Advertisement

Instructional Science

, Volume 42, Issue 2, pp 251–269 | Cite as

Integrating direct and inquiry-based instruction in the teaching of critical thinking: an intervention study

  • Kelly Y. L. KuEmail author
  • Irene T. Ho
  • Kit-Tai Hau
  • Eva C. M. Lai
Article

Abstract

Critical thinking is a unifying goal of modern education. While past research has mostly examined the efficacy of a single instructional approach to teaching critical thinking, recent literature has begun discussing mixed teaching approaches. The present study examines three modes of instruction, featuring the direct instruction approach and the inquiry-based approach in different sequences and proportions, in enhancing Chinese secondary student’s critical thinking performance. A total of 651 Grade 12 students participated in an 18-hour intervention with pre- and post-intervention measures on critical thinking performance and critical thinking dispositions. Specifically, critical thinking assessments utilizing different response format were used. Those who received training showed greater improvement on at least one of the critical thinking assessments compared to those who received no training. Participants’ performances with regards to different critical thinking assessments are discussed. Benefits of adopting more than one instructional approach to teaching critical thinking are highlighted.

Keywords

Critical thinking Instructional strategy Direct instruction Inquiry-based instruction Higher education 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The support by the Research Grants Council of Hong Kong (CUHK4713/06H) is gratefully acknowledged.

