Critical Thinking a Literature Review

7/28/2019 Critical Thinking a Literature Review

1/30


2/30

1

Table of Contents

I. General Definitions of Critical Thinking2II. Misrepresentations about Critical Thinking3III. Critical Thinking and Information ProcessingIV. Critical Thinking and Education.V. Critical Thinking for Science EducationVI. Critical Thinking for Agricultural Education.VII. Critical Studies in Critical ThinkingVIII. Critical Thinking Skills vs. Dispositions.IX. Critical Thinking SkillsX. Critical Thinking Dispositions.XI. Discipline-specific Critical ThinkingXII. Predictors and Correlates of Critical Thinking Skill.XIII. Teaching for Critical Thinking..XIV. The Need for Critical Thinking in Biotechnology Education...XV. References.


3/30

2

General Defi ni tions of Cri tical Thinking

Over the last several decades, critical thinking has been discussed and contemplated in

educational circles. Many definitions of critical thinking have been offered. In 1991, Pascarella

and Terenzini compiled several definitions, stating that critical thinking typically involves the

individuals ability to do some or all of the following: identify central issues and assumptions in

an argument, recognize important relationships, make correct inferences from data, deduce

conclusions from information or data provided, interpret whether conclusions are warranted on

the basis of the data given, and evaluate evidence or authority (p. 118).

Critical thinking involves the formation of logical inferences (Simon & Kaplan, 1989).

Some scholars and educators erroneously assume critical thinking to be higher order thinking or

cognitive processing (Paul, 1994). According to Elder and Paul (1994), Critical thinking is best

understood as the ability of thinkers to take charge of their own thinking. This requires that they

develop sound criteria and standards for analyzing and assessing their own thinking and

routinely use those criteria and standards to improve its quality.

Critical thinking can be set apart from problem solving (Hedges, 1991) in that problem

solving is a linear process of evaluation, while critical thinking is a comprehensive set of abilities

allowing the inquirer to properly facilitate each stage of the linear problem-solving process.

According to Chafee (1988) critical thinking is "our active, purposeful, and organized

efforts to make sense of our world by carefully examining our thinking, and the thinking of

others, in order to clarify and improve our understanding" (p.29). According to Halpern (1989)

critical thinking is "thinking that is purposeful, reasoned and goal directed. It is the kind of

thinking involved, in solving problems, formulating inferences, calculating likelihoods, and


4/30

3

making decisions" (p. 5). Simply put, critical thinking is the "reasonable and reflective thinking

that is focused upon deciding what to believe or do" (Norris & Ennis, 1989, p. 18).

Misrepresentations about Cri tical Thinking

Critical thinking is looked at and viewed in many different ways. To gain a more

complete understanding of critical thinking, it is useful to look at what critical thinking is not.

Critical thinking is not about being superior to someone else. It is different from problem

solving, and it is not higher order thinking or cognitive processing. Many scholars engage in,

what Richard Paul refers to as pseudo critical thinking, which is a form of intellectual

arrogance masked in self-delusion or deception, in which thinking is deeply flawed (1994, p.

14). Other well-meaning educators simply use the term critical thinking in place of other types

of information processing that are very similar to, but at the same time different from critical

thinking, such as problem solving.

Dr. Lowell Hedges (1991) is one researcher who understood the difference between

problem solving and critical thinking. He contended that problem solving is a linear process of

evaluation, while critical thinking is an overlying set of abilities that allow the inquirer to

properly facilitate each stage of the linear problem-solving process.

Chart of Hedges views on critical thinking and problem solving .

Critical Thinking Problem Solving

1. The ability to identify and formulateproblems, as well as the ability to solve

them.

1. Recognizing a problem situation.

2. The ability to recognize and use inductivereasoning, as well as the ability to solve

them.

2. Defining the problem

3. The ability to draw reasonableconclusions from information found in

various sources, whether written, spoken,tabular, or graphic, and to defend ones

3. The ability to comprehend, develop, and useconcepts and generalizations.


5/30

4

conclusions rationally.

4. The ability to comprehend, develop, anduse concepts and generalizations.

4. Testing hypotheses and gathering data.

5. The ability to distinguish between factand opinion.

5. Revising hypotheses and testing revised ornew hypotheses.

6. Forming a conclusion.

Cri tical Thinking and Inquir y-based Learning inEducation

Since education is our principal means of preparing students our future citizens for

an active and responsible life within our technologically-based society, school at all levels should

become the focus for the fostering/development of critical thinking (Costa, 1991). According to

Nelson (1994), Enabling students to think critically is one of the central objectives of liberal and

professional education.

Critical thinking in education calls on students to evaluate their own thought process

(Kalman, 2002). Critical thinking accompanies a movement in education toward inquiry-based

or problem-based learning. According to Schamel and Ayres (1992), s tudents learn best by

doing, or preparing their own questions based on their observations rather than participating in a

predetermined exercise with a forgone conclusion.

Students are fully engaged in learning and cooperative group learning helps students

interact with one another (Ahern-Rindell, 1999).

Critical Thinki ng for Agricultural Education

Agricultural educators have attempted to study critical thinking as it relates to levels of

cognition, learning styles, distance education, pre-service teacher preparation, and critical

thinking dispositions at secondary and post-secondary levels. Rollins (1990) used the Cornell

Critical Thinking test, which is not subject-specific to determine the critical thinking of high

school agriculture students (n = 668) in Iowa. He found that seniors were better critical thinkers


6/30

5

than sophomores, that reading score accounted for 28% of the variance in critical thinking, and

that GPA and leadership positions accounted for 2%.

