norris & Ennis, 1989, p. 1) Challenging a claim or an opinion (either one`s own or another person`s) with the purpose of finding out what to believe or to do. (O’Hare & McGuinness, 2009, p. 123)

In respect to the stipulated CT meaning and definition its basic components, or its constituent variables are determined. In case of understanding CT as a precise way of information processing, its main components are represented by the various thought operations. For instance the American Association of Philosophy identified the file of six categories of basic cognitive skills with 16 subcategories determined within: “interpretation (categorization, decoding the significance, clarifying meaning) analysis (examining ideas, identifying arguments, analysis arguments), evaluation (assessing claims, assessing arguments), inference (querying evidence, conjecturing alternatives, drawing conclusions), explanation (stating results, justifying procedures, presenting arguments) and self-regulation (self-examination and self-correction)“ (Facione, 1990, p. 6). Similarly, Paul and Elder (2008) define eight „thinking elements“(p. 3) having several subcategories:

 Critical Thinking as a Multifaceted Phenomenon

purposes (goals and objectives), question at issue (problems, issues), information (data, facts, observations and experiences), interpretation and inference (conclusions and solutions), concepts (theories, definitions, laws, principles, models), assumptions (presuppositions, axioms, taking for granted), implications and consequences, point of view (frames of reference, perspectives and orientations). Also Kuhn (1999) determines three forms of metacognition (knowing of the second order) qualifying the ability of CT: metacognition (knowing the knowing), metastrategy (development of cognition validity criteria) and form of epistemological understanding (differentiates four stages of human´s attitude to the reality – realist, absolutist, multiplist and evaluator) (p. 23). Metacognitive strategies are systematically focused on the cognitive process, on its subject and object, criteria of validity, errors revision and evaluation of others´ cognition. Metacognition determined the existence of evaluation criteria file that are applied systematically without reference to the specific subject, object or situation. Only if the second stage of cognitive processes evolves as well as the file of evaluation criteria are present it is possible to develop and implement CT principles. According to Kuhn´s findings, however, the development of metacognitive forms of knowing is not automatic but it is necessary to pay it within the education of children from the preschool to adolescent a significant attention (p. 24). If we want to define the meaning of CT with respect to its practical consequences we will pay our attention to the identification of personable dispositions or required personable features that constitute a critically thinking man. The variables whose function CT is are represented by the following dispositions: be open to criticism and argumentation, look for alternatives, take into account the total situation, be well informed (Ennis, 1985, pp. 46–47); truth–seeking, openmindedness, analyticity, systematicity, critical thinking self – confidence, inquisitiveness and maturity of judgment (Facione et al., 1995, p.6);

intellectual humility, autonomy, empathy, integrity, perseverance, fair-mindedness, intellectual courage, confidence in reason (Paul & Elder, 2008, pp.15). All in all we can establish that CT is the function of variously stated cognitive and metacognitive operation as well as it is the function of personable dispositions or features. If we want to build the unified CT model on the basis of the aforementioned definitions and components we face a very complex task. In none of the analyzed concepts we met the clear designation of relations between CT cognitive abilities and CT dispositions. Is it the mutual determining of the cognitive abilities and complex personable dispositions? If so, of what nature is this determination? Is it a causal relation? If so, what causality type it is? Within the philosophy of science two ways of understanding the causality relation are distinguished – the relation of the cause and effect is either of the dependence character or it’s the relation of the production. In the first case, the causation is the principle relation of discrete events. If A causes B then B depends on A. There are several types of such understood causality relation. It can be the nomological causal dependence (relation of the cause and effect has the nature of the law), relation of hypothetical dependence (if there is no cause there would be no effect) or the relation of probabilistic dependence (the cause increases the probability of the effect existence). In case of the production relation C is the cause of D means that something of the efficient cause produces a certain effect, i.e. a certain „mechanism“ connects the cause and effect. The causality is characterized as the transfer process from the cause to the effect. The cause with the effect have to be somehow locally interconnected (as it is for instance in heat, force or electrical charge transfer, etc.). In case of causality relation existence between the level of cognitive abilities and level of personable dispositions we can exclude the nomological causality dependence with the highest probability. In case of much complex phenomena such as thinking,

295

 Critical Thinking as a Multifaceted Phenomenon

knowledge and personality it is more or less impossible to search causal relations having the nature of universal law. It is more acceptable to state the probable dependence of cognitive dispositions (as effects) on cognitive abilities (as causes increasing the probability of the effects). From the analyzed CT definitions the considerable complexity of the phenomenon is obvious. It is particularly demanding to state the precise number of its key variables and their relation. The main feature of the scientific models is their representation function determined by the idealization and abstraction processes. The representation function of the model is the result of three partial functions (Kühne, 2005, p. 1): a) function of mapping mediating the relation between the model and its original; b) reductive function on the basis of which the model only reflects the relevant properties of the object; c) pragmatic function ensuring the model applicability in practice. Function of mapping is given by the model type. In case of CT we can speak of so called meta-model – even its individual components represent a specific model type (e.g. model of thought procedure of analysis, abstraction, idealization, etc.). In building the model we can come out from two possible types of unification of diverse phenomena into a unified phenomenon: 1) from the type unification on the basis of similarity (TU); 2) or from the conjunctive unification on the basis of functional connection and coordination (KU). In the first case the unification is based on demonstrating the common properties, similarities. In the other case the unification is understood as the demonstration of the connection and functional determination of various entities. There are various levels of similarity and various levels of interconnectivity. The weak type of the conjunctive unification is represented by the integration of group of objects connected via the space arrangement (e.g. in building the villages, cities, regions, in building the geographical localities, etc.) or by the time parallelism (e.g. in establishing the historical time periods). The strong type of KU

296

is represented by explaining the various events as causally conditioned or organized into wider integrated functional systems. Between these two marginal CU types, there are a number of interstages, where relations and functional conditioning gradually appear among diversified phenomena, which were considered as reciprocally unrelated. In case of type unifications it is the demonstration that the seemingly different entities or properties are compatible under one general type. The strongest TU type is the reductive identification where the examined phenomenon is explained on the basis of identification with other phenomenon within explanatory stronger theory, by which it is eliminated. An example is the Maxwell theory of electromagnetism which explains the light so that it identifies it with electromagnetic radiation. On the contrary, the weak type of TU is represented by the demonstration that various objects are the part of the wider category of objects having the certain properties as common (Jones, 2004, pp. 614 - 647). In case of CT modeling we can start from the principle of conjunctive unification and try to seek the possible functional connections between the cognitive abilities and dispositions. If we want to make an empirically testable CT model we would have to be able to determine the precise character of the mutual relationship of abilities and dispositions. Therefore, we consider the majority of existing CT models to be the better (or worse) elaborated schemes of CT process. In these schemes the CT process components as well as the sequence of stages in which the process evolves are determined (however, sometimes in a quite general or vague way). The schematic records of CT process can be found e.g. in Ennis - „Process of deciding what to believe or do“(1985, p. 47), Sadler (2010, p. 11) or Halpern – „Schematic model of critical thinking process“(2003, p. 20). Halpern´s model focuses on the process of creating the justified decision. Within the model the variables entering the process of the situation interpretation are identified: situation variables, individual variables (education, experience), ini-

 Critical Thinking as a Multifaceted Phenomenon

tial stimulus (specific subject matter), dispositions and attitudes. The situation interpretation results in identifying the need of searching for the solution via the critical reasoning. In case of the positive answer the process of selecting the most efficient ways of solving the issue using the CT ability embarks – verbal intelligence, arguments analysis, hypotheses testing, probability determination and decision making. The next stage in CT process is represented by the metacognitive monitoring helping us identify the result quality. In case of the unsatisfactory result the process goes back to the repeated selection and application of disposable cognitive properties until the required quality of the final result is achieved. The model is based upon three essential CT process components: situation interpretation; selection and application of cognitive abilities and metacognitive monitoring. Many of these processes themselves are difficult to specify and evoke further questions: What relation do the individual variables have to the dispositions and attitudes? How does the selection of disposable cognitive abilities take place? What evaluation criteria is the metacognitive monitoring controlled by?, etc. If we come back to the three basic questions aforementioned in the introduction, we can formulate the answers as follows: 1. The importance of critical thinking lies in the fields of epistemology (CT is the thinking running in the precisely specified way managed by clearly formulated standards and hence leads to valid and logically correct statements) as well as in the field of practice (CT is connected with the amount of required personable dispositions and intellectual attributes resulting in the decision in what to believe and what to). In the first case, CT is defined in terms of qualifying formal thought operations and metacognitive processes; in the other case, the CT definitions have the character of specific target values, properties, activities and actions provid-

ing the following a) avoid various types of manipulations; b) understand and apply the principle of life-long learning; c) win the advantage of information due to their efficient processing; d) alleviate compromises and consensus within the whole society scale; etc. On the one hand, the critical thinking is the function of cognitive, metacognitive, or formal-logical operations; on the other hand, it is the function of personable (intellectual) dispositions. 2. CT models usually are the schematic records of critical thinking process. The analyzed definitions of the comprehensive CT subject frequently operate with similarly complex explanatory principles requiring more exact determination themselves. Regarding our investigation, we can assume that it is useful to design it on the principle of conjunctive unification of the constituent components (cognitive abilities and dispositions). We assume that the functional connections among these components correspond to the relation of the probabilistic dependence (i.e. „the freest “form of causality comprehension) of dispositions on abilities. 3. In respect to the insufficiently specified CT model we do not dispose of the sufficiently detail process description of the critical analysis, evaluation and deciding. The basic feature of the existing schemes is represented by proceeding in the direction from the internal and external parameters through the individual information processing to the required outputs and metacognitive monitoring. Nevertheless, we encounter the similar troubles as in the CT model design – we operate with the terms having wide extension and low intension. Regarding these statements, it is quite demanding to answer the following two complementary questions related to the design of the educational method of CT development and tools of its evalu-

297

 Critical Thinking as a Multifaceted Phenomenon

ation. If the model and process are too generally defined, subsequently, the determination of the method, standards as well as ways of evaluation are even more general leaving thus too much freedom for their interpretation (compare e.g. Ennis 1993, pp.179-180). Here we can ask: Is it possible to make the exact definitions, structural and process models of critical thinking at all? Isn´t it just too much theoretical and unreachable aim? Nevertheless, if we answer the questions positively, how could we subsequently try to design the CT development method? On what basis would we define the norms necessary for CT evaluation? It is important to emphasize that the efforts for the clear CT issue definition does not correspond with the efforts to design the unified explanatory model similar to the one provided by natural or even formal science. Despite this fact, we should not leave the efforts to be more exact and unified. The comprehensive phenomena related to thinking are difficult to grasp and explicit in the form of empirically testable hypotheses. Nevertheless, we will try to show the possible interdisciplinary procedures of CT researching which could be quite efficient strategies in the efforts to build exact and verifiable (falsifiable) statements.

INTERDISCIPLINARITY IMPORTANCE IN CRITICAL THINKING INVESTIGATION AND EXPLANATION The term of interdisciplinarity is currently a frequent term in the research practice. Nevertheless, it is important to specify precisely the interdisciplinarity particularly in relation to the terms of multidisciplinarity and transdiciplinarity. By the term multidisciplinarity we understand the systematic accumulation of knowledge in various sciences, while the subjects to research do not overlap and the result output of the multidisciplinary research is of an additive not integrative character. Multidisciplinarity indicates

298

variety, frequency of disciplines participating in the same subject study while not problematizing the character and quality of their mutual relations. Specific perspectives of scientific disciplines are understood as complementary while their boundaries preserve. This approach is characterized by the accumulation and enumeration of knowledge within the cooperation process of scientists dealing with various scientific disciplines. Methodological approaches and terminological specifications within the present scientific disciplines remain clearly distinguished, frequently even disjunctive. Frodeman (2010, pp. 234-245) defines the knowing acquired via the multidisciplinary approach as juxtaposed, sequenced and coordinated. The transdisciplinary approach is on the other end of the fictitious spectrum. The transdisciplinarity in scientific research allows the development of holistic schemes which from the point of explanation focus on complex systems. The scientists cooperate on research utilizing the common epistemological, conceptual and methodological framework. The transdisciplinarity represents the continuous transition through various scientific fields aimed at achieving the integrated, assimilated or unified explanation of the phenomenon investigated. The transdisciplinary approach is closely connected with the reduction way of explanation which is significant for the scientific research. It is frequently connected with the scientists´ efforts to make the ideal of a unified science come true. Some scientists even consider the possibility of creating the theory of everything which with the minimum of explanation principles (fundamental laws) explained the maximum of investigable phenomena. Nevertheless, this explanation way is qualified by the existence of the file of clear rules for valid inter-theoretical reductions. The classical theory related to the inter-theoretical reductions is represented by the concept of T. Nagel (1961). According to Nagel, the successful inter-theoretical reduction is qualified by following two conditions: the condition of deducibility – laws of one theory have to be

 Critical Thinking as a Multifaceted Phenomenon

derivable from the laws of the other theory and condition of connectability – terms in both theories have to be connected by bridging laws. Meeting such stipulated conditions is very demanding and in case of social sciences maybe beyond the boundary of feasibility. Besides, Nagel`s theory of inter-theoretical reduction is primarily built as epistemological and not ontological reduction. Interdisciplinary approach could be „situated” on the boundary of the multidisciplinary and transdisciplinary approaches. It represents the synthesis of two or more scientific disciplines leading thus to the establishing of a new scientific discourse, where the knowledge output is of an integrative character. For instance, Galileo´s method of the mathematization of the scientific explanation represented the constitution of a new interdisciplinary platform for scientific objectiveness and exactness (Bednáriková, 2013 (a), p. 22). Another example can be represented by the implementation of various mathematical models into the explanation of social or economic sciences (theory of games, theory of chaos, etc.) or use of the knowledge of nuclear physics in medical diagnostics. Interdisciplinary approach frequently leads to the development of a new scientific discipline (e.g. as in case of cognitive science, biochemistry, biotechnology, ecophilosophy, etc.). In case of multidisciplinary research the aim is not to create a unified terminology or methodology apparatus, on the contrary – in research various explanatory and conceptual frameworks are used intentionally and this variability is wanted. In contrast, the aim of the interdisciplinary approach is to investigate the boundaries of various explanatory frameworks of different scientific disciplines towards their gradual approximation. Via the interdisciplinary research the differences in the lexicon and methods quit to be clearly elicitable which results in the integration and synthesis of originally separated sciences. The multidisciplinarity is characterized by an external coherence (motivated by the external environment in favor of achieving the higher comprehensive knowledge), the interdisciplinarity

is related to the higher internal coherence (motivated by the internal common objective aiming at the deeper analysis rate and detection of new efficient reasons of the phenomena investigated), and the transdisciplinarity means the efforts to eliminate the diversity on the reduction principle (proceeding from the epistemological reduction to the ontological reduction). If the afore-mentioned types of epistemological- methodological approaches are put into the relation to the critical thinking research and explanation, we can establish the following: in current explanation of CT the multidisciplinary approach is applied. However, this results in quite unclear CT definitions and models hardly transformable in specific educational methods of CT development and its quality evaluation as well. As CT is a significantly comprehensive and unique phenomenon, the efforts to explain it on the basis of typological unifications or transdisciplinary reductions seem to be not only unreal but even contra-productive. The best solution is represented by the interdisciplinary research of CT, which will be potentially directed at the development of the specific research paradigm. This will allow bridging the vagueness of current explanatory terms and principles as well as it will help to clear the functional connection among the diverse components of CT process. The result of the interdisciplinary approach brings the synergy effect and mostly means also a significant advance in the explanation of difficult phenomena. This statement can be illustrated by the example of the origin of a new explanatory paradigm for explaining cognition and cognitive processes – cognitive science.

COGNITIVE PARADIGM AND ITS CHARACTERISTICS The main field of the cognitive science implementation is represented by producing the empirically testable hypotheses explaining the structural and

299

 Critical Thinking as a Multifaceted Phenomenon

procedural aspects of the human cognition. The cognition is understood as the system of all mental structures and processes of human knowledge (from perception and behavior to language and thinking). It is the mental knowledge structure. Within this paradigm, thinking is explained simply, however, very purposefully: as the ability to process information. The cognitive science is an interdisciplinary activity dealing with thinking and intelligence comprising mainly philosophy, psychology, artificial intelligence, neural science, linguistics and anthropology. At the time of the cognitive science origin the processes of knowing were explained within the behavioral paradigm. The attention was paid exclusively on the interpretation of the organism behavior on the basis of inputs (actions) and outcomes (reactions) algorithm while the whole process of the internal information processing remained neglected. In this understanding the mental states and processes were indicated as directly unobservable, and hence, scientifically unknowable. They became the black box phenomena. Nevertheless, this way of explaining – not explaining did not seem sufficiently efficient which resulted into the origin of the new perspective of the cognitive processes and the possibilities of their explanation. The new cognitive paradigm was built on the following axioms: 1. It recognizes the real existence of mental states and processes. The cognitive processes of information processing become the legitimate object of the scientific explanation. 2. The result of this postulate is represented not by the questionable relation of the mental and material spheres. Thinking is understood as a specific computation algorithm in which we can distinguish two levels – software and hardware. Software level is based on the specific code type determining the information processing. Hardware level is the material base executing the algorithm – the set of rules for the given operations execution.

300

3. In relation to Turing´s contribution (1950) dealing with the computational mechanisms, the cognitive processes began to be explained as internal algorithms operating with mental representations. The mental states are information states. The algorithm of processing the information represents the set of precisely stated operations on the file of mental representations. 4. Theory has to explain the observable properties (psychological, neurological, linguistic, anthropologic, aesthetic, etc.) of the cognitive system. The hypotheses in the cognitive research have to be potentially empirically falsifiable by the observable psychological and neurophysiological facts. The cognitive turnover was a transition from the description of cognitive abilities to their explanation. The understanding of the cognitive operations as the computations controlled by precise algorithms was important as well. The algorithm is the finally determined set of rules for executing the procedures of information processing which results in the transformation of one state (computation machine or cognitive system) into another state. This final set of operations is formulated in the form of a symbolic code. In case of cognitive operations the manipulated symbols are mental representations. The code is implemented in the device on the basis of its formal succession, i.e. on the basis of its syntactic characteristics. For instance, Chomsky´s (1993, pp. 511–534) understanding of the language is also of the character of computational operations on mental representations. According to him, the language cognition is conditioned by mastering the algorithm of the manipulation with symbols – therefore with mastering the syntactic rules for creating meaningful sentences. In case of language, the computations are carried out simultaneously on two types of representations: phonetic and logical. This way of explaining the cognitive operations brought a significant explanatory power to these

 Critical Thinking as a Multifaceted Phenomenon

new theories. The positive impact of the synergy of terminology lexicons and methodology apparatus of various scientific disciplines (from philosophy to informatics) is shown here. Considerable successes of this way of explanation manifests on the fast advancing of the artificial intelligence systems and robotics as well (compare Thagard, 2011, Návrat, 2007, Wilson, R. A. – Keil, F. C, 1999).

Interdisciplinary Scheme of Critical Thinking Research Regarding the mentioned interdisciplinary research of cognition within the cognitive science paradigm, we propose to develop the systematic interdisciplinary research of the critical thinking subject matter. Critical thinking should be systematically researched from several complementary perspectives. We propose to classify five main fields of the interdisciplinary research: 1. Critical thinking in relation to the language (field of research in cognitive linguistics) 2. Critical thinking in relation to cognitive and logical operations (field of research in logic, cognitive psychology and information science) 3. Critical thinking in relation to the methodology of science (field of research in philosophy of science) 4. Critical thinking in relation to personable dispositions and social attitudes (field of research in psychology of personality, cognitive anthropology, ethics, etc.) 5. Critical thinking in relation to pedagogy and educology (field of research in pedagogy and educational sciences) Critical thinking is very closely connected to the language competence. The main issues to be clarified in terms of understanding the relation between language and thinking are as follows: ability to understand the meaning of words

(semantics); ability to understand the meaning of sentences (syntax); ability to understand the text (reading comprehension). The relation of language and thinking (thinking in language) is the primary subject of ‘cognitive linguistics’ dealing with the description and explanation of the mental structures and processes connected to the language cognition. It acts as the integrating science discipline and it tries to determine the interconnections of the language representations structure, their processing and their neural base. It investigates the modeling possibilities of the process of language mastering, reception and production. The holistic approach in the cognitive linguistics explains the language competence as a part of universal cognitive principles file such as constituting of concepts, categorization, recognition of structures, creation of meaning, metaphors, etc. (Langacker 1988, Jackendoff 2002, Lakoff, 1987). Critical thinking is based on the complex cognitive, formal and informal-logic operations subject to research of ‘logic and cognitive psychology’. They are also subject to algorithmic modeling within information sciences. We propose the following way of their classification: •

• •

Cognitive operations: analysis, synthesis, comparison, abstraction, idealization, generalization, concretization, analogy, classification, modeling, etc. Formal - logical operations: implication, equivalence, conjunction, disjunction, negation, etc. Comprehensive operations of critical thinking: argumentation, evaluation, interpretation, inference, deduction, induction, etc.

The procedure of critical thinking is based on the methodology of science. The scientific method which is subject to ‘philosophy of science’ research is generally described in several basic stages: 1. observation of phenomenon or groups

301

 Critical Thinking as a Multifaceted Phenomenon

of phenomena; 2. formation of testable hypotheses that should explain the discovered phenomenon based on the causality principle; 3. verification of hypothesis validity based on its predictive power 4. in the last step the multiply confirmed hypothesis is incorporated in the system of other confirmed assumptions and laws of scientific theories. The process of critical thinking analogically develops in the following steps: 1. Identifying the subject matter – ability to judge a certain situation, 2. Defining the problem – ability to differentiate between real and fictive troubles, 3. Focused observation – ability to gather relevant information; look for new facts and key circumstances, 4. Looking for sources – ability to constitute a specific information database, 5. Evaluating the facts – ability to assign the different information, events and situations various rate of validity and reliability, 6. Deductive and inductive reasoning, 7. Identifying the logical errors, 8. Drawing reasoned conclusions. Critical thinking is also related to the file of personable dispositions and attitudes having the practical impact on the individual life as well as on the social life of the whole society. The personable dispositions and abilities related to the critical thinking are as follows: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

Active searching for information, Judging the credibility of sources, Identifying the problem, Memory capability, Identifying the difference between the description and explanation, 6. Ability to formulate ideas clearly, 7. Etc. The personable attitudes and cultural-social strategies related to CT are as follows:

302

1. Looking for the holistic comprehension and mutual relations, 2. Systematic skeptical - critical attitude, 3. Openness to continuous evaluation of own attitudes, 4. Open-mindedness, 5. Willingness to compromise (or to look for consensus), 6. Acting on the basis of objectively reasoned decisions, 7. Etc. The aforementioned abilities, dispositions and attitudes are subject to investigation of various scientific disciplines – e.g. psychology of personality, cognitive anthropology, ethics, etc. Last but not least important issue related to the critical thinking is represented by the question of possibilities and the ways of critical thinking development and evaluation. The basic questions for pedagogy and educational sciences research are connected with the development possibilities of cognitive operations and logical thought procedures of students as well as with the possibilities and ways of education to the required personable attitudes and cultural-social strategies related to CT. These issues are also related to the determination of standards and ways of evaluation. In the proposed interdisciplinary model of the critical thinking research we assigned the basic scientific disciplines and fields of their interest (see Figure 1). The model allows covering the complexity and diversity of the critical thinking subject matter. Regarding the current level of CT research, it would be very ambitious to speak about the potential unification of methodological and terminological aspects of participating scientific branches. Similarly, the efforts to create a unified interdisciplinary model which could identify causal relations of the assigned CT components – thinking, language, personality (and its education) and methodology of science are still very challenging.

 Critical Thinking as a Multifaceted Phenomenon

Figure 1.­

Critical Thinking and the Problem of Scientific Method In the introductory part of the chapter we have analyzed various CT concepts and its constituent components. Unclear and disunited determination of essential CT „building stones“ in the level of epistemology (so called metacognitive operations) and in the practical level (various personable properties, dispositions, attitudes, reasoned decisions, etc.) has been stated. In an effort to build a unified model for CT interdisciplinary research it is very advisable to come out from the science methodology. The issue of the method of the originating scientific knowledge was analyzed as early as in 17th century by René Descartes. He paid his attention first to the study of logic, algebra and geometry methods. Regarding these methods

he tried to establish four basic rules of a universal method. Rule 1 relates to the necessity of evidence in accepting the statements – the clarity and explicitness of these statements was important. Rule 2 states the necessity of analysis of the investigated issues. Rule 3 determines the successiveness from the simple and most easily knowable issues to more complex and less explicit problems. The last rule relates to the declare of complete calculations and summaries of analyses to achieve the highest possible level of evidence (Descartes, 1992, pp. 25 – 47). Although it is quite problematic to speak about the scientific method in general, we can identify some of its key characteristics. The scientific method is primarily based on the requirement of clarity, seizability, evidence and hierarchical procedure from the simple to the difficult. There are three basic types of scientific methods:

303

 Critical Thinking as a Multifaceted Phenomenon

•

• •

Universal – analysis, synthesis, comparison, analogy, generalization, concretization, abstraction, idealization, induction, deduction, etc. Empirical – observation, measurement, experiment. Theoretical – hypothesis, model, theory, law, etc.

The universal scientific methods represent also the basic methodological procedures of critical thinking (in terms of epistemology definition). Therefore, in the effort to state the fundamental elements and processes of CT more precisely, it is important to come out from the way of scientific understanding and explanation of reality. The universal scientific methods are defined as follows: •

•

•

304

Analysis is the thought decomposition of the complex whole into individual parts. There are several types of analyses – system analysis of events, things, processes from the point of their system character, relationship analysis of the relations of basic elements and formulization of their functions within the system, classification analysis of system on the basis of classification features, etc. Synthesis is joining of individual parts into system wholes, unification, creating complex files. It is determined by comparison, classification, generalization and inductive thought operations. Induction is the process of deriving the general principles out of individual facts and cases. The way of argumentation proceeds from the empirical premises to empirical conclusions while the conclusions are not deductively derivable from these premises. The inductive arguments are therefore a kind of extensive argument in which on the basis of probability it`s derived more than

•

•

•

•

it`s included in its premises. The induction is the key thought procedure in empirical sciences. Deduction is the thought process in which the conclusion necessarily results from the premises, and therefore, it cannot be false, if the premises are true. The deductive argument (syllogism) proceeds from general laws to individual cases. The deductive thought procedure is characteristic for formal sciences. Abstraction is the process of systematic neglecting some concrete properties, relations, and features which results in building an abstract object. This object is separated from the specific empirical image and is considered only of its own. The abstract term can be represented also by naming the relation (quantitative, qualitative), interaction, activity, etc. Idealization represents the simplification of comprehensive entities aimed at building theoretical objects and models of them. By the idealization we try to simplify and accommodate the investigated phenomena so that they do not lose their empirical potential. It is the higher level of abstraction (in contrast to the elementary abstraction which particularly neglects the individual properties). The main aim of the idealization is to eliminate the phenomena, properties, relations which are irrelevant or negligible for constituting an explanation. It is utilized in the formulation of natural laws and theories as well as in their practical applications (e.g. Newton´s law of inertia considers the ideal object which isn`t effected by any external forces). The Greek origin of the word analogy denotes its primary meaning – proportion. The basic scheme of analogy is as follows: A is in relation to B as C is in relation to

 Critical Thinking as a Multifaceted Phenomenon

D. The analogical thinking utilizes the existence of the proportional relations of the initial and target systems and regarding this it derives the probable relations of the new target system. The analogy is the form of inductive inference. The analogies allow approximating the new knowledge by its comparing to something already known. Comparison represents the thought process of searching common (consistent) or different (inconsistent) properties of diverse group of objects, phenomena, etc. It is closely related to analogy, generalization and classification thought procedures. Generalization is the process of stating the common features or properties in different situations, events, relations. The inductive procedure is applied here. The opposite case is represented by concretization (illustration) coming out from the deductive cognitive operations and directs to the identification of individual cases of general regularities, phenomena or processes (from genus to species, etc.). These thought processes condition the possibility of classification and systematization. Classification means categorization of concepts, phenomena, processes into specific groups on the basis of established criteria (class marks) representing the „boundaries” among these groups.

several models of the scientific explanation. To the basic models belong: deductive-nomological model (DN), inductive-nomological model (IS), model of statistical relevance and causalmechanical model. Within Hempel´s deductive-nomological model of explanation (Hempel, 1962) two types of components are distinguished: (i) individual facts and (ii) uniformities expressed in the form of general laws. DN model provides an answer to the question, why the same event (explanadum) occurred by showing how this incident resulted from various circumstances (C1, C2, ..., Ck) in accordance with the general laws (L1, L2, ..., Lk) Explanation has the form of deductive argument:

Understanding the way of scientific explanation is the key for the correct comprehension of the critical analysis process. The basic structure of each explanation is represented by the determination of relationship between the explained (explicandum) and explaining (explanans). The substantial is the ascertainment of the permanent relationship existence between explicandum and explicans which holds with the high probability rate, and therefore, it is of a considerable predictive force. Within the scientific theory there exist

Gases expand by heating (to the temperature T).

•

•

•

C1,C2,...,Ck L1,L2,...,Lk E where C1,C2,...,Ck are statements describing the individual events or facts to which we refer; L1,L2,...,Lk are general laws; E is an event we want to explain. The following argument represents this way of explanation: Investigated gas was heated (to the temperature T).

Investigated gas expands. Scientific explanation within DN model consists of two basic components: • •

C1,C2,...,Ck – statements describing the phenomenon to be explained L1,L2,...,Lk – file of statements explaining the phenomenon investigated

305

 Critical Thinking as a Multifaceted Phenomenon

For the valid explanation two conditions have to be met: • •

C1,C2,...,Ck has to be the logical consequences (it has to result logically) out of L1,L2,...,Lk L1,L2,...,Lk have to be true.

The scientific explanation is hence of the character of deductive derivation from two premises: axiomatic statement (law of nature) and description of the specific event (initial conditions). Via sub-summing the specific described phenomenon under general law we explain the phenomenon given, so that we determine its cause (why it is the way it is). If we did not break the rules of logic emergence in sub-summing we can consider the conclusion necessarily valid. Deductive-nomological way of explanation is valid mainly within the formal sciences and natural sciences where it is possible to formulate exact and widely valid scientific laws. In case of other scientific disciplines, however, many explanations are more of statistical or deterministic character. Therefore, the model of inductive-statistical explanation was developed (IS). IS explanation model is and inductive analogy to DN explanation as within IS explanation is ascertained that the explanandum with the high probability (not necessarily) results from the premises of argument represented by relevant laws and initial conditions. The statistical laws explain the individual cases by pointing out their high probability. Another type of scientific explanation is represented by the model of statistical relevance (SR), developed by W. Salmon (1971, pp. 29 - 87). It comes out of the following statements: • •

306

Explanation has to follow the principle of statistical relevance and relationships of conditioned dependence If we have the group or population A, attribute C will be statistically relevant to the attribute B then and only then when P(B/

•

A.C) is not equal to P(B/A) – hence when the probability that B is conditioned by A and C is different than the probability that B is conditioned only by A; Explanation force is inherent only to statistically relevant properties.

As an example of explanation following the principle of DN model which actually is not an explanation Salmon introduces the following argument (ibidem): (L) All men who regularly use contraception do not become pregnant. (C) John Johnes is the man regularly using contraception. (E) John Johnes does not become pregnant. On the first sight it is obvious that this way of reasoning does not represent any explanation at all despite that all conditions established by the deductive-nomological model for the scientific explanation are met: premise 1 is the general law (valid without exceptions) and premise 2 is logically deducible from premise 1. But this explanation is based on the explanation irrelevances and not on substantial properties which can be identified only on the basis of statistical relevance. Causal–mechanical model (CM) goes even further than the explanation model on the principle of statistical relevance. The identification of causal dependences of the explained phenomena is the key for the scientific explanation within CM. Causality is the process characterized by the ability to transfer specific features. It is the so called transference causality coming out from the model of causal transfer formulated by Descartes: if X causes Y, property X is transferred to Y (compare Psillos, 2002). Critical thinking as logically correct process of information processing runs analogically to the scientific knowledge and explanation. Some

 Critical Thinking as a Multifaceted Phenomenon

statements can be deduced from the premises (assumptions) on the basis of logical inference rules, by other statements we have to reason in terms of generalization (inductively). In the first case our conclusions have the necessary validity (if the premises are true and if we made no logical error in the deduction process). In the other case our judgments are valid with the high probability (however not necessarily). There are also arguments by which we have to consider their statistical relevance in the process of evaluation. The explanation on the principle of causal relationships identification is one of the most difficult, and frequently it is exclusively applicable in the field of the strict causal determination within natural sciences. Another example from the scientific practice which is important for the description and explanation of the critical thinking process is represented by the field of scientific research. Research process unfolds in the following steps: 1. First we identify the subject matter whose solution becomes the main aim of the research process (theoretical analysis) 2. Within the theoretical analysis we try to formulate the recognized problem as precise as possible and include it into the corpus of existing explanations. 3. The result of this effort is postulating certain dependences that have the character of the scientific hypothesis. 4. The process of logical and empirical verification of the hypothesis result into the confirmation or disconfirmation of the postulated hypothesis and leads to the inclusion of the new cognition into the corpus of current knowledge. Depending on the importance of the investigated postulate it comes in some cases to the modification (or in extreme case to the elimination) of specific theoretical statements.

The research process can be divided into four main parts: 1. Analysis of existing theoretical models, 2. Preparatory research procedure: a. Research problem (hypotheses, indexes, variables), b. Research methods (tools, techniques), 3. Empirical research (tools of hypotheses verification), 4. Conclusions (descriptive, explanatory, predicting). Research tools are investigated from the aspect of their reliability (weather they are reliable in the measuring process). Reliability can be investigated e.g. by the series of repeated measurements with stable, unchanging value of the variable. If the research tool is reliable, the values investigated should be stable and unchanging as well. The other possibility of reliability testing is represented by the parallel form of reliability estimation when the found values correlate with the values measured by other equivalent tools. For instance if test A measures the same value as test B, the test reliability can be estimated as the concordance rate of results if both tests. Validity of the research tool shows to what extent the tool really measures what i tis supposed to measure. It determines the concordance rate of the found results and characteristics that we have planned to observe. If the research tool is not reliable it cannot be valid as well. We determine three main types of validity (Ferjenčík, 2000, pp. 196 – 212): • •

Content (investigates whether the contents of the measurement instrument corresponds with the property to be investigated) Criterion validity (investigates the concordance rate of existing criteria or standards and results achieved via the research tool)

307

 Critical Thinking as a Multifaceted Phenomenon

•

Construct validity (investigates the rate to which the measurement instrument actually represents a specific theoretical construct, e.g. by comparing the concordance rate of theoretical predictions with the data measured)

Principles and sequencing of steps of the scientific research are analogically applicable to the process of critical thinking. Also here we proceed from the subject matter recognition towards the theoretical analysis resulting in the problem definition. Subsequently we produce the hypothetical assumption of the possible solution which is subject to a specific testing process. The process can have the character of information sources reliability and validity verification, identification of potential logical errors or contradictions, efforts to obtain more information, accumulate larger amount of evidence, consider other possible aspects, etc. The output of such critical analysis process is represented by the specific conclusion which should have the nature of objective argument. On the basis of the reasoned attitude and decision we are prepared to action. It is important to consider the possibilities of future impacts of our decisions as well as identify the risk and irrational factors and determine the rate of coincidence in the decision process. Similarly are the conclusions of the research reports in the scientific practice elaborated.

SOLUTIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS In the previous text we have focused on the possibilities and contributions of CT interdisciplinary research and identified the main difficult fields of the research: relation of language and CT; relation of CT and basic cognitive and logical operations; relation of the scientific method and CT process; relation of the personable dispositions, features and attitudes to CT; relation of

308

CT and the method of its development within the education and training process. The question how to apply this interdisciplinary approach to the CT comprehension and development within the university training remains open. The main principle in an effort to develop the CT dispositions and skills is represented by the meaningful awareness of the cognitive and metacognitive processes necessarily conditioning the quality of the educational process. At the time of the information explosion the focus on education is more shifted from the information transfer (by the passive presence of a student) to the intentional supervision of active information processing and subsequent reflection of the process. In other words – at mediating the content (of the study material) the teacher is in a large extent substitutable, however, in the intentional monitoring, regulation and development of the abilities to process given information the teacher is of irreplaceable value for the student. Here, we can again mention the explanation of the thinking process in the intentions of cognitive science and interpret it as a specific way of „manipulation“ with the information, even, with a certain extent of exaggeration, as a precise algorithm of information processing. The role of the teacher is mainly to focus the attention of the student on this “algorithm” since particularly the new way of information processing represents the possibility of reaching new knowledge. Metaphorically taken, we can say that within such a training process the specific content serves as a „material“ the student should utilize for building „own cathedral of knowledge“. This building has to be regulated by quite precise rules and principles, similarly, as it is in the case of real buildings (from the architectural rendering to the final implementation). The effort of the systematic support and development of cognitive and metacognitive competences can be illustrated on the selected examples of university practice. The training of selected humanities is carried out at the technical university (principally oriented more on quanti-

 Critical Thinking as a Multifaceted Phenomenon

tative scientific disciplines) which motivates the teachers to focus more on the importance and meaning explication of the qualitatively oriented subjects. Most attention is paid to the development of the critical thinking within the subject Introduction to the methodology of science. The critical thinking as several times aforementioned comes out from the methodology of science. It is applied within the whole research process – from searching the relevant professional sources, through hypotheses setting, planning of observations, measurements and experiments to drawing the universally valid conclusions. In the series of lectures the students get acquainted with the theoretical definitions of the basic thought procedures and logical operations, methodology of the scientific work and the scientific research process. The emphasis is put on the development of the scientific text and clarification of the criteria distinguishing the comprehensible text from the less comprehensible one. The professional text is written more or less for a fictional reader who cannot provide the author with no questions or corrections. Therefore, its content as well as its form has to be as clear as possible, precise and complete. The main aim is not to describe the phenomena or events but provide their explanation and support it with arguments. The explanatory text can be structured in various ways: chronologically (if it is the explanation of a certain process or development), systematically (with the aim to explain the basic elements, categories, terms and their relations), hierarchically (if the system has a hierarchically increasing or decreasing character), comparatively (on the basis of identifying the analogies or contradictions), causally (on the basis of describing the causes and effects or in the opposite direction), deductivelyinductively (via deductive derivation from the stated assumptions and subsequent inductive verifying of these consequences) or otherwise (compare Grešlová, 2009, pp. 83-84). Within the subject Introduction to the methodology of science we focused on the intentional

development of the argumentation ability in writing the professional texts. In building the argumentation we come out from the basic scheme of Toulmin Model of Argumentation having there three key components (The Toulmin Model of Argumentation, [online]): •

•

•

Claim (C) – means claiming the standpoint the author wants to claim and argue for in the text. Mostly it is a simple affirmative sentence that has to be formulated very clearly and not contradictorily. Evidence (E) – facto-graphic material by which the author substantiates the validity of his/her claim; the reader has to have the possibility to verify the truth of these materials (empirically, deductively or inductively) so that the given arguments can be accepted or refused. The evidence can have the form of a quotation from the primary sources (e.g. sources of own research, statistical data, questionnaires, structured interviews, analyses of documents, etc.) or secondary sources (referring to the results of other reputable authors). Warrant (W) – substantiates the connection of the previous two components (claim and evidence) and represents the conclusion resulting from the taken standpoint and the evidence of its validity.

Besides these three basic components the Toulmin Model of Argumentation has other components: •

•

Support of warrant (or Backing – (B)) – claims of facto-graphic character (examples, graphs, laws, standards, citations) supporting the validity of the warrant and evidence, Rebuttal (R) – stating conditions of the weakened validity of warrants (counterarguments),

309

 Critical Thinking as a Multifaceted Phenomenon

•

Qualifier (Q) – on its basis we consider the probability rate of the claim validity.

The students applied Toulmin Model of Argumentation in building the argumentation in favor of or against various claims. In this process mainly the thought processes of analysis, synthesis, induction and deduction, comparison, negation, concretization and generalization or abstraction are implemented. In the first step the student has to build his/her abstract model of argumentation and comprehend its internal structure and logical cohesion. Especially the understanding of the relation of the claim and evidence which has to be articulated in the form of the warrant is of main importance. Another potentially difficult issue in the argumentation process is represented by the counterarguments identification (rebuttal). The student has to clearly comprehend what fact is expressed in the claim and what is its direct opposite. Subsequently, s/he has to try to find the concrete evidence in favor of the counterargument and again reason how they relate to it. The mentioned thought operations were frequently identified as the most difficult and for the students also almost hardly feasible. It frequently happened that the students did not introduce correct evidence to support the claim since they were not able to understand the subtle differences in the meaning. They analyzed the secondary sometimes even tertiary relations without considering the existence of primary relations. Therefore, they often were not aware that the argumentation process gradually diverted from the originally demonstrated claim whereas also the counterexamples were not in direct opposite to the claim that should be the subject of argumentation process. Regarding these findings we assumed that it is necessary to go deeper and pay the attention to the basic principles of the concepts formation and to the identification of their logical relations. In the series of tasks we practiced with students mainly the analysis of the logical relation of the concepts. The specific task was as follows:

310

Choose from the following pairs of terms the pair (the only one) in which the logical relation of given expressions is the most similar to the relation of the expressions in the task (while the order of expressions matters) - sun: day. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

star: dark fire: heat lamp: light moon: night water: life

Two situations are analogical if they have the common pattern of relations of their basic components despite their components differ in meaning, e.g. electrons are in relation to the atomic core such as the planets are to the Sun. The formal analogy reflects the structural or relation proportionality while it does not require (in contrast to the material analogy) the identity or similarity of material attributes of compared elements. In searching the analogical relation between the sample example and the possibilities offered (A – E), first the student has to identify the nature of the relation between the terms „sun“ and „day“. The first expression represents the material object; the other expression is a specific time definition. The nature of its relation cannot be denoted as a causal one since in this case we could identify more correct possibilities (e-g. also water in some terms „causes“ the life, fire „causes“ the heat or lamp „causes“ the light). If we have to identify just one analogical framework we have to look for the analogy to the relation of material object – time framework. From this point of view we can exclude the pairs “star: dark”, “fire: heat”, “lamp: light” as the terms “dark”, “heat” or “light” do not represent the time framework. In case of the pair of terms “water: life” we could consider the term “life” as an expression of certain time period, however, in case of analogy it depends also on the order of the expressions. In the pair of terms “sun: day” which was the prototype of the logical relation the first member of the couple is

 Critical Thinking as a Multifaceted Phenomenon

represented by the material object which does not hold for the term „water“. Via this logical reasoning the student has to come to the identification of the analogical relation – “moon: night”. The successful solution to the task is determined by the ability of the exact analogical and comparative thinking, i.e. identifying the common and different features of the mentioned terms and analyzing the logical substance of their relation. The ability to think in language as well as the correct comprehension of terms is important. The student should comprehend the difference between the term intensity and term extensity. The term intensity is identical with the term content, i.e. with the file of all attributes substantially defining all events, subjects or phenomena falling under the term. The term extensity is identical with the term range, i.e. with the file of all objects named by the term given. Besides the terms intensity and extensity the student has to understand the hierarchic arrangement of the concepts and to distinguish the genus (higher) terms and species (lower) terms. Within the logical analysis we also distinguish the relations of terms in respect to their content: 1. absolutely different terms have no common attributes, 2. relatively different terms have at least one common attribute. Relatively different terms can be: a) dependant – when one term is of the higher class (genus term) and the other term is of lower class, however, of the same genus (e.g. the terms „means of traffic“ and „motorcycle“); b) homogenous – when the terms have the same genus attribute (e.g. terms „blueberries“ and „raspberries“); c) similar – when they have the common genus attribute (e.g. terms „glass vase“ and „glass door“). According to the terms range we can distinguish the following relations: identity – when various terms denote the same objects (e.g. „Morning star“ – „Daystar“); disjunction – when the terms ranges completely exclude each other (e.g. „plants“ and „animals“); inclusion of ranges – between genus and species terms (e.g. „plants“ and „gymnosperms plants“); overlapping of ranges – when it is not about the

relation of the genus and species terms but the terms have the common subclass (e.g. the term of „teachers mathematicians“ is the intersection of the terms „teachers“ and „mathematicians“); and the relation of co-subordination – when the range of two species terms can be subordinated under the range of common higher genus term (e.g. terms „man“ and „woman“ can be subject to the term „people“). If the students are able to apply the aforementioned logical-formal analyses, they are also able to identify the analogical relations of the terms. Subsequently it is possible to proceed to the deeper analysis of the statements relation expressed in judgments. The basic structure of each judgment comprises three components: subject, predicate and conjunction. The judgment represents a certain comprehensive idea. In logic it has the form of a statement which can be assigned a certain truth value. The judgments can be divided according to various criteria into several categories – for instance: •

•

•

According to the quality: ◦◦ Positive judgments (when we claim something) ◦◦ Negative judgments (when we deny something) According to the quantity: ◦◦ General (when we claim something about all members of the class) ◦◦ Partial (when we claim something about some members of the class) ◦◦ Individual (when we claim something only about one member of the class) According to the internal structure: ◦◦ Simple (have the basic structure of the judgment: subject – conjunction – predicate) ◦◦ Complex (when the subject and predicate consist of more terms or when it is the connection of more judgments connected by logical conjunctions):

311

 Critical Thinking as a Multifaceted Phenomenon

▪▪

•

Conjunctive (connected by the logical conjunction „and“) ▪▪ Disjunctive (connected by the logical conjunctions „or“, „either – or“) ▪▪ Implicative (connected by the logical conjunction „if – then“) According to the origin: ◦◦ Synthetic (a posteriori) – originating on the basis of experience (relation between the subject and object is not apparent but acquired empirically) ◦◦ Analytical (a priori) – originating exclusively via the analysis of terms comprised in the judgment. The correctness of these judgments is verifiable via the deductive thought operations while it is not necessary to rely on the empirical experience (the statements of formal sciences are an example of a priori judgments).

Next step in the development of reasoning skills that determine the possibility of writing the professional texts was explaining and practicing logical arguments. When reasoning, two propositions (premises) are followed by a third one – the conclusion of logical inference. There are two different types of arguments: deductive and inductive. In case of the deductive inference the conclusion is inferred from premises with the inevitable validity. In other words, if the two premises are true and a logical inference is correct, the conclusion must be true, too. In case of inductive arguments, the truth of their premises makes the truth of the conclusion just more probable but never inevitable. Here is one of classical examples of an inductive argument: All swans are white. This bird is a swan. This bird is white.

312

Whereas the first premise in not a universally valid axiom, but an inductive generalization, the validity of the argument is determined by the validity of the first premise. Walton (2006, p.52) represents yet another type of an argument – the so called probable argument. He brings a sample illustration: Where there’s smoke, there’s fire. There is smoke in Buttner Hall. Therefore there is fire in Buttner Hall. The difference between an inductive argument and a probable argument lies upon the validity of the first (higher) premise: while the white colour of swans is related to all subjects (each swan), in case of fire occurring all together with smoke, this is not true because the statement allows exceptions. And so considering this type of argument, it’s possible that both premises are true, but the conclusion isn’t. However, this type of reasoning can also have some practical advantages: It is applicable where a conclusion needs to be drawn, yet not enough is known about a situation to use a more exact or reliable method of drawing it. It is appropriate where, for practical reasons, under conditions of uncertainty and incomplete knowledge, a tentative conclusion needs to be drawn as a provisional basis to continue a line of reasoning or adopt a policy for action. (Walton, 2006, p. 53) The structure of a categorical deductive argument or syllogism is strictly given- it comprises three types of premises (major, minor and middle), and a conclusion. It also consists of three kinds of terms (major, minor and middle). The minor term is a predicate of conclusion, the major is a subject of conclusion and the middle term must be employed in each of the premises because it maintains relations between the predicate and the

 Critical Thinking as a Multifaceted Phenomenon

subject. The major premise indicates a connection between the major term and middle term, the minor premise shows how the minor and middle term relate to each other and the conclusion affirms relations between the major term (predicate) and the minor term (subject). According to this given structure, it’s possible to distinguish a deductive argument with its inevitable validity from an inductive argument with its only probable validity. Next field that was analyzed within the subject Introduction to a scientific methodology were elements of propositional logic. Students had to work with a unary propositional connective (negation) and also with binary propositional connectives (conjunction, equivalence, disjunction and implication). Subsequently, they were asked to decide about arguments ‘truth values. The mentioned theoretical knowledge was trained with students on the following type of tasks: 1. The statement T is given: All people in the room are students. What statement is the logical opposite of the statement T? (By the logical opposite of the statement T we understand such statement which if holds, then T does not hold, and if it does not hold, then T holds). A) B) C) D) E)

All people in the room are teachers. No man in the room is a student. At least one man in the room is not a student. At least one man in the room is a student. Some people in the room are students, some are not.

For the correct answer to this task it is important to understand the expressions „all“, „no“, „some“, „at least one“, i.e. identification of the type of complex argument. On the basis of such a clear understanding the students can form the opposite statement (i.e. logical negation) – if all people in the room have to be students, it is sufficient to

find at least one man who is not a student and the statement is denied. 2. There are three statements given: A) If Peter is a student, he has a bus ticket discount. B) If Peter has a bus ticket discount, he is a student. C) Peter has a bus ticket discount, but he is not a student. Which of the following statements are contradictory to each other? (Two of the statements are mutually contradictory, when if the first statement is true, the second statement must be false and vice versa.) A) only A and B statements are mutually contradictory B) only A and C statements are mutually contradictory C) only B and C statements are mutually contradictory D) only two pairs of statements A and B, B and C are mutually contradictory E) none of the statements are mutually contradictory 3. Is the following argument true? 1) If it rains, I will stay at home and clean. 2) I will stay at home and clean. 3) It will rain. The fundamental logical operations linked to these tasks are implication, conjunction, negation and equivalence. Students must master the basic logical syllogism analysis – they have to identify the major and minor premise, find and define the major, minor and middle term in conclusions and, subsequently, determine the truth or falsity of the arguments.

313

 Critical Thinking as a Multifaceted Phenomenon

Based upon the fore-mentioned (and more) examples and explained theory of propositional logic, students within the subject Introduction to scientific methodology had to understand the issue of conceptions, propositions (statements), arguments (syllogism) and basic logical operations. It allowed them to understand the laws of thinking and the way language and thinking were related to each other. This knowledge can be further developed in the direction from proportional to predicate logic, from extensional to intentional logic and so on. Students can use the gained knowledge in building their own argumentation what is inevitable for their scientific work. Along with the analysis of fundamental methodological instrumentation (universal, empirical and theoretical methods) of scientific disciplines, by understanding the models of scientific explanation and identification the rationality of the steps of research process, students have the essential principal equipment (or training) for a better comprehension of essence of critical thinking process and for developing of skills and dispositions for such a way of thinking.

