Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Using interactive management to facilitate a student-centred conceptualisation of critical thinking: a case study

  • Research Article
  • Published:
Educational Technology Research and Development Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Critical thinking (CT) is a metacognitive process, consisting of a number of sub-skills and dispositions, that, when used appropriately, increases the chances of producing a logical solution to a problem or a valid conclusion to an argument. CT has been identified as a fundamental learning objective of third-level education; however, students often report not being given the opportunity to adequately understand and cultivate CT skills. Though most CT interventions are designed based on academic or expert definitions of CT skills, students are rarely, if ever, asked to guide their instruction by describing their perspectives on what constitutes CT. The current case study investigated students’ conceptualisations of what constitutes good CT using a collective intelligence methodology, interactive management. Interactive management (IM) is a computer-assisted process that allows a group to build a structural model describing relations between elements in a system. Though decades of research on group decision-making in educational and social psychology highlight the many limitations associated with group problem solving (e.g. as a result of an over-reliance on heuristics, cognitive biases and ‘groupthink’), a fundamental skill for making decisions and solving problems is the ability to collectively visualise the structure of a shared problem, and use this knowledge to design solutions and strategies for collective action. Results of IM group work from the current case study revealed five core CT skills (clarity of expression, conversational skill, inference, evaluation, and explanation), five CT dispositions (detachment, listening, systematicity, recognising uncertainty, and self-questioning) and fourteen structural relationships among them. The ability to detach, listen and engage in conversation with others, were seen as fundamental drivers of all other competencies in the system. Results are discussed in light of research and theory on CT and best practice for CT instruction.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. For a full technical description, see: http://www.nuigalway.ie/media/nuigalwayie/content/files/collegesschools/businesspublicpolicylaw/documentsforms/Collaborative-Systems-Software-and-Technical-Description-of-IM-methodology.docx

References

  • Ackoff, R. L. (1981). Creating the corporate future: Plan or be planned for. New York: John Wiley and Sons.

    Google Scholar 

  • Alberts, H. (1992). Acquisition: Past, present and future. Paper presented at the meeting of the Institute of Management Sciences and Operations Research Society. Orlando, FL, March.

  • Allen, R., Feezel, J., & Kauffeld, F. (1967). A taxonomy of concepts and critical abilities related to the evaluation of verbal arguments (Occasional Paper No. 9). Madison, WI: Wisconsin Research and Development, Center for Cognitive Learning.

    Google Scholar 

  • Argyris, C. (1982). Reasoning, learning, and action: Individual and organizational. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ashby, W. R. (1958). Requisite variety and its implications for the control of complex systems. Cybernetica, 1(2), 1–17.

    Google Scholar 

  • Association of American Colleges & Universities. (2005). Liberal education outcomes: A preliminary report on student achievement in college. Washington, DC: AAC&U.

    Google Scholar 

  • Australian Council for Educational Research. (2002). Graduate skills assessment: Stage one validity study. Australia: Department of Education, Science and Training.

    Google Scholar 

  • Banich, M. T. (2009). Executive function: The search for an integrated account. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 18(2), 89–94.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baril, P. B., Cunningham, B. M., Fordham, D. R., Gardner, R. L., & Wolcott, S. K. (1998). Critical thinking in the public accounting profession: Aptitudes and attitudes. Journal of Accounting Education, 16(4), 381–406.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bensley, D. A. (1998). Critical thinking in psychology: A unified skills approach. Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks & Cole.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bohm, D. (1990). A new theory of the relationship of mind and matter. Philosophical psychology, 3(2–3), 271–286.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boomer, G. (1992). Negotiating the curriculum. In G. Boomer, N. Lester, C. Onore, & J. Cook (Eds.), Negotiating the curriculum: Educating for the 21st century (pp. 4–13). London: Falmer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boulding, K. E. (1966). The impact of the social sciences. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brabeck, M.M. (1981). The relationship between critical thinking skills and development of reflective judgment among adolescent and adult women. Paper presented at the 89th Annual Convention of the American Psychological Association, Los Angeles, August 24–26.

  • Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. R. (1999). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Broome, B. J. (1995a). Collective design of the future: Structural analysis of tribal vision statements. American Indian Quarterly, 19, 205–228.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Broome, B. (1995b). The role of facilitated group process in community-based planning and design: Promoting greater participation in Comanche tribal governance. In L. R. Frey (Ed.), Innovations in group facilitation: Applications in natural settings (pp. 27–52). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Broome, B. J., & Chen, M. (1992). Guidelines for computer-assisted group problem-solving: Meeting the challenges of complex issues. Small Group Research, 23, 216–236.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Broome, B. J., & Cromer, I. L. (1991). Strategic planning for tribal economic development: A culturally appropriate model for consensus building. International Journal of Conflict Management, 2, 217–234.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Broome, B. J., & Fulbright, L. (1995). A multi-stage influence model of barriers to group problem solving. Small Group Research, 26, 25–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Butchart, S., Bigelow, J., Oppy, G., Korb, K., & Gold, I. (2009). Improving critical thinking using web-based argument mapping exercises with automated feedback. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 25(2), 268–291.

