 |
|
|
 |
ISSUE INDEX
|
 |
 |
 |
|
|
|
The Use of the Critical Thinking Process by Family and Consumer Sciences Students1Frances M. Smith and Donna Kienzler
As decisions related to family, careers, and social concerns (e.g., workplace ethics, personal health care, money management, child rearing practices, and environmental practices) become more complex, the need for being able to use a critical thinking process becomes increasingly vital (Pillay & Elliott, 2001; Waller, 2001). Citizens in a global world need not only critical thinking skills but also the disposition to use them (Tishman & Perkins, 1997, Facione, 2000). This study shows how students practiced the process of critical thinking and aspects of a thinking disposition as revealed in classroom dialogue and course writing. The critical thinking process envisioned here is not just a set of linear skills, and it is not limited to argumentative reasoning (Anderson, Sodon, & Hunter, 2001), although these skills are important. Critical thinking is a dynamic process of questioning and reasoning about our own and others' claims, assumptions, and conclusions; definitions and evidence; beliefs, and actions (King, 1992, 1994; Kitchner & King, 1990; Lipman, 1988; Paul, 1984, 1993; Siegel, 1988). It requires that the critical thinker have a critical disposition (Facione, Sanchez, Facione, & Gainen, 1995; Oxman-Michelli, 1992; Tishman, Jay, & Perkins, 1993). A critical disposition requires a willingness to be broad and adventurous, planful and strategic, intellectually careful, metacognitive, and to seek understanding (Tishman, Jay, & Perkins, 1993). One who uses a critical thinking process to make decisions seldom takes the social world as given, but searches for the social, historical, and political roots of conventional knowledge (Barber, 1992; Brookfield, 1987, 1991, 1994, 1995; Hardin, 2001; Shor, 1992; Weinstein, 1988, 1993). A critical thinker is oriented to seeking the common good that promotes a fair and just world for everyone (Kienzler, 2001; Smith & Kienzler, 1998; Smith, 1997). Furthermore, a critical thinker is poised on the brim of what O'Sullivan (2002) called "a structural shift in the premise of thought" (p. 11). Such a shift involves students understanding themselves, academia, the community, and the world. It enables students to envision alternate possibilities for problem solving. The purpose of this qualitative case study research was to examine this process of critical thinking from the college student's perspective rather than from the teacher's perspective. The research questions examined in this article are
The evidence to answer these questions came from the students' own voices. The data are in the form of words, which are relatively imprecise, diffuse, and context-based, and can have more than one meaning (Neuman, 2000). But the data allow the researchers new insights into the critical thinking process as seen by the students. Critical thinking experts such as Brookfield (1994, 1995), Mezirow (1990), Paul (1984, 1993), and Shor (1980, 1992) have traditionally written from the perspective of teachers and non-traditional learners. In this paper, the authors use critical thinking illustrations from student writing or recollected conferences and classroom conversations. This study adds extensive data from students' actual taped oral interactions within one family and consumer sciences course in which students were taught a general approach to critical thinking appropriate for various separate subjects (Ennis, 1992). The objective of the course was to help students develop a transformative learning process that would enable them to determine justifiable actions related to their own practical/moral problems, the problems of their future clients, and problems of society as a whole. The Case Study Class The classroom setting for the data reported here was a 1995 undergraduate college course, Educational Aspects of Family Social Issues, at a major mid-western public university. The authors’ later work with subsequent courses has indicated similar student responses. The specific objectives of the course were to
Half the students were in the course to fulfill a curriculum requirement; half chose the course as an elective. All the students were interested in service occupations in which dealing with persons with views different from their own was a strong possibility. Class discussion and individual journals revealed that the eighteen students in this course were sophomores, juniors, and seniors from a variety of rural and urban backgrounds. Most were from the Midwest. Four students were age 25 or over; three had children. All of the younger college age students were single. One was an international student. There were no other ethnic minority students in the group. Of the 18 students, 17 were female and one was male. The interests and life experiences of these students were varied. Two respondents were especially interested in feminist issues and one was involved in daycare issues. Some were active in campus