Teaching Critical Thinking In History تعليم التفكير الناقد من خلال تدريس التاريخ

[ندعوك للتسجيل في المنتدى أو التعريف بنفسك لمعاينة هذه الصورة]

Teaching Critical Thinking In History Course: Empirical Evidence From Infusing Paul's Model - Statistical Data Included

Paul's model for critical thinking was infused into a community college history course by teaching the model explicitly and training students to use the model to analyze primary documents. Pretests and posttests included an Advanced Placement Examination, the Ennis-Weir Critical Thinking Essay Test, the California Critical Thinking Dispositions Inventory, and a History Content Exam. ANCOVA indicated that the experimental group performed significantly higher than the control group in historical thinking and in general critical thinking skills, with large effect sizes in each case. No significant differences were found on the other tests. Infusing Paul's model into classroom activities appeared to promote students' abilities to think historically and critically without lessening their end of term knowledge of history content.
For over 20 years now, the importance of critical thinking as an educational objective has been widely acknowledged by educators as well as by business and political leaders (Association of American Colleges, 1985; Hunt, 1995; National Education Goals Panel, 1991; Norris, 1985; Paul, 1993; Scriven, 1985; Secretary's Commission on Achieving Necessary Skills, 1991). Scholars have responded to increased demands for students who can think critically by theorizing about necessary and sufficient components of the concept, researching factors that may contribute to its enhancement, developing instructional models to strengthen critical thinking, and creating and revising assessment instruments. While much has been accomplished, critical thinking is a complex construct not easily limited to a single definition, and many areas of uncertainty and disagreement remain as cognitive scientists, educational researchers, and philosophers continue to pursue their own visions of critical thinking based in diverse research traditions (e.g., Ennis, 1992; Facione, 1984; Halpern, 1993; Johnson, 1996; Lipman, 1988; McPeck, 1981; Paul, 1993; Perkins, Jay, & Tishman, 1993; Resnick, 1987).
In spite of some contentious differences, experts have made attempts at consensus (e.g. Facione, 1990) and general characterizations of critical thinking and lists of component skills and dispositions overlap considerably. These typically include the ability and propensity to analyze complex issues and situations, to recognize and to evaluate assumptions and alternative points of view according to acceptable criteria, to make sound inferences and to draw reasonable conclusions based on reliable information, and to make interdisciplinary connections and to transfer insights to new contexts.
Research has provided some insights into factors that may enhance students' abilities to think critically. Clearly, more years of education are associated with higher scores on tests for critical thinking, but performance in general is poor and many students graduate from college lacking proficiency as critical thinkers (Bangert-Drowns & Bankert, 1990: Browne & Keeley, 1988: Keeley, 1992: Kuhn, 1992; McMillan, 1987: Pascarella & Terenzini, 1991; Perkins, 1985). Although findings from studies examining the magnitude of gains in critical thinking have varied, tentative estimates of around 0.50 SD improvement seem to be about average for the freshman year (Dressel & Mayhew, 1954; Pascarella & Terenzini, 1991). Evidence strongly favors explicit instruction over implicit instruction, and more intense programs have been shown to be more effective than programs focusing only periodically on explicit instruction in critical thinking. On the other hand, efforts to examine specific instructional programs for methods that enhance critical thinking have provided mixed, even inconsistent, results (Bangert-Drowns & Bankert. 1990: Keeley, 1992). Tsui (1999) concludes that types of instructional methods influence gains in critical thinking slightly more than kinds of courses students take.
Numerous instructional models based on varied conceptions of critical thinking have been developed to teach students to become better thinkers (for examples of models used for post-secondary instruction, see Browne & Keeley, 1994: Ennis, 1996: Chaffee, 1994: Foundation for Critical Thinking, 1998; Halpern, 1996; King, 1994). The present investigation sought to test a prominent model for critical thinking to determine if it could provide an effective strategy for teaching critical thinking skills in a community college history course. The model developed by Richard Paul was chosen because of its sound historical and theoretical base (drawing on both philosophical and psychological approaches to critical thinking); its general applicability to improving both academic and real world reasoning; its appropriateness for infusion into any course material (in this case, history) or for a general critical thinking course; and its concern with intellectual criteria and dispositional attributes in addition to thinking skills. Further, this model encourages and enhances instructional approaches that have been associated with improvement in students' abilities to think critically, such as written assignments designed to increase critical thinking, high cognitive level of student participation in discussion, and papers critiqued by instructors (and peers) using intellectual criteria drawn from a broad concept of critical thinking (Pascarella & Terenzini, 1991; Tsui, 1998). The fundamentals of Paul's model and further information about his views on critical thinking are available on his website (Center for Critical Thinking, 2000) and in publications of the Foundation for Critical Thinking (1998: Paul, 1993).

