Promotion of critical thinking through intervention in a didactic unit

The research that is presented attempts to complement other experiences made about critical thinking in the educational field.

Although critical thinking has been one of the most important educational goals of the last century (Dewey, 1910; Educational Policy Commission, 1961), there are still many demands made for the increase of this type of thinking in schools and schools institutes, and few interventions carried out.

We invite you to continue reading this Psychology Line article about the Promotion of critical thinking through intervention in a didactic unit about the technique of sighing information in compulsory secondary education students in Social Sciences.

1. Theoretical framework
2. What is exactly understood by critical thinking?
3. Conceptual approach
4. Method
5. Materials
6. Procedure
7. Data design and analysis
8. Discussion

Theoretical framework

Given the characteristics of today's society, the need to intervene quickly and effectively in the acquisition of Thought and processes skills (PITCHERS, 2000; Terenzini et al., nineteen ninety five; Khun, 1991; Santos Rego, 1991; Resnick and Klopfer, 1989; Costa, 1989; Naisbitt, 1982; Peters and Waterman, 1982; Toffler, 1980) necessary to recover, organize and use information (Marzano and Arredondo, 1986).

The explosion of information to which people are submitted is one of the most important reasons that authors such as Beltrán (1996) and Halpern (1998) have determined. The great advances offer to achieve large amounts of information and any kind, in a very short time, which makes it possible to fall into passive acceptance, without asking for meaning, or deepening the subject. And that is what research shows what is happening.

Muñoz et al (2000) found that 90 % of the students of E.S.EITHER. They did not use critical thinking Neither at school nor in your daily life.

In the United States, there are facts that scare the practice of critical thinking in schools. Lister (1992) determined that 78 % of women and 70 % of men read the horoscope believing that it has been written for them. Kennedy et al. (1991) determined that the interest in the teaching of the PC has come due to the evidence that American students do not develop the ability to think, in specific aspects such as the assessment of items that require explanation of criteria, text analysis or the defense of the defense of A judgment or a point of view. Paul (1990) determines that it is important that the PC field extends to all disciplines and that progressively increases over the years. Only in this way the results will be socially important. MESSER and GRIGGS (1989) argued that 99% of students believe in things that cannot be verified such as ghosts, telepathy, the Bermuda triangle ..

The State Education Commission (1982), Baron and Sternberg, (1987), and Steen (1987) reached the same conclusion: the percentage of students who encourage their superior thinking skills is decreasing ".

The National Assassage of Educational Progress (1981) reported that "few students could give more than a superficial response in the tasks and that the best answers showed small evidence of the development of PC strategies and problem solving,".

The National Commission on Excellence in Education stressed that "some seventeen -year -old students did not possess the expected higher order skills".

As could be observed, studies that conclude that Most students do not have adequate thinking and learning skills, which further justifies the realization of investigations that promote this skill.

Therefore, it is demonstrated (Siegel 1990) that the interest in the PC has emerged for several reasons: the lack of higher order thinking skills between students and the need for them to be able to think critically when it is found that the world Modern demands and participating completely in democratic life.

The best education for the 21st century must be based on the learning of critical thinking, think critically, think autonomously. According to Young (1980), if teachers use appropriate curricular methods and materials, students will increase their PC skills. This idea had already been determined in 1954 by Dressel and Mayhew, since they identified five PC skills and led an investigation that showed how the school curriculum and strategies could be developed to increase the PC. Feldman and Newcomb, they also talked about this topic.

What is exactly understood by critical thinking?

¿What are the aspects that characterize a person who thinks critically?

Critical thinking has been defined by multiple authors Dressel and Mayhew (1954), McPck (1981), Beyer (1985), Lipman (1985), Nickerson (1987), Wade and Tavris (1987), Chagee (1988), Kurfiss ( 1988), Hudgins (1989), Siegel (1989), Paul (1990), Stratton (1999), but the most consolidated definition, and the adopted, is that made by Ennis (1985), in which critical thinking is conceived Like rational, reflective thinking about what to do or believe. It is admitted that there are ambiguities in this definition but it is the one that has the least inaccuracies and includes the most important aspects of the term, so it is the most accepted.

Critical thinking is the type of thought that is characterized by handling, mastering ideas. Their main function is not to generate ideas but to review them, evaluate them and review what is understood, processed, communicates through other types of thought (verbal, mathematician, logical ...). Very clarifying is the analogy that Stratton (1999) uses between critical thinking and the data processor system used in libraries. Libraries are a set of book ideas, magazines, ... organized through a computer processing system. He does not have its own ideas but organizes and directs the ideas contained in the books, magazines, ... similarly critical thinking directs the ideas of other types of thought through the review, evaluation and review of these.

