Banks, Adrian

Bartos, Sebastian

English

In teaching Conceptual and Historical Issues in Psychology (CHIP), it is often assumed that students learn critical thinking by being exposed to it, as if absorbing it through osmosis. Moreover, assessment guidelinestend to consider this ability only for higher marks. The authors of this paper believe, however, that critical thinking should be trained as a central skill: in this contribution, they share their experiences in teaching critical thinking directly. Specifically, they lecture on critical thinking and argumentative writing in a secondyear module that also includes research methods training. Several journal articles are discussed in class, and the exam itself consists of critiquing two research reports. In this course, quantitative and qualitative research are discussed by two different lecturers. However, co-teaching is not framed as a debate: the lecturers aim to avoid both providing a stale compromise and presenting the two approaches as irreconcilable. The authors’ experience with this module supported their initial worries about the osmosis model. Moststudents were capable of pertinent critical observations on research, arguably because they absorbed this skill from their previous courses. However, integrating isolated comments into a coherent critique was challengingto many, and it took much effort and guidance from the lecturers

University of Northampton's Research Explorer

1How Do Students Learn Critical Thinking? Challenging the Osmosis ModelSebastian E. Bartos & Adrian P. BanksAbstractIn teaching CHIP, it is often assumed that students learn critical thinking by beingexposed to it, as if absorbing it through osmosis. Moreover, assessment guidelines tendto consider this ability only for higher marks. The authors of this paper believe, however,that critical thinking should be trained as a central skill: in this contribution, they sharetheir experiences in teaching critical thinking directly. Specifically, they lecture on criticalthinking and argumentative writing in a second-year module that also includes researchmethods training. Several journal articles are discussed in class, and the exam itselfconsists of critiquing two research reports. In this course, quantitative and qualitativeresearch are discussed by two different lecturers. However, co-teaching is not framed asa debate: the lecturers aim to avoid both providing a stale compromise and presentingthe two approaches as irreconcilable. The authors’ experience with this modulesupported their initial worries about the osmosis model. Most students were capable ofpertinent critical observations on research, arguably because they absorbed this skillfrom their previous courses. However, integrating isolated comments into a coherentcritique was challenging to many, and it took much effort and guidance from thelecturers.2How Do Students Learn Critical Thinking? Challenging the Osmosis ModelCritical thinking has a paradoxical status in today’s higher education. On the onehand, it is praised as an essential skill to be acquired in most university degrees; on theother hand, critical thinking is often relegated to the sides. In assessment criteria, it isusually the hallmark of a 1 or a 2:1. In syllabi, critical thinking is often a central goal;however, it rarely has dedicated lectures, let alone dedicated modules. The answer tothis paradox may be quite simple: lecturers often assume that critical thinking is anacademic value students will absorb simply because they are constantly exposed to it(see Abrami et al., 2008, for a review of strategies to teach critical thinking). In thispaper, the authors briefly develop their critique of this approach, and present a practicalalternative: teaching critical thinking directly.The idea that students simply absorb critical thinking may be described as an‘osmosis model’. While the term itself originates in biology, its metaphorical use iswidespread enough to be accounted for in the OED: ‘osmosis […] 2. the process ofgradual or unconscious assimilation of ideas, knowledge, etc.’ The central concern of thispaper is that learning through osmosis might be inappropriate in the case of criticalthinking.This paper is not an empirical study on teaching strategies, neither is it a set ofguidelines for teaching critical thinking, but the result of the authors’ reflection on amodule they teach at the University of Surrey. The first author participated in theworkshop that lead to this special issue. This experience convinced the authors that CHIPis committed, as field, to develop psychology students' critical thinking. Hopefully, the3argument made here for teaching critical thinking directly will inspire readers to reflecton their own approach.A brief description of the moduleCritical thinking is taught to Surrey psychology students as part of a module with abroader scope: ‘Applied critical thinking and qualitative data analysis.’ CHIP is taught inthe first year through a specific module, introducing students to the thinking ofimportant figures, intellectual movements and kinds of critical ideas that have structuredthe history of psychology. This second year module builds on that foundation. It does notcover the history of psychology, but instead aims to develop skills in applying the criticalideas presented in that module to contemporary psychology. By teaching critical thinkingexplicitly, students are required to engage in debates about epistemology andmethodology. This is not an additional requirement, on top of learning a topic areawithin psychology, that only students seeking top marks need engage in. It is the centralobjective of the module. This means that critical analysis of becomes a necessarycomponent of student learning rather than a supplementary aim of the module.However, this approach is not without its challenges, as detailed in the followingsections.Several lecturers have been contributing to this module; the authors of this paperhave been engaging with mainly critical thinking and critiquing quantitative research.The module has been taught for three years now, as a compulsory course for second-year psychology students. (Some changes have taken place in the second year: most4notably, the first author of this paper was co-opted, and an essay-type assignment wasreplaced with an equivalent exam.)This paper will only focus on the critical thinkingcomponent, and will not detail students’ acquisition of qualitative research skills.Of the eleven lectures of the course, five focus on critical thinking. The first of thesesessions introduces the goals and structure of the module and the concept of criticalthinking. Some basic tools for critical thinking are discussed, such as argument maps,and we recommend a (very compact) reading list (esp. Bonnett, 2011). The objective ofthis session is to enable students to read research papers as argumentative writing. Thesecond session focuses on quantitative research, via a section-by-section groupdiscussion of two short papers. A brief lecture is also delivered on the theoretical basesof quantitative research, rehearsing such classical issues as correlation-is-not-causationand Occam’s razor. The third session (delivered by another lecturer) takes a similarlyclose look at a qualitative paper through the lens of Yardley (2000). The objective ofthese two sessions is to enable students to identify research findings and critically assesstheir ontological, epistemological and methodological basis, and from this evaluate themeaning of the research. The fourth session discusses argumentation and academicwriting, with the scope of helping students to effectively convey their critical analyses ofpsychological research. The fifth session is entirely dedicated to classroom discussions.Two papers are analysed, one quantitative and one qualitative, both on the same topic.The objective of this session is to enable students to contrast different approaches toresearch in order to highlight the diversity of fundamental assumptions underpinningthem and to consider if they might be reconcilable. This final session thus prefigures the5task on which the students are evaluated.Assessment is practical: students have to write critical essays integratinginformation from two papers. One uses quantitative methods, the other one qualitative,but they address the same issue (e.g. emotions and weight loss). Students are advisedthat this task needs no memorisation: they may have copies of the two papers on theirdesk, and they are not expected to use any particular set of references or concepts. Inorder to pass (a minimum mark of 40%), students are expected to make a few pertinentobservations on the papers’ methodologies, even though embedded in a mostlydescriptive essay. For a first (70% and above), a large number of critical observations areexpected, as well as a coherent narrative for the whole essay, and some discussion of themore challenging aspects of research (such as epistemology).Three sources of information have serve the assessment of the module thus far:students’ feedback, their performance in assessments, and the lecturers’ own reflection.According to University regulations, students completed feedback questionnairesbetween the last lecture and the exam, and the lecturers received this feedback afterthe results had been published. While many students received good marks, many ofthem did struggle with specific issues, as explained in the following section. (After theexam, students received comprehensive feedback in form of a collective email message.)The above approach likely to be familiar to most of university lecturers. Twopedagogical options, however, intentionally depart from what seems usual in similarmodules. If discussing research papers is the staple of many psychology courses, givingdirect instruction on how to critique research seems to be rare. On the other hand, co-6teaching on similar modules often involves debate, especially when (like in the presentcase), qualitative and quantitative research are taught by different people; the authorshave once again decided against the more popular option.In the following two sections, the rationale for direct teaching and for juxtapositionwithout debate is explained. The argument is highly personal. The authors do not wishto frame the module as a revolutionary alternative to previous courses, let alone anultimate solution for teaching critical thinking. Rather, they wish to share reflections onan ongoing experiment.A critique of the ‘osmosis model’As explained in the introduction, the central issue of this paper is the ‘osmosismodel’. Students are often expected to absorb the key skill of thinking critically bymerely engaging in discussions with their