Paul's model for critical thinking centers around three aspects of thinking: elements or components of good reasoning; intellectual standards used to assess the quality of the thinking; and intellectual traits or virtues, essential dispositions of an effective critical thinker (Figure 1). According to Paul, there are eight elements or building blocks basic to any reasoning process or task, whether thinking about an academic discipline, a business decision, a book or article, a political speech, a personal relationship, a consumer purchase, and so on. They are the purpose of the thinking (goal, objective), the question at issue or problem to be solved, fundamental concepts (e.g., ideas, theories, principles), information (data, facts, observations), point of view (frame of reference, perspective), inferences (interpretations, conclusions, solutions), assumptions (things taken for granted), and implications (consequences). Paul also emphasizes universal intellectual standards essential for evaluating thinking, including clarity, accuracy, precision, relevance, sufficiency, logic, depth, and breadth. The affective component of Paul's model addresses the development of such traits or virtues of the reasoning mind as intellectual humility, empathy, perseverance, and fairmindedness. He is also known for his emphasis on "strong sense" critical thinking, an open and honest search for the best possible conclusion that involves assessing one' own thinking and acting in accord with the principles of critical thought (Foundation for Critical Thinking, 1998; Paul, 1993).
[ILLUSTRATION OMITTED]
The present study was the first empirical test of Paul's model known to this researcher. While this study focused on the effectiveness of Paul's model for critical thinking and its potential for use in a college setting, it also bears on several current issues in critical thinking research, including explicit versus implicit instruction and whether teaching for critical thinking in a specific subject area can result in, improvements in students' general thinking abilities. This study compared an infusion approach, which makes general principles of critical thinking explicit using standard subject matter content (U.S. history, in this study), to an immersion approach, which provides similar thought-provoking standard subject matter content but does not make general principles of critical thinking explicit. (See Ennis, 1992, for a discussion of four basic approaches to teaching critical thinking).
More specifically, the purposes of this study were to assess the effect of infusing Richard Paul's model for critical thinking into a one-semester U.S. history course on community college students' (a) abilities to think historically, (b) abilities to think critically about everyday issues, (c) dispositions toward thinking critically, and (d) knowledge of history content. The researcher expected that an intensive emphasis on critical thinking would result in improvement in students' abilities to think historically, general critical thinking abilities, and dispositions toward critical thinking as a result of the explicit nature of the training. History content scores were not expected to differ between control and experimental groups since both groups were given opportunities to think deeply about historical content.

Method
Participants
Students in four sections of U.S. History 1877 to the Present at a moderate size community college in central Florida participated in the study. Two sections were randomly selected to serve as the experimental group, and the other two sections served as the control group. The resulting experimental group (n = 29) consisted of 20 females and 9 males, 21 students under 22 and 8 students 22 and older. The control group (n=23) consisted of 14 females and 9 males, 15 students under 22 and 8 students 22 and older. These numbers represent students who completed course requirements. Percentages of students who did not complete the course were consistent across groups and with other instructors teaching the same course but not participating in the study.
Instructional Method and Materials
Richard Paul's model for critical thinking, described in the introductory section, was used as the basis for the experimental treatment in this study (Figure 1). The instructor integrated Paul's model into experimental sections of the U.S. history course by (a) teaching the model explicitly, (b) training students to use the elements of reasoning to analyze primary source documents and historical problems, (c) giving out-of-class assignments that required students to use the model, (d) providing a packet of handouts that graphically displayed and further explained the model, and (e) conducting classroom discussions by focusing on the elements and standards set forth in the model. In this study, critical thinking was developed mainly through instruction in analysis and interpretation of primary source documents.
The researcher served as the instructor in all four sections, and careful attention was paid to consistency of instructional approach and avoidance of bias in favor of one group or the other. Results from "Student Perception of Instruction" forms required by the participating institution confirmed the researcher's claim of consistency of instruction across groups (15 statements ranked 4 to 1, Experimental M = 3.81, Control M = 3.84 out of M = 4 possible).

The course met for three hours per week for fifteen weeks. Following pre-testing, students in the experimental group were taught to use the elements of reasoning to analyze historical documents selected from a required source reader Constructing the American Past, Volume 2 (Gorn, Roberts, & Bilhartz, 1995). Instructional activities included individual, small-group, and total class components. After introduction to and practice with the eight elements of reasoning, the instructor distributed "Reasoning about History" worksheets, a handout developed by the researcher to help students focus on the elements of reasoning as they interpreted historical documents (Figure 2).
Figure 2.
Reasoning about History Worksheet
Title, issue, subject, etc. under consideration:
Elements of Reasoning
1. What are the main Point(s) of View, or Frame(s) of Reference?
a. [Sourcing] Who is the author, what point of view does he or she bring to this issue, and how credible is he or she?

