Advertisement

Facilitating a student-educator conceptual model of dispositions towards critical thinking through interactive management

  • Christopher P. Dwyer
  • Michael J. Hogan
  • Owen M. Harney
  • Caroline Kavanagh
Research Article

Abstract

Critical thinking (CT) is a metacognitive process, consisting of a number of sub-skills and dispositions that, when used appropriately, increases the chances of producing a logical conclusion to an argument or solution to a problem. Though the CT literature argues that dispositions are as important to CT as is the ability to perform CT skills, the majority of research in the area has focused on CT skills. In addition, though most CT interventions are designed based on academic or expert definitions of CT, students are rarely, if ever, asked to guide their instruction by describing their perspectives on what constitutes CT. Thus, the current study used interactive management to examine similarities and differences in the way students and educators conceptualise CT dispositions. Interactive management (IM) is a computer-assisted process that allows a group to build a consensus-based structural model describing relations between elements in a system. Consistent with previous research, it is suggested that addressing how students conceptualise CT may provide a starting point to negotiate and innovative the CT curriculum and learning process. Furthermore, evaluating similarities and differences in the way students and educators understand CT dispositions may facilitate the building of complementary and integrative models of CT dispositions that reflect the full range of perspectives in University teaching environments. Results of the current study suggest that while students’ conceptualisation of CT dispositions was largely consistent with both the educators’ conceptualisation and dispositions highlighted in the extant literature, students’ descriptions were broader, less abstract and more concrete accounts of CT dispositions; and were also primarily focused on utility or function rather than ideal principles of action. Results are discussed in light of research and theory on CT and best practice for CT instruction.

