A closer look at Definitions

Week 3 Blog – Examining definitions

Today, I explore the definition I used to describe critical thinking (CT). Following up on a recommendation from Michael, I reflected on a published Masters Thesis authored by Claudia Alvarez (2007). Ms. Alvarez provides an overview of the many definitions of CT. It turns out, my definition of CT comes in part from the Delphi Report (1990), tauted as the definition used to create assessment tools to measure CT (Alvarez, 2007) and in part from the ‘second wave’ of CT definitions.  According to Alvarez, CT has been defined in a traditional way (logical analysis) and by another group of researchers she refers to as ‘second wave’.  This alternate definition expands CT to include the application of methods of logical analysis.

My definition of CT from last week’s blog, reported by Abrami et al. (2008), reflected that of the Delphi Report (1990) such that “purposeful, self regulatory judgement which results in interpretation, analysis, evaluation and inference” and “explanation of the evidential, conceptual, methodological, criteriological or contextual inquiry” (Alvarez, 2007, p.24). The first part of this could be described as traditional while the second part, second wave. Similarly, Alvarez identifies Siegel (1988) and Ennis (1985) with definitions that also would fit with the second wave, for example, “CT involves bringing to bear all matters relevant to the rationality of belief and action” (Siegel, 1988) and “the reasonable and reflective thinking focused on deciding what to believe or do” (Ennis, 1985).

The definition of the second wave group focus on the beliefs and actions. In the Delphi Report (1990), this too is captured in the wording “conceptual, methodological, criteriological” and includes a further piece introducing “contextual”, which might include discipline specific inquiry.

All of these definitions, for me, can be combined to provide a more inclusive definition for CT as I noted from Abrami et al (2008). Inclusivity is a value that fits for me in my personal beliefs, professional career and within the research paradigm that I am still sorting out (Critical vs Constructivist).

For next week, I will follow-up further on a recommendation regarding an inquiry definition and a 2010 study that explores inquiry from both content and process for novice learners.

http://images.austhink.com/pdf/Claudia-Alvarez-thesis.pdf

Inquiry and critical thinking in the jungle

Inquiry question – Week 2 – Theme: Identity

My first question, ‘Why would it be important for social work students to experience inquiry to become critical thinkers?’ has a number of associated assumptions. Included in these assumptions are that inquiry can be experienced; that inquiry is necessary or helpful; that social work students can become critical thinkers and that inquiry does lead to critical thinking. In attempting to answer this question, I searched a number of sources, education journals, social work education journals, a search of key words through the Leddy Library search tools. 

My inquiry search included ten searches. The searches began with journal articles in education, using the Eric search engine and restricting the search to peer reviewed articles. The search began with ‘inquiry base learning and critical thinking, empirical studies’ and received zero hits. Next, ‘inquiry base learning, empirical studies’ received three hits but the articles were not what I was seeking. The third search, ‘inquiry based learning, empirical studies received 47 hits with three potential articles, Kirschner, Sweller & Clark (2006), Capps, Crawford & Constas (2012) and Mulder, Lazonder & Jong (2010). The fourth search, ‘scientific inquiry education critical thinking’ revealed two potential articles, Cox, Deese & Ramsey (2007) and Sadeh & Zion (2009). By this time, I was tired of Eric and wanted to move more towards social work education.

In considering the Social Work search link and Social Work Abstracts (Ovid), the keys words searched in the first three attempts ‘inquiry based learning and critical thinking in social work; inquiry based learning in social work education; and inquiry, critical thinking’ all received zero hits. A switch to the social service abstracts (proquest) and running the first search again found three articles, one of which appeared to be a potential for this purpose, Biggerstaff (2005). The final search included ‘inquiry based learning in social work education and of 40 hits, one article appeared to have potential, Bay & Macfarlane (2011).