Critical thinking is formed both of skills and provisions, as authors such as Ennis (1986), Halone (1986), and Halpern (1989), among others have demonstrated, among others.

If it deepens even more, it can be said that A person who thinks critically is the one who, According to Paul (1992) has:

• Mental independence: possess provisions and commitments to think autonomously, to think about oneself.
• Intellectual curiosity: Have a willingness to understand the world.
• Intellectual courage: Be aware of the need to direct ideas, beliefs, views, ... through which we have a strong negative emotion.
• Intellectual humility: Know the limits of our own knowledge.
• Intellectual empathy: Be aware of the need to imagine, to put them in place to understand them.
• Intellectual integrity: Recognize the need for truth in moral and intellectual norms implicit in our behavior judgments or in points of view of others.
• Intellectual perseverance: have a good disposition and awareness of the need for truth and an intellectual purpose despite the difficulties, obstacles and frustrations.
• Has Faith in reason: an increase in people in the adoption of their own conclusions through the development of their rational faculties, the reasonable description of conclusions, to think coherent and logically, persuade others through reasons and become reasonable people despite the deep obstacles of the characteristics of the human mind in relation to what we know.
• Acts precisely: have a good predisposition and awareness of the need to deal with all unlikely points of view. It is the ability to reason without having reference of their own feeling or interests, or feelings or interests of friends, community or nation. Implies adherence to intellectual norms without reference to our own progress or the progress of the group.

One described both the definition and the characteristics described, it is necessary to determine how this type of thought has been understood in this research, that is, what is the position it occupies and what is the approach adopted.

Conceptual approach

One described both the definition and the characteristics described, it is necessary determine how this type of thought has been understood In this investigation, that is, what is the position it occupies and what is the approach adopted.

For the realization of the most innovative intervention program, the classification of learning strategies carried out by Beltrán (1996), which conceives critical thinking as a learning strategy that is part of the personalization processes, together with the creative thinking and transfer, among others.

Critical thinking, Like any learning strategy, it develops through a series of techniques. In this case, the selected ones have been four: detection of biased information, socratic discussion, controversy and experience analysis.

To develop these techniques, the Beltrán Strategy Instruction Model (1996) has been taken as a reference. This model (didactic unit or type lesson) is based on the ideas of theorists such as Anderson, Bloom, Beyer, Carroll, Vygotsky, Palincsar and Brown, Rosenshine and Zimmerman and Shunk, among others.

It has a mainly constructivist basis, since it tries that through induction to imbalance and cognitive conflict in learning the accommodation occurs (Edelstein, 1992).

It has the following structure: INTRODUCTION-PLACING (objectives and metaphor), teaching (Explanation of the strategy through the three types of knowledge), Modeling, practice, summary, transfer and evaluation (See Annex).

That is, the teacher introduces the ability: it defines or asks the students to define it, the purpose of learning is offered and focuses on the lesson. This helps students have a mental set to perform skill (Beyer, 1991). The teacher explains the procedure and rules or standards in which the ability consists. Then demonstrates how the skill is used and applied, so that students practice the ability, reflect and evaluate what occurs when it is done and the path they have used. Finally, try to review the skill and try to do it in other situations, transfer it to other contexts (Nisbett 1990). A very important aspect to highlight is that the student is the protagonist and the teacher is a mediator, learning facilitator. It is tried that the student be active, to participate in their own learning.

This strategy allows students: to know their own thinking better, increase the type of conscious control of the ability taught, crucial for learning thinking skills (Beriter, 1984; Sternberg, 1984; Segal and Chipman, 1984, Broen et al , 1981).

Comment that the scheme followed to develop the didactic unit is also based on the evolution or development that according to Fogarty (1993) follow the thinking skills (acquisition of skills, give meanings, application and transfer).

Of the four elaborated didactic units, one for each of the techniques above, only one of them has been implemented, the detection of biased information.

Before going to comment on the approximation that has been adopted, it has been believed to highlight a series of aspects on which the intervention program (more innovative) carried out is based:

• The use of various types of information sources, whether historical texts, advertisements, hobbies ... that imply that the skill is used in contexts in which the subjects move.
• That the teaching model is direct or managerial and inductive, (Beyer, 1990), as described, in the explanation of the teaching model, previously. The use of both teaching models prevents monotony in learning, the best adaptation of the contents, ... pointing out that although the teaching model is manager, this does not imply, much less, that the protagonist and the only actor of the learning.
• An extremely detailed action plan is offered, a practical guide (Hudgins, 1977), to avoid saying only to the subject ¡Act!.
• Both provisions and critical thinking skills have been taken into account.
• Cooperative learning strategies have been used given the great benefits they offer: great retention of the topic discussed, increased attitudes through learning, increased opportunities for higher order information processing and increased interpersonal relationships between group members ( Johnson and Johnson, 1986).

