This presentation explores critical thinking (CT) and its assessment. Some CT research has identified problem-solving methods, including deductive reasoning, as essential in creating CT assessments. However, when discussing CT in classrooms, other researchers have emphasized the individual nature of CT and focused on learner dispositions, such as open-mindedness. Emily Lai's (2011) scoping review of CT studies synthesized a definition of CT as "analyzing arguments, making inferences using inductive or deductive reasoning, judging or evaluating, and making decisions or solving problems" (p. 2). Although Lai's definition is useful, it is also quite broad which can make it challenging to apply in local contexts. This ambiguity in terms and approaches is often cited by teachers as a roadblock to designing CT lessons and assessments (Shively et al., 2018).
This presentation draws on a range of academic texts to illustrate various facets of CT. For example, what does CT look like? According to Facione, Facione, and Sanchez (1994) CT involves not just problem-solving but also evaluation and decision-making. How can CT be improved? Some researchers highlight the importance of metacognitive processes in CT, such as monitoring and self-regulation (Halpern & Nummedal, 1995). Further still, some researchers focus on the significance of CT dispositions, such as being truth-seeking and open-minded.
To contextualize this issue in local terms, attendees will be provided prominent definitions of CT from educational, philosophical, and cognitive science perspectives to discuss. The teaching and assessment of CT will be described from three different aspects, including what students are asked to do (e.g., recognizing biases), the features of task completion (e.g., completing a table), and the purpose of the assessment (e.g., analyzing argument structures).
Overall, this presentation highlights the complexity of CT and its assessment, drawing on a range of definitions and approaches from various fields. It closes with a discussion of practical suggestions for designing CT assessments that are authentic and engaging, and that address the different aspects of CT, including problem-solving, evaluation, decision-making, and dispositions.
References:
Facione, N. C., Facione, P. A., & Sanchez, C. A. (1994). Critical thinking disposition as a measure of competent clinical judgment: The development of the California Critical Thinking Disposition Inventory. Journal of Nursing Education, 33(8), 345-350. https://doi.org/10.3928/0148-4834-19941001-05
Halpern, D. F., & Nummedal, S. G. (1995). Closing thoughts about helping students improve how they think. Teaching of Psychology, 22(1), 82-83. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15328023top2201_24
Lai, E. R. (2011). Critical thinking: A literature review. Pearson's Research Reports, 6, 1-49.
Shively, K., Stith, K. M., & Rubenstein, L. D. (2018). Measuring what matters: Assessing creativity, critical thinking, and the design process. Gifted Child Today, 41(3), 149-158. https://doi.org/10.1177/1076217518768361
Dennis Koyama, Ph.D., is an associate professor of rhetoric and data science in the Faculty of Liberal Arts at Sophia University, Japan. His research interests include learning transfer, collaborative learning, critical thinking, L2 writing, and professional development. His research has appeared in Language Testing, Language Assessment Quarterly, Language Learning & Technology, Journal of Second Language Writing, Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching, Studies in Self-Access Learning, Teaching in Higher Education, among other publishing venues.
We will take a short break midway through the event.
This is an online event hosted by Gunma JALT. See below for access information.