Despite my beliefs about trusting process and my attempts to be patient, rational and demonstrate perseverance, this process was frustrating mostly because at the end of this exercise, I do not have an answer to my question. I defined my terms, for example, ‘experience inquiry’ meaning the students are going through a process so that it is clear that the students are part of the process and the experience is unique to them. I adopt Hudspith and Jenkins (2007) conception of inquiry as “a path to new knowledge and understanding” (p. 9) and critical thinking as, “the ability to engage in purposeful, self-regulatory judgement… but also thinking about the social, political and ethical challenges in everyday life” (Abrami et al, 2008, p. 1102) as this definition seems to connect nicely with the purpose of social work. Important is defined by an online dictionary, “mattering much or entitled to more than ordinary consideration” (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/important?s=t). As this exercise is about identity, I will position myself as not yet fully determined, landing somewhere between or within the critical theory or constructivist paradigm, more likely leaning towards constructivism with an “it depends” response to my beliefs about knowledge creation.

Through the literature I discovered a meta-analysis on instructional interventions affecting critical thinking skills. This study revealed, through a review of 117 studies, three key outcomes related to the 1) impact of instruction on critical thinking, 2) How methodology moderates the impact and 3) The role of substantive study features. According to Abrami et al (2008), the largest effect size occurred in the studies where critical thinking is taught as a separate unit within the content of a specific course and the instructor making the learning of critical thinking explicit. Also, according to the same authors, pedagogy matters, meaning for instructors with training (experience) in teaching critical thinking, student outcomes for learning critical thinking skills increased. So, now I know the conditions under which critical thinking might be taught in order for students to learn critical thinking skills. How does inquiry fit into this equation?

Kirschner, Sweller & Clark (2006) support the use of guided instruction emphasizing there have been no empirical studies to support the use of what they call a constructivist/minimally guided or inquiry based approach to learning. Considering positivist and constructivist paradigms are very different, it made me wonder if the assumption made by the authors was that empirical studies were the final word on research method effectiveness. This of course challenges my own paradigm, if I were to claim constructivism. Other authors support inquiry based learning as an effective method provided both domain (content) and process support are provided particularly to novice learners (Mulder, Lazonder & Jong, 2010). In a study comparing open inquiry to guided inquiry, researchers found the open inquiry student group to perform higher on changes during inquiry and procedural understanding of inquiry suggesting methodological effectiveness (Sadeh & Zion, 2009). Capps, Crawford & Constas (2012) identify the purpose of inquiry in the classroom is to learn how to do scientific inquiry by learning how to ask and identify questions, how to plan and design experiments and how to use the data to make connections. This appears to be getting closer to my question in terms of seeing how inquiry can help to build critical thinking skills in terms of purposeful, self-regulating judgement. It also appears to support another assumption, that inquiry is helpful. Still, no indication of why this would be important.

Some researchers provide information to the flip of my question. Cox, Deese & Ramsy (2007) suggest that specific activities can provide students opportunities to use critical thinking skills that will allow them to be successful conducting inquiry and they believe the use of specific activities can be adapted across disciplines. This moves me a little closer to responding to one of my assumptions that social workers can develop critical thinking skills.

The social work education literature linked me to my question but more in an anecdotal way, not necessarily through empirical research. Biggerstaff (2005) observed reflective learning and critical thinking skills were outcomes for students enrolled in an online inquiry course whereas Bay and Macfarland (2011) provide an example of guided inquiry and how critical reflection can be purposefully taught to develop critical thinking skills using real world experiences through a post-structural lens. This particular lens allows students to challenge their ‘taken for granted’ assumptions. Some think that this process of deconstruction and reconstruction of knowledge, values and beliefs can lead to transformative learning (Bay & Macfarland, 2011) and that the critical analysis of narratives can lead to opportunities for change. We would want social work students to be critical thinkers so that they can critically analyze those structures in society that create barriers for people, addressing the social, political and ethical challenges in everyday life. This connects the importance of critical thinking but not inquiry as a means of achieving critical thinking.

I’ve reached the end of what I can do for this week. This exploratory search has been too big and too wide to bring any resolution to this question. The connections have not been fully made and will need to be further considered for next week.

Abrami, P., Bernard, R., Borokhovski, E., Wade, A., Surkes, M., Taman, R., & Zhang, D. (2008). Instructional interventions affecting critical thinking skills and dispositions: A stage 1 meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 78(4), 1102-1134.

Bay, U., & Macfarland, S. (2011). Teaching Critical Reflection: A Tool for Transformative Learning in Social Work. Social Work Education, 30(7), 745-758.

