Disposition Toward Thinking Critically

7/24/2019 Disposition Toward Thinking Critically

1/11

Author info: Correspondence should be sent to: Dr. Martin Eigenberger, Collegeof Arts & Sciences, U. of Wisconsin-Parkside, 600 Wood Rd., Kenosha, WI53141

North American Journal of Psychology, 2001, Vol. 3, No. 1, 109-118.

NAJP

Disposition Toward Thinking Critically: AComparison of Pre-service Teachers and Other

University Students

Martin E. EigenbergerUniversity of Wisconsin-Parkside

Karen A. SealanderNorthern Arizona University

James A. JacobsIndiana State University

Suzanne M. ShelladyCentral Michigan University

A preliminary study was conducted examining attitudes toward some ofthe requisite dispositions involved in critical thinking. The AttitudeToward Critical Thinking Scale (CTS) was used to assess dispositionsrelated to critical thinking in a sample of university students.Elementary, secondary, and special education majors, as well as majorsclassified as Liberal Arts & Sciences, Traditional Social Sciences, andApplied Social and Health Sciences were compared. Results suggestedthat students sampled from Arts & Sciences and Traditional SocialScience are more favorably predisposed to critical thinking principlesthan are Education and Applied Social and Health Science students.

Results are addressed within the context of pedagogical needs of theinformation age.

Critical thinking skills have received much attention over the past twodecades. Most authors who address this subject agree that the ability tothink critically and autonomously is the cornerstone of democracy and theantidote to authoritarianism and closed-mindedness (Ennis, 1992;McPeck, 1990; Paul, 1984; Siegel, 1988). It is further suggested that

accelerated discovery and information flow necessitate the developmentof thinking skills that will be adaptive to the new information en-vironment. The method of critical thinking, which finds its typicalexpression in philosophical analysis, requires a non-didactic, forum-styleclassroom environment conducive to dialog and Socratic questioning.This kind of teaching and learning is aimed at understanding the


2/11

110 NORTH AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PSYCHOLOGY

underlying assumptions and logical structure of subject areas as opposedto a strict delivery of factual content (Paul, 1993). By instilling themethods and habits of critical inquiry, students will be less dependent onthe facts- which are constantly changing. Students so educated are morelikely to become autonomous thinkers, able to extract reliable informationfrom a wide variety of sources, and able to make more incisiveinferences. However, philosophical ways of thinking, much like a secondlanguage, are best practiced early and often. Thus critical thinking should

be infused across the curriculum beginning in the early elementaryclassroom (Lippman, 1991). The attitude of future teachers regardingtheir readiness to implement critical thinking may be regarded as animportant and integral consideration of teacher education programs(Presseisen, 1986).

Critical thinking is defined both as a psychological attitude and an

intellectual skill. It is an attitude of reflective skepticism and awillingness and ability to suspend judgement pending a criticalexamination of evidence (McPeck, 1981). Critical thinking is a refusal toaccept information without good reasons for belief (Siegel, 1988), andthis attitude not only attempts to examine information in analytic bits butalso pulls within its scope worldviews and personal perspectives (Paul,1984). Critical thinking is also a skill that uses informal logic,philosophy, and subject-specific facts to sort out what are adequate,acceptable, or good reasons for belief.

Both the attitude and skill of critical thought are as important today asin the past. Historically, critical thinkers such as Descartes systematizedan approach to knowledge acquisition and revolutionized philosophy andempirical science. Scientific methodologies initiated during the

Enlightenment period have produced a seeming over-abundance of in-formation. According to Paul (1993) routinized learning, stable worldviews, and formulaic teaching are fast becoming handicapping conditionsfor individuals and societies. Accelerating change, Paul suggests, is upon

us, as half the content of subject areas becomes obsolete or invalid everysix years. We are increasingly being asked to sort through a maze of newor reorganized information. Toffler (1970) notes that from 1776 to 1960the stores of knowledge doubled. From 1960 to 1965 knowledge againdoubled. It is predicted that as we enter the year 2002, factual knowledgewill double every 73 days (Toffler, 1990). Additional examples of theenormous amounts of information available include the 1000 new bookspublished every day and the fact that there is more information in a single

edition of the New York Times than there was in the lifetime of anindividual living in 1776 (Toffler, 1990).