lecturers and their peers. The authors voicethe concern that osmosis is inefficient, and therefore they teach a module in whichcritical thinking is directly addressed.The central ethical and theoretical concern about osmosis is that it seemsinconsistent with critical thinking itself. If the principles of critical thinking are not openlydiscussed, then these principles themselves circumvent critical scrutiny. While this worrymay seem pedantic, the problem is often encountered in practice. For example, one ofthe issues discussed in this module is the overuse of certain points of criticism: 'thesample is small and/or not representative' is probably the most popular of suchstatements. Small samples drawn from convenient populations (esp. undergraduate7students) are indeed a major limitation of much psychological research (see Henrich etal., 2010). But a study on astronauts may be interesting precisely because they are notrepresentative of the general population; and very large samples, not just small ones,may also have an adverse effect on the results of research (e.g. by making smalldifferences statistically significant; see Field, 2013). In order to turn critical thinking onitself, and make sure it is more than a repertoire of smart-sounding phrases, the authorschose to discuss it directly.There is also research evidence against osmosis. In a meta-analysis of over onehundred studies on teaching critical thinking, Abrami et al. (2008) found only oneineffective approach: engaging students in deep reflection and debate over the coursetopic, hoping that they will distil how to think critically. Abrami et al. called this‘immersion,’ but it essentially overlaps with ‘osmosis.’ (Immersion had an effect size ofless the one tenth of a standard deviation, while all other approaches had effect sizesbetween one third and one full standard deviation.) The relative ineffectiveness ofosmosis should not come as a surprise. Critical thinking is quite far removed from theway people think in their everyday lives. The whole literature on cognitive biases can beread as comparative analysis of what academics and laypeople find to be logically correct(see Greenwald, 1980, for an engaging synthesis): the result is, of course, that everydaylogic deviates substantially from the academic standard. It is thus unlikely that criticalthinking will be osmotised.The authors’ experience with the module seems to support concerns aboutosmosis. In their feedback after the module, several students complained about being8taught something they were already familiar with; they were especially discontent withbeing taught how to write sentences and paragraphs. Argumentation is a skill that needslifelong development, and students’ work often confirms the need to rehearse the basicsof academic writing. However, the students’ impression that they knew enough alreadyshould not be dismissed. In his first lecture, the first author asked students to critiquethe abstract of an experimental paper. He was so satisfied with the students’ answers,that, for a while, he doubted the necessity of this module. Future discussions, as well asexam results made him reconsider the students’ apparent prowess. For example, theconclusions of some essays contradicted the contents, and the language was sometimesinadequately harsh (e.g. ‘downfall, ‘dismal’ etc.) Common but serious mistakes werepresent in a few essays, such as inferring causality from correlational or qualitativeresearch. Overall, the patterns seen in the assignments and exam scripts are incontradiction with both the lecturers’ and the students’ initial impression that osmosiswas successful. However, these moments of doubt gave the authors first-handexperience of why osmosis may feel sufficient to many.Finally, the importance of what is ‘absorbed’ by students from their lecture(r)sshould not be dismissed. Since quantitative and qualitative research are both addressedin this module, special attention is paid to what students gather about the relationshipbetween these two approaches. This discussion is developed in the following section.A word on co-teachingDiscussing both qualitative and quantitative research can be difficult within the9same programme of studies, let alone within the same module. This is the case becausemethodological differences often reflect divergent views on knowledge, reality, and therole of science in society (see Lincoln et al., 2011, for a synthesis). We chose to handlethis challenge by co-teaching: qualitative and quantitative research were discussed bytwo different lecturers, but without any debate between them. Both lecturers werepresent at almost all lectures, and they often engaged with each other’s material.However, they neither debated each other, nor did they suggest a compromise. Theyopted for a side-by-side presentation of the two approaches, trying to neitherexacerbate nor downplay the tensions. This approach was preferred for two reasons.On the one hand, some research-related values may be genuinely irreconcilable. Inher discussion of epistemological debates in psychology, Stainton-Rogers (2003) critiquesan approach she labels the ‘”fluffy bunny” solution’ (p. 9). Academics often feelcompelled to present integrative, balanced, unemotional compromises betweencompeting theories. Such solutions, however, tend to brush over substantial differencesin values and