b. [Contextualization] In what context (frame of reference) was this document produced? What political, economic, social, and cultural circumstances might have affected this document?
2. What is the main Purpose, Goal, or End in View?
3. What is (are) the key Question(s) at Issue or Problem(s) to be Solved? Why is it important to consider this (these) issue(s)?
4. What is the most important Data, Information, or Evidence (How do they know what they know? Is the information relevant and sufficient to support conclusions?)
5. What main Assumptions underlie the thinking (things taken for granted, explicit and implicit)? [Consider assumptions in the context of the period]
6. What key Concepts and Ideas need to be understood? (Clarify at least three.) [Consider the concepts and terms in the context of the period]
7. What main Inferences or Interpretations are made, leading to Conclusions?
8. What would be the main Implications and Consequences if this course of action or belief is accepted, or not accepted?
9. [Corroboration] What do other documents, etc. on the same topic contribute to understanding the issue? Do the documents agree, and if not, which has a stronger argument?
Paul's approach to critical thinking was modeled and encouraged in class discussions and written work throughout the semester. In total, students in experimental sections received about 90 minutes of explicit instruction in critical thinking distributed over the semester. They also had multiple opportunities, written and oral, collaboratively and individually, to practice using Paul's model.
With the exception of training in Paul's model, all participants in the study used the same textbooks, received the same activity assignments, were taught in the same manner, and took the same exams. All students received information on general strategies for historical thinking (Wineburg, 1991). Students in the control group read the same primary source documents as students in the experimental group, but they were assigned to respond to questions (labeled "Critical Thinking") provided at the end of each reading by the authors of the source reader (Gorn, Roberts. & Bilhartz, 1995). They did not receive the critical thinking packets or "Reasoning About History" worksheets, nor were they taught to apply Richard Paul's model for critical thinking to document analysis.
Instruments
This study compared results from four instruments, selected after an extensive review of available assessments for critical thinking and recognition that all available instruments have some limitations (Reed, 1998; Tsui, 1998). A disclosed Document Based Question (DBQ) section of the 1986 Advanced Placement Examination for United States History (Spoehr & Fraker, 1995) was used to measure achievement in document analysis and interpretation, or historical thinking. It required students to write an essay integrating knowledge of U.S. history with accurate interpretations of the primary documents provided with the question. The Ennis-Weir Critical Thinking Essay Test (Ennis & Weir, 1985), which tests students' abilities to respond to arguments as they occur naturally in discussion, disputation, and debate in the real world, served as a test of general critical thinking skills. Both the DBQ and the Ennis-Weir required responses generated by students. The California Critical Thinking Dispositions Inventory (CCTDI; Facione & Facione, 1992) was used to measure students' inclinations or dispositions toward critical thinking. Finally, students' content knowledge of U. S. History 1877 to the Present was tested using thirty-five multiple-choice questions selected from two disclosed forms of the College Board Achievement Test in American History and Social Studies, developed by the Educational Testing Service (1990, 1994).
Students in both the experimental and control groups took the Ennis-Weir, the CCTDI, and the History Content Exam as pretests within the first two weeks of the semester and again at the end as posttests. The History Content Exam and the DBQ were given at the end of the semester as two sections of the final exam. The DBQ was not given to students at the beginning of the study because it required an essay based on knowledge and skills most students did not possess.
Issues of validity and reliability were considered for each instrument. Both the AP Exam for U.S. History and the College Board Achievement Test in American History and Social Studies are standardized instruments widely accepted as content validated and reliable, frequently subjected to rigorous reviews for continued validity. The Document Based Question selected for use in this study and the questions selected for the History Content Exam were carefully matched to course content. Additionally, on the History Content Exam, careful attention was paid to maintaining a variety of item difficulty levels consistent with the structure of ETS exams to avoid a possible ceiling effect.
The authors of the Ennis-Weir Critical Thinking Essay Test and the CCTDI claim content validity also. The Ennis-Weir provides a reasonably authentic way to assess students' abilities to think critically about an everyday issue, and the scoring material and instructions provided allow the test to be reliably scored. The CCTDI was created using a consensus definition of critical thinking produced by a panel of 46 experts using Delphi procedures.
Internal consistency reliability on the History Content Exam on the pretest was K-R 20 = .69 and on the posttest was K-R 20 = .77. Cronbach's alpha reliabilities on the CCTDI were .86 pretest and .90 posttest.

The two essay instruments were blind-scored by two raters; experimental and control group essays were mixed together, and participants' social security numbers were used to identify essays. To provide maximum accuracy in scoring, raters discussed and resolved discrepancies of over one point on the DBQ (scale 0 to 9) or over three points on the Ennis-Weir (scale -9 to 29). Mean scores were used for data analysis. Using this approach to scoring, interrater reliability on the DBQ was .99 (taken as a posttest only). On the Ennis --Weir, interrater reliability was .98 on the pretest and .99 on the posttest.
Student Perception of Instruction forms and interviews with eight randomly selected students (two from each of the four sections) provided an opportunity to obtain information on students' reactions to primary source reading assignments.
Data Analysis
Descriptive statistics were used to summarize achievement scores at the beginning (pretest) and end (posttest) of the course by method of instruction and to determine that the samples could be considered normally distributed. An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) using pretests as covariates was used to determine if group means differed significantly from each other. Pretest scores on the History Content Exam were used as the covariate for the DBQ posttest since the DBQ also tests for knowledge of history content. For the Ennis-Weir Critical Thinking Essay Test, the CCTDI, and the History Content Exam, their respective pretests served as covariates for posttest scores. Data from each instrument were screened for ANCOVA assumptions (homogeneity of regression, linearity, homogeneity of variances, and normality), and it did not appear that the assumptions of ANCOVA were violated on any of the outcome variables. F values were examined for significance at [Alpha] = .05.

In addition to statistical hypothesis testing, effect sizes were calculated for each of the instruments to provide indices of the magnitudes of the treatment effects. In the context of ANCOVA, the effect size of interest is Cohen's f(Cohen, 1988). In providing guidelines for the interpretation of f, Cohen suggested that values of .10, .25, and .40 represent small, medium, and large effects, respectively.