The use of critical thinking skills, or content-independent reason, isthe only practical way to sort out which information may be valid. As inthe past, critical thinking is necessary to guide social changes as well as


3/11

Eigenberger, Sealander, Jacobs, & Shellady CRITICAL THINKING 111

those changes proposed and presented by todays educational reformmovement. If critical thought is not employed, then the field of educationmay be more likely to be driven by political agendas and market forcesrather than real cognitive and informational needs that are relavent to theadaptability of individuals and institutions. Hiring practices of cor-porations like Motorola and Honeywell are beginning to address the needfor critical thinkers. Companies like these emphasize the requirement forpotential employees to be able to independently process and use new

information as well as work with others to creatively use the information.Given the information explosion, the notion that knowledge is power,

and the needs of employers regarding the individuals they hire, criticalthinking is fast becoming a necessary survival skill. Although theacquisition of adaptive skills may be related to intelligence, the learningof critical thinking as an adaptive behavior requires practice on the part

of the learner. Even if there are naturals or native critical thinkers asthere are natural artists, guided practice of critical thinking skills is stillessential. It is logical then, that critical thinking be encouraged in theclassroom. This encouragement may take the form of emphasizing theneed for good reasons rather than just correct answers, and insisting onevidence rather than opinion. The questioning of motives andassumptions, and the exploration of implications must be practiced. Thepractice of critical thinking also requires the acceptance and respect ofdivergent perspectives (Marzano, 1992; Slavin, 1994). Attention there-

fore, to the nature and intellectual ecology of the classroom is essential,as it might well enhance or impede the development of critical thinking.

To adequately deal with critical questions, the learning outcomessought by both the teacher and the student must be extended beyond

merely finding test-relevant answers, to one of exploration and reflection.To achieve these outcomes it is essential for both the teacher and studentsto tolerate the ambiguity and periodic confusion that often accompaniesthe process of discovery via critical thinking. The classroom would seem

to be the ideal arena in which to nurture, practice, and implement thinkingskills (Hester, 1994).

Student use of critical thinking in the classroom, although ped-agogically sound and seemingly widely accepted, can be a double-edgedsword. On the one side, the students are using skills which more fullyengage the mind in the assimilation and understanding of subjects andsubject matter. On the other side, there is the attitude of skepticism andquestioning, which may have the appearance of challenging authority,

often including the teachers authority (Bornstein, et al, 1977). Hence, forsome teachers critical thinking may be controversial. The teacher with an

authoritarian turn of mind, who works for conformity and regularity in hisor her classroom, may have something less than a full appreciation forstudents who are asking critical questions.


4/11


Indeed, that teacher may view the student as threatening, non-compliant, and rude (Drabman & Patterson, 1981). It would seem that theteachers assumptions about the nature of authority and skepticism, andthe value of justified beliefs, may affect the quantity and quality ofcritical thinking that actually takes place in the classroom.

The central question of this study was: Do future educators value thecritical thinking process and the behavioral attributes of the criticalthinker, or are they more likely to ignore, limit or extinguish such

behaviors? In an attempt to begin addressing this question, studentsenrolled in institutions of higher education volunteered to complete theAttitude Toward Critical Thinking Scale (Eigenberger, Sealander, &Seckinger, 1996). The purpose of this preliminary investigation was toassess the degree to which critical thinking attitudes are present in futureeducators as compared to other university students.

METHODParticipants and Procedure

Participants in this study were 486 students enrolled in undergraduateand graduate courses in the College of Education and three other areas ofacademic discipline. Other areas were classified as, a) Traditional LiberalArts and Sciences (A&S), consisting mainly of history, philosophy,English, fine arts, and natural science majors, b) Traditional Social

Science (TSS), which was primarily made up of psychology, sociology,and political science majors, and c) Applied Social and Health Sciences(ASHS), composed of majors from fields such as criminal justice, socialwork, nursing, speech pathology, occupational therapy, and nutritionscience. The survey procedure netted participants from other disciplinary

areas such as Engineering and Business, but total numbers in thesecategories were trivial and were dropped from the analysis. A total of 22participants declared themselves as Undecided, and were included as a

group in the analysis.Participants were volunteers drawn from courses at three universities

in the Western and Mid-western states. The largest sample of participantswas drawn from Colleges of Education and consisted of 240 students. Allof the participating institutions offered four-year, undergraduate degrees,as well as post-graduate degrees in Education. Of the Education students,114 participants (96 women, 18 men) were elementary education majors,69 (32 women, 37 men) were secondary education majors, and 58 (48

women, 10 men) were special education majors. These categories withinEducation were examined to test the hypothesis that the critical thinkingdisposition of secondary education majors would differ significantly from

other majors within Education. The total Education sample contained 176women and 64 men. Mean age of the participants was 23.4 years.Ninety-five participants were A&S majors, consisting of 36 women and


5/11


59 men. Traditional Social Science consisted of 83 participants, of which45 were women and 38 were men. Applied Social & Health Sciences wasmade up of 46 participants - 28 women and 18 men. Of the students in theUndecided category, there were 13 women and 9 men.

