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.
Thanks for the link to Alcarez's Thesis. Michael mentioned this to me once and I never followed through locating it.
ReplyDeleteAs I read I was interested to know why there have been 2 waves in defining CT. It seems to me that the second wave is stating that CT must also include an explanatory component, which seems to imply (to me at least) that CT must extend beyond the self. The reason I make this statement is that in wave 1, the definition includes the components such as 'interpretation and evaluation", which imply some type of explanation. Perhaps the second wave wants to make explicit the explanatory component of CT, and that the explanation can be directed to the self as well as others. Well - that's my ramblings out of the way. Thanks for you the link and opportunity to critically think about your post!
Criteriological is actually a word!?! I suppose the logical application of criteria is part of critical thinking!
ReplyDeleteIt is interesting to read about "second wave thinking" - that in itself is critically thinking about critical thinking!
I went back to the Green Guide 6 to contrast these definitions and I must admit I prefer the streamlined definitions posed by Van Gyn and Ford (2006). It seems less restrictive yet nicely covers the areas suggested by Alvarez.
Regardless of how extensive the definition expands, the core idea is that critical thinking is the backbone of invention, analysis, deep thought and new ideas.
With that said, I need to think further on the purpose for providing operational definitions for key terms in our posed questions. THanks for the fod for thought, Beth! You've worked hard here.
Very useful ... thanks Beth!
ReplyDeleteI am struck by the role 'context' plays and how it might be beneficial in understanding one's own teaching. Informal logicians (yes there are such folk) have been busy developing ways of including context into analysis of inferences. For instance, a 1980s textbook in CT might claim that "I am taller" is a vague (i.e., taller than what? than whom?), later textbooks might claim "I am taller" is vague when the context does not help in understanding the sentence (i.e., in applying the definition of 'taller'). So, with my daughter, in the midst of a discussion we mark our heights on the wall and I exclaim 'I am taller', the context helps us. On the other hand, walking in a crowd should I exclaim 'I am taller' then I would be uttering something that is vague and would require clarification to be understood.
The so-called second wave, it seems to me, is urging us to contextualize, to situate, to take ownership of our inferences. Now the question remains, how do we get our students to accept that?
Glad to see that you followed up the Alvarez reference, Beth! Pierre is correct, I think, in his explanation of what is meant by context in the "second wave".
ReplyDeleteSo now that you've reported on the definitions you found, you need to use them to create your own definition so you can move forward -- evaluate the definitions you find, synthesize what works, and evaluate the definition that results from your synthesis until it works well enough for your purposes. Then you'll be able to move forward.