Keywords

Critical thinking Dispositions Interactive management Collective intelligence 

Notes

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Ackoff, R. L. (1981). Creating the corporate future: Plan or be planned for. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  2. Argyris, C. (1982). Reasoning, learning, and action: Individual and organizational. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  3. Ashby, W. R. (1958). Requisite variety and its implications for the control of complex systems. Cybernetica, 1(2), 1–17.Google Scholar
  4. Banich, M. T. (2009). Executive function: The search for an integrated account. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 18(2), 89–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Boomer, G. (1992). Negotiating the curriculum. In G. Boomer, N. Lester, C. Onore, & J. Cook (Eds.), Negotiating the curriculum: educating for the 21st century (pp. 4–13). London: Falmer.Google Scholar
  6. Boulding, K. E. (1966). The impact of the social sciences. New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Broome, B. J., & Chen, M. (1992). Guidelines for computer-assisted group problem-solving: Meeting the challenges of complex issues. Small Group Research, 23, 216–236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Broome, B. J., & Fulbright, L. (1995). A multi-stage influence model of barriers to group problem solving. Small Group Research, 26, 25–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Butchart, S., Bigelow, J., Oppy, G., Korb, K., & Gold, I. (2009). Improving critical thinking using web-based argument mapping exercises with automated feedback. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 25(2), 268–291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cacioppo, J. T., Petty, R. E., & Kao, C. F. (1984). The efficient assessment of need for cognition. Journal of Personality Assessment, 48, 306–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Cleveland, H. (1973). The decision makers. Center Magazine, 6(5), 9–18.Google Scholar
  12. Deal, T. E., & Kennedy, A. A. (1982). Corporate cultures: The rites and rituals of corporate life. Reading: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
  13. Delbeq, A. L., Van De Ven, A. H., & Gustafson, D. H. (1975). Group techniques for program planning: A guide to nominal group and Delphi processes. Glenview: Scott, Foresman.Google Scholar
  14. Dwyer, C. P., Boswell, A., & Elliott, M. A. (2015a). An evaluation of critical thinking competencies in business settings. Journal of Education for Business. doi: 10.1080/08832323.2015.1038978.Google Scholar
  15. Dwyer, C. P., Harney, O., Hogan, M. J., & O’Reilly, J. (2014a). Using interactive management to define and cultivate critical thinking competencies. Educational Technology Research & Development, 62, 687–709.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Dwyer, C. P., Hogan, M. J., & Stewart, I. (2011). The promotion of critical thinking skills through argument mapping. In C. P. Horvart & J. M. Forte (Eds.), critical thinking (pp. 97–122). New York: Nova Science Publishers.Google Scholar
  17. Dwyer, C. P., Hogan, M. J., & Stewart, I. (2012). An evaluation of argument mapping as a method of enhancing critical thinking performance in e-learning environments. Metacognition and Learning, 7, 219–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Dwyer, C. P., Hogan, M. J., & Stewart, I. (2014b). An integrated critical thinking framework for the 21st century. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 12, 43–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Dwyer, C. P., Hogan, M. J., & Stewart, I. (2015b). The evaluation of argument mapping-infused critical thinking instruction as a method of enhancing reflective judgment performance. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 16, 11–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Engelmann, T., Baumeister, A., Dingel, A., & Hesse, F.W. (2010). The added value of communication in a CSCL-scenario compared to just having access to the partners’ knowledge and information. In J. Sánchez, A. Cañas, & J.D. Novak (Eds.), Concept maps making learning meaningful: Proceedings of the 4th international conference on concept mapping, 1, (pp. 377–384). Viña del Mar: University of Chile.Google Scholar
  21. Engelmann, T., & Hesse, F. W. (2010). How digital concept maps about the collaborators’ knowledge and information influence computer-supported collaborative problem solving. Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 5, 299–319.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Ennis, R. H. (1987). A taxonomoy of critical thinking dispositions and abilities. In J. B. Baron & R. J. Sternberg (Eds.), Teaching Thinking Skills: Theory and Practice (pp. 9–26). New York: W.H. Freeman.Google Scholar
  23. Ennis, R. (1991). Critical thinking. Teaching Philosophy, 14(1), 5–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Ennis, R. H. (1996). Critical thinking. Upper Saddle River: Prentice- Hall.Google Scholar
  25. Ennis, R. H. (1998). Is critical thinking culturally biased? Teaching Philosophy, 21(1), 15–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Facione, P. A. (1990). The Delphi report: Committee on pre-college philosophy. Millbrae: California Academic Press.Google Scholar
  27. Facione, P. A., & Facione, N. C. (1992). The California critical thinking dispositions inventory (CCTDI) and CCTDI Test Manual. Millbrae: California Academic Press.Google Scholar
  28. Facione, P. A., Facione, N. C., Blohm, S. W., & Giancarlo, C. A. (2002). The California critical thinking skills test: CCTST. Form A, form B, and form 2000. Test manual, 2002 (updated ed.). Millbrae: Insight Assessment.Google Scholar
  29. Gagne, R. M. (1985). Conditions of learning (2nd ed.). New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.Google Scholar
  30. Groarke, J. M., & Hogan, M. J. (2016). Enhancing wellbeing: An emerging model of the adaptive functions of music listening. Psychology of Music, 44(4), 769–791.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Halpern, D. F. (2006). Is intelligence critical thinking? Why we need a new definition of intelligence. In P. C. Kyllonen, R. D. Roberts, & L. Stankov (Eds.), Extending intelligence: enhancement and new constructs (pp. 293–310). New York: Taylor and Francis Group.Google Scholar
  32. Halpern, D. F. (2014). Thought and knowledge (5th ed.). New York: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
