A Preliminary Study on How to Promote College Students’ Critical Thinking in the Classroom

【Abstract】The past few decades have witnessed college students deficiency of critical thinking. To address this issue， this study makes a preliminary exploration of how to develop students critical thinking across the curriculum in higher education. It is hoped that the strategies suggested in the paper could make some contributions to the current educations devotion to hone learners critical thinking.

【Key words】Critical thinking； classroom； college students； active thinking

【作者簡介】方莉，浙江傳媒學院大學外語教學部。

1. Introduction

There has been a great concern in the multitude of college students for their deficiency to think critically in the contemporary society. The majority of them tend to follow what the mainstream think and make an argument with few supporting reasons； their resolution of a problem is based on formulaic rote rather than sound evidence； and they prefer to make a decision that could achieve more short-term benefits. Under such condition， the necessity to foster college students critical thinking has become a primary goal for current high education. This concern is echoed in a large volume of researches that urge programs to cultivate students critical thinking skills in education.

It is more recently that a growing number of studies have begun to examine more closely the strategies conducive to the development of students critical thinking across the curriculum in higher education （e.g. Athanassiou et al. 2003； Klebba & Hamilton 2007； Fiore et al. 2005； Mok 2009）. Based on the findings of the previous research， the current paper attempts to synthesize various strategies proposed by scholars which enhance learners critical thinking and identify several factors that are crucial to the success of such promotion. Theoretically， the paper aims to provide insight into what constitute feasible strategies in favor of critical thinking and create public awareness of the need to develop learners critical thinking. Practically， it intends to make available a variety of approaches to foster critical thinking， and bring out further instructive implications.

2. Literature Review

Critical thinking has been the topic of extensive research in diverse fields of education as management education （e.g. Athanassiou et al. 2003）， marketing courses （e.g. Klebba & Hamilton 2007）， apparel education （e.g. Fiore et al. 2005）， writing courses （e.g Mok 2009）， etc. Despite the discrepancy in areas of education， they shared the same pursuit of integrating critical thinking techniques effectively into teaching during the courses.

As indicated by previous research， it is feasible to teach students how to think critically in one of two ways， either by teaching the content of critical thinking explicitly in dedicated instructional modules， or by engaging the students in a variety of activities that promote critical thinking （e.g. Clabaugh et al. 1995； Smith 2003）. And there is widespread agreement among researchers that the latter method， i.e. students immersion in activities that inspire critical thinking， makes much greater contribution to the enhancement of students critical thinking （e.g. Smith 2003）.

There is a lengthy literature addressing critical-thinking-favored class activities. Brookfield （1987） proposed four criteria for critical thinking which were used in the development of the class project： （a） to identify and challenge assumptions， （b） to become contextually aware， （c） to imagine and explore alternatives and （d） to engage in reflective skepticism. In terms of specific strategies， a great many recommendations have been suggested by scholars， which can be categorized into three main groups： teaching styles， assignments and tests， and specific tools used inside class for critical thinking improvement.

From the perspective of teaching styles， a great number of scholars emphasize the significance of creating a context which encourages students inquiry， reflection in class and exchange of ones views with others （e.g. Yuretich 2004； D Angelo 1971）. They believed that the classroom exists for students， not for the pursuit of teachers own agendas； hence， it is sagacious for instructors to draw much attention to students needs and give them more opportunities for autonomous and active thinking and expression of their views instead of indoctrinating definitions， facts， and formulas， etc. Another prevalent claim is to promote students critical thinking through the effective use of questions （e.g. D Angelo 1971； Elder & Paul 2003）. Following this claim， Kurfiss （1988） further added that critical thinking can best be observed when students confront an “ill-structured problem”， an open-ended problem that requires a “best solution” and justification of the proposed solution with supporting evidence. In addition， Elder and Paul （1994） maintained that teachers should serve as a guide to lead learners to recognize the underlying logic of a subject matter in teaching. According to them， knowledge is not fragmented pieces of information but a system with a definite set of logical relationships. Through the method that they suggested above， students would be allowed to think their way through the subject matter rather than memorize disconnected bits of information. Besides， Halpern （1993） expressed the belief that mental representations are crucial to the promotion of critical thinking. From his point of view， being capable of picturing in ones mind an organization of information may lead to the improvement in thinking skills. Arguing in the same vein， Danserau and Newbern （1997） favored the use of knowledge maps or graphic organizers （ images with key information that represent relationships between bits of knowledge） in fostering critical thinking skills.

