Responses from the first phase student interviews

During the first phase interviews the students’ views on how they handled information on a daily basis were explored. Their responses indicated that in the process of considering information, they did not generally believe everything they saw or heard due to the information being someone else’s view which carried the potential for bias. They would, therefore, gather information that had been ‘checked’ or ‘reviewed’, implying peer-reviewed information, which they considered as ‘objective’ and therefore deemed as reliable as observed in the comments below:

I will question things quite a lot. I don’t just accept what people say. People and sources such as the internet aren’t always right, and their views may be biased whereas I prefer objective knowledge. I generally trust journal articles and books a lot more, as they have been checked or reviewed. (Jack-IV1)

If I’m seeing something in the news or something in the paper, I am conscious that I’m seeing someone’s point of view, even on the news…because the spin you’ll get on it depends on who’s delivering it. (Jacob-IV1)

These comments indicate students’ awareness of the potential for bias in the way information is presented. Their responses imply scepticism regarding the believability of information. Jack rightly suggests that he will believe journal articles due to those publications being peer- reviewed. The peer review process, according to his implication, is a quality assurance process that ensures the credibility of published information.

In gathering their information, ten from thirteen students said they would weigh the information, looking for a balance of positives and negative points which they called pros and cons. Two examples are given below:

…consider the pros and cons of the information and there has to be a balance in order for me to decide what to choose to believe. (Thomas-IV1)

80

I am a logical thinker and I like to know what the ‘right’ answer is. In radiography, we deal with facts, so it's important to know the right answers. Everything boils down to positives and negatives. Show me the evidence and then I will believe you. It has to be logical and make sense for me to believe it.

(Charlie-IV1)

Alluding to positives and negatives correlates with weighing the pros and cons of information. This amounts to appraising information in search of a balance of reasons that would contribute to them deciding what to choose to believe or not and constitutes their reasoning process. From my professional experience of assessing student assignments it is clear that most students perceive the word ‘critical’ to mean something negative, especially in their early years of an undergraduate degree programme. Tutors, in my experience, often wrongly assume that students understand what the term means. Critical thinking, in relation to the appraisal of information, means weighing up of the strengths and weaknesses of an argument and deciding where it may fit very well within the literature and where it does not. It is also about analysing what the writer is saying in the article, research or literature. Support for this explanation can be found in the work of Bailin and Siegel, where they state that “it is the assessing of statements to judge that information meets the criteria for acceptability” (2003:183). So being critical is about the ability to interrogate or raise questions about the research, or the evidence, to find out about what works and what does not work within the argument as a whole. We, as tutors, take it for granted by assuming that students understand critical thinking, yet students focus mainly on the negative and forget that the ‘positives’ are part of the appraisal. They, therefore, take the word ‘critical’ in its pejorative sense. This lends support to the comments made by both Thomas and Charlie above. Similarly, Emily (IV1) said the following:

…by weighing out all the points… information, analysing it finding out what’s important and relevant and what isn’t. Then you can make a decision. I can’t put it into words, but I know when I’m doing it.

Emily concurs with the responses above in that she would ‘weigh out all the points,’ but added that she would analyse the information to determine its relevance. She used the word ‘analyse’; analysis of information is deemed to be a skill of critical thinking (see Chapter Two). She further suggested that she would then make a decision. Deciding what to do or believe has been defined as critical thinking as discussed in the literature review chapter. When asked about how she knows when she is ‘doing it’, she replied:

…when you look at something and you are actually able to take the position that it makes sense.

81

Emily is suggesting here that information has to make sense. Making sense of information is akin to understanding the meaning of information in a logical way, which is inferred by Emily’s statement.

Three participants presented different views on the meaning of critical thinking, at this stage (interview one), as indicated below. Their views run counter to the comments made by the majority (n=10) of the students as follows:

I would say you take something, you read it then you think why did you do that, why did that happen? But I’m not entirely sure if that is what it’s about. (Isla-

IV1)

…thinking around the subject in great depth rather than just applying simple basic knowledge to a certain situation. However, I'm not sure that this is true as I'm not sure of the definition of critical thinking. (Isabella-IV1)

I don’t know what critical thinking means…sorry…cannot answer that one.

(Chloe-IV1)

In these examples, even though participants indicated they did not know what critical thinking meant, Isla and Isabella, for example, suggested there was more to the thinking process in relation to critical thinking. What is meant here is that they are showing some sort of understanding of the distinction that exists between thinking and critical thinking. They are suggesting they do not entirely know what critical thinking means. However, what they are saying is that they think critical thinking is something more than perhaps the ‘simple’ thinking process. Isabella believed critical thinking involved a ‘greater depth of thinking’, where she contextualised her explanation in terms of a subject. She suggested she would apply a greater depth of thinking rather than just basic knowledge to understand the subject matter, whilst Isla stated that she questioned her (Isla’s) thoughts. Both students were unclear and uncertain showing a tentative grasp, yet their responses indicate the beginnings of an understanding of critical thinking. Thus, even in this inchoate articulation, an understanding of the meaning of critical thinking shows signs of development. Chloe, however, indicated she did not yet know what critical thinking meant at this stage of her learning. This is an understandable response because she is at the beginning of the first three years of the programme. As the researcher, I assumed many of the students would say the same thing at the first interview. But only one participant admitted to not knowing anything about what critical thinking meant thus presenting only one instance of a disconfirming view in the first year.

In answer to my question, “do you think everyone can think?”, students stated that in their opinion, it was apparent that some students either do not like to think or choose not to think while some like to be ‘spoon fed’ information. Isla (IV1) offers her view below:

82

I think some people just can’t be bothered, I think real in-depth decision making is really hard. I would say everyone is capable. I have never met anyone who couldn’t think about things, but some people choose not to do it.

Similarly, Jacob (IV1) said the following:

Some will get on with work while others would like to be ‘spoon-fed’ the information.

According to Jacob, some people choose not to think about the thinking required for decision- making, whilst others would like to be spoon-fed. Thinking becomes perceived as complicated and ‘really hard’ and they are unable to analyse and evaluate information, so they prefer to choose the easier option by deciding not to think. This could be one of the reasons why students perform the critical analysis requirement of university assignments at a lower level of achievement. Similarly, unwillingness to think may be the reason why students simply make statements without the necessary engagement and analysis of evidence. As a researcher and tutor, I think it might well be a possible explanation. Within all healthcare professions, practitioners do not have an option not to think. They are all required to meet the expectation for critical thinking and decision-making in autonomous clinical practice as stipulated in professional and regulatory guidance from the HCPC and SCoR (See Glossary, p. xi). However, possessing the skills of critical thinking is insufficient to be considered a critical thinker. One has to take action by doing something to put the critical thinking skills into practice, i.e. one must have the disposition to use their thinking and act critically (Halpern, 1989). It is, therefore, a significant concern as highlighted by Isla and Jacob above.