  33. Hogan, M. J., Dwyer, C. P., Noone, C., Harney, O., & Conway, R. (2014). Metacognitive skill development and applied systems science: A framework of metacognitive skills, self-regulatory functions and real-world applications. In A. P. Ayala (Ed.), Metacognition: fundaments, applications, and trends (pp. 75–106). Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  34. Hwang, G. J., Shi, Y. R., & Chu, H. C. (2011). A concept map approach to developing collaborative mindtools for context-aware ubiquitous learning. British Journal of Educational Technology, 42(5), 778–789.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Keever, D. B. (1989). Cultural complexities in the participative design of a computer-based organization information system. Paper presented at the International Conference on Support, Society and Culture: Mutual Uses of Cybernetics and Science, Amsterdam, April.Google Scholar
  36. Kemeny, J. (1980). Saving American democracy: The lesson of Three Mile Island. Technology Review, 83(7), 64–75.Google Scholar
  37. 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(2), 75–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Ku, K. Y. L. (2009). Assessing students’ critical thinking performance: Urging for measurements using multi-response format. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 4(1), 70–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Ku, K. Y. L., & Ho, I. T. (2010). Dispositional factors predicting Chinese students’ critical thinking performance. Personality and Individual Differences, 48, 54–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Lloyd, M., & Bahr, N. (2010). Thinking critically about critical thinking in higher education. International Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 4(2), 1–5.Google Scholar
  41. Mayer, R. E. (2004). Should there be a three-strikes rule against pure discovery learning? The case for guided methods of instruction. American Psychologist, 59(1), 14–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Miller, G. A. (1956). The magical number seven, plus or minus two: Some limits on our capacity for processing information. Psychology Review, 63, 81–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Moseley, D., Baumfield, V., Elliot, J., Gregson, M., Higgins, S., Miller, J., & Newton, D. (2005). Frameworks for thinking: A handbook for teaching and learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Norris, S. P. (1994). The meaning of critical thinking test performance: The effects of abilities and dispositions on scores. Critical thinking: Current research, theory, and practice. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  45. Paul, R., & Elder, L. (2008). Miniature guide to critical thinking concepts and tools. The foundation for critical thinking. Dillon Beach: Foundation for Critical Thinking Press.Google Scholar
  46. Perkins, D. N., Jay, E., & Tishman, S. (1993). Beyond abilities: A dispositional theory of thinking. Merrilll Palmer Quarterly, 39, 1.Google Scholar
  47. Perkins, D. N., & Ritchhart, R. (2004). When is good thinking? In D. Y. Dai & R. J. Sternberg (Eds.), Motivation, emotion, and cognition: integrative perspectives on intellectual functioning and development (pp. 351–384). Mawah: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  48. Pintrich, P. R., Smith, D. A. F., Garcia, T., & McKeachie, W. J. (1991). A Manual for the Use of the Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire (MSLQ). Ann Arbour: The University of Michigan, National Center for Research to Improve Post-secondary Teaching and Learning.Google Scholar
  49. Rittel, H., & Webber, M. (1974). Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. DMG-DRS Journal, 8, 31–39.Google Scholar
  50. Roth, W. M., & Roychoudhury, A. (1994). Science discourse through collaborative concept mapping: New perspectives for the teacher. International Journal of Science Education, 16, 437–455.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Runco, M. A., & Jaeger, G. J. (2012). The standard definition of creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 24(1), 92–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Sato, T. (1979). Determination of hierarchical networks of instructional units using the ISM method. Educational Technology Research, 3, 67–75.Google Scholar
  53. Schiffrin, D., Tannen, D., & Hamilton, H. E. (2001). The handbook of discourse analysis. Malden: Wiley.Google Scholar
  54. Siegel, H. (1999). What (good) are thinking dispositions? Educational Theory, 49(2), 207–221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Simon, H. A. (1960). The new science of management decisions. New York: Harper and Row.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Sternberg, R. J. (2002). Raising the achievement of all students: Teaching for successful intelligence. Educational Psychology Review, 14(4), 383–393.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Sternberg, R. J. (2005). Creativity or creativities? International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 63(4), 370–382.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Sternberg, R. J. (2010). The dark side of creativity and how to combat it. In D. H. Cropley, et al. (Eds.), The dark side of creativity (pp. 316–328). Cambridge: Cambridge University.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Valenzuela, J., Nieto, A. M., & Saiz, C. (2011). Critical thinking motivational scale: A contribution to the study of relationship between critical thinking and motivation. Journal of Research in Educational Psychology, 9(2), 823–848.Google Scholar
  60. van Gelder, T.J. (2000). Learning to reason: A Reason!Able approach. In C. Davis, T. J. van Gelder & R. Wales (Eds.), Cognitive Science in Australia, 2000: Proceedings of the Fifth Australasian Cognitive Science Society Conference. Adelaide: Causal.Google Scholar
  61. van Gelder, T. J. (2001). How to improve critical thinking using educational technology. In G. Kennedy, M. Keppell, C. McNaught & T. Petrovic (Eds.), Meeting at the Crossroads: Proceedings of the 18th Annual Conference of the Australian Society for Computers in Learning in Tertiary Education (539–548). Melbourne: Biomedical Multimedia Unit, University of Melbourne.Google Scholar
  62. Warfield, J. N. (1994). A science of generic design: Managing complexity through systems design (2nd ed.). Salinas: Intersystems.Google Scholar
  63. Warfield, J. N., & Cardenas, A. R. (1994). A handbook of interactive management (2nd ed.). Ames: The Iowa State University Press.Google Scholar
  64. Zhang, L. F. (2003). Contributions of thinking styles to critical thinking dispositions. The Journal of Psychology, 137(6), 517–544.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Association for Educational Communications and Technology 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Christopher P. Dwyer
    • 1
  • Michael J. Hogan
    • 1
  • Owen M. Harney
    • 1
  • Caroline Kavanagh
    • 1
  1. 1.School of PsychologyNUIGalwayIreland

Personalised recommendations