Você está na página 1de 11

Disposition Toward Thinking Critically: A

Comparison of Pre-service Teachers and Other


University Students
Martin E. Eigenberger
University of Wisconsin-Parkside

Karen A. Sealander
Northern Arizona University

James A. Jacobs
Indiana State University

Suzanne M. Shellady
Central Michigan University
A preliminary study was conducted examining attitudes toward some of
the requisite dispositions involved in critical thinking. The Attitude
Toward Critical Thinking Scale (CTS) was used to assess dispositions
related to critical thinking in a sample of university students.
Elementary, secondary, and special education majors, as well as majors
classified as Liberal Arts & Sciences, Traditional Social Sciences, and
Applied Social and Health Sciences were compared. Results suggested
that students sampled from Arts & Sciences and Traditional Social
Science are more favorably predisposed to critical thinking principles
than are Education and Applied Social and Health Science students.
Results are addressed within the context of pedagogical needs of the
information age.

Critical thinking skills have received much attention over the past two
decades. Most authors who address this subject agree that the ability to
think critically and autonomously is the cornerstone of democracy and the
antidote 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 development
of thinking skills that will be adaptive to the new information environment. The method of critical thinking, which finds its typical
expression in philosophical analysis, requires a non-didactic, forum-style
classroom environment conducive to dialog and Socratic questioning.
This kind of teaching and learning is aimed at understanding the
Author info: Correspondence should be sent to: Dr. Martin Eigenberger, College
of Arts & Sciences, U. of Wisconsin-Parkside, 600 Wood Rd., Kenosha, WI
53141
North American Journal of Psychology, 2001, Vol. 3, No. 1, 109-118.
NAJP

110

NORTH AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PSYCHOLOGY

underlying assumptions and logical structure of subject areas as opposed


to a strict delivery of factual content (Paul, 1993). By instilling the
methods and habits of critical inquiry, students will be less dependent on
the facts- which are constantly changing. Students so educated are more
likely to become autonomous thinkers, able to extract reliable information
from a wide variety of sources, and able to make more incisive
inferences. However, philosophical ways of thinking, much like a second
language, are best practiced early and often. Thus critical thinking should
be infused across the curriculum beginning in the early elementary
classroom (Lippman, 1991). The attitude of future teachers regarding
their readiness to implement critical thinking may be regarded as an
important 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 a
willingness and ability to suspend judgement pending a critical
examination of evidence (McPeck, 1981). Critical thinking is a refusal to
accept information without good reasons for belief (Siegel, 1988), and
this attitude not only attempts to examine information in analytic bits but
also 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 as
in the past. Historically, critical thinkers such as Descartes systematized
an approach to knowledge acquisition and revolutionized philosophy and
empirical science. Scientific methodologies initiated during the
Enlightenment period have produced a seeming over-abundance of information. According to Paul (1993) routinized learning, stable world
views, and formulaic teaching are fast becoming handicapping conditions
for individuals and societies. Accelerating change, Paul suggests, is upon
us, as half the content of subject areas becomes obsolete or invalid every
six years. We are increasingly being asked to sort through a maze of new
or reorganized information. Toffler (1970) notes that from 1776 to 1960
the stores of knowledge doubled. From 1960 to 1965 knowledge again
doubled. It is predicted that as we enter the year 2002, factual knowledge
will double every 73 days (Toffler, 1990). Additional examples of the
enormous amounts of information available include the 1000 new books
published 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 an
individual living in 1776 (Toffler, 1990).
The use of critical thinking skills, or content-independent reason, is
the only practical way to sort out which information may be valid. As in
the past, critical thinking is necessary to guide social changes as well as

