The Monash Critical Thinking Study
The fact that many attempts to teach critical thinking fail, while a few are successful raises an obvious question; what teaching methods work and which do not? What are the successful course doing right and what are the unsuccessful courses doing wrong? The Monash Critical Thinking Study was set up with the aim of answering these questions. After a pilot study in 2003, work began in semester 1, 2004. The final study will be completed in semester 1, 2006.
Aims
- To investigate the factors that effect students' critical thinking and reasoning skills.
- To cross-validate an Australian test of reasoning (the GSA) with an international standard.
- To compare the effectiveness of a number of teaching methods for improving students' critical thinking and reasoning skills:
-
- Computer-assisted argument mapping
- Actively Open-Minded Thinking (AOMT)
- Peer-instruction
Methodology
Participants
Participants are Monash University students enrolled in a single semester first-year critical thinking course (PHL 1030: Thinking: Analysing Arguments) taught by the Monash School of Philosophy and Bioethics. All students taking the course are required to complete the pre- and post-test. They are informed about the study and asked to sign a consent form giving permission for the test scores to be used. A grade incentive is also offered - the highest pre- or post-test score replaces the students lowest graded piece of assessed work.
Test instruments
Students are pre-tested and post-tested using two different measures; the California Critical Thinking Skills Test (CCTST) and the critical thinking section of the Graduate Skills Assessment (GSA). Both are timed (45 minute) multiple-choice tests. Each test comes in two equivalent forms, A and B.
Procedures
Students complete the CCTST and GSA tests during the scheduled 2-hour tutorials for the course. Both pre-tests are completed in the first tutorial (usually week 2 of the course) and the post-tests are completed in the final tutorial (week 13 of the course). A small number of students who are unable to attend these tutorials complete the tests in separate sessions. The tests are completed under examination conditions, as outlined in the test manuals. Students are not informed of their test scores until after the end of the course.
In the first three studies, Form A was used for the pre-test and Form B was used for the post-test for both the CCTST and GSA. For the last two studies, Forms A and B of each test were randomly distributed for the pre-test and students were given the opposite test form for the post-test.
Comparison group
Each semester, an attempt is made to recruit students enrolled in a concurrent first-year philosophy course (PHL 1010/1020) a comparison group. These students volunteer to take the GSA test (only) as a pre- and post- test. These volunteers typically take the tests at one of a number of separately scheduled sessions, outside their normal class time. These sessions take place during the same week that the PHL 1030 students are taking their tests. The test sessions are conducted under the same conditions, as specified in the test manuals. Informed consent procedures are identical: students are informed of the study and asked to sign a consent form giving permission for their scores to be used. They are also offered the same grade incentive as students' enrolled in PHL 1030. Students are not informed of their test scores until after the end of the course.
Variation in teaching methods
The course runs in both semesters (twice a year) and the teaching methodology varied each time. The course syllabus and lectures stay more or less the same each semester. Variations in teaching methods are implemented in the tutorials.