Many of the critical thinking studies in agricultural education deal with levels of

cognition and higher order thinking. Cano and Martinez (1991), who simply defined critical

thinking as A set of thinking skills needed to answer a particular question (p. 24) sought to (1)

determine the cognitive level of performance of Ohio agricultural education students (n = 385) as

measured by the Developing Cognitive Abilities Test (DCAT), (2) the critical thinking ability of

agricultural education students as determined by the Watson-Glaser Critical Thinking Appraisal

(W-GCTA), and the relationship between DCAT and W-GCTA scores. All of the students

scored the lowest on the critical thinking portion of the DCAT. Additionally, Cano and Martinez

found a linear relationship between critical thinking and grade level as measured by the DCAT.

In their study, all students were found to score the lowest on the Inference sub-skill as measured

by W-GCTA, and again, 12th grade students scored higher on critical thinking than all of the

others. In 1993, Cano used the DCAT and the W-GCTA and found that agricultural education

students scored at higher levels of cognition than the average of other disciplines.

Torres and Cano (1995) also used the DCAT with a random sample of agricultural

students (n = 196) from The Ohio State University. They also found that (1) the students scored

the lowest on the critical thinking portion of the DCAT and that (2) there was no significant

difference in critical thinking accounting for gender. Torres (1999) also introduced baseline

information regarding preservice teachers. He reported that preservice teachers are more likely

to emphasize basic and application thinking skills and abilities than skills and abilities requiring

critical thinking.


7/30

6

Whittington (1995, 2000), who concentrates on higher order thinking because she

believes it is a key component of critical thinking has studied faculty and critical thinking. In a

study of 28 faculty at the University of Idaho she found that faculty members (1) wanted to teach

at all levels of cognition, (2) actually taught at low levels of thinking 98% of the time actually,

(2) aspired to teach at levels higher than where they were assessed, (4) had favorable attitudes

toward teaching at higher levels of cognition, and that (5) faculty who had experienced more

educational activities held more favorable attitudes towards teaching at higher cognitive levels.

Whittington (1997) has also shown that the factor having the greatest effect on thinking

opportunities was the instructor.

Torres and Cano (1995b) and Rudd, Baker, and Hoover (2000) hypothesized critical

thinking was related to learning styles using the Group Embedded Figures Test (GEFT). Torres

and Cano found that learning style predicted 9% of the variance in critical thinking and Rudd,

Baker, et al found no significant difference between learning style and critical thinking. The

definition of critical thinking Rudd, Baker, et al provided for critical thinking is noteworthy.

They defined critical thinking as A reasoned, purposive, and introspective approach to solving

problems or addressing questions with incomplete evidence and information for which an

incontrovertible solution is unlikely (p. 5).

Whether or not distance education delivery methods are effective ways to teacher critical

thinking has also been a evaluated by some agricultural educators. Miller and Pilcher (1999)

found that instructors taught at the same levels of instruction for teaching critical thinking in

traditional and off-campus courses. Ricketts, Irani, and Joness (in press) results generally

supported the contention that distance learners were not significantly different than traditional

learners with respect to perceptions of course effectiveness, opportunities to think critically and


8/30

7

critical thinking disposition; however, traditional learners were significantly different from

distance learners in terms of change in some critical thinking disposition subscale factors,

including truth-seeking and inquisitiveness.

Cri tical Thinking and Science Education

A current theme in science teaching reform is the emphasis on active, inquiry-based

teaching and learning (National Research Council, 1996). Inquiry-based learning is a method of

instruction focusing on the student and their ability to design a process for use in solving a

problem, requiring higher levels of cognition (Uno, 1999). While inquiry-based learning takes

the focus away from memorization of specific scientific concepts, there is supporting evidence

that students learn as much factual information as they would in a traditional lecture/lab setting

(Gabel, 1994). However, inquiry students tend to retain the information longer (Gabel, 1994)

and usually experience higher self-efficacy and process skills than students in traditional science

courses (Ebert-May, Brewer, and Allred, 1997).

The case has been made for teaching critical thinking skills in school. Science

classrooms provide many opportunities for inquiry-based or problem-based learning. However,

in order for this inquiry-based learning to happen, changes must take place in science classrooms

to move away from rote and passive application of learned formulas toward the use of critical

thinking as the primary tool of learning (Zoller, Ben-Chaim, and Ron, 2000).

Cri tical Thinking for Biotechnology Education

One of the difficulties associated with attempting to develop greater understanding of

biotechnology among our students is that the science is relatively sophisticated, rapidly


9/30

8

changing, and often difficult for students to grasp. Further complicating the educational process

is the fact that studies have suggested that most consumers get their information on

biotechnology from the media (Hoban, 1998). Indeed, studies indicate that most of the public's

information about biotechnology comes from the mass media, even though their level of trust in

what they learn is relatively low (Hallman & Metcalf, 1995). This is true of agricultural

educators as well. In a study of teachers of agriculture from three southern states, Iverson (1998)

found that the major source for information about biotechnology was the mass media, primarily

newspapers. On the other hand, respondents felt their most trustedsource of information about

biotechnology was the land grant university.

