Bookmark this page

Translate this page from English...

*Machine translated pages not guaranteed for accuracy.

Click Here for our professional translations.


Print Page Change Text Size: T T T

Effect of a Model for Critical Thinking on Student Achievement...


Effect of a Model for Critical Thinking on Student Achievement in Primary Source Document Analysis and Interpretation, Argumentative Reasoning, Critical Thinking Dispositions and History Content in a Community College History Course

   Abstract of the Study, conducted by Jenny Reed, in partial fulfillment for her dissertation (October 26, 1998)
For the full study, click here.

This study investigated the effect of integrating Richard Paul's model for critical thinking into a U.S. history course on community college students' 1) abilities to think critically about U.S. history and about everyday issues, 2) dispositions toward thinking critically, and 3) knowledge of history content. This study also examined if age (under 22, 22 and older) or gender moderated the effectiveness of the instructional method.

Four sections of U.S. History, 1877 to the Present, participated in this one-semester study. Two sections were randomly selected to serve as the experimental group and the other two sections served as the control group. The experimental group (n = 29) received approximately 90 minutes of explicit instruction distributed over the semester in using Paul's model for critical thinking to analyze and interpret primary source documents. In addition, the model was integrated into a series of assigned classroom activities. The control group (n = 23) was taught in a more traditional manner.

Students took three pretests and four posttests to measure the effectiveness of the instructional model: a Documents Based Question (DBQ) from an Advanced Placement Examination, the Ennis-Weir Critical Thinking Essay Test, the California Critical Thinking Dispositions Inventory (CCTDI), and a History Content Exam. The primary statistical analyses were done with 2 (group) x 2 (age) x 2 (gender) ANCOVAs using pretests as covariates. The experimental group scored significantly higher on the DBQ, p = .004, and on the Ennis -Weir, p = .0001. Effect sizes (Cohen's f) were DBQ = .48 and Ennis-Weir = .83. Statistical tests did not indicate significant differences on the CCTDI or on the History Content Exam. No significant differences were found in the effectiveness of the method of instruction by age or gender.

Three major findings emerged from this study: 1) community college students' abilities to think historically and to think critically improved in a single course; 2) community college students' end of term knowledge of history content did not suffer when training in critical thinking abilities was integrated into course material; 3) age and gender did not play significant roles in developing college students' critical thinking abilities.

For the full study, click here.



Please do not pass this message by.

CRITICAL THINKING IS AT RISK.

Here are some of the big reasons why:

  1. Many people believe that critical thinking should be free and that scholars qualified to teach critical thinking should do so for free. Accordingly, they do not think they should have to pay for critical thinking textbooks, courses, or other resources when there is "so much free material online" - despite how erroneous that material may be.
  2. There are many misguided academicians, and some outright charlatans, pushing forth and capitalizing on a pseudo-, partial, or otherwise impoverished concept of critical thinking.
  3. Little to no funding is designated for critical thinking professional development in schools, colleges, or universities, despite the lip service widely given to critical thinking (as is frequently found in mission statements).
  4. Most people, including faculty, think they already know what critical thinking is, despite how few have studied it to any significant degree, and despite how few can articulate a coherent, accurate, and sufficiently deep explanation of it.
  5. People rarely exhibit the necessary level of discipline to study and use critical thinking for reaching higher levels of self-actualization. In part, this is due to wasting intellectual and emotional energy on fruitless electronic entertainment designed to be addictive and profitable rather than educational and uplifting.
  6. On the whole, fairminded critical thinking is neither understood, fostered, nor valued in educational institutions or societies.
  7. People are increasingly able to cluster themselves with others of like mind through alluring internet platforms that enable them to validate one another's thinking - even when their reasoning is nonsensical, lopsided, prejudiced, or even dangerous.
  8. Critical thinking does not yet hold an independent place in academia. Instead, "critical thinking" is continually being "defined" and redefined according to any academic area or instructor that, claiming (frequently unsupported) expertise, steps forward to teach it.

As you see, increasingly powerful trends against the teaching, learning, and practice of critical thinking entail extraordinary challenges to our mission. To continue our work, we must now rely upon your financial support. If critical thinking matters to you, please click here to contribute what you can today.

WE NEED YOUR HELP TO CONTINUE OUR WORK.

Thank you for your support of ethical critical thinking.