Regarding the approach or approach adopted for the teaching of critical thinking to comment that is the so -called mixed. That is, the combination of general dispositions and skills together with specific experiences and knowledge within an area of ​​interest (in this case social sciences) in the institute. It is necessary to make a small clarification. The mixed approach, as has been said above, includes both the general approach, where there are general skills or principles of critical thinking, as well as the specific approach in which there are two sub -opposition, the infusion and immersion. Of which in this investigation the sub -opposition of infusion has been adopted, since the teaching of standard issues and the inclusion of general principles has been incorporated.

Authors such as Brell, Ennis, Sternberg, Nickerson and Perkins and Salomon, defend this type of approximation.

The subject selected to develop the intervention program, as mentioned has been the social sciences. This discipline has been selected because it is considered to be one of the best to develop critical thinking, because it belongs to the curriculum, and because it develops in the classes in which this program has been developed.

In addition, according to Tulchin (1987) this subject does, it facilitates students to use critical thinking tools and methods to evaluate evidence, detect inconsistencies and incompatibilities, draw valid conclusions, build hypotheses and realize both the possibilities of opinions and made when studying this subject, and specifically the topics selected for the intervention program.

There are many authors who defend that critical thinking must be developed in this subject, highlight: LECOP, (2000), Pitchers (2000), Craver (1999), Beltrán (1996), Bitner (1991), Santos Rego (1991), McPck (1990), Tulchin (1987), Strom and Parsons (1982),

It is also important to explain that given the important relationship between learning to think and learning the use of content, it is necessary that critical thinking be taught in teaching a discipline of knowledge, in this case the social sciences (Pitchers, 2000 ). In other words, the teaching of critical thinking should be considered as a fundamental part of the curriculum and therefore must be framed within the main flow of instruction (Swartz, 1991).

Once the need to intervene in critical thinking, having described the conception and approximation that has been adopted from said learning strategy has been justified, determined the characteristics of the intervention program (more innovative) and justified the selected subject, it is necessary to specify that the objective General of this research is to determine whether the intervention program carried out in the technique of detection of biased information in the subject of Social Sciences, has increased critical thinking in students (of the experimental group) of compulsory secondary education.

In this way, you can:

• Determine the student level In critical thinking before and after the intervention. And therefore of improvement, if there is.
• Determine The effectiveness of the intervention program of the biased information detection technique.
• Inform the Educational Institution (institute) of the level that their students possess in said ability.
• Raise awareness among educational institutions of the importance of promoting critical thinking in students for their daily lives.

But you can go further. That is to say, ¿What is important and this research?, The most important thing is what students will be able to do if they acquire critical thinking ability both in school and their daily lives. ¿What would that imply?, ¿What would students be able to do if they are taught to think critically?. The possibilities are very numerous both inside and outside the school institution. Some of the most important situations according to Stratton (1999) are the following:

• In those that affect general life students will be able to

Being inquisitive when considering a wide set of problems, they will try to be well informed, they will be alert to opportunities to think critically, they will trust the reasoned research processes, they will have mental openness to consider different points of view, they will be flexible in consideration Of alternatives and opinions, they will understand the opinions of others, they will deepen the reasons and conclusions, they will be honest with their own biases, prejudices, stereotypes, socio -centric and egocentric trends, they will be prudent when suspending, performing or altering judgments, they will have good predisposition To reconsider and review views where honest reflection suggests a change, mainly.

• In those that affect specific issues, issues or problems

Students will be able to clarify a specific issue or matter, to order complicated work, to perform the steps to carry out an important information search, to be reasonable in the selection and application of criteria, to focus attention on the matter To treat. And to be persistent in the difficulties found, among other aspects.

In this way the main hypothesisresearch is as follows: ¿The intervention program is effective?, In other words.

In this way you can see if the students of the experimental group are better critical thinkers than those of the control group.

Method

Sample.

The sample is formed by 28 students (Of which 15 are women and 13 are men), 11 form the experimental group and 17 the control, belonging to the first course of the E.S.EITHER. of a Compulsory Secondary Education Institute of the Autonomous Community of Madrid.

Age, and socioeconomic level have been considered as controlled variables, since it is similar in all subjects of the sample.