Results
The main findings of this study were that experimental group scored statistically significantly higher than the control group on the DBQ and on the Ennis-Weir, the two essay instruments testing for abilities to think historically and to think critically on an everyday issue. In each case, effect sizes were large, indicating practical significance. No statistically significant differences were found by method of instruction on the CCTDI or on the test of history content knowledge. Table 1 shows means and standard deviations for the experimental and control groups for each of the four outcome variables. It also presents adjusted means, ANCOVA results (F and p values), and effect sizes (Cohen's f).Table 1.Means, Standard Deviations, F-tests, and Effect Sizes for OutcomeVariables Experimental (n = 29) Pretest Posttest Instruments M SD M SD Adj. Mean DBQ 5.28 1.57 5.58Ennis-Weir 11.91 8.61 15.19 8.84 14.85CCTDI 296.03 27.42 297.66 32.09 302.53Hist. Cont. 14.66 4.26 25.28 4.85 25.43 Control (n = 23) Pretest Posttest Instruments M SD M SD Adj. Mean DBQ 3.93 1.57 4.20Ennis-Weir 11.09 7.94 8.46 8.25 8.88CCTDI 296.96 26.72 302.04 31.51 303.51Hist. Cont. 13.39 5.01 23.87 5.29 24.32 Instruments F (1,49) p Effect Size DBQ 9.08 .004 .48Ennis-Weir 23.02 .0001 .83CCTDI 0.37 .55 .12Hist. Cont. 0.23 .63 .14
The experimental group scored statistically significantly higher than the control group on the DBQ, an instrument testing achievement in analysis and interpretation of primary source documents in history. The effect size was large, and the mean difference of 1.4 points on a scale of 0-9 suggests that explicitly teaching Paul's model had an educationally significant impact on students' abilities to think historically.

Results on the Ennis-Weir Critical Thinking Essay Test showed that students in the experimental group performed at a statistically significantly higher level than achieved by students in the control group, and findings indicated a large effect size. Difference in the posttest scores between the two groups was 6.73 points on a scale of -9 to 29 points. As shown in Table 1, pretest means in the two groups were similar, but posttest means increased by 3.28 points in the experimental group while they decreased by 2.63 points in the control group.