Despite these challenges, some university-level agricultural educators have begun

teaching courses solely focused on biotechnology and/or to include it as a course topic in agri-

sciences curricula. Arguably, the ultimate objective of such educational efforts among

agricultural institutions of higher learning is to enhance understanding and acceptance of food

biotechnology. But how can we determine whether or not these objectives are actually being

achieved? As agricultural educators, we may have the educational objective of wanting our

students to know more about the science associated with biotechnology, its benefits, perceived

risks, and attendant potential social issues. But while we can measure knowledge acquisition

based on exposure to information, that does not necessarily inform us of actionable outcomes

associated with values, belief systems, attitude formation, and change.

The literature has consistently shown that simple exposure to information will not

necessarily influence knowledge, attitude or change behavior (Rogers, 1995; Salwen & Sacks,

1997; Goldberg, Fishbein & Middlestadt, 1997). As nationally known biotechnology educator

Thomas Zinnen (2000) has pointed out, however, there is a distinction that needs to be made


10/30

9

between individual understanding of biotechnology and acceptance of biotechnology-derived

products. For one to lead to the other may require higher order thinking and evaluation that

operates beyond mere exposure to factual information in the classroom or elsewhere. Therefore,

it may not be enough to produce educational curricula and conduct instruction that contain

balanced, fact-based, objective information in an attempt to raise awareness and enhance

knowledge acquisition. It may be equally important to determine how to develop such

instruction so as to specifically focus on enhancing a students ability to think and reason

critically about biotechnology. This would have the added benefit of ensuring that our future

graduates in the food and agricultural sciences are equipped with strong reasoning and thinking

skills that will help them act, communicate and educate effectively about this important topic.

According to Howe and Warren (1989), science or environmental education topics, such

as biotechnology, provide a good mechanism for developing critical thinking skills for several

reasons. First, science education provides topics and problems that cut across the school

curriculum and can improve the integration of knowledge. Second, science education provides

real issues that can be studied or simulated. Last, science education topics can be adjusted to the

developmental levels of students.

Cri tical Studies in Criti cal Thinking

The Delphi Study

Peter Facione (1990) conducted a Delphi study, which will be described in the next

section where a group of critical thinking experts drafted the following definition of critical

thinking (CT). They concluded:

"We understand critical thinking to be purposeful, self-regulatory judgment which results in

interpretation, analysis, evaluation, and inference, as well as explanation of the evidential,


11/30

10

conceptual, methodological, criteriological, or contextual considerations upon which that

judgment is based. CT is essential as a tool of inquiry. As such, CT is a liberating force in

education and a powerful resource in one's personal and civic life. While not synonymous with

good thinking, CT is habitually inquisitive, well-informed, trustful of reason, open-minded,

flexible, fair-minded in evaluation, honest in facing personal biases, prudent in making

judgments, willing to reconsider, clear about issues, orderly in complex matters, diligent is

seeking relevant information, reasonable in the selection of criteria, focused in inquiry, and

persistent in seeking results which are as precise as the subject and circumstances will permit.

Thus, educating good critical thinkers means working toward this ideal. It combines developing

CT skills with nurturing those dispositions which consistently yield useful insights and which are

the basis of a rational and democratic society" (p. 3).

The multiple definitions of critical thinking and confusion concerning its specificity led

to the need for further refinement of the composition of the critical thinking construct. Facione

(1990) assembled a group of forty individuals (52% from Philosophy, 22% from Education, 20%

from Social Sciences, 6% from Physical Sciences) recognized by their colleagues as having

special experience and expertise in CT instruction, assessment, or theory. Facione (1990)

employed the powerful qualitative research methodology known as the Delphi Method was used

to develop the theoretical framework used for this study. The Delphi study (Facione, 1990),

which ran from February of 1988 until November of 1989, consisted of six rounds of questions

and response. The findings of the Delphi Report are as follows:

1. Critical thinking includes the dimensions of skill and disposition.2. There was consensus that critical thinking could be improved in several ways. The

experts agreed that a person could critically examine and evaluate one's own


12/30

11

reasoning processes, that they could learn how to think more objectively and

logically, that they could expand their repertoire of those more specialized procedures

and criteria used in different areas of human thought and inquiry, and that they could

increase their base of information and life experience (p. 4).

3. "While CT skills themselves transcend specific subjects or disciplines, exercisingthem successfully in certain contexts demands domain-specific knowledge, some of

which may concern specific methods and techniques used to make reasonable

judgments in those specific contexts"(p. 5).

4. "There is a critical spirit, a probing inquisitiveness, a keenness of mind, a zealousdedication to reason, and a hunger or eagerness for reliable information which good

critical thinkers possess but weak critical thinkers do not seem to have...the affective

dispositions are necessary for the CT skills identified to take root and to flourish in

students" (p. 11).

5. "It is inappropriate use of the term to deny that someone is engaged in CT on thegrounds that one disapproves ethically of what the person is doing. What 'CT' means,

why it is of value, and the ethics of its use are best regarded as three distinct

concerns" (p. 12).

6. "A good critical thinker...is habitually disposed to engage in, and to encourage othersto engage in a wide range of contexts and for a wide variety of purposes. Although

perhaps not always uppermost in mind, the rational justification for cultivating those

affective dispositions which characterize the paradigm critical thinker are soundly

grounded in CT's personal and civic value. CT is known to contribute to the fair-

minded analysis and resolution of questions. CT is a powerful tool in the search for


13/30

12

knowledge. CT can help people overcome the blind, sophistic, or irrational defense

of intellectually defective or biased opinions. CT promotes rational autonomy,

intellectual freedom and the objective, reasoned and evidence-based investigation of a

very wide range of personal and social issues and concerns" (p. 13).