Furthermore， assignments and tests have been repeatedly highlighted in studies that explore what encourage critical thinking. A considerable number of researchers （e.g. Kurfiss 1988； Smith 2003） shared the view that open-ended questions for assignments and tests would inspire learners critical thinking more.

When it comes to specific instruments for in-class activities， numerous studies have recommended several options. Debate is documented as an effective technique that facilitates critical thinking in previous research （e.g. Latchaw 2000； Roy & Macchiette 2005）. It involves the deliberation of a critical issue as well as the defense for and attack against a given proposition. Many researchers share the opinion that debate entails and nurtures a large number of the same skills inherent in critical thinking. Both are of great value for students in that debate helps to materialize the learning outcomes related to Pauls （1990） intellectual standards as reflected in his definition of critical thinking， including clarity， precision， accuracy， relevance， consistency， logical connectors， completeness， and fairness. Another widely acknowledged instrument is in-class discussion. According to Roy and Macchiette （2005）， many of the obvious analogies between the two truly demonstrate the learning benefits of discussion in relation with critical thinking.

3. Conclusion

Among diverse suggestions by precious research， three strategies are singled out that deserve more attention from the instructors， that is， to cultivate students active thinking， to encourage their exchange of views， and to stimulate learners logic thinking. On the basis of the above findings， the further study will detail three major critical-thinking-oriented strategies observed by previous research from my perspective later. In the next paper， it will detail three strategies， that is， cultivation of active thinking among students， encouragement of exchanging views with others， and stimulation of logic thinking.

Current education limited by lecture-based teaching entails pedagogical strategies that support critical thinking. One way to foster CT is for the instructor to create a classroom atmosphere that inspires learners active thinking through the emphasis of the value of autonomous thinking， and more importantly， through engaging students in such activities as problem-solving， exercises， case analysis， and applied and real-world activities， etc. Another way to promote critical thinking is to provide students with opportunities to exchange ideas with others， which could be achieved by student participation， group discussion， debate， etc. In addition， in response to learners lack of logic thought on a given subject matter， instructors are expected to introduce the underlying logic of subject matters and their logical relationship before teaching new knowledge by， for example， turning to graphic organizers for illustration.

As a preliminary exploration of research on this domain， the present study is unable to review as many as relevant articles， and the papers reviewed may not be representative of the entire body of the CT research. Furthermore， due to time limitation， this study is not allowed to turn to classrooms for the test of whether the factors discussed in the paper are beneficial to the improvement of learners critical thinking and， if so， how much and in what way， those factors facilitate their critical thinking， etc. So there is still much left for more detailed and comprehensive discussion in this field and an empirical study is needed to measure the effectiveness of discussed factors.

Despite the limitations， it is hoped that the study highlights the significance for the courses with an exclusive preference for knowledge indoctrination to also incorporate opportunities for students to enhance critical thinking， and that the strategies proposed in the paper could help address the issue as to how to nurture college students critical thinking in the classroom.

References：

[1]Brookfield，S.D.Developing Critical Thinkers：Challenging Adults to Explore Alternative Ways of Thinking and Acting[J].San Francisco：Jossey-Bass，1987.

[2]Kurfiss，J.Critical Thinking：Theory，Research，Practice，and Possibilities（ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report No.2）[J]. Washington，DC：ASHE-ERIC，1988.

[3]Halpern，D.F.Assessing the Effectiveness of Critical Thinking Instruction[J].The Journal of General Education，1993，42（4）：238-254.