organizations; some had a very heavy work schedule; some commuted. Some were engaged or were getting engaged; others were married; still others had experienced separation or divorce. Several were students who had not participated in a college-level discussion course before. The Classroom Curriculum The course stressed a critical thinking perspective to help pre-professionals in family and consumer sciences to respond to family issues. The 30 class periods were roughly divided into three segments. The first segment involved examining and practicing specific elements in the process of critical thinking in discussing editorials and writing reasoned paragraphs about family social issues from a book of readings by Bird and Sporakowski (1994). The students used as their text Asking the Right Questions (Browne & Keeley, 1994) and supplementary reading in Writing Arguments (Ramage & Beane, 1994). In the second segment of the course, students were assigned to one of three six-member teams. Each team selected an issue, then three members of the team presented one stand on the issue; the other three presented an opposing stand on the same issue followed by open discussion. Students selected issues from Bird & Sporakowski (1994): Is marriage good for you? Should gays and lesbians fight for the right to marry? Are children of divorce at greater risk? The other classroom exercise in the second segment involved pairs of students holding a short dialogue on an issue of their choice followed by questions and classroom discussion (Bills, 1999; Townsend, 1998). In the third segment of the class, the students learned about the art of role play. Several writings about role play (Ladousse, 1987; Milroy, 1982; Shaftel, 1967; van Ments, 1983) were analyzed and a video tape demonstrating role play sessions with questions following these sessions was viewed and discussed. In self-chosen groups of three, each student in the course then participated in two role plays followed by the class questioning the role players and even the questioners. In some instances, additional role plays explored another view of the situation. The first role play involved characters in literary stories selected from a reading list. The second role play involved scenarios written by the students themselves. The student assignments included an individually-designed project to improve a self-selected aspect of their own critical thinking, such as identifying assumptions, selecting credible evidence, or listening to different points of view (Barell, 1991; Keeley, 1992; Toppins, 1987). As a part of their effort to analyze and expand their own critical thinking process, each student kept a weekly journal (as envisioned by Reinertsen & Wells, 1993) that provided regular opportunities to question the readings, elaborate on a class discussion, or raise other individual questions of the instructor. The journal was submitted weekly and returned with an instructor response. The journal was also an opportunity for "silent" students (Townsend, 1998) to share their thinking. Each student also wrote an issue paper that provided credible evidence and references for opposing views on an issue of choice. Papers were to display good use of the criteria proposed by Ramage and Beane (1994) in writing arguments. Feedback from the instructor and others was encouraged during the writing process. At the end of the term, each student participated in a final exam, with both oral and written components. A final self-assessment was also required. Research Method Four researchers conducted this research: two university faculty members, one graduate student, and one undergraduate freshman honors student. One university faculty member was the course instructor; the other, an instructor in another issue-related discipline, provided an outside perspective (Bogdan & Biklen, 1998). The two faculty members authored this paper. In addition to the course instructor, the student researchers were present during each class period. The student observers took field notes during the class. The course instructor kept a journal on each class period as well as detailed notes on all student/teacher conferences, phone calls, and other informal contacts initiated by the student or the instructor. All class periods were videotaped and later transcribed. Multiple sources of data provided richness. The video tapes added to the transcription of the spoken data by revealing feelings and non-verbal interactions. Students’ journals offered fresh insight into both classroom discussion and individual responses (Best & Kahn, 1998). Journals also helped students monitor their own thinking. Member checks occurred through written dialogue in student journals and the teacher's responses to them (Schwandt, 1997). The semester-long data collections of the case study classroom provided repeated observation of the same phenomena. Peer examination of emerging findings, providing a chain of evidence, occurred through consultation and reviews with both the second faculty researcher and two qualitative research