27,719 research outputs found
A Model of Critical Thinking in Higher Education
âCritical thinking in higher educationâ is a phrase that means many things to many
people. It is a broad church. Does it mean a propensity for finding fault? Does it
refer to an analytical method? Does it mean an ethical attitude or a disposition?
Does it mean all of the above? Educating to develop critical intellectuals and the
Marxist concept of critical consciousness are very different from the logicianâs
toolkit of finding fallacies in passages of text, or the practice of identifying and
distinguishing valid from invalid syllogisms. Critical thinking in higher education
can also encompass debates about critical pedagogy, i.e., political critiques of the
role and function of education in society, critical feminist approaches to curriculum,
issues related to what has become known as critical citizenship, or any other
education-related topic that uses the appellation âcriticalâ. Equally, it can, and
usually does, refer to the importance and centrality of developing general skills in
reasoningâskills that we hope all graduates possess. Yet, despite more than four
decades of dedicated scholarly work âcritical thinkingâ remains as elusive as ever.
As a concept, it is, as Raymond Williams has noted, a âmost difficult oneâ (Williams,
1976, p. 74)
The effectiveness of a single intervention of computer-aided argument mapping in a marketing and a financial accounting subject
An argument map visually represents the structure of an argument, outlining its informal logical connections and informing judgments as to its worthiness. Argument mapping can be augmented with dedicated software that aids the mapping process. Empirical evidence suggests that semesterâlength subjects using argument mapping along with dedicated software can produce remarkable increases in studentsâ critical thinking abilities. Introducing such specialised subjects, however, is often practically and politically difficult. This study ascertains student perceptions of the use of argument mapping in two large, regular, semesterâlength classes in a Business and Economics Faculty at the University of Melbourne. Unlike the semesterâlength expertâled trials in prior research, in our study only one expertâled session was conducted at the beginning of the semester and followed by class practice. Survey results conducted at the end of the semester, show that, with reservations, even this minimalist, âoneâshot inoculationâ of argument mapping is effective in terms of studentsâ perceptions of improvements in their critical thinking skills
Computer-assisted argument mapping: A Rationale Approach
Computer-Assisted Argument Mapping (CAAM) is a new way of understanding arguments. While still embryonic in its development and application, CAAM is being used increasingly as a training and development tool in the professions and government. Inroads are also being made in its application within education. CAAM claims to be helpful in an educational context, as a tool for students in responding to assessment tasks. However, to date there is little evidence from students that this is the case. This paper outlines the use of CAAM as an educational tool within an Economics and Commerce Faculty in a major Australian research university. Evaluation results are provided from students from a CAAM pilot within an upper-level Economics subject. Results indicate promising support for the use of CAAM and its potential for transferability within the disciplines. If shown to be valuable with further studies, CAAM could be included in capstone subjects, allowing computer technology to be utilised in the service of generic skill development
Critical thinking and the disciplines reconsidered
This paper argues that Moore's specifist defence of critical thinking as âdiverse modes of thought in the disciplinesâ, which appeared in Higher Education Research & Development, 30(3), 2011, is flawed as it entrenches relativist attitudes toward the important skill of critical thinking. The paper outlines the critical thinking debate, distinguishes between âtop-downâ, âbottom-upâ and ârelativistâ approaches and locates Moore's account therein. It uses examples from one discipline-specific area, namely, the discipline of Literature, to show that the generalist approach to critical thinking does not âleave something outâ and outlines why teaching âgenericâ critical thinking skills is central to tertiary education, teaching and learning, and employment opportunities for students. The paper also defends the assessment of critical thinking skills
An "infusion" approach to critical thinking: Moore on the critical thinking debate
This paper argues that general skills and the varieties of subject-specific discourse are both important
for teaching, learning and practising critical thinking. The former is important because it
outlines the principles of good reasoning simpliciter (what constitutes sound reasoning patterns,
invalid inferences, and so on). The latter is important because it outlines how the general principles
are used and deployed in the service of âacademic tribesâ. Because critical thinking skills areâin
part, at leastâgeneral skills, they can be applied to all disciplines and subject-matter indiscriminately.
General skills can help us assess reasoning independently of the vagaries of the linguistic
discourse we express arguments in. The paper looks at the debate between the âspecifistsââthose
who stress the importance of critical thinking understood as a subject-specific discourseâand the
âgeneralistsââthose that stress the importance of critical thinking understood independently of
disciplinary context. The paper suggests that the âdebateâ between the specifists and the generalists
amounts to a fallacy of the false alternative, and presents a combinatory-âinfusionâ approach to
critical thinking
Introduction to the Special Issue on Critical Thinking in Higher Education
The articles included in this issue represent some of the most recent thinking in the
area of critical thinking in higher education. While the emphasis is on work being
done in the Australasian region, there are also papers from the USA and UK that
demonstrate the international interest in advancing research in the area.