References

  1. Abrami, P. C., Bernard, R. M., Borokhovski, E., Wade, A., Surkes, M. A., Tamim, R., et al. (2008). Instructional interventions affecting critical thinking skills and dispositions: A stage 1 meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 78(4), 1102–1134. doi: 10.3102/0034654308326084.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. Newbury: Sage.Google Scholar
  3. Alfieri, L., Brooks, P. J., Aldrich, N. J., & Tenenbaum, H. R. (2011). Does discovery-based instruction enhance learning? Journal of Educational Psychology, 103(1), 1–18. doi: 10.1037/a0021017.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Angeli, C., & Valanides, N. (2009). Instructional effects on critical thinking: Performance on ill-defined issues. Learning and Instruction, 19(4), 322–334. doi: 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2008.06.010.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Barrows, H. S., & Tamblyn, R. M. (1980). Problem-based learning: An approach to medical education (vol. 1). New York: Springer Publishing Company.Google Scholar
  6. Beyer, B. K. (2001). What research says about teaching thinking skills. In A. Costa (Ed.), Developing minds: A resource book for teaching thinking (pp. 275–284). Alexandria: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.Google Scholar
  7. Beyer, B. K. (2008). What research tells us about teaching thinking skills. The Social Studies, 99(5), 223–232. doi: 10.3200/TSSS.99.5.223-232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Brown, A. (1997). Transforming schools into communities of thinking and learning about serious matters. American Psychologist, 52, 399–413. doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.52.4.399.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bruner, J. S. (1961). The act of discovery. Harvard Educational Review, 31, 21–32.Google Scholar
  10. Cacioppo, J., Petty, R., & Kao, C. (1984). The efficient assessment of need for cognition. Journal of Personality Assessment, 48(3), 306–307. doi: 10.1207/s15327752jpa4803_13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Clifford, J. S., Boufal, M. M., & Kurtz, J. E. (2004). Personality traits and critical thinking skills in college students: Empirical tests of a two-factor theory. Assessment, 11(2), 169–176. doi: 10.1177/1073191104263250.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Cordingley, P., Bell, M., Thomason, S., & Firth, A. (2005). The impact of collaborative continuing professional development (CPD) on classroom teaching and learning. London: EPPI—Centre.Google Scholar
  13. Costa, P., & McCrae, R. (1992). Professional manual: Revised NEO personality inventory (NEO-PI-R) and NEO five-factor inventory (NEO-FFI). Odessa: Psychological Assessment Resources.Google Scholar
  14. Dick, R. D. (1991). An empirical taxonomy of critical thinking. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 18, 79–92.Google Scholar
  15. Ennis, R. H. (1989). Critical thinking and subject specificity: Clarification and needed research. Educational Researcher, 18, 4–10.Google Scholar
  16. Ernst, J., & Monroe, M. (2004). The effects of environment-based education on students’ critical thinking skills and disposition toward critical thinking. Environmental Education Research, 10, 507–522. doi: 10.1080/1350462042000291038.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Facione, P. A. (1990). Executive summary: Critical thinking: A statement of expert consensus for purposes of educational assessment and instruction. Millbrae: The California Academic Press.Google Scholar
  18. Facione, N. C., & Facione, P. A. (1997). Critical thinking assessment in nursing education programs: An aggregate data analysis. Millbrae: The California Academic Press.Google Scholar
  19. Halpern, D. F. (1998). Teaching critical thinking for transfer across domains: Dispositions, skills, structure training, and metacognitive monitoring. American Psychologist, 53(4), 449–455. doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.53.4.449.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Halpern, D. F. (2003). Thought and knowledge: An introduction to critical thinking (4th ed.). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  21. Halpern, D. F. (2007). Halpern critical thinking assessment using everyday situations: Background and scoring standards. Claremont: Claremont McKenna College.Google Scholar
  22. Hmelo-Silver, C., Duncan, R. G., & Chinn, C. A. (2007). Scaffolding and achievement in problem-based and inquiry learning: A response to Kirschner, Sweller, and Clark (2006). Educational Psychologist, 42(2), 99–107. doi: 10.1080/00461520701263368.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hui, N. H. H. (2003). Nomological network of need for cognition: A study with Chinese college students. Unpublished manuscript. Hong Kong: Department of Psychology. Chinese University of Hong Kong.Google Scholar
  24. Jones, E. D., Krouse, D. F., Feorene, D., & Saferstein, C. A. (1985). A comparison of concurrent and sequential instruction of four types of verbal math problems. Remedial and Special Education, 6(5), 25–31. doi: 10.1177/074193258500600506.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Kirschner, P. A., Sweller, J., & Clark, R. E. (2006). Why minimal guidance during instruction does not work: An analysis of the failure of constructivist, discovery, problem-based, experiential, and inquiry-based teaching. Educational Psychologist, 41, 75–86. doi: 10.1207/s15326985ep4102_1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Klahr, D. (2009). To every thing there is a season, and a time to every purpose under the heavens: What about direct instruction? In S. Tobias & T. M. Duffy (Eds.), Constructivist instruction: Success or failure? (pp. 291–310). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  27. Koschmann, T. D., Myers, A., Feltovich, P. J., & Barrows, H. S. (1994). Using technology to assist in realizing effective learning and instruction: A principled approach to the use of computers in collaborative learning. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 3, 227–264. doi: 10.1207/s15327809jls0303_2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Kosonen, P., & Winne, P. (1995). Effects of teaching statistical laws on reasoning about everyday problems. Journal of Educational Psychology, 87, 33–46. doi: 10.1037/0022-0663.87.1.3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Ku, K. Y. L., Ho, I. T., & Hau, K. T. (2009). Critical thinking teaching package for senior secondary school students. Hong Kong: Hong Kong Education Bureau.Google Scholar