Many of the findings of the Delphi study are addressed in one way or another in this

investigation. The first finding as stated above indicated that critical thinking includes the

dimensions of skill and disposition. This consensual agreement among the experts was a

reiterated point of critical thinking scholars preceding them (Dewey 1933; Norris and Ennis

1989), but Facione (1990) and his group of experts went a step further. They identified a set of

specific skills and sub-skills for the skill dimension and a specific set of attitudes for the

disposition dimension (Facione 1990).

Critical Thinking Skil ls

The critical thinking skills that were identified by the panel of experts were used in this

study because they most closely matched the definition of critical thinking that we have adopted

for this study, which was "Critical thinking is a reasoned, purposive, and introspective approach

to solving problems or addressing questions with incomplete evidence and information and for

which an incontrovertible solution is unlikely" (Rudd, Baker et al. 2000), p. 5) and because

subsequent studies have been conducted to validate their usage (Facione 1990; Jones, Hoffman et

al. 1994; Jones, Hoffman et al. 1995; Giancarlo 1996; Giancarlo 1996).

Faciones study (1990) concluded that at the very core of critical thinking are

interpretation, analysis, evaluation, inference, explanation, and self- regulation. Inference is

comprehending and expressing meaning about a wide variety of experiences, beliefs, procedures,


14/30

13

rules, etc. Analysis was found to be about identifying the relationship between statements,

questions, concepts or descriptions to express beliefs, judgments or reasons. The experts thought

that evaluation was about assessing credibility of statements and representations of others as well

as assessing the logical strength of statements, descriptions or questions. Inference was found to

be the ability to draw reasonable conclusions and/or hypotheses based on facts, judgments,

beliefs, principles, concepts or other forms of representation. The experts in the Delphi study

found explanation to be about stating and justifying the results of one's reasoning using each of

the aforementioned abilities. Self-regulation, the last skill was found to be the ability of an

individual to monitor their own personal cognitive activities to make sure that they are engaged

in critical thinking.

Several studies have been conducted to confirm the Delphi consensus statement. The

1990 Delphi report describing the ideal critical thinker was put to the test by Giancarlo (1996)

using the California-Q sort method, which was a technique derived from the work of Block

(1961). A national expert panel concerning critical thinking sorted 100 Q-sort items to achieve a

result that would characterize the ideal critical thinker. The results would validate the critical

thinking skills identified in the theoretical framework in this study. The following study would

secure national recognition of the viability of critical thinking skills.

Jones, Hoffman, Moore, Ratcliff, Tibetts, and Click (1995; 1994) further validated the

use of critical thinking skills through a 1993/1994 national survey and replication study

conducted by the National Center for Higher Education Teaching, Learning and Assessment at

The Pennsylvania State University. As a result of this study skills, along with dispositions

became recommended outcomes of post-secondary education.


15/30

14

Cri tical Thinking Dispositions

Critical thinking is dependent upon a persons disposition to use it (Paul , 1992).

Disposition to think critically can be defined as consistent willingness, motivation, inclination

and an intention to be engaged in critical thinking while reflecting on significant issues, making

decisions and solving problems (Facione et al. 1995, Facione et al. 1997). According to Zoller,

Ben-Chaim and Ron (2000), a students disposition to think critically is a necessary pre-

condition for critical thinking and greatly affects critical thinking capability.

In developing the widely used Watson-Glaser Critical Thinking Appraisal, Glaser (1941)

defined critical thinking as the "(1) attitude of being disposed to consider in a thoughtful way the

problems and subjects that come within the range of one's experiences, (2) knowledge of the

methods of logical inquiry and reasoning and (3) some skill in applying those methods" (p. 5-6).

Later, in 1997, Taube reported statistical and empirical evidence of skills and dispositions, two

distinct factors of critical thinking.

Experts continue to agree that critical thinking includes the dimensions of skill and

disposition (Dewey 1933; Norris and Ennis 1989). In 1990, Facione and his group of experts

identified a set of specific skills and sub-skills for the skill dimension and a specific set of

attitudes for the disposition dimension (Facione 1990). Facione (2001) developed the CCTDI

(California Critical Thinking Disposition Inventory), in order to measure these skills, sub-skills

and attitudes. The constructs used are Truth-Seeking, Open-mindedness, Analyticity,

Systematicity, Self-confidence, Inquisitiveness, and Maturity (Facione, Facione et al. 2001). The

following construct descriptions are from the CCTDI test manual (Facione, Facione, &

Giancarlo, 1996).


16/30

15

1. Analyticity targets the disposition of being alert to potentially problematic situations andanticipating possible results or consequences.

2. Self-confidence refers to the level of trust one places in ones own reasoning process.3. Inquisitiveness is innate curiousness about acquiring information and which motivates the

message recipient to learn more.

4. Maturity addresses cognitive Maturity and mature thinkers are disposed to approachproblems, inquiry and decision making realizing that some situations have more than one

plausible option and that decisions must sometimes be made without the benefit of

having all the relevant information about the situation.

5. Open-mindedness addresses the state of respecting the right of others with differingopinions.

6. Systemacity targets the disposition to being organized, orderly, focused and diligent inseeking information.

7. Truth-seekingdescribes thinkers who are eager to seek the truth even if the results do notsupport ones own interests or preconceived opinions.