    Google Scholar 

  • Christakis, A. N. (1987). Systems profile: The Club of Rome revisited. Systems Research, 4, 53–58.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cleveland, H. (1973). The decision makers. Center magazine, 6(5), 9–18.

    Google Scholar 

  • Coke, J. G., & Moore, C. M. (1981). Coping with a budgetary crisis: Helping a city council decide where expenditure cuts should be made. In S. W. Burks & J. F. Wolf (Eds.), Building city council leadership skills: A casebook of models and methods (pp. 72–85). Washington, DC: National League of Cities.

    Google Scholar 

  • Darling-Hammond, L. (2008). How can we teach for meaningful learning? In L. Darling-Hammond (Ed.), Powerful Learning. pp. 1–10.

  • Dawson, T. L. (2008). Metacognition and learning in adulthood. Northhampton, MA: Developmental Testing Service LLC.

    Google Scholar 

  • Deal, T. E., & Kennedy, A. A. (1982). Corporate cultures: The rites and rituals of corporate life. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Delbeq, A. L., Van De Ven, A. H., & Gustafson, D. H. (1975). Group techniques for program planning: A guide to nominal group and Delphi processes. Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dewey, J. (1910). How to think. Boston: Heath & Co.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Dewey, J. (1933). How we think: A restatement of the relation of reflective thinking to the educative process. Lexington, MA: Heath & Co.

    Google Scholar 

  • Donnelly, D. F., McGarr, O., & O’Reilly, J. (2014). ‘Just Be Quiet and Listen to Exactly What He’s Saying’: Conceptualising power relations in inquiry-oriented classrooms. International Journal of Science Education, 36(12), 2029–2054.

  • Dwyer, C. P. (2011). The evaluation of argument mapping as a learning tool (Doctoral thesis). Galway: National University of Ireland.

  • Dwyer, C. P., Hogan, M. J., & Stewart, I. (2011). The promotion of critical thinking skills through argument mapping. In C. P. Horvart & J. M. Forte (Eds.), Critical thinking (pp. 97–122). New York: Nova Science Publishers.

  • Dwyer, C. P., Hogan, M. J., & Stewart, I. (2012). An evaluation of argument mapping as a method of enhancing critical thinking performance in e-learning environments. Metacognition and Learning, 7, 219–244.

  • Dwyer, C. P., Hogan, M. J., & Stewart, I. (2014). An integrated critical thinking framework for the 21st century. Thinking Skills & Creativity, 12, 43–52.

  • Engelmann, T., Baumeister, A., Dingel, A., & Hesse, F. W. (2010). The added value of communication in a CSCL-scenario compared to just having access to the partners’ knowledge and information. In J. Sánchez, A. Cañas, & J. D. Novak (Eds.), Concept maps making learning meaningful: Proceedings of the 4th international conference on concept mapping, 1 (pp. 377–384). Viña del Mar, Chile: University of Chile.

    Google Scholar 

  • Engelmann, T., & Hesse, F. W. (2010). How digital concept maps about the collaborators’ knowledge and information influence computer-supported collaborative problem solving. Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 5, 299–319.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ennis, R. H. (1987). A taxonomoy of critical thinking dispositions and abilities. In J. B. Baron & R. J. Sternberg (Eds.), Teaching thinking skills: Theory and practice, 9-26. New York: W.H. Freeman.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ennis, R. H. (1996). Critical thinking. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ennis, R. H. (1998). Is critical thinking culturally biased? Teaching Philosophy, 21(1), 15–33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Facione, P. A. (1990). The Delphi report: Committee on pre-college philosophy. Millbrae, CA: California Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Facione, P. A., Facione, N. C., Blohm, S. W., & Giancarlo, C. A. (2002). The California critical thinking skills test: CCTST. Form A, form B, and form 2000. Test manual, 2002 updated edition. Millbrae, CA: Insight Assessment.