The CTS was administered along with a demographics page, byseveral professors who were teaching courses in a variety of disciplines.Participants were offered extra credit for completing the scale and weregiven class time for this purpose.

InstrumentationItems for the CTS were developed by the authors, and were derived

deductively from conditions assumed necessary for effectively engagingin critical and reflective thought (e.g., Dewey, 1933; Paul, 1993; Russell,1912). These necessary conditions were operationalized as statements or

sentiments reflecting traits such as intellectual openness, faith in reason,curiosity, respect for science, willingness to suspend judgement, andindependent thinking. The CTS was designed to sample an attitudespectrum incorporating 'pro' and 'con' dispositions toward criticalthinking. It was developed as an alternative to commercially availablescales such as the California Critical Thinking Disposition Inventory(Facione & Facione, 1992), which is a comprehensive, reliable, but ratherlengthy, multidimensional instrument. The CTS is a relatively short scale,intended for use in omnibus survey packets, or, for example, as an

expedient indicator of the strength of the critical thinking disposition inan individual classroom. The CTS contains 15 items scaled on a 7-pointdisagree-agree Likert-type format. The scale is balanced, with 7 itemsworded in the pro direction, capturing a positive attitude toward the

principles of critical thinking, and 8 items worded in the con direction,indexing negative attitudes toward the requisite conditions of criticalthinking. Items typical of the CTS are One good way to find what is true,is to doubt everything until there are good logical or scientific reasons to

believe it; Cooperation and respect for tradition are more importantvirtues than being a critical thinker; and, In the quest for what is reallytrue, one should be prepared to doubt and perhaps discard any currentbeliefs about oneself, God, and the world. The CTS has a possible rawscore range from 15 to 105 points. The fifteen items comprising the CTSare listed in the Appendix.

Evidence of construct validity for the CTS was collected in a separate

pilot study (Eigenberger, Sealander, & Seckinger, 1996) and used threemeasures. The CTS correlated with the following: Troldahl and Powells(1972) version of the Dogmatism Scale (r = -.54), Altemeyers (1988)

Right-Wing Authoritarianism Scale (r= -.58), and summed scores fromthe Truth-seeking, Open-mindedness, and Inquisitiveness sub-scales ofFacione & Faciones (1992) California Critical Thinking Disposition


6/11


Inventory(r = .68). A Cronbach's alpha reliability coefficient of .83 wasestablished for the CTS in both the pilot study and in the present study.

Factor AnalysisA principal components factor analysis was conducted followed by

varimax rotation. An initial solution produced 3 factors, the first of whichhad an eigenvalue of 4.78 and accounted for 31.9% of the variance. The

second factor had an eigenvalue of 1.67 and accounted for 10.6% of thevariance. A third factor had an eigenvalue of 1.12 and accounted for7.5% of the variance. Examination of the scree plot however, indicatedthe presence of two interpretable factors. A two-factor solution in factprovided the most parsimonious account of scale structure. Items loadingonto Factor 1 seemed to relate to teaching or promoting critical thinkingversus respect for tradition and practicality. Items loading on Factor 2

related to a more general skepticism versus varied categories of belief.Abbreviated scale items and factor loadings are displayed in Appendix B.

RESULTSTwo one-way analyses of variance (ANOVA) were conducted. The

ANOVAs examined CTS scores between the academic areas, Education,A&S, TSS, ASHS, along with students classified as Undecided. Theanalysis of academic areas suggested that the groups differed significantly

on CTS scores [F(4, 480) = 17.9, p< .001]. Post hoc comparisons usingthe Tukey HSD procedure further indicated that A&S students and TSSstudents scored significantly higher than Education majors, ASHSmajors, and Undecided students.

A second one-way ANOVA compared scores of three sub-groups

within the College of Education and the other four non-educationacademic groups. Within the College of Education, three levels ofspecialization were selected: 1) elementary, 2) secondary, and 3) special

education. Results suggested significant differences in mean CTS scoresbetween the groups. [F (6, 479) = 13.3, p< .001]. A follow-up TukeyHSD test revealed secondary education majors had significantly higherCTS scores than elementary education majors, but did not differsignificantly from either special education majors, ASHS majors, orUndecided students. Secondary education students scored significantlylower than both A&S and TSS majors. Means and standard deviations ofall groups are presented in Table 1.