FUTURE RESEARCH DIRECTIONS Critical thinking is often understood as a key competence of the 21st century (see Halpern 2003, p.2). Its significance and value can be noticed in all spheres of our lives – from seeking the truth and reliability of received information, through looking for possibilities of scientific research development (which has been very important for nowadays society) up to the realization of our daily made decisions. There are many different theories of critical thinking (skills, dispositions, standards, etc.) according to the field it’s being used – CT in the legal field (lawsuit analyses, deduction from precedents), CT in the medical sphere (here it`s very important when making decisions in crisis situations), CT within business field (as a part of financial literacy), CT in communication praxis (for example when having

314

a dilemma weather to apply rather assertive or emphatic stance), CT in politics (by analyses of a global impact of political resolutions), CT in a learning system (for instance in determining what type of information are important and which of them are time-limited; in gaining new knowledge and making new discoveries, in lifelong learning), CT in education praxis (every child is unique and it’s impossible to apply the same educational pattern on each of them) and so on. In this account we could continue for a long time. The previous text has shown the following facts: 1. Definitions of critical thinking are usually drafted too broadly and it’s quite difficult to establish relations between its constitutive components and thus design a CT model. If a clearly formulated model is absent, it’s fairly complicated to establish a development and evaluation method for critical thinking. 2. In effort to bring the issue of CT away from theoretical analyses towards an empirical research, it’s important to come up with some operating definitions of the CT key competencies and its basic methodological procedures. We recommend drawing them from the field of philosophy of science and scientific methodology. 3. We suggest studying the phenomenon of CT within the frame of interdisciplinary model (see Picture 1), taking the paradigm of cognitive science as an example of such an interdisciplinary research. Here is a cognition understood as an algorithm computation, which is implemented on mental representation within the so-called language of thinking (see Fodor, 1976). 4. In the educational and training process it is very important to focus not only on the presented content, but also on the methods of processing the gained information, thus considering cognitive processes in the background of educational and learning procedures. Intentional development

 Critical Thinking as a Multifaceted Phenomenon

of metacognitive processes (analysis and evaluation of cognitive processes) is one of the most important efforts in university education. Interdisciplinary research in the cognitive science significantly depends on terminology. Thinking is explained as an application system of rules of inference (by means of „if/so“) on a set of symbols – mental representations. The structure of these representations corresponds to the structure of sentences in the natural language. Such a definition of thinking proved to be very effective in clarifying the function of language, the way of creating statements and in explanation the decision making processes. A formal similarity of computation mechanism to cognitive processes is very important. A fundamental work of such understanding of cognition was written in the middle of 19th century by a British mathematician George Boole. In the book „An Investigation of the Laws of Thought“(1854), he tried to prove that formal mathematical operations performed on sets correspond to logical thought operations (expressed by logical connectives „and“, „or“ and „no“) applied to the statements (Boole, 1854). He also introduced a concept of mathematical formulation of the rules of logic and thus contributed to the development of a latter computational paradigm. His work has been followed by many, in particular Alan Turing by creation of so called Turing machine, Norbert Weiner with his foundation of cybernetics and Claude Shannon who has drafted an information theory. In the 50s of the last century, Newel and Simon came up with a first functional program for reasoning called „Logic Theorist“ which was later revised to a wider applicable program – „General Program Solver“. Furthermore, scientists‘ and artificial intelligence authors‘ attention has been drawn to automatic translations into various languages or to a development of programs for games of chess (Bechtel, 1999, p.1-104).

In terms of future research and a critical thinking development, the most important task is to identify algorithms of basic thought operations (such as deduction, induction, analysis, synthesis, generalization, comparison, analogy and others). These algorithms should subsequently be artificially simulated by computing devices. A similar progress took place when constructing the Turing machine. It is based on sequential conditions and rules, determining changes of these states. Each precisely defined function can thus be carried out by this machine in a succession of steps, observing one simple, syntactically structured rule: “if condition S gets input V step Q will be carried out”. Turing machine comprises a control unit, tape and read and write heads. The control unit is at each time defined by a certain condition, which changes in a precisely established way on the basis of information coming from the read and write heads. The basis of TS is an algorithm, which is a specific guide in tasks solving. Algorithm is a finitely determined set of rules to carry out procedures of information processing. The result is a transformation of one condition of a device (machine, computer) to another condition. This final set of operations is formulated in the form of a symbolic code. The code is implemented in the device on the basis of its formal sequence through its syntactic characteristics. If we were able to construct an algorithm of thought operations that determine our critical thinking skills, we would effectively define, evaluate and develop the whole CT process. We would acquire exact CT models which could be artificially simulated and empirically tested.

CONCLUSION In the presented chapter, we’ve focused on critical thinking in terms of considering possibilities of its theoretical modeling. We have emphasized the

315

 Critical Thinking as a Multifaceted Phenomenon

importance of interdisciplinary research of critical thinking because it is a multifaceted phenomenon and it’s impossible to explain it via one scientific discipline. We have clarified the term interdisciplinarity in relations to terms multidisciplinarity and transdisciplinarity. To give an example of the interdisciplinary platform, we’ve focused on the cognition research within the frame of cognitive science. We have also emphasized the effectiveness of such an approach and have tried to name some of the basic fields of interdisciplinary research in critical thinking:

deduction, comparison, analogy, generalization, concretization, abstraction, idealization and classification. The process of evaluation, interpretation, inference and others are determined by basic logical operations. In order to explain critical thinking, we suggest a classification of thought processes and basic logical operations as follows:

1. Critical thinking and language 2. The process of critical analysis and logical operations 3. Critical thinking and methodology of science 4. Critical thinking in relation to personal characteristics and attitudes 5. Critical thinking and teaching-learning process

•

Research in critical thinking includes mainly an area of cognitive linguistics, logic, cognitive psychology, information science, philosophy of science, personality psychology, ethics and educational sciences (pedagogical science). To draft a CT model, it is essential: 1. to determine the key components and 2. to identify the nature of their relations. We’ve analyzed the basic components of CT (sort of its building blocks) within different theoretical concepts. The most relevant concepts of key components in CT models are as follows: interpretation, analysis, evaluation, inference, explanation and self-regulation (Facione, 1990, p.6); purposes, questions, information, interpretation and inferences, concepts, assumptions, implications and consequences, points of view (Paul, Elder 2008); analytic thinking and evaluation, problem solving, persuasive reasoning (Klein, 2007, p.7). In order of exact determination of these key components we propose using the definitions of universal scientific methods such as: analysis, synthesis, induction,

316

•

•

Cognitive operations: analysis, synthesis, comparison, abstraction, idealization, generalization, concretization, analogy, classification, modeling and others Formal-logical operations: implication, equivalence, conjunction, disjunction, negation and others Complex operations of critical thinking: argumentation, evaluation, interpretation, inference, deduction, induction and others

All the thought and formal logical operations listed above are applied in scientific description (in the form of scientific principles) and in an scientific explanation (in the form of scientific theories). We’ve analyzed a deductive-nomological model (and its parallel – inductive-statistical model), a model of statistical relevance and a causal-mechanical model of scientific explanation. These kinds of explanation apply in the process of critical thinking as well. If we want to explain something, we need to subsume it under a general law, which is valid a priori (DN model) or a posteriori (IS model, SR model) as an inductive generalization statement. Another way of how to explain a something is to identify the effective causes of the phenomenon (CM model). We have identified a sequence of steps in the scientific research procedure that is applied in the process of critical thinking, too. It is very important to measure validity and reliability of information sources and logical correctness of the steps in reasoning and drawing conclusions. The process of CT analogically begins with a theoretical analysis, continues with specification of the

 Critical Thinking as a Multifaceted Phenomenon

issue by setting a research hypothesis, choosing a research procedure and ends up by drawing conclusions. The final step brings an analysis of some potential impacts of reached conclusions. We’ve dealt with possibilities of critical thinking development starting with an analysis of basic terms and operations of propositional logic, continuing by the analysis of various types of proportions and arguments, and ending with the draft of a scientific research paper that has an explanatory and argumentative character (as opposed to various kinds of descriptive texts). Critical thinking is a multifaceted phenomenon with an immense importance thanks to the contemporary explosion of information, accelerating pace of life, constantly changing conditions and a subsequent need for a lifelong education. If we succeed in the future, depends on our ability to understand the nature of critical thinking and our ability to learn how to develop it systematically and effectively.

REFERENCES Bechtel, W., Abrahamsen, A., & Graham, G. (1999). The life of cognitive science. In A companion to cognitive science. Blackwell. Bednáriková, M. (2013a). Introduction to cognitive science. Kraków: Towarzystwo Słowaków w Polsce. Bednáriková, M. (2013b). Introduction to methodology of science. Kraków: Towarzystwo Słowaków w Polsce. Boole, G. (1854). An investigation of the laws of thought. London: Walton & Maberly. Bowell, T., & Kemp, G. (2002). Critical thinking. A concise guide. London: Routledge. Chance, P. (1986). Thinking in the classroom: A survey of programs. New York: Teachers College, Columbia University.

Chomsky, N. (1993): On the nature, use and acquisition of language. In Readings in philosophy and cognitive science (Vol. C., pp. 511–534). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Descartes, R. (1992). Rozprava o metodě. Praha: Svoboda. Ennis, R., H. (1985, October). A logical basis for measuring critical thinking skills. Educational Leadership, 40(10), 44–48. Ennis, R. (1993, Summer). Critical thinking assessment. Theory into Practice, 32(3), 179–186. doi:10.1080/00405849309543594 Facione, P. A. (1990). Critical thinking: A statement of expert consensus for purposes of educational assessment and instruction. The Delphi Report. Millbrae: California Academic Press. Facione, P. A., Giancarlo, C. A., Facione, N. C., & Gainen, J. (1995). The disposition toward critical thinking. The Journal of General Education, 44, 1–25. Ferjenčík, J. (2000). Úvod do metodológie psychologického výskumu: jak zkoumat lidskou duši. Praha: Portál. Fodor, J. (1976). The language of thought. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Frodeman, R. (2010). The Oxford Handbook of Interdisciplinarity. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Grešlová, J. (2009). Vádemékum vědecké a odborné práce. Praha: Professional Publishing. Halpern, F. D. (2003). Thought and knowledge: An introduction to critical thinking (4th ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Hempel, C. G. (1962). Two basic types of scientific explanation. In Frontiers of science and philosophy. London: Allen and Unwin and University of Pittsburgh Press.

317

 Critical Thinking as a Multifaceted Phenomenon

Hickey, M. (1990). Reading and social studies: The critical connection. Social Education, 54, 175–179. Huitt, W. (1995). Success in the information age: A paradigm shift. Valdosta, GA: Valdosta State University. Retrieved from http://www.edpsycinteractive.org/topics/context/infoage.html Jackendoff, R. (2002). Foundations of language: brain, meaning, grammar, evolution. Oxford, UK: Oxford Univerzity Press. doi:10.1093/acprof:o so/9780198270126.001.0001 Jones, T. (2004). Reduction and anti-reduction: Rights and wrongs. Metaphilosophy, 25(5), 614–647. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9973.2004.00341.x Klein, S. (et al.) (2007). The collegiate learning assessment facts and fantasies. Evaluation Review, (5), 415-439. Kuhn, D. (1999, March). A developmental model of critical thinking. Educational Researcher, 28(2), 16–25. doi:10.3102/0013189X028002016 Kühne, T. (2005): What is Model? Dagstuhl Seminar Proceedings. Retrieved from http://citeseerx. ist.psu. edu/viewdoc/download;jsessionid=9675 D27BDE313AF50B42B3BA0DE4C187?doi=10 .1.1.89.7952&rep=rep1&type=pdf Lakoff, G. (1987). Women, fire, and dangerous things. University of Chicago Press. doi:10.7208/ chicago/9780226471013.001.0001 Langacker, R. W. (1988): An Overview of Cognitive Grammar. In Topics in Cognitive Linguistics (Current Issues in Linguistic Theory). Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins Publishing Company. doi:10.1075/cilt.50.03lan Mayer, R., & Goodchild, F. (1990). The critical thinker. New York: Wm. C. Brown. Nagel, E. (1961). The structure of science. New York: Harcourt, Brace and World.

318

Návrat, P. (2007). Umelá inteligencia. Bratislava: Vydavateľstvo STU. Norris, S. P., & Ennis, R. (1989). Evaluating critical thinking. Pacific Grove, CA: Midwest Publications. O’Hare, L., & McGuinness, C. (2009). Measuring critical thinking, intelligence, and academic performance in psychology undergraduates. The Irish Journal of Psychology, 30(3-4), 123–131. doi:10.1080/03033910.2009.10446304 Paul, R., & Elder, L. (2008). The miniature guide to critical thinking concepts and tools. Retrieved from http://www.jarwancenter.com/download/ english_books/english_booksandreferences/ The%20Miniature%20Guide%20to%20Critical%20Thinking.pdf Psillos, S. (2002). Causation and explanation. Chesham: Acumen. Sadler, G. B. (2010). Reconciling four models of critical thinking: FSU QEP, Paul-Elder, CLA, and APA Delphi. Fayetteville State University. Retrieved from https://www.academia.edu/480151/ Reconciling_Four_Models_of_Critical_Thinking_FSU_QEP_Paul-Elder_CLA_and_APA_ Delphi Salmon, W. C. (1971). Statistical explanation and statistical relevance. In W. Salmon (Ed.), Statistical explanation and statistical relevance. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press. Thagard, P. (2011). Úvod do kognitivní vědy. Mysl a myslení. Praha: Portál. The Toulmin Model of Argumentation. Retrieved from http://www-rohan.sdsu.edu/~digger/305/ toulmin_ model.htm Thomas, G., & Smoot, G. (1994, February/March). Critical thinking: A vital work skill. Trust for Educational Leadership, 23, 34–38.

 Critical Thinking as a Multifaceted Phenomenon

Turing, A. M. (1950). Computing machinery and intelligence. Mind, 59(236), 433–460. doi:10.1093/mind/LIX.236.433

Clarke, J. (1990). Patterns of thinking: Integrating learning skills in content learning. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Walton, D. (2006). Fundamentals of critical argumentation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Cowan, N. (2005). Working memory capacity. Psychology Press. New York: Taylor and Francis. doi:10.4324/9780203342398

Wilson, R. A., & Keil, F. C. (Eds.). (1999). The MIT Encyklopedia of The Cognitive Sciences. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

Edwards, W., & von Winterfeldt, D. (1986). On cognitive illusions and their implications. In H. R. Arkes & K. R. Hammond (Eds.), Judgment and decision making: An interdisciplinary reader (pp. 642–679). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

ADDITIONAL READING Abercrombie, M. L. J. (1960). The anatomy of judgement. New York: Basic Books. Baron, J. (1981). Reflective thinking as a goal of education. Intelligence, 5(4), 291–309. doi:10.1016/0160-2896(81)90021-0 Baron, J. (1985a). What kind of intelligence components are fundamental? In S. F. Chipman, J.W. Segal, & R. Glaser (Eds.), Thinking and learning skills: Vol. 2. Research and open questions. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Baron, J., & Sternberg, R. (1987). Teaching thinking skills: Theory and practice. New York: W. H. Freeman & Co. Biggs, J. (1999). What the student does: Teaching for enhanced learning. Higher Education Research & Development, 18(1), 57–75. doi:10.1080/0729436990180105 Bransford, J. D., & Stein, B. S. (1984). The IDEAL problem solver: A guide for improving thinking, learning, and creativity. New York: W. H. Freeman. Carroll, D. W. (2001). Using ignorance questions to promote thinking skills. Teaching of Psychology, 28(2), 98–100. doi:10.1207/ S15328023TOP2802_05

Engel, S. M. (1982). With good reason: An introduction to informal fallacies (2nd ed.). New York: St. Martin’s Press. Ennis, R. (1994). Assessing CT dispositions: Theoretical considerations. Annual meetings of the American Educational Research Association. New Orleans, LA. Entwistle, N. (1981). Styles of learning and teaching; An integrated outline of educational psychology for students, teachers and lecturers. Chichester: John Wiley. Fabrigar, L. R., Smith, S. M., & Brannon, L. A. (1999). Applications of social cognition: Attitudes as cognitive structures. In F. T. Durso (Ed.), Handbook of applied cognition (pp. 173–206). New York: Wiley. Fisher, A. (2001). Critical thinking: An introduction. New York: Cambridge University Press. French, J. N., & Rhoder, C. (1992). Teaching thinking skills: Theory and practice. New York: Garland Publishing, Inc. Halonen, J. S. (1995). Demystifying critical thinking. Teaching of Psychology, 22(1), 75–81. doi:10.1207/s15328023top2201_23

319

 Critical Thinking as a Multifaceted Phenomenon

Halpern, D. F. (1998). Teaching critical thinking for transfer across domains: Dispositions, skills, structure, training, and meta-cognitive monitoring. The American Psychologist, 53(4), 449–455. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.53.4.449 PMID:9572008 Haskell, R. E. (2001). Transfer of learning: Cognition, instruction, & reasoning. San Diego, CA: Academic Press. doi:10.1016/B978-0123305954/50003-2 Hitchcock, D. L. (2005). Good reasoning on the Toulmin Model. Argumentation, 19(3), 373–391. doi:10.1007/s10503-005-4422-y Johnson-Laird, P. N. (1983). Mental models: Towards a cognitive science of language, inference, and consciousness. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Johnson-Laird, P. N. (1985). Logical thinking: Does it occur in daily life? Can it be taught? In S. F. Chipman, J. W. Segal, & R. Glaser (Eds.), Thinking and learning skills: Vol. 2. Research and open questions (pp. 293–318). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Keefe, R. (2000). Theories of vagueness. New York: Cambridge University Press. King, M., & Shell, R. (2002). Teaching and evaluating critical thinking with concept maps. Nurse Educator, 27(5), 214–216. doi:10.1097/00006223200209000-00008 PMID:12355046 Klein, G. (1998). Sources of power: How people make decisions. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Lakoff, G., & Dean, H. (2004). Don’t think of an elephant! Know your values and frame the debate: The essential guide for progressives. White River Junction, VT: Chelsea Green. Last, J. M. (1988). A dictionary of epidemiology (2nd Ed.). New York: Oxford.

320

Lunt, B. M., & Helps, R. G. (2001). Problem solving in engineering technology: Creativity, estimation and critical thinking are essential skills. Proceedings, ASEE Annual Conference. Marshall, S. P. (1995). Schemas in problem solving. Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/ CBO9780511527890 Mason, M. (2007). Critical thinking and learning. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 39(4), 339–349. doi:10.1111/j.1469-5812.2007.00343.x Mayfield, M. (1993). Thinking for yourself: Developing CT skills through writing. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing Co. Meyers, C. (1986). Teaching Students to Think Critically. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Minter, M. K. (2010). Critical thinking concept reconstructed. Contemporary Issues in Education Research, 3(8), 33–41. Morgan, W. (1995). ‘Critical thinking’ – What does that mean? Searching for a definition of a crucial intellectual process. Journal of College Science Teaching, 24, 336–340. Niewoehner, J. R. Applied Disciplines: A critical thinking model for engineering. Retrieved from http://www.criticalthinking.org/pages/ applied-disciplines-a-critical-thinking-modelfor-engineerin/578 Paul, R. W., & Elder, L. (2002). Critical thinking: Tools for taking charge of your professional and personal life. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. Paul, R.W., Elder, L., & Bartell, T. (1997). California teacher preparation for instruction in critical thinking: Research findings and policy recommendations. Sacramento, CA: California Commission on Teacher Credentialing, March.

 Critical Thinking as a Multifaceted Phenomenon

Perkins, D. N., Allen, R., & Hafner, J. (1983). Difficulties in everyday reasoning. In W. Maxwell (Ed.), Thinking. Philadelphia: Franklin Institute Press. Prosser, M. (1987). The effects of cognitive structure and learning strategy on student achievement. In J. T. E. Richardson, M. W. Eysenck, & W. Piper (Eds.), Student learning: Research in education and cognitive psychology (pp. 29–38). Milton Keynes, England: Society for Research into Higher Education and Open University Press. Riggio, H. R., & Halpern, D. F. (2006). Understanding human thought: Educating students as critical thinkers. In W. Buskist & S. F. Davis (Eds.), Handbook of the teaching of psychology (pp. 78–84). Malden, MA: Blackwell. doi:10.1002/9780470754924.ch13 Rosenthal, T. (2001). Workshop on meta-analysis. Berkeley: University of California. Scriven, M. (1976). Reasoning. New York: McGraw-Hill. Shanks, D. R. (2005). Judging covariation and causation. In D. J. Koehler & N. Harvey (Eds.), Blackwell handbook of judgment and decision making (pp. 220–239). Malden, MA: Blackwell. Siegel, H. (1988). Educating reason: Rationality, critical thinking, and education. New York: Routledge, Chapman & Hall. Suedfeld, P., & Tetlock, P. E. (2001). Cognitive styles. In A. Tesser & N. Schwartz (Eds.), Blackwell international handbook of social psychology: Intra-individual processes (Vol. 1, pp. 284–304). London: Blackwell. Toulmin, S. E. (2003). The uses of argument. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. (Orig. pub. 1958). doi:10.1017/CBO9780511840005 Toulmin, S. E. (2004). Reasoning in theory and practice. Informal Logic, 24(2), 111–114.

Toulmin, S. E., Rieke, R., & Janik, A. (1979). An introduction to reasoning. New York: Macmillan. Twardy, C. (2004). Argument maps improve critical thinking. Teaching Philosophy, 27(2), 95–116. doi:10.5840/teachphil200427213 van Eemeren, F. H., Garssen, B., van Haaften, T., Krabbe, E. C. W., Snoeck Henkemans, A. F., & Wagemans, J. H. M. (2012). Handbook Argumentation Theory. Dordrecht: Springer. van Gelder, T. (2001). How to improve critical thinking using educational technology. Paper presented at the Meeting at the Crossroads: Proceedings of the 18th Annual Conference of the Australasian Society for Computers in Learning in Tertiary Education, University of Melbourne. Voss, J. F. (1989). Problem solving in the educational process. In A. Lesgold & R. Glaser (Eds.), Foundations for a psychology of education (pp. 251–294). Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum. Voss, J. F. (2005). Toulmin’s model and the solving of ill-structured problems. Argumentation, 19(3), 321–329. doi:10.1007/s10503-005-4419-6

KEY TERMS AND DEFINITIONS Cognition: Sum of all mental structures and processes of human knowledge and cognition (from perception and behavior to language and thinking), mental knowledge structures. Cognitive Linguistics: Is one of cognitive science disciplines. It deals with descriptions and explanation of mental structures and processes connected with language knowledge. Cognitive linguistics explains the processes that underlie the acquisition, reception and production of language. The basic paradigms of language conceptualization within cognitive linguistics are modular and holistic. The modular paradigm characterizes language as an autonomous module separated

321

 Critical Thinking as a Multifaceted Phenomenon

from other cognitive skills. The holistic approach explains language structures and operations as an inseparable part of the whole of cognitive skills (categorization processes and conceptualization of perceived reality). Cognitive Science: Interdisciplinary activity dealing with thinking and intelligence that includes philosophy, psychology, artificial intelligence, neuroscience, linguistics and anthropology. Most frequently it is explained as a computational process running on mental representations. They are of neurobiological character. The main field of cognitive science implementation is creating the empirically testable hypotheses explaining the structural and procedural aspects of human cognition. Critical Thinking: A thought process based on scientific rationality and consists of cognitive processes such as: analysis, synthesis, deduction, induction, comparison, generalization, concretization, abstraction, idealization, analogy, logical operations of deductive and inductive inferences, argumentation and evaluation. Critical thinking includes a set of personality dispositions, features and attitudes which along with the cognitive skills affect possibilities of reasonable and purposeful actions. Intelligence: The ability of processing the information, internally diverse and at the same time global capacity to act purposefully, think reasonably and to effectively cope with environment. It is the ability to consciously focus own thinking to new requirements.

322

Interdisciplinarity: Interdisciplinary analysis draws on the knowledge of several disciplines each from which provides different perspectives of the issue under consideration. It requires the integration of knowledge, terms, instruments and research methods of various disciplines while the resultant explanation is more comprehensive and consistent than only the sum of explanations of the individual scientific branches. Modeling: One of the most common scientific methods. A scientific model has to meet three criteria. 1. To map a certain feature of the modeled object; 2. to reduce the quantity of different object’s quality to a set of relevant descriptions; 3. a model must be assembled pragmatically considering concrete intent. Science: System of knowledge representing the laws of objective reality and serving for the purpose of explanation, prediction and modification of reality. Scientific Method: Empirical process of discovery and demonstration necessary for the scientific investigation. It mostly includes the phenomenon observation, hypothesis formulation about the phenomenon investigated, set of experiments that will prove or disprove the determined hypotheses and formulation of conclusions that will confirm, falsify or modify the hypotheses. The scientists use the scientific method for searching the cause–effect relations in nature. They proceed according to the observation — prediction — testing — generalization principle.

323

Chapter 14

Interdisciplinary Perceptions: Academic Acculturation and a Pathway to Improved Critical Thinking Donna M. Velliaris Eynesbury Institute of Business and Technology, Australia

ABSTRACT This chapter explicates a small-scale action research study that utilised qualitative survey data derived from academic lecturers at the Eynesbury Institute of Business and Technology (EIBT) into their perceptions of ‘critical thinking’. EIBT offers pre-university pathways in the form of diploma programs identical to the first-year of a Bachelor of Business, Information Technology, or Engineering at the partner institution. Interest was in the potential consistencies/inconsistencies in understanding(s) of critical thinking among academics and the ways in which they have/are incorporating related pedagogical activit(ies) into the delivery of pathway courses to an exclusively international and non-native English speaking student population. The findings reveal that EIBT academic staff share similar definitions and insights in relation to critical thinking and are implementing many and varied techniques to enable successful acculturation of EIBT students to Western academic practices prior to them transitioning to either The University of Adelaide or the University of South Australia.

INTRODUCTION Today’s Higher Education (HE) environment is dynamic and complex, and to promote student learning in the long-term, there is evidence that academic skills need to be ‘enduring’. ‘Critical thinking’ is one such enduring skill (Terenzini, Springer, Pascarella, & Nora, 1995) and a key learning outcome of most, if not all [Australian] HE institutions. Informative material students learn during their HE studies may have a relatively short

shelf-life after graduation. Even if content material is not entirely forgotten, it may soon become out-dated in relation to occupational/professional fields. Albrecht and Sack (2000) emphasised the importance of skill development during [accounting] programs and stated that ‘students forget what they memorise... Content knowledge becomes dated and is often not transferable… On the other hand, critical skills rarely become obsolete and are usually transferable’ (p. 55).

DOI: 10.4018/978-1-4666-8411-9.ch014

Copyright © 2015, IGI Global. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.

 Interdisciplinary Perceptions

For students to reach their potential in today’s society, they must learn to think and reason critically, which has been called one of the most important attributes for success in the 21st Century (Huitt, 1998). Paul (2002) contended that ‘in a world of accelerating change, intensifying complexity and increasing interdependence, critical thinking is now a requirement for economic and social survival’. Ongoing debate within HE research, however, pertains to whether students can ‘learn’ to think critically on their own or whether they need to be formally ‘taught’ this skill (Choy & Cheah, 2009). It is generally agreed that the ability to think critically is an imperative to success and research has indicated the strong need for improving critical thinking skills since many students fail to utilise sophisticated reasoning even at the HE level (Halpern, 1996; 1999; Kuhn, 1999). Learning to think critically, to analyse and synthesise information, to solve economic, political, scientific, social, and technical problems, and to work productively in groups as examples, are crucial skills for successful and fulfilling participation in a modern society (Grabinger & Dunlap, 1995, p. 5).

BACKGROUND Eynesbury Institute of Business and Technology (EIBT) The Eynesbury Institute of Business and Technology (EIBT) is one of a growing number of private providers partnering with universities to establish programs that create opportunities to promote Australian HE globally. The main objective of pathway providers is to attract international students early in their education lifecycle and secure their tertiary destination prior to them meeting entrance requirements (Fiocco, 2006; Velliaris & Willis, 2014). EIBT has established pre-university pathways and offers the same courses that consti-

324

tute the first-year of a Bachelor of (1) Business, (2) Information Technology, or (3) Engineering at the destination university; either The University of Adelaide or the University of South Australia. The pathway university moderates diploma delivery and grants advanced standing for courses if students achieve an overall minimum entry-level Grade Point Average (GPA) upon graduation (Velliaris & Willis, 2014). EIBT offers an extended period of academic preparation for entrance into HE, with specific focus on students who are ‘weaker’ in terms of their language proficiency and/or previous academic results (Gillett & Wray, 2006, p. 7). EIBT students represent [in alphabetical order]: Bangladesh; China [mainland, Hong Kong and Macau]; Egypt; Fiji; India; Indonesia; Iran; Kenya; Lebanon; Malaysia; Nepal; Nigeria; Oman; Pakistan; Saudi Arabia; Singapore; South Korea; Sri Lanka; Turkey; Vietnam; and Zimbabwe. With a 98% international student demographic—the remaining 2% are ‘international’ students with Australian Permanent Residency (PR)—EIBT lecturers face challenges that include, but are not limited to: acculturating international students to Australian HE; confronting English languagerelated teaching and learning barriers; and improving students’ and overall academic performance. This chapter was borne out of issues arising from the challenge that EIBT lecturers face in acculturating international students to Australian HE, including the development of their ‘critical thinking’ and associated ‘problem-solving’ skills. This small-scale study directly/indirectly endeavoured to address the following objectives: • • •

To review the literature on critical thinking; To consider the working definitions of critical thinking among EIBT academics; and To identify how EIBT academics attempt to embed critical thinking type activities into their course(s) considering that no standalone academic programs are offered.

 Interdisciplinary Perceptions

Throughout this chapter, the term ‘international students’ or ‘students’ is specific to individuals enrolled in EIBT on temporary student visas and who are exclusively from a Non-English Speaking Background (NESB). ‘Acculturation’ will refer to Redfield, Linton and Herskovits’ (1936, p. 149) seminal definition recorded as ‘those phenomena which result when groups of individuals having different cultures come into continuous first-hand contact with subsequent changes in the original cultural patterns of either or both groups’.

LITERATURE REVIEW International Students and Academic Acculturation Although the increasingly multicultural composition of cohorts within Australian HE campuses has brought about social and financial benefits, there remains nevertheless ‘a number of challenges’ (Bodycott & Walker, 2000, p. 80). Among those challenges is the ability of international students to acculturate into the context of Australian HE, characterised as peer-assisted, problem-based, real-world, self-directed, and student-centred (Velliaris & Warner, 2009). The academic discourse patterns in discipline-specific areas may contradict any expectations previously encountered by international students who oftentimes arrive with ‘misperceptions’ (Bryson, Hardy, & Hand, 2009, p. 1) and a lack of skills required to make a successful transition (Kantanis, 2000). The challenge of switching between/among diverse institutional cultures is accentuated in many cases by students using English as an Additional Language (EAL), which carries with it ‘a particular kind of vulnerability’ (Hellsten, 2002, p. 10). Social, cultural and educational dispositions in academic practices and issues surrounding academic integrity are not universal. International students transitioning to Australian HE—particularly at the undergraduate level—are expected to

demonstrate academic proficiency whilst situated on the periphery of the Australian academic community without having previously had exposure to the discipline in question (Velliaris & Warner, 2009). Successful transition into a new educational environment and demonstrating academic proficiency requires adaptation to the teaching and learning culture of the host institution (Hellsten, 2002; Prescott & Hellsten, 2005). While not explored in great detail in this chapter, ‘culture’ is implicit to this discussion as international students are required to negotiate meaning through interactions within the sociocultural environment, which in this case is the Australian HE context (Bodycott & Walker, 2000, p. 83). In this scenario, the ‘dominant’ culture is seen in terms of academic assumptions that are often taken-for-granted. The assumptions embedded in culturallyrelated ‘good’ or ‘bad’ academic competencies are developed within a Western context. As such, they may discriminate against those from non-Western backgrounds. Previous educational background and lack of understanding of the norms of the ‘Western construct’ have implications for teaching and learning, and impact on international students’ development of effective academic language and learning skills. Critical thinking in an Australian HE context—as expected from students— is part of a ‘rich’ cultural tradition. Anecdotally, there appears to be consensus that international students entering Australian HE are underequipped with the learning skills essential for tertiary-level studies, and further, language issues may be accentuated by cultural unfamiliarity with Australian pedagogical requirements (Velliaris & Warner, 2009; Velliaris & Willis, 2014). Unfortunately, it is easy for academic staff to become fixated on obvious differences among local and international students. A concern with critical thinking in HE—in the broad sense of teaching students to think about thinking—is hardly new. The capacity to think critically has been identified as an important distinguishing feature between Western and nonWestern or Confucian-based learning systems.

325

 Interdisciplinary Perceptions

Asian students are generally perceived to lack an understanding of the requirements of analysis and critique in their approach to academic texts. There may be the assumption that if a student is unable to cope in a particular learning environment, then the problem lies with the ‘student’ rather than the ‘teacher’. As such, international students can feel patronised by the attitudes of academic staff and transition programs that operate from a deficit model (Velliaris & Warner, 2009). The challenge is how to familiarise them with the concept of Western critical thinking in a way that is not blatantly assimilationist. That is, difference should be accommodated by acculturation practices that involve flexible and inclusive methodologies. In some cultures, international students are taught to accept knowledge without exploring and creating new knowledge; retelling and delivering information in its exact form. To them, this is not an act of intentionally falsifying information; students may not even realise their actions as they already knew the information and did not, therefore, see the need to cite the ‘original’ (Gitanjali, 2004). While international students acquire the new academic discourse and obtain skills and concepts important for them to become members of the mainstream scholarly community, they inevitably draw on their cultural resources i.e., rely on their own learning approaches and writing conventions, which may not be in accordance with scholastic demands in a Western educational context. In agreement with McGowan (2005, p. 51), when an international student embarks on Australian HE, they need to understand that they are entering a new ‘culture’ and are becoming a member of a ‘community of scholars’.

Critical Thinking: Definitions, Dispositions, Distinctions, and Demonstrations Throughout the associated literature, a multiplicity of definitions of ‘critical thinking’ can be uncovered. The ten randomly selected delineations

326

listed in chronological order below are typical, wide-ranging and non-discipline specific: 1. Construed broadly, critical thinking comprises the mental processes, strategies and representations people use to solve problems, make decisions, and learn new concepts. The particular elements of critical thinking that people use vary widely both in scope and in quality across persons, tasks, and situations. (Sternberg, 1986, p. 3) 2. Critical thinking means correct thinking in the pursuit of relevant and reliable knowledge about the world... reasonable, reflective, responsible, and skillful thinking that is focused on deciding what to believe or do. A person who thinks critically can ask appropriate questions, gather relevant information, efficiently and creatively sort through this information, reason logically from this information, and come to reliable and trustworthy conclusions about the world that enable one to live and act successfully in it. (Schafersman, 1991, p. 3) 3. The adjective critical, when applied to thinking, should be considered as implying the need to lay clear the underlying premises upon which statements of facts, deductions, opinions or hypothesis are grounded. (Anderson & Garrison, 1995, p. 186) 4. Critical thinking is reasonable reflective thinking focused on deciding what to believe or do. (Ennis, 1996, p. 166) 5. Critical thinking refers to the use of cognitive skills or strategies that increase the probability of a desirable outcome... purposeful, reasoned, and goal-directed. It is the kind of thinking involved in solving problems, formulating inferences, calculating likelihoods, and making decisions... an attitude or disposition to recognize when a skill is needed and the willingness to exert the mental effort needed to apply it. (Halpern, 1999, p. 70 & 72)

 Interdisciplinary Perceptions

6. Typically, the terms reflective thinking, critical thinking, reflective judgment as well as critical reflection have each been used to define a way of thinking that accepts uncertainty and acknowledges dilemmas... (Larrivee, 2000, p. 294) 7. ...a person engaged in critical thinking uses a core set of cognitive skills—analysis, interpretation, inference, explanation, evaluation, and self-regulation—to form that judgment and to monitor and improve the quality of that judgment. Critical thinking is non-linear and recursive... (Giancarlo & Facione, 2001, p. 3) 8. Critical thinking... requires the understanding of a broad knowledge base, the ability to identify inferential relationships, examining the credibility of the statements, the search for elements to draw conclusions, and the ability to explain the reasoning to get to this point. (Marrapodi, 2003, p. 7) 9. Critical thinking is the process of analyzing and assessing thinking with a view to improving it. Critical thinking presupposes knowledge of the most basic structures in thinking (the elements of thought) and the most basic intellectual standards for thinking (universal intellectual standards). The key to the creative side of critical thinking (the actual improving of thought) is in restructuring thinking as a result of analysing and effectively assessing it. (Paul & Elder, 2007, p. 6) 10. Critical thinking includes the component skills of analysing arguments, making inferences using inductive or deductive reasoning, judging or evaluating, and making decisions or solving problems... both cognitive skills and dispositions. These dispositions, which can be seen as attitudes or habits of mind, include open and fair-mindedness, inquisitiveness, flexibility, a propensity to

seek reason, a desire to be well informed, and a respect for and willingness to entertain diverse viewpoints. (Lai, 2011, p. 2) Oftentimes, critical thinking and problemsolving are featured in the one definition, despite the fact that critical thinking is a large, overarching term, while problem-solving is a specific task. The following five extracts are taken from the literature: 1. Critical thinking has many components. Life can be described as a sequence of problems that each individual must solve for one’s self. Critical thinking skills are nothing more than problem-solving skills that result in reliable knowledge. (Schafersman, 1991, p. 4) 2. When we think critically, we are evaluating the outcomes of our thought processes—how good a decision is or how well a problem is solved. (Halpern, 1999, p. 70) 3. ...it has been shown that improved critical thinking is strongly correlated to improvement in problem-solving ability. (Lunt & Helps, 2001) 4. Proponents of ‘critical thinking’ tend to draw on a philosophical tradition of ‘logical reasoning’, attention is directed to problemsolving, reasoning and higher-order thinking skills. (Wright, Burrows, & MacDonald. 2004, p. 5) 5. ...the development of students’ capacities of critical thinking, which is necessary for the analysis of unfamiliar situations, so that their question-asking, problem-solving, and decision-making capabilities will be based on a framework of rational thinking... while dealing with thinking about issues, making decisions and/or solving problems. (Miri, David, & Uri, 2007, p. 354 & 356) The teaching of critical thinking is not without its complications regardless of students’ prior

327

 Interdisciplinary Perceptions

educative experiences. Even though academics across disciplines may have an understanding of what critical thinking entails in a ‘broad’ sense, there is seldom clear enunciation (Twibell, Ryan, & Hermiz, 2005). Across the associated literature, critical thinking includes a range of attributes that students should demonstrate in their quest for deep(er) knowledge, as presented in Table 1. Relatedly, dispositions are strong precursors of critical thinking. Dispositions, as presented in Table 2, are the gateway through which one’s mind can engage in critical thinking (e.g., Choy & Cheah, 2009; Facione, 1990; Facione, Sánchez, Facione, & Gainen, 1995; Lai, 2011; Paul & Elder, 2007; Schafersman, 1991; van Gelder, 2005). Clement (1979, p. 1) stated that ‘we [educators] should be teaching students how to think. Instead, we are teaching them what to think’. Similarly, Norman (1981, p. 1) noted that it is ‘strange that we [educators] expect students to learn, yet seldom teach them anything about learning’. Paul (1992) too argued that typical school instruction does not encourage the development of higherorder thinking skills such as critical thinking. Educators too often give students a problem, but

Table 1. A range of ‘attributes’ that exemplify critical thinking accurate alert analytical attentive autonomous aware clear complete conceptual confident consistent courageous creative curious determined diligent empathetic evaluative evidential

328

exhaustive fair-minded flexible focused honest humble imaginative independent inquisitive insightful introspective judicious literate logical mature metaphorical methodological meticulous objective

open-minded orderly precise professional prudent purposeful rational realistic reasonable reflective respectful self-confident sensible specific systematic tolerant truth-seeking understanding well-informed

dictate the process for working-out/solving that problem. In other words, they may prescribe that a particular problem-solving strategy be used, learned or even memorised. In fact, in some problem-based learning frameworks, the problem is presented alongside objectives, formula, related readings, and cheat-sheets specifically related to that problem. In this scenario, the student is told what to use, what to learn, and how to answer the question (Savery & Duffy, 1995, p. 5). With this level of pre-specification, students are not encouraged to engage in independent/autonomous critical thinking. Rather than being a stimulus for problem-solving and self-directed learning, a problem ‘merely serves as an example’ (Savery & Duffy, 1995, p. 5). Increasingly, educative instruction—with its emphasis on the coverage of content—is designed as though ‘recall’ were equivalent to ‘knowledge’. Indeed, the teacher’s role should be to challenge learners’ critical thinking, not dictate or attempt to proceduralise it. Grabinger and Dunlap (1995) alluded to the fact that [w]e [educators] have created an evaluation, testing, and grading sub-structure that helps perpetuate the view that education is a game that has few winners and many losers. This game teaches our students to focus on tests and grades rather than on problem-solving, applying knowledge, and working collaboratively in a risk-free environment. (p. 8) Judging the quality of critical thinking as an outcome within a specific educational context is the responsibility of the educator as pedagogical and content expert (Garrison, Anderson, & Archer, 2001, p. 2). When HE lecturers have a great deal of content to cover within a short period of time, their focus may be placed on ‘content’ as opposed to ‘learning’. Although content is undeniably important, the ‘process’ of how students learn the material is equally, if not more important.

 Interdisciplinary Perceptions

Table 2. A range of ‘dispositions’ believed to be precursors of critical thinking knowledging choices acquiring, retaining and relaying knowledge analysing complex meanings anticipating situations applying rhetorical strategies appraising evidence ascertaining what information currently exists asking for examples to improve clarity assessing the truth of evidence balancing, weighing and deciding becoming a perpetual problem-solver being mentally alert and open-minded calculating likelihoods categorising information received cataloguing what is known challenging assumptions checking accuracy of assumptions conjecturing alternatives considering subject matter insights constructing a case contrasting ideals with actual practice correcting oneself as appropriate creating and critiquing arguments decoding significance defending opinions defining terms demanding the application of reason demonstrating prudent maturity of judgment

desiring to be well-informed detecting bias determining judiciously what to do developing techniques dialoguing on complex problems differentiating between fact and opinion distinguishing persuasive techniques drawing deductive and valid conclusions endorsing a position engaging in deep subject matter enjoying finding answers to challenging questions enumerating choices envisioning alternatives evaluating information gathered examining credibility of statements exhibiting thoughtful beliefs and actions expanding thought processes exploring plausible options or alternative viewpoints facing personal biases, prejudices and stereotypes focusing attention on the concerns at hand formulating inferences gaining awareness of multiple perspectives gathering and marshalling pertinent information generating and organising ideas going beyond the data grasping probabilities having confidence in reasoning identifying affective influences

imagining possibilities increasing interest improving cognitive ability inferring wisely integrating professional skills across disciplines interpreting problems justifying procedures keeping the question and situation in mind learning through realistic tasks and performances linking multifarious concepts making plausible inferences manipulating and interpreting data graphs modifying opinions in light of new facts monitoring personal cognitive processes noting significant similarities and difference performing and receiving peer critiques planning refutation, rebuttal and debating possessing intellectual curiosity prioritising importance promoting the worth of context providing proof or examples querying claims questioning assumptions of right and wrong rationalising dispassionately reaching conclusions reasoning and higher-order thinking refining generalisations recognising bias and subjectivity

reconstructing patterns of beliefs referencing verifiable information reflecting on motivations, values and attitudes reinterpreting the world outside of HE removing confusion responding to values and interests of others reviewing extant research scrutinising alternative possibilities seeking results that are precise setting out advantages and disadvantages showing systematic diligence solving with logic sorting and sub-classifying information suspending judgement synthesising different ideas taking legal and ethical aspects into account testing hypotheses thinking analytically transferring appropriate skills trusting in the processes of reasoned inquiry understanding other cultural traditions using inductive/deductive reasoning utilising information innovatively valuing reason and truth wanting to know how things work welcoming outside knowledge willing to consider and reconsider writing thesis-driven arguments

329

 Interdisciplinary Perceptions

Lecturing is faster and easier than integrating project-based learning opportunities and similarly, ‘factual’ quiz and tests are quicker and simpler to grade than ‘interpretive’ assessments. Tracing a chronological timeline of approaches to tackling and demonstrating ‘critical thinking’ in both teaching and learning terms, one commences with the work of Bloom (1956) who identified six levels indicative of a high(er) cognitive ability: 1. Analysis—focused on parts and their functionality in the whole; 2. Application—applying information according to a rule or principle in a specific situation; 3. Comprehension—relating and organising previously learned information; 4. Evaluation—focused upon valuing and making judgments based upon information; 5. Knowledge—remembering and reciting information; and 6. Synthesis—focused on putting parts together to form a new and original whole. Brookfield (1987) suggested a five phase model of critical thinking in ‘adult’ education: 1. 2. 3. 4.

A triggering event; Situation appraisal; Exploration to explain anomalies; Development of alternative perspectives; and 5. Integrating perspectives into the fabric of living. Brookfield (1987) also recognised three interrelated parts: 1. Discovering the assumptions that guide our decisions, actions and choices; 2. Checking the accuracy of these assumptions by exploring as many different perspectives, viewpoints and sources as possible; and

330

3. Taking informed decisions that are based on these researched assumptions. Browne and Keeley (2003) described critical thinking throughout their works as a process that begins with an argument and progresses toward evaluation as conceptualised by three activities: 1. Asking key questions designed to identify and assess what is being said; 2. Answering those questions by focusing on their impact on stated inferences; and 3. Displaying the desire to deploy critical questions. Broadbear (2003) affirmed that educative activities for promoting critical thinking should be based on four important elements: 1. 2. 3. 4.

Ill-structured problems; Criteria for assessing thinking; Student assessment of thinking; and Improvement of thinking. (p. 7)

Van Gelder (2005) summarised six succinct ‘lessons’ related to how critical thinking is acquired and taught: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.

Critical thinking is hard; Practice makes perfect; Practice for transfer; Practical theory; Map it out; and Belief preservation. (pp. 42-46)

Duron, Limbach and Waugh (2006) devised a five step framework that educators can implement across disciplines to help move students closer towards critical thinking: 1. Determine learning objectives; 2. Teach through questioning; 3. Practice before assessing;

 Interdisciplinary Perceptions

4. Review, refine, and improve; and 5. Provide feedback and assessment of learning. (p. 161) Miri, David and Uri (2007) added that critical thinking capabilities can be divided into two categories: 1. Skills—the ability to analyse, evaluate and make inferences; and 2. Dispositions—the motivation, inclination and drive of the learner to involve themself in meaningful critical thinking while dealing with thinking about issues, making decisions and/or solving problems. (p. 354; p. 356) Paul and Elder (2007) named 25 competency standards for determining students’ ability to think critically in a teaching and learning environment: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22.

Purposes, goals and objectives; Questions, problems, and issues; Information, data, evidence, and experience; Inferences and interpretations; Assumptions and presuppositions; Concepts, theories, principles, definitions, laws and axioms; Implications and consequences; Points of view and frames of reference; Assessing thinking; Fair-mindedness; Intellectual humility; Intellectual courage; Intellectual empathy; Intellectual integrity; Intellectual perseverance; Confidence in reason; Intellectual autonomy; Insight into egocentricity; Insight into sociocentricity; Skills in the art of studying and learning; Skills in the art of asking essential questions; Skills in the art of close-reading;

23. Skills in the art of substantive writing; 24. Ethical reasoning abilities; and 25. Skills in detecting media bias and propaganda in national and world news. (pp. 17-43) Synder and Synder (2008) noted four barriers to successful critical thinking in education: 1. 2. 3. 4.

Lack of training; Lack of information; Preconceptions; and Time constraints. (pp. 92-93)

In summary, the purpose of education should be to ‘foster’ critical thinking, which ‘can and should infuse teaching and learning’ at all levels, especially HE (Burbules & Berk, 1999, p. 48). ‘The difficulty lies not in thinking critically, but in recognizing when to do so, and in knowing enough to do so successfully’ (Willingham, 2007, p. 10). Certainly, students at the HE level should be capable—to varying degrees—of defending opinions, drawing inferences, evaluating facts, generating ideas, investigating situations, making comparisons, probing alternatives, questioning truisms, raising doubts, and solving problems, as well as the voluminous other dispositions listed in Table 2, in the context of ‘both’ their education and throughout their daily lives (Snyder & Snyder, 2008, p. 93).

ACTION RESEARCH METHODOLOGY A fundamentally ‘action research’ methodology was considered suited to this study as it involved critical enquiry by practitioners into their own practice and had the ability to combine ‘action and reflection, theory and practice’ (Reason & Bradbury, 2001, p. 1). Although it is not the purpose of this chapter to present an elaborate discussion of the essential features of action research, it is

331

 Interdisciplinary Perceptions

important to validate the genesis of this research framework and provide readers with a basis from which to engage with this work. Action research is an iterative process involving practitioners collaborating together on a particular cycle of activities, including: (a) problem diagnosis; (b) action intervention; and (c) reflective learning (Avison, Lau, Myers, & Nielson, 1999). Adapted from Altrichter, Posch and Somekh (2000) and in relation to EIBT, action research makes an important contribution to:

others for the purpose of advancing the knowledge base of the profession. Importantly, Elliott (1991) considered action research to be essential for ‘genuine’ school enhancement. For this study, the participants were sessional academic staff employed at EIBT who self-selected to complete a targeted online survey. Qualitative data stemming from three open-ended and inter-related questions were internally advertised and administered via email with a link to the staff intranet.

•

• •

•

•

Curriculum development and improvements in the practical situation under investigation by enhancing the quality of teaching and learning through new and successful action strategies; The collective professional development of academic staff by means of opening up individual practice to scrutiny and discussion, and thus broadening the knowledge base of the organisation; and The advancement of educational research. (pp. 204-205)

Carr and Kemmis (1986) viewed action research as ‘empowering’ practitioners to take control of the development of educational practice(s) themselves. Altrichter et al., (2000, p. 4) emphasised that action research directs attention to one of the most essential motives for doing research. That is, to improve the ‘quality’ of teaching and learning as well as the conditions under which staff and students work in educational institutions. In other words, action researchers are not prepared to accept problems, but choose to reflect upon them and search for strategies to better thrive in the face of adversity; build upon strengths and overcome weaknesses by experimenting with fresh ideas and approaches rather than allowing pedagogical practices to petrify over time. Action research is intended, therefore, to support educators in coping with obstacles and then provide new insights to

332

•

How would you define critical thinking? How do you incorporate critical thinking exercises into the teaching of your course(s)? How do you know when students are advancing in their ability to think critically?

In first-person narrative form, ten respondents (n=10) contributed their time voluntarily and anonymously. The overarching aim was to utilise the qualitative data to gain primary perceptions from EIBT academics about critical thinking in general and within the context of their EIBT course(s). In view of the importance of promoting higher-order thinking skills in contemporary HE, three objectives specific to this study included: • • •

To acknowledge staff reflections as a rich source of description; To share findings among Eynesbury colleagues for teaching and learning improvement; and To gain insight(s) into areas for future empirical exploration.

No prescribed narrative style or way of articulating the content of participants’ responses was stipulated. This approach was motivated by a desire for the writing to be a trial process; a type of ‘pilot’ study considered a ‘small-scale version or trial run, undertaken in preparation for the major

 Interdisciplinary Perceptions

study’ (Polit, Beck, & Hungler, 2001, p. 467). The author-researcher collated and examined all the survey data. The narrative responses presented below are based on respondents’ personal experiences. They provide an insight into participants’ understandings; conceived as a subjective process realised in a specific historical context. Although some narratives incorporate direct reference to a lecturer’s discipline area, the focus of this study and its contents were considered non-controversial; no apparent consequences could arise from publication of this work. All findings are presented with the caveat that they are drawn from a small sample within EIBT, which limits the generalisability of the findings to other disciplines or larger populations of academics. Although the findings are specific to EIBT, they could provide information relevant/useful for other HE populations in similar situations.

QUESTIONNAIRE RESPONSES, FINDINGS, AND DISCUSSION Critical thinking is a complex process that requires higher-level cognitive skills in order to process information and respondents largely agreed that students who think critically probe past ‘superficial’ information. In attempting to define or clarify the term ‘critical thinking’, several respondents offered a personal/informal explanation: I see critical thinking as the ability to be objective, to cut through the clutter, to be able to see what is really happening, not just what seems to be happening. It is the ability to see the ‘big picture’, to be able to explore the why, not just the what. It requires a healthy scepticism and that needs to come from within. My role is to encourage these qualities in my students. How to explain… I think critical thinking is being able to understand your own point of view. You have to synthesise differ-

ent positions and arrive at your own answer. You don’t just say ‘I know this’ and move on, you have to come up with your own ideas, which makes you see learning ‘holes’ and thus, more avenues to explore. Effective critical thinking often begins with a thinker analysing what they do know about my subject, with extra effort made to recognise what they don’t know. This forms an initial knowledge base. Critical thinking is then the ability to apply reasoning to new or unfamiliar ideas, opinions and situations. It involves being open-minded and examining something from as many angles as possible. I know what it is, but I was not expecting it to be so difficult to define… It [critical thinking] means, not taking things for granted, but thinking about things at a ‘deeper’ level. It involves challenging new knowledge and using the 5-W’s and 1-H [Who, Why, Where, When, Why and How] to gain greater insight into learning. Children often ask too many questions, yet many adults ask too few questions, merely accepting things as the truth. That is not to say that critical thinking is entirely negative and confrontational, but it certainly involves more concentrated attention to detail and a curiosity to see beyond that which may seem ‘normal’. Another respondent provided a more textbook and theoretical definition for critical thinking. Central to this interpretation of critical thinking is realisation that it is not a ‘method’ to be learned, but rather a ‘process’: I read somewhere and agree with the concept that critical thinking is often compared to the scientific method; it is a systematic and procedural approach to thinking. Just as students learn the ‘process’ of the scientific method, they must learn the ‘process’ of critical thinking.