Eigenberger, Sealander, Jacobs, & Shellady

CRITICAL THINKING

111

those changes proposed and presented by todays educational reform


movement. If critical thought is not employed, then the field of education
may be more likely to be driven by political agendas and market forces
rather than real cognitive and informational needs that are relavent to the
adaptability of individuals and institutions. Hiring practices of corporations like Motorola and Honeywell are beginning to address the need
for critical thinkers. Companies like these emphasize the requirement for
potential 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, critical
thinking is fast becoming a necessary survival skill. Although the
acquisition of adaptive skills may be related to intelligence, the learning
of critical thinking as an adaptive behavior requires practice on the part
of the learner. Even if there are naturals or native critical thinkers as
there are natural artists, guided practice of critical thinking skills is still
essential. It is logical then, that critical thinking be encouraged in the
classroom. This encouragement may take the form of emphasizing the
need for good reasons rather than just correct answers, and insisting on
evidence rather than opinion. The questioning of motives and
assumptions, and the exploration of implications must be practiced. The
practice of critical thinking also requires the acceptance and respect of
divergent perspectives (Marzano, 1992; Slavin, 1994). Attention therefore, 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 outcomes
sought 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 students
to tolerate the ambiguity and periodic confusion that often accompanies
the process of discovery via critical thinking. The classroom would seem
to be the ideal arena in which to nurture, practice, and implement thinking
skills (Hester, 1994).
Student use of critical thinking in the classroom, although pedagogically sound and seemingly widely accepted, can be a double-edged
sword. On the one side, the students are using skills which more fully
engage the mind in the assimilation and understanding of subjects and
subject matter. On the other side, there is the attitude of skepticism and
questioning, which may have the appearance of challenging authority,
often including the teachers authority (Bornstein, et al, 1977). Hence, for
some teachers critical thinking may be controversial. The teacher with an
authoritarian turn of mind, who works for conformity and regularity in his
or her classroom, may have something less than a full appreciation for
students who are asking critical questions.

112

NORTH AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PSYCHOLOGY

Indeed, that teacher may view the student as threatening, noncompliant, and rude (Drabman & Patterson, 1981). It would seem that the
teachers assumptions about the nature of authority and skepticism, and
the value of justified beliefs, may affect the quantity and quality of
critical thinking that actually takes place in the classroom.
The central question of this study was: Do future educators value the
critical thinking process and the behavioral attributes of the critical
thinker, or are they more likely to ignore, limit or extinguish such
behaviors? In an attempt to begin addressing this question, students
enrolled in institutions of higher education volunteered to complete the
Attitude Toward Critical Thinking Scale (Eigenberger, Sealander, &
Seckinger, 1996). The purpose of this preliminary investigation was to
assess the degree to which critical thinking attitudes are present in future
educators as compared to other university students.
METHOD
Participants and Procedure
Participants in this study were 486 students enrolled in undergraduate
and graduate courses in the College of Education and three other areas of
academic discipline. Other areas were classified as, a) Traditional Liberal
Arts 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, social
work, nursing, speech pathology, occupational therapy, and nutrition
science. The survey procedure netted participants from other disciplinary
areas such as Engineering and Business, but total numbers in these
categories were trivial and were dropped from the analysis. A total of 22
participants 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 participants
was drawn from Colleges of Education and consisted of 240 students. All
of 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 within
Education were examined to test the hypothesis that the critical thinking
disposition of secondary education majors would differ significantly from
other majors within Education. The total Education sample contained 176
women and 64 men. Mean age of the participants was 23.4 years.
Ninety-five participants were A&S majors, consisting of 36 women and

Eigenberger, Sealander, Jacobs, & Shellady

CRITICAL THINKING

113

59 men. Traditional Social Science consisted of 83 participants, of which


45 were women and 38 were men. Applied Social & Health Sciences was
made up of 46 participants - 28 women and 18 men. Of the students in the
Undecided category, there were 13 women and 9 men.
The CTS was administered along with a demographics page, by
several professors who were teaching courses in a variety of disciplines.
Participants were offered extra credit for completing the scale and were
given class time for this purpose.
Instrumentation
Items for the CTS were developed by the authors, and were derived
deductively from conditions assumed necessary for effectively engaging
in 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, and
independent thinking. The CTS was designed to sample an attitude
spectrum incorporating 'pro' and 'con' dispositions toward critical
thinking. It was developed as an alternative to commercially available
scales such as the California Critical Thinking Disposition Inventory
(Facione & Facione, 1992), which is a comprehensive, reliable, but rather
lengthy, 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 in
an individual classroom. The CTS contains 15 items scaled on a 7-point
disagree-agree Likert-type format. The scale is balanced, with 7 items
worded 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 critical
thinking. 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 important
virtues than being a critical thinker; and, In the quest for what is really
true, one should be prepared to doubt and perhaps discard any current
beliefs about oneself, God, and the world. The CTS has a possible raw
score range from 15 to 105 points. The fifteen items comprising the CTS
are listed in the Appendix.
Evidence of construct validity for the CTS was collected in a separate
pilot study (Eigenberger, Sealander, & Seckinger, 1996) and used three
measures. 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 from
the Truth-seeking, Open-mindedness, and Inquisitiveness sub-scales of
Facione & Faciones (1992) California Critical Thinking Disposition

114

NORTH AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PSYCHOLOGY

Inventory (r = .68). A Cronbach's alpha reliability coefficient of .83 was


established for the CTS in both the pilot study and in the present study.
Factor Analysis
A principal components factor analysis was conducted followed by
varimax rotation. An initial solution produced 3 factors, the first of which
had 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 the
variance. A third factor had an eigenvalue of 1.12 and accounted for
7.5% of the variance. Examination of the scree plot however, indicated
the presence of two interpretable factors. A two-factor solution in fact
provided the most parsimonious account of scale structure. Items loading
onto Factor 1 seemed to relate to teaching or promoting critical thinking
versus 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.
RESULTS
Two 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. The
analysis of academic areas suggested that the groups differed significantly
on CTS scores [F (4, 480) = 17.9, p< .001]. Post hoc comparisons using
the Tukey HSD procedure further indicated that A&S students and TSS
students scored significantly higher than Education majors, ASHS
majors, and Undecided students.
A second one-way ANOVA compared scores of three sub-groups
within the College of Education and the other four non-education
academic groups. Within the College of Education, three levels of
specialization were selected: 1) elementary, 2) secondary, and 3) special
education. Results suggested significant differences in mean CTS scores
between the groups. [F (6, 479) = 13.3, p< .001]. A follow-up Tukey
HSD test revealed secondary education majors had significantly higher
CTS scores than elementary education majors, but did not differ
significantly from either special education majors, ASHS majors, or
Undecided students. Secondary education students scored significantly
lower than both A&S and TSS majors. Means and standard deviations of
all groups are presented in Table 1.
TABLE 1

Education
Elementary

Summaries of CTS Scores Among Academic Areas


M

SD

64.5
62.7

13.4
11.4

240
114

Eigenberger, Sealander, Jacobs, & Shellady

CRITICAL THINKING

Secondary
Special Education
A&S
TSS
ASHS
Undecided

67.9
63.6
77.0
72.9
64.0
65.1

15.3
14.1
15.3
13.0
13.3
12.5

69
57
95
83
46
22

Total

68.4

14.6

486

115

A small but statistically significant difference between males and


females was observed in mean CTS scores as measured by a t-test. The
male respondents (M = 71.3, SD = 16.4) scored higher than female
respondents (M = 66.5, SD = 13.0), t (482) = -3.55, p < .01.
DISCUSSION
The results of this study are best viewed as exploratory, with
limitations on generalizability. Nevertheless, within these limitations, the
results indicated significant differences existed in critical thinking
dispositions among several identifiable academic groups within a
university population. The most salient observation was the significant
differences in CTS scores between Education students and both
traditional liberal arts students and traditional social science students.
Regarding critical thinking dispositions, students enrolled in Education,
with the exception of secondary education majors, more closely
resembled students preparing to enter occupations such as law enforcement, 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 such
as intellectual openness, wide-ranging curiosity, autonomy, and willingness to suspend judgement.
This study also suggested a difference in critical thinking attitude
between majors within the College of Education. It was observed that
secondary education majors scored significantly higher on the CTS than
their elementary education counterparts. They also scored higher, albeit
not significantly higher, than special education and ASHS students. This
observed differential within Education may be due in part to the
secondary education majors tendency to be content specialists, perhaps
with a deeper relationship to their subject areas. Secondary education
majors may also enter their specialties because they have a preference for
working with students who are generally functioning at more abstract
cognitive 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