TABLE 1 Summaries of CTS Scores Among Academic Areas

M SD N

Education 64.5 13.4 240Elementary 62.7 11.4 114


7/11


Secondary 67.9 15.3 69Special Education 63.6 14.1 57A&S 77.0 15.3 95TSS 72.9 13.0 83ASHS 64.0 13.3 46Undecided 65.1 12.5 22

Total 68.4 14.6 486

A small but statistically significant difference between males andfemales was observed in mean CTS scores as measured by a t-test. Themale respondents (M = 71.3, SD = 16.4) scored higher than female

respondents (M= 66.5, SD= 13.0), t (482) = -3.55,p< .01.

DISCUSSIONThe results of this study are best viewed as exploratory, with

limitations on generalizability. Nevertheless, within these limitations, theresults indicated significant differences existed in critical thinkingdispositions among several identifiable academic groups within a

university population. The most salient observation was the significantdifferences in CTS scores between Education students and bothtraditional liberal arts students and traditional social science students.Regarding critical thinking dispositions, students enrolled in Education,with the exception of secondary education majors, more closelyresembled students preparing to enter occupations such as law en-forcement, probation and parole, social work, physical therapy and so on.These occupations, while necessary and valuable, are not generally

identified with the promotion of critical thinking-related dispositions suchas intellectual openness, wide-ranging curiosity, autonomy, and wil-lingness to suspend judgement.

This study also suggested a difference in critical thinking attitudebetween majors within the College of Education. It was observed thatsecondary education majors scored significantly higher on the CTS thantheir elementary education counterparts. They also scored higher, albeitnot significantly higher, than special education and ASHS students. This

observed differential within Education may be due in part to thesecondary education majors tendency to be content specialists, perhapswith a deeper relationship to their subject areas. Secondary educationmajors may also enter their specialties because they have a preference forworking with students who are generally functioning at more abstractcognitive levels, where the ability to perform conceptual analysis is

possible.While a gender differential relative to CTS scores was observed, it

should be noted that this difference may be an artifact of the sample, and


8/11


explained by the large ratio of female to male students sampled in theCollege of Education students who tend to have lower CTS scores. Atany rate, the disproportionate representation of female students in thesample should not produce a great deal of confidence in the stability ofthe t-ratio.

Given the exploratory nature of the study, alternative explanations forthe observed results could also be considered. For instance, the subjectssampled from the College of Arts & Sciences may not have been

representative. As noted, majors from traditional humanities courses weresampled, i.e., philosophy and history. Students majoring in these areascan be expectedto have a strong critical thinking orientation, since theircourse work and assessment procedures center on analytic abilities andwide general interests. The effect of sampling these majors in highproportions may be to bias CTS means for the College of Arts & Sciences

as a whole. However, this concern is muted by similar CTS scores ofstudents who were classified as Traditional Social Science majors.

If the observed differences in critical thinking disposition scoresbetween Education students and students in other academic areas isstable, then obvious questions in this regard arise: Is this differencebetween majors a source of concern? If some Education majors valuecritical thinking dispositions less than Arts & Sciences or TraditionalSocial Science students, then are primary and secondary Americanschools employing teachers who are not as prepared as they should be

regarding those intellectual dispositions necessary for critical thinking?What effect might this intellectual disposition have in the way childrenare taught in the classrooms? Will those teachers who are not predisposedto value and therefore implement critical thinking, regard the questioning

and skeptical student as problematic? Would teachers so disposed, viewthe exploratory critical process as a distraction from content coverage?On the other hand, if teachers value the critical thinking attitude, will theybe more tolerant of student questions and open to using the logic of

subject areas as an instructional strategy (e.g. Paul, 1993)? Would theintroduction of critical thinking attitudes and behaviors such as reflectiveskepticism and Socratic questioning into a classroom result in a moreproductive and ecologically stable classroom?

Given the potential importance of pre-service teacher attitudes oneducating students for engaging in critical discourse and democraticliving, it is evident that such attitudes should be further examined relativeto their possible interaction with reform-oriented pedagogical changes.

Should further studies confirm future educators relative disinterest in, ordiscomfort with critical thinking-related dispositions, then more attention

to thinking skills acquisition may be needed in certain of our teacherpreparation programs.


9/11


REFERENCESAltemeyer, B. (1988).Enemies of freedom. San Francisco: Josey-Bass.Bornstein, M.R., Bellack, A.S., & Hersen, M. (1977). Social skills training for

unassertive children: A multiple baseline analysis. Journal of AppliedBehavior Analysis, 10,183-195.