333

 Interdisciplinary Perceptions

A hallmark of critical thinking was described as applying knowledge to ‘new’ situations/concepts (Bloom, 1956; Sternberg, 1986). The following excerpts explicate two respondent’s notion of critical thinking in ‘discipline-specific’ terms: In electrical engineering, I teach specific processes for students to solve a problem. The students then can apply those processes to different problems, involving assorted variables e.g., solving a circuit diagram problem for a different voltage... Fundamentals are taught to students in engineering. Those fundamental tools can be applied in a variety of ways. Usually, the engineer has to make a choice between two or more competing parameters in order to solve a problem; it is called ‘engineering trade off’. Making a choice involves analysing each choice and hopefully, coming up with a ‘figure of merit’ for that solution. The engineer then makes an alternative choice(s) and calculates its figure of merit. The best figure of merit is then chosen as the ‘solution’... As part of this process, the engineer has to determine the critical parameters that may affect any possible design; asking the question—What if I do this instead of that? In other words, there may be a trade-off between cost and speed. Computers that are faster are usually more expensive. The engineer will select the computer that matches or exceeds the requirement, anything else could be more expensive to operate (more speed usually requires more power). Students who take my course are initially overwhelmed by the enormous amount of vocabulary required to undertaken legal studies. I only have 13 weeks to get students familiarised with sophisticated English terms (e.g., arbitration, beneficiary, attestation, promissory estoppel, gratuitous, unalienable), but there is the added challenge of incorporating Latin expressions (e.g., Actori incumbit onus probandi - The burden of proof lies on the plaintiff; Actus nemini facit injuriam The act of the law does no one wrong; and Actus

334

non facit reum nisi mens sit rea - The act does not make one guilty unless there be a criminal intent). Critical thinking in my course can only occur when such expressions are understood and applied to the many and varied business-related cases. Students need to reflect on the interpretive openness of rules, the inherent ambiguity of language, and differences relative to epistemic positionality. That’s all… An ongoing debate in education research is whether students can learn to think critically through their own exploration or whether they need to be formally taught this skill (Choy & Cheah, 2009). The majority of respondents made reference to EIBT students being unable to think critically on their own upon commencing their diploma studies: Critical thinking is not an innate ability for many of our [EIBT] international students. Although some may be naturally inquisitive, nine-times-outof-ten, they require some level of in-class training to become more analytical. Many times, students have internalised misconceptions about learning and about their own intellectual ability from their previous schooling… Most EIBT students need to be made aware of critical thinking. This is because they were previously trained to memorise information and not ask questions. This has caused them to rely too heavily on us lecturers to ‘spoon-feed’ them. Consequently, this stunts their ability to analyse concepts for themselves. The following excerpt draw attention to critical thinking as an ‘enduring’ quality (Terenzini, et al., 1995) and one in which students in HE ‘today’ must increasingly be able to demonstrate upon graduation: Students need critical thinking skills to survive in a rapidly changing world with a future that is

 Interdisciplinary Perceptions

uncertain. Preparing future business professionals necessitates training in high stakes judgments that involve complex work environments, and which may also be potentially time limited. Student motivation is viewed as a necessary precondition for critical thinking. Halpern (1996, 1999) argued that ‘effort’ and ‘persistence’ are two principal dispositions that support critical thinking. Half the respondents, however, felt that EIBT students expected them to provide all the notes needed to successfully answer and pass assessment tasks. Students’ drive and inclination (Miri, et al., 2007), therefore, may influence their ability to question life’s complexities as illustrated by one respondent: I believe that critical thinking is a learned skill that requires instruction, training, practice and patience. EIBT students often resist questioning techniques, because they have been required/ instructed to rote-learn information and not ‘think’ about what they know. Too often, I see them struggle with assessment questions that are not taken verbatim from my course notes and/or the textbook. Even a single word/numerical change can have a significant effect on their results. Educators should not expect to see ‘dramatic’ improvements in critical thinking over time as a result of instructional interventions. In agreement with van Gelder (2005), developments in critical thinking, when they do occur, are usually slow and incremental: Typically, EIBT students’ prior learning experiences do not require them to practice thinking about thinking. It is important that educators first model this behaviour. The goal for business educators who want to instil critical thinking skills is to think of their students not as receivers of information, but as users of information and this takes time! We cannot simply click our fingers.

I know that critical thinking is happening and confidence is growing when new facts, thoughts and ideas are discussed, and when students present or defend their argument from an individualistic point of view… Unfortunately, this is usually at the very end of my course… Improved techniques to teach critical thinking must be incorporated into diploma courses so as to facilitate a smoother transition into this realm. Respondents acknowledged that it was necessary for them to ‘guide’ students and thus mediate their learning. To facilitate critical thinking, many respondents perceived themselves as playing a vital role in providing an environment conducive to ‘deep’ learning: I encourage my students to dig deeper and to go beyond the minimum of understanding. One approach is to guide their research skills, particularly in an era when so much information is available and they need better skills than previous generations to be able to decipher the rubbish and unearth the ‘right’ or best answers. Business educators such as myself, can enhance students’ critical thinking skills by using instructional strategies that actively engage them in the learning process; focusing instruction on the ‘process’ of learning rather than on the final ‘product’. Our largely Asian population is too exam-oriented and results driven; based on the Chinese competitive ranking model? Chinese students come here to learn, however, as experience and learning take place retrospectively, only exceptional students tend to pick up and run with the high volume of requirements. I strive to use assessment techniques that intellectually challenge them, but I am not convinced that they see the benefit unless it results in high grades. Respondents expressed their concern that EIBT students engage more passively with their

335

 Interdisciplinary Perceptions

learning than local students on partner campuses, which may stem from them not having the dialectal mastery to effectively demonstrate critical thinking in English as a foreign language: EIBT students these days are too accepting and do not consider that much of the information available on the Internet is unreliable rubbish. In fact, some of it is deliberately and dangerously deceptive. The ability to judge the credibility of sources has become an indispensable part of my course and is entirely related to ‘critical thinking’, but our students have low-level English language proficiency to begin with… Research on questioning methodology suggests that HE lecturers should wait for students to respond. Too often, however, the silence in my classroom is unnerving and I feel the need to fill the void by re-wording my questions and/or asking different students. If a question is based on rote-memory recall, speed may be relevant, however, thinking requires time and patience. Local students struggle, but our international cohort need even more time to process and formulate a response in English. Undertaking a diploma requires acquisition of a substantial amount of high-order and disciplinespecific vocabulary as would be delivered to local first-year students. Added to this, international students are required to judge the credibility of sources in their non-native language. EIBT students tend to be sensitive to their language inadequacies and lack the command of English to express their thoughts well. Inclusive teaching is the responsibility of the educator as pedagogical and content specialist (Garrison, et al., 2001): [EIBT] students are often insecure about their abilities... Personally, I have found that actively engaging them in project-based or collaborative-

336

type activities, though they are much more work to organise, can help improve their critical thinking skills and ability to solve real-world businessrelated problems. And, seeing other students struggle also helps to alleviate some of their insecurity as they come to realise that difficulties in understanding are not unique to them alone... The majority of respondents recognised that EIBT’s diploma offerings are related to specific occupations/professions and hence, using authentic real-life experiences enables students to relate to something ‘tangible’ (Velliaris & Warner, 2009). Rather than being continually called upon to ‘master’ the nonsensical, authentic assessment tasks make students’ reasoning visible by requiring them to provide evidence or logical arguments in support of their own judgments (Giancarlo & Facione, 2001). For example: I try to embed real-life business scenarios into my course, often focused on current/relevant issues with which students can engage e.g., Many people see the digital revolution as being bad for traditional retailers, but what advantages have there been? If this is not possible, then I endeavour to craft a realistic but hypothetical business situation, which can also actively engage them. The importance of asking the ‘right’ questions to stimulate students’ critical thinking skills is undeniable. Questions should be clustered around similar themes that draw focus to a topic or issue and enable students to ‘maximise their recall’. Respondents alluded to a ‘teaching through questioning’ technique (Duron, et al., 2006) being an important instructional tactic: Asking questions is a key ingredient, perhaps the most important ingredient underlying the ability to think critically. Example questions include: What is your main point? What would be an example? What are the facts? Do you know what that means? What are the implications of that? Is

 Interdisciplinary Perceptions

there anything else? What do you think about this? Why do you think that? What is your knowledge based upon? What difference does it make? What are the main points of this text? Can you put them in your own words? What sorts of examples are used? Are they useful? Can you think of others? Is a particular bias or framework apparent? Can you tell what ‘school of thought’ the author belongs to? Can you work out the steps of the argument being presented? Do all the steps follow logically? Could a different conclusion be drawn from the argument being presented? Are the main ideas in the text supported by reliable evidence? Do you agree or disagree with the author? Why? What connections do you see between this and other texts? I could go on and on… Some textbooks provide chapter-based discussion questions, but instructional materials often lack the additional resources that make my job easier when standing in front of blank faces. A bank of factual and interpretive questions is definitely beneficial to have on hand. Another respondent concurred with using a questioning technique, but added that students benefit from a series of warm-up and/or simple questions to commence class. By beginning with uncomplicated operations and actively practicing ‘previously learned information’ (Bloom, 1956), students can master these skills and progress onto recognising assumptions and critiquing arguments for example. Accordingly, students are ‘growing confidence in reason’ (Paul & Elder, 2007). Hence, in a genuine effort to advance teaching and learning outcomes, there is a need to look for ‘starting points’ for student engagement, such as: In class, I have found that it is wise to begin asking factual-type questions so that students realise that they must first pay attention e.g., What is the central role of market research? Once they have ‘warmed-up’ so-to-speak, I will formulate more complex questions that require them to think

critically through a cause and effect or premise and conclusion type of argument e.g., Is it possible to make sound marketing decisions without market research? The majority of respondents reported that asking questions was the primary strategy for promoting critical thinking in their courses. They recorded multiple questions that help stimulate critical thinking among students, and the following example from one lecturer also involved students handwriting their reflective judgments/critical reflections on paper: In my course, getting students to write is perhaps the easiest way to enhance their critical thinking, but first I like to provide students with general questions before they begin reading handouts so that they can organise their notes and be focused etc. The goal is to improve students’ ability to compose concise, logical and persuasive lines of reasoning. One respondent shared discipline-specific examples of guided questions for reflective writing: I design questions to stretch their self-reflection. Are you an ethical consumer? Would you consider yourself to be a green consumer? What do you consider when faced with a fair trade brand that costs more? Students’ writings are extremely eye-opening. Commonly, respondents perceived critical thinking and problem-solving as related; a relationship that is strongly interdependent (Lunt & Helps, 2001) and exemplified by the following comments: Problem-solving I see as related to critical thinking. Perhaps the relationship can be compared to the relationship between language and culture. Language can be learned from a book, but with an understanding of the culture one can know

337

 Interdisciplinary Perceptions

how best to use that language. Hence, the two become inseparable. In the same way, improved critical thinking can enable students to be better problem-solvers. Problem-solving is only possible if students are able to identity if and what problem(s) may exist. So, problem-solving seems to be a ‘technique’ that is indicative of their ability to critically think and objectively analyse what they see, hear and/ or read in my class. Problem-solving may be considered easier than critical thinking as humans are programmed to look for patterns, particularly in the form of cause-and-effect relationships. Students tend to be ‘pattern-seekers’ as noted below:

Flexible thinking requires that students do not assume that their own way of approaching a situation/problem is ‘always’ best. Students should seek out all possible answers to a problem, even those that are different from what they expected to uncover. I often use ‘brainstorming’ in my class and a fundamental rule is that no idea be criticised no matter how crazy. All students must be free from any assumed rules in order to inspire ideas that, in the end, are often very practical. I remind students that scientists must be open to the idea that the results of an experiment may not be what is expected... Such results though challenging, often lead to new discoveries and a greater ability to solve increasingly dense problems.

Critical thinking involves problem-solving in which the process may need to be developed e.g., a process known to solve a particular problem can be adapted to solve a totally different problem. Problem-solving involves using the same process or procedure to solve a problem, but with different variables. So…critical thinking involves design choices and uses problem-solving to come up with a solution, whereas problem-solving just applies the same process to a new set of variables.

In terms of group work, critical reflection and shared ‘communication’, can improve problemsolving, as reported by the following respondent:

Respondents also noted a link between critical thinking and overall course performance:

Relatedly, respondents added that they knew their students were practicing and improving their critical thinking skills when they were able to defend their arguments and problem-solve using independent and alternative approaches to those that were presented in class i.e., intellectual autonomy (Paul & Elder, 2007; Savery & Duffy, 1995). With maturity comes the realisation that the ‘process’ involved in solving problematic situations is key:

It’s the ability to recognise and apply the variables that distinguish between a Distinction-level student and an F2. Five lecturers noted that it was imperative that they be flexible and make explicit to students that there is often more than one solution to a problem and there is no harm in repeating different techniques many times over; practice makes perfect (van Gelder, 2005). Examples included:

338

This approach is often used in science, as it allows one to determine what people do not yet know or understand and then look for ways to discover ‘new’ information through experimentation with others. The ability to think critically is essential as it creates new ‘possibilities’ for problem-solving.

It is easy to tell students that if they find this type of problem then they should respond in a given

 Interdisciplinary Perceptions

way. Often what distinguishes the ‘novice’ from the ‘expert’ business person, however, is recognition that comes with years of experience and has led them to more ably identify, evaluate, distinguish etc. and eventually solve complicated problems. Some students grasp this concept quickly, while others do not. Students with cognitive ‘maturity’ know that most problems are more complex than they appear on the surface and understand that there is rarely ‘one-right-answer’ to problems they encounter. In other words, their ‘frame of reference’ (Paul & Elder, 2007) is broader as alluded to below: I think that it [critical thinking] is part of growing up and getting older. You become wiser and when you see how something goes, you have more battles underneath your belt and can tackle harder and larger problems. In summary, there are metacognitive strategies that, once learned, make critical thinking more likely. For educators, the situation is undoubtedly challenging and no one should underestimate the difficulty of teaching students to think critically. Favouring the analogy given by van Gelder (2007, p. 42), ‘…like ballet, critical thinking is a highly contrived activity. Running is natural; nightclub dancing less so; but ballet is something people can only do well with many years of painful, expensive, dedicated training’.

RESEARCH IMPLICATIONS AND FUTURE RECOMMENDATIONS While it is acknowledged that the number of participants involved in this research was small, the information sourced from their survey responses provide pertinent points with which to advance teaching and learning within EIBT. Subsequent ‘action’ stemming from this ‘action research’ will

endeavour to take-on-board new recommendations and better illuminate existing practices, including, but not limited to, the following five points outlined here forth in no particular order: 1. As there may be discipline and/or coursespecific displays of critical thinking and problem-solving, lecturers should be explicit about what is expected in their courses. Lecturers can utilise dynamic, interdisciplinary, and generative learning activities that promote high-level thinking processes (refer to Tables 1 and 2) to help EIBT students integrate ‘new’ knowledge by modifying and enriching existing knowledge. By increasing the number of access points they have to information, they are more likely to comprehend and retain new-found learning. 2. Lecturers should model expert strategies that EIBT students can learn to use independently. Scaffolding can decompose tasks as necessary for EIBT students to see how, in detail, to tackle tasks. A scaffolding approach that exposes them to model works (e.g., essays, reports, reflective writing) where evidence of critical thought is clearly highlighted, should reduce ambiguities inherent in the discourse. Further, group work activities that require negotiation to find a preeminent solution can provide natural opportunities for learners to test and refine their ideas and to help each other understand the content. 3. The situations EIBT students encounter during their learning should be authentic and reflect the true nature of problems in the real-world. This would help develop deeper and richer knowledge structures, leading to a higher likelihood of transfer to Business, Information Technology and Engineering professions. Skills and knowledge are best acquired within contexts that are relevant (i.e., information-rich, meaningful, realistic and relevant) and transferring effective skills

339

 Interdisciplinary Perceptions

means that EIBT students will have greater opportunity to practise outcomes that are expected of them under authentic conditions. 4. Teaching needs to engage EIBT students in activities that will help them form a new conceptual model of ‘reading’, so that they may see reading as a process that involves reflection and prediction rather than recitation. It is necessary to encourage the growth of student responsibility, initiative, decisionmaking, and intentional learning; cultivate an atmosphere of knowledge-building learning communities that utilise collaborative learning among EIBT lecturers and students. They should learn the self-monitoring activities and thinking processes involved in critiquing and improving their own work, imperatives of [Western] HE. 5. Finally, the intellectual design features of tests and evaluation tasks should emphasis realistic complexity, stress depth more than breadth, include ill-structured tasks or problems, and require EIBT students to contextualise their content knowledge. Assessment tasks should take a more realistic and holistic form by incorporating projects and portfolios rather than solely standardised and ‘quick’ testing. Tests and evaluations that must occur, should be diverse and recognise the existence of multiple kinds of intelligences. They should assess EIBT students’ progress in content and learning-to-learn through pragmatic tasks and performances. What constitutes a high-level of achievement should be explainable to EIBT students through ‘formative’ assessment. Standards of grading and scoring features should also include multi-faceted criteria that are reliable across multiple markers. In terms of fairness and equity, assessments should allow EIBT students to use their strengths within areas where their interests lie.

340

CONCLUSION Although it is difficult to predict the future, critical thinking instruction will continue to be an important component in HE curricula. As long as critical thinking is a desired outcome of education, therefore, academics will need to find ways to aid [international] students in advancing their ability to think critically and their disposition to using this skill for problem-solving. This chapter enriches the literature on pre-university pathways and has provided empirically-based data on how EIBT lecturers perceive critical thinking. It should be acknowledged that the observations communicated in this chapter are one-small-part of the process of creating effective programs that acculturate international students to Western discourse. With reference to the ‘recommendations’ listed above, improving strategies that encourage autonomy, reflection and performance success, together with appropriately integrated language and learning support, may aid in augmenting the potential of every student transitioning to HE. Significantly, what this study achieved was to ‘plant the seed’ for further empirical investigation within EIBT. Contemplation and planning for prospective studies (and more ballet lessons) has not been addressed here, but the possibilities abound.

REFERENCES Albrecht, W. S., & Sack, R. J. (2000). Accounting education: Charting the course through a perilous future (Vol. 16). American Accounting Association. Altrichter, H., Posch, P., & Somekh, B. (2000). Teachers investigate their work: An introduction to action research across the professions. Routledge.

 Interdisciplinary Perceptions

Anderson, T. D., & Garrison, D. R. (1995). Critical thinking in distance education: Developing critical communities in an audio teleconference context. Higher Education, 29(2), 183–199. doi:10.1007/ BF01383838

Choy, S. C., & Cheah, P. K. (2009). Teacher perceptions of critical thinking among students and its influence on higher education. International Journal of teaching and learning in Higher Education, 20(2), 198-206.

Avison, D. E., Lau, F., Myers, M. D., & Nielson, P. A. (1999). Action research. Communications of the ACM, 42(1), 94–97. doi:10.1145/291469.291479

Clement, J. (1979). Introduction to research on cognitive process instruction. In J. Lochhead & J. Clement (Eds.), Cognitive process instruction. NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Bloom, B. (1956). A taxonomy of educational objectives. Handbook 1: Cognitive domain. NY: McKay. Bodycott, P., & Walker, A. (2000). Teaching abroad: Lessons learned about inter-cultural understanding for teachers in higher education. Teaching in Higher Education, 5(1), 79–94. doi:10.1080/135625100114975 Broadbear, J. T. (2003). Essential elements of lessons designed to promote critical thinking. Journal of Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 3(3), 1–8. Brookfield, S. D. (1987). Developing critical thinkers. Milton Keynes: Open University Press. Browne, M. N., & Keeley, S. M. (2003). Asking the right questions. Prentice-Hall Publishers. Bryson, C., Hardy, C., & Hand, L. (2009). An in-depth investigation of students’ engagement throughout their first year in university. Paper presented at the UK National Transition Conference, University College London. Burbules, N. C., & Berk, R. (1999). Critical thinking and critical pedagogy: Relations, differences, and limits. In T. S. Popkewitz & L. Fendler (Eds.), Critical theories in education: Changing terrains of knowledge and politics (pp. 45–65). NY: Routledge. Carr, W., & Kemmis, S. (1986). Becoming critical: Education, knowledge and action research. London: Falmer Press.

Duron, R., Limbach, B., & Waugh, W. (2006). Critical thinking framework for any discipline. International Journal of teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 17(2), 160-166. Elliot, J. (1991). Action research for educational change. Buckingham: Open University Press. Ennis, R. H. (1996). Critical thinking dispositions: Their nature and assessability. Informal Logic, 18(2&3), 165–182. Facione, P. A. (1990). Critical thinking: A statement of expert consensus for purposes of educational assessment and instruction. California Academic Press. Facione, P. A., Sánchez, C. A., Facione, N. C., & Gainen, J. (1995). Professional judgment and the disposition toward critical thinking. The Journal of General Education, 1–25. Fiocco, M. (2006). An evaluation of a pathway program: The students’ view. Paper presented at the Australian International Education Conference. Perth, Australia: Perth Convention Exhibition Centre; www.idp.com/aiec Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (2001). Critical thinking, cognitive presence, and computer conferencing in distance education. American Journal of Distance Education, 15(1), 7–23. doi:10.1080/08923640109527071

341

 Interdisciplinary Perceptions

Giancarlo, C. A., & Facione, P. A. (2001). A look across four years at the disposition toward critical thinking among undergraduate students. The Journal of General Education, 50(1), 29–55. doi:10.1353/jge.2001.0004 Gillett, A. J., & Wray, L. (2006). Assessing the effectiveness of EAP programmes. London: BALEAP. Gitanjali, B. (2004). Academic dishonesty in Indian medical colleges. Journal of Postgraduate Medicine, 50(4), 281–284. PMID:15623972 Grabinger, R. S., & Dunlap, J. C. (1995). Rich environments for active learning: A definition. Association for Learning Technology, 3(2), 5–34. doi:10.1080/0968776950030202 Halpern, D. F. (1996). Thought and knowledge: An introduction to critical thinking. NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Halpern, D. F. (1999). Teaching for critical thinking: Helping college students develop the skills and dispositions of a critical thinker. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 1999(80), 69–74. doi:10.1002/tl.8005 Hellsten, M. (2002). Students in transition: Needs and experiences of international students in Australia. Paper presented at the 16th Australian International Education Conference, Macquarie University, Australia. Huitt, W. (1998). Critical thinking: An overview. Educational Psychology Interactive [online]. Retrieved from http://www.edpsycinteractive.org/ topics/cogsys/critthnk.html Kantanis, T. (2000). The role of social transition in students’ adjustment to the first-year of university (online). Journal of Institutional Research, 9(1). Kuhn, D. (1999). A developmental model of critical thinking. Educational Researcher, 28(2), 16–46. doi:10.3102/0013189X028002016

342

Lai, E. R. (2011). Critical thinking: A literature review. In Pearson (Ed.), Pearson’s Research Reports (June ed., Vol. 6, pp. 1-49). Larrivee, B. (2000). Transforming teaching practice: Becoming the critically reflective teacher. Reflective Practice, 1(3), 293–307. doi:10.1080/713693162 Lunt, B. M., & Helps, C. R. G. (2001). Problem solving in engineering technology: Creativity, estimation and critical thinking are essential skills [online]. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 2001 American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference & Exposition. Marrapodi, J. (2003). Critical thinking and creativity: An overview and comparison of the theories. Providence, RI. McGowan, U. (2005). Academic integrity: An awareness and development issue for students and staff. Journal of University Teaching and Learning Practice, 2(3), 6. Miri, B., David, B., & Uri, Z. (2007). Purposely teaching for the promotion of higher-order thinking skills: A case of critical thinking. Research in Science Education, 37(4), 353–369. doi:10.1007/ s11165-006-9029-2 Norman, D. A. (Ed.). (1981). Perspectives on cognitive science. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Paul, R. W. (1992). Critical thinking: What, why, and how? New Directions for Community Colleges, 1992(77), 3–24. doi:10.1002/cc.36819927703 Paul, R. W. (2002). The international center for the assessment of thinking: Critical thinking essay examination. Foundation for Critical Thinking. Paul, R. W., & Elder, L. (2007). Critical thinking competency standards. Dillon Beach, CA: The Foundation of Critical Thinking Press.

 Interdisciplinary Perceptions

Polit, D. F., Beck, C. T., & Hungler, B. P. (2001). Essentials of nursing research: Methods, appraisals and utilization (5th ed.). PA: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins.

Twibell, R., Ryan, M., & Hermiz, M. (2005). Faculty perceptions of critical thinking in student clinical experiences. The Journal of Nursing Education, 44(2), 71–80. PMID:15719714

Prescott, A., & Hellsten, M. (2005). Hanging together even with non-native speakers: The international student transition experience. In P. Ninnes & M. Hellsten (Eds.), Internationalizing higher education: Critical explorations of pedagogy andf policy (Vol. 16, pp. 75–95). Netherlands: Springer. doi:10.1007/1-4020-3784-8_5

van Gelder, T. (2005). Teaching critical thinking: Some lessons from cognitive science. College Teaching, 53(1), 41–46. doi:10.3200/ CTCH.53.1.41-48

Reason, P., & Bradbury, H. (Eds.). (2001). Handbook of action research: Participative inquiry and practice. London: Sage. Redfield, R., Linton, R., & Herskovits, M. J. (1936). Memorandum for the study of acculturation. American Anthropologist, 38(1), 149–152. doi:10.1525/aa.1936.38.1.02a00330 Savery, J. R., & Duffy, T. M. (1995). Problem based learning: An instructional model and its constructivist framework. In Center for Research on Learning and Technology (Ed.), Educational Technology (Vol. 35, pp. 1-17). Schafersman, S. D. (1991). An introduction to critical thinking [online]. Retrieved 14 June 2014, from http://www.freeinquiry.com/criticalthinking.html Snyder, L. G., & Snyder, M. J. (2008). Teaching critical thinking and problem solving skills. Delta Pi Epsilon Journal, 50(2), 90–99. Sternberg, R. J. (1986). Critical thinking: Its nature, measurement, and improvement. Washington, DC: Yale University. Terenzini, P. T., Springer, L., Pascarella, E. T., & Nora, A. (1995). Influences affecting the development of students’ critical thinking skills. Research in Higher Education, 36(1), 23–39. doi:10.1007/ BF02207765

Velliaris, D. M., & Warner, R. (2009). Embedding ‘learning guides’ in a flexible delivery mode: Improving academic acculturation for international students at an Australian university. Paper presented at the 20th ISANA International Education Conference, Hotel Realm, Canberra, Australia. Velliaris, D. M., & Willis, C. R. (2014). Getting personal: An autoethnographic study of the professional identit(ies) of lecturers in an Australian pathway institution. In P. Breen (Ed.), Cases on teacher identity, diversity, and cognition in higher education (pp. 87–110). IGI Global. doi:10.4018/978-1-4666-5990-2.ch004 Willingham, D. T. (2007). Critical thinking: Why is it so hard to teach? American Educator, 8–19. Wright, J., Burrows, L., & MacDonald, D. (2004). Critical inquiry and problem-solving in physical education. NY: Routledge.

ADDITIONAL READING Beyer, B. (2001). What research says about teaching thinking skills. In A. Costa (Ed.), In developing minds: A resource book for teaching thinking. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. R. (Eds.). (1999). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

343

 Interdisciplinary Perceptions

Browne, M. N., & Keeley, S. (1997). Asking the right questions: A guide to critical thinking (5th ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Prentice Hall. Cacioppo, J. T., Petty, R., & Kao, C. H. (1984). The efficient assessment of need for cognition. Journal of Personality Assessment, 48(3), 306–307. doi:10.1207/s15327752jpa4803_13 PMID:16367530 Costa, A. (2001). Developing minds: A resource book for teaching thinking. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Costa, A., & Kallick, B. (2000). Using questions to challenge students’ intellect. In A. L. Costa & B. Kallick (Eds.), Activating and engaging habits of mind (pp. 34–45). Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Darling-Hammond, L. (2004). Standards, accountability, and school reform. Teachers College Record, 106(6), 1047–1085. doi:10.1111/j.14679620.2004.00372.x de Bruin, W. B., Parker, A. M., & Fischhoff, B. (2007). Individual differences in adults’ decision-making competence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92(5), 938–956. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.92.5.938 PMID:17484614 Dweck, C. S. (2002). Beliefs that make smart people dumb. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Why smart people can be so stupid. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Edwards, J. (2001). Learning and thinking in the workplace. In A. Costa (Ed.), Developing minds: A resource book for teaching thinking. Alexandria, VA: ASCD. Feuerstein, R. (1980). Instrumental enrichment: An intervention programme for cognitive modifiability. Baltimore, MD: University Press.

344

Halpern, D. F. (1998). Teaching critical thinking for transfer across domains: Dispositions, skills, structure training, and metacognitive monitoring. The American Psychologist, 53(4), 449–455. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.53.4.449 PMID:9572008 Halpern, D. F. (2003). Thought and knowledge: An introduction to critical thinking (4th ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Hay, L. (2001). Thinking skills for the information age. In A. L. Costa (Ed.), Developing minds: A resource book for teaching thinking. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Ku, K. Y. L. (2010). Assessing students’ critical thinking performance: Urging for measurements using multi-response format. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 4(1), 70–76. doi:10.1016/j. tsc.2009.02.001 Ku, K. Y. L., & Ho, I. T. (2010). Dispositional factors predicting Chinese students’ critical thinking performance. Personality and Individual Differences, 48(1), 54–58. doi:10.1016/j. paid.2009.08.015 Kurfiss, J. (1988). ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report: Vol. 2. Critical thinking: Theory, research, practice, and possibilities. Washington, DC: Association for the Study of Higher Education. Mayer, R. E. (1983). Thinking, problem-solving, cognition. NY: Freeman. Moseley, D., Baumfield, V., Elliott, J., Gregson, M., Higgins, S., Miller, J., & Newton, D. P. (2005). Frameworks for thinking: A handbook for teaching and learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511489914 Perkins, D. N., & Salomon, G. (1989). Are cognitive skills context bound? Educational Researcher, 19(1), 16–25. doi:10.3102/0013189X018001016

 Interdisciplinary Perceptions

Pithers, R. T. (2000). Critical thinking in education. Review of Educational Research, 42(3), 237–249. Plitt, B. (2004). Teacher dilemmas in a time of standards and testing. Phi Delta Kappan, 85(10), 745–748. doi:10.1177/003172170408501008 Solorzano, D., & Ornelas, A. (2004, FebruaryMarch). A critical race analysis of Latina/o and African American advanced placement enrollment in public high schools. High School Journal, 87(3), 15–26. doi:10.1353/hsj.2004.0003 Staib, S. (2003). Teaching and measuring critical thinking. The Journal of Nursing Education, 42(11), 498–508. PMID:14626388 Stanton-Salazar, R. D. (1997). A social capital framework for understanding the socialization of racial minority children and youths. Harvard Educational Review, 67(1), 1–39. doi:10.17763/ haer.67.1.140676g74018u73k Sternberg, R. (2001). Teaching problem-solving as a way of life. In A. Costa (Ed.), Developing minds: A resource book for teaching thinking. Alexandria, VA: ASCD. Swartz, R. (2003). Infusing critical and creative thinking into instruction in high school classrooms. In D. Fasko (Ed.), Critical thinking and reasoning. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press. Van Gelder, T., Bissett, M., & Cumming, G. (2004). Cultivating expertise in informal reasoning. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology, 58(2), 142–152. doi:10.1037/h0085794 PMID:15285604 Warburton, E. C., & Torff, B. (2005). The effect of perceived learner advantages on teachers’ beliefs about critical-thinking activities. Journal of Teacher Education, 56(1), 24–33. doi:10.1177/0022487104272056

Zohar, A., & Dori, Y. (2003). Higher order thinking skills and low-achieving students: Are they mutually exclusive? Journal of the Learning Sciences, 12(2), 145–182. doi:10.1207/ S15327809JLS1202_1

KEY TERMS AND DEFINITIONS Acculturation: In its simplest sense, this includes the changes that arise following contact between/among individuals from a different cultural background. This may lead to progressive adoption of elements of the other culture (e.g., ideas, words, values and/or behaviours). Critical Thinking: Construed broadly, critical thinking comprises the mental processes, strategies and representations people use to solve problems, make decisions, and learn new concepts; reasonable, reflective, responsible, and skilful thinking that is focused on deciding what to believe or do. Related dispositions can be seen as attitudes or habits of mind that include open and fair-mindedness, inquisitiveness, flexibility, a propensity to seek reason, a desire to be wellinformed, and a respect for and willingness to consider diverse viewpoints. EIBT: The Eynesbury Institute of Business and Technology offers full fee-paying pre-university pathways for predominantly international students entering one of two South Australian higher education institutions (The University of Adelaide or The University of South Australia). International Students: Within the context of this chapter, they are individuals enrolled in EIBT on Australian temporary student visas and who are exclusively from a Non-English Speaking Background (NESB). Pathway Provider: Educational institutions that offer students alternative forms of entry into university programs. Applicants may include:

345

 Interdisciplinary Perceptions

early school leavers; those who have not achieved the academic and/or English requirements to obtain direct entry; or students looking to return to study after a period of absence. Problem-Solving: The process involved in finding a solution to a problem. Humans use not

346

only trial and error, but also insight based on an understanding of principles, and inductive/deductive reasoning, although abilit(ies) and style(s) may vary considerably by individual.

Section 5

348

Chapter 15

Developing Critical Thinking in Doctoral Students: Issues and Solutions Peter Smith University of Sunderland, UK

ABSTRACT The PhD is the highest level of academic qualification, and is by its very nature an exercise in the development of critical thinking. This chapter discusses what it means to study for a PhD and the problems that students have with developing skills of criticality. The author discusses his own experiences of supervising over 50 doctoral students and relates this to the relevant literature. The role that the supervisor, research training, the thesis, dissemination and the viva can play in developing critical thinking are discussed. The power of specific techniques including reflection, action research and action learning are also explored. The chapter presents areas worthy of future study and concludes by presenting an agenda which PhD students and their supervisors might follow.

INTRODUCTION This chapter discusses and explores the role of critical thinking in doctoral education and examines models for developing criticality in PhD students. The chapter will review doctoral standards, the role of critical thinking within the doctorate and the issues that students often have with critical thinking. It will examine each of the stages and players within the doctoral process, reflecting upon how each of these might contribute to critical thinking skills development. The chapter will draw from the author’s own experience and the

experience of doctoral students with whom he has been involved, as supervisor, examiner, or in and advisory capacity. The chapter will be illustrated by quotations from students. The author has spent much of his working life supervising and supporting the studies of doctoral candidates. It has been his pleasure to supervise over 50 students through to successful graduation. Each student has taken their own journey, and he has been fascinated, watching the students as they change, transform and develop through their research studies, and through the different stages of their PhD projects. One of the most important

DOI: 10.4018/978-1-4666-8411-9.ch015

Copyright © 2015, IGI Global. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.

 Developing Critical Thinking in Doctoral Students

skills that all of us as supervisors must set out to develop within our doctoral students is that of critical thinking. Indeed, it can be argued that studying for a doctorate is all about critical thinking. The skills of research, problem solving, exploration, and academic writing which are developed during a PhD relate to, require, and develop critical thinking. The next section of this chapter will discuss the doctorate, doctoral standards and the literature relating to PhD students and their students. Then, having established that studying for a doctorate is all about critical thinking, the remainder of this chapter will discuss the author’s own experiences of supervising and working with doctoral students, and how each part of the doctoral process can, and should, be used to develop critical thinking skills. In each case mechanisms which can be used to develop these skills will be proposed and reflected upon. Specifically, the following will be covered within the chapter: the role of the supervisor, research training, the process of undertaking the doctoral project itself, peer support, reflective practice, dissemination, action research and action learning, the viva (and the mock viva).

BACKGROUND It is generally accepted (van den Brink-Budgen, 2006) that the basis of critical thinking is the argument, and the reasoning behind that argument. Similarly, a doctorate is also about a thesis, which is itself; a reasoned argument. Doctoral study is all about researching to find the evidence to back up the reasoning behind the thesis, or the argument. Facione (1998) proposes that there are six core critical thinking skills: interpretation, analysis, inference, evaluation, explanation, and selfregulation. All of these skills are evident within doctoral studies. However, on reflection, the author realises that critical thinking is also one of the

most difficult skills to develop, or teach, and one of the things that students find most challenging about their doctoral studies. Much has been written about critical thinking, and the need to develop this in students (Beyers, 1995; Paul, 1995; Terenzini et al, 1995). Surprisingly, however given the nature of the doctorate, little has been written about the development of critical thinking in doctoral students. King et al (1990) discuss the issue of assessing critical thinking in graduate students, noting that there is little agreement as to what constitutes critical thinking. Onwuegbuzie (2001) compared critical thinking skills in Master’s and doctoral students and concluded that, as might be expected, the doctoral students exhibited considerably greater criticality than the Master’s students. Zipp and Olson (2011) discuss the role of mentors in promoting critical thinking in doctoral students and conclude that ‘good mentors lead students on a journey that forever changes the ways in which they think and act’. The doctorate is the highest level of academic qualification (Mowbray & Halse, 2010). There are many different forms of doctorate; the most traditional being the PhD or Doctor of Philosophy. In recent years, a number of new forms of the doctorate have developed such as the DProf (Professional Doctorate), the DBA (Doctor of Business Administration), the EdD (Doctor of Education) and the EngD (Engineering Doctorate). These new doctorates are practice-based or professional doctorates (see Smith et al., 2011; Fulton et al., 2013) which give experienced professionals the opportunity to study for a higher degree, by basing their project within their workplace (Wellington & Sikes, 2006). All doctorates culminate in a major research project which is expected to demonstrate critical thinking on the part of the candidate and that they have made a ‘contribution to knowledge’. The level of criticality, the scale of the project and the contribution to knowledge are

349

 Developing Critical Thinking in Doctoral Students

the fundamental differences between the PhD and other postgraduate qualifications, such as those at Master’s level. The fundamental requirement of the doctorate is that it will lead to the creation and interpretation of new knowledge. The candidate must also be able to demonstrate command of their subject through deep understanding of the literature relating to their topic. This is an important area. Holbrook et al (2007) analysed the reports from 501 PhD candidates in five Australian universities. They found that, on average, in about one-tenth of those cases the examiners commented upon the candidate’s use of the literature in the thesis. This included coverage (had the candidate covered enough literature, of the main authors, and was it up to date?), errors in use (missing references, references not in standard format) and the nature of use of the literature (has the candidate really used the literature in a critical manner, or is their coverage too descriptive?). The candidate should be able to demonstrate that they can operate as an independent researcher (Smith, 2014). That is, they need to be able to take their own decisions, based on the best evidence available, and to be able to discuss, justify and defend their decisions when questioned by their peers, i.e. by other researchers. The candidate also needs to show that they have a sound grasp of research methodology, and the ability to apply research methods in a systematic and rigorous manner. They must be able to justify their choice of methodology and have applied it in such a way that their work is understandable, and replicable. A doctoral candidate must be able to demonstrate that they are able to communicate their findings verbally and through their written work. They must present their work in the form of a large written document known as the thesis, and also through verbal discussion in the oral examination, or viva (Smith, 2014). In the viva, a small team of academics question the PhD candidate on the work which they have presented in their thesis. In some countries the oral

350

examination is a public event, attended by Faculty and family, whereas in others, including the UK, it is much more closed and consists only of the candidate, (sometimes) their supervisor, and the examiners. In recent years, standards have been developed to ensure consistency of approach in the oral examination. Much has been written about the nature of the PhD viva. Research in this area covers doctoral standards (Morley et al., 2002; Carter & Whittaker, 2009), the nature and variability of the oral examination (Tinkler & Jackson, 2000), selection of doctoral examiners (Joyner, 2003), and the analysis of personal experiences of doctoral candidates (Wallace, 2003). The viva has several purposes, including ensuring that the work is the candidate’s own, checking that the candidate understands the work that they have done, discussing and exploring the contribution to knowledge made by the work, and providing the examiners with the opportunity to question the candidate on any area of the work that they are concerned about. In the case of a borderline thesis, the viva has a very important role in deciding the overall outcome of the assessment, and whether or not the degree of PhD should be awarded. In addition, the viva is itself a development experience for the candidate, and the examiners, and is one of many opportunities for the development of critical thinking skills. Research is a personal venture, which, quite aside from its social benefits, is worth doing for its direct contribution to one’s own self-realization. It can be taken as a way of meeting life with the maximum of stops open to get out of experience its most poignant significance, its most full-throated song (Mooney, 1957). Much has been written about the power of learning to transform the individual (Illeris, 2014). This is particularly true of the doctorate. As one student says: ‘As a result of my doctoral studies I recognise that I have become a reflective practitioner... I have developed a sense of confidence

 Developing Critical Thinking in Doctoral Students

in the power of rational thought and the range of its applicability. The learning process has given me the skills and ability to research issues.....The journey has built the confidence and inclination in me to question all that is around me in my work place and seek out new ways of doing it or seeing it. I am able to ask why things are done in certain way, and how it could be made better.’

APPROACHES TO DEVELOPING CRITICAL THINKING IN DOCTORAL STUDENTS Issues and Problems Most students find critical thinking difficult, including PhD students. It is not surprising, as thinking critically is not easy. It entails developing deep knowledge and understanding of a subject area, and thinking about the implications of what you read, reflecting on that and drawing your own conclusions about the work. It also entails synthesising ideas and concepts from different sources, looking for and making linkages, which may not be immediately obvious. This implies deep knowledge of the underlying theories, concepts and principles which underpin the articles that the student reads. Surface reading, and surface knowledge, is just not good enough as a basis for true critical thinking. Critical thinking also implies a deep level of personal reflection, challenging the student to be as objective as they possibly can when evaluating their own work. This is also not easy to do. Students may come to their PhD students with little experience of critical thinking. During their undergraduate studies it is likely that they have been used to an environment where they are told much of the subject matter relating to their degree, and gain knowledge through attending lectures. There is, however, a growing body of evidence that the traditional lecture is an ineffective means of learning (e.g. Gibbs, 2013) and much evidence

(e.g. Jenkins & Healey, 2011) that students benefit from the integration of research in the curriculum, from conducting research themselves and from problem-based or enquiry-based learning. There is also evidence that deeper ‘knowing’ can be only achieved by ‘doing’ (e.g. Hayes, 2014). This has resulted in a move to more research-based, problem solving, and evidence-based approaches to teaching undergraduate and postgraduate students. This will also lead to heightened skills of critical thinking in those students entering the PhD. I found critical thinking particularly difficult. I now realise that during the early stages of my PhD I was too descriptive in my writing.

The Role of the Supervisor Much has been written on the role of the supervisor. Lee (2008) believes that “the supervisor can make or break a PhD student”, while Ives and Rowley (2005) state that “the communication between the supervisor and student is key”. Lee models the PhD supervision process in terms of the following concepts: functional: supporting and directing the student in terms of project management; enculturation: encouraging the student to become a member of their community of practice; critical thinking: challenging the student in such a way that they begin to self-critique and analyse their own work; emancipation: supporting the student in the process of reflection and personal development; and developing a quality relationship: where the student feels supported, motivated and positive about themselves and their work. Sinclair (2004) has undertaken a largely quantitative study within Australia, interviewing PhD students across 28 universities. He notes differences in completion rates between subject areas, and argues for a ‘hands on’, structured approach to supervision. Vilkinas (2002) argues for the importance of the incorporation of management approaches within supervision. Zainal (2005) has undertaken a detailed case study analysis of the

351

 Developing Critical Thinking in Doctoral Students

experiences of three international PhD students in a UK university, drawing out lessons for effective supervision. Deal (2004) recommends the following strategies for a supervisor, to develop critical thinking skills in supervisees: exploring different points of view, asking questions that imply and require critical thinking skills, and conceptualizing issues thematically. Although the work is in the context of a clinical environment, there are lessons to be learnt for PhD supervision. The author has experienced and observed many different models of supervision throughout my career. I have worked with supervisors who believe that it is up to the student to design, develop and drive the project, and that their role is to question, critique and advise, but not to direct. Other supervisors have taken a much more directive role, instructing the student and helping them to position their work, particularly in the early stages of their PhD. And some supervisors have taken a very ‘hands off’ approach, giving the student the freedom to design and manage their own project, and becoming involved only when the student asks for help or advice. His own view is that a PhD supervisor needs to take all of these approaches at different stages during the life cycle of the PhD. Sinclair (2004) recommends taking a very ‘hands on’ approach in the early stages of a PhD, until the project is fully defined, the student has a clear plan, and they have clearly got off to a good start. The supervisor can then become more of a ‘critical friend’, supporting and advising as appropriate. Morley (2005) discusses the differences between ‘traditional’ PhD programmes and practice-based, or professional, doctorates; pointing out that this requires different approaches to supervision, and arguing that those on professional doctorate programmes benefit from a supervisory model which draws from coaching and mentoring. It is important to be a role model for the student, in terms of demonstrating the skills of critical thinking in the way that one works, being reflective, authentic and honest with the students and others. It is also important to write and to

352

publish one’s own work, to show the student the importance of disseminating their findings. A good supervisor should introduce their students to others, and to offer up opportunities for them to present their wok in seminars and conferences, thus opening it up to external scrutiny and critique. ‘Research is a Way of Life’ (De Gruchy & Holness, 2008). Supervisors should ‘live and breathe’ research in everything they do, write, and say. They should provide research role models for students. They should be authentic, reflective, critical, questioning, ethical, and inclusive. Everything they say, or give, to their PhD students should be precise, rigorous, based in the literature and backed up by evidence. They should themselves be researching, writing, enquiring, discovering, and publishing. Their PhD students should be encouraged, supported and required to do similarly. Staff should encourage them to write and to do so in accepted academic style. Supervisors should carefully critique student work, review it, suggest revisions, and comment upon it; just as a reviewer would review a paper. Do not assume that doctoral students know how to think and write critically. This may not be the case. It is up to us, as academics, tutors and supervisors, to develop this skill within our students: ‘My supervisor was so supportive. I would never have achieved my PhD without their help. I intend to keep in touch and work with him in the future, starting by writing that paper I promised to finish!’

Research Training The subject of research training for PhD students and their supervisors has gained much momentum in recent years (Pearson & Brew, 2002). In the UK a number of doctoral training centres have been established (Lunt, McAlpine & Mills, 2013) to support the training of PhD students in methodology, critical thinking, and academic writing and other skills related to the doctorate. It is now widely accepted that there is a need for

 Developing Critical Thinking in Doctoral Students

such training and that research students benefit from it, however there remains some scepticism (Bastalich, Behrend & Bloomfield, 2013) and Lovitts (2005) argues that training and courses in themselves are not sufficient, and that the student needs the space and time to develop independence and creativity. A typical training programme will be provided centrally by the university alongside more specific skills development opportunities which are provided within subject disciplines. The latter may include access to Master’s level courses. The aims of a typical PhD student development programme from a UK university are presented below. The programme aims to: •

•

•

Provide support at critical phases during the research degree, ease progression through the research process, and thus enhance the research student experience. Provide a high quality and broad scope of transferable skills development in line with local and national policy, equipping researchers with transferable knowledge and skills that can be used during and beyond their research degree. Provide a rich interactive learning experience, with time for researchers across all disciplines to develop core skills as part of a cross university research community, in an environment which enables the formation of a supportive peer network.

The approach taken by such a programme is often to provide time for researchers to explore collectively subject material and issues in the context of their own research, using workshop approaches, to allow students to interact and discuss issues with their peers. The programmes are often offered in a flexible manner which allows students to book onto parts of the programme as appropriate to the point at which they are within their own research journey, with guidance from their supervisors and from staff within the Gradu-

ate School. The type of programmes which might be provided includes titles such as ‘The PhD survival programme’, ‘Completing your doctorate’, and ‘Preparing to Teach’. There may well also be more specific programmes such as ‘Information Skills’, ‘Ethics’, ‘Academic Writing’, or ‘The Use of Statistical Software’. Students often don’t see the purpose of training programmes, viewing them as a diversion from their core research project. Some supervisors advise them not to attend, or in some extreme cases forbid them from attending. Sadly, they are missing the point and a great opportunity. By attending, and fully participating in generic research training activities PhD students have much to gain. They meet with students from across the university, and begin to form networks and linkages which can provide support in the months and years which follow. They can speak freely in a safe environment, and with an open mind they will learn much from their peers. They can experience new and different methodological approaches, which will add richness to their knowledge, as will listening to the discourse and language of different subject disciplines. And of course the subject matter itself should introduce them to methods and approaches which will prove useful during their PhD studies. All of these activities will add to the development of critical thinking. Student comments include: At first I was unsure about attending. I didn’t see the point, to be honest. However, I’m glad I did go to the course. I met some other PhD students from different faculties. I didn’t realise that there were so many of us! And everyone had surprisingly similar issues. The presenter was really experienced, and helped us to relate the material to our own projects. Really useful. Helped me to view some of the issues that I had in different ways. Well worth the time out from my project, and to be honest, escaping from the lab for three days gave me space and

353

 Developing Critical Thinking in Doctoral Students

time to see things in a different way. I’ve returned to my project re-invigorated, and with renewed enthusiasm. My supervisor remarked on the difference in me.

During the PhD Project Much has been written on the PhD process (Delamont et al, 2000; Leonard & Becker, 2005, Wright & Cochrane, 2000) and several texts have been written to provide students with good advice on how to succeed in their doctorate (Cryer, 2006; Phillips & Pugh, 2000, Wellington et al, 2005). The PhD process includes several stages which provide opportunities for developing critical thinking. Every university requires the PhD student to pass through a series of formal milestones, including approval of the initial PhD research project proposal, an upgrade committee where the student is required to demonstrate that their work is worthy of progression from Master’s level to doctoral level, and annual progress reviews. These stages will normally require the student to produce a written report, and make a presentation to a committee of academics. Let us consider each stage in turn. A PhD student will normally be required to produce a detailed research proposal before they are allowed to register for the degree. This proposal may start life as part of the student’s application for acceptance for the degree, and is often expanded upon to become a substantial document which sets out the research question to be addressed, consideration of ethical issues, the research methods to be used, and a project plan, consideration of any resource requirements and an initial review of the literature. In some universities in some countries, a PhD student who does not already have a Master’s degree may first be registered for an MPhil or MSc by research. After a year or so, the progress of the student is reviewed by a panel, which is often called an upgrade committee. This panel approves progression to PhD. The student is normally re-

354

quired to write a substantial report to show that their work is developing well. The panel will look for the following elements in the student’s work: whether the project has the potential to make a contribution to knowledge, the general progress of the student on their programme of study, whether the methodological approach is sound, the depth, breadth of the literature review, and for evidence of critical thinking. At most universities, PhD students will be subject to annual progress reviews. These reviews will examine and review the student’s work at the end of each year of their PhD programme. Once again, one of the main elements which the annual review panel will be looking for is the ability to think and write critically. Looking back, I have a lot to thank the annual review panel for. Although at the time, I resisted some of their suggestions and probably took them too personally, I now realise that the process helped shape my work into what it is today, which ultimately helped me to achieve a positive outcome.

Peer Support The only way to finish your dissertation [thesis] is through forward progress in the face of uncertainty. Fortunately, there is a secret weapon to guide you through the confusion, improve your writing, and help you spend your time wisely. It comes in the form of your peers (Tomorrow’s Professor, 2014). Several studies (Hall & Jaugietis, 2010; Boud & Lee, 2005; Collier, 1983; Falchikov, 2001; Topping & Ehly, 1998) have discussed the importance of peer support and peer mentoring for student learning, including PhD students. Studying for a PhD can be a lonely existence, and the support of other students who are in a similar situation can be vital. Discussing your work, and concerns about your progress, with peers who deeply understand the issues can be both reassuring and motivating,

 Developing Critical Thinking in Doctoral Students

particularly during the second and third year of a PhD programme. However, discussing wok and progress with fellow PhD students can also provide academic benefits. Other students can comment on written drafts, act as a critical friend, and provide critique of a general, and sometimes specific (depending on the student’s subject background), nature. Webb et al. (2009) studied peer and faculty support on a PhD programme in the Graduate Center for Gerontology at the University of Kentucky, USA. They concluded that the participants were happy with, and gained benefit from, the mentoring that they gave and received. They perceived peer mentors as providers of social support and advice. Preston et al (2014) discuss the power of peer mentorship, drawing from their own experiences on a PhD program in educational administration. They use narratives and apply transformational learning theory to analyse their own experiences. Their key finding was that “it was the ambiguous boundaries combined with the formal structure of our graduate program that created an environment where peer mentorship thrived”. They conclude that “peer mentorship has great capacity to foster human and social capital within graduate programs”. Working with other students made me realise that I wasn’t alone, and that others were facing similar issues. This was immensely reassuring for me, and I also felt that I provided some support to other students in the group.

Reflection and Reflective Practice Reflection involves thinking deeply about something. It entails making a conscious effort to examine and think carefully about our experiences and actions, noting how we felt at the time and analysing this in order to learn lessons for future practice (Boud et al., 1994; Atkins and Murphy, 1994). This can be done by asking a series of ques-

tions; such as what we did, why we did it, how we did it, what the outcome was, how we felt at the time, what we learnt from doing it, and what we might do differently in the future. Reflection is a powerful tool for learning, and is often taught as part of doctoral training, particularly on practice-based, or professional, doctorates. It is also a powerful tool for developing the skills of critical thinking in doctoral students. In his very significant book, The Reflective Practitioner: How Professional Think in Action, Donald Schon (1983) examines five professions and analyses how they go about solving problems. He makes the distinction between ‘reflection-inaction’ (reflecting while doing something, and allowing that reflection to shape what you are doing) and ‘reflection-on-action’ (evaluation after the event, and lessons learnt). There are several formal techniques for reflection which can be taught to students. The critical incident technique (Flanagan, 1954) is a wellestablished tool (Butterfield et al, 2005) which students can use for self-reflection. A critical incident is something that makes you stop and think; this does not have to be massively dramatic event, but it must have significance for the individual. It should make the student question their beliefs, values, or behaviours. Students can be asked to keep a diary in which they make notes on any significant events that occur during their studies. They can choose an incident from their diary (or it may be an event that predates the diary) and use that to prepare a piece of reflective writing which explores their values and beliefs. The writing should first describe the critical incident and explain why they see it as significant, and then explore their assumptions about the incident critically, drawing on relevant literature. They should then reflect on the incident and analyse how it has altered their knowledge, understanding, beliefs, values or behaviours. Reflective writing isn’t easy. It isn’t enough to simply describe an incident. The student needs to think deeply about

355

 Developing Critical Thinking in Doctoral Students

why that incident is significant to them, and draw extensively on relevant literature to provide theoretical perspectives. Another technique of reflection involves writing a career autobiography, asking the student to focus on one chapter of their professional life, drawing out lessons, and relating them to the literature. Reflection can also be done as part of group activities, with peers, sharing and discussing reflections, learning from each other. This is sometimes called ‘public reflection’ (Raelin, 2001). Sanders et al (2011, 2012) have discussed how reflection, and doctoral study, can be used as a powerful tool for personal transformation. The following extract from Thompson et al (2012) illustrates how one graduate’s professional practice was transformed through doctoral study: The opportunity to study for a doctorate presented itself when I had just returned to work full time after six months maternity leave and a year working part-time. On reflection, perhaps full time work, a demanding toddler and a part-time doctorate were not an ideal combination but my employer was willing to part-fund my doctoral studies and this was too good an opportunity to miss. On a personal level, becoming a researcher has illuminated and given an added degree of purpose to my professional role. It has provided me with the opportunity to reflect on my work with almost indecent introspection. At times it has felt like an indulgence but the additional critical reflection and knowledge has impacted crucially and I believe significantly on the continuing success of my work projects. Undertaking the doctorate, the processes of reflection, the need for rigour, the collection of evidence critically and the application of theory have all impacted directly upon my practice and delivered real benefits for my work and my employer. I often find myself surprised, puzzled and confused as Schön comments; “The practitioner allows himself to experience surprise, puzzlement, or confusion in a situation which he finds uncertain or unique” (Schön, 1983, P. 68).

356

Critical Writing and the Thesis When a student starts a PhD the thesis seems something which lies very far into the future. However, this should not be the case. Students should really start writing sections of their thesis from their very first day. Early writings by the student can be thought of as draft chapters. Lesham and Trafford (2002) call these small ’stepping stones’. One of the most important things that any student must do during their doctorate is to write. This should start from the very first days of their PhD study and can take the form of notes of the research work that they are doing, and early written reports for their supervisor. Soon the student will realise that what they are actually doing is writing the first drafts of chapters of their thesis. Writing from the very start is so important to the doctoral process, and for developing good critical skills for a number of reasons; it helps the student to clarify their thoughts and plans, and to form a clearer focus of what they are doing, and why and how they are doing it; it facilitates conversations and discussions about the work with others including the supervisor; and it provides vital practice in academic writing, opening up the students writing to the review and critique of others. All of this is crucial in laying the foundations for a good, well-written, and critical, thesis. Academic writing is very different from any writing which the student is likely to have done it the past and doctoral students need lots of practice in this new way of expressing themselves. It is important for doctoral students to try to do some writing every day. The routine is good for them, and it soon becomes a habit. Writing helps the student think, and helps them to start to be critical about their own work (Fulton et al, 2013). There are many books (Dunleavy, 2003; Murray, 2011) devoted to writing a PhD thesis, which can excellent guidance and tips on thesis writing. Writing critically takes time, and in the early stages of a PhD study, it will involve ex-

 Developing Critical Thinking in Doctoral Students

tensive interaction between the student and their supervisor. The student should produce regular draft chapters of the thesis and give these to their supervisor for review, allowing plenty of time for the supervisor to read the work and produce feedback on it. The student will then need time to consider their supervisors comments, reflect on this, and to revise and rewrite their work. The cycle of writing, submitting, reading, reviewing and rewriting can become a continuous process throughout the PhD registration period. In this way the student will refine each chapter of their thesis, allowing plenty of time for final review when they are approaching submission. One of the ways of reviewing the written work of students is to continue to critically appraise the work against the standards which are normally expected of a doctorate, such as the contribution to knowledge, coverage of the subject area, independence, methodology, criticality, and communication skills. Each of these important areas, are discussed below, in relation to critical thinking. Wade (1995) discusses how writing can be used to develop and assess critical thinking. A comment from a professional doctorate student: ‘Researching and writing up my research has provided an additional dimension to my work as I have become more knowledgeable about past and current policy and I am able to relate it to theory and academic literature.’

Action Research In their paper, “Why Action Research?” BrydonMiller et al (2003) explore this question as an introduction to a new journal dedicated to the subject of action research. They define action research as a collaborative endeavour in which stakeholders come together with a combined social purpose to pursue democratic solutions to problems or issues of common interest. The key arguments which the paper explores are those of the validity of action research as an approach which combines theory, practice and reflection, and the importance of

recognising its social and moral purpose. In action research each stakeholder is able to view the problem space through their own lens and bring their own value set to bear on it; they are also able to share views and learn from each other. From a scholarly viewpoint, the work is underpinned by theories of feminism and social purpose (Reid, 2004; Frisby et al, 2009), although the authors also discuss the reluctance of some universities to recognise the validity of action research, and its criticism by many positivists (Kock et al, 1997). For the practitioner, action research combined with a common social purpose enables collaborative exploration of organisational issues in a safe, yet challenging, learning environment which leads to rich and multi-dimensional solutions to ‘wicked’ and complex problems (Churchman, 1967). Coghlan (2011) explores the concept of ‘practical knowing’, focussing on ‘how’ we know, rather than on ‘what’ we know. He argues that the human process of knowing can be expressed in empirical form and that in doing so we demonstrate the rigour of action research and action learning to those outside the action research community, addressing some of the issues raised by Kock et al (1997) and thus providing scholarly arguments which demonstrate the validity of the approach. He also explores the power of learning from actionable knowledge, and discusses the way in which, in the process of coming to ‘knowing’, the practitioner benefits from learning by doing with others, an argument which he pursued in some depth an earlier paper (Coghlan, 2007). These arguments align with the views of BrydonMiller et al (2003) who stress the importance of the diversity of the action research collaboration, adding to the richness of action and solution, and resultant knowledge. Holmes (2008) and Pedler (2008) discuss the practice of the action learning set and the role of the facilitator in supporting members within a learning set. Holmes (2008) reflects on her experiences of working within an action learning set as part of a research degree, and the way in

357

 Developing Critical Thinking in Doctoral Students

which a facilitator dealt with issues and deepened their learning to a point at which the facilitator was no longer required and withdrew from the group. The issues of group dynamics and how a facilitator can draw on these in a positive way are reflected upon. This topic has been discussed by other authors; for example Simpson et al (2000) analyse the issue of defensive dynamics and the reluctance to engage in the context of a learning set. Pedler (2008) specifies protocols and ways of working within an action learning set; including the importance of confidentiality, commitment, and mutual respect. The work of these authors draws from the practice-based literature on learning sets and group dynamics, and presents experiences which are of use to practitioners, such as the importance of having a facilitator, and the use of reflection, as exemplified by the seminal work of Schon (1983). The works discussed here are based on the assumptions that there is a problem which is worthy of exploration, and that the parties are committed to working together in a safe environment of mutual respect to explore that problem and work together towards a solution. There is, further, an assumption that there is an ethical, social purpose to the endeavour, and that new actionable knowledge can be created as a result of the shared journey. Further; the practicalities of using a facilitated learning set as a model for collaborative problem exploration are discussed and explored. However, there is also an assumption running through much of this work that the researcher is external to the problem domain and the stakeholders, and there is little consideration of the issues which arise when the researcher is part of the problem domain itself, which is often the case of a doctoral study, where the student is an ‘insider researcher’ as discussed by Brannick and Coghlan (2007). The issues of ‘insider research’ are not really touched upon in these papers nor are the tensions which a manager experiences when they are operating in multiple roles; as a manager-researcher, a doctoral researcher and as

358

a partner in a collaborative learning set. These aspects have, however, been covered by Coghlan in one of his earlier papers (Coghlan, 2001). The works highlight the following insights for the development of critical thinking skills: the importance of social purpose and collaboration within an action research project (Brydon-Miller et al, 2003), the applicability and usefulness of pursuing ‘practical knowing’ (Coghlan, 2011) and how an action research project can generate knowledge that would never be gained from theory alone, and the usefulness of learning sets, and the use of a facilitator in the action research process (Holmes, 2008; Pedler, 2008). In terms of scholarship the major insight relates to the usefulness, validity and rigour of the action research approach (Brydon-Miller et al, 2003; Coghlan, 2011) and the need for its wider acceptance alongside more accepted research methods and for its teaching within university courses. I found the action research nature of my project to be particularly appropriate. I was exploring a topic which was of interest to me, and of use to my work colleagues. Indeed they became part of my project, which helped enormously in developing my skills of critical thinking, as they were always there ready to question what I was doing.

Action Learning Many professional, or practice-based, doctorates, such as the DBA (Doctorate of Business Administration) or EdD (Doctor of Education) use an action learning approach to develop critical thinking skills. This involves the student in doing an action research project within their own workplace. This involves ‘insider research’ which is itself an interesting approach, and raises several ethical issues regarding the practitioner as researcher, and issues of potential bias (Brannick & Coghlan, 2007). Cho and Egan (2009) have undertaken a very extensive and systematic review of the literature

 Developing Critical Thinking in Doctoral Students

relating to action learning. They were interested in the balance between action and learning and characterised 50 studies into three categories: action-oriented (i.e. the action was the prime objective and this informed the learning), learningoriented (i.e. the learning was the prime objective and this resulted in and drove the action), and balanced action learning. They concluded that there are many different variants of action learning, and that most instances of action learning have been undertaken for personal development, rather than for organisational needs. They also recognised an increased use of technology such as learning environments, the mixed quality of research studies and a blurring between action research and action learning. Marquardt and Waddill (2004) and Pedler et al (2005) have explored the theoretical and practice base of action learning. Marquardt and Waddill have undertaken an extensive literature review which demonstrates how action learning incorporates all of the five major theories of adult learning (i.e. behaviourist, cognitivist, humanist, social and constructivist), illustrated with an example from their own practice. In doing so, they further reinforce the significance, validity and applicability of action learning. Pedler and colleagues are themselves action learning practitioners who wished to deeper their understanding of the subject and, to do so, examined its use in the United Kingdom. Their empirical research identified the common features of action learning including learning set size (ideally about six people), the use of real individual tasks for action, the use of reflection on action, and the important role of facilitators. Gray (2007) reviews the use of tools (e.g. critical incident analysis, reflective diaries, and storytelling) and argues that these are important vehicles for developing reflexivity in learners. Running through all of these papers are the assumptions that action learning, and action research provide a powerful learning tool when they are inter-linked, and that this is a valid and

useful approach which has a role within management development. They also emphasise the need to underpin practice with theory and the use of appropriate tools. There is also an underlying theme which links empirical, practice-based research with theory, and demonstrates that the two (i.e. practice and theory) can and should feed off and drive each other; that action learning and action research are valid topics for research, and that it is important for practice to be informed by research, and also for practice to inform the body of research evidence on the subject. The works highlight the following insights for developing critical thinking: the need to treat action learning and action research in a planned and systematic manner, with constant reflexivity on the process, and the careful use of language and tools for reflection within a learning set. As one student said: “I am a great believer in learning by doing. The action learning nature of my doctorate enabled me to gain a deep understanding of my subject.”

Dissemination The dissemination of work prior to submission of the thesis is a very important part of the PhD process. Attending and presenting at conferences, in particular, is an excellent preparation for the final viva (Dinham and Scott, 2001; Tinkler and Jackson, 2008). It is also a good opportunity to develop critical thinking skills. It gives the student experience of presenting their work to an audience, and explaining and discussing it in a way that their peers within the academic community will understand. It enables the student to enter into academic debate, using the discourse and language of their academic subject, and test and exercise their skills of thinking critically and on their feet. It also gives the student vital experience of performing under pressure; skills which will be tested further during their PhD viva. They will receive immediate feedback and critique of their work and this will give them experience of

359

 Developing Critical Thinking in Doctoral Students

answering unexpected questions on the approach and content of their PhD thesis. A somewhat similar experience can be gained by presenting work at seminars, either internally within their own department or externally to other PhD students. Many conferences offer workshops for doctoral students, which allow PhD candidates to present their work to other students. This provides a safe environment in which the student can present and test out ideas, gain experience of speaking and of explaining their work to others, and observe and learn from fellow students. Such events can also be a great confidence builder, as students invariably find that they are experiencing the same worries and concerns as other students, and that their PhD studies are progressing at a similar rate. As well as presenting at conferences, PhD students should also be encouraged to publish their work in the form of a journal paper. A good supervisor will encourage and support their students in doing so, and will co-author the paper with them. This has many advantages. If the author receives a thesis to examine and he sees that the student has published their work in a journal (and particularly if he knows that the journal has a policy of rigorous peer review), he will start reading the thesis with an enhanced level of confidence that the work is likely to be of a certain standard. Reputable journals will only publish work which is original and thus, by definition, makes some sort of contribution. He will, of course, read the thesis in as much detail as he would any other thesis, but he will start the process in an especially positive frame of mind. There are several other benefits to publishing work prior to the oral examination. It gives the student an opportunity to practise and further develop their academic writing skills, and can result in important feedback on the work. It also produces written material which can be revised and reformatted and become part of the final thesis. It also gives the student practise of the publication process, which is a vital skill, particularly if the student intends to pursue a career in academia. In

360

addition, it enables the student to get their work ‘into the slipstream of academic ideas, and so avoid the thesis becoming just ‘shelf-bending’ research, sitting in the university library and slowly bending a shelf over the years’ (Dunleavy, 2003). There are many good books available on the subject of academic writing, including Craswell’s Writing for Academic Success: A postgraduate guide (2005), Day and Gastel’s ‘How to Write and Publish a Scientific Paper‘ (2012), and Murray’s ‘Writing for Academic Journals’ (2009). ‘By attending the conference, I feel I had the opportunity to participate in an environment that was rigorous yet fun, scholarly and social. This experience certainly helped me feel that I am an active, knowledgeable, and a valuable member of the professional academic community.’

The ‘Mock’ PhD Viva and the Actual Viva It is quite common for students to have a mock, or practice, viva prior to their real PhD examination (Smith, 2014). Each university approaches this in a different way, and as a result the mock viva can take several forms. It may be a practice examination with the student’s supervisors, a discussion with other students; or an attempt to simulate an examination with academic staff who are not the student’s supervisors. A mock viva can take place a few weeks, or even months, before the student’s real viva, or it may happen only a few days before the student’s actual viva. It can sometimes take place before the student has submitted the thesis, and thus in time for the student to react to feedback and make revisions to the draft thesis. There are other approaches which are similar to the mock viva. These include videos of staged (or in some cases real) vivas, and the use of simulated vivas during research student training programmes which may involve students or staff or both. There is no agreed standard approach for the mock viva. In some cases the student may simply by observing others playing out a viva. This will be

 Developing Critical Thinking in Doctoral Students

useful, but it is also important for each and every student to experience a practice viva in the role of the candidate, so that they can get a sense of what it feels like to be in that situation, and understand how the questioning process can operate. Here is what one student said following their oral examination: The viva was similar but at the same time totally different from the mock viva. It seemed to focus on a (different) small subset of the work and largely ignored other areas. It seems that in the case above the mock viva attempted to cover all aspects of the student’s PhD work, but in the real viva, the examiners were particularly interested in one aspect of the thesis. This could have been because it was important or interesting, or they may have had some concerns about that area of the work. All of the above are valid and useful approaches. Indeed, the author has known some candidates have several mock examinations (for example, one with their supervisors, and one with fellow students). The most important thing to remember is that the mock is a chance to practise, but should not be seen in any way as a rehearsal for the real thing. It is impossible to predict the questions that examiners will ask. It is possible to guess some of the general questions that might come up, but no-one can predict the very specific questions that relate directly to a particular PhD thesis. Little research has been done on the subject of the mock viva; Hartley and Fox (2004) undertook a study (perhaps the only formal study) on the subject, using a questionnaire to gather data on the experiences and feelings of 29 UK postgraduate students concerning their mock viva. The results confirm that there are many different approaches being used in UK universities. They also found that candidates are often asked questions during a mock which are very different from the questions

which come up during the actual viva. However, 90% of the students in their study felt that having a mock viva was a very useful experience. Here is a comment of another student: A couple of weeks before the date of my examination I had a practice viva with my supervisors asking the types of questions that they felt would come up. This process gave me confidence on the one hand, but also made me realise that I had to really revise and read up on the theoretical concepts underlying my work before the big day. This preparation paid off as indeed several questions on theory did come up. And one final comment: I had a mock viva although I was given mixed messages from peers and staff as to how useful/ or not this would be. However, it was my choice to experience a mock viva as this was beyond my know-how, and I wanted the experience. On the day in question, I felt the room and the positioning of chairs was a little uncomfortable and not a true reflection of the possible event. It seemed to be a ‘pretend’ situation rather than a pilot run of the real viva. The staff who questioned me about my study were openly friendly, and bordering on being familiar; which was not surprising since I knew them well. But this was a little off-putting; I wanted more formality, so that it would more closely model the real situation. There was one member of staff who remained cool, and professionally distant. It is from this person that I learned the most. At the close of the mock viva I was offered back an annotated copy of my report, and I received germane comments about my work and ideas on how to verbally present responses on the actual day of the viva; this remained in my head. It is important that mock vivas are treated seriously by both staff and students. They should

361

 Developing Critical Thinking in Doctoral Students

be prepared for, should include at least two staff playing the role of examiners, and should last for at least one hour (Hartley and Fox, 2004). It is important that candidates are provided with feedback after the mock, on their performance and what they may wish to focus on during preparations for the real viva. In the author’s own experience, mock vivas are quite tricky; it is important to take great care with how they are handled. They should be used to support the student, and it sometimes difficult to get the right balance of rigour and academic critique without, on the one hand, terrifying and frightening the student, or on the other hand, giving the student a false sense of security about their chances in the real viva. Each student reacts differently in a viva situation, and this should be taken into account when deciding which approach to take in each case. Another student said: It followed a rigorous almost torturous practice viva a couple of weeks prior during which I learned many lessons. You never know what topics or questions will be raised, however you can prepare your method of response, and practise answering questions. Here are some further views from students on their viva: The night before, and the morning of, the viva I had prepared as much as I could do the week of the viva, my teaching and work load permitting. Re-reading sections, copying out relevant comments I wanted to make sure I made and practising my argument in my head constantly. My viva was on a Friday morning so I set time aside during the week to practise responses to questions raised at the mock. I did this out loud (alone) to gain confidence. Later on in the week I met another colleague for lunch; who fired questions at me as we ate. The night before I ate fish (‘brain food’ my mother calls it) and went to bed early. I felt as

362

prepared as I could be by the morning of the viva so went in feeling I’d done as much as I could. The three examiners were friendly and welcoming, with each having read my report in detail. Some of the questions were anticipated, exploring specific areas of my work in detail, but some questions went along completely different tracks to that which I expected. All of the questions were related to the critical reflection report, with none of the questions relating to the portfolio of reports submitted. I remember the principal examiner kept pushing me to define what I meant by professional practice, and what texts I had read about ‘practice’. He also questioned me in detail about the methodology behind my case studies. Although I had a chapter on methodology, he seemed to want even more detail. During the viva, there were occasions where we all agreed on some topics and it turned into a pleasant conversation, but then in minutes it would turn to a different topic where I would feel under attack and having to defend particular decisions. I can’t remember how long the viva took – it seemed to go on for an end- less eternity, although it must have been only about 2-3 hours. Overall, I would say that the viva itself was fair, not too unpleasant but definitely thorough.

Reflections on the Doctoral Journey Below are some student reflections on their doctoral journey. This has been a difficult journey; juxtaposing a full-time senior management career and personal family commitments; whilst at the same time trying to mesh in a demanding academic and doctoral research project. My knowledge and understanding of the subject, however, would not have been anywhere as near developed had I not embarked on this programme of study. I feel a real sense of achievement in being able to juggle so many demands and at the same time still managing to deliver the required outcomes to timescale.

 Developing Critical Thinking in Doctoral Students

When I embarked on my part time PhD, I had no clear expectations other than I wanted to see if I could achieve at this level of academic work. I had already undertaken several taught postgraduate courses. However, reflecting on my journey in undertaking this research and the reading and theory that I have covered.....I now realise that to get high quality work that I can be proud of is really (really) hard work and that it isn’t enough to skim the literature. I can honestly say that if my work resulted in a fail that, whilst I would naturally be disappointed, I could walk away knowing that I have personally developed in a way that I never anticipated. In practice, I feel it is important for you to know who you are and what drives you, and yet, it has only been over the past three years that I have seen such clarity.

SOLUTIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS This chapter has discussed the PhD process, the stages involved and how each stage, each stakeholder, and specific techniques can help develop critical thinking. This has been supported by quotes from students, who reflect upon their journey and how it has transformed them. Each area that has been discussed is important in developing doctoral level thinking, research skills and critical thinking. These areas are covered in a series of recommendations and observations which are set out below. The supervisor plays a key role in supporting the student throughout their PhD journey. The nature of that role will change, starting more directive, and becoming more of a critical friend as the research programme progresses. A good working relationship between a student and their supervisor is very important for a successful PhD.

Student peers can provide support of a pastoral nature, and can also play the role of critical friend, enabling the PhD student to discuss their work in an open and safe environment. No-one really understand and feels the issues in the same way as another student, who is experiencing the same worries, concerns and issues and is subject to the same processes, at the same time. Formal, centrally provided research training can provide opportunities for critique and reflection on student work, and on the journey itself. It can also provide a further opportunity for meeting peers. Students often avoid these programmes, which is a shame. They should use them as the positive development opportunities which they usually are. Students should start writing their thesis at the earliest possible stage. Writing can support thinking, discussion, and interaction with supervisors and peers. In developing their academic writing skills, the student will need to read, assimilate, synthesis concepts and ideas, and practise their grammatical skills. These are all essential parts of critical thinking. Critical thinking and academic writing should be inextricably intertwined and integrated within a doctoral study. Student should be encouraged to disseminate their work, particularly when they reach the second and third years of their studies. Dissemination is important for a number of reasons. It forces the student to write about their work in a way that others can understand. It also opens up their work to pie feedback and critique, and in doing so provides a further opportunity for the development of critical thinking. The viva, and the preparations which run up to it, should play an important part in developing critical thinking. As this final assessment draws closer, the student begins to question their work, the contribution which they are claiming, the approach which they have taken, and the limitations of their study. All of this implies self-reflection and self-critique. This is, of course, tested ultimately

363

 Developing Critical Thinking in Doctoral Students

within the actual viva. All students should have the opportunity to take part in a mock viva, where they gain practise in the viva and questioning process, and in defending their work to academic critique. Students should receive formal training in the techniques of reflection, such as for example, critical incident techniques, autobiographical techniques, and keeping a reflective diary or blog. This will develop the skills of self-criticism and self-evaluation. Public reflection can also be used with a group of student peers, to further hone the skills of critical self-reflection. Action research and action learning are often part of a practice-based, or professional, doctorate programme. These approaches enable a student to learn by doing, thus deepening their knowledge, and providing further practise in critical evaluation as part of the cycle action research, and action learning, process. The PhD process may have various formal milestones, including approval of the proposal, the upgrade committee, and annual reviews. The exact stages will vary from university to university, and from country to country. Each stage will usually entail the production of a written report, and a presentation to a panel or committee. And each stage will thus provide a further opportunity for critique, reflection, peer assessment and the development of critical thinking skills.

FUTURE RESEARCH DIRECTIONS Now here is the conundrum. This chapter has recognised the importance of critical thinking, its resonance with doctoral level studies, and the fact that many students find it difficult to grasp and achieve. The paper then went on to identify and discuss a plethora of people, processes and techniques all of which form part of the doctoral journey, and all of which contribute to the development of critical thinking skills.

364

So why do some students still reach the end of their PhD to produce a thesis which is not ‘critical enough’, is judged below standard by their examiners and is referred back for more work? These students have all passed through many different reviews, and at each point a group of academics has critiqued and reviewed their work. They have all had supervisors who have read drafts of the thesis, and commented upon them. They have had a mock viva to test and exercise their skills of criticality. Yet still their work is not ‘critical enough’, another do not Pass (at least not initially, they will normally all Pass subsequently). Has the system failed them? Has their supervisor failed them? Or do the examiners have a different view as to that constitutes being ‘critical enough’? These are, of course, all interesting questions, and not easy to answer. The author intends to explore these areas in the future, using narrative accounts of doctoral students to investigate why they find critical thinking so challenging, and what we might do to better support them.

CONCLUSION This chapter has explored the role of critical thinking in doctoral education and examined models for developing criticality in PhD students. The chapter first reviewed doctoral standards, the role of critical thinking within the doctorate and the issues that students often have with critical thinking. It then went on to reflect upon each of the stages and players within the doctoral process, and how each of these might contribute to critical thinking. The chapter concludes with a series of recommendations, relating to the role of the supervisor, how peers can provide support of a pastoral nature, and can also play the role of critical friend, that centrally provided research training can provide opportunities for critique and reflection, that

 Developing Critical Thinking in Doctoral Students

students should start writing their thesis at the earliest possible stage to develop skills of critical writing, they should be encouraged to disseminate their work, and that annual reviews and the viva, and the preparations which run up to it, play an important part in developing critical thinking. The chapter further recommends that students receive formal training in the techniques of reflection, and that action research and action learning providing opportunities for critical evaluation. Critical thinking is a challenging area for student development, and one which we must not shy away from. It is our duty as academics, supervisors and tutors to ensure that our doctoral students are developed and challenged to the fullest possible extent, so that we can celebrate their graduation in the knowledge that are able to critique, research, question, and innovate.

REFERENCES Atkins, S., & Murphy, K. (1994, June). Reflective practice. Nursing Standard, 8(39), 49–54. PMID:8060863 Bastalich, W., Behrend, M., & Bloomfield, R. (2013). Is non-subject based research training a ‘waste of time’, good only for the development of professional skills? An academic literacies perspective. Teaching in Higher Education, (ahead-of-print), 1-12. Beyer, B. K. (1995). Critical thinking. Phi Delta Kappa Educational Foundation. 1(1). Boud, D., Keogh, R., & Walker, D. (1994). Reflection: Turning experience into learning. London: Kogan Page. Boud, D., & Lee, A. (2005). ‘Peer learning as pedagogic discourse for research education. Studies in Higher Education, 30(5), 501–516. doi:10.1080/03075070500249138

Brannick, T., & Coghlan, D. (2007). In defence of being ‘native’: The case for insider academic research. Organizational Research Methods, 10(1), 59–74. doi:10.1177/1094428106289253 Brydon-Miller, M., Greenwood, D., & Maguire, P. (2003). ‘Why action research?’. Action Research, 1(1), 9–28. doi:10.1177/14767503030011002 Butterfield, L. D., Borgen, W. A., Amundson, N. E., & Maglio, A. S. T. (2005). Fifty years of the critical incident technique: 1954-2004 and beyond. Qualitative Research, 5(4), 475–497. doi:10.1177/1468794105056924 Cho, Y., & Egan, T. M. (2009). ‘Action learning research: A systematic review and conceptual framework. Human Resource Development Review, 8(4), 431–462. Churchman, C. W. (1967). Wicked problems. Management Science, 14(4), 141–142. Coghlan, D. (2001). Insider action research projects: Implications for practising managers. Management Learning, 32(1), 49–60. doi:10.1177/1350507601321004 Coghlan, D. (2007). Insider action research doctorates: Generating actionable knowledge. Higher Education, 54(2), 293–306. doi:10.1007/ s10734-005-5450-0 Coghlan, D. (2011). Action research: Exploring perspectives on a philosophy of practical knowing. The Academy of Management Annals, 5(1), 53–87. doi:10.1080/19416520.2011.571520 Collier, G. (Ed.). (1983). The management of peer-group learning: syndicate methods in higher education. Guildford: Society for Research into Higher Education. Cryer, P. (2006). The research student’s guide to success. Maidenhead: Open University Press.

365

 Developing Critical Thinking in Doctoral Students

De Gruchy, J. W., & Holness, L. (2008). The emerging researcher: Nurturing Passion, Developing Skills, Producing Output. Juta and Company Ltd. Deal, K. H. (2004). The relationship between critical thinking and interpersonal skills: Guidelines for clinical supervision. The Clinical Supervisor, 22(2), 3–19. doi:10.1300/J001v22n02_02 Delamont, S., Atkinson, P., & Parry, O. (2000). The doctoral experience: Success and failure in graduate school. London: Falmer Press. doi:10.4324/9780203451403 Facione, P. A. (1998). Critical thinking: What it is and why it counts. Millbrae, CA: California Academic Press. Retrieved April, 1, 2004. Falchikov, N. (2001). Learning together: peer tutoring in higher education. London: Routledge. doi:10.4324/9780203451496 Flanagan, J. C. (1954). The critical incident technique. Psychological Bulletin, 51(4), 327–358. doi:10.1037/h0061470 PMID:13177800 Frisby, W., Maguire, P., & Reid, C. (2009). The ‘f’ word has everything to do with it. How feminist theories inform action research. Action Research, 7(1), 13–29. doi:10.1177/1476750308099595 Gibbs, G. (2013). Lectures don’t work, but we keep using them. Times Higher. Gray, D. E. (2007). Facilitating management learning: Developing critical reflection through reflective tools. Management Learning, 38(5), 495–517. doi:10.1177/1350507607083204

Holmes, M. (2008). What do set facilitators bring to the party? (And do we need them?). Action Learning Research and Practice, 5(3), 249–253. doi:10.1080/14767330802461355 Illeris, K. (2014). Transformative Learning and Identity. New York, NY: Routledge. Ives, G., & Rowley, G. (2005). Supervisor selection or allocation and continuity of supervision: PhD students’ progress and outcomes. Studies in Higher Education, 30(5), 535–555. doi:10.1080/03075070500249161 Jenkins, A., & Healey, M. (2011). Navigating between teaching, learning and inquiry: Developing students as researchers. The International HETL Review, 35. Kock, N. F. Jr, McQueen, R. J., & Scott, J. L. (1997). Can action research be made more rigorous in a positivist sense? The contribution of an iterative approach. Journal of Systems and Information Technology, 1(1), 1–23. doi:10.1108/13287269780000732 Lee, A. (2008). How are doctoral students supervised? Concepts of doctoral research supervision. Studies in Higher Education, 33(3), 267–281. doi:10.1080/03075070802049202 Leonard, D., Becker, R., & Coate, K. (2005). To prove myself at the highest level: The benefits of doctoral study. Higher Education Research & Development, 24(2), 135–149. doi:10.1080/07294360500062904

Hall, R., & Jaugietis, Z. (2010). Developing peer mentoring through evaluation. Innovative Higher Education, 36(1), 41–52. doi:10.1007/s10755010-9156-6

Lovitts, B. E. (2005). Being a good course‐ taker is not enough: A theoretical perspective on the transition to independent research. Studies in Higher Education, 30(2), 137–154. doi:10.1080/03075070500043093

Hayes, G. R. (2014). Knowing by doing: Action research as an approach to HCI. In Ways of Knowing in HCI. New York, NY: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-1-4939-0378-8_3

Lunt, I., McAlpine, L., & Mills, D. (2013). Lively bureaucracy? The ESRC’s Doctoral Training Centres and UK universities. Oxford Review of Education, (ahead-of-print), 1-19.

366

 Developing Critical Thinking in Doctoral Students

Marquardt, M., & Waddill, D. (2004). The power of learning in action learning: A conceptual analysis of how the five schools of adult learning theories are incorporated within the practice of action learning. Action Learning Research and Practice, 1(2), 185–202. doi:10.1080/1476733042000264146 Mooney, R. L. (1957). The researcher himself. In Research for curriculum improvement, Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development, 1957 yearbook (pp. 154–186). Washington, DC: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Morley, C. (2005). Supervising professional doctorate research is different. Supervising postgraduate research: Contexts and processes, theories and practices (pp. 106-122). RMIT Press. Mowbray, S., & Halse, C. (2010). The purpose of the PhD: Theorising the skills acquired by students. Higher Education Research & Development, 29(6), 653–664. doi:10.1080/0729436 0.2010.487199 Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (2001). Critical thinking skills: A comparison of doctoral-and master’slevel students. College Student Journal, 35(3). Paul, R. W. (1995). Critical thinking: How to prepare students for a rapidly changing world. Foundation for Critical Thinking. Pearson, M., & Brew, A. (2002). Research training and supervision development. Studies in Higher Education, 27(2), 135–150. doi:10.1080/03075070220119986c Pedler, M. (2008). How does an action learning set work? In Action Learning for Managers (2nd ed.). Aldershot: Gower. Pedler, M., Burgoyne, J. G., & Brook, C. (2005). What has Action Learning learned to become? Action Learning Research and Practice, 2(1), 49–68. doi:10.1080/14767330500041251

Phillips, E. M., & Pugh, D. S. (2000). How to get a PhD: A handbook for students and their supervisors. Buckingham: Open University Press. Preston, J. P., Ogenchuk, M. J., & Nsiah, J. K. (2014). Peer mentorship and transformational learning: PhD student experiences. Canadian Journal of Higher Education, 44(1), 52–68. Raelin, J. A. (2001). Public reflection as the basis of learning. Management Learning, 32(1), 11–30. doi:10.1177/1350507601321002 Reid, C. (2004). Advancing women’s social justice agendas: A feminist action research framework. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 3(3). Sanders, G., Kuit, J., Smith, P., & Fulton, J. (2012). Hidden Voices: Exploring personal and professional transformation through video narratives of Professional Doctorate candidates. In: 3rd International Conference on Professional Doctorates: ICPD-3, 2-3 Apr 2012, Florence, Italy: European University Institute. Sanders, G, Kuit, J, Smith, P, Fulton, J & Curtis, H (2011). Identity, reflection and developmental networks as processes in professional doctorate development. Work Based Learning e-Journal, 2 (1). Schon, D. (1983). The reflective practitioner. London: Temple Smith. Simpson, P., French, R., & Vince, R. (2000). The upside of the downside: How utilizing defensive dynamics can support learning in groups. Management Learning, 31(4), 457–470. doi:10.1177/1350507600314003 Sinclair, M. (2004). The pedagogy of ‘good’ PhD supervision: A national cross-disciplinary investigation of PhD supervision. Canberra: Department of Education, Science and Training. Smith, P. (2014). The PhD Viva. Palgrave.

367

 Developing Critical Thinking in Doctoral Students

Terenzini, P. T., Springer, L., Pascarella, E. T., & Nora, A. (1995). Influences affecting the development of students’ critical thinking skills. Research in Higher Education, 36(1), 23–39. doi:10.1007/ BF02207765 Thompson, J., Smith, P. & and Cooper, B. (2012). An autoethnographic study of the impact of reflection and doctoral study on practice. Work Based Learning e-Journal International, 2 (2). Tomorrow’s Professor. (2014). Msg.# 853 Peer Support for Ph. D. Students. Topping, K. J., & Ehly, S. W. (1998). Peer-assisted learning. Mahwah, N.J: L. Erlbaum Associates. van den Brink-Budgen, R. (2006). Critical thinking for students, How to books, Oxford.

Wright, T., & Cochrane, R. (2000). Factors influencing successful submission of PhD theses. Studies in Higher Education, 25(2), 181–195. doi:10.1080/713696139 Zainal Abiddin, N. (2005). The role of an effective supervisor: Case studies at the University of Manchester. Manchester, UK. Zipp, G. P., & Olson, V. (2011). Infusing the Mentorship Model of Education for the Promotion of Critical Thinking in Doctoral Education. Journal of College Teaching & Learning, 5(9).

ADDITIONAL READING

Vilkinas, T. (2002). The PhD process: The supervisor as manager. Education + Training, 44(3), 129–137. doi:10.1108/00400910210424337

Bailin, S., Case, R., Coombs, J. R., & Daniels, L. B. (1999). Conceptualizing critical thinking. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 31(3), 285–302. doi:10.1080/002202799183133

Wade, C. (1995). Using writing to develop and assess critical thinking. Teaching of Psychology, 22(1), 24–28. doi:10.1207/s15328023top2201_8

Bolton, G. (2001). Reflective practice: Writing and professional development. London: Paul Chapman Publishing.

Webb, A. K., Wangmo, T., Ewen, H. H., Teaster, P. B., & Hatch, L. R. (2009). Peer and faculty mentoring for students pursuing a PhD in gerontology. Educational Gerontology, 35(12), 1089–1106. doi:10.1080/03601270902917869

Ennis, R. H. (1985). A logical basis for measuring critical thinking skills. Educational Leadership, 43(2), 44–48.

Wellington, J., Bathmaker, A., Hunt, C., McCulloch, G., & Sikes, P. (2005). Succeeding with your doctorate. London: Sage. doi:10.4135/9781849209977 Wellington, J., & Sikes, P. (2006). ‘A doctorate in a tight compartment’: Why do students choose a professional doctorate and what impact does it have on their personal and professional lives’. Studies in Higher Education, 31(6), 723–734. doi:10.1080/03075070601004358

368

Facione, P. A. (2000). The disposition toward critical thinking: Its character, measurement, and relation to critical thinking skill. Informal Logic, 20(1), 61–84. Fulton, J., Kuit, J., Sanders, G., & Smith, P. (2012). The role of the professional doctorate in developing professional practice. Journal of Nursing Management, 20(1), 130–139. doi:10.1111/j.13652834.2011.01345.x PMID:22229909 Fulton, J., Kuit, J., Sanders, G., & Smith, P. (2012). Mixed methods in the context of professional doctorate studies. In: 8th Mixed Methods International Conference, Leeds University.

 Developing Critical Thinking in Doctoral Students

Fulton, J., Kuit, J., Sanders, G., & Smith, P. (2013). The professional doctorate. New York, NY: Palgrave.

Pithers, R. T., & Soden, R. (2000). Critical thinking in education. Review of Educational Research, 42(3), 237–249.

Halonen, J. S. (1995). Demystifying critical thinking. Teaching of Psychology, 22(1), 75–81. doi:10.1207/s15328023top2201_23

Sanders, G., Fulton, J., Kuit, J., & Smith, P. (2013), Alternative pedagogies for the generic professional doctorate, International Conference on Professional Doctorates, Florida, USA.

Halpern, D. F. (1998). Teaching critical thinking for transfer across domains: Dispositions, skills, structure training, and metacognitive monitoring. The American Psychologist, 53(4), 449–455. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.53.4.449 PMID:9572008 Kennedy, M., Fisher, M. B., & Ennis, R. H. (1991). Critical thinking: Literature review and needed research. In L. Idol & B. F. Jones (Eds.), Educational values and cognitive instruction: Implications for reform (pp. 11–40). Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum & Associates. King, P. M., Wood, P. K., & Mines, R. A. (1990). Critical thinking among college and graduate students. Review of Higher Education, 13(3), 167–186. Kuhn, D. (1999). A developmental model of critical thinking. Educational Researcher, 28(2), 16–26. doi:10.3102/0013189X028002016 Lipman, M. (1988). Critical thinking—What can it be? Educational Leadership, 46(1), 38–43. Nelson, C. E. (1994). Critical thinking and collaborative learning. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 1994(59), 45–58. doi:10.1002/ tl.37219945907 Paul, R. W. (1992). Critical thinking: What, why, and how? New Directions for Community Colleges, 1992(77), 3–24. doi:10.1002/cc.36819927703 Paul, R. W., & Elder, L. (2006). Critical thinking: The nature of critical and creative thought. Journal of Developmental Education, 30(2), 34–35.

Sanders, G., Kuit, J., Smith, P., Fulton, J., & Curtis, H. (2012). Breaking the boundaries of professional territories through inter-professional dialogues. In: 3rd International Conference on Professional Doctorates: ICPD-3, European University Institute, Florence, Italy. Sanders, G., & Smith, P. (2013), An alternative approach to the assessment of professional doctorate candidates, International Conference on Developments, Doctoral Education and Training, UKCGE, Royal College of Surgeons, Edinburgh. Sanders, G., & Smith, P. (2013), The structure and impact of a successful ‘second generation’ Professional Doctorate Programme, International Conference on Developments, Doctoral Education and Training, UKCGE, Royal College of Surgeons, Edinburgh, 11th & 12th April 2013 Smith, P, Curtis, H, Sanders, G, Kuit, J & Fulton, J (2011). Student perceptions of the professional doctorate. Work Based Learning, 2 (1). Smith, P., Walker-Gleaves, C., & Fulton, J. (2010). Developing a cross-disiplinary community of learning within a professional doctorate programme. In: SEDA Teaching learning and assessment conference 2010: Communities of Learning, Leeds. Smith, P., Walker-Gleaves, C., Fulton, J., & Candlish, C. (2009). The professional doctorate within the context of leadership development strategies. In: First international conference on professional doctorates, 9-10 Nov 2009, UK Council for Graduate Education, Cavendish Conference Centre, London.

369

 Developing Critical Thinking in Doctoral Students

Smith, P., Walker-Gleaves, C., Fulton, J., & Candlish, C. (2009). Developing inter-professional communities of practice within the context of a professional doctorate programme. In: Higher education academy conference, 30 Jun-2 Jul 2009, University of Manchester. Thayer-Bacon, B. J. (2000). Transforming critical thinking: Thinking constructively. New York, NY: Teachers College Press. van Gelder, T. (2005). Teaching critical thinking: Some lessons from cognitive science. College Teaching, 53(1), 41–48. doi:10.3200/ CTCH.53.1.41-48 Weinstein, M. (1993). Critical thinking: The great debate. Educational Theory, 43(1), 99–117. doi:10.1111/j.1741-5446.1993.00099.x Williams, R. L. (2005, Winter). Targeting critical thinking within teacher education: The potential impact on society. Teacher Educator, 40(3), 163–187. doi:10.1080/08878730509555359

370

KEY TERMS AND DEFINITIONS Action Research: A research approach which involves iterations of practical action, followed by reflection. Doctorate: A higher degree obtained by research. Professional Doctorate: A practice-based research degree. Reflection: The action of thinking and analysing one’s actions in order to learn for the future. Supervisor: A member of academic staff supporting a higher degree student. Thesis: An academic document which a higher degree student produces to report on their project. This is the normal means of assessment for the degree of PhD. Viva: An oral examination of a higher degree (e.g. a PhD).

371

Chapter 16

Faculty Support and Guidance for Doctoral Candidates: Promotion of Critical Thinking Sherrie L. Wisdom Lindenwood University, USA

ABSTRACT This chapter describes practices of doctoral faculty in their efforts to support and encourage doctoral candidates for the EdD in conducting reliable and valid research for the writing of the dissertation. The setting of the degree program is in the School of Education in a private, four-year, liberal arts university in the Midwest United States. In guiding the doctoral candidates in their research endeavors, the faculty are promoting critical thinking applied to research design. Critical thinking is a process that represents a collection of skills difficult to teach in a doctoral program, as students who enroll bring a wide range of skills. The chapter includes a description of the doctoral program, some of the challenges faced by the doctoral faculty, and some of the strategies applied to promotion of strong research design among student work.

INTRODUCTION Critical thinking is a process which requires a skill set useful in decision-making, similar to the research process. Researchers begin with a problem, gather information, analyze and synthesize, and draw conclusions. Educators responsible for development of critical thinking within their students must consider application, analysis, and evaluation, as well as identification of appropriate sources of information for problem solving, contribution of life experiences, and

forms of communication, as they guide students in strengthening their skills. Everyday life requires an intake of information through communication and observation. Everyday decisions make demands on the individual to apply and analyze. This ongoing project explores deliberate choices within an Educational Doctorate program to promote development and strengthening of necessary skills for critical thinking in its students. Scriven and Paul (2013) defined critical thinking as a process an individual engages in by “actively and skillfully conceptualizing, ap-

DOI: 10.4018/978-1-4666-8411-9.ch016

Copyright © 2015, IGI Global. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.

 Faculty Support and Guidance for Doctoral Candidates

plying, analyzing, synthesizing, and/or evaluating information gathered from, or generated by, observation, experience, reflection, reasoning, or communication, as a guide to belief and action” (p. 1). This process requires many skills of the individual. Everyday life requires an intake of information through communication and observation. Everyday decisions make demands on the individual to apply and analyze. The project described in this chapter is an application of the critical thinking process and evolved through the gathering of information used to assess progress of the students and the program itself. Synthesis and evaluation of the data gathered contributed to decision-making regarding guidance given to the students on their own research within the doctoral program. This chapter describes the approach taken by department faculty to promote critical thinking in doctoral students in the School of Education with regard to their doctoral research.

Critical Thinking At the time of this writing, the concept of critical thinking was a topic of discussion among student clientele enrolled in the education doctoral program. Many worked as K-12 teachers and administrators in schools and districts and were faced with the Common Core State Standards movement to promote critical thinking and problem solving in their own younger students (Burkis & Yaris, 2012). They faced the need to strengthen their own critical-thinking processes, promotion of critical thinking within their colleagues and subordinates, as well as promotion of critical thinking skills among the young students they supervised. Burkis and Yaris pointed out the connection between the Common Core State Standards for reading and found “language like ‘analyze how individuals, events, and ideas develop’ and ‘interpret words and phrases’ and ‘integrate and evaluate content’” (p. 1), which brings the educator to the conclusion

372

that critical thinking processes will be expected. “These words—analyze, interpret, integrate– reflect the vernacular of critical thinking” (p. 1). From the viewpoint of the School of Education supervising the doctoral program, the challenge was to promote critical thinking in the higher education students seeking the degree. The application of critical thinking discussed in this chapter is connected with the skills necessary and processes followed for both doctoral faculty and doctoral students. Willingham (2001) described critical thinking as “demanding that claims be backed by evidence, deducing and inferring conclusions from available facts, [and] solving problems” (p. 8). This description is in complete alignment with conducting research, especially within an education doctorate program in which students are seeking to apply the knowledge they gain. Deducing and inferring conclusions in the doctoral research setting can assist students’ home educational institutions with decision-making concerning programs, facilities, staffing, and curriculum materials. In consideration of promoting critical thinking among students of higher education, Willingham had a view that may oppose the views of those in the higher education profession. When addressing whether critical thinking can be taught, Willingham indicated that, “Decades of cognitive research point to a disappointing answer: not really” (p. 8). He indicated that critical thinking was not a simply a skill, but a process of thought utilizing content knowledge. The promotion of critical thinking in higher education, or in any setting, may pose a challenge since it is not simply a skill. Process, in the opinion of this author, is much more difficult to teach than skill. Willingham’s description of critical thinking is in alignment with its application to the research process in a doctoral program. And, with any research, consideration of the Scientific Method of inquiry can be a good place to begin. Many of

 Faculty Support and Guidance for Doctoral Candidates

us likely encountered the Scientific Method in elementary or junior high school; some forgetting to apply the steps when problem solving later in life. Researchers must gather data, make a prediction, perform an experiment or analysis, and draw conclusions (Zitzewitz et al., pp. 8-10). The process designed should be replicated with reasonable ease. Clear communication of the process followed and results, along with interpretation, is important. Though learned in early school years, this piece of critical thinking process is worth a review, by undergraduates and graduates. Reichenbach (2000) supported six steps of critical thinking: knowledge, comprehension, application, analysis, and evaluation. Knowledge is related to identifying the topic or issue at hand. Comprehension is to understand the material related to the topic. Application is the understanding of the topic that leads to the ability to complete a task related to the topic. Analysis is making connections between related ideas and knowledge of the situation at hand. Synthesis is combining the knowledge the student began with and the new information gained to conclude something original. Evaluation is the decision-making process. What actions may or may not be taken based upon the newly synthesized conclusions (Reichenbach). This general description of six steps of critical thinking can be formulated to apply to a number of social science fields of study. Educator, Brookfield (n.d.), expressed critical thinking as a process, which includes four major thoughts: hunting assumptions, checking assumptions, seeing things from different viewpoints, and taking informed action (pp. 6-8). He gave greater detail in the following summary concerning assumptions: Assumptions are not all the same. Three important types of assumptions are paradigmatic assumptions (assumptions that frame how we view the world), prescriptive assumptions (assumptions about how we think the world should work and how

people should behave) and causal assumptions (assumptions we have about why things happen the way they do). Assumptions are rarely right are wrong, they are best thought of as more or less contextually appropriate. How accurate an assumption is will depend on the conditions that are in place when that assumption is followed. (p. 15) Prescriptive assumptions are those “that are surfaced as we examine how we think we, or others, should behave, what good learning and educational processes should look like” (Brookfield, n.d., p. 11). Causal assumptions are “about how different parts of the world work and about the conditions under which these can be changed” (p. 11).Prescriptive and causal assumptions are closely related to the assumptions addressed by doctoral research for dissertation purposes in a school of education; assumptions related to real life, from which data can be gathered and analyzed.