Results from statistical analyses of scores on the CCTDI, testing for critical thinking dispositions, showed no significant differences between the experimental and control groups and a negligible effect size (f =. 12). Further, posttest means were not significantly different from pretest means in either group.
The experimental and control groups performed equally well on a test of history content knowledge, with each group's mean increasing approximately 10.5 points from pretest to posttest. No statistically significant differences were found by method of instruction and the calculated effect size was negligible (f = .14).
Discussion
Results from this study indicate that explicitly integrating Paul's approach to critical thinking into course content can be an effective way to elicit the kinds of critical thinking abilities desired of college level students. As expected by the researcher, students in the experimental group performed at a statistically significantly higher level than students in the control group on the DBQ, an instrument testing historical thinking, and on the Ennis-Weir, used to test students' abilities to think critically about an everyday issue. On the other hand, the researcher did not anticipate the large effect sizes found in this study for several reasons: the study was conducted in a naturalistic educational setting with many of the variables typically found in a community college course; it was a single semester study; and both groups were provided numerous opportunities to think deeply about subject matter. The effect sizes found in this one- semester study, 0.48 SD on the DBQ and 0.83 SD on the Ennis-Weir, compare favorably to findings in earlier research studies examining improvement in critical thinking during the freshman year of college and the effect of programs that use explicit instruction in critical thinking (Bangert-Drowns & Bankert, 1990: Dressel & Mayhew, 1954: Pascarella & Terenzini, 1991). Despite the limitations of this study, the large practical and significant results on two instruments, indicating that explicitly teaching Paul's model can improve both students' abilities to think within a discipline and general abilities to think critically, provide an incentive to consider possible benefits of integrating this model more widely into educational curricula.
Results on the DBQ and the Ennis-Weir may be explained by recognizing that even though students in the control group analyzed the same documents as students in the experimental group during the semester and had numerous opportunities to think critically, they were not taught to use a general pattern of analysis and evaluation. Students in the experimental group, on the other hand, received explicit instruction in critical thinking, focused repeatedly on Paul's elements and universal standards of reasoning as they completed assignments, and were encouraged to use the same structure to make decisions about everyday problems and issues. Their performance on the DBQ most likely reflects their enhanced abilities to interpret unfamiliar historical documents by using a familiar pattern of analysis and evaluation. Their performance on the Ennis Weir probably shows their ability to recognize the relevance of the model to everyday issues and to use the familiar pattern of reasoning beyond the context of historical documents. Control group students, who were experienced in answering questions supplied by authors of the source reader but lacked familiarity with a general pattern or model for interpreting documents, thus had greater difficulty than the experimental group interpreting the documents provided on the DBQ and on the Ennis-Weir. Even though they had used some specific aspects of Paul's model (they were integrated into assessment guidelines for various course assignments and they appeared in questions supplied by the authors of the source reader), students apparently failed to recognize these as part of a general pattern that could be useful in any situation requiring reasoning. These results support Bangert-Drowns and Bankert's (1990) finding in favor of explicit instruction.
One unexpected result was a lack of statistically significant differences on the CCTDI. The researcher had anticipated that if students in the experimental group improved in their abilities to think critically, it was also reasonable to anticipate higher scores when tested for critical thinking dispositions. The results may indicate that one semester is not long enough in many cases for available instruments to capture changes in students' critical thinking abilities. Additionally, the intellectual traits of a critical thinker, the aspect of Paul's model most closely related to critical thinking dispositions, were introduced and modeled but were not emphasized due to time limitations. Thus lack of intensity in teaching the aspect of the model most relevant to students' disposition to think critically may have contributed to negligible changes as measured by the CCTDI.
It was anticipated that the experimental and control groups would perform equally well on the test of history content knowledge since students in both groups were given multiple opportunities to think deeply about the content of history. One concern about explicitly emphasizing critical thinking in college classrooms is whether the time involved in intensively teaching critical thinking skills might reduce the amount of content learning in the discipline. In this study, experimental and control groups performed equally well on the History Content Exam, indicating that students' end of course knowledge of history content does not necessarily suffer when instructional time is spent training for critical thinking.
Further, the challenge involved in learning to think critically did not seem to have a negative impact on students' attitudes or motivation to learn. Results from the "Student Perception of Instruction" forms and student interviews indicated that overall attitudes toward the course, materials, and method of instruction did not vary between the control and experimental groups. Students in both groups felt some degree of confusion as they attempted to analyze and evaluate primary source documents, and some students may need extra support at first to master Paul's approach to thinking. Gradual training and frequent practice in using the model along with careful attention to student concerns about their abilities to complete assignments enabled most students to become at least moderately proficient in using Paul's model to think critically.
Implications for Instruction
Teaching students to think critically has been established as a principal task of the educational system, and students graduating from college should certainly be expected to exhibit critical thinking abilities. An understanding of both the nature of learning to think critically and instructional methods that promote critical thinking seem essential for accomplishing this goal. There is little evidence to indicate that simply attending classes will improve students' abilities to think critically -- even if the teacher or instructor is an accomplished critical thinker and uses critical thinking in planning lessons. On the other hand, there is much evidence, including this study, showing that explicit instruction in how to think critically enhances students' abilities. In the present study, training in critical thinking was both explicit and intense, it seems clear that the structured nature of Paul's model, along with frequent practice in using the model, played important roles in facilitating students' improvement as critical thinkers. Using the elements and standards of reasoning stimulated higher-order thinking about the material to be learned, but further, this process forced students to think about the material in specific and varied ways that, combined, compose the essence of critical thought. It provided them with a structure that was effective not only for completing the specific requirements of a college-level history course but also for reasoning about everyday issues.
Unfortunately, what we do know about enhancing critical thinking does not seem to be widely incorporated into college curricula. A recent study commissioned by the California Commission on Teacher Credentialing (Paul, Elder, & Bartell, 1997) indicates that while most colleges and universities recognize the importance of critical thinking, effective instruction for critical thinking is not occurring on a broad scale. Among the faculty surveyed for that study, 89% claimed critical thinking to be a primary objective of their instruction, but only 19% gave a clear explanation of what critical thinking is and only 9% were clearly teaching for critical thinking on a typical day in class. That is even among college instructors who consider improvement in critical thinking as an important course objectives, most are not likely to teach students explicitly how to think well within their discipline. Although explicit training is well-supported in the literature, much of the teaching for critical thinking at the college level could be described (at best) as immersion, or implicit modeling of critical thinking, an approach that is not likely to be effective for most students. In the current study, students in the control group were provided with implicit critical thinking structures and taught using instructional approaches that have tended to result in greater gains on critical thinking scores, such as assignments designed to increase critical thinking, high cognitive levels of student discussions, and instructor critique of student papers using standards of critical thinking. Yet their performance was significantly lower than among students who also received explicit instruction in Paul's model. Certainly among the most important implications of this study is the necessity for explicit, structured, and intense training for critical thinking.
Recommendations for Further Research
The limitations imposed by a small sample, single-institution study, combined with the fact that this is the first empirical study conducted using Paul's model for critical thinking, indicate that replication is clearly needed. Although the findings showed significant benefits from explicitly integrating Paul's model into the curriculum, it remains uncertain whether these results would continue over time or transfer to other settings.
Further, Paul presents his approach to critical thinking as a general model of reasoning that can be applied to any subject or issue to help people reason more effectively. K-12 teachers and administrators, as well as post-secondary faculty, regularly participate in training and attempt to integrate the model into content areas. While instructors who teach students to use the model agree that students display clearer, deeper thinking as a result, carefully conducted empirical studies are needed at different grade levels and in a variety of subject matter. Although no indications of interactions with other variables such as age, gender, ethnicity, or socio-economic status were noted, these variables might also be considered as subjects of research on Paul's model
Also to be resolved is the relative effectiveness and impact of this specific instructional model if compared with other models and programs. It is possible that explicit, intense teaching of Paul's model had as much effect as the particular attributes of the model itself.
While many questions remain concerning instructional approaches for enhancing students' abilities to think critically, the need for taking critical thinking seriously is not questionable. Helping students maximize their opportunities to learn deeply and effectively in all situations and to make their academic assignments relevant to their everyday activities is essential for meeting many of the main purposes of education. Paul's model, used under the circumstances indicated in this study, provides an effective approach to achieving these purposes.
References
Association of American Colleges (1985). Integrity in the College Curriculum: A Report to the Academic Community. Washington, DC: Association of American Colleges.
Bangert-Drowns, R. L., and Bankert, E. (1990, April). Meta-analysis of effects of explicit instruction for critical thinking. Paper presented at the meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Boston, MA. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 328 614)
Browne, M. N., and Keeley, S. M. (1988). Do college students know how to "think critically" when they graduate? Research Serving Teaching 1(9): 2-3. Center for Teaching and Learning: Southeast Missouri State University, Cape Girardeau, MO. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 298 442)
Browne, M. N., and Keeley, S. M. (1994). Asking the Right Ouestions: A Guide to Critical Thinking (4th ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Center for Critical Thinking. (2000). [ندعوك للتسجيل في المنتدى أو التعريف بنفسك لمعاينة هذا الرابط]
Chaffee, J. (1994). Thinking Critically (4th ed.). Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Cohen. J. (1988). Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Dressel, P. L., and Mayhew, L. B. (1954). General Education: Explorations in Evaluation. Washington D.C.: American Council on Education.
Educational Testing Service. (1990). American history and social studies achievement test, form 3EAC2. In The College Board Achievement Tests, pp. 165-191. New York: College Entrance Examination Board.
Educational Testing Service. (1994). American history and social studies subject test, form K-30AC. In The Official Guide to SAT II: Subject Tests, pp. 65-93. New York: College Entrance Examination Board.
Ennis, R. H. (1992). The degree to which critical thinking is subject specific: Clarification and needed research. In S. P. Norris (ed.), The Generalizability of Critical Thinking: Multiple Perspectives on an Educational Ideal, pp. 21-37. New York: Teachers College Press, Columbia University.
Ennis, R. H. (1996). Critical Thinking. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Ennis, R. H., & Weir, E. (1985). The Ennis-Weir Critical Thinking Essay Test. Pacific Grove, CA: Midwest.
Facione, P. A. (1990). Critical Thinking: A Statement of Expert Consensus for Purposes of Educational Assessment and Instruction. American Philosophical Association, Newark, DE. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 315423)