Although Faciones work has seemingly been the only attempt at measuring critical thinking

dispositions, its validity has been brought into questions by a study conducted by Moore, Rudd,

and Penfield (submitted for publication). This study examined the reliability of the subscales of

the CCTDI as well as the factor strength of the whole instrument. During factor analysis, the

data obtained in the Moore, Rudd, et al study did not fit the seven scale structure outlined by

Facione and associates (Facione, Facione, & Giancarlo). Analysis of the seven factor structure

resulted in only 51 of the 75 items on the instrument with factor loadings greater than .30 and


17/30

16

four to 11 items loading on seven factors. The seven factor structure had a sum of Eigenvalues

of 25.33 and explained 27.2% of the variance.

Di scipl ine-specifi c Cri tical Thinking

While critical thinking skill and disposition can be defined as separate entities, both are

thought to be open to educational influence, particularly when meaningfully, contextually bound

(Brown 1997). Critical thinking is a valuable skill that, once learned, can be applied in many

different disciplines; however, researchers have contended that there is a need to think critically

within specific disciplines. According to Glaser, critical thinking is, in part, attitude of being

disposed to consider in a thoughtful way the problems and subjects that come within the range of

one's experiences (1941, p. 5-6).

Ennis advocates contextual, domain, or subject specific critical thinking for several

reasons. First, background knowledge is necessary for making justified critical thinking

judgments. Second, critical thinking varies from discipline to discipline and, third, a full

understanding of a discipline requires the ability to think critically in the discipline (Ennis 1990).

(Halliday 2000) argues that critical thinking is to be used in the context of specific

disciplines. He quotes Dunne and Morgan from their article in Irish Educational Studies.

"Critical thinking is best developed through an engagement with different areas of

knowledge rather than as an autonomous skill to be taught in itself. It is through cutting

its teeth on actual topics, themes, an issues and problems as these arise within diverse

content domains that thinking can acquire the kind of differentiation subtlety and sense of

relevance that help to make it truly critical" (Dunne and Morgan, 1995, p. 115).

According to Guthrie, Alao & Rinehart (1997), there is a need to situate literacy learning,

such as critical thinking skills, within content areas in order to drive learning and increase both


18/30

17

literacy ability and knowledge in the content area. Finally, Facione (1990) found that "While CT

skills themselves transcend specific subjects or disciplines, excercising them successfully in

certain contexts demands domain-specific knowledge, some of which may concern specific

methods and techniques used to make reasonble judgements in those specific contexts"(p. 5).

The success of domain-specific critical thinking has been demonstrated in research. In a

study of 254 seventh grade French speaking science students, researchers found a statistically

significant mean gain in pre-test post-test investigation of CCTDI scores (t=4.54, p


19/30

18

suggest that critical thinking skill accounts for 16.8% of the variance in critical thinking

disposition and vice versa.

In the largest known study to identify relationships between critical thinking skill and

disposition, as well as other demographic factors, (Facione and Facione 1997) conducted a five-

year longitudinal investigation of 7,926 students from 50 different college level programs.

Positive correlations were found between overall disposition and strength of critical thinking.

Examples of the types of analyses run with the large data set were a sample of 1557 nursing

students that showed weak positive correlations (r=.201, p


20/30

19

an extensive review of the literature only one report placed age in the predictor category. (Torres

and Cano 1995) conducted a study of 92 agriculture seniors while testing for the relationship of

learning style to critical thinking. The control variables, age, gender, and GPA, accounted for

13% of the critical thinking variance. However, it is not possible from their study to know

whether age was really significant or not as the control variables were looked at as one.

The majority of the studies in the literature show age as having no significant difference

or no relationship to critical thinking (Cillizza 1970; Feely 1975; Facione 1990; Facione 1991;

Claytor 1997; Jenkins 1998; Rodriquez 2000; Rudd, Baker et al. 2000; Thompson 2001). One

reason for this maybe homogeneity of age in most of the groups studied.

Gender

Gender as a predictor of critical thinking skills or dispositions was a variable that has

been evaluated by nearly all of the critical thinking studies. One of the first to consider gender in

their critical thinking research was (Wilson 1989). He studied the critical thinking ability of

(n=203) entering college freshmen using the Watson-Glaser test and ACT College Reports. He

found that ACT standard scores significantly accounted for 28.41% of the variance in WGCTA

raw scores, but also that gender was a significant predictor or critical thinking skill.

Costa, McCraes and Sanchezs study (as cited in (Facione, Giancarlo et al. 1995)

examined the relationship of personality. Both studies looked at genders influence on critical

thinking in addition to personality and found that females were more open-minded and mature in

their thinking, while males were more analytical.

(Walsh 1996) conducted a study of 499 male and female undergrads. Along with highest

eventual degree and major, gender was a variable predicting variance in critical thinking

disposition. In a study of College of Agricultural and Life Sciences undergraduates at the


21/30

20

University of Florida that evaluated learning style and critical thinking disposition, (Rudd, Baker

et al. 2000) found significant gender differences (alpha = .03) for scores of the CCTDI. Males

scored an average of 288.1 while females at the university scored 297.8.

Another study trying to ascertain learning style influence on critical thinking combined

gender with age and GPA to achieve a significant variance (13%) in critical thinking (Torres and

Cano 1995). Since GPA is consistently related to critical thinking, this finding fails to indicate

genders influence.