The Doctoral Student In his article, Using Research and Theoretical Models of Graduate Student Progress, Baird (1993) addressed the retention and progress toward degree of the doctoral student. His rationale for this discussion included the importance of the doctoral degree, since it led to many important professional jobs within our society, such as: “researchers, health professionals, teachers, managers, professors, and technical workers (p. 3). Post graduate study was one of the most costly areas of higher education. There was an emphasis on small class sizes leading to one-to-one interaction between students and professors. Graduate students possessed characteristics different from their undergraduate counterparts. Graduate departments functioned differently from their undergraduate predecessors. Since graduate students were older, they offered more work experience, familiarity with the world

373

 Faculty Support and Guidance for Doctoral Candidates

of higher education and with their own discipline. Adult responsibilities represented the challenge of juggling student activities with those of family and workplace. Graduate education could be lengthy and expensive. In 1991, the average time from bachelor’s degree to doctoral was 10.4 years (p. 4). Costs and length of time to graduation cause retention in this type of program to be problematic. This 10.4 years from 1991 should be compared to the 3.8 year average in 2014 of reaching an Educational Doctoral at the Midwest University discussed in this study. Baird (1993) described four models of movement through doctoral work for the graduate student: Psychological Model, Sociologically Oriented Model, Process Model, and Integrated Model. The Psychological Model describes personality development of the graduate student. There is an interaction been intellect and personal development throughout the graduate study process. A period of insecurity is exhibited in the beginning phase. Mastery of material is a new challenge, not likely met in previous study. The program and professors are seen with an idealistic view. The student may not see him or herself as able to achieve the ideal (Baird, 1993, p. 6). Next comes a period of coping. The work will seem more manageable. Realistic identities of the student and professors are defined. In the late stages of study, there is tension between the state of submitting to the demands of the professor and the need to feel autonomous (p. 6). The strong sense of inadequacy in the early stages of study is associated with attrition and slow progress toward degree. The Sociologically Oriented Model offers three stages for movement through the doctoral program (Baird, 1993, p. 7). They include: “transition to membership in the graduate community, attaining candidacy through the development of competence, and active research (p. 7).” The student will seek membership in academic communities. An emphasis will be placed on the development of

374

competencies associated with the field of study. In the last stage, the student writes the dissertation. External commitments to family and the workplace seem to be more important during this phase. Assistantships have been found to be a factor in persistence to degree. Low rates of social and academic interaction in the early stages are connected to attrition. Inadequate competence in the second stage places a student at risk and in the third stage; the behavior of a specific faculty member plays a part in persistence to degree (p. 7). The Process Model does examine the process of study, as its name implies. An important process in doctoral study is the mastery of a new way to speak, read, and write (Baird, 1993, p. 7). The process represents a model of knowing that is related to research methodology. The student’s community extends to include graduate students in other institutions. There is an “invisible college” created by publication in professional journals and the presentation of papers at conferences (p. 7). The student is initiated into the academic research community through reading and writing instruction, along with interaction with faculty and peers. (p. 7). The Integrated Model takes into account characteristics of the others described. It acknowledges that graduate study is a socialization process. The most important change agent in the doctoral process is the faculty (p. 8). The student should become closer to professors and student peers. There should be reports of increased numbers of opportunities, abilities to use conceptual tools, and a narrowing of experiences in more general intellectual areas. The influence of people and personnel external to the doctoral experience can either support or create a subversive action toward student progress (p. 8). At the time of his writing, Isaac (1993) stated that reports concerning graduate education were not including information about retention or attrition (p. 13). Reports were that approximately 50 percent of entering graduate students were

 Faculty Support and Guidance for Doctoral Candidates

receiving a PhD. There was very little national or institutional data on attrition and retention on the graduate level (p. 13). Efforts to explain the lack of analysis of attrition, retention, and completion on the graduate level included an explanation that graduate school life was quite different from undergraduate student activity. Graduate education included less structure and more individualized instruction, especially on the doctoral level. It was easier for a graduate student to spend some time non-enrolled in the academic program of choice. This non-enrollment slowed down the progression to degree and made it more difficult to record accurate enrollment numbers and movement toward completion (Isaac, 1993, p. 13). Other factors made calculation of attrition, retention, and completion difficult. Some doctoral programs bring the student from bachelors’ to doctorate by way of an intermediate masters’ degree. So, for the student who finished the masters’ degree but then stopped before finishing the doctoral degree, there was confusion about whether or not the degree had been completed (Isaac, 1993, p. 13). Perhaps it depends on the original intent for the end of the study era chosen. The time, or semester, of admission to a graduate program was one factor to consider. Non-degree status moving into degree status was also a factor that could change the calculations, depending on how these types of students were categorized. Then, there was the issue of students who changed from one graduate program to another. Is that a failure to graduate in one, yet a success in the second program as completion of that degree is accomplished (Isaac, 1993, p. 14)? Retention was often used synonymously with recruitment. However, to keep students enrolled was not the end-goal. Completion of degree was the desired behavior. Retention, attrition, and degree completion were the three statistics that allowed an evaluation of a graduate program. For purposes of calculating these three statistics, it

was important to know which semester, or year, the student began work toward the degree. This sounds like a simple task, but what about the student who takes classes for personal reasons and then registers for a degree program (Isaac, 1993, p. 15)? For purposes of research, a cohort was defined as a group of students that began the program of study at approximately the same time, year, or semester. Completion of a previous degree should be considered when defining the definition for cohort at a particular university (Isaac, 1993, p. 15). Attrition refers to the rate of failure of students to continue enrollment in the program of study (Isaac, 1993, p. 15). The rate was not always accurate. Students enrolled in a program of study did not always continuously enroll each semester. Enrollment vs. non-enrollment throughout a program of study could depend on the policies the institution had concerning continuous enrollment and time limit for degree attainment (p. 15). Life activities could interfere with continuous enrollment. Participation in an internship could cause a student to stop out of enrollment temporarily. The demands of a full time job or work on the dissertation could interrupt the flow of coursework for the student. Graduate student demographics set the scene for activities that could interrupt continuous enrollment in school. Graduate students are older, usually have families, and have differing financial responsibilities. Lengthy stop outs were more common for masters’ students than for doctoral students (Isaac, 1993, p. 15). Retention describes a student’s continued enrollment and does not include the count of students who have already completed the degree (Isaac, 1993, p. 15). Students earning a certificate, nondegree students, and continuing education students should be counted separately from degree-seeking graduate students. Degree completion seemed to be the most important measure when considering the productivity of a graduate program (p. 16). When

375

 Faculty Support and Guidance for Doctoral Candidates

considering retention, the following variables were considered: gender, ethnicity, residential status, field of study, age at entry into the program, and undergraduate major (p. 16). Minimum completion rate, truncated completion rate, and cumulative completion rate were used as measures of retention (Isaac, 1993, p. 17). Minimum completion rate was the percent of an entering cohort who earned the degree by a specific year. Truncated completion rate was the percent of an entering cohort who earned the degree within a specific number of years from entry date to completion. Cumulative Completion rate was the percent of students who completed the degree, in total, for as many years as data was available to allow calculation (p. 18). Several offices on campus were a source of data for analysis of the progress of graduate students toward degree. Admissions, the Graduate Office, the Registrar’s Office, and the office of Institutional Research all offered potential data base information (Isaac, 1993, p. 21). It was very important for the offices keeping the data base information to communicate with each other when analyzing the effectiveness of a graduate level program (p. 21). At the time of Ploskonka’s writing, the time required for completion of the doctoral process had become a major concern for officials of colleges and universities. A severe shortage of higher education faculty was predicted and the trend had become that graduate students would take longer to complete the doctoral degree. Hence, the severe shortage was not being met by more recent doctoral students at a satisfactory rate. A supply and demand problem for positions as professor in higher education was creating a concern for the future (Ploskonka, 1993, p. 59). The educational community may not have realized the severity of shortage of higher education faculty. The numbers of doctoral-granting institutions increased, as well as the types of students and the number of programs available to them. It may have seemed as if there would be enough

376

supply. However, one must take in to account the longer length of time to completion, not just the increase in the number of active graduate students (Ploskonka, 1993, p. 60). As Ploskonka stated, “Talented and highly motivated graduate students – both as students and later as faculty members – contribute to our collective capacity to generate new ideas as well as to education new generations of students (p. 60)”. Ploskonka suggests that national data was a good source for studying the trends in progression toward the graduate degree. At the time, individual institutions could access national data for no charge from NCR, if their institution participated in providing results from the graduate student survey. The organization had records dating back to 1958 (Ploskonka, 1993, p. 61). Doctoral students were given the survey at the time of graduation. The survey gathered a large amount of background information that included: birth year, nationality, level of education of parents, handicap status, interests, financial support status, and debt accumulation. Prior to 1957 this type of information was gathered from secondary sources such as programs and announcements from degree-granting institutions (Ploskonka, 1993, p. 62). Types of data collected included the number of full-time enrollment years, the number of part-time enrollment years, and the number of non-enrollment years. The type of financial support received, post-doctoral aspirations and post-doctoral opportunities have been an interest. Studies have addressed the potential impact of the committee chair upon receipt of the degree. Empirical studies have considered some of the usual pieces of information, such as age, sex, race, number of dependents, citizenship, length of study, the changing of institutions from bachelor’s era to doctoral work, the quality of the program, whether or not the student was working external to the doctoral granting university, and career goals (Ploskonka, 1993, p. 62).

 Faculty Support and Guidance for Doctoral Candidates

Charting of the trends over a long period of time, such as ten to twenty years, was considered valuable. Regression analysis was appropriate for determining potential prediction points for success in degree completion. There was a predictive relationship found for the length of time for study, but not for the amount of registered enrollment time involved in degree completion (Ploskonka, 1993, p. 63). The tracking of long-term data has implications for policies and practice within doctoral programs. One historical issue was the disparity between the numbers of female doctoral recipients compared to the number of male recipients. Ploskonka stated that the studying institution must be clear about the official entry date for student entry into doctoral work to draw conclusions about progress toward degree. He also stated that qualitative techniques for study could uncover factors affecting time-todegree in doctoral programs (Ploskonka, 1993, p. 66).

BACKGROUND The Setting The School of Education offering the degree of Doctor of Education that served as the setting for discussion of the promotion of critical thinking in this chapter was a part of a four-year, private, liberal arts university located in the Midwestern United States. The doctoral program was formally established in 2007 and was still young in its development. At the time of this writing, the well-established university, founded in 1827, held an enrollment of approximately 16,000 students on a 500-acre facility (2014a). Declared majors in the doctorate of education program numbered 214, distributed among the four emphasis strands offered in the EdD as Educational Administration (77), Instructional Leadership (47), Andragogy (32), and Higher Education (58) (University, 2014b).

Approximately 182 students were actively working on various stages of dissertation completion. At the time the doctoral faculty began a focused evaluation of the program in 2009, graduate student enrollment was 3,620, of which approximately 211 were post-master students, 104 of which were declared doctoral students enrolled in various stages of program coursework (program statistics). So, enrollment in the doctoral program from the beginning of 2009 through the end of 2014 approximately doubled, increasing the need for thoughtful decision-making in the management of the student personnel as they progressed toward degree.

Program Characteristics Structure At Midwest University, the degree program leading to the educational doctorate resided in the School of Education, Department of Educational Leadership. The Department was responsible for oversight MA, EDS, and EdD degrees preparing graduate students for leadership roles in education administration, instructional leadership, and higher education. The EdD offered four areas of emphasis: Education Administration, Instructional Leadership, Andragogy, and Higher Education. The coursework credit required for each emphasis area was 48 credit hours. Coursework provided content knowledge and discussion on topics appropriate to the chosen emphasis area. In addition, coursework specifically designed to help prepare the student for dissertation writing was included. Coursework considered key to the skills necessary for dissertation completion were titled Capstone I, Capstone II, and Capstone III, offered for 3 hours, 3 hours, and 6 hours of course credit, respectively. Capstone III was deliberately the last course scheduled for doctoral students. Comprehensive exams were scheduled immediately before entry into Capstone III.

377

 Faculty Support and Guidance for Doctoral Candidates

Full time enrollment in coursework was 6 credit hours per semester. A student who continued through coursework without a break, and without transferring in credit hours toward the degree, could complete the coursework in 8 semesters, or approximately 2.67 years. At the time of this writing it was usual for a student to require an additional average of 1.02 years to complete the dissertation process and receive the EdD degree.

Doctoral Processes The Doctor of Education degree offered through Midwest University required 48 hours of coursework. Approval for a maximum of nine hours of transfer credit toward the degree could be requested for coursework not previously earned toward an educational specialist degree. Students who previously earned the education specialist degree could, with approval, transfer more than nine hours; however, students were required to meet a minimum of 24 to 27 hours of doctoral coursework through attendance at Midwest University (University, 2013, p. 14). A writing sample was required of all student applicants at the time of requested admittance to the doctoral program. Immediate preceding the final semester of coursework, students were required to complete the Comprehensive Exam, a shortanswer essay style examination. Topics covered on the examination aligned with course material covered in the doctoral program. To participate in the Comprehensive Exam, students must have completed or be enrolled to complete all program coursework, as well as provide a transcript void of incomplete grades (University, 2013). To support doctoral research, one three-hour Statistics in Educational Administration course was required, to be followed by student choice of a Quantitative Methods Design in Educational Research or Qualitative Methods in Educational Research (University, 2014a). Three Capstone courses designed for doctoral dissertation support provided checkpoints for progress for doctoral

378

students. The design of the Capstone portion of the doctoral program was intended to facilitate communication between doctoral faculty, doctoral students, and dissertation committee chairpersons. The Capstone courses provided guidance for the students and their committee chairs with regard to the steps of completion of the doctoral dissertation. Support in choice of research topics and the style of scholarly writing were provided. The curriculum and placement of specific topics of discussion within the Capstone courses were continuously monitored by the doctoral department. Students were encouraged to work at their own pace with their committee chairs through the dissertation process; perhaps more quickly than their student peers, when appropriate.

Capstone I This [three-hour] course is the first in a series of three Capstone courses. Students will be required to identify, analyze, and report on a variety of topics related to educational leadership. Students will also be required to begin Literature Reviews in areas related to their proposed studies. General procedures regarding dissertation writing and conducting research are offered throughout the course. A significant amount of class time is devoted to writing as students develop skills in designing and evaluating research in education (University, 2014-2015). Capstone I provided a setting for review of different types of research and the reading of peer-reviewed, scholarly materials focused on individual student interest. Assignments provided the development of writing skills and students were introduced to campus resources for dissertation writing, such as CORD meetings.

Capstone II This [three-hour] course helps prospective administrators understand administrative problems,

 Faculty Support and Guidance for Doctoral Candidates

propose feasible solutions, and evaluate courses of action and develop skills in decision making. This course involves reading and analyzing case studies in educational administration and writing one professionally meaningful case using a developmental research process. A classroom community will be created as the primary resource for supporting each student’s interests in school administration and development as an educational leader, researcher, and team player. Technology will be used to connect students electronically and to facilitate Internet literature searches and the display of information (University, 2014-2015). If not already completed, Capstone II provided a setting for student decision-making concerning the topic for the dissertation and the type of methodology appropriate for completing the research. “The contents and purpose of each of the dissertation chapters is covered, and students draft chapter one (Introduction), chapter two (Literature Review), and chapter three (Methods)” (University, 2013, p. 33). Student drafts were read by doctoral professors and student committee members at their request. Feedback was provided and discussion of dissertation topic and methodology were ongoing.

Capstone III and Leadership Seminar The Doctor of Education program requires completion of a dissertation. This culminating assignment is an independent research and analytic activity designed to integrate theories and tools learned throughout the program and should demonstrate mastery of concepts and methods. The focus of this program is the refinement of students’ understandings of leadership and policy development and analysis, ultimately culminating in the capstone experience. The [six-hour course] capstone experience is meant to contribute knowledge of a critical issue in educational leadership (University, 2014-2015).

Entry into Capstone III took place after successful completion of all coursework and the Comprehensive Exam. Most students entered this course with completed drafts of chapters one through three of the dissertation. Completion of the dissertation prospectus and Institutional Review Board (IRB) approval to conduct research was expected, though not all students had these two items in place. Capstone III curriculum consisted of a series of workshops on dissertation writing, including a review of expected topics to be covered and the APA style of scholarly writing. Students were expected to give an oral presentation of their research-in-progress to the class.

Capstone Experience This is a required non-credit course for students who have completed all coursework, but have not yet completed the dissertation. This course is designed to keep enrollment open in the EdD program while students complete the EdD requirements. Students in the Doctor of Education degree program are required to continually register for [Capstone Experience] each semester until the dissertation is completed and accepted (University, 2014-2015). Most doctoral candidates did not complete the dissertation during the Capstone III semester. The EdD program had an intake of approximately 20 students per semester, with an average graduation rate of five to eleven students per semester. Those who did not complete by the end of Capstone III became known as ‘all but dissertation’ (ABD) students. To continue use of university-based email and access to university resources, ABD students were required to enroll in the Capstone Experience, zero-credit, course until graduation. Students were encouraged to attend or re-attend Capstone III workshops, as needed.

379

 Faculty Support and Guidance for Doctoral Candidates

The dissertation process included five main phases: prospectus, IRB approval, active research, writing followed by final reading, and dissertation defense.

Often, the review of literature was not complete until the research was complete. Students could be drafting various chapters within the dissertation while waiting for data to be available for analysis.

Prospectus and IRB Approval

Final Reading

Doctoral students at Midwest University were required to complete a prospectus, or request for research design approval. Early in the existence of the doctoral program, the prospectus was referred to as a proposal, which was the draft of the first three chapters of the dissertation. The chapters were written in future tense, with regard to the student’s proposed topic of research. Chapter Two was a well-developed literature review and Chapter Three was a detailed description of the proposed research methodology. This three-chapter proposal was replaced with the prospectus. The student, with the help of the committee chair, filled out a form outlining the proposed research project. Information requested on the form included the purpose and rationale for the choice of topic, research questions, hypotheses, and proposed methodology for research. Following approval of the prospectus by the doctoral faculty, students filled out and submitted a request to conduct research to the University IRB, which reviewed the project for ethics of the research design.

When the student’s dissertation draft was complete, the student provided the draft to committee members and the committee chair for final committee reading. This could be completed in a chapter-by-chapter style or through the reading of the complete final draft. Committee members should be allowed the chance to provide feedback to the student, as should the committee chairperson. When both the student and the committee chair agreed the draft was final, it was submitted to the Supervisor of Graduate Research and scheduled for final reading. The final-reading phase was a thorough process. While reading, the final reader considered content, accuracy, readability, grammar, punctuation, APA style, and a few items of style specific to University. Any other potential issues specific to individual drafts that became apparent in final reading were also addressed. Appropriate editing requests were made of students and general feedback provided. After successful completion of necessary edits, the draft was returned to the Supervisor of Graduate Research, and a request was submitted to the Assistant Dean of the School of Education for scheduling of the dissertation defense.

Active Research and Writing Following approval by the IRB, the student was allowed to actively carry out the proposed research design and gather data. The timeline for this phase was completely dependent upon the chosen project and its design. Students who worked with secondary, quantitative data usually had immediate access to data and could move into the analysis stage of the research. Other students who chose a design that required surveys, interviews, observations, or interventions required more time for the active research phase. Students were encouraged to continually write to expand the dissertation draft.

380

Dissertation Defense and Submission to University Library The dissertation defense was an oral presentation planned by the student with the assistance of the committee chair to report the research processes and results to the doctoral department. Students provided a 20-to-30 minute presentation followed by a 15-to-20 minute question-and-answer discussion with university faculty in the audience. Students were provided a written description of

 Faculty Support and Guidance for Doctoral Candidates

the structure of the dissertation defense through an email from the Assistant Dean, which invited the student to submit a defense date. The written description included the following criteria to consider when planning the content of the dissertation defense: Criteria #1: An explanation of why the study is worthy of doctoral level research. The student should clearly speak to these points: a) The contribution this research makes to the literature. b) The new information this research generates. c) The gap in current knowledge that is addressed by this study (new context; new population; new comparison; new theoretical or conceptual perspective; new measure; reframing of old questions in a new light) (personal communication, email, January, 2014). Criteria #2: An explanation of why the research methods are adequate and sufficient. The student should speak clearly to these points: a) How the research design encompass an appropriate depth and/or breadth of data collection to generate substantive research results (triangulation of multiple data sources, when feasible, strengthens findings, especially regarding threats to validity). b) How the research questions and/or hypotheses align with the methods proposed. c) How the measures chosen were well suited to the task. d) The appropriate sample: appropriate participants / data sets (inclusive of key stakeholders); sufficient size; appropriate sampling strategy. e) The adequacy of the study duration: adequate length of engagement, especially when seeking to measure change in student performance or organizational shifts.

f) Why the types of analysis were most appropriate for answering the Research Question and/or testing the Hypotheses (personal communication, email, January, 2014). The dissertation committee decided whether the presentation was passing and whether the student needed to add anything to or correct any aspect of the written dissertation. Upon successful completion of the dissertation defense and any additional committee requests, the committee chair communicated to the Supervisor of Graduate Research the student’s successful completion. The dissertation was submitted to the University library and appropriate paperwork for the student’s transcript receipt of the Doctor of Education was submitted to the University registrar.

Program Challenges Timeline The University graduate catalog stated, “A graduate student is expected to complete a graduate program within five years of the date of entry” (University, 2014-2015). University’s Doctor of Education degree program was formally accredited in January of 2007. Five years later, at the end of 2012, doctoral student completion of degree time from end of coursework to end of dissertation was an overall average of 10.81 months, which yielded an overall average completion time of 3.6 years. A student entering the program without transfer hours could complete the 48 hours of coursework in eight semesters, since full-time graduate work was an enrollment of six hours per semester. The overall average completion of degree time from end of coursework to end of dissertation increased by the end of 2014 to 12.96 months, which yielded an overall average completion time of 3.75 years. These numbers imply that five years of time for completion of degree should be adequate. However, a look at individual completion times indicates that the non-average student

381

 Faculty Support and Guidance for Doctoral Candidates

can have difficulty with the five-year-completion expectation. The ten longest dissertation completion times measured in months from the end of coursework were 84.50, 72.30, 60.13, 55.03, 53.03, 49.07, 479.90, 47.90, 47.90, and 46.70. The ten shortest, disregarding the 29 students who finished during Capstone III, were 0.13, 0.17, 0.17, 0.17, 0.17, 0.17, 0.33, 0.73, and 0.77. When considering the degree program from infancy to current status, there was a wide range of completion times measured from the end of coursework to the end of dissertation.

Depth and Breadth of Research The doctoral department must maintain a balance between encouragement of doctoral research that represents topics applicable to the current status of the practitioner’s educational setting with research design representing a complexity appropriate for doctoral work and the knowledge and researchbased experiences of the student clientele. In addition to these considerations, student access to populations for study is sometimes limited. Employers were historically helpful to their own educational employees in gaining access to information and in granting permissions to conduct research. However, they were also historically not helpful to doctoral students not in their employ.

Faculty-to-Student Ratio In 2009 the original size of the doctoral faculty increased and maintained an approximate average of eight full time professors. Student enrollment continued a steady rise to and maintenance of approximately 20 new students per semester. Maintenance of a workable faculty-to-student ratio was sometimes difficult to maintain; a factor related to the phase of doctoral work in which the majority of the student enrollment was currently involved.

382

One-on-One Consultation During the dissertation-writing phase of doctoral work it was not unusual for students to need oneto-one access to professors for guidance. Some students would schedule appointments for statistic help or for assistance in setting up a structure for coding qualitative data. Student consultation with committee members or committee chairs for feedback on the dissertation or for planning of the dissertation defense was necessary. The scheduling of one-on—one consultation could sometimes be difficult, since the majority of the student clientele in University’s program were working educators. Full time work during the day followed by their own parent or student consults, school board meetings, faculty meetings, and extra-curricular responsibilities made meeting with professors outside of class problematic. In addition, some professors’ office hours were during the usual school day hours kept by the education practitioners enrolled in the doctoral program.

Life Experiences For some doctoral students, unexpected life events interrupt the ability to continue appropriate time for coursework or dissertation work as a student. Throughout the timeline for University’s program, it was not unusual for some students to change jobs by moving from one school district to another, or receive a promotion that demanded greater time for new responsibilities. Sometimes, a change in jobs or a promotion caused a student to lose previously obtained permission to access information or study participants. Therefore, a new research design and sometimes a new topic of study were required. These events were setbacks in time of completion of degree. Other life events affecting small portions of the doctoral student population were serious illness and family deaths leading to a shift in responsibilities.

 Faculty Support and Guidance for Doctoral Candidates

Students Skills On occasion, a doctoral student’s ability to meet the demands of dissertation writing caused a lengthening of degree completion time. Each student brings to the program his or her own individual set of academic strengths and weaknesses. For some students, adjustment to the scholarly style of writing and the technical nature of reporting results of educational research can create a challenge to overcome. To address the needs of students who struggled with writing the dissertation, the doctoral department had to search for ways to widen the selection of resources available to the doctoral student.

On-Going Communication Communication between all constituents of the doctoral program was an area that demanded monitoring and attention. Growing doctoral program enrollment and a wide variety of student work experiences and backgrounds required multiple venues for communication of program information to allow everyone to stay current with deadlines, requirements, and program and curricular changes,

Assessing the Situation Student Perception Survey Among the program characteristics monitored were enrollment retention, persistence toward degree, and graduation rates. To help monitor, students were asked about their views toward coursework rigor, access to professors, and clarity of communication. One of the early self-assessments carried out by the doctoral program was a survey of student perceptions in 2010, repeated in 2011. The faculty was interested in perceptions of the effectiveness of communication strategies, as well as measuring students’ self-perceived needs with regard to enrollment in the program. A summary of results follows.

A set of Likert-scale statements were a part of the survey administered to Midwest University’s EdD students in the spring of 2010 and 2011. Respondents rated individual statement through use of a 1-to-5 scale, with 5 representing strong agreement, 3 representing neutrality, and 1 representing strong disagreement. Statements described characteristics of the structure of support provided for students enrolled in the doctoral program related to student support, academic rigor, and departmental-to-student communication. The responses were organized into the proportion of respondents in each Likert category for each individual statement. Proportions for scale categories 1 and 2 were then combined to represent group disagreement with the statement while proportions for scale categories 4 and 5 were combined to represent group agreement. This allowed analysis of the difference in agreement response rates to specific questions when comparing 2010 results to 2011. This organization of data allowed an examination of non-response rates, as well as additional analysis applied to each individual statement of the difference between proportions of students in agreement and those in disagreement. Thirteen statements in the 2010 survey received a non-response from one or more participants compared to six statements in the 2011 survey. The rate of non-response was observably reduced in the second administration of the survey. An examination of response rates for both surveys revealed that all statements except one averaged a 3.0 or above rating. The statement, The Educational Leadership Speaker Series added value to my learning experience, yielded average ratings of 2.7 and 2.9 on the 2010 and 2011 surveys respectively. All other statements averaged ratings of 3.0 and above. Those statements earning a higher average rating of agree (4) and strongly agree (5) for both yearly administrations of the survey were: The courses provided me with new ideas that are applicable in my working environment;

383

 Faculty Support and Guidance for Doctoral Candidates

My chair was informative; helpful and available; I had access to the faculty who taught courses within the EdD program; and

The Midwest University School of Education website provided useful information; I use lionmail once a week;

I felt free to express my opinion in class discussion and assignments.

Midwest University’s EdD program has a reputation for excellence;

Student response to both surveys indicated significant overall agreement with statements. A z-test analysis for difference in proportions yielded a significant difference in the proportion of respondents in agreement with statements when compared to the proportion of respondents in disagreement. The 2010 survey results indicated significant agreement for 15 of its 20 statements while the 2011 survey results indicated significant agreement for 18 of its 21 statements. Other results, though not statistically significant, indicated agreement from participants. The statements common to both surveys yielding significant results were:

The internship course provided me with experiences that translated theory into practice;

Involvement in the program helped me to expand my connections with other colleagues in the region; The Professors challenged me in my coursework; The courses provided me with new ideas that are applicable in my working environment; The Capstone courses supported me when writing my dissertation; My advisor was informative; helpful and available; My chair was informative; helpful and available; I had access to the faculty who taught courses within the EdD program; I felt the coursework (not Capstone courses) prepared me for the dissertation process.

384

I felt free to express my opinion in class discussion and assignments; and The professors implemented a wide variety of instructional strategies that met my learning styles. The researchers were particularly interested in a comparison of agreement rates for the two surveys administered in spring of 2010 and 2011. The proportion of respondents in agreement with all of the 17 common statements observably increased between the first and second administrations of the survey. A z-test for difference in proportions was applied and four statements yielded an increase that was statistically significant. They were: The Educational Leadership Speaker Series added value to my learning experience; Communication regarding EdD policies and expectations at Midwest University was clear; Communication regarding EdD policies and expectations at Midwest University was timely; and Midwest University’s EdD program has a reputation for excellence. An examination of response to statements common to both surveys revealed a supporting downward trend in proportions of respondents in disagreement when comparing the 2011 survey results to those of 2010. Overall, student perceptions of the doctoral program were positive. It was noted that efforts to improve communication of program processes

 Faculty Support and Guidance for Doctoral Candidates

to students led to improved student perceptions in the second application of the survey. A part of that improvement resulted from encourage of student use of the university email system, rather than a reliance on students’ personal email addresses only. Use of the university email system ensured that blanket announcements concerning all doctoral students would most likely be received. A regular doctoral-level newsletter was sent through the university email system to remind students of deadlines and of some of the steps in the process toward dissertation completion. The purpose was clarity of communication and smooth transitioning for students through each phase toward degree completion.

Average time for completion of degree in early years of the program was shorter than the later years. Program admission included students with transfer hours, some who decided to enroll in the doctoral program were already enrolled in a specialist’s degree program. Time to completion lengthened beginning in 2009, raising concern among doctoral faculty regarding student access to support from professors, student retention, and graduation rates.

Table 1 displays length of time to degree from the end of coursework through dissertation defense for the years 2009 through 2014. Possibly, the process became mildly more efficient in 2014, with a completion time of 17.79 months compared to the previous 19.35. Overall average dissertation completion time throughout 2007 to 2014 was 12.95 months When considering all eight years of the doctoral program operation, 29 students out of the 250 graduates completed the dissertation during the last semester of coursework, which was approximately 12% of total program completers. Table 2 displays completion time for program graduates in aggregate, considering time from the first Capstone class, the second Capstone class, and the third Capstone class, which completed all coursework for the program. Retention of students enrolled in the program, along with persistence toward degree was monitored. For the years 2007 through 2013. Enrollments were gathered from the university database. Sometimes doctoral students drop away to deal with life events and then return to coursework. From year-to-year there can be mild variation in the enrollment count. Table 3 indicates the number of students who completed each Capstone phase of the program and how many from that number had graduated at the time. Also indicated were the

Table 1. Average degree completion from end of coursework to degree: 2009 – 2014

Table 2. Overall degree completion time: 2009 – 2013

Descriptive Statistics Display of Student Progress

Year

Time to Completion in Months

2007

.17

2008

5.31

2009

7.71

2010

10.82

2011

11.13

2012

17.61

2013

19.35

2014

17.79

Phase Measured

Number of Students

Time to Completion in Months

Entry into Capstone I to Confirm Date

164

33.05

End of Capstone II to Confirm Date

246

22.15

End of Capstone III to Confirm Date (ABD)

250

12.18

Note: ABD – All but Dissertation. Data taken at the beginning of 2014.

385

 Faculty Support and Guidance for Doctoral Candidates

Table 3. Overall program numbers through fall 2013 Completed

# Students

Graduated

Retained

% Retention

Capstone III

502

250

172

68.3

Capstone II

592

245

224

64.6

Capstone I

518

159

242

67.4

No Capstones

114

0

54

47.4

Note: Data taken at the beginning of 2014.

number of non-graduates retained, with percentage of retention. A count of student enrollments during the Fall of 2013 yielded the results shown on Table 4. An accurate count of ABD students was difficult for each year of observation. Frequently, students continued to work on the dissertation without formal enrollment in the Capstone Experience, zero credit, course section. Also, there were students who took an informal time away from dissertation work due to major family and work assignment changes. Formal requests to ‘stop-out’ of coursework could be filed, to allow a student to temporarily stop course enrollment due to a qualifying life event. Students who stopped course enrollment without a formal request to ‘stop out’ Table 4. Enrollment in various stages of doctoral coursework: Fall 2013 Status

Number of Students

Graduates

250

Eligible (Capstone III Completed)

254

Still on the Working on Dissertation List

540

Enrolled in coursework Fall 2013

299

EdD Students (Cap. I completed).*

218

EdD Students (Cap. II completed).*

198

EdD Students (Cap. III completed).*

151

EdD Students (no Capstones completed).*

54

Note: Data taken at the beginning of 2014.

386

could possibly be asked to re-apply for admission to a graduate program. In this case, there was sometimes risk of losing previous course credit toward the degree program due to meeting new requirements stated in the more current graduate course catalog, when readmitted to the program. Table 5 displays the pattern of entry enrollment and graduation through the doctoral program timeline, semester-by-semester. Thirteen of the semesters listed indicated an enrollment gain that exceeded the number of graduates. Maintaining grade point average for University’s doctoral students was not a major issue. Earned course grades of A and B were usual for the majority of students. Throughout the fiveyear span from 2009 through 2013, 65 grades of C and 47 grades of F had been assigned. Only 9 students from those five years had earned both a C and an F. The program guidelines allow 2 grades of C to be earned throughout enrollment as a doctoral student (University, 2013). At the end of 2014, there were 38 doctoral graduates out of approximately 400 active enrollees. During the years from 2009 through 2014, doctoral faculty gave attention to supporting students in the ABD phase of doctoral work. Possibly, some of that effort was successful. Overall ABD retention when considering the population in aggregate, in the Fall of 2013 yielded a 78.3% retention rate, with 166 ABD students enrolled out of the non-graduated count of 212.

 Faculty Support and Guidance for Doctoral Candidates

Table 5. Number of students enrolled and graduated per semester Semester

Year

First Term of Enrollment

Number Graduated

Fall

2014

20*

9

Summer

2014

2

8

Spring

2014

20*

13

Fall

2013

22

18

Summer

2013

3

3

Spring

2013

14

11

Fall

2012

10

15

Summer

2012

8

7

Spring

2012

33

16

Fall

2011

13

11

Summer

2011

2

7

Spring

2011

29

26

Fall

2010

15

12

Summer

2010

9

11

Spring

2010

19

23

Fall

2009

20

25

Summer

2009

6

33

Spring

2009

17

7

Fall

2008

16

8

Summer

2008

21

8

Spring

2008

17

5

Fall

2007

42

4

Note: *Estimated

PROMOTION OF CRITICAL THINKING WITH REGARD TO RESEARCH Research Design Doctoral faculty recognized the need to guide students in aligning dissertation topics, research questions, type of study design, appropriate population choice, and appropriate types of data with each other. Students had a number of critical choices to make in designing research for doctoral study. Teaching students to carefully consider

the alignment within research design is related to simply teaching students to think critically; a complex process to complete.

Conversations on Research Design Early in the doctoral program a structure for meetings between doctoral students, their chairs, and a small group of doctoral faculty was established. Professors Sherblom and Isenberg (2011) established and studied the effects of Conversations on Research Design (CORD). Regular time slots were established each week to allow students to sign up for a CORD. The purpose was to allow discussion of effective educational research and provide a brainstorming session for students who needed guidance in choosing topics or a research approach to an already established topic. Meetings were designed to last approximately 30 minutes and were scheduled in the hour before the evening doctoral classes were scheduled to begin. Students frequently signed up for a CORD when they were already scheduled to be on campus for class attendance. Faculty asked that students invite their committee chairs so discussion was a result of active involvement rather than simply relayed by the student to the chair. Though conducted with one student at a time, the CORDs were offered as a support and guidance for students and committee chairs. Scholarly discussion of research topics and design through CORDs promoted critical thinking among doctoral students. Sherblom and Isenberg (2011) found the following strategies present during discussion: a) Critically questioning assumptions and current ways of framing the issue, b) Articulating alternative interpretations of possible findings and influences, c) Expanding the discourse of terms and distinctions required for a nuanced explanation,

387

 Faculty Support and Guidance for Doctoral Candidates

d) More adequately linking the research question and/or hypotheses with the methods used, e) Clarifying the processes and correlations being discussed, f) Articulating larger meaningful patterns among the people involved and the processes studied, and g) Organizing the complex information being discussed and the potential implications being asserted (Sherblom & Isenberg, 2011, p. 6).

Prospectus Early in the doctoral program dissertation research was developed as a proposal through the writing of a draft of the first three chapters of the dissertation. Chapter One included background, purpose, and rationale for the study. Chapter Two provided a review of the current literature related to the research topic. And, Chapter Three explained the processes of the intended research design. Portions of the proposal were developed and written as assignments within the Capstone coursework. The proposal was one part of the early structure of the program that was changed. It became the submission of the prospectus, which required less writing, but also allowed a more structured critique of the research design by the doctoral faculty. The prospectus was given to the student in question format. Students were asked to answer and support their answers to the following: 1) Title of Project: 2) List your name and the names of committee members and their contact information in the table below. 3) Anticipated starting date for this project: __________ending date: __________ 4) Please define any terms that may be unfamiliar to the reader.

388

5) State the purpose of this proposed project (what new information will this research generate?): 6) State the rationale for this proposed project (what contribution does this research make to the literature? 7) State the hypothesis(es) and/or research question(s) of the proposed project: Will this research require approval from another organization, institution, school district, etc.? 8) What is your relationship with the participants in the study or research site? If you have no relationship, indicate that. Explain how any coercion will be reduced or how the identities of the participants will remain anonymous if you are a superior. 9) Participants involved in the study: a) Indicate the minimum and maximum number of persons, of what type, will be recruited as participants in this study. b) From what source(s) will the potential participants be recruited? c) Describe the process of participant recruitment. d) Will any potential participants be excluded? e) Where will the study take place? f) Briefly justify your sample size and selection criteria (probability sample or not, random, stratified random, purposive, etc.). Citations from statistics, research textbooks, or published studies in the field would be helpful. 10) Methodology/procedures: a) Provide a sequential description of the procedures to be used in this study. b) Which data-gathering procedures will be used? 11) Include a list of references at the end of this application and drafts of any interview/

 Faculty Support and Guidance for Doctoral Candidates

survey questions or potential instruments you will use in your study. If you are using a copyrighted instrument (survey, etc.), you must include a letter of permission from the author with your IRB application (Prospectus, 2013). The introduction of the prospectus guided students to carefully consider the research design during an early phase of doctoral work. Careful consideration of the research design promoted critical thinking as decisions were made concerning questions to be answered and appropriate processes to follow. The expectation of cited material to support choices and rationale for the research promoted critical thinking among the doctoral students in considering research design. The introduction of the streamlined prospectus was also intended to clarify for the student the transition of information to the Internal Review Board protocol application.

Research Design Council The Research Design Council (RDC) operated with a focus similar to DuFour’s (2004) ‘three crucial questions’ for a professional learning community, with regard to “Big Idea # 1: Ensuring that students learn” (p. 6). What do we want each student to learn? How will we know when each student has learned it? How will we respond when a student experiences difficulty in learning? (DuFour, 2004, p. 6). Each week four-to-five doctoral faculty members met to review drafts of students’ prospectus and IRB protocol applications. This mirrored the professional community practice in the K-12 world in which teachers of the same content field would gather for regular meetings and hold discussion

of specific questions for common assessment of student learning (Personal communication, researcher’s experience, May, 2009). Collaboration and focus on student outcome goals was prevalent. A part of what the RDC wanted ‘each student to learn’ was careful alignment between the research questions and hypotheses, the variables chosen for measure, the types of data gathered for analysis, and an appropriate population and sample to represent the study. One way the RDC would recognize ‘when each student has learned it’ was the progression of clarity in description of the research design on each revised prospectus draft returned for re-review. And finally, RDC responses ‘when a student experiences difficulty’ varied between offering a CORD, providing another round of feedback, providing more detailed feedback, consulting one-on-one with a student, and holding individual discussions with the student’s committee chair. Concerning DuFour’s “Big Idea # 2: A culture of collaboration” (p. 7), group discussion promoted learning from each other, as well as development of effective feedback for the student document examined during the meeting. Topics of professional discussion occurred spontaneously and included items, such as (a) how to help doctoral students have a deeper understanding of research; (b) new types of research for professors to explore and for students to try; and (c) philosophies of education in general, since some professors originated careers in K-12 education and others were always in higher education. Members of the group learned from each other, and learned how to effectively communicate with each other as the Research Design Council was seeking strategies to make doctoral students more comfortable. DuFour’s “Big Idea # 3: A focus on results” (p. 9) was also present in the operation of the RDC. The drive behind the meetings was to strengthen and maintain the strength gained in student research design. At various stages in the evolvement of the group’s activities, data was recorded and different strategies were employed

389

 Faculty Support and Guidance for Doctoral Candidates

to make the process smoother for both professors and students. At one time, records were kept of the specific types of feedback sent to students. With heavier use of electronic storage, individual student feedback was then stored on a common hard drive, so it was easier to check to see if the student ‘got it’. The number of students processed through the RDC’s examination was an item documented more recently, and the group built records to be able to track how long it took, on average, for a student to move from first submitted draft to finalized prospectus, and then to officially approved IRB protocol. As with Professional Learning Communities in the K-12 setting, the Research Design Council is likely to continue to evolve into a collaborative group that changes its processes and the focus of its analysis of student work until it feels that goals have been met: the student learned.

Student Choice of the Type of Research The RDC promoted the use of a type of research that aligned with the research questions students chose. And, hopefully as a result of that action, there have been noted changes through the years 2007 to 2014. The doctoral student enrollment has broadened its choice of the types of research applied to seeking the answers to research questions. A number of early dissertations were survey driven. Though these types of designs continued to be chosen by some students, in the more recent years there were more quantitative and mixed methods studies. Some students explored data gathering through the use of journaling, selfreflection, large-scale databases, and rubric design with validation. Students also explored historical research and ethnographic research techniques (Creswell, 1008; Fraenkel, Wallen, & Hyun, 2015, Gay & Airasian, 2003, Wiersma, 2000). One student issued Go-Pro cameras to participants to gather data to help him to more fully understand the processes he was studying.

390

Though difficult to implement as a doctoral student researching for a dissertation, University has had some students study educational interventions that were already in place in the educational setting (Fraenkel, Wallen, & Hyun, 2015). Correlational and evaluative studies have been more prominent during the more recent part of the doctoral program timeline (Creswell, 1008; Fraenkel, Wallen, & Hyun, 2015, Wiersma, 2000).

Student Choice of the Type and Method of Data Gathered Other areas of alignment with research questions is the type of data to be analyzed and the methods used to gather the information. The RDC seemed to make progress in student recognition that quantitative studies should include randomization of sample data to strengthen the ability to “infer a cause-and-effect relationship” (Mendenhall & Sincich, 2012, p. 356). Since a number of doctoral students worked in the K-12 educational setting, research designed in the early years of the doctoral program tended towards purposive and convenience sampling (Creswell, 1008; Fraenkel, Wallen, & Hyun, 2015). In the later years of the program, more students seemed to recognize the importance of random sampling in a quantitative study (Mendenhall & Sincich, 2012, p. 605) and that the size of the sample was meaningful and the necessary size of the sample could be calculated (Peck, 2008, pp. 491; 504).

SURVEY SAMPLING; RESPONSE RATES Sample Sizes When students who plan to distribute surveys or questionnaires ask how many they must collect to provide solid results in their research analysis, one approach offered is to consider sample size

 Faculty Support and Guidance for Doctoral Candidates

tables, such as those offered by Fowler (1988) and Lipsey (1990). Fowler’s Sample Size Table found in Creswell (2008, p. 631) allows the student to look up the best sample size to represent valid results of survey or questionnaire analysis. Table 6 offers a partial look at Fowler’s Sample Size Table. Consider a study in which the researcher will ask participants one single question. The question can be answered simply with a ‘yes’ or ‘no’. For example, ‘Are you planning to attend a four-year university following high school?’ In this case, if the researcher’s claim is that most people will choose a four-year university for attendance following high school, there is a 50/50 chance that a participant in a study would answer in alignment with the researcher’s claim. Fowler’s Table supposes a 95% confidence level used in research analysis. The researcher chooses a margin of error he or she is comfortable with in regard to the results of the research study. In this case, suppose the researcher wants a 4% margin of error, so 4% of the time the sample mean will be different from the true population mean. To read Fowler’s Sample Size Table, the researcher would find the column labeled 50/50 and follow

down the column to the 4, which represents the pre-chosen 4% margin of error for the study. Then the researcher would follow the line over to the left to read the suggested minimum sample size. In this case, n = 500. Lipsey’s (1990) Sample Size Table found in Creswell (2008, p. 632) also allows the student to look up the best sample size to represent valid results of survey or questionnaire analysis, with criteria different that that used with Fowler’s. Table 7 offers a partial look at Lipsey’s Sample Size Table. Lipsey’s Sample Size Table also supposes a 95% confidence level set for research. For use of this table, the number of choices given in the question being analyzed is not a part of the process of choosing the best sample size to use for valid results. For the case discussed here, the researcher chooses a power criterion. For social science research 80% is typical (Creswell, 2008, p. 632). For this choice, 80% of the time the researcher expects to reject the null hypothesis when it is actually false. So, a high power criterion is a good thing. Next, the researcher should choose or otherwise calculate an effect size, which is the expected difference between the mean of the control group

Table 6. Fowler’s sample size table (excerpt): α = 0.05

Table 7. Lipsey’s sample size table (excerpt): α = 0.05

Percentage of Sample with Chosen Characteristic Sample Size

50 / 50

35

17

50

14

75

12

100

10

200

7

300

6

500

4

1000

3

1500

2

Note: Excerpt represents small portion of table adapted from Fowler (1988).

Power Criterion Effect Size

0.80

.10

1570

.20

395

.30

175

.40

100

.50

65

.60

45

.70

35

.80

25

.90

20

1.00

20

Note: Excerpt represents small portion of table adapted from Lipsey (1990).

391

 Faculty Support and Guidance for Doctoral Candidates

and the experimental group. It is typical to use a 0.5 (p. 632). The researcher should find the 0.80 power criterion column and follow it down until directly across from the chosen effect size of 0.50. The intersection of the power criterion column and the effect size row yields the necessary minimum sample size. In this case, n = 65. Once qualitative data was gathered by University students, the RDC promoted a structured coding approach (Gay & Airasian, 2003). Students in University’s doctoral program have used a variety of approaches in the past. Students have coded for common themes, used a compare and contrast approach, developed from the data lists of key words to be used for categorization, and conducted content analysis through comparison to existing standards, such as Bloom’s Taxonomy. A few have used software programs to code qualitative data. The main critical thinking theme throughout these processes has been to use an alignment of the type of coding appropriate for the type of data collected and the type of question the researcher is attempting to answer.

INTERPRETATION What If Results Are Flat? Early in the doctoral dissertation process it was not uncommon for a student to express mild anxiety over the possibility that his or her study would not result in significant findings. Discussions followed concerning the relatively small size of study populations, hence the small sample sizes, as well as the geographical choices that limit the generalizations of results, etc. If University’s doctoral faculty can continue to promote critical consideration and critical decision making in the careful design of research, the value of learning to conduct the research and the recognition of its limitations to interpretation can be promoted as the main value of participation. Sometimes, it is not so important that a researcher should have

392

significant findings. Sometimes, it is the internal viewpoint of the researcher towards data gathering and decision making that is the strongest result of the research conducted.

SOLUTIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS University should continue monitoring processes and changes within the doctoral program. Retention, length of time to degree, strength of research design, and faculty-to-student ratio should be assessed each year. Continued assessment of doctoral program status should include student progress through the steps of the degree program from beginning to end, to include length of time for completion of the prospectus, to reach IRB approval, to gather data, to analyze data, and to actually write the dissertation. Supports and oneon-one consultations with students in the areas of quantitative analysis, qualitative coding, APA style, and writing skills should continue. Consideration of requirements for entrance to the degree program should be given, with respect to necessary critical thinking skills, as well as research and writing abilities. The sense of collaboration built within doctoral faculty within the department described in this chapter should continue, and efforts should be made to strengthen collaboration with faculty outside of the department, as well.

FUTURE RESEARCH DIRECTIONS The doctoral setting would benefit from more direct study of the characteristics of the doctoral student. A measure of critical thinking, as related to potential change in viewpoints from the beginning of the program to the end of the program could be interesting. A study of attrition could be helpful to doctoral degree programs. Information on the factors that motivate persistence within students of the age and experience typical

 Faculty Support and Guidance for Doctoral Candidates

of the doctoral student could be interesting and could possibly uncover characteristics transferrable to the younger undergraduate groups of students. Information about the life experiences that interrupt the studies of some students may give insight into lower retention numbers yielded by some doctoral programs. Conversations with doctoral students through all phases of doctoral work could allow insight into the actions and attitude changes a doctoral student may undergo to become a successful finisher. It would be good to know, or remember, what it takes to acclimate to participation in doctoral-level study. An analysis of curriculum offered within the education doctorate should be an ongoing study. An examination of the discussion topics and the types of activities required with in each doctorallevel course could be valuable, especially if conducted on a regular basis. An alignment of topics within coursework with the required process steps embedded in each of the Capstone courses could be valuable, for the particular program described within this chapter. In addition, a transcript study of doctoral-level finishers could reveal if the sequencing of coursework has an effect on persistence and time to degree.

CONCLUSION Though conducting educational research is a real-world application of critical thinking, the support and guidance necessary for doctoral students designing educational research presents its own set of unique challenges. Given a problem to solve (how to address the unique set of challenges) created the need for a different view of critical thinking. How does a doctoral faculty promote critical thinking, or critical decision-making in such a way as to successfully allow students to reach their own level of critical problem solving in designing research? University’s doctoral faculty has attempted to address one challenge at a time.

This chapter summarized the status of University’s outward characteristics to describe the program leading to the Doctor of Education degree, and then discussed some of the actions by faculty that resulted. A look at the measures taken over the eight-year course of the program did not reveal changes of note, simply a description of actions applied. This researcher believes it may have been the unmeasured internal changes of viewpoint by the doctoral faculty who attempted to elicit change within the doctoral students that represented the gains in this particular analysis.

REFERENCES Baird, L. L. (1993). Using research and theoretical models of graduate student progress. In L. Leonard (Ed.), Increasing graduate student retention and degree attainment. New Directions for Institutional Research, 80 (pp. 3–12). San Francisco: JosseyBass Publishers. doi:10.1002/ir.37019938003 Brookfield, S. D. (2004). What is critical thinking? Retrieved from http://stephenbrookfield. com/ Dr._Stephen_D._Brookfield/Articles_and_Interviews_files/Ch%201%20What%20is%20Critical%20Thinking.pdf Burkis, J., & Yaris, K. (2012, June 12). Critical thinking and the Common Core Standards. Think Tank for the 21st Century. Retrieved from http:// www.burkinsandyaris.com/critical-thinking-andthe-common-core-standards/ Creswell, J. W. (2008). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Merrill Prentice Hall. DuFour, R. (2004). What is a professional learning community? Educational Leadership, 61(8), 6–11. EdD Guidebook. (2013). Retrieved from http:// www.lindenwood.edu/education/edLeadership/ docs/ edd/2013EdDHandbook.pdf

393

 Faculty Support and Guidance for Doctoral Candidates

Fowler, M. J. (1988). Sample size table: Confidence ranges for variability due to sampling. In Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research, 631. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Merrill Prentice Hall. Fraenkel, J. R., Wallen, N. E., & Hyun, H. H. (2015). How to design and evaluate research in education (9th ed.). New York, NY: McGraw Hill. Gay, L. R., & Airasian, P. (2003). Educational research: Competencies for analysis and applications. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill Prentice Hall. Isaac, P. D. (1993). Measuring Graduate Student Retention. In L. Leonard (Ed.), Baird (1993). Increasing graduate student retention and degree attainment. New Directions for Institutional Research, 80 (pp. 13–26). San Francisco: JosseyBass Publishers. Lipsey, M. W. (1990). Sample size table: Approximate sample size per experimental group needed to attain various criterion levels of power for a range of effect sizes at Alpha =. 05. In J. W. Creswell (2008) Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research, 632. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Merrill Prentice Hall. Mendenhall, W., & Sincich, T. (2012). A second course in statistics: Regression analysis (7th ed.). Boston, MA: Prentice-Hall. Peck, R., Olsen, C., & Devore, J. (2008). Introduction to statistics & data analysis (3rd ed.). Belmont, CA: Thomson Brooks/Cole. Ploskonka, J. (1993). The use of retrospective national data for institutional evaluation. In L. Leonard (Ed.), Baird. (1993). Increasing graduate student retention and degree attainment. New Directions for Institutional Research, 80 (pp. 59–68). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers. doi:10.1002/ir.37019938007

394

Prospectus. (2013). Retrieved from www.lindenwood.edu/newsletter1/prospectus.docx Reichenbach, B. (2000). Introduction to critical thinking. New York, NY: McGraw Hill; Retrieved from http://mhhe.com/socscience/philosophy/ reichenbach/m1_chap02studyguide.html Scriven, M., & Paul, R. (2013). Defining Critical Thinking. Foundation for Critical Thinking. Retrieved from http://www.criticalthinking.org/ pages/defining-critical-thinking/410 Sherblom, S., & Isenberg, S. (2011). Conversations on Research Design (CORD): Supporting adult learners in crafting a research project. Presented at the Midwest Research-to-Practice Conference in Adult, Continuing, and Community Education, Lindenwood University, St. Louis, MO, September 21-23, 2011. University. (2013). Doctor of Education Handbook. Department of Educational Leadership. Retrieved from http://www.lindenwood.edu/education/edLeadership/docs/edd/2013EdDHandbook. pdf University. (2014-2015). Catalog. Retrieved from http://lindenwood.smartcatalogiq.com/ en/2014-2015/Graduate-Catalog/Courses/EDAEducation-Educational-Administration/ University. (2014a). About University. Retrieved from http://www.university.edu/about/index.html University. (2014b). Faculty Portal. Retrieved from http://www.university.edu Wiersma, W. (2000). Research methods in education: An introduction (7th ed.). Needham Heights, MA: Pearson. Willingham, D. (2001). Critical thinking: Why is it so hard to teach? American Educator, 31(2), 8–19.

 Faculty Support and Guidance for Doctoral Candidates

Zitzewitz, P., Elliott, T. G., Haase, D. G., Harper, K. A., Herzog, M. R., Nelson, J. B., & Zorn, M. K. et al. (2005). Physics: Principles and Problems. Columbus, OH: McGraw Hill Glencoe.

Paul, R. W., & Elder, L. (2007). The thinker’s guide to the art of Socratic questioning. Tomales, CA: Foundation for Critical Thinking.

ADDITIONAL READING

Vaughan, L. (2009). The power of critical thinking: Effective reasoning about ordinary and extraordinary claims (3rd ed.). New York: Oxford University Press.

