Positioning This Study within CT Empirical Studies

The majority of empirical research into CT development is either correlational (e.g. Terenzini et al., 1995, Geilin's, 2003 meta-analysis), or case-study type reflecting on one practitioner’s particular experience in their own classroom (e.g. Ellozy & Mostafa, 2010; Harrell 2011), with little attention to institutional context (although the books by Fox, 1994 and Benesch, 1999 reflects on their personal practice with attention to context). However, in-depth understanding of how and why certain learning occurs in certain contexts entails exploration of meaning-making and is therefore best explored via interpretive approaches using qualitative methods, and Thelin (1976) advocates intensive case studies of institutions (cited in Tsui, 2000). Institutional research on CT using qualitative methods includes Tsui’s (1998) thesis which seemed particularly “holistic” since it involved four institutional case studies, and included interviews with faculty, students and administrators as well as classroom observations, and explored various factors influencing CT development including campus culture, faculty attitudes and pedagogical techniques. However, I have found her published research on instruction that fosters CT too shallow to be directly helpful to teachers; while appearing on the surface to be interpretive, Tsui's (2002) paper on pedagogical influences on CT actually shows many signs of positivistic influence (Felix, 2009), such as

observational data reported in quantitative rather than descriptive form, her quasi-experimental way of comparing results across institutions, and lack of depth in describing factors that influence CT (Felix, 2009). Another holistic study was by Donald (2002), who conducted twenty years of research about thinking in various disciplines and included observations and interviews with exemplary instructors and their students at various English-speaking universities around the world. Donald (2002) tackles thinking as a whole (CT being a subset) and emphasizes the different

cognitive processes, learning environments and pedagogical techniques inherent in different disciplines, and the potential effect of this on the development of different thinking skills for students. Donald's study employed several graduate students who became participant observers in undergraduate classes of various disciplines, and so was able to achieve a depth and breadth not possible for a PhD dissertation.

The literature on CT identifies several factors as potentially influencing CT or having correlations with it. Terenzini et al. (1995) divide these into three categories of curricular exposure, formal classroom/instructional experiences, and out-of-class experiences. What follows is a summary of the most commonly cited influences on CT (I do not claim this list to be exhaustive, however). Curricular exposure to CT can be either through direct instruction on informal logic and fallacies in CT courses (Paul, 1990;Ennis, 1989; Ennis, 1990; Ikuenobe, 2001), infusing CT concepts into regular courses (e.g. Ennis 1989 suggests a mixture of infusion and direct instruction), especially writing courses (e.g. Elbow, 1994; Paul, 1990; Benesch, 1999; Moon, 2005; Tsui, 2002), or

philosophy courses not necessarily entitled CT or "informal logic" (Nussbaum, 1997; Moon, 2005), or via immersion in the disciplines where CT is learned indirectly (e.g. McPeck, 1990 proposes immersion with infusion; Moore 2004). There are also those who suggest CT is best developed via a liberal arts curriculum (McPeck, 1990; Nussbaum, 1997; Facione, 1990), or general exposure to a variety of disciplines or interdisciplinary courses (Barnett, 1997). Further notions of developing CT within disciplines include explicit discussion/teaching of disciplinary epistemology and how CT is enacted in the discipline (Burwood, 1999; Moon, 2005). This could be conceived as a direct way of teaching discipline-specific CT, but can be taken further (e.g. Burwood, 1999; Barnett, 1997) to encourage students to question disciplinary epistemologies not just take them for granted. Pedagogical or instructional approaches to developing CT include in-class discussion (Brookfield, 1987; Benesch, 1999; Tsui, 2002; Moon, 2005), including debates (Hill, 1993; Colbert, 1995, cited in Allen et al., 1999), although dialogue should not be used unproblematically (Burbules, 2000; Ellsworth, 1989). CT can also be encouraged via exposure to multiple perspectives (Langer, 1997; cited in Pithers & Soden, 2000; Nussbaum, 1997) and exposing learners to realistically complex, ill- structured situations (Facione, 1990), particularly when reflection/metacognition are emphasized (Facione, 1990; Pithers & Soden, 2000; Moon, 2005), although reflection and metacognition can themselves be considered dimensions of CT (e.g. Barnett, 1997; van Gelder, 2005).

Finally, there are non-academic factors thought to influence CT development, including

Involvement in extra-curricular activities (Moon, 2005; Geilin, 2003 presents a meta-analysis of studies) and workplace contexts (Brookfield, 1987; Moon, 2005), experiences with diversity (Laird, 2005), and peer interaction (Brookfield, 1987; Pascarella& Terenzini, 1991; Anderson et al.,2001;

MacPherson, 1999). It has also been suggested that campus culture or institutional context can influence CT (Tsui, 2000; Hagedorn, et al., 1999).

My research fills the gap of exploring, in depth, how students develop CT in practice (Pascarella, 2006 points out how this type of research is missing from higher educational research), inside and outside the formal classroom. The list of influences on CT above can vary greatly in

implementation. The focus on one institution in depth, with a small sample of students, has allowed me to not only look at how certain learning experiences influence CT, but also how they work differently for different students; it has also allowed me to uncover inequalities and power differentials within the context of the institution, something not generally explored in the literature on CT.

