Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
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
CRITICAL THINKING
111
112
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
CRITICAL THINKING
113
114
Education
Elementary
SD
64.5
62.7
13.4
11.4
240
114
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
116
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
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.