Bodgan, R. C., & Bilken, S. K. (2007). Qualitative research for education: An introduction to theories and methods (5th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson.

KEY TERMS AND DEFINITIONS

Brookfield, S. D. (2004). The power of critical theory: Liberating adult learning and teaching. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Brookfield, S. D. (2012). Teaching for critical thinking: Tools to help students question their assumptions. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Brookfield, S. D., & Holst, J. D. (2010). Radicalizing learning: Adult education for a just world. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Brookfield, S. D., & Preskill, S. (2004). Discussion as a way of teaching: Tools and techniques for democratic classrooms (2nd ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. McMillan, J. H., & Schumacher, S. (2001). Research in education: A conceptual introduction (5th ed.). Addison Wesley Longman, Inc. Mendenhall, W., & Sincich, T. (2012). A second course in statistics: Regression analysis (7th ed.). Boston, MA: Prentice-Hall. Paul, R. W., & Elder, L. (2005). Critical thinking: Tools for taking charge of your professional and personal life. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson/ Prentice Hall. Paul, R. W., & Elder, L. (2006). The thinker’s guide for conscientious citizens on how to detect media bias and propaganda. Tomales, CA: Foundation for Critical Thinking.

Conversations on Research Design: Face-toface meetings between professors and a doctoral student, with or without the presence of the dissertation chair, at which discussion is focused upon the student’s research interest and study design. Conversation can serve to clarify viewpoints about study design or to brainstorm creative and solid approaches to research design. Integrated Model: Acknowledges that graduate study is a socialization process. The most important change agent in the doctoral process is the faculty. Process Model: Describes the process of mastering the more scholarly to speak, read, and write. Professional Learning Community: Regular meetings, with pre-determined tasks to complete, between professionals with a common educational goal. Psychological Model: Describes the personality development of the graduate student, specifically the interaction been intellect and personal development throughout the graduate study process. Sociologically Oriented Model: Offers three stages for movement through the doctoral program, to include the transition into graduate work, increased competence leading to candidacy for the degree, and the active research stage.

395

Section 6

397

Chapter 17

Globalization, Cross Border Education, and Student Migration:

Determining Student Institutional Choice Factors Ryan Vance Guffey Lindenwood University, USA

ABSTRACT Presently, there are more than two million students studying outside their home countries and the total number is expected to grow to eight million by 2025. This trend has inspired research into the “push” and “pull” factors that drive student mobility within the global higher education environment. However, despite the growing presence of cross border student enrollments throughout the United States, which is also the number one location for cross border students to study in the world, limited efforts have been made to identify what characteristics motivate particular groups of cross border students to leave their home countries to attend particular types of higher education in the United States. This chapter addresses that gap in the literature. In response, this study sought to build upon existing global higher education literature by determining the relationship between the perceived importance of institutional characteristics and cross border students’ age, gender, and country of origin.

INTRODUCTION Demand for a higher education has typically been driven by the implied assumption that it will improve an individual’s economic or social status (Kerr, 2002). For cross border students, the assumption is no different (Altbach, 2002a; DeWit, 2002; Agarwal & Winkler, 1985). Due

to limitations of higher education systems in home countries or the perceived opportunities of an education abroad, students are migrating in higher proportions than ever before (Institute of International Education, 2013; Baldwin & McInnis, 1999; Mazzarol & Soutar, 2002). Presently, there are more than two million students studying outside their home countries, which is expected to

DOI: 10.4018/978-1-4666-8411-9.ch017

Copyright © 2015, IGI Global. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.

 Globalization, Cross Border Education, and Student Migration

grow to eight million by 2025 (Altbach, 2004a). This trend has inspired research into the “push” and “pull” factors that drive student mobility within the global higher education environment (Altbach & Knight, 2007; Srikatanyoo & Gnoth, 2002; Mazzarol, 1998; McMahon, 1992; Agarwal & Winkler, 1985). A convergence of factors influence students to study outside their home countries. For example, students in African countries have traditionally had difficulty obtaining access to their own higher education systems, while other developing nations with historical or colonial connections lose students to cultural associations or to the perception of better lives or education abroad (Mazzarol & Soutar, 2002). Other issues that may affect a cross border student’s decision to study abroad include a commonality of language, the availability of academic programs, such as science and technology, and the geographic proximity to the home country (Mazzarol & Soutar, 2002). A study by McMahon (1992) suggested that the flow of students was relative to the prosperity of the home country’s economy, the involvement in the global economy, the priority level placed on education by the government of the home country and the availability of higher education in the home country. Students were also influenced by the relative size of their home country’s economy compared to the host country, economic and cultural links and the home country’s level of transnational scholarship support (McMahon, 1992). Following McMahon’s work, Mazzarol and Soutar (2002) determined three distinct decision making stages students pass through prior to studying outside their home countries. First, a student must decide to study abroad rather than in the home country. Second, the student must decide which host country would best satisfy his or her educational needs. Lastly, the student must select an institution to attend. This raises the question, after a student decides to study abroad in a particular country, which factor(s) make one institution more desirable than another? According

398

to Mazzarol (1998), an example of “such factors include an institution’s reputation for quality, market profile, range of courses, alliances or coalitions, offshore teaching programs, staff expertise, degree of innovations, use of information technology, resources, size of the alumni base and promotional and marketing efforts” (p. 83). This study does not examine the first two stages in the decision making process. Rather, this study focused on one aspect of stage three; specifically, a cross border student’s choice of a United States (U.S.) university relative to institutional characteristics.

BACKGROUND Rationale The growing global interconnectiveness experienced among higher education institutions, the rapid expansion of foreign institutional agreements, the emergence of a transnational academic labor market, and the increasing numbers of cross border student enrollments have contributed to the evolution of cross border students’ migratory higher education study choice patterns (Altbach, 2004b; De Wit, 2002; James, Baldwin, & McInnis, 1999). However, despite the growing presence of cross border student enrollments throughout the United States, limited research has been conducted to identify what institutional characteristics specifically motivate particular groups of cross border students to leave their home countries to attend particular types of higher education in the U.S. (Cubillo, Sanchez, & Cervino, 2006). This chapter intends to address the existing gap in American higher education student choice literature by providing a systematic examination of one element of student choice: institutional characteristics. The student’s choice of an institution is affected by personal characteristics, parental influence, financial opportunities, academic characteristics, institutional facets, external influences and other factors (Moogan,

 Globalization, Cross Border Education, and Student Migration

Baron, & Harris, 1999; Chapman, 1981). Utilizing the United Nations Human Development Index (Appendix A.), this study will group students’ countries of origin into one of three categories: High Human Development (High), Medium Human Development (Medium) and Low Human Development (Low). Each category addresses the level of education, health care, income and employment among United Nation (UN) member states (Human Development Report, 2008). The intent of this study was to determine if students from High, Medium, or Low countries use specific institutional characteristics in making their choice to attend their higher education institution in the United States. Finally, this study sought to identify whether gender and age play a role in the selection process.

The purpose of this study is to determine if age, gender, and a student’s country of origin predicts a cross border student’s choice of an undergraduate U.S. higher education institution.

2008). It is commonly understood that two of the major drives for cross border higher education are access to one’s quality home county education and curricular opportunities available in developed nations that are not available in developing nations (Altbach & Knight, 2007; De Wit, 2002; Moja & Cloete, 2001). In addition, the hope for a new or better life in a country that promotes work opportunities or a feasible immigration process are also major factors for cross border students’ selection of a country in which to study (Altbach, 1991). The remaining independent variables are gender and age of subject. Gender is an important factor because the attitudes of women from the United States (Montgomery, 2004; Pascarella & Terenzini, 1991), and also from developing nations (Schuler, 2007; Altbach, 1991), differ towards higher education compared to their male counterparts. Within higher education, age has also been a defining characteristic as it can affect a student’s perception of a particular instance or thing (Pascarella & Terenzini, 1991). Age will be evaluated using the ages of 18-24 (traditional students) and 25 and above (non-traditional).

Variables

Dependent Variable

Independent Variables

The dependent variable for this study is student choice, specifically the institutional factors that affect student choice. This variable will be measured by an authorized variation of the Admitted Student Questionnaire Plus (ASQ Plus) survey offered by College Board (Appendix C.). The ASQ Plus survey measures the student’s choice of an institution by analyzing what university characteristics are the most important to the student. Specifically, the ASQ Plus is a customizable survey used to determine what students think about an institution’s academic programs, recruitment literature, financial aid packages, facilities, cost of attendance, image, reputation and other characteristics. For this study, the survey will be modified so that it accounts only for characteristics

Purpose

The independent variable in this study is the student’s home country, specifically its Human Development Index (HDI) as described by the United Nations. The Human Development Index was created in 1990 by the United Nations to evaluate a country’s average score in three fundamental aspects of human development: health, knowledge and a decent standard of living (Appendix A.). “Health is measured by life expectancy at birth; knowledge is measured by a combination of the adult literacy rate and the combined primary, secondary, and tertiary gross enrollment ratio; and standard of living by Gross Domestic Product (GDP) per capita” (Human Development Report,

399

 Globalization, Cross Border Education, and Student Migration

that are specific and inherent to the institution and not those that are relative to recruitment practices (College Board, 2008).

and therefore had to consider the reported data accurate. This study used an analysis of variance and a t-test to analyze the hypotheses.

Hypotheses

Limitations of the Study

The hypotheses include an overall hypothesis and three sub-hypotheses; all of which are presented in the null.

Limitations are a component of this study. Given that this study employed survey research, the researcher acknowledged that subjects may answer questions based on what they perceived to be true, rather than on what may be objectively true. Subjects might have also answered the questions based on what they believed the researcher wanted to hear. Further, the limitations of this study stem from the size of the study itself. Given that this study only surveyed undergraduate students within two Carnegie Classifications in one metropolitan area, there was relatively limited data and not sufficient information to generalize to all U.S. universities in the United States of America.

Overall Hypothesis There is no relationship between a student’s choice, specifically related to institutional factors, and his or her country’s HDI (Appendix B.).

Sub Hypotheses 1. There is no relationship between a cross border student’s choice, specifically related to institutional factors and his or her country’s HDI based on gender. 2. There is no relationship between a student’s choice, specifically related to institutional factors and his or her country’s HDI based on age admitted. 3. There is no relationship between a student’s choice, specifically related to institutional factors and his or her country’s HDI based on institution attended.

Design This study employed survey research methodology, which “involves acquiring information about one or more groups of people-perhaps, about their characteristics, opinions, attitudes, or previous experiences-by asking them questions and tabulating their answers” (Leedy & Ormrod, 2005, p.183). This research method was utilized to capture a particular population at a particular moment in time. Further, this study used self-reported data

400

Globalization Globalization is a term frequently used to describe the breadth and scope of innovation, communication, and technologies currently available and in use across the world (Cerny, 2005). Such globalization involves the intertwining of economic, political, and sociological activity (Bourke, 2000). Globalization is also used to refer to the efforts of transnational organizations such as the International Monetary Fund (IMF), the World Bank, World Trade Organization (WTO) and others, to create a global free market for products and services (Raikhy, 2002). Globalization can also refer to cultural integration (Torres & Rhoads, 2006) or a pull towards Western ideals or society (Teichler, 2007). According to Held, McGrew, Goldblatt, and Perraton (1999) globalization is a process affecting almost every aspect of a nation. However, it is not a uniform process that performs equally

 Globalization, Cross Border Education, and Student Migration

throughout each structure of society. Held et al. (1999) also suggest that “as economic, social and political activities are increasingly ‘stretched’ across the globe, they become in a significant sense no longer primarily or solely organized according to a territorial principle” (pp. 27-28). As a result of globalization, spatial concepts of governance and society are reconfigured based on a sense of global interconnectedness, as opposed to on legal and territorial boundaries. Beyond the internationalization of corporations or institutions, the universalization of industries and business practices of the modernized world (Chossudovsky, 1997), the cultural proliferation (Torres & Rhoads, 2006), and the strengthening of transnational organizations (Raikhy, 2002), globalization is a complex, sometimes contradictory process, simultaneously involving growing localism and regionalism as well as globalism. As such, globalism can be exemplified not only by increased diversity and integration but also by increased homogenization and fragmentation (Strange, 1986). For instance, some citizenry are integrated into global processes and are part of an opportunistic transnational community who travel and have access to new forms of information and technology. However, despite the vast majority of the global citizenry being excluded from direct participation, they are nevertheless vulnerable to the intrinsic and tactile nature of globalization and must act in accord relative to the modern era (Strange, 1986). According to Guruz (2008), until the early 1800s, the lack of transportation and communication technologies resulted in the relative isolation of cultural communities. Indeed, even adjacent communities were inaccessible to each other if separated by geographical features such as mountains or rivers. This isolation facilitated social and cultural divergence, restricted integration, and limited diffusion of cultural traits. However, over the past two centuries, developments in global transportation, communication, and commerce have created an increasingly synchronized

global society (Guruz, 2008) in which cultures and communities are accessible to each other, which in turn facilitates cultural shift, assimilation, and integration. According to McNeil and McNeil (2003) as cited in Guruz (2008): as a communications [between communities] intensified, what began as separate civilizations followed a familiar path by blending into an ever more powerful, global, cosmopolitan web that now prevails among us-a huge web of cooperation and competition sustained by flows of information and energy. (p. 2) As a testament to the integration of our world, “Today, there are over seventeen thousand institutions of higher education in 184 territories and countries” (Guruz, 2008, p. 2), as opposed to the few hundred that existed during the medieval period (Haskins, 1957). This growth in educational options illustrates a proliferation that would not have been possible without the relatively recent development of globalization.

Globalization and Opening the Door In general terms, globalization can be seen as the interface between the international and domestic environments. This type of conjoining is not necessarily a reciprocal relationship (Wallerstein, 1996). Frequently, domestic level actors must resolve differences between international and domestic needs. Usually, this comes at the expense of the domestic level participants compromising their constituent’s interests. Stubbs and Underhill (2005) state, When events in the international political economy lead to the mobilization of domestic interests, the institutional state finds its autonomy or freedom of action reduced, and options that might otherwise have been open to it in dealing with domestic and international issues become foreclosed. (p. 422)

401

 Globalization, Cross Border Education, and Student Migration

Considering the multitude of states in the global economy, this notion reinforces the idea relayed by Cerny (1999) that states are not autonomous entities, but rather a sort of ‘national firm’ in competition with fellow members of the global economy. Since these states actively perpetuate globalization by attempting to control the international area to better manage their domestic needs, states are seen as having a dual and mocking role. In relation to state “firm” competition, another, and perhaps more practical interpretation of globalization, would be that off internationalization, which is described as “the process in which regions, countries, and companies have become increasingly interdependent, representing intrinsic parts of the world economy,” e.g., exporting or importing products, the establishment of foreign subsidiaries, licensing agreements, international joint ventures, etc. (Auerbacher, 1996, pp. 2-3). The fundamentals of internationalization were introduced by Coase (1937) to describe situations in which it might be more beneficial for a firm to continue working internally (domestically) rather than externally (internationally). By following transaction costs and capital flows, firms are better able to determine the worth or drain that multinationalization would cause, giving rise to state competition for multinational investments and business. John Zysman (1983) demonstrated that political analysis of financial markets contributes to our understanding of the ways in which economies develop and compete. Based on the observation that the primary role of a financial market is to channel savings to investments, Zysman concluded there is a correlation between financial policy and the total amount of capital available for governments to utilize. With regard to state involvement in a particular institutional framework, Zysman also proposed a threefold typology of financial systems, asserting that the state could be a regulator, administrator or player depending on the National or Federal monetary policies (Zysman, 1983). Following the work of Coase and Zysman,

402

Susan Strange (1986), in Casino Capitalism, referred to three points of analysis to determine the deterrence and attraction potential for states searching for foreign direct investment (FDI), trade competition, multinationalization of production, and integration of financial markets. With respect to trade competition, states, in the neo-liberal order, must provide an environment that is more attractive for business operations than opposing states can provide. As Philip Cerny indicated, “States are undermining their policy autonomy by searching for global competitiveness” (Cerny, 1999, p. 2). Thus, globalization is not merely handed down from the supranational, but, to some degree, initiated by the state to further a domestic agenda (Scholte, 2005). The second speculation mechanism, multinationalization of production, denotes policy autonomy by the declaration of intent (or threat) to mobilize and relocate operations if a state fails to present an ideal commercial environment. Like trade, multinationalization of production contends with costs incurred by a firm when relocating from one state to the next. Since firms with production facilities in other states can escape cost simply by leaving that state, this access to multiple domains creates barriers to imposing restrictive state regulations. The inability of states to retain the lost wage in tax revenue denotes their ability to control their own economies and thus assure a sound business environment for their citizens. Consequently, Steinmo (1993) argues that the future of an embedded liberal state can only be sustained by shifting tax burdens from international firms and multinational corporations to less mobile assets such as the working classes (labor). As the growing number of international firms rise, states will become increasingly more dependent on domestic unmovable industries. The third argument concerning globalization constraints on states addresses the integration of financial markets. The main theme of this argument lies in the threat of capital flight, e.g., cheaper labor, better tax environments or business

 Globalization, Cross Border Education, and Student Migration

logistics abroad. In some senses, governments are held “hostage” by the market and forced to respond to them. The 2008 Wall Street Bailout is an example of this (Stout, 2008). Undeniably, “If policies and institutions of which the markets approve are not found in the country, money will hemorrhage until they are” (Garrett, 1999, p. 152).

Internationalization of Higher Education Scott (2000) argues that due to the dramatically changing internal power structures of nation states and their interconnectedness and interdependence, globalization is the most fundamental challenge faced by the University over the last 1,000 years. Relationally, Altbach (2004a) puts forward the idea that internationalization has become one of the most current, prevalent and prevailing phenomena within higher education. While globalization can be understood as a self-perpetuating process, typified by the demand driven global market (Strange, 1986), internationalization can be viewed as an intentional national response to globalization used to facilitate understanding of the global environment and ways of interaction within it (Hayward, 2000). In essence, internationalization is a reflexive response among nations to direct the forces of globalization (Duderstadt, Taggart, & Weber, 2008). In another sense, internationalization of higher education can be understood as “integrating an international, intercultural, or global demission into the purpose, functions or delivery of postsecondary education” (Knight, 2003a, p. 3). According to Van Vught, van der Wende, and Westerheijden (2002), the internationalization of higher education can include a “broad range of activities, such as: the trans-national mobility of students and staff, internationalisation of curricula and quality assurance, inter-institutional co-operation in education and research, and the

establishment of international university consortia” (p. 104). In general terms, Kallvermark & Van der Wende (1997) define internationalization of higher education as “any systematic, sustained effort aimed at making higher education responsive to the requirements and challenges related to the globalisation of societies, economy and labour markets” (p. 19). Within the last two decades, the incidence of cross border education has increased significantly (Van Vught, et al., 2002). This increase has been driven by supply and demand factors within the higher education markets (Altbach and Knight, 2007). According to Altbach & Knight, profit is the “most important stimuli for academic internationalization […]” (p. 292). Different types of institutions may have different degrees of emphasis on profit (for-profit v. non-profit and their level of emphasis). However, the majority of mechanisms institutions utilize (study abroad, inter-institutional agreements, student recruitment) tend to satisfy their supply side needs (Altbach & Knight, 2007). Further, according to Van Vught et al. (2002), given the transnational organizational precipitation of the supply side economics of cross border higher education, a growing trend exists in “international competition in higher education and an enhanced economic rationale for internationalization, as compared to the political, cultural and academic rationales which were the main driving forces for internationalization until recently” (p.105). With the liberalization of foreign markets, state regulatory environments and systems of higher education, the globalization and internationalization of higher education is being perpetuated by institutional agreements between local, state and transnational organizations (Altbach & Knight, 2007). Mampuru (2000) argues that because of this relationship between educational institutions, institutions participating in the global higher education context are degrading their autonomy

403

 Globalization, Cross Border Education, and Student Migration

by means of educational massification, or the opening of admission borders and the offering of financial incentives in order to attract more eligible students. Therefore, the impact of the institutions’ pursuit of capital acquisition (service competition, multinationalization of education production and integration of education markets), perpetuates an environment in which students can more easily obtain education outside their country regardless of whether or not their home country is a developed or developing nation (Altbach, 2007). Knight (2003b) explains that it is through this massification that higher education institutions pursue multinational capital. She argues that trade liberalization of higher education refers to the borderless migration of commercial educational services. Further, Knight (2003b) argues, within the international higher educational framework, four general categories of who and what move across borders have emerged: people, providers, programs and products and services. People refers to the cross border movement of students, faculty and staff for educational purposes. For students, this may include a study abroad, research programs or a complete degree program. For faculty and staff, this even refers to sabbaticals, seminars and professional development (Knight, 2003b). Providers are the institutions that have an academic presence in the foreign country. The movement of such providers may be conducted via financial partners in the foreign country, branch campuses, or stand-alone institutions. Programs move across borders through inter-institutional partnerships, often involving academic credit sharing or complete degree earning programs, internship opportunities, or research activity. Product and services refer to the undertaking by institutions of learning that relates to academic linkages, projects or commercial contracts. Further, the movement of products and services can foster curricular development, program or research benchmarking, technical assistance, e-learning platforms, or professional development (Knight, 2003b).

404

The Theory and Research of Student Choice and the Global Context Student choice, the focus of this study, must first be understood in terms of its theoretical underpinnings. Once explicated, student choice can be used as a functional measure. It can be argued that the globalization and internationalization of higher education is creating a liberalized environment for cross border students to study in lands outside their home countries (Knight, 2003a). An example of this can be seen in Strange’s (1986) argument that nations searching for foreign direct investment (FDI) will actively participate in trade competition, multinationalization of production, and the integration of financial markets. In the case of higher education, this participation comes in forms of who and what move across borders, such as individual researchers or students, institutional satellite campuses, academic programs offered at locations other than the home campus, and research/grant projects (Altbach, 2004b; Knight, 2003b). Therefore, as student choice is evaluated in this study, it is important that these underlying factors are kept in the forefront of this analysis.

Theory of International Student Choice Following the liberalizing results of globalization and internationalization, the higher education marketplace has grown exponentially and is certain to continue to grow (Altbach & Knight, 2007). Not since the medieval period has such a large proportion of cross-border students studied outside their home countries (Altbach, 2004b). With over two million students participating in the international higher education market, evaluating the factors that motivate students to seek a crossborder education is of significant importance to academic programs, university administrators, and nation states (Altbach, 2004a; Cubillo et al., 2006). In addition to cross-border students, there

 Globalization, Cross Border Education, and Student Migration

is currently also a large number of scholars and scientists traveling abroad to perform research and/or to instruct (Zemsky, 2008). According to existing research, cross-border students typically migrate from the South to North, i.e., from the developing countries to developed nations (Torres & Rhoads, 2006; Altbach, 2004a; Damtew & Altbach, 2004; Lin & Kao, 2004; McMahon, 1992). At this time, approximately 80% of cross border students come from developing countries and almost exclusively study in the North (Altbach, 2004b). Indeed, as economic and educational inequalities deepen, poorer, more peripheral countries are becoming even more dependent on the activities in central economies in the Western world (Wallerstein, 1996). Altbach (2007) argues that within the higher education context, “[all] but a few research universities are located in the developed economies of the industrialized world” (p. 2). Hence, the international education market is partially influenced by the primary locations of knowledge and instructional production (Zemsky, 2008). Therefore, all higher education institutions, similar to the institutions of medieval Europe, will be somewhat dependent on the lead knowledge spheres (Altbach, 2007).

Student Mobility: Factors Pushing Students Abroad Currently, over two million students study outside their home countries for higher education (Altbach, 2004a). With the continually evolving and interconnected relationship between global markets, states, and institutions of higher education, channels for student mobility have increased and diversified (James et al., 1999). However, the liberalization of global boundaries, while being a main driver of immigration, is only one of the factors that influence student mobility (Altbach, 2004b). According to Altbach (2004b), over half of the world’s higher education enrollments come from the developing world where insufficient en-

rollment opportunities force students to migrate to other countries to obtain their education (demand outstrips capacity). He further argues developed nations host the premier (undergraduate through doctorate) academic and technical programs not comparably found in developing nations (Altbach, 2004a). Thus, in the pursuit of a specialization, those students may simply be without these programs in their home countries. In addition, students in developing nations may be the recipients of discriminatory admission policies, such as ethnic heritage or may simply be trying to escape the political unrest of a governmental or higher education system (Altbach, 2004a). Also, the changes in foreign policy or an emphasis on political commitments by the home country may influence institutional choice (Altbach, 1991). With these government policies, students may feel more comfortable leaving home. As a result, immigration becomes a motivating factor as students may not intend to return to their home countries (Altbach, 1991). Other push factors that affect students’ choice to leave their home countries include the level of economic wealth in the students’ home countries and how heavily that wealth is impacted by the world economy (McMahon, 1992). Students also take into consideration how much their home countries value or restrict their access to education (McMahon, 1992). For example, in India, there is enormous competition to gain access to higher education because demand outstrips capacity (Nigavekar, 2005). Further, if standard of living in a student’s home country is not high, students may leave home in hopes of ensuring a better life or education abroad, e.g., African countries (Mazzarol & Soutar, 2002).

Student Mobility: Factors Pulling Students Abroad While “There is scarce literature analyzing the decision-making process of prospective interna-

405

 Globalization, Cross Border Education, and Student Migration

tional students in general” (Cubillo et al, p. 102), there are a myriad of pull factors that have been studied to identify why cross border students elect to study outside their home countries. Such factors include personal reasons (Kotler & Fox, 1995; Bourke, 2000; Binsardi & Ekwulugo, 2003), country image (Srikatanyoo & Gnoth, 2002; Binsardi & Ekwulugo, 2003) and institution image (Lin & Kao, 2004; Mazzarol, 1998; Ivy, 2001; Srikatanyoo & Gnoth, 2002). Personal reasons can be described as factors that relate to family ties (Pimpa, 2003), career advancement or future employment (Dale & Krueger, 2002), expansion and development of language abilities (Mazzarol & Soutar, 2002), and meeting new people in a culturally different environment (Tiechler, 2007). Another factor is the perceived prestige and privilege of an international education (Chapman & Pyvis, 2006; James, 2002; Ivy, 2001). Country image can be described as factors that relate to physical and cultural distance (Mazzarol & Soutar, 2002), social reputation (Tiechler, 2007), economic development level (McMahon, 1992), cost of living (Altbach, 2004a), immigration processes (Altbach, 1991), opportunities for work (Tiechler, 1998) and educational system (Altbach, 2004b).

Student Mobility: Factors Pulling Students to Study in the USA Cross border students elect to study in the United States for both simple and complicated reasons (DeWit, 2002). Since the 1960s, there has been an increase in the number of cross border students seeking an American higher education (Altbach, 2004a; Knight 2003b; DeWit, 2002). Currently, higher education represents the fifth largest service sector in the U.S. economy, accounting for approximately $12 billion per year (Zemsky, 2008). With the availability of modern technology and travel, along with increased migratory opportunities for students, a cross border education is easy to obtain (DeWit, 2002). With this rise

406

in availability and access to cross-border education, comes competition among higher education systems and institutions for cross border students (Altbach & Peterson, 1999). According to Altbach (2003), the United States is perceived as having the world’s best and largest educational system. As a result, many students surmise that a degree from the United States is better than that of their home countries. Given the volume of educational opportunities in the United States, cross border students elect to study at low ranked universities or community colleges due to the ease of admission to the institution, so as to gain entrance to the United States (Altbach, 2004a). Altbach (2004a) continues by stating that A significant number of international students go abroad to study with the aim of staying in the host country to work and make a career. The U.S. is a major attractor of these students because of its large and diverse economy, the willingness of employers to hire well-qualified foreigners, and the high salaries available in many fields, including in academe. (p. 21) For these reasons, the U.S. remains crossborder students’ number one desired destination for purposes of education and future work possibilities. With over 500,000 cross border students studying in the United States, the tuition paid by cross-border students to U.S. institutions represents a considerable financial gain for those institutions. Despite the volume of capital produced by the U.S. education industry, however, little research has been conducted on the decision making process of cross-border students with respect to their selection of a specific university (Cubillo et al., 2006).

Institutional Characteristics Affecting Student Choice The decision making process for international students consists of three stages. In the first

 Globalization, Cross Border Education, and Student Migration

stage, the student must decide whether or not to study abroad in another country. During this stage, the student experiences the “push” factors that often influence a student to choose to study internationally rather than locally (Mazzarol & Soutar, 2002). In the second stage, the student more acutely assesses the pull factors of the desired host country and considers multiple possible institutions to attend. In the third stage, the student compares and evaluates the institutional characteristics of several universities and chooses an institution to attend. It is during this final stage that the student determines which institutional characteristics are important (Mazzarol & Soutar, 2002). Institutional characteristics include quality of academics, reputation of the institution, use of technology, resources, marketing, and quality of staff (Mazzarol & Soutar, 2002; Cubillo et al., 2006). Further, literature has revealed that family and friends also influence a student’s choice of institution, although the level of such influence varies for each country (Soutar & Turner, 2002). Age also plays a role in a student’s choice of institution (Pimpa, 2003). Institutional image can be described as a shared construct, representing an institution’s perceived level of academic, instructional and or research quality (Paramewaran & Glowacka, 1995; Soutar & Turner, 2002), perceived institutional resources, such as faculty, research facilities, or athletic programs (Price, Matzdorf, Smith, & Agahi, 2003), and perceived academic specialties (Mazzarol & Soutar, 2002). For example, for Indian students, the reputation and course content of an institution are two critical factors in choosing an institution (Ahmad, 2006). It has also been suggested that the teaching staff of the institution is important to Indian students (El-Khawas, 2002). Other studies suggest that students from all nations focus on the areas in which they wish to major and the quality of the teaching staff (Soutar & Turner, 2002). A United Kingdom (U.K.) study suggested that the best way to draw international students is to have better facilities, especially technological

facilities and libraries (Binsardi & Ekwulugo, 2003). Other studies also suggest that academic equipment will influence a student’s decision when choosing a higher education institution (Srikatanyoo & Gnoth, 2002). Soutar and Turner’s (2002) research results show that students’ choice of university was directly related to the availability of modern facilities, not just to facilities in general. In addition, campus life, or the atmosphere of the school, is an important factor in influencing student choice (Soutar & Turner, 2002). In addition to the influence of top notch facilities and campus life, the cost of an institution is a critical factor for students when deciding whether or not to attend an institution (Dale & Krueger, 2002). Ledden, Kalafatis, and Samouel (2007) argue that there is a relationship between the perceived value of an education from a particular institution and the price an individual student is willing to pay to attend that school. Tiechler (2007) recognized that universities attract cross-border students who perceive a benefit in obtaining an education from a higher quality institution than those available in their home countries or from an institution that provides an area specialization not available in the students’ home countries. Further, he argues that the cost itself of some institutions makes those institutions more attractive than others. In light of this, U.S. universities are taking action to make their tuition more attractive to foreign students, often in hopes that foreign students’ tuition will serve to maintain the university’s financial stability. For instance, Tiechler (2007) puts forward that there is […] an increasing interest of universities in recent years to attract foreign students for financial reasons. For example, public policies in the U.S., the United Kingdom and Australia of funding higher education in general as well as policies of not funding study provisions for the majority of foreign students led to a vested financial interest on the part of many institutions of higher education to attract foreign students paying high fees.

407

 Globalization, Cross Border Education, and Student Migration

In many other countries, an increasing number of actors strive for more foreign students as well as a means to enhance the academic reputation of the respective institution of higher education which eventually might turn out to be financially beneficial as well. (p. 2)

Global Student Statistical Migration Relative to the USA In 2013, international students in the U.S. reached over 7% with a record high of close to 820,000 international students studying in the U.S.; more than 280,000 U.S. students studied abroad in 2011/2-12 (Institute of International Education, 2013). The Open Doors 2013 Report supports the notion that more cross border students are migrating to nontraditional destinations such as Asia, Africa, and Latin America. In spite of the increase in the volume of students studying in a variety of developing nations, the majority of cross border students have elected to study in the United States (Institute of International Education, 2013). In the late 2000s, Asia continued to be the largest sending region, accounting for 59% of total U.S. cross border enrollments. In 2013, China and India were the leading places to study abroad by U.S. students; China in the leading place of origin of cross border students in the United States, with 235,597 students, India in second place, with 96,754 students, and South Korea in third place, with 70,627 students (Institute of International Education, 2013).

Human Development Index According to the United Nations, The Human Development Index was created in 1990 by the United Nation to evaluate a country’s average score in three fundamental aspects of human development: health, knowledge, and a decent standard of living. “Health is measured by life expectancy at birth; knowledge is measured by a combination of the adult literacy rate and the

408

combined primary, secondary, and tertiary gross enrollment ratio; and standard of living by Gross Domestic Product (GDP) per capita” (Human Development Report, 2008). Two of the major drivers for the internationalization of higher education are access to education and curricular and educational opportunities available in developed nations that are not in developing nations (Altbach & Knight, 2007; DeWit, 2002; Mazzarol & Soutar, 2002,). International higher educational opportunities are made available by the deregulation of financial markets (Knight, 2004). Given the demand driven nature of quality higher education, evaluating students from countries with measurable levels of educational opportunities may provide significant insights into students’ motivation to migrate abroad (Mazzarol & Soutar, 2002). Davies and Quinlivan (2006) argue that over two-hundred years of history demonstrate that free trade offers a considerably higher quality of life and significantly more socio-economic opportunities to the citizenry in both developing and developed countries. A normative neo-liberal economic position believes that free trade among nations’ markets will create efficient industries as demand dictates (Stubbs & Underhill, 2005). Grossman as cited in Davies and Quinlivan offers empirical evidence that argues that trade-inspired growth raises the per-capita income of developing countries. As per-capita income passes various thresholds, developing countries utilize the additional income to improve their economic environment. Furthermore, in a free market setting, competition suggests that profit-seeking industries will utilize the newest resource-saving technologies to reduce their costs of production. This is where education can play a role in the development or further development of a nation. While there is great debate over the impacts of a globalized world, notions such as the creation of human capital or skill or an intellectually trained workforce will always positively promote industries that yield such results (Field, 2003).

 Globalization, Cross Border Education, and Student Migration

METHODOLOGY

Dependent Variable

Research Design

The dependent variable in this study is the crossborder student’s choice of a U.S. university, specifically, that choice as it is affected by the institutional factors particular to each institution. This variable was measured by an approved variation of the Admitted Student Questionnaire Plus (ASQ Plus) survey, offered by College Board. The ASQ Plus is a customized survey completed to determine students’ attitudes towards an institution’s academic programs, recruitment literature, financial aid packages, facilities, cost of attendance, image, reputation, and several other characteristics. Specifically, the ASQ Plus survey measures a student’s choice of a university by examining what university characteristics appear to be the most important to the student. For this study, the ASQ survey was modified to analyze characteristics that are specific to the institution and not those that are related to the institution’s recruitment practices (College Board, 2008).

This study employed the survey research methodology, which “involves acquiring information about one or more groups of people-perhaps, about their characteristics, opinions, attitudes, or previous experiences-by asking them questions and tabulating their answers” (Leedy & Ormrod, 2005, p. 183). This research method was used to capture particular populations’ opinion at a particular moment in time. Further, this study used self-reported data and, therefore, considered the collected information as accurate. This study utilized a t-test and an analysis of variance to analyze the hypotheses.

Independent Variables The first independent variable in this study is the student’s country of origin, measured by the Human Development Index (HDI). Two other independent variables evaluated in this study are gender and age of subject. Gender is a significant factor because the attitudes of women from the United States (Montgomery, 2004; Pascarella & Terenzini, 1991) and from developing nations (Schuler, 2007; Altbach, 1991) differ toward higher education from their male counterparts. Within higher education, age has been a defining characteristic as it can affect a student’s perception of a particular instance or time (Pascarella & Terenzini, 1991). In this study, the age of the students is categorized as follows: students between 18 and 24 years of age are considered traditional students, and students aged 25 and over are considered non-traditional students in order to investigate how a student’s period in life may impact his or her choice of an institution of higher learning (Miller & Lu, 2003).

Overall Hypothesis There is no relationship between a student’s choice, specifically related to institutional factors, and his or her country’s Human Development Index. (Appendix C). Sub Hypotheses 1. There is no relationship between a cross border student’s choice, specifically related to institutional factors and his or her country’s HDI based on gender. 2. There is no relationship between a student’s choice, specifically related to institutional factors and his or her country’s HDI based on age admitted.

409

 Globalization, Cross Border Education, and Student Migration

3. There is no relationship between a student’s choice, specifically related to institutional factors and his or her country’s HDI based on institution attended.

Site Description Four sites were utilized in this study. Three were in the Third Category (master’s level) and one was found in the Second Category (doctoral level) of the Carnegie Classification. Each institution is considered to grant comparable types and amount of degrees, except for the Second Category institution which has uniquely, with respects this study, high research components. All four sites are located within one Midwestern state and within one greater metropolitan area. Each school has a significant number of cross border students.

Carnegie Classification Originally founded by Andrew Carnegie in 1905, the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching is a center for research and policy on all topics related to higher education (The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, 2007). “The Carnegie Commission on Higher Education was established by The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching in 1967 to study and make recommendations regarding the major issues in higher education” (McCormick & Zhao, 2005, p. 51). In 1970, the institution began to create a new classification system for colleges and universities. Since its inception in 1970, due to the changes in institutions themselves, as well as the opening and closing of universities across the country, four updates to the classification system have been made (McCormick & Zhao, 2005). Today, there are six broad categories, with each category broken into individual sections. The first category is for associate colleges. To be in this category, the school must grant degrees at the associate level, or, if bachelor level degrees

410

are given, they must account for less than 10% of all degrees conferred (The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, 2007). Fourteen sub-categories are classified within the Associate Colleges category. The second category is for doctorate granting universities, which are divided into four sub-categories based upon how much research is produced by the institution, how many degrees are granted, and the amount of funding received (The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, 2007). These institutions must confer at least twenty doctoral degrees per year. The third category is for master’s colleges and universities. Master’s universities are categorized based on the volume of master’s degrees they confer. These schools must grant at least fifty masters degrees and fewer than twenty doctoral degrees per year. Three sub-categories within this category exist (The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, 2007). The fourth category is for baccalaureate colleges. Recently, this category stopped using the liberal arts terminology and switched to a more transparent terminology (The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, 2007). At least 10% of the degrees such institutions confer must be undergraduate degrees, and institutions in this category must award fewer than fifty master’s degrees or twenty doctoral degrees per a year. Three sub-categories exist within this category. The fifth category in the system is for special focus institutions. These institutions, excluding tribal colleges, have higher levels of single-field or related field concentrations than do other institutions. (The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, 2007). Nine sub-categories exist within this category. Last, is the category of tribal colleges, which has no sub-categories. These are institutions that are members of the American Indian Higher Education Consortium (The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, 2007).

 Globalization, Cross Border Education, and Student Migration

City Location The institutions were selected in one metropolitan area within the Midwestern region in the United States. This was done in order to provide a consistent population set. In addition, this choice was made in an attempt to limit the number of possible outlying variables that could be associated with geographic differences. All four universities are located within 25 miles of the city proper and are located in the surrounding counties. The city has a total population of 347,18,1 with a gender split of 47.7% male and 52.3% female. The median age is 35 and 73.9% of the population is 18 years of age or older. The population is 45.4% White and 50.2 Black or African American, and the other 4.4% of the population is split among other races (U.S. Census Bureau, 2008a). The surrounding counties have a total population of 1,000,510, with a gender split of 47.6% male and 52.4% female. The median age is 40.1 and 76.2% of the population is 18 years of age or older. The population is 73.2% White, 21.3% Black or African American, and the other 5.4% of the population is split between among other races (U.S. Census Bureau, 2008b).

Institution Selection For the purpose of this study, five institutions were originally selected from two of the six Carnegie Classification 2005 Basic Categories, including three institutions from the Master’s Colleges and Universities level and two institutions from the Research Universities High (RU/H) level. These five institutions were selected based upon their proximity to a singular metropolitan area in order to negate any potential differences in responses due to the geographical differences of the institutions. Furthermore, these five institution types were selected because they shared two Carnegie Classification categories and because they all had a substantial number of international students. Of the five institutions chosen, four institutions,

three of which fell into the same Carnegie Classification, agreed to work with the researcher. As such, a total of four schools were used in this study in order to increase the generalizability of student responses.

University A University A was founded in 1957, and its mission is to ensure the “offering of programs of study leading to professional certificates, undergraduate degrees, and graduate degrees in an environment where academic excellence is emphasized and a Biblically based Christian perspective is maintained” (Missouri Baptist University, 2009a). The institution offers 40 undergraduate majors (Missouri Baptist University, 2009b). It has approximately 948 students enrolled on the main campus, with a total undergraduate enrollment of 3,496 and graduate enrollment of 1,192 (Missouri Baptist University, 2009a). The average ACT score at University A could not be found, nor could average grade point. The average freshman class size is 30, and the average upper division class size is 20. The faculty to student ratio is 1:20 (Missouri Baptist University, 2009a). For a full-time undergraduate student, tuition is $15,120.

University B University B is the oldest university west of the Missouri River (Lindenwood University, 2005). The mission of this institution is to offer “valuescentered programs leading to the development of the whole person–an educated, responsible citizen of a global community” (Lindenwood University, 2005). The institution offers 75 undergraduate programs and 36 graduate programs. It has approximately 6,000 students enrolled on the main campus. The 2008 average ACT Composite for first time freshman is 22, and the average grade point is 3.12. The first-time freshman class was 1,106. The institution has a faculty to a student ratio of 1:13. The percent of undergraduate main campus

411

 Globalization, Cross Border Education, and Student Migration

students who live on-campus is 79%, and the cost of tuition for one year is $12,400 for undergraduate students (Lindenwood University, 2005).

University C University C was founded in 1923, and its mission states that “The university is dedicated to the discovery, understanding, preservation and dissemination of truth. Undergraduate and graduate programs are offered in an atmosphere characterized by a commitment to open communication, personal concern, and diversity. Fontbonne University seeks to educate students to think critically, to act ethically and to assume responsibility as citizens and leaders” (Fontbonne University, 2008). The institution offers over 34 undergraduate majors and 17 master’s degree programs. It has approximately 3,000 students, divided between undergraduate and graduate students. Approximately 10% of the student body lives on campus. The middle 50% of admitted incoming freshmen had a composite ACT range between 18 and 24. No information could be found regarding the incoming freshmen’s average grade point or the average class size at the institution. The faculty to student ratio is 1:13 (Fontebonne University, 2008). The cost of tuition for one year is $19,320 (Fontbonne University, 2008).

University D University D is the oldest university west of the Mississippi River (Saint Louis University, 2009). The mission statement of this institution is “the pursuit of truth for the greater glory of God and for the service of humanity” (Saint Louis University, 2009a). The institution offers 85 undergraduate programs, 29 masters and 33 Ph.D.s (all Ph.D. programs also have a master’s component). It has approximately 12,100 students (7,800 undergraduates and 4,900 graduate students from nearly all 50 states and 90 foreign countries) enrolled on the main campus and 600 enrolled at the Madrid

412

campus (Saint Louis University, 2009a, Saint Louis University, 2009b, Saint Louis University, 2009c). The 2009 average ACT Composite for first time freshman is 27, with a 3.70 grade point average (Saint Louis University, 2009b).The first time freshman class size was 1528 (Saint Louis University, 2009d). The institution has a faculty to student ratio of 1:13. The percent of undergraduate main campus students who live on-campus is 89%. The cost of tuition for one year is $30,330 for undergraduate students (Saint Louis University, 2009b).

Population The population for this study is cross border students who attend any of the four participating sites. The study focuses on cross-border undergraduate students from developed and developing nations. For the purpose of this study, an undergraduate cross border student is defined as being at least 18 years of age with no age limit. Within higher education, age has been a defining characteristic as it can effect a student’s perception of a particular instance or thing (Pascarella & Terenzini, 1991). Based on the fact that cross border students, like naturalized citizens, attend college at all ages (Altbach, 1991), the determination was made not to impose an age limit on participation in this study. Instead, students are evaluated in two age-based categories; students between the ages 18 and 24 are referred to as traditional students, and students 25 years or older are referred to as non-traditional students.

Demographic Data The demographic data were collected in Part A of the questionnaire that was given to the subjects. Questions in the demographic section asked the subject to indicate which institution he or she was currently attending, his or her age, gender, and home country. Once the surveys were collected, the country’s Human Development Index was

 Globalization, Cross Border Education, and Student Migration

determined. The subjects were grouped according to their home country’s Human Development Index rating of High, Medium, or Low.

Admitted Student Questionnaire Plus Part B of the questionnaire, the Admitted Student Questionnaire Plus, was designed to ask admitted students what characteristics, such as majors, cost, reputation, aesthetics, etc. affected their choice to attend their current university. This survey was created by College Board to assist schools with recruitment. The survey assists in determining practices and policies institutions utilize and whether or those practices and policies are perceived as positive or negative by students (College Board, 2008). Permission was given to the researcher by College Board to use the Admitted Student Questionnaire and to modify it for the purposes of this study. As part of their paid services, College Board runs the statistics for the schools that decide to use the instrument, but, in this case, the researcher compiled the statistics independently. The questionnaire has twenty questions and uses a Likert scale. Each question has a scale of 1 to 3 (1 being not important to you, 2 being somewhat important to you, and 3 being very important to you).

Data Collection Data collection occurred in several planned stages. First, contact was made with the International Student Office and the Office of Institutional Research at each site. Collection procedures were designed in accord with each institution’s preferences, as each site had moderately different requirements. At universities A, B and C, initial contact was made with the international student office, while at university D, initial contact was made with the office of the Academic Registrar. The researcher consulted with each site’s initial point of contact to determine the most appropriate way to solicit University A, B, and C, the Directors

of the International Offices sent the email to the students on the researcher’s behalf. At University D, the Director of the Registrar’s Office created a listserv for the researcher and permitted him to send the survey to the students directly. Students then completed the web-based survey, which took approximately five minutes. The survey was completed using Survey Monkey, a secure website. The researcher had no contact with the subjects because no on-site interaction between the researcher and the subject was required. All communication was conducted over the internet and participation in the study was anonymous. Results were presented to the institutions upon request.

Data Analysis Once the subjects completed the questionnaire, the data were analyzed. Factor analysis was first conducted to separate the twenty questions into six constructs. The composite score for each construct was derived by adding up responses to the questions in the component and then dividing by the number of questions that make up the construct. Each question was measured using a 3-point Likert type scale. Thus, the minimum composite score was 1.0 and the maximum composite score was 3.0. The first section of the questionnaire, demographics, was analyzed using descriptive statistics, while the second section, prediction of student choice, used inferential statistics. An analysis of variance (ANOVA) was the main type of statistical analysis used. The reason for this is that the independent variables were measured nominally and the dependent variable was measured on an interval scale. For this reason, an analysis of variance was conducted because it tested for differences among the independent variables. “An analysis of variance looks for differences among three or more means by comparing the variances both within and across groups” (Leedy & Ormrod, 2005, p. 274). If a significant result was found, then Tukey’s post hoc analysis was conducted. An

413

 Globalization, Cross Border Education, and Student Migration

independent samples t-test was also used because it compared the mean scores of two different groups of subjects on an interval variable (Pallant, 2005). There were six constructs and four hypotheses; therefore, twenty-four ANOVAs were conducted.

Research Design and Procedure This study employed survey research methodology, which “involves acquiring information about one or more groups of people-perhaps, about their characteristics, opinions, attitudes, or previous experiences-by asking them questions and tabulating their answers” (Leedy & Ormrod, 2005, p. 183). This research method was used to capture the opinions of a particular population at a particular moment in time. This study considers all self-reported data collected from the research survey to accurately reflect the subject population’s opinions and feelings. This study utilized an analysis of variance and t-test to analyze the hypotheses. Four sites were utilized in this study and are found within two of the classifications found within the Carnegie Classification established by the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching. Three of the four institutions grant comparable types and numbers of degrees, while the fourth institution offers a greater number of doctoral degrees than the other three. All institutional sites selected for the study are all located within one Midwestern state and city region. Each school has a significant number of cross border students. The subjects selected to respond to the institutional survey completed the instrument online. The first section of the instrument consisted of demographic questions, and the second section measured student choice. Fill-in-the-blank and multiple choice questions were presented for the demographic section, and a Likert scale was used for the 20 student choice questions. A three-point

414

Likert scale ranging from 1 (not important) to 3 (very important) was used.

Participants Participants in this study included undergraduate students from four private schools in one metropolitan area in one Midwestern state in the United States of America. Participants were recruited via the International Office at three of the institutions or by an email address on a listserv provided by the Registrar at the fourth institution. No incentives were given to the subjects for their involvement. Participation in this study was voluntary.

Descriptive Statistics for Part A of the Survey: Demographics Section The demographic data was collected in Part A of the questionnaire given to the subjects. Part A consisted of questions regarding the students’ age when admitted, gender, institution attended, and country of origin. Prior to examining the hypotheses, descriptive statistics were analyzed. In May of 2009, 256 surveys were collected. Twenty eight subjects were omitted from the study because they did not fully complete the survey. A total of 228 subjects’ responses were analyzed in this study.

Age Admitted Age admitted was categorized into two categories: 18-24 and 25 and older. One hundred seventy five participants (or 76.8%) were between the ages of 18 and 24. Fifty two participants (or 22.8%) were over the age of 24. One student did not answer this question.

Gender Of the 228 subjects, 130 (57%) were male and 98 (43%) were female.

 Globalization, Cross Border Education, and Student Migration

Human Development Index for Country of Origin Participants in the survey provided their country of origin. The researcher then used the Human Development Index as described by the United Nations to determine the country’s level. Of the 228 subjects no participants came from countries with a low level on the Human Development Index. One hundred and five participants, or 46.1%, were from a country that had a high Human Development Index, and 122 participants, or 53.5%, were from a country with a medium Human Development Index. One student did not answer the question.

University Attended University B had the largest number of participants, with a total of 138 attending University B. University A and C had the smallest number of participants, 9 and 5 respectively. Last, University D had 69 participants. University B and University D also have the largest international populations out of the four institutions.

Descriptive Statistics for Part B of the Survey: The Admitted Student Questionnaire Plus The measurement of student choice was collected in Part B of the survey by the Admitted Student Questionnaire Plus. The instrument is an autho-

rized variation of the Admitted Student Questionnaire Plus (ASQ Plus) survey offered by College Board (Appendix D.). The ASQ Plus survey measures the student’s choice of an institution by analyzing what university characteristics are most important to the student. Specifically, the ASQ Plus is a customizable survey used to determine what students think about an institution’s academic programs, recruitment literature, financial aid packages, facilities, cost of attendance, image, reputation, and many other characteristics. For this study, the survey was modified to account only for characteristics that are specific to the institution and not those that are related recruitment practices (College Board, 2008).

Factor Analysis The twenty items of the ASQ Plus were subjected to principal components analysis using SPSS version 16.0. Prior to performing principal components analysis, the suitability of the data for factor analysis was assessed. Inspection of the correlation matrix revealed the presence of many coefficients of .3 and above. The Kaiser-Meyer-Oklin value was .75, exceeding the recommended value of .6 and the Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity reached statistical significance, supporting the factorability of the correlation matrix. Factor analysis revealed six constructs; means and standard deviations were calculated in Table 1. Factor analysis does not test a hypothesis; rather it reduces the data or groups

Table 1. Means and standard deviations for the six constructs μ

SD

Construct 1 – Extra-curricular Activities

Construct

1.87

.43

Construct 2 – Campus Attractiveness

1.53

.46

Construct 3 – Athletics & Programming

1.87

.60

Construct 4 – Accessibility

1.69

.51

Construct 5 – Scholastic Quality

1.30

.35

Construct 6 – Cost Benefit

2.03

.35

415

 Globalization, Cross Border Education, and Student Migration

the variables (Pallant, 2005). This means that the twenty questions were put into categories based on their similarities. The first construct, extra-curricular activities, grouped questions 3, 11, 12, 13, and 20 together. These questions looked at academic reputation, extra-curricular activities, access to off campus cultural and extra-curricular activities, available religious activities, and a chance to be with other students from different backgrounds. The second construct looked at campus attractiveness and surroundings and grouped questions 14, 15, 16 and 18 together. These questions asked about: social life quality, attractiveness of campus, surroundings and quality of on campus housing. Construct three, athletics and programming, grouped questions 7, 8 and 10 together. These questions asked about the concentration on undergraduate education, prominent collegiate athletics and athletic programs to participate in at school. Construct four, accessibility, grouped questions 6, 17 and 19 together. These questions asked about access to faculty, part of country where located and the ease of getting home. Construct five, scholastic quality, grouped questions 2, 4 and 5 together. These questions asked about quality of majors of interest to you, quality of academic faculty and variety of courses. Lastly, construct six, cost benefit, grouped together questions 1 and 9 together. The questions asked about quality of faculty and the cost to the student’s family of sending the student to the U.S. for university studies.

categorical and the dependent variable is continuous. Because there are six constructs within the ASQ Plus survey, the researcher measured each construct using an independent samples t-test. There are six results for the overall hypothesis.