116

NORTH AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PSYCHOLOGY

explained by the large ratio of female to male students sampled in the


College of Education students who tend to have lower CTS scores. At
any rate, the disproportionate representation of female students in the
sample should not produce a great deal of confidence in the stability of
the t-ratio.
Given the exploratory nature of the study, alternative explanations for
the observed results could also be considered. For instance, the subjects
sampled from the College of Arts & Sciences may not have been
representative. As noted, majors from traditional humanities courses were
sampled, i.e., philosophy and history. Students majoring in these areas
can be expected to have a strong critical thinking orientation, since their
course work and assessment procedures center on analytic abilities and
wide general interests. The effect of sampling these majors in high
proportions may be to bias CTS means for the College of Arts & Sciences
as a whole. However, this concern is muted by similar CTS scores of
students who were classified as Traditional Social Science majors.
If the observed differences in critical thinking disposition scores
between Education students and students in other academic areas is
stable, then obvious questions in this regard arise: Is this difference
between majors a source of concern? If some Education majors value
critical thinking dispositions less than Arts & Sciences or Traditional
Social Science students, then are primary and secondary American
schools 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 children
are taught in the classrooms? Will those teachers who are not predisposed
to value and therefore implement critical thinking, regard the questioning
and skeptical student as problematic? Would teachers so disposed, view
the exploratory critical process as a distraction from content coverage?
On the other hand, if teachers value the critical thinking attitude, will they
be more tolerant of student questions and open to using the logic of
subject areas as an instructional strategy (e.g. Paul, 1993)? Would the
introduction of critical thinking attitudes and behaviors such as reflective
skepticism and Socratic questioning into a classroom result in a more
productive and ecologically stable classroom?
Given the potential importance of pre-service teacher attitudes on
educating students for engaging in critical discourse and democratic
living, it is evident that such attitudes should be further examined relative
to their possible interaction with reform-oriented pedagogical changes.
Should further studies confirm future educators relative disinterest in, or
discomfort with critical thinking-related dispositions, then more attention
to thinking skills acquisition may be needed in certain of our teacher
preparation programs.

Eigenberger, Sealander, Jacobs, & Shellady

CRITICAL THINKING

117

REFERENCES
Altemeyer, 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 Applied
Behavior 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), 4455.
Eigenberger, M.E., Sealander, K.A., & Seckinger, D. (1996). Validation study of
three 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 dimensions
of learning. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum
Development.
McPeck, J. (1981). Critical thinking and education. New York: St. Martins
Press.
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.

118

NORTH AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PSYCHOLOGY

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

APPENDIX A
Sample Items Comprising the Attitude Toward Critical Thinking Scale
2. Teaching students good solid basics like the 3Rs is more important than having them
question and critique everything they are told.
3. All our beliefs are subject to criticism and change - human beings have no access to a
perfect truth.
5. A child should not be taught critical thinking if it has the potential to upset traditional
values.
6. If old beliefs about the world and mankind cant stand up to modern science and
criticism, then we ought to abandon such beliefs.
8. There should be no limits 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 B
Factors and Loadings of the Attitude Toward Critical Thinking Scale Items
Factor
Loading
Factor 1
There is a limit to criticizing normal ways of doing things.
.76
A child should not be taught critical thinking if it upsets tradition.
.75
Cooperation and respect more important than critical thinking.
.69
Critical thinking does not prepare students for real life.
.63
Teaching students "solid basics" more important than questioning.
.64
Critical thinking in the classroom takes a lot of time and energy.
.57
We should just accept laws and moral teaching without skepticism.
.48
Belief in one's God and country should not be criticized.
.43
Factor 2
One should be prepared to discard beliefs.
.69
Political and religious authority must be questioned.
.68
Abandon old beliefs about that can't stand up to criticism.
.67
Doubt everything until there are good reasons to believe it.
.54
It is better to be a true believer than a critical thinker.
.50
There should be no limit on what is doubted and criticized.
.48
All out
beliefs are subject to criticism and change.
.36

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

Você também pode gostar