Joanna Eunice V.

Parungao December 4, 2009

Selected Topics in Educational Psychology

Critique #1: Full-Cycle Assessment of Critical Thinking in an Ethics and Science Course

Critical thinking must be the key to transcending prejudices, trivialities and frivolities that
impede development in all forms. Ideally, critical thinking is trained in school; hence, there is a
need to assess how well students develop critical thinking college if they even develop it at all.
According to the assigned article, critical thinking provides the groundwork for lifelong learning
across many disciplines (Blue, et al., 2008). Education in the Philippines should also be
concerned about developing curricula that nurture critical thinking in students especially in
college.

For this critique, I choose to focus on the following points: Nature of Critical Thinking,
Purpose and Related Literature, Rationale for the use of Ethics and Science Seminars,
Methodology and Assessment, and Notes on the Factors that Contributed on the Development
of Critical Thinking.

Nature of Critical Thinking, Purpose and Some Related Literature

What does it mean to think critically? Does intelligence play a factor? These are some of
the questions discussed by Perkins, Jay, & Tishman (1993). The assigned article, however,
does not provide assessment of intelligence and how this is linked to critical thinking of the
sample. It focused on the measuring of critical thinking of students on analysis of Ethics and
Science seminar cases by using a carefully constructed rubric.

To be critical has been discussed in many disciplines which highlight the advantages of
high level reasoning. For one, Critical Theories make use of high level reasoning to interpret
certain acts and symbols of society to understand the ways in which various social groups are
oppressed. To do this, critical approaches analyze social conditions in order to reveal hidden
structures of power. These approaches often teach that knowledge is power because with
knowledge, understanding how to free oneself from the shackles of oppressive forces becomes
possible (Littlejohn, 2007). Such theories aim to accomplish change in the conditions that affect
our lives.

Another application is Critical Literacy. Wallowitz (2008) defined critical literacy as the
ability to analyze, identify and challenge social constructs, ideologies, underlying assumptions,
power structures in texts and all forms of media. Ultimately, critical literacy is the key to
exposing social inequalities and injustices as frequently mentioned in social sciences literature.
To connect this with critical thinking of students, one can only begin to fathom the usefulness
and diversity of being critical inside and outside school. Now to summarize Paul & Elder (2004)
and Kurfiss (1988) definition, critical thinking is a form of self-regulated mindful learning which
promotes careful strategies in problem solving, deconstructing and reconstructing relevant data
to come up with sound conclusions based on evidence.

1 Critique # 1
 The seven primary traits of critical thinking used by the students in analyzing the case
studies are very much related to the four general sub-skills which critical thinking entails. These
are: knowledge, inference, evaluation and metacognition (Halpern, 1997; Swartz & Perkins,
1990).

Knowledge is prerequisite to any critical endeavor which is why knowledge forms the
foundation of Bloom’s Taxonomy. To form connections to two or more bits of information, the
individual would have to make inferences. This involves the processes of induction and
deduction. Evaluation pertains to making value judgments by analyzing and weighing
information. Finally there is metacognition which ushers in the monitoring aspect of critical
thinking (McGuinness, 1990; Swartz & Perkins, 1990). The 3 assignments given to the students
make use these sub-skills because these assignments ask students to analyze real-life cases,
select a case to study using what they have learned and to address or make a proactive
statement on an ethical science issue that affects them.

Critical thinking is a skill essential to anyone who plans to contribute to the economy.
Like what the article says, schools should promote fruitful learning environment that produces
graduates who would make meaningful contribution into the workforce. Today, critical thinking
is much compromised in basic education because Department Order 90 issued last Aug. 25 had
reduced time in school from 6 hours to 4 in Grades 1 and 2, to 4.5 hours in Grade 3 and to 5
hours in Grade 5 and 6. This is to compensate for the lack of classrooms. Furthermore, several
subjects are integrated which will lessen the students’ time for deeper learning (Hernandez,
2009). Consequently the lack of proper training of critical thinking skills contributes to the
complacency of the youth and lack of appreciation for the country. Such circumstances would
not help the economy.

Rationale for the use of Ethics and Science Seminars

The discussion of issues involving ethics and science brings into mind the Heinz
dilemma as discussed in Lawrence Kohlberg’s Stages of Moral Development. One cannot do
away with critical thinking when contemplating on what is ethical and what is not. Since this
theory was debated upon and Carol Gilligan made revisions which show what are accepted as
morally upright by females. The assigned article does not make any provisions for gendered
thoughts which can be worth investigation on.