Hypotheses Results

Construct Three

Overall Hypothesis The overall hypothesis states there is no relationship between a student’s choice of university, specifically related to institutional factors, and his or her country’s Human Development Index. This hypothesis was measured using an independent samples t-test because the independent variable is

416

Construct One For this hypothesis, an independent samples t-test was conducted to evaluate the student choice scores for institutional factors, specifically relating to extracurricular activities, for students from countries with high and Medium HDI ratings. There was a significant difference in scores between students from countries with a high HDI (M = 1.99, SD = .43) and a Medium HDI (M = 1.76, SD = .4; t(225)= 4.05, p= .00). The magnitude of the differences in the means was moderate (eta squared = .07). The hypothesis can be rejected. Construct Two For this hypothesis, an independent samples t-test was conducted to evaluate the student choice scores for institutional factors, specifically relating to the campus surroundings, for students from countries with high and Medium HDI ratings. There was no significant difference in scores for students from countries with high HDI (M= 1.5, SD = .46) or Medium HDI [M= 1.55, SD= .45; t(225) = -.58, p = .566] ratings. The magnitude of the differences in the means was very small (eta squared = .002). The hypothesis cannot be rejected.

For this hypothesis, an independent samples ttest was conducted to evaluate the student choice scores for institutional factors, specifically relating to athletics and programming, for students from countries with High and Medium Human Development Indexes. There was no significant difference in scores for students from countries with a high HDI (M= 1.85, SD= .64) and Medium HDI [M= 1.9, SD = .56; t(225) = -.333, p= .74] ratings.

 Globalization, Cross Border Education, and Student Migration

Results were presented based on equal variances not assumed by Levene’s Test for equality of variances. The magnitude of the differences in the means was very small (eta squared = .0005). The hypothesis cannot be rejected. Construct Four For this hypothesis, an independent samples t-test was conducted to evaluate the student choice scores for institutional factors, specifically relating to access at the university, for students from countries with High and Medium Human Development Indexes. There was no significant difference in scores for students from countries with a high HDI (M= 1.74, SD = .51) and Medium HDI [M= 1.65, SD = .5; t(225) = 1.37, p= .173] ratings. The magnitude of the differences in the means was very small (eta squared = .008). The hypothesis cannot be rejected. Construct Five For this hypothesis, an independent samples t-test was conducted to evaluate the student choice scores for institutional factors, specifically relating to quality of academics, for students from countries with High and Medium Human Development Indexes. There was no significant difference in scores for students from countries with a high HDI (M= 1.34, SD = .38) and Medium HDI [M= 1.28, SD =. 31; t(225)= 1.39, p= .17] ratings. The magnitude of the differences in the means was very small (eta squared = .009). The hypothesis cannot be rejected. Construct Six For this hypothesis, an independent samples t-test was conducted to evaluate the student choice scores for institutional factors, specifically relating to cost and faculty, for students from countries with High and Medium Human Development Indexes. There was no significant difference in scores for students from countries with a high HDI (M=

2.07, SD = .39) and Medium HDI [M= 2.0. SD = .3; t(225)= 1.35, p= .18] ratings. Results were presented based on equal variances not assumed by Levene’s Test for equality of variances. The magnitude of the differences in the means was very small (eta squared = .008). The hypothesis cannot be rejected.

Sub-Hypothesis Number One The first sub hypothesis states that there is no relationship between a cross-border student’s choice of university, specifically related to institutional factors and his or her country’s HDI based on gender. This hypothesis was measured using a two-way between groups analysis of variance because the independent variables were categorical and the dependent variable was continuous. Again, because there are six constructs within the ASQ Plus survey, the researcher measured each construct using a two-way between groups analysis of variance. There are six results for the sub-hypothesis. Construct One A two-way between groups analysis of variance was conducted to explore the impact of gender and Human Development Index on student choice for institutional factors, specifically related to extracurricular activities, as measured by the ASQ Plus (see Table 2). Subjects were divided into two groups according to their genders (male or female) and Human Development Index (High or Medium). There was a statistically significant main effect for Human Development Index [F(1,223) = 15.40, p = .00]; however, the effect size was moderate (partial eta squared = .07). Comparisons indicated that the mean score for students from countries with a high HDI (M=1.99, SD = .43) was significantly different than the mean score for students from countries with a Medium HDI (M = 1.77, SD = .40). The main effect for gender [F(1,223) = 1.1, p = .30] and the interaction effect

417

 Globalization, Cross Border Education, and Student Migration

[F(1, 223) = .002, p = .96] did not reach statistical significance. The hypothesis cannot be rejected.

Construct Three A two-way between groups analysis of variance was conducted to explore the impact of gender and Human Development Index on student choice for institutional factors, specifically related to athletics and programming, as measured by the ASQ Plus (see Table 3). Subjects were divided into two groups according to their gender (male or female) and Human Development Index (High or Medium). There was a statistically significant main effect for gender [F(1,223) = 10.14, p = .002]; however the effect size was small (partial eta squared = .04). Results suggested that males (M = 1.76, SD = .6) are significantly different than females (M = 2.0, SD = .56). The main effect for human development index [F(1,223) = .01, p = .91] and the interaction effect [F(1,223) = 3.64, p = .06] did not reach statistical significance. The hypothesis cannot be rejected.

Construct Two A two-way between groups analysis of variance was conducted to explore the impact of gender and Human Development Index on student choice for institutional factors, specifically related to campus surroundings and attractiveness, as measured by the ASQ Plus. Subjects were divided into two groups according to their gender (male or female) and Human Development Index (High or Medium). The main effect for gender [F(1, 223) = .39, p = .53] and Human Development Index [F(1,223) = .18, p = .67] did not reach statistical significance. The interaction effect between the two also did not reach statistical significance [F(1,223) = .58, p = .45]. The hypothesis cannot be rejected.

Table 2. Analysis of variance for sub-hypothesis number one using construct 1 Source

Df

F

μ

p

Between Subjects Gender (G)

1

1.07

.005

HDI (H)

1

15.4

.07

GxH

1

.002

.000

Error

223

.30 .000** .96

(.17)

Note. Values enclosed in parentheses represent mean square errors. *p < .05; **p < .01

Table 3. Analysis of variance for sub-hypothesis number one using construct 3 Source

Df

F

μ

p

Between Subjects Gender (G)

1

10.14

.04

HDI (H)

1

.014

.000

GxH

1

3.64

.02

Error

223

(.34)

Note. Values enclosed in parentheses represent mean square errors. *p < .05; **p < .01

418

.002* .91 .06

 Globalization, Cross Border Education, and Student Migration

Index [F(1,223) = 1.7, p = .2]. There is also no statistically significant interaction effect [F(1,223)= .13, p = .72]. The hypothesis cannot be rejected.

Construct Four A two-way between groups analysis of variance was conducted to explore the impact of gender and Human Development Index on student choice for institutional factors, specifically related to accessibility, as measured by the ASQ Plus (see Table 4). Subjects were divided into two groups according to their gender (male or female) and Human Development Index (High or Medium). There was a statistically significant main effect for gender [F(1,223) = 8.22, p = .005]; however the effect size was small (partial eta squared .4). Results suggested that males (M = 1.76, SD = .53) differed significantly from females (M = 1.58, SD = .45). The main effect for the country’s Human Development Index [F(1,223) = 1.4, p= .24] and the interaction effect [F(1,223) = .02, p = .90] did not reach statistical significance. The hypothesis cannot be rejected.

Construct Six A two-way between groups analysis of variance was conducted to explore the impact of gender and Human Development Index on student choice for institutional factors, specifically related to cost benefit, as measured by the ASQ Plus. Subjects were divided into two groups according to their gender (male or female) and Human Development Index (High or Medium). There was no statistically significant main effect for gender [F(1,223) = .01, p = .91] or human development index [F(1,223) = 1.56, p = .21]. There was also no statistically significant interaction effect between the two variables (F(1,223) = .64, p = .43]. The hypothesis cannot be rejected.

Construct Five

Sub-Hypothesis Number Two

A two-way between groups analysis of variance was conducted to explore the impact of gender and Human Development Index on student choice for institutional factors, specifically related to scholastic quality, as measured by the ASQ Plus. Subjects were divided into two groups according to their gender (male or female) and Human Development Index (High or Medium). There was no statistically significant main effect for gender [F(1, 223) = .2, p = .7] or Human Development

The second sub-hypothesis states that there is no relationship between a student’s choice, specifically related to institutional factors and his or her country’s HDI based on age admitted to the university. This hypothesis was measured using a two-way between groups analysis of variance because the independent variables were categorical and the dependent variable was continuous. Again, because there are six constructs within

Table 4. Analysis of variance for sub-hypothesis number one using construct 4 Source

Df

F

μ

p

Between Subjects Gender (G)

1

8.22

.04

HDI (H)

1

1.4

.006

GxH

1

.02

Error

223

.000

.005** .24 .90

(.25)

Note. Values enclosed in parentheses represent mean square errors. *p < .05; **p < .01

419

 Globalization, Cross Border Education, and Student Migration

the ASQ Plus survey the researcher measured each construct using a two-way between groups analysis of variance. There are six results for the sub-hypothesis.

choice for institutional factors, specifically related to campus attractiveness and surroundings, as measured by the ASQ Plus. Subjects were divided into two groups according to their age admitted (18 -24 years old and 25 years or older) and their Human Development Index (High or Medium). The main effect for age admitted [F(1,222) = 1.93, p = .17] and human development index [F(1,222) = 1.97, p = .16] did not reach statistical significance, nor did the interaction effect between the two reach statistical significance [F(1,222)= 1.82, p= .18]. The hypothesis cannot be rejected.

Construct One A two-way between groups analysis of variance was conducted to explore the impact of age admitted and Human Development Index on student choice for institutional factors, specifically related to extracurricular activities, as measured by the ASQ Plus (see Table 5). Subjects were divided into two groups according to their age admitted (18 -24 years old and 25 years or older) and their Human Development Index (High or Medium). There was a statistically significant main effect for Human Development Index [F(1,222) = 13.88, p = .00]; the effect size was moderate (partial eta squared .06). Results suggested that students from countries with high human development indexes (M = 1.99, SD = .43) are significantly different from those from a Medium human development index (M = 1.77, SD = .4). The main effect for age admitted [F(1,222) = .000, p = .98] and the interaction effect [F(1,222) = .39, p = .53] did not reach statistical significance. The hypothesis cannot be rejected.

Construct Three A two-way between groups analysis of variance was conducted to explore the impact of age admitted and Human Development Index on student choice for institutional factors, specifically related to athletics and programming, as measured by the ASQ Plus (see Table 6). Subjects were divided into two groups according to their age admitted (18 -24 years old and 25 years or older) and their Human Development Index (High or Medium). Since Levene’s Test of Equality of Error Variances was .03, a significance level of .01 was used in order to find significance. This was changed to .01 rather than .05 because the variance of the dependent variable, student choice, was not equal across groups. In such cases, it is recommended to have a more stringent significance level. There was a statistically significant main effect for age admitted [F(1,222)= 9.94, p= .002]; the effect size was small (partial eta squared = .4).

Construct Two A two-way between groups analysis of variance was conducted to explore the impact of age admitted and Human Development Index on student

Table 5. Analysis of variance for sub-hypothesis number two using construct 1 Source

Df

F

μ

p

Between Subjects Age (A)

1

.000

HDI (H)

1

13.9

AxH

1

.4

Error

222

.00 .06 .002

(.17)

Note. Values enclosed in parentheses represent mean square errors. *p < .05; **p < .01

420

.98 .000** .53

 Globalization, Cross Border Education, and Student Migration

Table 6. Analysis of variance for sub-hypothesis number two using construct 3 Source

Df

F

μ

p

Between Subjects Age (A)

1

9.94

.04

HDI (H)

1

1.91

.009

AxH

1

2.84

Error

222

.01

.002** .17 .1

(.34)

Note. Values enclosed in parentheses represent mean square errors. *p < .05; **p < .01

Results suggested that age admitted, 18-24 years old (M= 1.8, SD= .56) was significantly different than age admitted, 25 years or older (M= 2.1, SD= .6). The main effect for human development index [F(1,222)= 1.9, p= .17] and the interaction effect [F(1,222)= 2.83, p= .09] did not reach statistical significance. The hypothesis cannot be rejected. Construct Four A two-way between groups analysis of variance was conducted to explore the impact of age admitted and Human Development Index on student choice for institutional factors, specifically related to accessibility, as measured by the ASQ Plus. Subjects were divided into two groups according to their age admitted (18 -24 years old and 25 years or older) and their Human Development Index (High or Medium). The main effect for age admitted [F(1,222) = 1.00, p = .32] and human development index [F(1,222) = 3.47, p = .06] did not reach statistical significance, nor did the interaction effect reach statistical significance [F(1,222)= 1.61, p= .21]. The hypothesis cannot be rejected. Construct Five A two-way between groups analysis of variance was conducted to explore the impact of age admitted and Human Development Index on student choice for institutional factors, specifically related to scholastic quality, as measured by the ASQ Plus. Subjects were divided into two groups according

to their age admitted (18 -24 years old and 25 years or older) and their Human Development Index (High or Medium). The main effect for age admitted [F(1,222) = .39, p = .53] and human development index [F(1,222) = .89, p = .35] did not reach statistical significance, nor did the the interaction effect reach statistical significance [F(1,222) = .13, p = .72]. The hypothesis cannot be rejected. Construct Six A two-way between groups analysis of variance was conducted to explore the impact of age admitted and Human Development Index on student choice for institutional factors, specifically related to cost benefit, as measured by the ASQ Plus. Subjects were divided into two groups according to their age admitted (18 -24 years old and 25 years or older) and their Human Development Index (High or Medium). The main effect for age admitted [F(1,222) = 1.7, p = .2] and human development index [F(1,222) = .04, p = .85] did not reach statistical significance, nor did the interaction effect reach statistical significance [F(1,222)= 2.2, p= .14]. The hypothesis cannot be rejected.

Sub-Hypothesis Number Three The third sub-hypothesis states that there is no relationship between a student’s choice, specifically related to institutional factors and his or her

421

 Globalization, Cross Border Education, and Student Migration

country’s HDI based on institution attended. This hypothesis was measured using a two-way between groups analysis of variance because the independent variables were categorical and the dependent variable was continuous. Again, because there are six constructs within the ASQ Plus survey the researcher measured each construct using a twoway between groups analysis of variance. There are six results for this sub-hypothesis.

attended did not reach statistical significance [F(1,212) = 1.4, p = .26]. The hypothesis can be rejected. Construct Two A two-way between groups analysis of variance was conducted to explore the impact of university attended and Human Development Index on student choice for institutional factors, specifically related to campus attractiveness and surroundings, as measured by the ASQ Plus (see Table 8). Subjects were divided into two groups according to their university attended (A, B, C, or D) and their Human Development Index (High or Medium). There was a statistically significant main effect for institution attended [1,212) = 3.5, p = .02]; the effect size was moderate (partial eta squared = .05). Post-hoc comparisons using the Tukey HSD test indicated that the mean score for University B (M = 1.44, SD = .4) was significantly different than University D (M = 1.67, SD = .04). University A and University C did not differ significantly from either of the other groups. The main effect for human development index [F(1,212) = 2.42, p =.12] and the interaction effect [F(1,212) = .96, p = .41]. The hypothesis cannot be rejected.

Construct One A two-way between groups analysis of variance was conducted to explore the impact of university attended and Human Development Index on student choice for institutional factors, specifically related to extracurricular activities, as measured by the ASQ Plus (see Table 7). Subjects were divided into two groups according to their university attended (A, B, C, or D) and their Human Development Index (High or Medium). There was a statistically significant interaction effect for university attended and human development index [F(1,212) = 3.7, p = .01]; the effect size was moderate (partial eta squared = .05). There was a statistically significant main effect for human development index [F(1,212) = 18.6, p = .00]; the effect size was high (partial eta squared = .08). Students from countries with High Human Development Indexes (M = 1.98, SD = .43) scored significantly differently than those from countries with a Medium human development index (M = 1.77, SD = .4). The main effect for institution

Construct Three A two-way between groups analysis of variance was conducted to explore the impact of university attended and Human Development Index on stu-

Table 7. Analysis of variance for sub-hypothesis number three using construct 1 Source

Df

F

μ

p

Between Subjects Institution (I)

3

1.35

HDI (H)

1

18.6

IxH

3

3.7

Error

212

.02 .08 .05

(.16)

Note. Values enclosed in parentheses represent mean square errors. *p < .05; **p < .01

422

.26 .000** .01**

 Globalization, Cross Border Education, and Student Migration

Table 8. Analysis of variance for sub-hypothesis number three using construct 2 Source

Df

F

μ

p

Between Subjects Institution (I)

3

3.50

.05

HDI (H)

1

2.42

.01

IxH

3

.96

Error

212

.01

.02* .12 .41

(.2)

Note. Values enclosed in parentheses represent mean square errors. *p < .05; **p < .01

dent choice for institutional factors, specifically related to athletics and programming, as measured by the ASQ Plus (see Table 9). Subjects were divided into two groups according to their university attended (A, B, C, or D) and their Human Development Index (High or Medium). There was a statistically significant main effect for institution attended [F(1,212) = 4.73, p = .003]; the effect size was moderate (partial eta squared = .06). Post-hoc comparisons using the Tukey HSD test indicated that the mean score for University B (M = 1.79, SD = .11) was significantly different than the mean score for University D (M = 2.1, SD = .08). The main effect for human development index [F(1,212) = 2.54, p = .11] and the interaction effect [F(1,212)= 1.98, p= .12] did not reach statistical significance. The hypothesis cannot be rejected.

attended and Human Development Index on student choice for institutional factors, specifically related to accessibility, as measured by the ASQ Plus (see Table 10). Subjects were divided into two groups according to their university attended (A, B, C, or D) and their Human Development Index (High or Medium). Since Levene’s Test of Equality of Error Variances was .04, a significance level of .01 was used in order to find significance. A significance level of 01 rather than .05 was used because the variance of the dependent variable, student choice, was not equal across groups. In such instances, it is recommended to have a more stringent significance level. There was a statistically significant main effect for institution attended [F(1,212)= 5.27, p= .002]; the effect size was high (partial eta squared = .07). Post-hot comparisons using the Tukey HSD test indicated that the mean score for University B (M= 1.78, SD= .04) was significantly different from University D (M= 1.59, SD= .06). The mean score for University C (M= 1.25, SD= .17) was

Construct Four A two-way between groups analysis of variance was conducted to explore the impact of university

Table 9. Analysis of variance for sub-hypothesis number three using construct 3 Source

Df

F

μ

p

Between Subjects Institution (I)

3

4.73

.06

HDI (H)

1

2.54

.01

IxH Error

3 212

1.98

.03

.003** .11 .12

(.34)

Note. Values enclosed in parentheses represent mean square errors. *p < .05; **p < .01

423

 Globalization, Cross Border Education, and Student Migration

Table 10. Analysis of variance for sub-hypothesis number three using construct 4 Source

Df

F

μ

p

Between Subjects Institution (I)

3

5.30

.07

HDI (H)

1

3.94

.02

IxH

3

1.32

Error

212

.02

.002** .15 .27

(.24)

Note. Values enclosed in parentheses represent mean square errors. *p < .05; **p < .01

significantly different than University B (M= 1.78, SD= .04). University A did not differ significantly from the other universities. The main effect for human development index [F(1,212)= 3.94, p= .05] and the interaction effect [F(1,212)= 1.32, p= .27] did not reach statistical significance. The hypothesis cannot be rejected.

significantly different than Medium Human Development Index (M= 1.28, SD= .32). The main effect for institution attended [F(1,212) = 1.77, p = .15] and the interaction effect [F(1,212) = 1.36, p = .26] did not reach statistical significance. The hypothesis cannot be rejected.

Construct Five

A two-way between groups analysis of variance was conducted to explore the impact of university attended and Human Development Index on student choice for institutional factors, specifically related to cost benefit, as measured by the ASQ Plus (see Table 12). Subjects were divided into two groups according to their university attended (A, B, C, or D) and their Human Development Index (High or Medium). There was a statistically significant main effect for institution attended [F(1,212) = 5.64, p = .001]; the effect size was large (partial eta squared = .07). Post-hoc comparisons using the Tukey HSD test indicated that the mean score for University B (M = 2.1, SD = .33) was significantly different from University

Construct Six

A two-way between groups analysis of variance was conducted to explore the impact of university attended and Human Development Index on student choice for institutional factors, specifically related to scholastic quality, as measured by the ASQ Plus, (see Table 11). Subjects were divided into two groups according to their university attended (A, B, C, or D) and their Human Development Index (High or Medium). There was a statistically significant main effect for human development index [F(1,212)= 4.03, p = .04]; however, the effect size was small (partial eta squared = .02). The mean score for High Human Development Index (M= 1.34, SD= .38) was

Table 11. Analysis of variance for sub-hypothesis number three using construct 5 Source

Df

F

μ

p

Between Subjects Institution (I)

3

1.77

.02

HDI (H)

1

4.02

.02

IxH

3

1.4

Error

212

.02

(.12)

Note. Values enclosed in parentheses represent mean square errors. *p < .05; **p < .01

424

.15 .04* .26

 Globalization, Cross Border Education, and Student Migration

Table 12. Analysis of variance for sub-hypothesis number three using construct 6 Source

Df

F

μ

p

Between Subjects Institution (I)

3

5.64

HDI (H)

1

.31

.001

IxH

3

.75

.01

Error

212

.07

.001** .58 .52

(.11)

Note. Values enclosed in parentheses represent mean square errors. *p < .05; **p < .01

D (M = 1.9, SD = .34). University A and University C did not differ significantly from either of the other groups. The main effect for human development index [F(1,212) = .31, p = .58] and the interaction effect [F(1,212) = .75, p = .53] did not reach statistical significance. The hypothesis cannot be rejected.

DISCUSSION

can be described as the impression the institution conveys to the public (Barich & Kotler, 1991). Further, image is primarily based on the physical attributes, behavioral attributes, tradition, mission, ideology, and services of that organization. An institution’s image or reputation plays a role in a student’s choice of university. As such, the concept of image and reputation bear directly on results of this stud and play a pivotal role in each of the four emergent themes.

Themes

Human Development Index

Once the data were collected and a statistical analysis was performed, four themes emerged. These themes reflected the themes and concepts found in the literature review from chapter two. The resulting themes are discussed in detail below. However, before the themes can be discussed, the notion of institutional image must be addressed. The relationship between student choice and the institutional factors that affect student choice seem to be directly tied to institutional image and reputation. While considered separate entities in research and conceptualization, image and reputation share a certain synergy with student choice. Research conducted by Paramewaran and Glowacka (1995) found that institutions have to foster and maintain an institutional image and reputation in order to actively compete in the recruitment market. The image is what originally attracts a student to a university and what eventually will encourage that student to enroll. Image

The overall hypothesis of this study sought to determine whether or not there exists a relationship between a student’s choice of university, specifically related to institutional factors unique to that university, and the student’s home country’s Human Development Index rating. The results of the study showed that students from countries with a High HDI care more about scholastic quality and extracurricular activities than students from a country with a Medium HDI. While the t-tests that tested this overall hypothesis did not reach statistical significance, computing the ANOVAs for the sub-hypotheses did find main significant effects for HDI. Scholastic quality in this study refers to the quality of majors, quality of academic facilities, and variety of courses. Most academic knowledge communities are found in the developed nations (Altbach, 2004a). Given the prevalence of top tier institutions in countries with High HDIs, it is

425

 Globalization, Cross Border Education, and Student Migration

not surprising to discover that academic related expectations are high among the population of students from High HDI countries. Regarding students from Medium HDI countries, Luu, Bain, and Green (2007) believe immigration policies play a significant role in the flow of students from developing to developed countries. Building on what Altbach (1991) argued, students from developing nations are more concerned with finding permanent employment in a foreign country than students from developed countries, as students from developed nations typically return to a nation that has ample employment opportunities and available career tracks, whereas students from developing nations often do not. As such, students from Medium HDI countries often seek to gain entry to the U.S. for purposes of future employment and are often willing to attend any university—including those with lower scholastic quality—in order to do so. This could be one reason why there is a difference in the perceived value of scholastic quality between students from High and Medium HDI countries. Further, results of this study consistently showed that students from High HDI countries find extra-curricular activities to be more important than those from Medium HDIs. Extracurricular activities include access to off campus cultural events, the availability of religious activities, and a chance to be with others from different backgrounds. Previous research by Soutar and Turner (2002) has shown that students consider the campus atmosphere to be an important factor in student choice. The results of this study support the notion that atmosphere is important to students and also supports the claim made by Kuh (1998) that what happens outside the classroom is just as important as what happens inside the classroom. To illustrate this, Ying’s (2002) research demonstrated that Taiwanese (no HDI ranking) students’ attitudes toward intercultural relationships and participation in on-campus activities played a positive role in developing the students’

426

interaction with other students. Further, research conducted by Toyokawa and Toyokawa (2002) similarly showed that extracurricular activities positively impact Japanese (High HDI) students’ transition to university life. Bourke (2000) argues that beyond simple factors of cost, cross-border students seek opportunities to live in a different culture, meet new people, create international contacts, and improve their language skills. Bourdieu (1996) furthers this notion by arguing that among elite organizations, social capital is just as important as knowledge acquisition. It is possible that students who seek to enter their countries’ “elite class” may wish to attend a cross border or U.S. university in order to develop their own perceived social value (by studying abroad or mastering English fluency, for example, which among the elite is often just as significant as economic value). Given that enhancing one’s social capital is typically more actively pursued among individuals from developed nations, it can be suggested that students from developed nations would place a higher importance on this value-added component of their educational experience. In short, this research suggests that cross border students from developed and developing nations face different pressures in terms of academic and personal expectations. As such, it is reasonable to assume that in addition to the variables assessed in this study, these academic and personal influences may also affect a student’s choice of university. For this reason, students’ culturally based academic and personal expectations can be evaluated to determine whether or not future students from various nations are likely to seek particular components to their higher education experience. This information could be useful for admission and retention administrators who are searching for a ways to retain cross border students from particular countries within the Human Development Index.

 Globalization, Cross Border Education, and Student Migration

Gender One of the sub-hypotheses for this study asked the question of whether or not a relationship exists between a student’s choice of university, specifically related to institutional factors and his or her country’s Human Development Index relative to gender. Results revealed that there was a difference between males and females in regard to Construct 3, Importance of Athletics. Athletic programming refers to prominence in collegiate athletics, volume of athletic programs in which to participate, and the concentration of an undergraduate education. Females found athletics and programming to be more important than males. Previous research has suggested the opposite when it comes to athletics. Cain and Reynolds (2006) found that men view the opportunity to play intercollegiate athletics, the opportunity to play intramural sports, and the quality of athletic facilities to be more important than females do when deciding whether or not to attend a university. The fact that this study focuses specifically on cross-border students may be one reason why the results of this particular question conflict with the American student choice literature. Limited research on athletics, gender, and cross-border students has been conducted. Since this study has suggested opposing results to the American student choice literature, future research would be needed to determine whether this idea continues to hold true. There was also a difference in males and females in Construct 4, accessibility. Men ranked accessibility (including access to faculty and ease of returning home) higher than females did in this construct, suggesting that accessibility is more important to men than to women. Altbach (2001) put forward that women from developing nations often come from more traditional backgrounds than their male counterparts, suggesting that such a difference may impact men’s and women’s rationales for and choice of academic programs of study. Altbach (2001) states, “Female students

also feel significant stress and conflict relating to the demands of [their] traditional roles and their studies and professional aspirations” (pp. 18-19).

Age Admitted Another of the sub-hypotheses in this study asked the question of whether or not age plays a role in a student’s selection of a U.S. institution. The constructs suggested that age did not play a role in student choice, except with respect to the importance of athletics and programming. Those who were admitted at age 25 or older found athletics to be more important than those from the 18-24 age group. Overall, however, results from the analysis revealed that age had no significance in a student’s choice of university. The results of this sub-hypothesis may show that cross border students view college differently or even have different mitigating factors when selecting an institution in the U.S. However, future research will need to be conducted to determine if there is a relationship between athletic programs and or facilities and a non-traditional student’s choice of a higher education institution.

University Attended The last of the sub-hypotheses of this study asked the question of whether or not the university attended played a role in a student’s selection of a U.S. institution. University B students found accessibility and cost benefit to be more important determining factors than did students from university D. However, University D students found that attractiveness, surroundings, and athletics were more important. Universities A and C did not differ from each other or the other universities. As a reminder, University A, B, and C are all found in the same Carnegie Classification, Master’s L(arge): Master’s Colleges and Universities, and University D is in the classification Research Universities High (RU/H). Results from this

427

 Globalization, Cross Border Education, and Student Migration

study interestingly find that two of the master’s universities were not significantly different from the research university. The question that arises from this study is why University B would be so different from University D, while the other universities do not demonstrate such difference. Results suggest that future research would be needed to examine the impact of the Carnegie Classification and specifically whether the classification itself plays a role in student choice. Other research may want to examine different types of private schools and determine whether recruitment varies with this variable. University B students find the cost benefit analysis to be more important when deciding on a university to attend. An in depth review of University B and University D revealed that the cost of University B is approximately half the price of University D. As Mazzarol (1998) explains, making the choice to study abroad is one of the most expensive, complex and difficult decisions to make. In many instances, cost plays a major role in that choice (Binsardi & Ekwulugo, 2003). This could be an important factor in the subject’s selection of a school. With the increasing costs of education and changes to financial aid, the decision of what university to attend is without question greatly impacted by the student’s out of pocket expenses. Indeed, “Tuition at both public and private institutions has risen sharply, while the federal grant and loan programs intended to aid-low income youth have failed to keep pace” (Kane, 1999, p. 3). Even though this study looked at cross border students, the rise in cost is certain to affect all students, domestic or cross-border. With respect to athletics and campus surroundings, Price et al., (2003) conducted an 87 closed question survey with a five point Likert Scale, one being the least important and five being the most important. The survey used 12 questioning modules designed to determine the impact of facilities on a student’s choice of a U.K. higher education institution; the questions were grouped into the following categories: type of university,

428

reputation of town/city, accommodation, learning facilities, university security, transport, social facilities, sporting facilities, child care facilities, and university environment. This survey was conducted in 2000 and again in 2001. In 2000, the survey showed that 12 factors had an average importance of 4. In 2001, the same survey showed that 11 factors had an average importance of 4. There was no clear answer as to why one of the modules was no longer as highly coveted in 2001. Nonetheless, this study demonstrates the value of facilities and clearly indicated that issues relative to on and off-campus play a major role in students’ choice of a higher education institution. Students’ perception, in terms of athletics, can also be a driver of student choice. University D has a Division One (D1) nationally competitive athletic program, while University B has a more regionally competitive National Association of Intercollegiate Athletics (NAIA) program. Both institutions are highly competitive within their divisions, but University D has an arguably larger fan base and more national exposure because of the division in which they reside. This could be one reason that University D cross-border students place greater emphasis on athletic programs when choosing a university than do cross border students from University B. Results from this study do not yield conclusive results concerning the universities attended and the student’s choice factors. More research is needed to understand the differences between the universities and the cross border students that choose them.

SOLUTIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Implications for Practice By understanding the rationale behind crossborder students’ (from developed and developing countries) decision to study in America, U.S. in-

 Globalization, Cross Border Education, and Student Migration

stitutions may be able to tailor their international recruitment, program administration, and services to meet the needs of specific students from around the globe. Further, U.S. institutions may be able to better understand their market advantage relative to other institutions or countries, allowing institutions to evaluate their own desire to adjust or protect a particular institutional characteristic. Moreover, as a byproduct of this study, U.S. institutions may ultimately be able to highlight their uniqueness within the international higher education market. Presently, there are over 819,000 cross-border students in the U.S. (Institute of International Education, 2013). With over 3,000 institutions of higher learning in the U.S., it is essential for institutions to determine their recruitment priorities and mechanisms to support them. For the purposes of this study, four institutions, each with a sizeable population of cross-border students, were examined. Each institution contends for a portion of the cross-border student enrollment in the area and the U.S. As such, these institutions themselves would benefit from an analysis of the findings revealed by this study, specifically with the understanding that cross-border students’ preferences and interests can be measured, evaluated, and predicted.

FUTURE RESEARCH DIRECTIONS Implications for Research This study was designed to determine whether age, gender, and country of origin played a role in a student’s choice of a U.S. higher education. This study demonstrated that there are many factors that impact a student’s choice of university. However, this study could not address all of the motivating forces. For example, it is generally accepted that higher education plays a key role in the development of national cultural identity and nation building (Guruz, 2008). Many agree that having a globally competitive, educated citizenry is

necessary for participation in the global knowledge community (Altbach & Peterson, 1999; Torres, 2003; Dayton-Johnson, Katseli, Maniatis, Munz & Papademetriou, 2007). Consequently, countries that do not have developed higher education systems import higher education services from developed countries with advanced providers (Knight, 2003b) or send their citizens across borders to lands with superior suppliers (Altbach, 2002a), a practice often referred to the “capacity building approach” (Guruz, 2008). The capacity building approach refers to a centrally directed attempt to develop various segments of a nation. A supplemental option is the “know-how and technology transfer” approach. This approach suggests value in national governments providing foreign scholarship incentives to develop an advanced skill based workforce, particularly in the technology sectors. However, limited research has been conducted to measure the impact of such scholarships on the cross-border students upon returning to their home countries. If substantial research could be conducted showing the positive impact of such programs, universities that are trying to attract these students would be better able to market their programs and services to the governments that are sponsoring their citizens. Given that over 80% of cross border enrollment is from the developing world (Altbach, 2004b), it would be advantageous to treat government involvement as a factor in determining higher education institutional support. Luu et al. (2007) put forward that while the U.S. is still the number one destination for international students within higher education, there is increasing competition among nations to tap into the global student current. Presently, there are many government sponsored programs underway to redistribute the flow of students. In the United Kingdom, the Prime Minister’s Initiative for International Education combines institutional and national efforts to recruit international students. Some governments have also adopted national policies that lessen restrictions on international

429

 Globalization, Cross Border Education, and Student Migration

students including flexible work/study options, allowing part-time employment while studying, and permitting international students to stay longer after graduation to find employment. Immigration and other policies have been strategically aligned to attract international students. Canada, for example, expects that recent immigration policy changes and the easing of employment restrictions for international students will increase enrollments from abroad by as much as 20,000. Other policies include a point-based immigration system that is favorable to highly skilled professionals (as found in the United Kingdom) or the granting of permanent residency to professionals in designated high-demand fields of engineering, computer sciences, and hard sciences (as practiced in Germany). Non-English-speaking countries are increasingly offering programs in English to appeal to international students. For example, the Netherlands, Sweden, Finland, Poland, Turkey, and Japan offer from 50 to more than 1,000 programs in English (pp.11-12). These examples illustrate the importance of government action in not just sending cross border students, but also in attracting them. At the national level, there is also an issue of maintaining a sufficient work force. According to estimates from the International Labor Organization, 500 million new jobs will need to be created within the next decade in order to address the expanding number of the global youth workforce (International Labor Organization, 2006). It is projected that populations in developed nations will plateau or continue to decline, while populations in developing nations will continue to exponentially grow (Gurunz, 2008). Research on this disparity may help integrate structural national inequalities in terms of economic work force interdependence, diplomatic relations and security issues. Therefore, it can be assumed international student mobility may play a substantial role in address such national work force issues. In addition, future researchers may wish to focus on expanding this study to determine whether there is a difference between public and private

430

institutions, or they may wish to examine multiple institutions all having the same Carnegie Classifications. The concept of student choice could also be analyzed in different ways. This study focused on the impact of institutional characteristics on student choice. Future studies may want to examine just one aspect of institutional characteristics or personal/family reasons for attending a university. What is critical is to realize that this study is just one part of the overarching concept of student choice. It is a small piece of the puzzle that, as it comes together, will help others to understand why a student chooses a particular institution.

Limitations of the Study Limitations are a component of this study. Given the fact that this study employed survey research, the researcher must acknowledge that subjects may have answered questions based on what they believed to be true, rather than what may have objectively been true. Subjects also may have also answered the questions based on what they believed the researcher wanted to hear. Further limitations of this study stem from the size of the study itself. Given that this study only surveyed undergraduate students within two Carnegie Classifications in one metropolitan area, data was relatively limited and were not sufficient to generalize to all U.S. universities in the United States of America. Therefore, future research should continue to analyze and weigh each student choice factor and the relative importance of each element. Limitations also were found in the Human Development Index, as no students came from a country with a Low Human Development Index rating. This limitation affected the generalizability of the study.

CONCLUSION Over the millennia, according to Guruz (2008), students and scholars have traversed great dis-

 Globalization, Cross Border Education, and Student Migration

tances in the pursuit of new ideas or to spread their philosophy, religious beliefs, political views, and cultural values, better conditions for doing scholarly work and research, better education that would elevate them to higher positions in the society and better paying jobs, and to flee discrimination and persecution (p. 237). This student mobility has long been a source of economic stimulation and competition not only for institutions of higher learning, who seek to attract cross-border students, but also governments in the pursuit of further developing their workforce, intellectual capital, and economy. Cross border students have been and will continue to be an integral part of fostering and expanding the global knowledge community. According to Guruz (2008), in 2004, there were 2.5 million cross-border students, up from the 110,000 in 1950. The total number of crossborder students is expected only to increase in light of the expanding higher education capacity building underway in major countries of origin. The bright, creative young mind is already a most sought after asset; its relative importance as a production factor in the global knowledge economy will increase even more. Attracting students from all over the world to institutions of higher education is increasingly becoming a matter of foreign policy goal in all developed countries, regardless of the country’s demographic profile (p. 29). Despite existing government and higher education institutional efforts to attract cross-border students, this study has shown that there are multiple factors involved in a student’s choice of a higher education institution and that attracting such students is not a simple or straightforward matter. The study demonstrates that specific institutional characteristics will not universally attract students from all countries. As such, universities must learn which of their own institutional factors constitute their institutional strengths and which communities those strengths are likely to attract. They may then expand appropriate recruiting efforts with respect to those populations. At that

same time, universities may use the findings of this study as a means of understanding how to more effectively attract populations of students they do not currently successfully attract. While there are many different aspects of student choice, this study chose to analyze the perceived value of institutional characteristics.

REFERENCES Agarwal, V. B., & Winkler, D. R. (1985). Foreign demand for United States higher education: A study of developing countries in the eastern hemisphere. Economic Development and Cultural Change, 33(2), 623–624. doi:10.1086/451482 Ahmad, S. (2006). International student expectations: The voice of Indian students. Australian International Education Conference. Retrieved from http://www.aiec.idp.com/pdf/Ahmad%20 (Paper)%20Thurs%201600% 20M R6.pdf Altbach, P. (1991). Impact and adjustment: Foreign students in comparative education. Higher Education, 21(3), 305–323. doi:10.1007/BF00132723 Altbach, P. (2001). Higher education and the WTO: Globalization run amok. Industry and Higher Education, 23(Spring), 2–4. Altbach, P. (2002a). Centers and peripheries in the academic profession: The special challenges of developing countries. In P. Altbach (Ed.), The decline of the guru: The academic profession in developing and middle-income countries (pp. 1–22). Chestnut Hill, MA: Boston College. Altbach, P. (2002b). Knowledge and education as international commodities. Industry and Higher Education, 28(Summer), 2–5. Altbach, P. (2003). Why the United States will not be a market for foreign higher education products: A case against GATS. Industry and Higher Education, 31(Spring), 5–7.

431

 Globalization, Cross Border Education, and Student Migration

Altbach, P. (2004a). Higher education crosses borders. Change, 36(March/April), 18–25. doi:10.1080/00091380409604964 Altbach, P. (2004b). Globalization and the university: Myths and realities in an unequal world. Tertiary Education and Management, 10(1), 3–25. doi:10.1080/13583883.2004.9967114 Altbach, P. (2007). Peripheries and centres: Research universities in developing countries. Higher Education Management and Policy, 19(2), 111–134. doi:10.1787/hemp-v19-art13-en Altbach, P., & Knight, J. (2007). The internationalization of higher education: Motivations and realities. Journal of Studies in International Education, 11(3/4), 290–305. doi:10.1177/1028315307303542 Altbach, P. G., & Peterson, P. M. (1999). Higher education in the 21st century: Global challenge and national response. Annapolis Junction, MD: Institute of International Education. Auerbacher, P. (1996). Firms, competitiveness and the global economy. In M. Mackintosh, V. Brown, N. Costello, G. Dawson, G., Thompson & A. Trigg (Eds.), Economics and changing economies (pp. 393-425). London, UK: The Open University. Baldwin, G., & McInnis, R. (1999). The market in Australian higher education and the concept of student as informed consumer. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 22(2), 139–148. doi:10.1080/713678146 Barich, H., & Kotler, P. (1991). A framework for marketing image management. Sloan Management Review, 32(2), 94–104. PMID:10111301 Binsardi, A., & Ekwulugo, F. (2003). International marketing of British education: Research on the students’ perception and the UK market penetration. Marketing Intelligence & Planning, 21(5), 318–327. doi:10.1108/02634500310490265

432

Bourdieu, P. (1996). The state nobility. Sanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Bourke, A. (2000). A model of the determinants of international trade in higher education. Service Industries Journal, 20(1), 110–138. doi:10.1080/02642060000000007 Cain, D., & Reynolds, G.L. (2006). The impact of facilities on recruitment and retention of students. Facilities manager, May/June, 46-53. Cerny, P. (1999). Globalization and the erosion of democracy. European Journal of Political Research, 36(1), 1–26. doi:10.1111/14756765.00461 Cerny, P. (2005). Political globalization and the competition state. In Stubbs & Underhill (Eds.), Political economy and the global order (pp. 300309). Houndmills Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan Publishing. Chapman, A., & Pyvis, D. (2006). Quality, identity and practice in offshore university programmes: Issues in the internationalization of Australian higher education. Teaching in Higher Education, 11(2), 233–245. doi:10.1080/13562510500527818 Chapman, D. W. (1981). A model of student college choice. The Journal of Higher Education, 52(5), 490–505. doi:10.2307/1981837 Chossudovsky, M. (1997). The globalization of poverty: Impacts of the IMF and World Bank reforms. London: Zed Books. Coase, R. (1937). The nature of a firm. Economica, 4(16), 386–405. doi:10.1111/j.1468-0335.1937. tb00002.x College Board. (2008). ASQ & ASQ PLUS. Retrieved from: http://professionals.collegeboard. com/higher-ed/recruitment/asq

 Globalization, Cross Border Education, and Student Migration

Cubillo, J., Sanchez, J., & Cervino, J. (2006). International students’ decision-making process. International Journal of Educational Management, 20(2), 101–115. doi:10.1108/09513540610646091 Dale, S., & Krueger, A. (2002). Estimating the payoff to attending a more selective college: An application of selection on observables and unobservables. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 117(4), 1491–1527. doi:10.1162/003355302320935089 Damtew, T., & Altbach, P. (2004). African higher education: Challenges for the 21st century. Higher Education, 47(1), 21–50. doi:10.1023/ B:HIGH.0000009822.49980.30 David, M., Ball, S., Davies, J., & Reay, D. (2003). Gender issues in parental involvement in student choices of higher education. Gender and Education, 15(1), 21–37. doi:10.1080/0954025032000042121 Davies, A., & Quinlivan, G. (2006). A panel data analysis of the impact of trade on human development. Journal of Socio-Economics, 35(5), 868–876. doi:10.1016/j.socec.2005.11.048 Dayton-Johnson, J., Katseli, L., Maniatis, G., Munz, R., & Papademetriou, D. (2007). Gaining from migration: Towards a new mobility system. Development Centre of the Organization for Economic Co-Operation and Development. Retrieved from: http://doc-aea.aide-et-action.org/ data/admin/oc_-_gaining_from_migration.pdf DeWit, H. (2002). Internationalization of higher education in the United States of America and Europe: A historical, comparative, and conceptual analysis. Westport, CT: Greenwood. Duderstadt, J., Taggart, J., & Weber, L. (2008). The globalization of higher education. In L. Weber & J. Duderstadt (Eds.), The globalization of higher education (pp. 273–290). London, Paris, Geneva: Economica.

El-Khawas, E. (2002). Developing an academic career in a globalizing world. In J. Enders & O. Fulton (Eds.), Higher education in a globalizing world: International trends and mutual observations (pp. 241–254).Dordrechtt, Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers. doi:10.1007/97894-010-0579-1_16 Enders, J. (2004). Higher education, internationalisation, and the nation-state: Recent developments and challenges to governance theory. Higher Education, 47(3), 361–382. doi:10.1023/ B:HIGH.0000016461.98676.30 Field, J. (2003). Social capital. New York, NY: Routledge Press. Fontbonne University. (2008). Quick Facts. Retrieved from http://www.fontbonne.edu/about/ quickfacts/ Garrett, G. (1999). Global markets and national politics: Collision course or virtuous circle. In P. Katzenstein, R. Keohane, & S. Krasner (Eds.), Exploration and Contestation in the Study of World Politics (pp. 147–184). Massachusetts, MA: MIT Press. Green, M. (2004). GATS update. International Higher Education, 37(Fall). Guruz, K. (2008). Higher education and international student mobility in the global knowledge economy. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press. Haskins, C. (1957). The rise of universities. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. Hayward, F. M. (2000). Globalisation and internationalisation: Thoughts about the institutional context in U.S. higher education. Paper presented in The International Forum of Change Projects 19th –21st August 2000, San Lamer, Durban. Retrieved from http://www.chet.org.za/publications/ San%20Lameer%20Participant%20Papers.doc

433

 Globalization, Cross Border Education, and Student Migration

Held, D., McGrew, A., Goldblatt, D., & Perraton, J. (1999). Global transformations: Politics, economics and culture. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press. Human Development Report. (2008). Human development reports – frequently asked Questions: General questions about data in the Human Development Report. Retrieved from http://hdr. undp.org/e n/media/hdr_ faqs. pdf Institute of International Education. (2013). Open doors 2013: Fast Facts. Retrieved from http:// opendoors.iienetwork.org/page/113181 International Labor Organization. (2006). Green Jobs: Towards decent work in a sustainable, lowcarbon world. Retrieved from http://www.ilo.org/ wcmsp5/groups/public/---dgreports/---dcomm/ documents/publication/wcm s_098503.pdf Ivy, J. (2001). Higher education institution image: a correspondence analysis approach. James, R. (2002). Understanding prospective student decision-making and the role of marketing in undergraduate education. Retrieved from http:// www.cshe.unimelb.edu.au/people/staff_pages/ James/James-Marketing%20Conf-Melb2002.pdf James, R., Baldwin, G., & McInnis, C. (1999). Which university? The factors influencing the choices of prospective undergraduates. Canberra: Australian Government Publishing Service. Kallvermark, T., & Van der Wende, M. C. (Eds.). (1997). National policies for internationalisation of higher education in Europe. Stockholm: National Agency for Higher Education; Retrieved from. http://eric.ed.gov/ERICDocs/data/ericdocs2sql/ content_storage_01/0000019b/80/17/a4/e6.pdf Kane, T. J. (1999). The price of admission: Rethinking how Americans pay for college. Washington, DC: The Brookings Institute Press.

434

Kerr, C. (2002). Uses of the university (5th ed.). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Knight, J. (2003a). Updated definition of internationalization in international higher education. Industry and Higher Education, 33(Fall), 2–3. Knight, J. (2003b). Trade creep, Internationalization and crossborder education. Retrieved from http://www.eaie.org/pdf/conf2003/809.pdf Knight, J. (2004). Crossborder education in a trade environment: Complexities and policy implications. Workshop on Implications of WTO/GATS for Higher Education in Africa African Association of Universities Accra, Ghana. Kotler, P., & Fox, K. (1995). Strategic management for educational institutions (2nd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Kuh, G. D. (1998). Shaping student character. Liberal Education, 84(3), 1–11. Ledden, L., Kalafatis, S., & Samouel, P. (2007). The relationship between personal values and perceived value of education. Journal of Business Research, 60(9), 965–974. doi:10.1016/j. jbusres.2007.01.021 Leedy, P., & Ormrod, J. (2005). Practical research: Planning and design (7th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. Lin, C., & Kao, D. T. (2004). The impact of country-of-origin on brand equity. Journal of American Academy of Business, 5(1/2), 37–40. Lindenwood University. (2005). Student Handbook. Retrieved from http://www.lindenwood.edu/ campus_life/docs/2005-2006%20Student%20 HB.pdf Luu, D. B., Bain, O., & Green, M. (2007). Students on the move: The future of student flows in the United States. Industry and Higher Education, 47(Spring), 11–12.

 Globalization, Cross Border Education, and Student Migration

Mampuru, M. (2000). Globalisation and internationalisation: Thoughts about the institutional context in U.S. higher education. Paper presented in The International Forum of Change Projects 19th –21st August 2000, San Lamer, Durban. Retrieved from http://www.chet.org.za/publications /San%20Lameer%20Participant%20Papers.doc Marginson, S., & Van der Wende, M. (2007). Globalization and higher education Centre for Educational Research and Innovation (CERI). Retrieved from http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/ 33/12/ 38918635.pdf Maryville University. (2008). About. Retrieved from http://www.maryville.edu/ about-presidentmission.htm Mazzarol, T., & Soutar, G. N. (2002). Pushpull factors influencing international student destination choice. International Journal of Educational Management, 16(2), 82–90. doi:10.1108/09513540210418403 Mazzarol, T. W. (1998). Critical success factors for international education marketing. International Journal of Educational Management, 12(4), 163–175. doi:10.1108/09513549810220623 Mazzarol, T. W., Kemp, S., & Savery, L. (1997). International students who choose not to study in Australia: An examination of Taiwan and Indonesia. Canberra, Australia: Australian International Education Foundation. McCormick, A., & Zhao, C. (2005). Rethinking and reframing the Carnegie classification. Change. The Magazine of Higher Learning, 37(5), 50–58. doi:10.3200/CHNG.37.5.51-57 McMahon, M. E. (1992). Higher education in a world market: A historical look at the global context of international study. Higher Education, 24(4), 465–482. doi:10.1007/BF00137243

McNeil, J., & McNeil, W. (2003). The human web: A bird’s-eye view of world history. In K. Guruz (Ed.), Higher education and international student mobility in the global knowledge economy (p. 2). Albany, NY: State University of New York Press. Miller, M. T., & Lu, M.-Y. (2003). Serving nontraditional students in E-learning environments: Building successful communities in the virtual campus. Educational Media International, 40(1), 163–169. doi:10.1080/0952398032000092206 Missouri Baptist University. (2009a). About. Retrieved from http://www.mo bap.edu/about-mbu Missouri Baptist University. (2009b). Discover. Retrieved from http://www.m obap.edu/admissions/ undergrad/discover/academics.php Moja, T., & Cloete, N. (2001). Vanishing borders and new boundaries. In J. Muller, N. Cloete, & S. Badat (Eds.), Challenges of globalization: South African debates with Manuel Castells (pp. 244–270). Cape Town, South Africa: Maskew Miller Longman. Montgomery, L. (2004). It’s just what I like’: Explaining persistent patterns of gender stratification in the life choices of college students. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 17(6), 785–801. doi:10.1080/0951839042000256457 Moogan, Y. J., Baron, S., & Harris, K. (1999). Decision-making behavior of potential higher education students. Higher Education Quarterly, 53(3), 211–228. doi:10.1111/1468-2273.00127 Nigavekar, A. (2005). Higher education in India: Issues, concerns and new directions. In S. Tiwari (Ed.), Education in India (pp. 1–30). New Dehli, India: Atlantic Publishers & Distributors. Pallant, J. (2005). SPSS survival manual: A step by step guide to data analysis using SPSS version 12 (2nd ed.). United Kingdom: Open University Press.

