Creating engagement whilst building academic self-efficacy using the

Critical Thinking Skills Toolkit

Hilary Wason and Jane Southall

What We Will Cover

• The teaching and learning issue

• Insights from the literature

• Aims and objectives of the toolkit

• The tools

• Student benefits

• Staff benefits

• Delegate activity

The Issue

From Young Frankenstein

http://www.oneletterwords.com/weblog/?c=Hunch

•“used a range of detailed evidence accurately and thoughtfully”

•“comprehensive and up-to-date knowledge and understanding of the material in this module and of the way in which key concepts relate to one another”

•“takes a critical approach throughout and used a good range of evidence, reasoned argument and reflection”

The Kingston Student

Insights from the Literature • Explicit teaching needed (Mulnix, 2012)

• Educators responsibility to teach how to think (Kennedy, 2009)

• Lack of understanding of CT amongst educators (Elder and Paul, 2008)

• Valued by employers (Freeley and Steinberg, 2005)

• Scaffolded approach within existing teaching (McWilliams and Allan, 2014)

• Interventions to build self-efficacy and enhance academic performance recommended (van Dinther, Docky and Segers, 2013)

• Encourage student autonomy and learning ownership and responsibility (Elder and Paul, 2008)

• Informed learning (Bruce and Hughes, 2010)

Definition of Critical Thinking

• “intellectually disciplined process of actively and skilfully conceptualizing, applying, analysing, synthesizing, and/or evaluating information gathered from, or generated by, observation, experience, reflection, reasoning, or communication”. (Scriven and Paul, 2008, cited in Mulnix 2012, p. 465)

• Most closely matches assessment terminology

Overall Aim

• To provide a toolkit of critical thinking skills interventions which will build academic self-efficacy and enable students to demonstrate exceptional scholarship, become critical and reflective thinkers, excel in their academic studies and acquire key skills for the workplace.

• Holistic, progressive, scaffolded approach

Objectives

Synthesise

Understand criteria

Support Scaffold

Reflect

Encourage

Communicate

Engage

Build

Confidence

Develop

autonomy Analyse

Stages in Bloom’s refined

taxonomy (2002)

Critical thinking tool

Remember

All of the interventions help students learn the material in more

depth

Understand

The Source - know when a source is reliable and should be used

Read Right - make sense of textbooks

Practitioner Insights - make sense of articles and the trade press

Apply

The Critique - Identify the themes and purpose of an individual

academic paper

Analyse

Thematic Analysis Grid - Record and evaluate themes between

papers, synthesise ideas and comment and on what they have

learned

Evaluate

The Argument Map - Identify similarities and differences

between authors

Create

The Reflection - Document and critically reflect on their own

view of what they have researched

Critically Write - Create assignments which meet the criteria

A Tale of Four Students

• The toolkit has been piloted on a range of business undergraduate students over the last three years :

– Chloe the Critiquer : international student taking a Business Management Practice Top Up degree while at work

– Toni the Tagger: final year business management student

– Aryan the Argument Mapper: final year business management student

– Colin the Critiquer: mature student entering HE for the first time while in full time employment

What the students think

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ODKt1u9RoM

Staff Benefits

Delegate activity

To develop this toolkit further – we

need YOU!

Feedback please – write on the

sheets. Any constructive

comments that will help us

develop them further and enable

us to roll it out across programmes

and levels.

Any questions or ideas – please get in touch

H.Wason@kingston.ac.uk

J.Southall@kingston.ac.uk

References Bruce, C. and Hughes, H. (2010) ‘ Informed learning: A pedagogical construct attending simultaneously to information use and learning’, Library and Information Science Research 32 A2-A8

Elder, L. and Paul, R. (2008) ‘Critical Thinking: The Nuts and Bolts of Education’, Optometric Education, 33(3), pp. 88–91.

Freeley, A. and Steinberg, D. (2005) Argumentation and debate: Critical thinking for decision making. Belmont CA: Wadsworth

Kennedy, R. (2009), ‘The Power of in-class debates’. Active Learning in Higher Education, 10(3), pp. 225-236.

Krathwohl, D. (2002) ‘A Revision of Bloom’s Taxonomy: An overview.’ Theory into Practice, 41(4), pp. 212-218.

McWilliams, R., and Allan, Q. (2014) ‘Embedding Academic Literacy Skills: Towards a Best Practice Model’, Journal of University Teaching & Learning Practice, 11(3), pp. 1 - 21.

Mulnix, J. W., (2012) ‘Thinking critically about critical thinking’, Educational Philosophy and Theory, 44(5), pp. 464 - 479.

van Dinther, M., Docky, F., and Segers, M. (2011) ‘Factors affecting students’ self-efficacy in higher education’ Educational Research Review, 6, pp. 95-108.