This school stage has been selected because it is believed that the ability of critical thinking can be developed more effectively given the level of development of students as McPck (1992) states. Like McPck, Presseisen (1991), he defends that in adolescence there is an increase in cognitive abilities and the opportunity for a more complex change of thinking is given, which makes the development of the ability of critical thought.

Authors such as King and Kitchener, (1994), King, Kitchener, Davison, Parker and Wood, (1983), and Kitchener and King (1981), among others, affirm that at that age the ability to weigh and evaluate and evaluate The competence of arguments or rules according to rules of evidence or general principles of questions, hence the importance of intervention at this age.

There are several studies that have demonstrated the effectiveness of critical thinking in high school students. They highlight those made by Lawson (1993), Shayer and Adey (1992) and Baker and Piburn (1990), among others.

Materials

Two have been the measuring instruments used. Both questionnaires have similar characteristics. That is, its structure is similar, and is constituted by two parts: the first is composed of ten multiple choice questions, the second part is formed by a series of open questions where the subject is encouraged to justify each of the answers given. The open questions depart, have as reference, two texts belonging to primary sources of history, that is, are texts extracted from works by historians, and not of social science textbooks, since the effectiveness of the use of sources is demonstrated Primary for the teaching of critical thinking (Craver, 1999).

The first questionnaire has been used to know The level that students possess, both of the experimental group and control, in the biased information detection technique before the intervention program. Is considered as pretest.

On the other hand it is The second questionnaire used after intervention programs. It goes to both the experimental group and the control group to see if there are significant differences between the groups and if these have been caused by the intervention program. This second questionnaire is called postest.

Two different questionnaires have been used because according to Ennis (1993) it is the most recommended, since if the same questionnaire is used before and after the intervention program, learning of the questions and the results may occur are not entirely reliable.

This author also determines that it would be advisable not to use two forms or approaches of the same questionnaire. In this investigation it can be seen that the questionnaires are very similar, but if deepened in both it can be seen that the similarity is mainly structural, since the multiple choice questions are different (they focus on aspects other than the biased information technique) And open questions deal with different texts, and although the use of the same skills are incited, their demand is different.

Regarding the validity of these questionnaires, commenting that according to Cronbach, the first questionnaire has a validity of 0.59, and the second 0.67 questionnaire. Taking into account the characteristics of both questionnaires, it is normal for this type of validity to come out, so it can be determined that the validity of both is medium-high.

When making the measuring instruments, evaluation are several considerations that have been taken into account:

• It has been tried that the vocabulary used is easy and accessible to students to ensure that understanding is complete. The second person of the singular has also been used so that the questionnaires are accessible and direct to students, more personal.
• The topics that have been selected to develop the measuring instruments are characterized by being socially important for students, which makes them much more motivated when learning the technique and that these knowledge are retained for much longer and more depth (Muñoz et al, 2000; Tulchin, 1987).
• As previously determined, the questions are both multiple and development or open, to encourage the justification of the answers and reflection of the same. The use of justified open questions offers the opportunity to evaluate the provisions and organize the skills and provisions of PC that support complex problems. The use of multiple options questions gives prove the knowledge of the criteria and their application in certain contexts (Norris, 1989; Ennis, 1990).
• Multiple choice questions are self -contained, that is, no more information is requested than the questionnaires offer.
• The degree or structure level of the questionnaires is high if the classification carried out by Ennis (1993) is followed, that is, argumentative texts are offered with a number of ambiguities or biases. Students are asked that the values, the existing positions are described, reflect on their intention, try to see if they are able to apply, transfer, ..

Procedure

Five were the sessions used, one to carry out the first questionnaire (pretest), three to develop the intervention programs, and another to carry out the second measurement instrument (Posttest).

The duration of the pretest and postest sessions, and each of the intervention program was About an hour. For the realization of the questionnaires, no time was set.

The questionnaires were individually made by students. Since some questions presented problems of understanding, it was decided to read as a question and making the occasional explanation for the next one answered individually.

For the development of the most innovative intervention program, it was divided into three parts (since there were three sessions). In the first one the strategy and technique to be developed, the objectives, the metaphor and the drawing of the differences to motivate and describe the technique in question was carried out. Comment that both the drawing that represents the metaphor (balance) and the drawing of the differences were exposed on the board through posters. In the second session, what was done in the first. In the third and last session another practice was carried out, the transfer and a summary.

The use of posters has been made on the recommendation of O'Reilly (1990), since according to this author helps the memory and is more easily motivated.

Data design and analysis

As can be deduced throughout the text, two groups of students have been used. The intervention program described above has passed to the experimental group. The control group has been spent a traditional intervention program.