worldviews. Just like appeasing a personal conflict with a gift of a card or aplush toy, textbook compromises on epistemological debates tend to underestimate thecore tensions. Co-teaching is this module allows for genuine advocacy on both sides.Furthermore, it is hoped that the discussion of the lecturers models a moresophisticated and nuanced style of engagement with the underlying assumptions andinterpretations, demonstrating the value to be gained from their diversity.On the other hand, debate is but one way of approaching tensions. Bryman (2012)explains how the differences between qualitative and quantitative research may be10framed as epistemological, thus leading to a difficult debate; but the difference can alsobe framed as technical, and then integration is possible. Quantitative research in suchsubfields as feminist or LGBT psychology is often quantitative, but axiologically closer toqualitative research (cf. the quantitative and qualitative studies in Coyle & Kitzinger,2003). Mixed methods research (Creswell & Plano-Clark, 2011) has also proved thatquantitative and qualitative methods can coexist in practice. Moreover, quantitative andqualitative research are neither monolithic, nor uncritical of their own limitations.Researchers are often well aware of their own paradigm's limitations (Lincoln et al.,2011).Finally, epistemologies can also move along a continuum, as exemplified by criticalrealism (Bryman, 2012).Student's critical analyses convinced the authors that the quantitative-qualitativedivide needs to be addressed with even more care. When integrating information fromone quantitative and one qualitative paper, many students praised one and dismissedthe other. Qualitative and quantitative research were plotted against one another inquite emotional terms, and the methodological faults of the preferred paper wereclearly downplayed. This seems to support the idea that debate is better avoided infavour of more sophisticated ways of addressing tensions.ConclusionsIt is often assumed that psychology students learn critical thinking by being exposedto it, as if absorbing it through osmosis. In this short paper, the authors argue for a moredirect approach. They teach critical thinking as part of a second-year module, mostly11lecturing on research designs and argumentative writing. Although two differentlecturers discuss quantitative and qualitative research, co-teaching is never framed as adebate and did not present the two approaches as irreconcilable. Exams require nomemorisation, as students have to critique familiar research articles. The explicit focusrequires students to engage critically with the assumptions underpinning the ontology,epistemology, and methodology of the research, rather than presenting this form ofthought as a supplementary aim of the module. After a more historically-focused CHIPcourse in the first year, second-year students gain more insight into conceptual issues inpsychology.Classroom discussions partially supported the osmosis model:  students wereindeed capable of critical observations at the beginning of the module, arguably becausethey absorbed elements of critical thinking in their first year. However, the final examrevealed more subtle issues: writing a coherent critical essay was challenging for manystudents even after direct instruction. The therefore urge their colleagues to ensure thatstudents are not just capable of identifying limitations in research, but also confident inbuilding more intricate arguments.ReferencesAbrami, P.C., Bernard, R.M., Borokhovski, E., Wade, A., Surkes, M.A., Tamim, R. & Zhang,D. (2008). Instructional interventions affecting critical thinking skills anddispositions: A stage 1 meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research , 78, 1102-1134.12Bryman, A. (2012). Social research methods (4th ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Bonnett, A. (2011). How to argue. London: Pearson.Creswell, J.W., & Plano-Clark, V.L. (2007). Designing and conducting mixed methodsresearch. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Coyle, A. & Kitzinger, C. (Eds.). (2002). Lesbian and gay psychology: New perspectives.Malden: BPS Blackwell.Field, A. (2013). Discovering statistics using IBM SPSS Statistics (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks,CA: Sage.Greenwald, A. G. (1980). The totalitarian ego: Fabrication and revision of personalhistory. American Psychologist, 35, 603-618.Henrich, J., Heine, S. J., & Norenzayan, A. (2010). The weirdest people in the world?Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 33, 61-83.Lincoln, Y.S., Lynham, S.A., & Guba, E.G. (2011). Paradigmatic controversies,contradictions, and emerging confluences, revisited. In N.K. Denzin & Y.S. Lincoln(Eds.), The SAGE handbook of qualitative research (4th ed., pp. 97-128). London:Sage.Stainton-Rogers, W. (2003). Social psychology: Experimental and critical approaches.London: Open University Press.Yardley, L. (2000). Dilemmas in qualitative health research. Psychology and Health, 15,215-228.

How do students learn critical thinking? Challenging the osmosis model

https://pure.northampton.ac.uk/ws/files/4446233/Bartos_Banks_draft.pdf

How do students learn critical thinking? Challenging the osmosis model

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

University of Northampton's Research Explorer