âCritical thinkingâ in the guise of the study of logic and rhetoric has, of course,
been around since the days of the ancient Greeks and the early beginnings of universities.
In a narrower sense, critical thinking has been central to higher education as a
desirable attribute of graduates since at least the beginning of the twentieth century.
The work of John Dewey, and others, emphasised the importance of âgood habits of
thinkingâ as early as 1916. In 1945, the Harvard Committee placed emphasis on the
importance of âthinking effectivelyâ as one of three desirable educational abilities in
their General education in a free society. This was later endorsed in 1961 by the US-based
Educational Policies Commission: âThe purpose which runs through and
strengthens all other educational purposes ⊠is the development of the ability to
thinkâ (Kennedy, Fisher, & Ennis, 1991, pp. 11â12).
In recent times, universities have made a point of emphasising the importance of
critical thinking as a âgeneric skillâ that is central to most, if not all, subjects. There is
not a university today (in Australia at least) that does not proudly proclaim that their
graduates will â as a result of a degree program in their institution â learn to think critically.
Further, there is rarely a subject taught that does not offer the opportunity to
acquire skills in critical thinking. However, where is the evidence that we teach critical
thinking in higher education? Disturbingly, despite our best intentions, it appears
we may be teaching very little of it
Concept mapping, mind mapping argument mapping: What are the differences and do they matter?
In recent years, academics and educators have begun to use software mapping tools for a number of education-related purposes. Typically, the tools are used to help impart critical and analytical skills to students, to enable students to see relationships between concepts, and also as a method of assessment. The common feature of all these tools is the use of diagrammatic relationships of various kinds in preference to written or verbal descriptions. Pictures and structured diagrams are thought to be more comprehensible than just words, and a clearer way to illustrate understanding of complex topics. Variants of these tools are available under different names: âconcept mappingâ, âmind mappingâ and âargument mappingâ. Sometimes these terms are used synonymously. However, as this paper will demonstrate, there are clear differences in each of these mapping tools. This paper offers an outline of the various types of tool available and their advantages and disadvantages. It argues that the choice of mapping tool largely depends on the purpose or aim for which the tool is used and that the tools may well be converging to offer educators as yet unrealised and potentially complementary functions
Computer-Aided Argument Mapping as a Tool for Teaching Critical Thinking
As individuals we often face complex issues about which we must weigh evidence and come to conclusions. Corporations also have to make decisions on the basis of strong and compelling arguments. Legal practitioners, compelled by arguments for or against a proposition and underpinned by the weight of evidence, are often required to make judgments that affect the lives of others. Medical doctors face similar decisions. Governments make purchasing decisionsâfor example, for expensive military equipmentâor decisions in the areas of public or foreign policy. These issues involve many arguments on all sides of difficult debates. These issues involve understanding the arguments
of others and being able to make objections and provide rebuttals to objections. Students in universities deal with arguments all the time. A major purpose of a university educationâregardless of subject matterâis to teach students how to read, understand, and respond to complex arguments. The ability to do this makes for highly employable, adaptable, and reflectively critical individuals. We often call the skill of marshaling arguments and assessing them âcritical thinking.â All universities claim to instill the skill of critical thinking in their graduates and routinely note this in their advertising and promotional documents. This short paper outlines one way this skill can be taught
'Not Quite Right': Helping Students to Make Better Arguments
This paper looks at the need for a better understanding of the impediments to critical thinking in relation to graduate student work. The paper argues that a distinction is needed between two vectors that influence student writing: (1) the word-levelâsentence-level vector; and (2) the grammarâinferencing vector. It is suggested that much of the work being done to assist students is only done on the first vector. This paper suggests a combination of explicit use of deductive syllogistic inferences and computer-aided argument mapping is needed. A methodology is suggested for tackling assignments that require students to âmake an argumentâ. It is argued that what lecturers understand tacitly, now needs to be made a focus of deliberate educational practices
Introduction
What is critical thinking, especially in the context of higher education?
How have research and scholarship on the matter developed over recent past
decades? What is the current state of the art here? How might the potential of
critical thinking be enhanced? What kinds of teaching are necessary in order
to realize that potential? And just why is this topic important now? These are
the key questions motivating this volume. We hesitate to use terms such as
âcomprehensiveâ or âcompleteâ or âdefinitive,â but we believe that, taken in
the round, the chapters in this volume together offer a fair insight into the
contemporary understandings of higher education worldwide. We also believe
that this volume is much needed, and we shall try to justify that claim in this
introduction
- âŠ