Cronbach, L. J. (1951). Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests.Psychometrika, 30, 1-13.

Dewey, J. (1933).How we think. New York, Houghton Mifflin.Drabman, R.S., & Patterson, N.J. (1981). Disruptive behavior and the social

standing of exceptional children. Exceptional Children Quarterly, 1(4), 44-55.

Eigenberger, M.E., Sealander, K.A., & Seckinger, D. (1996). Validation study ofthree student perception inventories. University of Wyoming College of

Education and Wyoming School Partners Final Report.

Ennis, R.S. (1995). Critical thinking. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Facione, P.A., & Facione, N.C. (1992). The California critical thinking

disposition inventory. Millbrae, CA: The California Academic Press.Hester, J. (1994). Teaching for thinking: A program for school improvement

through teaching critical thinking across the curriculum. Durham, NC:Academic Press

Lippman, M. (1991). Thinking in education. New York: Cambridge Univer.Press.

Marzano, R.J. (1992). A different kind of classroom: Teaching with dimensionsof learning. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and CurriculumDevelopment.

McPeck, J. (1981). Critical thinking and education. New York: St. MartinsPress.

McPeck, J. (1990). Teaching critical thinking. London, Routledge.Paul, R.W. (1984). Critical thinking: Fundamental to education in a free society.

Educational Leadership,42, 1-14.Paul, R.W. (1993). The logic of creative and critical thinking. American

Behavioral Scientist, 37, 21-39.Paul, R.W. (1995). Critical thinking. Santa Rosa, CA: Foundation for Critical

Thinking.Presseisen, B. (1986). Thinking skills: Research and practice. Washington, DC:

National Education Association.Russell, B. (1912). The problems of philosophy. London: Oxford Univer. Press.Schoenfeld, A.H. (1982). Measures of problem-solving instruction. Journal for

Research in Mathematics Education, 13, 31-49.Seigel, H. (1988).Educating reason. London: Routledge.Slavin, R.E. (1994). Educational psychology: Theory and practice (4th ed.).

Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.Toffler, A. (1970). Future shock. New York: Random House.Toffler, A. (1990). Powershift: Knowledge, wealth and violence at the edge of

the 21st

Century. New York, Bantam.Troldahl, V.C., & Powell, F.A. (1972). A short-form dogmatism scale for use in

field studies. Social Forces, 44, 211-214.


10/11


Wasserman, S. (1987). Teaching for thinking: Louis E. Raths revisited. Phi DeltaKappan,68(6), 460-466.

APPENDIX ASample Items Comprising the Attitude Toward Critical Thinking Scale

2. Teaching students good solid basics like the 3Rs is more important than having themquestion and critique everything they are told.

3. Allour beliefs are subject to criticism and change - human beings have no access to aperfect truth.5. A child should not be taught critical thinking if it has the potential to upset traditionalvalues.

6. If old beliefs about the world and mankind cant stand up to modern science andcriticism, then we ought to abandon such beliefs.8. There should be nolimits on what is doubted and criticized, even if those things are our

societys most deeply held or sacred beliefs.10.All forms of political and religious authority must be constantly questioned and

challenged or else we will have more oppression and injustice in society.12. Belief in ones God and country should not be criticized or totally doubted.13. Critical thinking is fine but it doesnt really prepare students for life in the real world.

APPENDIX BFactors and Loadings of the Attitude Toward Critical Thinking Scale Items

Factor LoadingFactor 1

There is a limit to criticizing normal ways of doing things. .76A child should not be taught critical thinking if it upsets tradition. .75Cooperation and respect more important than critical thinking. .69

Critical thinking does not prepare students for real life. .63Teaching students "solid basics" more important than questioning. .64Critical thinking in the classroom takes a lot of time and energy. .57We should just accept laws and moral teaching without skepticism. .48Belief in one's God and country should not be criticized. .43Factor 2

One should be prepared to discard beliefs. .69Political and religious authority must be questioned. .68Abandon old beliefs about that can't stand up to criticism. .67Doubt everything until there are good reasons to believe it. .54It is better to be a true believer than a critical thinker. .50There should be no limit on what is doubted and criticized. .48 All outbeliefs are subject to criticism and change. .36


11/11

Reproducedwithpermissionof thecopyrightowner. Further reproductionprohibitedwithoutpermission.

Disposition Toward Thinking Critically

Documents

Transcript of Disposition Toward Thinking Critically