There have been just as many studies indicating the null nature of gender effect on

critical thinking. Using the Watson-Glaser Critical Thinking Appraisal, critical thinking was

found to be independent of gender, neurotic and rigid personality types, as well as introvert and

extrovert measurements (Hoogstraten and Christiaans 1975). The Watson Glaser Critical

Thinking Appraisal was also used by (Jenkins 1998) when he also found that gender was not a

predictor of critical thinking.

Other studies using assessments from CCTST to CCTDI to author-developed instruments

have also found that gender is not related to or a predictor of critical thinking. In developing and

validating an instrument to evaluate critical thinking skills of nurses, gender and ethnicity were

found to be independent of critical thinking skills (Claytor 1997).

(Rodriquez 2000) studied the critical thinking of (n=60) registered nurses. None of the

individual predictors, age, degree, career path, years of experience, personality type, or gender

were statistically significant. (Thompson 2001) was another researcher who also found that

gender had no predictive value of critical thinking or learning style. (Pienaar 2000) conducted a

South African study of adolescents critical thinking in the context of political issues, and found

that gender, had no significant relationship with critical thinking ability.


22/30

21

The aforementioned studies indicated that gender, as a predictor of critical thinking is still

a variable that should be included in the explanation of critical thinking skill.

Various potential predictors of critical thinking skills have been studied. The majority of

the studies in the literature show age as having no significant difference or no relationship to

critical thinking (Cillizza 1970; Feely 1975; Facione 1990; Facione 1991; Claytor 1997; Jenkins

1998; Rodriquez 2000; Rudd, Baker et al. 2000; Thompson 2001). The role of gender has not

been as conclusive. Some studies have shown gender to not be related to critical thinking skills

(Claytor 1997), while other studies have found a significant relationship between gender and

critical thinking skills (Rudd, Baker et al. 2000; Walsh 1996; (Wilson 1989).

Academic Achievement

While the role of gender in critical thinking is unclear, academic achievement status, as

exemplified, for example, by high GPA scores, has been shown to be related to critical thinking.

Giancarlo and Facione (2001) found that GPA was significantly correlated with four of the

CCTDI scales: Openmindedness, Analycity, Systemacity and Maturity. GPA was not found to

be significantly correlated, however, with Truth seeking, Confidence or Inquisitiveness.

Additionally, SAT scores have consistently been shown to be significantly correlated with scores

on critical thinking instruments (Facione & Facione, 1992; Erwin, 1996; Jacobs, 1995; Frisby,

1992) as have ACT scores (Mines et al., 1990; King et al., 1990). By extension, it could be

assumed that other hallmarks of high academic achievement, for example, selection as an

undergraduate honors program participant, might be similarly related to CCTDI scores.

In 1993, Torres did a study where he surveyed all seniors in the College of Agriculture at

The Ohio State University. The only thing he found predictive of critical thinking was a

student's cumulative GPA while in college.


23/30

22

Psychographics

Torres and Cano (1995) surveyed 92 agriculture seniors and found that learning style

predicted 9% of the variance in CT and that it must be a significant variable in developing CT

skills. A conceptual model developed by Torres (1993) indicated that there were five major

factors contributing to complex mental operations or critical thinking abilities. They were

teacher-related variables, student-related variables, personal characteristics, learning style, and

other factors. Learning style and personal characteristics such as gender, age, and GPA were the

only variables looked at in this study. The three control variables, GPA, age, and gender, which

were not broken out individually accounted for 13% of the variance in critical thinking ability.

Controlling for the variance of the aforementioned variables, learning style (GEFT) accoounted

for 9% of the variance in senior students ability to think critically (t=3.38, p


24/30

23

Existing I nstrumentation

Instrument Source

Contact Information

Testing

Purpose

Appropriate

AudienceCCTDI or The

California CriticalThinking DispositionInventory

Insight Assessment

217 La CruzMillbrae, CA 94030(650) 697-5628 Main

(650)692-0141 Faxwww.insightassessment.com

[email protected]

Measures the

attributes of truth-seeking, open-mindedness,

analyticity,systematicity,

inquisitiveness,confidence inreasoning, and

cognitive maturity

Community college

students, collegeand universityundergraduate

students, graduateand professional

school students,adults, and workingprofessionals

CCTST or TheCalifornia Critical

Thinking Skills Test

Insight Assessment217 La Cruz

Millbrae, CA 94030(650) 697-5628 Main(650)692-0141 Fax

[email protected]

To assess anindividual's or

group's criticalthinking andreasoning skills

To gather data for

program evaluationand research on

critical thinking skillsdevelopment

For use with adultsat community

college,undergraduate,graduate, and

professional schoollevels.

CRA or CaliforniaReasoning Appraisal

Insight Assessment217 La CruzMillbrae, CA 94030(650) 697-5628 Main

(650)692-0141 Faxwww.insightassessment.com

[email protected]

An intellectuallychallenging andhighly reliable testspecifically designed

to measure thosereasoning skills that

are essential tosuccess at theprofessional and

managerial levels

Individuals who areexpected to haveadvanced reasoningskills, that is, those

in the top 20% ofthe general

population.