Another interesting aspect that can be explored is cross-cultural approach on critical

thinking about issues like scientific misconduct, ownership of data & intellectual property, human
and animal experimentation, public health, conflicts of interest and bias in research – as
enumerated in the article. This can be a separate research endeavor; after all, cultures have
varied views on morality. Take the Philippines for example, here urinating in the streets is not
discouraged because the government even puts up pink male urinals along the sidewalks!

On a personal level, sciences taught in college should dwell on investigating issues like
the ones enumerated in the article for practical purposes. Based on observation, science
teachers in college rarely go beyond rote memorization tasks and rarely do classes have time
for in-depth analysis of related issues because of the course’s bloated syllabus. In effect,

2 Critique # 1
students hardly remember any meaningful lessons in sciences courses. Students are asked to
memorize parts of a frog, the human body, a plant, tree, the list is endless. As a result, it is hard
for the students to relate with the subject matter. The article should be read by science teachers
in college so that they could get ideas on how to make meaningful lessons that foster critical
thinking for students.

Looking at relatively successful science courses, these result to indoctrination of

students into a discipline without question. Usually, indoctrination happens in theology courses
where students are not trained to think beyond what is presented to them or question validity of
the lessons. Memorization is often used in studying and the teachers themselves often
encourage students not to ask questions that contradict the dogma. Perhaps the manner of how
courses on religion are handled and how it affects critical thinking deserve to be studied (“Ethics
without indoctrination,” from www.criticalthinking.org, retrieved November 30, 2009). This is a
humble suggestion of this paper.

Perhaps another issue worth considering in the Philippine setting is the effectiveness of
other subjects in school in teaching critical thinking. Are the students being equipped with the
skills necessary to make critical thinking in other subjects?

Methodology and Assessment

The article mentioned that self-assessment, nationally available tests and rubrics are
ways of assessing critical thinking. Interestingly, students were observed to over-estimate their
own abilities (Dunning, et al., 2004). In ten years of teaching in La Consolacion Mendiola, the
college students tend to underestimate their own abilities; moreover, the problem also lies in the
fact that they are not able to reflect on their own thinking. Most probably this state can be
attributed to less time spent on classroom activities that deal with higher order thinking skills.

The modified Rubric for assessing critical thinking merged the evaluation sub-skill and
making inferences such as identifying and discussing conclusions, implications of the issues.
Moreover, the rubric did not include items for synthesis skills and application skills as these are
part of higher order thinking skills based on Bloom’s Taxonomy of Educational Objectives and
was used by Bissel & Lemons, (2005); and Zeller & Tsaparlis, (1997) in assessing critical
thinking. Perhaps these are the parts removed to make the revised rubric fit for undergraduate
students.

Much of the rubric is about making inferences as indicated in the seven items where the
process or the skill of identifying problems, own perspectives, etc. were checked. These skills
require that the students connect two or more units of information (Bruning, 1999). This process
helps the students connect with the issues in a deeper more meaningful level but being critical
does not end there. Probably the most useful skills any student can learn in school are
synthesizing information and applying acquired knowledge. Through the application, the output
is manifested which can be used to benefit those concerned.

Personally critical thinking is at its best with an outcome. An interesting point was made
by Schafersman (1991). He said critical thinking entails taking responsibility for one’s thinking

3 Critique # 1
and being able to live and act successfully in it. It follows that responsible thinkers can make
good leaders. In fact, critical thinking, leadership, and innovation are ideas often discussed
together in leadership seminars especially those that deal with decision making.

Another item worthy to comment about is item #5 – Identifies and assesses the quality of
supporting data/evidence and provides additional data/ evidence related to the issue. This looks
like a double barreled item. What if the student identifies and assesses the quality of supporting
data but does not provide additional data or evidence related to the issue? How can that be
accurately assessed?

Also in the same item, under the Moderately Developed (3) scale, the description reads
“May have some problems with cause and effect” and “May fail to properly identify some
opinions and value judgments.” The items appear presumptuous because the sentences are
not concrete. The rubric should only assess or measure what is available and empirical. How
does one qualify “May fail to properly identify…”? Does this statement assume this to happen to
the students being assessed based on their work? These two items are better replaced with
statements that clearly describe what is being assessed. For example; “Student identifies some
opinions and value judgments but does not give substantial elaboration.”

For the “May have some problems with cause and effect”, it could be revised into –
“Student recognizes the cause and effects of the related issue but does not give clear
descriptions.”

Notes on the Factors that Contributed on the Development of Critical Thinking.