specialists (Merrimam, 1988; Patton, 1980; Stake, 1995; Yin, 1994). The authors began the process of sorting data by viewing the video tapes. They read the class transcriptions, student and researcher journals, student papers, and researchers' field notes numerous times in order to identify key passages illustrative of the students' critical thinking process related to the research questions (Yin, 1994). As the researchers sifted through the data, they noted how students used the analytical skills of critical thinking in a structured learning process. The role that a critical disposition (willingness to think critically about personal issues) plays in the critical thinking process of students was also noted. As the researchers read the data separately, each took individual notes. After reviewing all data numerous times, the individual researchers compared and combined notes, discussing these comparisons on numerous occasions. They used the combined notes to select the components of the critical thinking process (e.g., identifying the issue, clarifying terms, identifying assumptions, and using evidence as well as openness and empathy related to a critical disposition) that formed the basis of this narrative (Bogdan & Biklen, 1998). The answer to the first research question (How do students make use of the critical thinking process in dialogue and writing about ethical issues?) was labeled analysis. The answer to the second question (What part does a critical disposition play in the critical thinking process?) was labeled critical disposition. Because of redundancy, data from the student papers and researchers’ journal were omitted from this case narrative. Findings The analysis aspect of the critical thinking process was exhibited by the students in their reasoning process; a critical disposition was seen in the attitudes, habits of mind, and character traits of the students. The findings are presented under the two headings of analysis and critical disposition. Student quotes are taken directly from their spoken words and writings. The quotations directly from the data are referenced in these findings by tape number and transcript page (Tape 14, p. 1) or by journal, student number, and date (Jstu12, 4/22). Analysis The major analysis skills the students practiced in the classroom were defining the issue, clarifying key terms, identifying assumptions, and using evidence in an argument (Browne & Keeley, 1994, Ramage & Bean, 1994). Although numerous examples were found, only two examples in each of the first three categories will be presented here since these categories seemed straightforward to the students. More examples of the part evidence plays in an argument are presented because using evidence appeared to be a more complex skill for them. Finally, a substantial excerpt from one class period of student dialogue is presented to show a more complex process. Identifying the Issue. As they learned the process of critical thinking, students first spent time clarifying the issue to be discussed. Then, students helped each other to ensure that the dialogue remained on the main issue and did not revert to a different issue. They found that this type of rigor involved being aware of both explicit and implicit meaning. From a discussion about gay marriages:
From two students role-playing a husband and stay-at-home wife/mother arguing about who gets to go out for recreation on Saturday:
Commenting on this exchange Student 13 says:
Clarifying key terms. Once students had a working issue, they were adept at clarifying key terms in that issue. In a discussion of the question “Is sex good?” Student 15 asks a question to clarify terms:
Student 11 questions the definition of “remarriage:
By the end of the course, some of the questioning of terms definitely shows a new sophistication in the students:
Identifying assumptions. In addition to clarifying their terms, students also began to identify assumptions being made in discussions. In a discussion of a role-play of a husband and stay-at-home wife/mother arguing about who gets to go out for recreation on Saturday, students identified a major assumption:
Students were cognizant of the value of questioning assumptions. One student wrote in a journal,
Most texts on critical thinking emphasize assumption finding as a skill needed to evaluate new information in essays, news reports, or other communication resources (Ramage & Bean, 1994; Brookfield, 1987, 1995). Students are better able to identify assumptions that are in arguments opposing their own preferences than assumptions in arguments supporting their own views (Anderson, Sodon, & Hunter, 2001; Keeley, 1992). Using evidence. Barell (1991) reminds educators of a relevant finding of the National Assessment of Educational Progress: “Students are not good at the critical thinking tasks of providing evidence for their conclusions” (p. 265). Student performance in this course supports his claim but shows that students became more proficient at handling evidence as the course progressed; they also became more conscious of that proficiency. Student dialogues show discussion of both the quantity and quality of evidence. As they discussed the quantity of evidence in arguments, they were able to discern the lack of evidence in both others' arguments and their own: Student 14, analyzing lack of evidence in one of the readings:
Recognizing lack of evidence for a decision made by one of the characters from a story from literature, Student 11 commented:
Noting deficiencies in evidence, Student 5 says that her group needed to
Students were cognizant of the value of having some direct evidence for their points, but they were sometimes overwhelmed by the amount of evidence available to answer a very broad issue. In a discussion questioning whether divorce hurts children, students discussed the amount of evidence available:
The instructor tried to get them to pursue the process of making a good decision even when one doesn’t have time to get all the evidence but they returned to discussing their opinions. They did not see that using the evidence they had, limited though it was, would be more convincing than their unsupported opinions, often involving generalizations (Anderson, Sodon, & Hunter, 2001). During the course students began to be aware that it was not enough just to have some evidence, there were quality issues involved. They began to question evidence in printed sources and to check on the authority of the writers:
A discussion on teenage pregnancies included an extended discussion on the evidence:
Here students question evidence in a printed source and let their own assumptions be challenged by the evidence. In this discussion, Student 6 does not question the evidence because it was from the author of their textbook. She accepts the assumption that the discipline asks experts to write textbooks and that the professor will choose a reliable textbook. The short passage she reads from the textbook is significant for several reasons. Not only does it directly answer her classmate’s question, but it also reveals the multiple authors of the study and the statistics that lead to false assumptions about black pregnancies. Student 12 has trouble evaluating the trustworthiness of the source because she is not yet a full member of the discourse community with a complete sense of the best authorities (Berkenkotter, Huckin, & Ackerman, 1991; Freed & Broadhead, 1987). She also does not recognize the source as a professional journal. Perhaps one of the most important lessons students learned from their analysis of evidence was that it frequently led to multiple solutions.
As much as they learned about analysis, the learning was not constant or even always in a forward direction. Regression was always possible. One group of students criticized an article for extolling critical thinking but not explaining how to do it, yet a chart in the article presents a long list of cognitive strategies:
Student 16 quickly agrees with Student 8. Perhaps the group members did not see the list of cognitive strategies because it was in a figure. As far as halfway through the semester, some students would question if they had to do research on the topics they were presenting in class. Student 16 asks,
Does s/he still not understand the need for supporting evidence? Or is s/he responding as a student to determine just how much work has to be done for this class? The documents from the class do not tell us. In fact, students generally did not acquire a perception of needed research for evidence (Anderson, Sodon, & Hunter, 2001). If they had no hard knowledge of a subject, such as homosexuality, they were willing to work with stereotypes rather than conduct library or Web research. Even in these cases, however, they saw themselves as practicing useful analysis skills. Even though Student 5 believes his/her group presentation did not have enough evidence, s/he says,
Student 13, says,
As both the regressions and some stormy class sessions indicated, learning to analyze was hard work indeed for these students. The immense effort involved was expressed openly in the class on various occasions:
Extended analysis example. Some class periods illustrated a melding of the students’ analysis skills. One that was particularly fruitful occurred near the middle of the semester during the course segment when student groups were presenting two opposing sides of a social issue they had chosen. This particular class period focused on the issue of whether or not gays and lesbians should be allowed to legalize their unions. (Because the entire transcript is sixteen single-spaced pages, only excerpts can be presented here.) At the beginning of the class, Student 14 summarizes the procedure, how there will be two sides presented on the issue and how each side will ask questions of the other. But s/he also sees an important role for the classroom audience. The students are to evaluate the evidence being presented: Listen and then try to pick out things that are good evidence or poor evidence or that we think we want more evidence on.