Facione, P. A., and Facione, N. C. (1992) The California Critical Thinking Dispositions Inventory. Millbrae, CA: California Academic Press.
Foundation for Critical Thinking. (1998). Critical Thinking Workshop Handbook. Santa Rosa, CA: Author.
Gorn. E. J., Roberts. R., and Bilhartz, T.D. (1995). Constructing the American Past: A Source Book of a People's History, Vol. 1 (2nd ed.). New York: HarperCollins.
Halpern, D. F. (1993). Assessing the effectiveness of critical thinking instruction. The Journal of General Education 42(4), 238-254.
Halpern, D. F. (1996). Thought and Knowledge: An Introduction to Critical Thinking, (3rd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Hunt, E. (1995). Will We Be Smart Enough? A Cognitive Analysis of the Coming Workforce. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
Johnson, R. H. (1996). The Rise of Informal Logic. Newport News, VA: Vale Press.
Keeley, S. M. (1992). Are college students learning the critical thinking skill of finding assumptions? College Student Journal 26, 316-322.
King, A. (1994). Inquiry as a tool in critical thinking. In D. Halpern and Associates (eds.), Changing College Classrooms: New Teaching and Learning Strategies for an Increasingly Complex World, pp. 13-38. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Kuhn, D. (1992). Thinking as argument. Harvard Educational Review 62(2), 155-178.
Lipman, M. (1988). Critical thinking: What can it be? Analytic Teaching 8, 5-12.
McMillan, J. H. (1987). Enhancing college students' critical thinking: A review of studies. Research in Higher Education 26(1), 3-29.
McPeck, J. E. (1981). Critical Thinking and Education. New York: St. Martin's Press.
National Education Goals Panel. (1991). The National Education Goals Report: Building a Nation of Learners. Washington, DC: U. S. Government Printing Office.
Norris. S. P. (1985). Synthesis of research on critical thinking. Educational Leadership 42(8), 41-45.
Pascarella, E. T. and Terenzini, P. T. (1991). How College Affects Students: Findings and Insights from Twenty Years of Research. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Paul, R. W. (1993). Critical Thinking: What Every Person Needs to Survive in a Rapidly Changing World. Santa Rosa, CA: Foundation for Critical Thinking.
Paul, R. W., Elder, L., and Bartell, T. (1997). California Teacher Preparation for Instruction in Critical Thinking: Research Findings and Policy Recommendations. Sacramento, CA: California Commission of Teacher Credentialing.
Perkins, D. N. (1985). Postprimary education has little impact on informal reasoning. Journal of Educational Psychology 77(5), 562-571.
Perkins, D. N., Jay, E., and Tishman, S. (1993). Beyond abilities: A dispositional theory of thinking. The Merrill-Palmer Quarterly 39(1), 1-21.
Reed, J.H. (1998). Effect of a model for critical thinking on student achievement in primary source document analysis and interpretation, argumentative reasoning, critical thinking dispositions, and history content in a community college history course (Doctoral Dissertation, University of South Florida, 1998). Dissertation Abstracts International, 59-11A, 4039.
Resnick, L. B. (1987). Education and Learning to Think. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Scriven, M. (1985). Critical for survival. National Forum 55, 9-12.
Secretary's Commission on Achieving Necessary Skills. (1991). What work requires of schools: A SCANS report for America 2000. Washington, D.C.: U. S. Department of Labor.
Spoehr, L. W., and Fraker, A. (1995). Doing the DBQ: Advanced Placement U. S. History Exam. New York: College Entrance Examination Board and Educational Testing Service.
Tsui, Lisa (1998, November). A review of research on critical thinking. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Association for the Study of Higher Education, Miami, FL. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 427 572)
Tsui, Lisa (1999). Courses and instruction affecting critical thinking. Research in Higher Education 40(2), 185-200.
Wineburg, S.S. (1991). Historical problem solving: A study of the cognitive processes used in the evaluation of documentary and pictorial evidence. Journal of Educational Psychology 83(1), 73-87.
Authors' Note
Jennifer H. Reed, Department of Psychological and Social Foundations, College of Education, University of South Florida; Jeffrey D. Kromrey, Department of Education Measurement and Research, College of Education, University of South Florida.
This paper is based on the first author's doctoral dissertation. She wishes to thank her committee: Dr. James Eison, Dr. Howard Johnston, Dr. William Benjamin, Dr. Gary Mormino, and Dr. Dick Puglisi. The authors also appreciate the contribution of Dr. Robert Ennis, who pointed out the relevance of this study to the issue of infusion and immersion. Part of this material was presented at the 8th International Conference on Thinking in Edmonton, Canada, in July 1999.
Correspondence concerning this paper should be addressed to Jennifer H. Reed, 5316 Verana Court, Lakeland, Florida 33813-3070; [ندعوك للتسجيل في المنتدى أو التعريف بنفسك لمعاينة هذا الرابط]JENNIFER H. REEDJEFFREY D. KROMREYUniversity of South Florida