435

 Globalization, Cross Border Education, and Student Migration

Paramewaran, R., & Glowacka, A. E. (1995). University image: An information processing perspective. Journal of Marketing for Higher Education, 6(2), 41–56. doi:10.1300/J050v06n02_04 Pascarella, E., & Terenzini, P. (1991). How college affects students: Findings and insights from twenty years of research. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Pattberg, P. (2005). Transnational organization(s) as governance: A comparative analysis of private rules beyond the state. Paper presented at Berlin Conference on the Human Dimensions of Global Environmental Change, Berlin, Germany. Retrieved from http://web.fu-berlin.de/ffu/akumwelt/ bc2005 /papers/pattberg_bc2005.pdf Pimpa, N. (2003). The influence of family on Thai students’ choices of international education. International Journal of Educational Management, 17(5), 211–215. doi:10.1108/09513540310484931 Price, I., Matzdorf, F., Smith, L., & Agahi, H. (2003). The impact of facilities on student choice of university. Facilities, 21(10), 212–222. doi:10.1108/02632770310493580 Raikhy, P. S. (2002). Trade in education under the WTO policy regime: Implications for India. In K. B. Powar (Ed.), Internationalization of higher education (pp. 127–133). New Dehli, India: Association of Indian Universities. Saint Louis University. (2009a). Mission statement. Retrieved from http://www.slu.edu/x5021. xml Saint Louis University. (2009b). SLU facts. Retrieved from http://www. slu.edu/x5525.xml Saint Louis University. (2009c). Saint Louis University Madrid Campus. Retrieved from http:// spain. slu.edu/asi_somos/docs/profile.pdf Saint Louis University. (2009d). 08-09 Freshman class profile. Retrieved from http://www.slu.edu/x 13007.xml

436

Scholte, J. A. (2005). Globalization: A critical introduction (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan. Schuler, S. (2007). Sounds policies, evolving gender norms, and family strategies. In M. Lewis, M & M. Lockheed (Eds.), Exclusion, gender and education: Case studies from the developing world (pp. 170-201). Baltimore, MD: United Book Press. Scott, P. (2000). Globalisation and internationalisation: Thoughts about the institutional context in U.S. higher education. Paper presented in The International Forum of Change Projects 19th –21st August 2000, San Lamer, Durban. Retrieved from http://www.chet.org.za/publications/San%20 Lameer%20Participant%20Papers.doc Smith, S., Booth, K., & Zalewski, M. (1996). International theory: Positivism & beyond. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511660054 Soutar, G. N., & Turner, J. P. (2002). Students’ preferences for university: A conjoint analysis. International Journal of Educational Management, 16(1), 4045. doi:10.1108/09513540210415523 Srikatanyoo, N., & Gnoth, J. (2002). Country image and international tertiary education. Journal of Brand Management, 10(2), 139–146. doi:10.1057/ palgrave.bm.2540111 Steinmo, S. (1993). Taxation and democracy. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Stout, D. (2008). The wall street bailout plan explained. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes. com/ 2008/09/21/business/21qanda.html Strange, S. (1986). Casino capitalism. Manchester, UK: Manchester University Press. Stubbs, R., & Underhill, G. (2005). Political economy and the changing global order. Oxford University Press.

 Globalization, Cross Border Education, and Student Migration

Teichler, U. (2007). The changing role of student mobility. Retrieved from http://portal.unesco.org/education/en/files/53904/11858759925Changing_ role_student_mobility.pdf/Changing_ role_student_mobility.pdf The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching. (2007). About. Retrieved from http:// www. carnegiefoundation.org/about/index.asp Torres, C. (2003). Comparative education: The dialectics of globalization and its discontents. In R. Arnove & C. Torres (Eds.), Comparative Education (pp. 446–462). Oxford, UK: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc. Torres, C., & Rhoads, R. (2006). Introduction: Globalization and higher education in the Americas. In C. Torres & R. Rhoads (Eds.), The university, state and market: The political economy of globalization in the Americas (pp. 3–38). Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press. doi:10.1093/acpr of:oso/9780199204557.003.0001 Toyokawa, T., & Toyokawa, N. (2002). Extracurricular activities and adjustment of Asian international students: A study of Japanese students. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 26(4), 363–379. doi:10.1016/S01471767(02)00010-X

Wallerstein, I. (1996). The interstate structure of the modern world system. In S. Smith & K. Booth (Eds.), International theory: positivism and beyond (pp. 108–127). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/ CBO9780511660054.006 Ying, Y. (2002). Formation of cross-cultural relationships of Taiwanese international students in the United States. Journal of Community Psychology, 30(1), 45–55. doi:10.1002/jcop.1049 Zemsky, R. (2008). Has our reach exceeded our grasp: Taking a second look at higher education as a global enterprise. In L. Weber & J. Dunderstadt (Eds.), The globalization of higher education (pp. 251–258). London: Economica. Zysman, J. (1983). Governments, markets and growth: Financial systems and the politics of industrial change. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.

ADDITIONAL READING Ampuja, M. (2012). Theorizing globalization: A critique of the Mediatization of Social Theory. Leiden: Brill. doi:10.1163/9789004233584

United Nations. (2008). United Nations: Organizations. Retrieved from http://www.un.org/aboutun/ basicfacts/unorg.htm

Arnove, R., & Torres, C. (Eds.). (2007). Comparative education: The dialectic of the global and the local. Oxford: Rowman & Littlefield.

van der Wende, M. C. (2003). Globalisation and access to higher education. Journal of Studies in International Education, 7(2), 193–206. doi:10.1177/1028315303007002006

Bechtel, G. G. (2014). Does globalization mitigate income inequality? Journal of Data Science, 12, 197–215.

Van Vught, F., Van Der Wende, M., & Westerheijden, D. (2002). Globalization and internationalisation: Policy agendas compared. In J. Enders & O. Fulton (Eds.), Higher education in a globalising world: International trends and mutual observations (pp. 103–120). Norwell, MA: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Beck, K. (2012). Globalization/s: Reproduction and resistance in the internationalization of higher education. Canadian Journal of Education, 35(3), 133–148. Brint, S. (2006). Schools and societies. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

437

 Globalization, Cross Border Education, and Student Migration

Brown, P. (2003). The opportunity trap: Education and employment in a global economy. European Educational Research Journal, 2(1), 141–164. doi:10.2304/eerj.2003.2.1.4 Buckner, E., & Russell, S. G. (2013). Portraying the global: Cross-national trends in textbooks’ portrayal of globalization and global citizenship. International Studies Quarterly, 57(4), 738–750. doi:10.1111/isqu.12078 Daniels, J. (2013). Internationalisation, higher education and educators’ perceptions of their practices. Teaching in Higher Education, 18(3), 236–248. doi:10.1080/13562517.2012.719158 Eggins, H., & Society for Research into Higher, E. (2003). Globalization and reform in higher education. Maidenhead, Berkshire, England: Society for Research into Higher Education & Open University Press. Ferren, A. S., & Merrill, M. C. (2013). The role of institutional research in supporting internationalization of U.S. higher education. Journal of Higher Education Theory & Practice, 13(2), 45–55. Geo-JaJa, M. A., & Majhanovich, S. (2013). Economics, aid and education: Implications for development. Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense Publishers. Hutcheson, P. (2011). Goals for United States higher education: From democracy to globalisation. History of Education, 40(1), 45–57. doi:10 .1080/0046760X.2010.514868 Job, J., & Sriraman, B. (2013). A framework for quality assurance in globalization of higher education: A view toward the future. Interchange, 43(2), 75–93. doi:10.1007/s10780-013-9186-y Lauder, B. Dillabough & Halsey (red.) (2006). Education, globalization and social change. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

438

Maringe, F., & Foskett, N. (2010). Globalization and internationalization in higher education: Theoretical, strategic and management perspectives. New York: Continuum International Pub. Group. Patel, F., & Lynch, H. (2013). Globalization as an alternative to internationalization in higher education: Embedding positive global learning perspectives. International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 25(2), 223–230. Peterson, P. M., & Helms, R. M. (2013). Internationalization revisited. Change, 45(2), 28–34. do i:10.1080/00091383.2013.764261 Raley, Y., & Preyer, G. (Eds.). (2010). Philosophy of Education in the Era of Globalization. London: Routledge. Rappleye, J. (2012). Educational policy transfer in an era of globalization: Theory--history-comparison. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang. Rui, Y. y. (2012). Internationalization, regionalization, and soft power: China’s relations with ASEAN member countries in higher education. Frontiers of Education in China, 7(4), 486–507. Samimi, P., & Jenatabadi, H. S. (2014). Globalization and economic growth: Empirical evidence on the role of complementarities. PLoS ONE, 9(4), 1–7. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0087824 PMID:24721896 Tadaki, M., & Tremewan, C. (2013). Reimagining internationalization in higher education: International consortia as a transformative space? Studies in Higher Education, 38(3), 367–387. doi:10.10 80/03075079.2013.773219 Tarc, P. (2012). The uses of globalization in the (shifting) landscape of educational studies. Canadian Journal of Education, 35(3), 4–29.

 Globalization, Cross Border Education, and Student Migration

Tierney, W. G., & Findlay, C. C. (2010). Globalisation and tertiary education in the Asia-Pacific: The changing nature of a dynamic market. Singapore: World Scientific. Wilson, J. (2008). Taxing the brain drain: A reassessment of the Bhagwati Proposal. In E. Dinopoulos, P. Krishna, A. Panagariya, & K. Wong (Eds.), Trade, Globalization and Poverty (pp. 254–262). London: Routledge. doi:10.4324/9780203932926. ch12

KEY TERMS AND DEFINITIONS Cross Border Students: An individual who traverses a nation’s territorial boundaries to obtain an education. Developed Country: A term that describes nations in which not only the first (natural resources) and second (manufacturing) sectors are established, but the third (service) and fourth (high technology/intellectual trades) sectors of the economy. Such nations tend of score high on the Human Development Index. Developing Country: A term that describes nations with a low standard of living, an underdeveloped first (natural resources) and second (manufacturing) sector of the economy. Such nations tend to score moderate to low Human Development Index. Human Development Index: A key indicator in identifying the welfare of a nation’s citizenry.

The Human Development Index was created in 1990 by the United Nation to evaluate a country’s average score in three fundamental aspects of human development: health, knowledge, and a decent standard of living. Multinationalization of Production: A practice that draws from multiple sectors of business and expounds that a firm will develop production facilities abroad to achieve a competitive advantage relative to domestic firms. The General Agreement on Trade in Services: The General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS) is a treaty of the World Trade Organization (WTO), which was enacted in January 1994. The agreement was instituted to expand the multilateral trading system to the service sector, in the same way the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) was established to provide a system for merchandise trade. GATS was specifically designed to supply services through four modes: cross border supply (distance education), consumption abroad (movement of students to study abroad), commercial presence (satellite campus abroad), and movement of people (instructors to teach). Transnational Organizations: An entity that operates beyond national boundaries with the support of at least one nation. In the last 50 years, transnational rule-making processes could be considered the most apparent expression of the shift from state-driven politics and intergovernmental cooperation to non-state-driven governance in world affairs.

439

Globalization, Cross Border Education, and Student Migration

APPENDIX A Figure 1 displays a human development report based on three dimensions: a long and healthy life, knowledge, and a decent standard of living. Figure 1. Human development report

440

Globalization, Cross Border Education, and Student Migration

APPENDIX B Figure 2 displays a relationship between high, medium, and low human development and institutional characteristics. Figure 2. Institutions A, B, C, and D

441

Globalization, Cross Border Education, and Student Migration

APPENDIX C Figure 3 displays the Admitted Student Questionnaire. Figure 3. Admitted student questionnaire

442

443

Chapter 18

The Japanese Tertiary Education System and Its Impact on Economic Conditions from 2000 to 2010: Human Capital Formation Erin Lee Kalkbrenner Lindenwood University, USA

ABSTRACT Researchers have calculated the relationship between human capital development and economic output by various means of econometric modeling and by use of numerous indicators under the context of an assortment of human capital theory. In this chapter, new interpretations of the expansion of human capital in the form of tertiary education enrollment and the impacts of various economic conditions in Japan from 2000 to 2010 are identified. Data was collected from UNESCO UIS, OECD, and the World Bank on tertiary enrollments, tertiary expenditures, and other measures utilized during modeling. This chapter applied an OLS non-linear regression in efforts to estimate optimization of tertiary education enrollment to maximize the real growth rate in the Asian region, specifically through the use of point estimates for Japan. Government and educational policy recommendations were made based on computed outputs.

INTRODUCTION Post World War II, governments have created, developed, financed, and supported education systems with political ministries, interest aggregation, and funding in an effort to create a knowledgeable society that can generate economic growth. The time, efforts, and funding spent on government

education budgets is consumed with thoughts that the participants will produce a greater return on initially invested funds and that society, as a whole, will prosper. “Human capital accumulation can be an engine of economic growth, and the government as significant roles in providing formal education” (Naito & Nishida, 2012, p. 2). Tertiary educational enrollment is considered a

DOI: 10.4018/978-1-4666-8411-9.ch018

Copyright © 2015, IGI Global. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.

 The Japanese Tertiary Education System and Its Impact on Economic Conditions from 2000 to 2010

form of human capital accumulation towards economic growth and development and is of particular interest in this research. Recently, education policy trends have weighted the calculation of this return more heavily and, year after year, governments seem to place more efforts and funding in education systems to help achieve these goals. The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) report, Education at a Glance 2013: OECD Indicators, explained the necessity for governments to pay notice to international country and systems comparisons “as they search for effective policies that enhance individuals’ social and economic prospects” (p. 3) in relation to building more effective and efficient education systems and better utilizing resources to cover increasing demands. Woodhall (2007) affirmed that many economists have conducted research and developed models for submission to governmental education departments and ministries, as well as large international agencies, with the intention of creating and sculpting educational policy framework and offering calculated proposals for further changes. Further, researchers and major research institutions have collected enough data to evaluate whether this initial investment is valuable for different types of economies and are investigating which types of efforts are generating future economic growth. This research study served to observe Japan’s educational inputs and the relationship for generating outputs in the form of economic growth.

BACKGROUND Human capital, broadly, is the accumulation of knowledge and intelligence of an individual that is calculated by that individual’s ability to carry out labor in efforts to generate economic value (Becker, 1993). Just as physical capital can be calculated, human capital can be measured for the purpose of quantifying one’s ability to produce

444

labor by his or her knowledge capacity. Human capital theory proposes that the expansion of skills and knowledge creates a form of capital that is definable and valuable to society. Becker (1993) explained the phenomenal growth of the Asian nations, notably Japan, China, and Taiwan, which, while lacking natural resources, exuded an amazing potential through use of “a well-trained, educated, hard-working, and conscientious labor force” (p. 24). This cycle of events justifies the exploration of expanding higher education to strengthen knowledge capacity and economic productivity via the medium of human capital acquisition. The researcher conducted this study to identify new insights into the development of human capital in the form of tertiary education enrollment and the analysis of tertiary level educational policy implementation in Japan from 2000 to 2010. This research tests if it is, in fact, that increased tertiary education enrollment surreptitiously effects the expansion of human capital to eventually create an increase in economic output, most commonly reported in terms of GDP or GDP per capita. A historical review of educational systems and policies and cultural educational norms aided in answering the question of how the Japanese economic conditions were impacted by its educational system and vice versa. The implications of this model are valuable to governments, researchers, economists, educators, and other organizations that collect data and provide programs to initiate change in education systems.

Japan Demographics Japan is located in Eastern Asia to the southwest of China and Korea, situating it in a prime location for trade and developing authority. Japan has matured into a world economic power through its growth in the manufacturing industry and its capacity to produce innovative products and in-

 The Japanese Tertiary Education System and Its Impact on Economic Conditions from 2000 to 2010

novative minds. Japan has realized tumultuous financial and economic conditions in the past two decades due to rapid expansion after World War II and traditionally has concentrated on research and development as well as exports of products in the areas of science and engineering to counteract a severe lack of natural resources on the meager island. Japan has a population of 127,368,088 (July 2012), a total land area of 377,915 square kilometers, and a population growth rate of -0.077% (CIA, Japan, 2012). Japan’s GDP in 2011 was $5.773 trillion with a real growth rate of -0.8% and $34,700 GPD per capita with 69.8% of the population employed in the services sector and 26.2% employed in industry (CIA, Japan, 2012). A negative real growth rate raises a red flag regarding the future of the country and how the government will continue to cover its expenditures, particularly educational expenditures. In 2012, educational expenditures were 3.5% of GDP, ranking as one of the countries with the lowest percent of GDP spent on education expenditures in advanced nations, but still holding one of the best education systems in the world (CIA, Japan, 2012; Kitagawa, 2009, p. 257). A negative growth rate and expanding public spending coupled with an aging population will require additional investment from outside sources beyond governmental financing if Japan continues on its current fiscal trajectory.

Educational Structure – MEXT Japan’s higher education system is organized by the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (MEXT) who aims to accomplish high levels of academic rigor and extensive development of knowledge. The higher education system aims to supplement the government’s efforts in areas of science, engineering, research, and development. This high-level research is meant to increase human knowledge and to enhance economic development and innovation throughout the country (Overview, MEXT, n.d.).

MEXT seeks to guarantee the quality of universities and improve educational ability, while at the same time supporting the reforms taking place at various universities, including the development of universities based on individuality and unique character, and enhancements to international competitiveness. (Overview, MEXT, n.d., p. 1) The Japanese education system, as well as the economy, thrives on this ability to create inventiveness and uniqueness that drives the nation forward in economic prosperity and educational ranking. A quality assurance support system has been constructed to check for quality in the system through the Standards for Establishing University, the Establishment-Approval System, and the Quality Assurance and Accreditation System in efforts to improve international recognition and to keep up with the competitive nature of education abroad and to create an increasingly efficient system (Overview, MEXT, n.d.). Currently, students begin their track in higher education in Japan after completing 12 years of primary and secondary education, as noted in Figure 1. Nearly “one third of high school students attend private institutions” creating a highly stratified group of students entering higher education (Teichler, 1997, p. 281). Students study extensively for a comprehensive, extremely selective entrance exam that will determine if the student will attend a national, public, or private institution, considering passing. Teichler (1997) explained the five examination subject areas as “Japanese language, foreign language, social studies, mathematics, and science” (p. 282). As can been noted, clear-cut concentration is focused on the languages, science, and math, the areas that have driven, and will continue to drive, the Japanese economy into the global forefront. This is a “one chance” examination that differentiates students “on the basis of status of institution” (Marginson, 2011, p. 594). The examination leads to entrance at an institutional level or certain students attend an

445

 The Japanese Tertiary Education System and Its Impact on Economic Conditions from 2000 to 2010

examination “cramming school” to prepare to take the entrance examinations again (Teichler, 1997, p. 282). Marginson (2011) described this process, “The examination mediates social competition in education and focuses the investment by families, while legitimating the university hierarchy and harmonising [sic] educational/social outcomes on behalf of the state” (p. 594). Once admitted, traditional degrees of bachelor’s, master’s, doctorates, and professional degrees are offered with other specialist’s degrees and certificates available; 70% of the 18 year old population bracket were enrolled in universities, junior colleges, colleges of technology, and specialized schools placing Japan in 2011 into a stage of near universal access to higher education (Higher Education in Japan, 2012). Figure 1. Organization of the school system in Japan

Of the academic degrees awarded, standard time periods to attain a degree are as follows: bachelor’s, four years, master’s, two years, doctor’s, five years, professional, two years, and associate’s, two to three years (Higher Education in Japan, 2012). This near universal access to higher education is particularly remarkable as Japan provides a unique scenario for extended research.

National, Public, and Private Institutions Private household investment and private enterprises cover most educational expenditures not supplied by the government (Maruyama, 2012, p. 19). Most families are willing to invest large percentages of their income to support their children’s education; Figure 2 describes total enrollment in

Note: Adapted from “Higher Education in Japan,” 2012, Higher Education Bureau, Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology, p. 4.

446

 The Japanese Tertiary Education System and Its Impact on Economic Conditions from 2000 to 2010

Figure 2. Japan: Enrollment in total tertiary

Note: Public and private. Full and part time. Total. Author generated figure, data source: UNESCO UIS.

tertiary education. “In 2006 the proportion of tertiary education funded by households in Japan in 2006 was 51%... This compared to 3% in Norway” (Marginson, 2011, p. 596). 3.22 million students attend 1,200 universities and colleges in Japan and nearly 80% of these universities are private, creating an ability for each school to focus on a specific, unique educational path for each student where research has been a focus ubiquitously (Higher Education in Japan, 2012). During the 1960s and 70s, Japan confronted a great demand for higher education and in efforts to alleviate this issue, the MEXT relaxed regulatory policies to foster the establishment of many private universities (Maruyama, 2012, p. 14). This demand was created by a rapid expansion of the economy and a sharp increase in household income as well as a greater need for more highly skilled workers (Kariya, 2011, p. 247). Currently, private universities are still housed under state control

and must abide by all policies of the MEXT. The Japanese government and the Japanese people for the most part agree that it is the role of the government to provide higher education to the people. Private universities provide education to the majority of people, where national institutions operate as leading educational centers for the brightest of elite students (Maruyama, 2012, p. 16). These institutions serve to create a diverse and complex population that helps drive Japan to its prominence in the global economy. National institutions have tended to create the most highly sought after employees as large conglomerates and multinationals tend to prefer graduates from the most prestigious universities and have been charged to “take the reputation of the institution into account more than the competence the students actually reach” (Teichler, 1997, p. 288). Kariya (2011) explained that creation of a system with selective and elite institutions as well as lower tier

447

 The Japanese Tertiary Education System and Its Impact on Economic Conditions from 2000 to 2010

institutions, high standards can be met as well as extended access availability (p. 244). By creating a system with many types of institutions, arranged for many levels of people, the majority of the population can participate in higher education. National, public, and private universities are established as “corporations” and these corporations are required to disseminate selected documents to the MEXT; all national universities are referred to as National University Corporations and are designated as independent bodies of the state (Kaneko, 2010, p. 15). Kitagawa (2009) explained the quintessence of these corporations is “to promote increased independence and entrepreneurialism, as well as to foster institutional diversification and efficiency” (p. 264). As of 1949, certain former imperial universities were bereaved of their elite status and all three types of universities, public, private, and national, were to be considered as equal under Japanese law (Kitagawa, 2009, p. 263). There are still seven major universities that serve as flagship institutions in Japan, the most esteemed being the University of Tokyo (Maruyama, 2012, p. 13). These institutions are considered very prestigious globally and have fierce competition from Japanese students and abroad. During the 1960s and 70s the government concentrated its efforts on the educational expansion of engineering and natural science programs at each national university in efforts to drive the technological boom that was expanding rapidly in the country (Saito, 2011, p. 2). As aforementioned, during this time private universities were being deregulated to open higher education to a greater portion of the population. This created a rapid expansion of private universities and a rapid decrease in quality of education; Maruyama (2012) explained that because private universities did not receive government subsidies and became overcrowded with students, financial difficulties and shortage of facilities led to lower quality schooling at the private level contrasted to the public and national level institutions (p. 2;

448

Saito, 2011, p. 3). Kaneko (2010) explained that massive expansion of higher education generated bleak conditions that prompted questioning of the system and the social consideration of how to improve the quality (p.14). In more recent endeavors, the government has been working with private institutions to increase this level of quality and to alleviate financial burdens with increased subsidies to increase the overall level of quality for all Japanese and foreign students. Marginson (2011) believes that the cultural aspect of the Japanese model lends itself to the population’s desire for the state’s contribution to “educational supply” (p. 595). These undertakings in investment in human capital have directly related to the future demand for skilled labor in Japan and continued economic expansion. When measuring enrollment in tertiary education, the researcher based Figure 3 on total population to display a level comparison. Enrollment in total tertiary over population gives the percent of the population that was currently enrolled in tertiary education for the particular year in question. This graph indicates that Japan’s tertiary enrollment per population slightly decreased from 2006 to 2010. As Kaneko (2010) stated, the massive expansion from the mid-1980s to the mid-1990s initiated a lacking education system with reduced quality institutions that have been slow to recover, particularly with a slowing population growth rate. As the population in each country varies, enrollments are somewhat deceptive as enrollment could be increasing, but at a slower rate than the population is increasing, or enrollment could be increasing, but the population could be decreasing and vice versa. In efforts to promote private institutions to equalize with public and national universities, the Japanese government has placed action to decrease financial burdens on students by subsidizing operating costs, tax reductions, improved support for management, and students’ loans provided by The Promotion and Mutual Aid Corporation for Private Schools of Japan (Higher Education in

 The Japanese Tertiary Education System and Its Impact on Economic Conditions from 2000 to 2010

Figure 3. Enrollment in total tertiary/population

Note: Author generated figure, data source: UNESCO UIS.

Japan, 2012). With such a large populace involved in the private sector, the MEXT strives to place private education in a similar educational quality as national universities. Kaneko (2010) explains, “The arguments that expenditure of higher education should be considered an investment, and therefore should be borne by the society as a whole, urged the government to increase revenues for the private institutions” (p. 16). In other extended efforts, the MEXT has placed strict quality assurance measures in place aforementioned in order to meet mounting student needs, diversity of the student body, and escalating international higher education competition. Maryuama (2012) states that MEXT’s ability to learn to utilize thirdparty evaluation and self-evaluation are critical in building long-term quality assurance (p. 7). The MEXT has many enrichment programs in place

for Japanese institutions including undergraduate policy implementation, graduate schools as centers for high-level research, clarification of educational purposes and an amplified sense of sovereignty, creation of shared research facilities, a goal of accepting 300,000 international students by 2020, and development of 30 universities as centers for internationalization known as the “Global 30” (Higher Education in Japan, 2012; Kitagawa, 2009, p. 265). The MEXT has doled out financial support through the Scholarship Program of the Japan Student Services Organization where interest-free scholarships are granted up to certain amounts for undergraduate and graduate students and scholarships are granted to certain international students with specific quotas and assistance amounts set by the Japanese government (Higher Education in Japan, 2012). This program is

449

 The Japanese Tertiary Education System and Its Impact on Economic Conditions from 2000 to 2010

meant to ensure students remain in the country as institutions desire substantial enrollments, yet, as aforementioned, population growth is decreasing. Japanese higher education institutions have been greatly influenced by this decreasing population as the mood of competition is fierce (Kitagawa, 2009, p. 259). The MEXT must encourage institutions to meet the considerable quality assurance measures, maintain its forward movement in light of hefty global educational competition, and find ways to maintain concentration on innovation and unique capacities that will continue to carry Japanese education into the forefront of higher education. As the government system has realized this call for origination, it has sought to embrace the “entrepreneurial university” as well as the service side of institutions in efforts to invigorate economic growth (Kitagawa, 2009, p. 266).

Challenges and Policy Implementation While government efforts strive to expand and develop the higher education system in Japan, dissatisfaction in certain areas have been an issue. Maruyama (2012) and Teichler (1997) explained that professors and staff were found to spend too much time on research and not enough on teaching efforts. Institutional reforms were developed to increase concentration on teaching at all levels, as well as to maintain research efforts. Global competition from all areas in the world has put pressure on the MEXT to enhance higher education, particularly graduate research programs, in efforts “to secure international validity and reliability” and to ensure the prominence that Japan currently holds in the global economy (Maruyama, 2012, p. 18). Kaneko (2010) described another issue has been the lack of dispersal of information regarding institutional activities, as this information is purely academic and above the understanding of the average citizen, as the public has begun to prompt for more information with the advancement of the social importance of higher education (pp.

450

18-19). This initiates the need for greater transparency and increased dispersal of information. Financing has become a critical issue as financial rigidity and reductions in government disbursements have arisen recently; each institution will be challenged with assembling its own strategic financial plan (Kaneko, 2010, p. 19). Depending on the financial security of Japan, the MEXT will need to determine the best resource allocation to uphold the current educational path in the country. Higher education in Europe and in the United States has focused on driving international competition and on resource allocation through achievement of institutions rather than solely based on number of students in the door. Japan is also implementing these policies, but because of the dissimilar type of government and future mixed fiscal outlook, the future will hold how higher education policy will affect institutions. The MEXT is part of the government system of Japan, listed as a constitutional monarchy with a parliamentary government where the Emperor is characterized as a state symbol and there is no federal system, simply 47 prefectures that depend on the central government for financial assistance (U.S. Department of State: Bureau of East Asian and Pacific Affairs: Japan, 2012). GDP growth has been stagnant or even reversing and recent earthquake and tsunami disasters have struck Japan in a very tough economic time. Slow nominal GDP growth is causing fiscal adjustments to be challenging and resolving this financial predicament with proper policy and strategy is paramount to the continuation of the current educational system (OCED, Japan, 2013, p. 2). As Japan’s government is trying to support the goals, specifically financial goals, of the MEXT, economic conditions will play a large role in the direction of the higher education system. This system is upheld by grants, loans, and scholarships that may not be plausible if current fiscal conditions are not rectified. Japan is committed to building a fervent and intellectual society that is based on a unique

 The Japanese Tertiary Education System and Its Impact on Economic Conditions from 2000 to 2010

set of characteristics, but must be able to uphold spending with concrete economic foundations and sound underlying pecuniary principals. More recently, the MEXT worked with the Central Council for Education to develop the report “A Future Vision for Higher Education in Japan” to present a long-term design for higher education and elaborated on ways to measure improvements (Saito, 2012, p. 5). Overall, fundamental considerations include the current “age of the ‘knowledge based society,’ in which higher education is exceedingly important in personal development as well as national strategies,” the importance of the governmental role in higher education, and designation of future visions for policy and regulation (Saito, 2012, p. 5). The MEXT is constantly working to internationalize and globalize with programs such as the “Global 30” and targets of admitting 300,000 international students by 2020. These strategies and policies aim to keep the Japanese higher education system on the forefront of global education and competitive in the current economy while expanding upon their current population’s abilities and educating a near universal portion of the populace.

Theoretical Framework The attempt to link educational inputs and economic outputs has been constantly contemplated as researchers around the world have sought a model that would accurately describe the relationship between these two variables. Beginning with Schultz (1961) and Denison (1962), econometric equations have been built, tested, altered, analyzed, modified, and transformed repeatedly as the world’s understanding of statistical analysis advances and the ability to collect large amounts of valid data expands. With this expansion of data, variables to consider has increased dramatically. The original models of Schultz (1961), Mincer (1974), and Walters and Rubinson (1983) considered a much smaller amount of variables on a considerably broader basis, where more current

models of Barro and Lee (2010) and Hanushek (2003) rely on a much more detailed measure of variables that were thoroughly analyzed for actual, valid input into the model (i.e. increasing R2). Not to say that earlier models were not thorough, but the capacity of which data is available about each individual country has expanded radically in the last fifty years has led recent researchers to be able to more precisely define which factors are actually contributing towards economic advancement versus more theoretical options that have gone untested. In the following section, the researcher will utilize econometric models in efforts to better understand the relationship between educational and economic factors. The researcher used what was believed to be the most encompassing and important indicators when building the model for this study, taking into account data available through the previously listed databases. Previous research studied has been published and cited by thousands of other researchers and is assumed to be mathematically and statistically valid.

Research Methods and Design Data Collection, Processing, and Analysis: Overview of the Data The researcher collected data from the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) Institute for Statistics, the OECD, the Barro-Lee Databases, and The World Bank, of which data were collected by each member country that was analyzed and updated by The World Bank Development Group. The World Bank Development Group is responsible for the collection and maintenance of The World Bank data in efforts to create an international statistical system that member countries can use to gain particulars, as well as to create a bigger picture by the use of data analysis and beyond. Developing countries often face difficulties in performing quality data collection, The World Bank aims to

451

 The Japanese Tertiary Education System and Its Impact on Economic Conditions from 2000 to 2010

assist these countries by means of several actions plans implemented to support the progression of statistical infrastructure in each region. The World Bank’s databank collection for each member country consists of approximately 1800-2000 indicators for each country (The World Bank, Data Overview). The indicators are of a wide variety of topics, including information on GDP and tertiary education statistics and are reported in the intention of disseminating as much information as possible about each member country. Statistics are presented on each country from 1960-2012; some indicators have complete data for this time range and others have significant gaps in the data. By utilizing an ordinary least squares (OLS) regression analysis, the researcher estimated how various causal factors influenced a single variable of interest. This estimate implies a true relationship, but an unknown exact relationship; the causal factor determines the relationship between the causal factors and the constant. A multiple regression analysis allows for use of simultaneous consideration of multiple factors to explain variation in the dependent variable (Richards, 2009). The researcher has chosen the following indicators for use in the OLS regression analysis: real growth rate (dependent/endogenous variable), population growth, tertiary education enrollment in 2000, tertiary education enrollment in 2000 squared, tertiary education enrollment in 2010, GDP per capita in 2000, GDP per capita in 2000 squared, GDP per capita in 2010, an interactive variable consisting of tertiary education enrollment in 2000 times GDP per capita in 2000, and several regional dummy variables. Regional dummy variables included Africa, Asia, Europe and the United States, Latin America, and Former Communist countries. This study will utilize an ordinary least squares regression analysis to create a human capital model to assess the hypothesis of the impact of human capital development, in the form of tertiary en-

452

rollment, on economic output in the form of the real growth rate. The researcher chose this model after Walters and Rubinson (1983), Barro and Lee (2010), and Škare’s (2011) uses of this model to estimate the relationship between human capital and economic growth.

Data Collection Instrumentation The researcher also utilized educational and economic data assembled annually by UNESCO’s Institute for Statistics (UIS); “The UIS collects educational statistics in aggregate form from official administrative sources at the national level” (UNESCO, Background, 2012, p. 1). The researcher focused on public and private tertiary information, human factors, financial matters, participation, and completion. The UIS collects its data through the distribution of three surveys to member countries, OECD countries, and countries involved in the World Education Indicators (WEI) program, where each countries’ ministry of education or national statistical office submit responses to distributed questionnaires, in efforts to confront emergent statistical trends, both positive and negative, and to continuously improve upon data available and extended access of this information (UNESCO, Background, 2012, pp. 1-2). After surveys are collected, the data are reviewed for errors by use of automated systems and through analysis of time series data. The UIS then distributes the information to each participating country, where errors and issues are highlighted and countries are asked to present corrected and complete data for comparative uses. If the country in unable to complete the dataset, the UIS will calculate missing or incorrect information, engender estimates (through use of statistically correlated indicators or previous years approximation), and venture to create a more complete dataset; this dataset is sent back to each country in question for review and if each

 The Japanese Tertiary Education System and Its Impact on Economic Conditions from 2000 to 2010

agree, the dataset is published (UNECSO, FAQ, 2012, p. 2). As new population data is released (generally every two years by the United Nations Population Division), revisions may be made to existing data. This data is of immense importance to policy makers around the world and can assist policy makers in answering questions of financial capacity, equity in the provision of educational opportunities, and are used to analyze new, existing, and trade-off policy implementation that can arise from financial constraints, educational goals, and/or political change (p. 11). The UIS is the primary educational data provider for analysis and monitoring of the MDGs and EFA goals, as well as the primary source of educational data for the World Bank (World Development Report), of which are all explored in this research.

Measurement of Indicators Countries Countries were chosen based on available educational data housed within the UNESCO UIS database. Enrollment in tertiary education was a limiting indicator with the least amount of information supplied by each country. As previously noted, UNESCO gathers reports on tertiary education levels through surveys, censuses, and questionnaires distributed by individual governments or other non-governmental organizations. Due to a lack of information, out of 210 countries that report to UNESCO, only 86 were considered for this study. These 86 countries provided fully documented information on tertiary educational enrollments in 2000 and 2010, the two years necessary for compilation of the research and model. Several other aforementioned studies have considered more countries in their models, but utilized increasingly complex modeling to fill gaps in the data that go beyond the scope of this paper. All other indicators from the model were abundant for the 86 countries, including population and GDP per capita.

Real Growth Rate Real growth rate was calculated using GDP per capita found on UNESCO’s UIS database for years 2000 and 2010. Real growth rate was calculated applying the following equation: [(real GDP per capitat – real GDP per capitat-1)/ real GDP per capitat-1] * 100, where t is the current or latest year and t-1 is the year prior to t. In this study, t is 2010 and t-1 is 2000. Real growth rate was applied as the dependent variable in efforts to determine if the real growth rate was effected by increases or decreases in tertiary education levels in the studied countries.

Population Growth Population growth was calculated similarly to real growth rate, by means of the same equation, but employing population in place of GDP per capita. Population was also obtained from UNESCO’s database for the years 2000 and 2010. Population growth was an independent variable and was important to include to control for population growth when testing whether increased enrollments in tertiary education effected GDP per capita in terms of the real growth rate.

Education 2000 and 2010 Tertiary enrollment data was collected from UNESCO’s database and was the limiting factor in the type of model and in the number of data points presented. Enrollment in tertiary education was presented for this study as total enrollment in tertiary education, full and part time, male and female, public and private. UNESCO breaks down tertiary education into many categories including by major study area, which may be a space for future research, as well as by male and female, which is another area that is beyond the scope of this research but is an area for future studies. Tertiary enrollment level controlling for population were calculated for the years 2000 and 2010

453

 The Japanese Tertiary Education System and Its Impact on Economic Conditions from 2000 to 2010

by taking tertiary education enrollment in 2000 divided by population in 2000 and the same for 2010, as seen in Figure 4. Change in tertiary education level was computed by subtracting these calculations from one another; this was referred to as delta education. The years 2000-2010 were chosen based off available data, as well as the year 2000 serving as the first year for predictions on growth by 2010. Students enrolled in 2000 traditionally would have graduated somewhere in the years of 2000-04 and by 2010 each would have been a stable producer in the economy. As producers (or workers in the economy), particularly a few years out of tertiary education, models can begin to show how these students’ have begun their contribution to the growth of society (seen here measured in the real growth rate). Several other abovementioned stud-

ies use this method, the lag method, or moving averages to predict future contributions by past or current enrollees (McClelland, 1965; Walters & Rubinson, 1983; Barro & Lee, 2010; Barro, 2013). In building an educational model, often economic fluctuations are thought to influence economic outputs such as GDP, GNP, and GSP to varying degrees with instability in the markets. By utilizing this type of growth modeling a comprehensive picture decreases variability of the timed indicators in the model and increases chances of generating significant results that are influenced by the particular variables at hand, rather than unintended outside sources; gathering data over a ten-year span produced the most information about the students involved in tertiary education and their contributions to the economy.

Figure 4. Tertiary education enrollment in 2000 over population by region Note: Author generated figure, data source: UNESCO UIS.

454

 The Japanese Tertiary Education System and Its Impact on Economic Conditions from 2000 to 2010

GDP per Capita 2000 and 2010 GDP per capita data was assembled from UNESCO’s database and was compared to The World Bank and the OECD’s data on GDP per capita. Data were similar, if not exact, and was abundant in availability.

Interaction Variable Education differed by income in each country, where countries with more income per capita tended to grow more slowly than countries with less income per capita. In efforts to determine the effect of education levels dependent upon country size, the researcher used an interaction variable to uncover this marginal effect. The interaction variable is tertiary education enrollment in 2000 times GDP per capita in 2000. This variable gave the marginal effect of one year of education on GDP growth, it is the marginal effect regardless of income in each country. If this term were negative, it would indicate that the effect of education on poorer countries is larger than in rich countries.

Dummy Variables The researcher selected dummy variables constructed mostly by continent, with two exceptions. The dummy regions included Africa, Asia, Europe plus the United States, Latin America, and Former Communist states. The United States was the only country that was not associated with any other countries in its region and is considered a wealthy state, such like the European countries, so was grouped as such. Latin America includes all of Central America and South America that had data available for the 86 countries involved in the study. A dummy variable for the Former Communist states was selected as a region if efforts to observe the effects on education in those specific countries. Former Communist states have been observed to have large effects from increased

efforts in tertiary enrollments and the researcher was interested in comprehending these effects in relation to the other regions listed. After controlling for each country as a simple 0,1 dummy variable, the researcher also considered allowing each region to have an interactive educational effect in efforts to see the effect of education regionally, while still considering each region respectfully. For example, for the Asian educational dummy variable, Asian countries were given a value of each particular countries’ tertiary education enrollment in 2000 and all other countries where denoted with a 0. This process was the same for each region listed. Some regions were accounted for twice if they were an Asian country, but also a Former Communist country, as well as a European country, but also a former Communist country. This gave the researcher an ability to compare this regional variable, and evaluate the model based on the listed regions.

Methodology Gretl Gretl (2013) was utilized for OLS regression modeling and is a free, downloadable source found online. Gretl is an open-source program which stands for GNU Regression, Econometrics and Time-series Library; Gretl is similar to SPSS or STATA, but is a free statistical package. Models were run checking for robust standard errors in order to control for problems with heteroskedasticity; the variant was HC1 (heteroskedasticityconsistent) (Gretl, 2013). Here, each of the different regions could have variable variances so the researcher tried to reduce the likelihood of heteroskedastic results with the use of robust standard errors. Heteroskedastic results bias standard errors, resulting in a biased relationship between exogenous and endogenous variables, therefore the model corrects for potential error with these results, utilizing the robust standard error.

455

 The Japanese Tertiary Education System and Its Impact on Economic Conditions from 2000 to 2010

Hypotheses

Models Tested

H 1: There is a relationship between real growth rate from 2000-2010, population growth, and tertiary education enrollment, as represented by the equation: γGDP per capita (PPP USD) real growth rate 2000-2010 = β0 + β1Population Growth (00-10) + β2Tertiary Education Enrollment 2000 +ε : There is a relationship between real growth H2 rate from 2000-2010, population growth, tertiary education enrollment, tertiary education enrollment squared, and GDP per capita in 2000 as represented by the equation: γGDP per capita (PPP USD) real growth rate 2000-2010 = β0 + β1Population Growth (00-10) + β2Tertiary Education Enrollment 2000 + β3Tertiary Education Enrollment 20002 + β4GDP per capita (PPP) 2000 +ε H3: There is a relationship between real growth rate from 2000-2010, population growth, tertiary education enrollment, tertiary education enrollment squared, GDP per capita, an interaction term, and regional dummy variables as represented by the equation: γGDP per capita (PPP USD) real growth rate 2000-2010 = β0 + β1Population Growth (00-10) + β2Tertiary Education Enrollment 2000 + β3Tertiary Education Enrollment 20002 + β4GDP per capita (PPP) 2000 + β5InteractionTerm(TertEduEnrol2000*GDPpercapita2000)+β6DAfrica + β7DAsia + β8DEurope+US + β9DFormer Communist Countries +ε H4: There is a relationship between real growth rate from 2000-2010, tertiary education enrollment, tertiary education enrollment squared, GDP per capita, GDP per capita squared, regional dummy variables, and regional educational dummy variables as represented by the equation: γGDP per capita (PPP USD) real growth rate 2000-2010 = β 0 + β 1 Te r t i a r y E d u c a t i o n E n r o l l m e n t 2 0 0 0 + β2Tertiary Education Enrollment 20002 + β3GDP per capita (PPP) 2000 + β4GDP per capita (PPP) 20002 + β5DAfrica + β6DAsia + β7DEurope+US + β8DFormer Communist Countries + β9DAfrica Edu + β10DAsia Edu + β11DEurope+US Edu + β12DFormer Communist Countries Edu + ε

The researcher proposed the listed hypotheses to create a model that could be built upon to show tertiary educations’ role in the real growth rate and to observe which variables could provide the best information for determining this relationship. The first model was designed simply with comparing the real growth rate to population growth and tertiary education enrollment in 2000, with subsequent models expanding upon this general concept. Overall, fifteen models were originally tested; the researcher chose these four to best show the changes of added quadratic indicators, GDP per capita indicators, and two types of dummy variables.

456

Methodological Assumptions and Limitations Within the calculated data, many assumptions and limitations cause concerns of accuracy and reliability. That noted, the data available must be accepted as reliable and sufficient. There are numerous rationales for inaccuracies in the data and therefore the model and not every limitation can be accounted for in this study; as such, a few are listed here. Firstly, as noted by Barro and Lee (2010), OECD data and UNESCO data cannot be used concurrently as significant differences are found within the calculations of the datasets. OECD data is derived from labor force surveys at the individual level, where UNESCO data comes from census data (OECD, About, 2013; UNECSO, About the UIS, 2012). Educational classifications systems are computed by distinct means that do not align. UNESCO data tends to be more complete as there are several more years of census data available for computations as well as a more accurate set of data to construct backward-flow and forwardflow estimates as necessary (UNESCO, About the UIS, 2012; Barro & Lee, 2010). Therefore, this study employs UNESCO data, as the researcher

 The Japanese Tertiary Education System and Its Impact on Economic Conditions from 2000 to 2010

found it the most comprehensive, extensive, and reliable. As aforementioned, the quality of the data depends upon the statistical data collection method, as well as the organization that is collecting the data. Collection methods can be dissimilar and can lead to inconsistencies, particularly in poorer countries with inferior collection methods and data assemblage capabilities. Often, complications of statistical bias create limitations within the data. Stevens and Weale (2003) suggested that previous authors might have been subject to elements of selection bias, creating some sort of bias, mathematical or otherwise, in previous publications (p. 20). Glewwe, Hanushek, Humpage, and Ravina (2011) stated that “the most common generic concerns are omitted variable bias, sample selection, endogenous program placement, and measurement errors” (p. 11). Krueger and Lindahl (2000) explained that certain countries that may have underwent rapid GDP growth have increased interest from outside countries in outside investment, generating a potential scenario for simultaneity bias (p. 17). These biases arise from aforementioned issues in data collection and other statistical measurement errors that are perpetually observed in this type of modeling. Other limitations of the data include questions of GDP and GDP per capita calculations and how this data are collected on a countryby-country basis. Poorer countries tend to have weaker forms of data collection and less totality of figures captured. Other issues arise within market verses non-market activities; “there are obvious questions over the GDP figures used, and particularly so for relatively poor countries where non-market activity is likely to be more important than in advanced countries” (Stevens & Weale, 2003, p. 19). These non-market activities skew GDP figures, but researchers must make the assumption that GDP data given is valid. When measuring GDP, questions of calculations arise, creating differing values from differing data sets. Blomström, Lipsey, and Zejan (1993) questioned

whether physical capital should be encompassed in GDP because of impending endogeneity; countries that grow quicker generally have more access to investment and capital as mentioned by Krueger and Lindahl. Other issues arise in capturing GDP data in relation to education, If a country has a low level of education for its measured GDP, it is likely that its true GDP is less than its measured GDP. If the error in GDP is transitory, then subsequent GDP growth will appear particularly strong for such a country because the negative error in the GDP is unlikely to repeat in the second period. (Krueger & Lindahl, 2000, p. 32) Krueger and Lindahl (2000) pointed out that these types of inaccuracies can cause compounding errors not only with GDP, but also with educational data. This limitation, again, is an issue that every researcher must trust that the data is valid and continue to create models and calculations to close the gaps in the data. When measuring education, limitations in calculations of marginal return to education arise. Given this assumption the [educational] figure measures the average return per year of education up to the point at which the marginal return to education just equals the marginal benefit identified by the individual. With reasonable assumption of declining marginal effects of education, it follows that this figure must be higher than the incremental benefit of an extra year’s education. (Stevens & Weale, 2003, p. 6) Issues with the data also include the fact that quality of education is difficult to encompass and cross-country models implicitly presuppose that all countries are housed within the same production frontier, which is an impossibility (Psacharopoulos & Patrinos, 2004, p. 14). Other differences lie in cultural aspects and measurement of quality, as

457

 The Japanese Tertiary Education System and Its Impact on Economic Conditions from 2000 to 2010

well as many other omitted variables that cause variation in outcome and true measurement of results. The researcher studied previous models and calculations in building the model for this study and found a historical review of major educational economist’s research helpful. In testing tertiary enrollments effect on the real growth rate, four hypotheses were assessed from an original 15 models. Prior researchers have had access to much larger, more expensive databases and delved much further into constructing complex econometric equations that go beyond the scope of this research. That said, the results from this research are significant and give insight into tertiary educations role in economic growth, particularly in Japan, and the results shed light into the future of human capital development and how policy implementation can help optimize the balance between education and growth.

As previously mentioned, the researcher confirmed four models were essential to understanding the relationship between tertiary education and the real growth rate, otherwise known as the relationship between human capital formation and economic growth. The four models are as follows:

γGDP per capita (PPP USD) real growth rate 2000-2010 = β0 + β1Population Growth (00-10) + β2Tertiary Education Enrollment 2000 + β3Tertiary Education Enrollment 20002 + β4GDP per capita (PPP) 2000 +ε H3: There is a relationship between real growth rate from 2000-2010, population growth, tertiary education enrollment, tertiary education enrollment squared, GDP per capita, an interaction term, and regional dummy variables as represented by the equation: γGDP per capita (PPP USD) real growth rate 2000-2010 = β0 + β1Population Growth (00-10) + β2Tertiary Education Enrollment 2000 + β3Tertiary Education Enrollment 20002 + β4GDP per capita (PPP) 2000 + β5InteractionTerm(TertEduEnrol2000*GDPpercapita2000)+β6DAfrica + β7DAsia + β8DEurope+US + β9DFormer Communist Countries +ε H4: There is a relationship between real growth rate from 2000-2010, tertiary education enrollment, tertiary education enrollment squared, GDP per capita, GDP per capita squared, regional dummy variables, and regional educational dummy variables as represented by the equation: γGDP per capita (PPP USD) real growth rate 2000-2010 = β 0 + β 1 Te r t i a r y E d u c a t i o n E n r o l l m e n t 2 0 0 0 + β2Tertiary Education Enrollment 20002 + β3GDP per capita (PPP) 2000 + β4GDP per capita (PPP) 20002 + β5DAfrica + β6DAsia + β7DEurope+US + β8DFormer Communist Countries + β9DAfrica Edu + β10DAsia Edu + β11DEurope+US Edu + β12DFormer Communist Countries Edu + ε

H 1: There is a relationship between real growth rate from 2000-2010, population growth, and tertiary education enrollment, as represented by the equation: γGDP per capita (PPP USD) real growth rate 2000-2010 = β0 + β1Population Growth (00-10) + β2Tertiary Education Enrollment 2000 +ε H2: There is a relationship between real growth rate from 2000-2010, population growth, tertiary education enrollment, tertiary education enrollment squared, and GDP per capita in 2000 as represented by the equation:

Table 1 displays the mean, maximum, and minimum for the listed indicators for the 86 countries, as well as individual results for Japan. In testing the hypotheses, the researcher observed the coefficient of determination (R2), the F-test value (F), and the probability value (p-value). R2 describes how much variation can be explained within the model and how much variation can be explained by the error term (ε) (Richards, 2009). The F test will test if the null hypothesis is true or false by analyzing explained and unexplained variances in the outcome; larger

Gretl Output

458

 The Japanese Tertiary Education System and Its Impact on Economic Conditions from 2000 to 2010

Table 1. Descriptive statistics Real Growth Rate (%)

Population Growth Rate (%)

Tertiary Education Enrollment 2000 (%)

Tertiary Education Enrollment 2010 (%)

Change in Tertiary Education 00-10 (%)

GDP per Capita 2000 (USD)

Interactive Variable

Mean

76.4566

11.8858

2.3159

3.3556

1.0397

11,263.68

35.0926

Max

346.9365 (Azerbaijan)

43.2465 (Eritrea)

6.5311 (Republic of Korea)

6.7855 (Republic of Korea)

2.9761 (Armenia)

53648.17 (Luxembourg)

163.9605 (Spain)

Min

6.0876 (Eritrea)

-8.2920 (Georgia)

0.0319 (Malawi)

0.06909 (Malawi)

-0.4618 (Spain)

440.29 (Burundi)

0.0003 (Albania)

N

86

86

86

86

86

86

86

Japan

29.7839

0.6487

3.1674

3.0318

-0.1356

25,908.67

38.5052

Note: Calculations made from data available from UNESCO UIS. Retrieved from http://www.uis.unesco.org.

F values mean better results as the model shows more explained variance than unexplained variance (Richards, 2009). If the null hypothesis is false, it is rejected and the parameters did have some impact on the model. With a high F test, the model is statistically significant and the null hypothesis is rejected. The p-value tests individual parameters and gives statistical distributions. Using a 2-tail test and a 90% confidence level, critical values of t (absolute value) will be greater than 1.645 and p-values will be less than 0.10 for the parameter to be statistically significant.

Hypothesis 1 There is a relationship between real growth rate from 2000-2010, population growth, and tertiary education enrollment, as represented by the equation: γGDP per capita (PPP USD) real growth rate 2000-2010 = β0 + β1Population Growth (00-10) + β2Tertiary Education Enrollment 2000 + ε The first model tested the relationship between real growth rate, population growth, and tertiary education enrollment. This was a simple model to understand the effect of initial tertiary education enrollment on the real growth rate while controlling for population growth. This model states that a change in tertiary education enrollment in 2000 causes a percent change in GDP per capita real growth rate from 2000-2010. The

predicted educational effect is that increased tertiary education enrollment would increase GDP per capita growth, but this was not the case in the first model. Results determine that there were negative returns to the real growth rate at the current level of tertiary education enrollment; the tertiary education coefficient was -14.769. The results were significant at the 95% confidence level for population, p-value