Description

The objective of this stage was to choose a sample of 12-15 students who displayed “good” CT to be later interviewed in Phase II, and to ensure diversity among those chosen students.

Although there is a plethora of standardized26 critical thinking tests I have decided to forego these in my research. As expected, many researchers have identified the weaknesses and limitations of quantitative measures used to assess CT skill and correlate it with various factors (Berger, 1985; Helmstadter, 1985; Modjeski & Michael, 1983 – all cited in Tsui, 2000), including the fact that such standardized tests examine students’ CT unnaturally outside the usual classroom or application context. Even tests which involve writing or interviews examine a students' CT out of context, and in a moment in time. Instead, I have opted to select my sample of "critical thinkers" from a group of students I have had in-depth semester-long interaction with.

The reason I have chosen to take a sample of “good” critical thinkers, is that those are the students who have “succeeded” so to speak, and understanding which factors have influenced them should help us increase opportunities for others to become critical thinkers by exposing them to similar factors, where possible. For example, if a particular method of teaching seems to be helpful, then AUC should help more teachers develop the skill to use it. Also, critical thinkers are more likely to display some level of meta-cognition (widely considered a CT skill) and so are more likely to able to reflect on the factors that have affected them than others who do not have this ability. I will look specifically in their online discussion postings for evidence of this ability. There are multiple justifications behind the rationale of finding critical thinkers through their online discussions: It shows CT in an authentic situation, as opposed to e.g. a standardized test or

26

The National Center for Education Statistics (NCES 2000) has produced a handbook reviewing and comparing different methods of measuring CT (e.g. various standardized multiple choice and writing tests). These include multiple choice tests (e.g. Watson Glazer California CT Skills Test, Cornell CT Test), as well as essay tests (e.g. ETS Tasks in CT, and

Measure of Intellectual Development). There are also interview-based assessments (e.g King's Reflective Judgment

a think-aloud interview, since CT was a requirement of the online discussion assignment or take- home exam. The extended reflection time allows students time and space to think more deeply than an in-class discussion, as well as opportunity for supporting their views with further research. Moreover, it equalizes opportunities for students less confident or less eloquent in a face-to-face situation, as they cannot be interrupted by others online and have more time to reflect

(McConnell, 2002). Writing also gives insight into the “thought process”, not just the output. Finally, the online discussion medium allowed for interaction with other students and with the teacher and TA over an extended period of time. Interaction is assumed to heighten CT ability and the extended reflection time can also be expected to give opportunities for CT to show.

From a methodological standpoint, online discussions are pre-recorded evidence that I can reflect on and analyze after the fact, as opposed to observations that may not be recorded and when recorded are difficult to organize and categorize.

Despite these advantages, I recognize that the “equalizing” aspect of highlighting critical thinkers who may be too shy to speak up in class, may also end up favouring those who possess better writing skills versus others who are stronger orally. To counteract this effect, I included my judgment of these students’ in-class discussions as well.

“Scientific Thinking” was an ideal choice because I had rich, in-depth knowledge of these students as their TA, and observing a person over a long period of time gives the observer a chance to judge their CT in action (Facione, 1990). This interaction gave me a more holistic view of each student beyond just their online discussion; I had also already collected demographic information the semester I taught these students, which helped me select a diverse group to interview. The course claims to aid in the development of CT – and the particular assignments I looked at have some aspects of CT as their aim – therefore it was expected to find CT in the coursework. Topics included online discussion of whether scientists are responsible for whether their discoveries are used for moral/ethical purposes (e.g. the atom bomb); and whether or not they would vote for stem cell research had they been in the US, given the ethical controversy over whether embryonic stem cells constitute a human life. Since the course is required, students come from a variety of disciplines, giving me access to a diverse student body from which to choose. Since the majority of students were in their first two years at AUC, this was ideal because their

online discussion postings would show their potential CT ability in their early years, but by the time I interviewed them, they had accumulated more experiences within the university and become exposed to more factors that have the potential of improving their CT.

Finally, these online discussions had previously been marked by the course instructor and myself, often collaboratively, for grading purposes and further analyzed for critical thinking for conference presentations on CT in online discussions27. They were analyzed using Perry's Model of Intellectual Development and Wolcott and Lynch's model (mentioned in chapter two). So it is not my

judgment alone on these students’ CT, but a sort of informal inter-rater reliability. In order to get a diverse sample of students, I looked for diversity in:

1. Discipline: this is because, as Donald (2002) shows, and as common sense would imply, different disciplines emphasize different cognitive skills and are taught in different ways. It would be worthwhile to see how these different ways have influenced the development of CT (and also whether CT seems to be discipline-specific as argued by some scholars, chapter two). I cannot get students from every single discipline, so I have grouped some disciplines together. I chose to use Donald’s (2002) matrix of pure/applied and hard/soft28 disciplines; these almost fit neatly into AUC's split of academic schools at the time. The target was to take roughly equal numbers of students from each group (see table 4.3 for the final split):

a. Sciences and Engineering (includes natural sciences, mathematics, computer science and three kinds of engineering29 representing the “hard” disciplines);

b. Humanities and Social Sciences (includes English Literature, some Arts, Political Science, Psychology, Sociology, etc.) representing the “soft”/”pure” disciplines; c. Business, Economics and Communication (includes Management, Accounting,

Economics and Journalism); representing the “soft”/”applied” disciplines

27

I do not cite these presentations/papers here to preserve the anonymity of my co-author, since she has also been interviewed in the thesis. Besides, I didn't use the actual conference presentations to find my students, but the background analysis we conducted together, which is not published.

28

According to this division, Physics and Engineering are “hard”, but Engineering is applied while Physics is pure; similarly, Psychology and Education are “soft” but Education is applied and Psychology is pure-applied; Humanities are soft and pure.

29

Since my interviews have been done, AUC has added more disciplines including several branches of engineering, but of course none of those were students I could possibly interview at the time.

2. By gender, since some critique CT for emphasizing the “male” notion of “good thinking” but not the more female ways of thinking such as “connected knowing” and creativity (e.g. Clinchy, 1994)

3. By high school background – since this is an influence on anyone’s education, and students who have come in from privileged educational and socio-economic backgrounds have more potential to benefit from university (Sen, cited in Walker 2006). Also, anecdotal evidence from AUC faculty suggests that students from specific high schools display more confidence and better CT (British, American and German) than those from Egyptian high schools (the degree called Thanaweyya Amma). It is important to note, however, that there will still be variations among different schools, despite the misleading unified “high school type”. So within Egypt, there are variations among quality in British/American schools, and not all students have had their education in Egypt, or indeed “all” of their education in any one school or setting.

4. I also interviewed students of different religions. I thought it might be possible that one's attitude towards one's religion can affect criticality. Also, it is possible that criticality is

affected by whether one belongs to a minority or majority group in a country. Among students interviewed, 4/13 were Christian, 3 of whom are Coptic Christian, and one Protestant. I

actually did not know the religion of all students previously as not all of them have clear Christian names or wear a cross, but had intended to provide this diversity.

Although I had collected demographic information on students’ high school degrees and, some AUC students often change disciplines before graduation, sometimes making large leaps like changing from engineering to economics, so I was ready to filter again if certain categories become “lacking” after the interviews.

I initially chose 4-5 students from each disciplinary category, and aimed for diverse gender and high school background within each group.

Of course, I did not aim for exactly “representative” samples since this is a very small sample to make generalizations from, and generalizations across differences are not my primary aim as an interpretive researcher. However, I believe the diversity is needed in order to gain sufficient insight into different student experiences.