Student 14 begins the presentation of the group by locating the issue in the textbook and stating the side of one group:
Student 10, a fellow group member, immediately follows his/her comment with the need to define terms ("we need to . . . define what a marriage will be and what are some of the benefits it will have"). S/he has also researched a key term in the presentation, “domestic partnership,” then s/he translates the definition into his/her own words:
After Student 10's attempt to define the issue, the third group member, Student 2, immediately adds an important qualification:
Student 2 then cites library research, summarizing the results from interviews with gay men:
Student 10 responds by clarifying what s/he sees as a major point:
After presenting more evidence, including benefits of same-sex marriages and countries where they are legal, Student 14 concludes for the group. Although s/he shares the class’ tendency to want to use “I believe” or “I feel” statements, s/he quickly catches herself/himself and tries to stick with the evidence offered.
After Student 14’s summary, the other half of the group presents the stance that gays and lesbians should not marry. They too cite articles, focusing on radical feminist theory that asserts that marriage would be supporting the heterosexual, patriarchal system:
Student 14, from the previous triad, recognizes missing evidence:
Student 13, a non-group member, also notices lack of evidence:
Student 8 questions the sources of evidence:
Next, the class identifies some assumptions behind the two sides. For the yes side, “there was an assumption made that if gay marriages were legalized that they would be socially acceptable.” On the other hand, “one of the assumptions you have to make on the no side is that marriage is not good for anyone” (Tape 12, p. 13). Near the end of the discussion, Student 18 recognizes that the discussion has given him/her food for thought.
When the professor asks what else they would like to know, Student 13 and Student 4 have good suggestions:
The presenting group finishes the class with a brief discussion on finding evidence, especially the difficulty of finding more conservative (“right wing”) material in the school library.
However, even after this strong analysis of both the topic and their own presentation, the students are still unsure of themselves. At the very end of class, Student 14, who has analyzed so well here, asks the professor, “Did we do it right?” (Tape 12, p. 16). Even though students were required to chart their own learning during the course, the concept of self-directed learning and the monitoring of that learning both needed further practice (Toppins, 1987; Mayer, 1986). By the end of the course, however, students were far more confident of their analysis skills—and the usefulness of those skills. Student 16 echoed the confidence of many of the students:
Student 5 reiterates Student 16’s views on the usefulness of analysis:
This section has employed an extended excerpt of student dialogue to aid instructors in conceptualizing the way that students use the critical thinking process in dialogue and writing. The data show that the elements of analysis used by the students involved clarifying the issue and the terms used, identifying assumptions made by the speaker or the writer, and critiquing both the quality and the quantity of the evidence. The ultimate proof of student learning, however, was that many students realized they were applying their analysis skills in their daily lives outside of class.
A Critical Disposition In addition to knowing how to use the cognitive tools of analysis in thinking critically, students need to be willing to use these skills before any transformation will occur in their lives or the world around them (Taube, 1997). Facione, Sanchez, Facione, & Gainen (1995); Oximan-Mitchell, (1992); Siegel (1988); and Tishman, Jay, and Perkins (1993) call this willingness to use the critical thinking process a critical disposition. The characteristics of a critical disposition include to be intrigued by wonder, to be planful and strategic, to be intellectually careful, and to be metacognitive, i.e., be aware of and monitor one's own thinking (Tishman, et. al., p. 148). It is not enough merely to have the ability to be a rational thinker; the rationality has to be accompanied by a willingness to use the critical thinking process on a regular basis in widespread social contexts. This requires a mind open to new ways of thinking, a respect for the views of others, and a willingness to enter sympathetically into another's point of view (Oximan-Mitchell, 1992; Taube, 1997). These characteristics are similar to the openness of mind that is a key feature of Mezirow's theory of transformative learning (Mezirow, 2000). The research data illustrate that students were generally willing to practice their critical thinking skills in their presentations, in their discussion of issues, and in their projects (all viewed as academic requirements). In role-plays, they were also able to display some openness to others' beliefs and empathy to actions they would not personally endorse. The role-plays and the discussion following them allowed students to demonstrate their skills of critical thinking in simulated real-world settings. Shor (1980, 1992) supports the use of incidents from daily life in learning in the political/moral realm such as that identified by Brown (1984, 1993; Brown, Collins, & Duguid, 1989). In arguing for the need of a critical thinking perspective in education, Shor (1980) states, "Daily life offers few ways to gain critical consciousness, while critical thought in the universities has little chance to cross paths with daily life" (p. xxvii). By combining academic learning and the personal aspects of their daily lives in role-plays, students can practice using critical thinking skills in their everyday lives. Students defined role-play in their own words and described the value of role-play in developing critical thinking skills:
Openness and empathy. These two characteristics are illustrative of how students use a critical disposition in a personal setting that also involves communication skills. The first role-play shared here involved a character, Carol, from a short story, The Right Thing (Howe, 1981). The story line has Carol displaying prejudicial behavior (psychological harassment) toward her adoptive African-American baby and favoritism toward her natural daughter. When Malcolm, the adopted child, is three she returns him to the adoption agency, telling her daughter that Malcolm is to be returned to his real parents. The classroom dialogue after several role-plays involving Carol, not the actual roles-plays themselves, is used here to highlight the students' voices. Even as students tried to role-play Carol, they had difficulty understanding how she could behave in this manner. They believed her behavior was bad. They thought the best approach would be to try to change her. The comments of two students in relation to Carol's behavior and how to transform that behavior are as follows:
The topic of guilt was not pursued here. In a later class, another student commented on the idea of changing a person's view.
Another student postulated that an accepting environment was necessary in order for the person to be open (break through her front). Persons have to recognize their behavior as a problem and want to do something about it:
A follow-up discussion on lying after a later role-play gave some insight into one student's perception of Carol's character. When the person who role-played both Carol and another story character who lied was asked how s/he felt about lying, s/he expressed it this way:
The students began to realize that getting Carol to face her own behavior in a realistic manner would not be easy. Using role-play helped some students to see Carol's behavior in a more empathetic light (not accepting the behavior, but trying to accept her). Extended critical disposition example. The excerpts from the dialogue of a role-play on homosexuality (a topic chosen for a scenario by one group of students) and the dialogue following it are presented here to illustrate student voices as they show independence of mind (self-understanding, courage) and respect for others (empathy, readiness to listen, and willingness to consider another's point of view). A teenager (Mary, Student 18) tells her friends (Jane, Student 3 and Ann, Student 17) she is gay. Mary, Jane, and Ann are high school students who have been friends since elementary school. The conversation begins:
The role-play stimulated discussion in a community of learning (Gentzler, 1998; Varelas, Luster, & Wenzel, 1999). The potential of questioning the role-players and each other was a powerful tool in learning about another's point of view. But the skill of questioning about the issue is one that often must be learned. The questioner can just pursue his/her own line of reasoning instead of trying to clarify (stick to) the issue:
The role-player showed courage and honesty in her response but also realized that her source of evidence could be questioned. In this role-play, these students were able to address a very personal situation in a calm and realistic manner. In the role-play itself the players raised several valid points others might have, such as why has she had an earlier long-term relationship with her boyfriend, is she sexually attracted to her girlfriends, will she tell her parents, and how will others respond to her after they know she is a lesbian. The language used seemed realistic in such comments as "how many times have we had...slumber parties" and "this is too weird." The choice of words also reveals something of the students' thinking although they may not be aware of the revelation (Tape 26, p. 9):
The social risks of coming out are acknowledged by Mary's desire to retain her friendships with Jane and Ann and their concern about how others will view this revelation. The role-players were able to admit some of their biases.
Morgaine (1994) reports finding her students resisted and denied personal prejudices even when their own prejudices were exposed to them. She found that the acknowledgment of prejudice and bias is shameful to students because it provides evidence of their imperfection. The ability to relate the biases to the character being played instead of directly to themselves may have made admitting the biases easier in this class. Candy (1990) proposes that we all have a guide to living that is a repository of what we have learned, what we believe, and how we view ourselves. Some beliefs are held without having been critically reflected upon; some can be prejudiced beliefs that are guarded because they suit the interest of the holder (Siegel, 1997). In describing his/her reaction to a particular segment of television, one student made this comment relating to a critical disposition.