Both groups have happened A pretest and a postest.

For data analysis it is necessary to highlight that in the questionnaires the maximum score that could be obtained was a ten. Each question was valued with half a point if the answer was correct, and zero if it was incorrect. There are questions that are not incorrect at all, so they have scored twenty -five hundredths.

In order to obtain in the second part of the questionnaire (open questions) the results, the answers have been categorized. The categories are formed by all the answers, even if only some of them are the ones that have the greatest frequency.

Regarding data analysis, comment that there have been four necessary statistical analyzes. In all of them the statistical test of the Student T has been used, given the characteristics of the variables, of the sample, the number of groups, ..

In the first place it is necessary to check if there are significant differences between the groups before the intervention program.

In this case, the level of significance associated with T is 0.087. This value is greater than the pre -established alpha of 0.05, so it can be determined that the null hypothesis is accepted, that is, there are no significant differences between the groups before the intervention programs, in the pretest. That is, the groups are equivalent before the realization of the intervention programs.

Secondly, it is necessary to check if there are significant differences between the pretest and the posttest of the experimental group. A value of T has been obtained that have associated a level of significance of 0.22, less than the predetermined A (0.05). Therefore, the null hypothesis is rejected, so it can be determined that there are significant differences in the experimental group before and after the realization of the intervention program.

Regarding the analysis to determine if there are differences between the groups after the intervention program (in the Posttest), comment that the reasoning is similar to that performed above when checking if there were differences in the pretest. It has been found that, the level of significance, associated with Student T, obtained is 0.14, less than the predetermined A (0.05). Therefore, the null hypothesis is rejected. So it can be said that there are significant differences between the two groups after the realization of the intervention programs (to the experimental group).

Finally, comment that it has been proven If there are differences in the control group in the pretest and postest. In this case, the level of significance associated with the T is 0.55, greater than the predetermined A, so the null hypothesis should be rejected, and determine that there are no significant differences in the control group in the pretest and postest.

Discussion

From the data obtained, ¿What can be concluded?. ¿The most innovative intervention program has been effective?, ¿The differences found are due exclusively to the intervention program?.

In the first place it can be said that, according to the statistical analyzes performed there are significant differences both in the experimental group before and after the realization of the intervention program as in the two groups after the realization of the intervention program (Posttest). But, ¿It can be concluded that the intervention program has been effective?. In principle, since the groups before the intervention program were equivalent, and if after this program they are not, the change has probably been caused by the intervention program, since the rest of the variables have been controlled.

Possible limitations:

The first limitation can be the time used for the application of the intervention program. The results would be different if the program had been done throughout a quarter and not in two weeks. The deepening, management and transfer of ability in general and the technique developed in particular would be much greater and more depth (Beyer, 1991).

Also, it must be taken into account that the investigation cannot be considered as a single measure of the PC, it is necessary multiple measures to be able to triangular the results. That is why it is necessary to have caution with the results and interpretations.

As for the number of subjects, comment that a greater number of subjects would have been more recommended, and especially its application in the rest of the levels of mandatory secondary education for its subsequent generalization to the population to which the sample belongs.

In summary. It can be affirmed that there are significant differences between groups in the postest, and that these have been caused by the most innovative intervention program ..

It can be concluded that differences exist, and that these are greater than those reflected in the quantitative analysis. Therefore, it can be said that the intervention program carried out in the technique of detection of biased information in the subject of Social Sciences, has increased critical thinking in students of compulsory secondary education.

Second, to comment that, it has become demonstrated, both the need and the possibility of teaching critical thinking (in this case through biased information detection technique), as determined by Kosoven & Winne (1995) Nisbett ( 1993), Perkins & Grotzer (1997), Gadzella, Hartsoe and Harpen (1989), Young (1980), Logan (1976), Dressel and Mayhew (1954), among others.

Finally, commenting on the need to apply, to develop similar to the rest of the techniques they form, which encourage critical thinking, such as socratic discussion, experience analysis and controversy (always taking into account the limitations found).

In this way both teaching and learning the learning strategy in question will be more global, deeper, more effective. And there will also be another instrument to try to cover the great demand that exists of the teaching of critical thinking both and within educational institutions.

Finally, it is necessary to thank both the Duque de Rivas Institute for Compulsory Education and all those who have made it possible for this project to be carried out, its enormous and valuable collaboration. Thank you so much.

This article is merely informative, in psychology-online we have no power to make a diagnosis or recommend a treatment. We invite you to go to a psychologist to treat your particular case.

If you want to read more articles similar to Promotion of critical thinking through intervention in a didactic unit, We recommend that you enter our education category and study techniques.