COPYRIGHT 2001 Project Innovation (Alabama)

COPYRIGHT 2001 Gale Group

[ندعوك للتسجيل في المنتدى أو التعريف بنفسك لمعاينة هذا الرابط]

تعليم التفكير الناقد من خلال تدريس التاريخ

بول نموذجا للتفكير النقدي وغرست في كلية مجتمع من خلال تدريس التاريخ بالطبع النموذج صراحة وتدريب الطلاب على استخدام النموذج لتحليل الوثائق الأساسية. وشملت إجراء الاختبارات التمهيدية متقدمة إجراء امتحان ، واينيس لوير التفكير الناقد مقال للتجارب ، وكاليفورنيا ترتيبات التفكير الحرج الجرد ، والتاريخ محتوى الامتحان. أشار إلى أن المجموعة التجريبية أداء أعلى بكثير من مجموعة التحكم في الفكر التاريخي وبشكل عام مهارات التفكير النقدي ، مع أحجام تأثير كبير في كل حالة. هناك فوارق كبيرة تم العثور على التجارب الأخرى. بول غرس هذا النموذج في النشاطات الصفية فيما يبدو لتعزيز قدرات الطلاب على التفكير تاريخيا ونقديا من دون التقليل من نهاية المدة لمعرفة محتوى التاريخ.

على مدى 20 عاما حتى الآن ، على أهمية التفكير النقدي كهدف التعليمية وقد تم على نطاق واسع من قبل المربين وكذلك من قبل رجال الأعمال والقادة السياسيين (رابطة الجامعات الأميركية ، عام 1985 ؛ هانت ، 1995 ؛ التربية الوطنية للألفية لوحة ، 1991 ؛ نوريس ، 1985 ؛ بول ، 1993 ؛ سكريفين ، 1985 ؛ الأمين لجنة تحقيق المهارات اللازمة ، 1991). العلماء قد استجابت للمطالب المتزايدة للطلاب الذين يمكن التفكير بشكل نقدي عن طريق التنظير حول العناصر الضرورية والكافية لهذا المفهوم ، والبحث في العوامل التي قد تساهم في تعزيز وتطوير نماذج تعليمية لتعزيز التفكير النقدي ، وخلق وتنقيح أدوات التقييم. في حين أنجز الكثير ، والتفكير النقدي هي عملية معقدة ليس من السهل بناء تقتصر على تعريف واحد ، ومناطق كثيرة من عدم اليقين والخلاف لا يزال على العلماء المعرفي ، والباحثين التعليمية ، والفلاسفة مواصلة رؤاها الخاصة للتفكير نقدي قائم في مجال البحوث المتنوعة التقاليد (على سبيل المثال ، اينيس ، 1992 ؛ ، 1984 ؛ هالبرن ، 1993 ؛ جونسون ، 1996 ؛ ليبمان ، 1988 ؛ ، 1981 ؛ بول ، 1993 ؛ بيركنز ، جاي ، وتيشمان ، 1993 ؛ ريسنيك ، 1987).
وعلى الرغم من بعض الاختلافات المثيرة للجدل ، وكان خبراء في محاولات تحقيق توافق في الآراء (على سبيل المثال ، 1990) ، والخصائص العامة للتفكير النقدي وقوائم المهارات والتصرفات مكون تتداخل إلى حد كبير. وعادة ما تشمل هذه القدرة والميل إلى تحليل القضايا والمواقف المعقدة ، على الاعتراف وتقييم الافتراضات وجهات النظر البديلة وفقا لمعايير مقبولة ، والوصول لاستنتاجات سليمة ومعقولة لاستخلاص استنتاجات تستند الى معلومات موثوقة ، وإلى إجراء اتصالات بين التخصصات و لنقل الأفكار إلى سياقات جديدة.