Attention to AUC's particular context is important as it seeks to provide an American education to a mostly Egyptian student-base. There is research on the challenges and dynamics of developing CT with international students (e.g. Egege & Kutieleh, 2004; Vandermensbrugghe, 2004; Jones, 2005; Floyd, 2011), and there has been some small-scale research on CT in AUC (Ellozy & Mostafa, 2010; Bali & Ramadan, 2008), Egypt (e.g. Elsayed et al., 2011) and the Arab world (Suliman, 2006; Bendriss, 2012; Raddawi, 2011 conducted a larger-scale - 200 students- quantitative study of elements that hinder CT development for Arab students taking Academic Writing courses in a UAE university). However, there has been no institution-wide intensive research for the case of an American institution located in a Third World country, with mainly local students, such as AUC. There is no study that includes the perspectives of students, instructors and administrators. The situation of majority students from a different culture than the educational institution’s dominant one allows one to see differences in cultural capital among these students, as opposed to

generalizing about “most Chinese/Hispanic students”, for example – even though we all know that these populations are not themselves culturally monolithic. Nor is the institution's culture fixed, nor its enactment via its faculty and staff, who are themselves not culturally monolithic.

Unlike correlational studies, this research is concerned with how differences among students affect their opportunities for developing CT at AUC. This view draws upon Bourdieu's theory of social reproduction (discussed section 3.2.4.1) which suggests that some students' home culture and background prepare them better (via cultural and social capital) for the dominant culture

implicitly valued in education, and so education can reproduce inequality in society. It also draws upon Sen’s Human Capability theory (1999) which emphasizes that to achieve the same outcome, those having lower levels of initial capability will need different resources to achieve the same outcomes as those who started with higher levels of initial capability. Sen’s (1999) work focuses on capability as freedom, and focuses on it as an intrinsic goal as well as means for development. The capability approach centres on issues of social justice, and asks "What is each person able to do and to be?" (Nussbaum, 2011, p. 18). It works well with interpretive research approaches, because instead of reporting on average well-being in a society, capability theory focuses on each

individual's available opportunities and freedoms, which they may or may not choose to exercise (Nussbaum, 2011). Sen's notion of capability is generic, whereas Nussbaum (2011) chooses to specify ten capabilities which she considers universally more important than others (but that can still be locally re-contextualized). She considers practical reason (similar to critical thinking) and affiliation (which involves responsiveness to others) essential because of their influence on other important capabilities (Nussbaum, 2011).

To translate the general thrust of the complex idea of capability into my study, I posit that students who have previous exposure to CT (e.g. through school or an open-minded family culture), will need less support to develop CT at college than those to whom CT is a totally new, and possibly intimidating, concept. They will require access to more (and different) opportunities to develop CT. In the sense of "practical reason"/critical thinking being a central capability influencing others, having the capability to think critically itself promotes further development of criticality (i.e. good critical thinkers are more capable of becoming better critical thinkers). Building on Sen’s theory is Walker’s (2006) concept of “critical capability pedagogies”, which emphasizes the negative effect of an institution on capability-building to those disadvantaged, e.g. where the power dynamics in the classroom further increase students’ disadvantages. For example, a student not used to participating actively in in-class discussions may be further intimidated when in a classroom with other students who excel at it; this may prevent him/her from participating, thus leaving a poorer impression on the instructor, who then favours participative students and continues the cycle. Although Sen’s theory focuses on “capability” rather than “functioning”, in education, it is difficult to assess “capability” if it does not manifest itself in some outer behaviour such as writing or speaking (Walker, 2006). I recognize that students may develop a capacity to

think critically in university but feel unable to act critically in the current cultural and socio-political circumstances s/he faces (what Nussbaum, 2011 calls "combined capability" p. 30). I will, however, assume that university environments are ones where students are encouraged/allowed to “act” more freely than outside university, so that there will be more opportunities for criticality to show. Also, many scholars understand criticality to incorporate an element of action (e.g. Brookfield, 1987; Benesch, 1999; Barnett, 1997); having the capability to be critical but not using it, or not being able to use it, is not enough; one must also have the disposition to use it (Facione, 1990). Nussbaum (2011) feels that in the issue of education, one cannot stop at building capability without it manifesting itself in action/functioning, because education itself is the entryway to other valuable human capabilities. As Sen suggests, "with adequate social opportunities,

individuals can effectively shape their own destiny and help each other" (1999, p. 11). If the social conditions hinder one's capacity to be critical, the university can and should consider this when building students' CT; it should also consider the unequal distribution and access to important social opportunities it offers. I return to this discussion throughout the thesis.

Students go through different university experiences, ranging from which discipline they choose, to which particular courses they take, whom they deal with and which activities they participate in. They differ in their motivations and values, all of which affects how and what they learn. Disagreement exists in the theoretical literature, and in results from research studies, over which factors influence CT development the most; correlation analysis can only produce more

hypotheses and generalizations - there needs to be more in-depth research into the personal circumstances of particular students first, for their experiences in a particular institution; and then more detailed analysis of how these actually work in practice (Pascarella, 2006 agrees).