Cornell Critical

Thinking Test, LevelX

Critical Thinking Press and

Software(formerly MidwestPublications)PO Box 448

Pacific Grove, CA 93950

Focuses primarily on

the evaluative aspectsof critical thinking,such as judging thereliability of reports

of observations thatother people make

Appropriate for

students in Grade 4through college

Cornell Critical

Thinking Test, Level

Critical Thinking Press and

Software

Focuses primarily on

the evaluative aspects

Appropriate for

advanced high


25/30

24

Z (formerly MidwestPublications)

PO Box 448Pacific Grove, CA 93950

of critical thinking,such as judging the

reliability of reportsof observations that

other people make

school students,college students,

and adults

DCAT or DevelopingCognitive AbilitiesTest

Measures learningcharacteristics andabilities that

contribute toacademic

performance

Designed forstudents in grades 2-12

Ennis-Weir CriticalThinking Essay Test

Critical Thinking Press andSoftware

(formerly MidwestPublications)PO Box 448

Pacific Grove, CA 93950

A diagnostic andresearch tool for

analyzing the effectsof a specificcurriculum

Designed forsecondary and

college students

HCTSR or HolisticCritical Thinking

Scoring Rubric

Insight Assessment217 La Cruz


[email protected]

Supports multi-modalassessment, for it

provides evaluatorswith descriptors offour levels -- two

positive and twonegative -- where in

they can categorizethe critical thinkingevident to them in

projects, portfolios,presentations, essays,

etc. and the like

People who areusing reasoned

judgment toproblem solve andto make decisions

about what to do orwhat to believe

New Jersey Test ofReasoning Skills

I.A.P.C.Order DepartmentMontclair State University

Upper Montclair, NJ 07043Phone: 973-655-4277

[email protected] (973) 655-7834

Majority of the itemsdealing withdeduction

5th grade to collegelevel

TER or Test ofEveryday Reasoning Insight Assessment217 La CruzMillbrae, CA 94030

(650) 697-5628 Main(650)692-0141 Faxwww.insightassessment.com

[email protected]

To assess anindividual's orgroup's basic

reasoning skills

To secure essential

information as anelement in a

General population

Everyone with a

sixth grade orhigher reading level


26/30

25

comprehensiveemployment

application process

To gather program

evaluation onreasoning and critical

thinking skills.

Quant-Q Insight Assessment217 La Cruz


[email protected]

Measures reasoningskills in relation to

quantitativelyoriented problems

Technologically andscientifically

oriented persons orprograms

Watson-Glaser

Critical ThinkingAppraisal

The Psychological

Corporation19500 Bulverde Road

San Antonio, Texas 78259http://www.psychcorpcenter.com/ pan_reqs/order.html

The WGCTA

produces a singlescore based upon the

assessment of fivecritical thinkingskills: Inference,

Recognition ofAssumptions,Deduction,

Interpretation, andEvaluation of

Arguments

9th grade and above

EMI: CriticalThinking Disposition

Inventory

Department of AgriculturalEducation and

CommunicationUniversity of FloridaPO Box 110540

Gainesville, FL 32611-0540

The EMI wasdeveloped from the

Delphi Report.

High school,college, and adult

audiences.


27/30

26

References

Ahern-Rindell, A. J. (1998). Applying inquiry-based and cooperative group learning strategiesto promote critical thinking.Journal of College Science Teaching, 28(3), 203-207.

Armstrong, J. (2000). The value of biotechnology as an incentive for moral evolution [On-line].Available: http://www.anth.org/ifgene/contents.htm

Ary, D., L. C. Jacobs, et al. (1996).Introduction to Research in Education. Orlando, FL,

Harcourt Brace & Company.

Carr (1990).How can we teach critical thinking? (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No.ED 326 304)

Chaffee, J. (1988). Thinking critically. Boston, MA, Houghton Mifflin.

Cheak, M., J. (1999). The development and field testing of an instrument designed to measurecritical thinking in environmental education. Carbondale, IL, Marie Jaegle Cheak.

Cillizza, J. E. (1970). The construction and evaluation of a test of critical thinking ability, grades7-8. Boston, Boston University School of Education.

Claytor, K. L. (1997). The development and validation of an adult medical nursing criticalthinking instrument (andragogy), Indiana University.

Dewey, J. (1933). How we think: A restatement of the relation of reflective thinking to theeducation process. Boston, Heath.

Dunne, J. and M. Morgan (1995). "Thinking Critically About Critical Thinking."Irish

Educational Studies, Educational Studies Association of Ireland 14.

Ennis, R. H. (1990). "The extent to which critical thinking is subject-specific: Further

clarification."Educational Researcher19: 13-16.

Facione, P. A., N. Facione, et al. (2001). California Critical Thinking Disposition Inventory:CCTDI Inventory Manual. Millbrae, CA, California Academic Press.

Facione, P. A., C. F. Facione, et al. (1996). The California Critical Thinking Disposition

Inventory Test Manual. Millbrae, CA, California Academic Press.

Facione, P. A., C. F. Facione, et al. (1992). The California Critical Thinking DispositionInventory: Test Manual. Millbrae, CA, California Academic Press.

Facione, P. A. (1991). Using the California Critical Thinking Skills Test in Research,

Evaluation, and Assessment. Millbrae, CA, California Academic Press.


28/30

27

Facione, P. A. (1990). The California Critical Thinking Skills Test-College Level. TechnicalReport #2. Factors predictive of CT skills. Millbrae, CA, California Academic Press.

Facione, P. A. (1990). Critical thinking: A statement of expert consensus for purposes of

educational assessment and instruction. Millbrae, CA, The California Academic Press:

19.

Feely, T. (1975). "Predicting students' use of evidence." Theory and Research in SocialEducation 3(1): 63-72.

Florida, U. o. (2001). University of Florida Honors Program Admissions [On- line]. Available athttp://www.honors.ufl.edu/admissions/admissions.html.