Biggerstaff, M. (2005). Social Work Ethics Online. Reflective Learning. Journal of Technology in Human Services, 23(3-4), 245-257.

Capps, D., Crawford, B., & Constas, M. (2012). A review of empirical literature on inquiry professional development alignment with best practices and a critique of the findings. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 23(3), 291-318.

Cox, C., Deese, W., & Ramsey, L. (2007). Non traditional Card Sorts: Adding critical thinking and inquiry to science classrooms. The Science Teacher, 24(9), 38-42.

Kirschner, P., Sweller, J., & Clark, R. (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.

Mulder, Y., Lazonder, A. & Jong, T. (2010). Finding Out How They Find it Out. An Empirical Analysis of Inquiry Learners’ Need for Support. International Journal of Science Education, 31(15), 2033-2053.

Sadeh, I., & Zion, M. (2009). The development of dynamic inquiry performances within an open inquiry setting: A comparison to guided inquiry setting. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46(10), 1137-1160.

It's a jungle out there

Explain the metaphor for teacher and the metaphor for learner and the relationship between them.

The metaphors I chose were chimpanzee (teacher) and owl (learner). I was thinking that a chimpanzee is inquisitive and owls, wise. As a teacher, I am inquisitive about the learning process and seek ways to create an environment where learners can discover and share their knowledge with each other and the class as a whole. Chimpanzees are also active and I spend much time preparing for classes so that there are a number of varied activities for the learners to engage while I assume the role of facilitator in the learning process.

The owls then have opportunities to share their knowledge with each other through active learning experiences. These active learning experiences set the tone in the classroom along with the expectation that knowledge will be co-constructed between learners and between learners and teachers.

While considering the relationship between the metaphors, it occurred to me that I had briefly explored the relationship between teacher and learner through an inquiry based activity in the LCTHE course. In this class, I was part of a group that presented ‘The Art of Inquiry’. Following this experience, I wrote a brief paper called ‘Relationships of Change: How does social work education navigate inquiry based learning?’  This brief paper then became the subject of a poster presentation at the Windsor/Oakland conference in May 2012.

I discovered through a search of the literature that the relationship between teacher and learner was only one of three relationships that are challenged by inquiry based learning. The other two relationships included teaching/research and university/community.  My inquiry question then became, ‘How does inquiry based teaching and learning challenge these relationships?’

Focusing solely on the metaphors for this blog, I discovered a number of ways in which the teacher/learner relationship is challenged through inquiry based learning. First, inquiry based learning changes the relationship between the student and the teacher so that it is a relational approach (Wood, 2003; Mangione, 2000). Next, there is a sharing of power and openness to challenge and critique (Brew, 2003). This fits with the notion of co-construction of knowledge as the teacher is not the expert in this relationship and in this classroom. Within this relationship, the roles shift and the teacher role moves from expert to facilitator while the learner assumes responsibility for establishing the knowledge base (Damnjanovic, 1999). The knowledge created then is through the transformation of the experience so that what is critical for the learner is the context in which they are learning (Healey, 2005).

The co-construction of knowledge in this learning environment allows dialogue to remain a permanent tension (Narayan, 2000) as the inquisitive teacher and the wise learner engage in a reciprocal exchange of information allowing for challenge and critique to form new knowledge. An important piece of this exchange requires the teacher to demonstrate or express authenticity and empowerment through language (Mangione et al 2011).

References

1. Brew, A. (2003). Teaching and research: New relationships and their implications for inquiry-based teaching and learning in higher education.
2. Wood, W. (2003). Inquiry-based undergraduate teaching in the life sciences at Large Research Universities: A perspective on the Boyer Commission Report.
3. Damnjanovic, A. (1999). Attitudes toward inquiry-based teaching: Differences between preservice and inservice teachers.
4. Healey, M. (2005). Linking research and teaching: exploring disciplinary spaces and the role of inquiry-based learning.
5. Mangione, L., Mears, G., Vincent, W., & Hawes, S. (2011). The supervisory relationship when women supervise women: An exploratory study of power, reflexivity, collaboration and authenticity.
6. Narayan, L. (2000). Freire & Gandhi. Their relevance for social work education.