    Google Scholar 

  • Feeg, R. (1988). Forum of the future of pediatric nursing: Looking toward the 21st century. Pediatric Nursing, 14, 393–396.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fischer, K. W. (1980). A theory of cognitive development: The control and construction of hierarchies of skills. Psychological Review, 87, 477.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fischer, K. W., & Bidell, T. R. (2006). Dynamic development of action, thought, and emotion. In W. Damon & R. M. Lerner (Eds.), Handbook of child psychology: Theoretical models of human development (6th ed., Vol. 1, pp. 313–399). New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Flavell, J. (1976). Metacognitive aspects of problem solving. In L. Resnick (Ed.), The nature of intelligence (pp. 231–236). Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gagne, R. M. (1985). Conditions of learning (2nd ed.). New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.

    Google Scholar 

  • Glaser, E. M. (1941). An experiment in the development of critical thinking. New York: Teachers College of Columbia University, Bureau of Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hake, R. (1998). Interactive-engagement vs. traditional methods: A six-thousand student survey of mechanics test data for introductory physics courses. American Journal of Physics, 66(1), 64–74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Halpern, D. F. (2003). Thought & knowledge: An introduction to critical thinking (4th ed.). New Jersey: Laurence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Halpern, D. F. (2006). Is intelligence critical thinking? Why we need a new definition of intelligence. In P. C. Kyllonen, R. D. Roberts, & L. Stankov (Eds.), Extending intelligence: Enhancement and new constructs, 293–310. New York: Taylor & Francis Group.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harney, O., Hogan, M. J., & Broome, B. J. (2012). Collaborative learning: The effects of trust and open and closed dynamics on consensus and efficacy. Social Psychology of Education, 15(4), 517–532.

  • Higher Education Quality Council. (1996). What are graduates? Clarifying the attributes of “graduateness”. London: HEQC.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hogan, M. J. (2006). Against didacticism: A psychologist’s view. Educational Research and Reviews, 1(7), 206–212.

  • Hogan, M. J., Dwyer, C. P., Harney, O. M., Noone, C., & Conway, R. J. (2014). Metacognitive skill development and applied systems science: A framework of metacognitive skills, self-regulatory functions and real-world applications. In Metacognition: Fundaments, applications, and trends. Berlin: Springer.

  • Huffman, K., Vernoy, M., Williams, B., & Vernoy, J. (1991). Psychology in action. New York: John Wiley and Sons.

    Google Scholar 

  • Huitt, W. (2011). Bloom et al.’s taxonomy of the cognitive domain. Educational Psychology Interactive. Valdosta, GA: Valdosta State University. Retrieved 08/08/2011, from http://www.edpsycinteractive.org/topics/cognition/bloom.html.

  • Hwang, G. J., Shi, Y. R., & Chu, H. C. (2011). A concept map approach to developing collaborative mindtools for context-aware ubiquitous learning. British Journal of Educational Technology, 42(5), 778–789.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jukes, I., & McCain, T. (2002). Minds in play: Computer game design as a context of children’s learning. New Jersey: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Keever, D. B. (1989). Cultural complexities in the participative design of a computer-based organization information system. Paper presented at the International Conference on Support, Society and Culture: Mutual Uses of Cybernetics and Science, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, April.

  • Kemeny, J. (1980). Saving American democracy: The lesson of three mile Island. Technology Review, 83(7), 64–75.

    Google Scholar 

  • King, P. M., & Kitchener, K. S. (1994). Developing reflective judgment: Understanding and promoting intellectual growth and critical thinking in adolescents and adults. San Francisco: Jossey Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kirschner, P. A., Sweller, J., & Clark, R. E. (2006). Why minimal guidance during instruction does not work: An analysis of the failure of constructivist, discovery, problem-based, experiential, and inquiry-based teaching. Educational Psychologist, 41(2), 75–86.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ku, K. Y. L. (2009). Assessing students’ critical thinking performance: Urging for measurements using multi-response format. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 4(1), 70–76.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ku, K. Y. L., & Ho, I. T. (2010). Dispositional factors predicting Chinese students’ critical thinking performance. Personality and Individual Differences, 48, 54–58.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kuhn, D. (1999). A developmental model of critical thinking. Educational Researcher, 28(2), 16–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lloyd, M., & Bahr, N. (2010). Thinking critically about critical thinking in higher education. International Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 4(2), 1–5.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mayer, R. E. (2004). Should there be a three-strikes rule against pure discovery learning? The case for guided methods of instruction. American Psychologist, 59(1), 14–19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meyer, B. J. F., Brandt, D. M., & Bluth, G. J. (1980). Use of top-level structure in text: Key for reading comprehension of ninth-grade students. Reading Research Quarterly, 16(1), 72–103.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miller, G. A. (1956). The magical number seven, plus or minus two: Some limits on our capacity for processing information. Psychology Review, 63, 81–97.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moseley, D., Baumfield, V., Elliot, J., Gregson, M., Higgins, S., Miller, J., et al. (2005). Frameworks for thinking: A handbook for teaching and learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Paul, R. (1993). Critical thinking: What every person needs to survive in a rapidly changing world. Rohnert Park, CA: Foundation for Critical Thinking.