This student is admitting the importance of a critical disposition and illustrating the necessity of an on-going practice of openness. "A developmental perspective suggests that skills and dispositions are mutually reinforcing, and hence [they] should be explicitly taught and modeled together" (Kitchener & King, 1995, cited in Facione, 2000, p. 79). Summary & Discussion In this qualitative research study, the close analysis of students' words and behavior enabled the researchers to see the critical thinking process from a student perspective: what critical thinking meant for these students and "how their understanding [of critical thinking] influenced their behavior" (Maxwell, 1998, p. 75). Because instructors have often internalized the critical thinking process themselves, they may forget how foreign the process is for many of their students. The student voices showcased here serve as a reminder that learning to think critically is an on-going process and students are at a variety of levels in the use of the process. Many students saw the process as an arduous one with a combination of high and low points. The students saw the need to clarify the issue and the terms used and to make overt the assumptions made throughout the discussion of the issue. The importance of evidence became clear as they discussed both the quantity and quality of evidence, but hard knowledge about concepts related to personal issues often was not sought. Although transformative learning as a deep structural shift in the basic premise of thought … (O'Sullivan, 2002, p. 11) was not an objective of this class or a focus of this research, the foundation for transformative learning was beginning to form in some students thinking. Student 5 indicated that s/he had begun to realize [in this class] that data presented on issues by friends, teachers, and the media was not as clear-cut, true, acceptable, reasonable or sensible as it appears. Growing up s/he had not bee taught to question authorities. An open mind is essential for transformative learning to take place. Some of the activities, e.g. researching and listening to different viewpoints, role playing to get multiple perspectives from people involved in the issue, and others, reported in this research provide a foundation for transformative learning. By the end of the semester, the students began to see the importance of communication in the critical thinking process. These students were not good writers, and conversing among themselves about concepts involving beliefs was not always comfortable either. Taking responsibility for their own learning and that of their fellow classmates was an idea they could verbalize, but it was difficult for many of them to rely on their own judgment in this matter. They continued to look to the instructor for validation. This search for validation reflected their discomfort with multiple approaches to complex issues. Some viewed multiple points of views as important in expanding their thinking; others were still questioning the value of the entire critical thinking process, especially as it related to issues involving their personal beliefs. However, clearly articulating a point of view did clarify that view for the speaker and enabled the listener to empathize with that view, even if not endorsing it. Understanding through listening was crucial. Being able to give a rational argument for a point of view on an issue and being able to agree on a possible action related to the issue are useful skills for implementing goals for social action (Laster & Alexander, 1998; Pillay & Elliott, 2001):
The role a critical disposition played in these students' use of the critical thinking process was most evident in their role-plays. Openness and empathy were concepts these students could display in these contexts. When students found a character's behavior distasteful, they were inclined to want to change him/her, even before they tried to understand why s/he might be exhibiting this behavior. The students found themselves inserting their own views into the questions they asked the role-players. They found it enlightening to realize how easily we all become defensive if someone we feel questions our behavior is being judgmental without understanding. And once a position has been taken (even in lying) it is very difficult to reverse course. The students used the skills of the critical thinking process in discussion to enable them to make fair-minded decisions. To effectively make use of the critical thinking process, students must continuously practice and refine its elements. The ability to make it a part of all aspects of an individual's life will involve more than taking one course; it will mean listening to others, reading a wide variety of materials, and desiring to learn from differing points of view. Critical thinking is an invitation to embrace and cultivate certain habits of mind. (Tishman & Perkins, 1997) One course can be a beginning. References
(1) This research was approved by the University Committee for Review of Research Involving Human Subjects.
|
||
Via E-Mail:
 |