  30. Ku, K. Y. L., Ho, I. T., & Hau, K. T. (2011). Critical thinking skills: Scenarios for inquiry learning. Hong Kong: Hong Kong Education Bureau.Google Scholar
  31. Kuhn, D. (2007). Is direct instruction an answer to the right question? Educational psychologist, 42(2), 109–113. doi: 10.1080/00461520701263376.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Macpherson, R., & Stanovich, K. E. (2007). Cognitive ability, thinking dispositions, and instructional set as predictors of critical thinking. Learning and Individual Differences, 17, 115–127.Google Scholar
  33. Marsh, H. W., & Hau, K. T. (1996). Assessing goodness of fit: Is parsimony always desirable? The Journal of Experimental Education, 64, 364–390.Google Scholar
  34. Mayer, R. E. (2004). Should there be a three-strikes rule against pure discovery learning? American Psychologist, 59(1), 14–19. doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.59.1.14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. McGuinness, C. (1999). From thinking skills to thinking classrooms: A review and evaluation of approaches for developing pupils’ thinking. Research Report No 115. London: Department of Education and Employment Review.Google Scholar
  36. McPeck, J. E. (1981). Critical thinking and education. New York: St. Martin’s Press.Google Scholar
  37. Neilens, H. L., Handley, S. J., & Newstead, S. E. (2009). Effects of training and instruction on analytic and belief-based reasoning processes. Thinking and Reasoning, 15(1), 37–68. doi: 10.1080/13546780802535865.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Norris, S. P. (2003). The meaning of critical thinking test performance: The effects of abilities and dispositions on scores. In D. Fasko (Ed.), Critical thinking and reasoning: Current research, theory and practice. Cresskill: Hampton Press.Google Scholar
  39. Paul, R. (1995). Critical thinking: How to prepare students for a rapidly changing world. Santa Rosa, CA: Foundation for Critical Thinking.Google Scholar
  40. Paul, R., & Elder, L. (2004). The nature and functions of critical and creative thinking. Dillon Beach: Foundation for Critical Thinking.Google Scholar
  41. Perkins, D. N., Jay, E., & Tishman, S. (1993). Beyond abilities: A dispositional theory of thinking. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 39(1), 1–21.Google Scholar
  42. Ruggiero, V. R. (1988). Teaching thinking across the curriculum. New York: Harper and Row.Google Scholar
  43. Rutherford, F. J. (1964). The role of inquiry in science teaching. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 2(2), 80–84. doi: 10.1002/tea.3660020204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Semerci, N. (2006). The effect of problem-based learning on the critical thinking of students in the Intellectual and Ethical Development Unit. Social Behavior and Personality: An international Journal, 34(9), 1127–1136. doi: 10.2224/sbp.2006.34.1.41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Sigel, I. E. (1984). A constructivist perspective for teaching thinking. Educational Leadership, 42(3), 18–21.Google Scholar
  46. Spector, P. E., Schneider, J. R., Vance, C. A., & Hezlett, S. A. (2000). The relation of cognitive ability and personality traits to assessment center performance. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 30(7), 1474–1491. doi: 10.1111/j.1559-1816.2000.tb02531.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Stanovich, K. E., & West, R. F. (1997). Reasoning independently of prior belief and individual differences in actively open-minded thinking. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89, 342–357.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Tynjala, P. (1998). Traditional studying for examination versus constructivist learning tasks: Do learning outcomes differ? Studies in Higher Education, 23(2), 173–189. doi: 10.1080/03075079812331380374.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Voss, J. F., Perkins, D. N., & Segal, J. W. (1991). Informal reasoning and education. Hillsdale: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  50. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  51. Watson, G., & Glaser, E. M. (1980). Watson-glaser critical thinking appraisal. Cleveland: Psychological Corporation.Google Scholar
  52. West, R. F., Toplak, M. E., & Stanovich, K. E. (2008). Heuristics and biases as measures of critical thinking: Associations with cognitive ability and thinking dispositions. Journal of Educational Psychology, 100(4), 930–941. doi: 10.1037/a0012842.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Kelly Y. L. Ku
    • 1
    Email author
  • Irene T. Ho
    • 2
  • Kit-Tai Hau
    • 3
  • Eva C. M. Lai
    • 4
  1. 1.Department of Education StudiesHong Kong Baptist UniversityHong KongHong Kong
  2. 2.Department of PsychologyThe University of Hong KongHong KongHong Kong
  3. 3.Department of Educational PsychologyThe Chinese University of Hong KongHong KongHong Kong
  4. 4.Department of PsychologyThe Chinese University of Hong KongHong KongHong Kong

Personalised recommendations