It has been generally observed, although an updated research would make this claim
more objective, that teachers in this country prefer and reward obedient students and are
uncomfortable with students who always ask questions especially those that seem to challenge
what is being taught. Conformity and passivity are very much reinforced in the classroom during
recitation and lectures especially when students are frightened that their teachers would make it
hard for them to pass just because they are the probing type. This much I also sense in school
when I am the student.

Case studies look promising when training students to develop critical thinking. With
case studies, the students are able to practice looking at things in different points of view and
they would need to do a lot of inferences to fully grasp the issue. Unfortunately, many subjects
in college settle for repeating and sometimes understanding given information. These are
assessed in major examinations. In La Consolacion College Mendiola, if it is prudent to cite this
once more, emphasis is given to objective departmental exams. In effect, because of the many
school activities and holidays that suspend classes, teachers cram so that the students can
answer the department exams. Hence, there is no time for discussions of case studies.

Scaffolding perhaps is more prevalently used inside the classroom. This is often used in
literature, psychology, and other social sciences classes to motivate students to express
themselves. Though scaffolding seem to offer an easy way to encourage students to think

4 Critique # 1
deeper, there are no clear and exact guidelines on how this can be achieved successfully
(Miller, 1993).

As for rubrics, this an effective way for providing students and teachers a paradigm for
evaluating papers. There are many seminars given in schools that teach professors in
constructing rubrics. But still, objective departmental tests are given more emphasis.

To avoid students dabbling on unrelated issues, a short list of cases to choose from
does help them focus their attention on what needs to be analyzed. Attention may be a common
problem with college students these days because they belong in the Generation Y. One
dominant characteristic of this generation is that they easily get bored. Not hard to imagine with
the readily available gadgets, these college students often want things to happen instantly
(Gladen, 2006).

Peer reviews create healthy competition among students. It also helps them gauge how
well they are doing compared to their classmates. As opposed to have everybody work in
secret, peer reviews develops the students communication skill by making them interact with
one another. On the other hand, this may not work well if students are lax, indifferent, come
unprepared and shy to show their work.

References:

Bissel, A. & Lemons, P. (2006). A new method of assessing critical thinking in the classroom.
BioScience 56 (1), 66-72.

Dunning, D., et al. (2004). Flawed self-assessment. Psychological Science in the Public
Interest. 5 (3), 69-106.

“Ethics without indoctrination”, from Criticalthinking.org. (2009) Foundation for Critical Thinking.

Gladden, Naomi. (2006) Generation Y College Students, from

http://collegeuniversity.suite101.com, retrieved December 2, 2009.

Halpern, D. (1997). Thought and knowledge: An introduction to critical thinking (3rd ed.).
Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Hernandez, Butch. “Commentary: Critical Thinking.” Philippine Daily Inquirer, Opinion/ Columns,
September 19, 2009.

Littlejohn, Stephen. (2007). Theories of human communication. USA: Wadsworth Publishing

Company.

McGuinness, C. (1990). Talking about thinking: The role of metacognition in teaching thinking.
In K.Gilhooly, M. Keane, & G. Erdos (Eds.), Lines of thinking (Vol. 2, pp. 301-312). San
Diego: Academic Press.

5 Critique # 1
Miller, P. (1993) Theories of Developmental Psychology. 3rd Ed. New York: WH Freeman and
Company.

Paul, R. & Elder, L. (2004). The miniature guide to critical thinking: Concepts and tools. The
Foundation of Critical Thinking.

Perkins, D.N., Jay, E., & Tishman, S. (1993). Introduction: New conceptions of thinking.
Educational Psychologist, 28, 1-5.

Ralph W. Clark, Introduction to Moral Reasoning, West Publishing Company, St. Paul: 1986.

Swartz, R. J. & Perkins, D. N. (1990). Teaching thinking: Issues and approaches. Pacific Grove,
CA: Midwest.

Wallowitz, Laraine, (2008). Critical literacy as resistance: Teaching social justice across the
secondary curriculum. New York: Peter Lang Publishing.

Taxonomy of Educational Objectives: The Classification of Educational Goals; pp. 201–207; B.

S. Bloom (Ed.) Susan Fauer Company, Inc. 1956

Schafersman, Steven D. (1991). “An introduction to critical thinking.” From

http://www.freeinquiry.com/, retrieved December 2, 2009.

Zeller, U. & Tsaparlis, G. (1997). Higher and lower-order cognitive skills: The case of chemistry.
Research in Science Education, 27 (1), 117-130.

6 Critique # 1