البحوث وقدمت بعض الضوء على العوامل التي يمكن أن تعزز قدرات الطلبة على التفكير الناقد. بوضوح ، أكثر سنوات من التعليم ترتبط أعلى الدرجات في اختبارات على التفكير النقدي ، ولكن الأداء بصفة عامة فقراء وكثير من الطلاب الخريجين من الكليات التي تفتقر إلى الكفاءة والتفكير النقدي (- يغرق & ، 1990 : براون وكيلي ، 1988 : كيلي 1992 : كوهن ، 1992 ؛ ماكميلان ، 1987 : & ، 1991 ؛ بيركنز ، 1985). على الرغم من أن النتائج المستخلصة من الدراسات التي تدرس حجم المكاسب التي تحققت في التفكير النقدي ومتنوعة ، وتقديرات مبدئية لنحو 0.50 تحسين التنمية المستدامة على ما يبدو عن المتوسط بالنسبة للطالبة سنة (دريسيل & مايهيو ، 1954 ؛ ، 1991). تشير الأدلة بقوة تفضل تعليمات واضحة حول التعليم الضمني ، والمزيد من البرامج المكثفة وقد ثبت أن تكون أكثر فعالية من البرامج التي تركز فقط دوريا بناء على تعليمات واضحة في التفكير الانتقادي. من جهة أخرى ، الجهود الرامية إلى دراسة محددة للبرامج التعليمية التي تعزز طرق التفكير النقدي وفرت مختلطة ، وحتى غير متناسقة ، والنتائج - يغرق & 1990 : كيلي ، 1992). تسوي (1999) إلى أن أنواع من أساليب التدريس تأثير مكاسب في التفكير النقدي أكثر بقليل من أنواع الدورات يأخذ الطلاب.

العديد من النماذج التعليمية على أساس مفاهيم متنوعة من التفكير النقدي وضعت لتعليم الطلاب على التفكير بشكل أفضل (لأمثلة من النماذج المستخدمة لمرحلة ما بعد التعليم الثانوي ، انظر براون وكيلي ، 1994 : اينيس ، 1996 : تشافي ، 1994 : مؤسسة الحرجة التفكير ، 1998 ؛ هالبرن ، 1996 ؛ الملك ، 1994). التحقيق الحالية تسعى إلى اختبار نموذج بارز على التفكير النقدي لتحديد ما إذا كان يمكن أن توفر استراتيجية فعالة لتعليم مهارات التفكير النقدي في كلية المجتمع التاريخ طبعا. النموذج الذي وضعه ريتشارد بول اختير بسبب قاعدتها سليمة التاريخية والنظرية (الرسم على النهج الفلسفي والنفسي على حد سواء للتفكير النقدي) ؛ انطباقه عامة لتحسين كل من الأكاديمية والمنطق الحقيقي العالم ؛ مدى ملاءمتها للتسريب الى أي مواد البرنامج الدراسي ( في هذه الحالة ، والتاريخ) أو لمدة عام حاسم بالطبع التفكير ؛ وقلقها مع المعايير الفكرية وسمات ترتيبي بالاضافة الى مهارات التفكير. كذلك ، فإن هذا النموذج يشجع ويعزز النهج التعليمية التي ارتبطت مع تحسن في قدرات الطلاب على التفكير بشكل نقدي ، مثل تعيينات مكتوبة تهدف إلى زيادة التفكير النقدي ، وارتفاع المستوى المعرفي للمشاركة الطالب في المناقشة ، وأوراق نقد من قبل المدربين (والأقران (باستخدام المعايير الفكرية المستمدة من مفهوم واسع من التفكير النقدي ، 1991 ؛ تسوي ، 1998). أسس بول نموذج ومزيد من المعلومات عن وجهات نظره بشأن التفكير النقدي المتاحة على موقعه على الانترنت (مركز التفكير النقدي ، 2000) ، ومنشورات مؤسسة التفكير النقدي (1998 : بول ، 1993).

[ندعوك للتسجيل في المنتدى أو التعريف بنفسك لمعاينة هذه الصورة]

» Encouraging History Teachers To Use ICT in Teaching History تشجيع معلمى التاريخ لإستخدام تكنولوجيا الاتصالات والمعلومات فى تدريس التاريخ
» teach history through mysteries تدريس التاريخ من خلال الالغاز
» Research& Articles on Teaching and Learning History مجموعة كبيرة من الابحاث والمقالات فى تدريس وتعليم التاريخ