Frisby, C. L. (1992). "Construct validity and psychometric properties of the Cornell Critical

Thinking Test (Level Z): A contrasted group analysis." PsychologicalReports 71: 291-303.

Giancarlo, C. A. and P. A. Facione (2001). "A Look across Four Years at the Disposition towardCritical Thinking Among Undergraduate Students." The Journal of General Education

50(1): 29-55.

Glaser, E. (1941).An experiment in the development of critical thinking. New York, J. J. Little

and Ives Company.

Goldberg, M. E., M. Fishbein, et al. (1997). Social Marketing: Theoretical and PracticalPerspectives. Mahwah, JF, Erlbaum.

Guthrie, J. T., Alao, S., & Rinehart, J. M. (1997). Engagement in reading for young adolescents.Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 40(6), 438446.

Halliday, J. (2000). "Critical thinking and the academic vocational divide." The CurriculumJournal11(2): 159-175.

Hallman, W. K. & Metcalf, J. (1995). Public perceptions of agricultural biotechnology: A survey

of New Jersey residents. USDA National Agricultural Library [On- line]. Available:http://www.nal.usda.gov.bic/Pubpercep/

Halpern, D. F. (1989). Thought and knowledge: An introduction to critical thinking. Hillsdale,NJ, Lawrence Earlbaum Associates.

Hedges, L. E. (1991). Helping students develop thinking skills through the problem-solvingapproach to teaching. The Ohio State University, Dr. Lowell Hedges.

Hichey, M. (1990). "Reading and social studies: The critical connection." Social Education 54:

175-179.


29/30

28

Hoban, T. (1998). Trends in consumer attitudes about agricultural biotechnology.AgBioForum,1(1), 3-7.

Huitt, W. (1998). Critical Thinking. [On-line]. Available:

http://chiron.valdosta.edu/whuitt/col/cogsys/critthnk.html

Iverson, M. J. (1998).Assessing information sources on biotechnology used by teachers of

agriculture in the public schools--a tri-state study. Paper presented at the meeting of theSouthern Association of Agricultural Scientists, Agricultural Communications Section,

Little Rock, AR. Available On-line: http://agnews.tamu.edu/saas/SAAS2MI.HTM

Jacobs, S. S. (1995). "Technical Characteristics and some correlates of the California Critical

Thinking Skills Test forms A and B." Higher Education Research36: 89-108.

Kalman, C.S. (2002). Developing Critical Thinking in Undergraduate Courses: A PhilosophicalApproach. Science & Education11: 83-94.

King, P. M., P. K. Wood, et al. (1990). "Critical Thinking among colleges and graduatesstudents." The Review of Higher Education 13(2): 167-186.

Mertes, L. (1991). "Thinking and Writing." Middle School Journal 22: 24-25.

Mines, R. A., P. M. King, et al. (1990). "Stages of intellectual development and associatedcritical thinking skills in college students." Journal of College Student Development31:

538-547.

National Research Council. (1996). From analysis to action: Undergraduate education in

science, mathematics, engineering and technology. Washington, DC: National AcademyPress.

Nelson, C. E. (1994). Critical Thinking and Collaborative Learning in K. Boswald, S. J.Hamilton (eds.) Collaborative Learning: Underlying Processes and Effective Techniques.

New Directions for Teaching and Learning #59: Jossey Bass Higher Education and AdultEducation Series: San Francisco, CA.

Norris, S. P., Ennis, R. H. (1989). Evaluating critical thinking. Teaching thinking. R. J. S. D. N.Perkins. Pacific Grove, CA, Midwest Publications.

Pascarella, E. and P. Terenzini (1991).How college affects students: Findings and insights from

twenty years of research. San Francisco, CA, Jossey Bass.

Rogers, E. M. (1995). Diffusion of Innovations. New York, NY, Free Press.

Rudd, R., M. Baker, et al. (2000). "Undergraduate Agriculture Student Learning Styles and

Critical Thinking Abilities: Is there a relationship?"Journal of Agricultural Education41(3): 2-12.


30/30

Salwen, M. B. & Stacks., D. W. (Eds.) (1997).An Integrated Approach to Communication

Theory and Research. Mahwah, JF, Erlbaum.

Schamel, D. and Ayres, M. (1992). The hands-on approach: Student creativity and personal

involvement in the undergraduate science laboratory.Journal of College ScienceTeaching21: 226-229.

Simon, H. A. and C. A. Kaplan (1989). In MI. Posner (Ed),Foundations of cognitive sciences.

Cambridge, MA, MIT Press: 1-47.

Taube, K. (1997). "Critical thinking ability and disposition as factors of performance on a written

critical thinking test."Journal of General Education.

Walsh, C. M. (1996). Critical thinking disposition of university students in practice disciplines(nursing, education, and business) and non-practice disciplines (english, history, andpsychology): An exploratory study. College Park, MD, University of Maryland.

Wilson, K. D. (1989).Predictors of proficiency in critical thinking for college freshmen.

Boseman, MT, Montana State University.

Zinnen, T. (2000). BioIssues. Washington, D.C., GEN National Biotechnology Summit.

Zoller, U., Ben-Chaim, D. and Ron, S. (2000). The disposition toward critical thinking of high

school and university science students: An inter-intra Israeli-Italian study.InternationalJournal of Science Education 22(6): 571-582.

Documents

Critical Thinking a Literature Review