    Google Scholar 

  • Perkins, D. N., & Ritchhart, R. (2004). When is good thinking? In D. Y. Dai & R. J. Sternberg (Eds.), Motivation, emotion, and cognition: Integrative perspectives on intellectual functioning and development (pp. 351–384). Mawah, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Redish, E., Saul, J., & Steinberg, R. (1997). On the effectiveness of active-engagement microcomputer-based laboratories. American Journal of Physics, 65(1), 45.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reed, J. H., & Kromrey, J. D. (2001). Teaching critical thinking in a community college history course: Empirical evidence from infusing Paul’s model. College Student Journal, 35(2), 201–215.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rimiene, V. (2002). Assessing and developing students’ critical thinking. Psychology Learning and Teaching, 2(1), 17–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rittel, H., & Webber, M. (1974). Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. DMG-DRS Journal, 8, 31–39.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rogoff, B. (1998). Cognition as a collaborative process. In W. Damon (Ed.), Handbook of child psychology: Volume 2: Cognition, perception and language (pp. 679–744). New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roth, W. M., & Roychoudhury, A. (1994). Science discourse through collaborative concept mapping: New perspectives for the teacher. International Journal of Science Education, 16, 437–455.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sato, T. (1979). Determination of hierarchical networks of instructional units using the ISM method. Educational Technology Research, 3, 67–75.

    Google Scholar 

  • Simon, H. A. (1960). The new science of management decisions. New York: Harper & Row.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Solon, T. (2007). Generic critical thinking infusion and course content learning in introductory psychology. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 34(2), 95–109.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sweller, J. (1999). Instructional design in technical areas. Australian Education Review No. 43. Victoria: Acer Press.

  • University of Western Australia (2007). ACE and NSSE. Retrieved August 28, 2010, from http://www.catl.uwa.edu.au/CATLyst/archive/2007/1/ace_and_nsse.

  • Valenzuela, J., Nieto, A. M., & Saiz, C. (2011). Critical thinking motivational scale: A contribution to the study of relationship between critical thinking and motivation. Journal of Research in Educational Psychology, 9(2), 823–848.

    Google Scholar 

  • van Eemeren, F. H., Grootendorst, R., Henkemans, F. S., Blair, J. A., Johnson, R. H., Krabbe, E. C. W., et al. (1996). Fundamentals of argumentation theory: A handbook of historical backgrounds and contemporary developments. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • van Gelder, T.J. (2000). Learning to reason: A Reason!Able approach. In C. Davis, T. J. van Gelder & R. Wales (Eds.), Cognitive Science in Australia, 2000: Proceedings of the Fifth Australasian Cognitive Science Society Conference. Adelaide: Causal.

  • van Gelder, T. J. (2001). How to improve critical thinking using educational technology. In G. Kennedy, M. Keppell, C. McNaught & T. Petrovic (Eds.), Meeting at the Crossroads: Proceedings of the 18th Annual Conference of the Australian Society for Computers in Learning in Tertiary Education (pp. 539–548). Melbourne: Biomedical Multimedia Unit, University of Melbourne.

  • Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Warfield, J. N. (1994). A science of generic design: Managing complexity through systems design (2nd ed.). Salinas, CA: Intersystems.

    Google Scholar 

  • Warfield, J. N., & Cardenas, A. R. (1994). A handbook of interactive management (2nd ed.). Ames, IA: The Iowa State University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wood, D. J., Bruner, J. S., & Ross, G. (1976). The role of tutoring in problem solving. Journal of Child Psychiatry and Psychology, 17(2), 89–100.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wood, P., Kitchener, K., & Jensen, L. (2002). Considerations in the design and evaluation of a paper-and-pencil measure of epistemic cognition. Personal epistemology: The psychology of beliefs about knowledge and knowing, 1, 277–294.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Psychology, NUI, Galway, Ireland

    Christopher P. Dwyer, Michael J. Hogan & Owen M. Harney

  2. University of Limerick, Limerick, Ireland

    John O’Reilly

Authors
  1. Christopher P. Dwyer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Michael J. Hogan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Owen M. Harney
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. John O’Reilly
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Michael J. Hogan.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Dwyer, C.P., Hogan, M.J., Harney, O.M. et al. Using interactive management to facilitate a student-centred conceptualisation of critical thinking: a case study. Education Tech Research Dev 62, 687–709 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-014-9360-7

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-014-9360-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation