Hook, line and critical thinker: How can we help our students to think more critically?

Critical Analysis for Undergraduates - Unmasking the Process is a project that is seeking to assist first year undergraduates students at the University of Western Sydney, Nepean, to develop critical practice skills.

The project is a collaborative one. Team members include staff from the Learning Assistance Centre and Academics from a number of faculties.

The project team became aware that students at the University of Western Sydney, Nepean experienced difficulty in understanding what was expected of them in terms of critical practice. Many of our students were the first generation university students and a significant number are "Learning Background Other than English." Research and experience led the group to formulate the aims of the project.

A research grant was sought initially to generate a comprehensive summary and profile of the process of critical practice within the University, to analyse the ways 'in which different faculties approach critical practice and initiate debate and discussion within the university community about the teaching and learning of critical practice.

In order to achieve these aims, examples of student assignments that demonstrate critical thinking were obtained from academics across faculties. Lecturers were asked to highlight how critical practice was demonstrated in the work and students were asked to annotate their assignments to show their process of critical analysis. These annotated assignments have been incorporated into a book , Critical Analysis - What is it ? which seeks to highlight the nature and expectations of critical practice across faculties.

Considerable debate about the practice is occurring throughout the university as a consequence of the project. Innovative teaching practices are being trialed in conjunction with the book to further assist undergraduate students to develop critical analysis skills.

What teaching and assessment practices facilitate critical thinking? Do our expectations of critical practice vary across disciplines or even between departments? Are there factors such as culture, age, family background, that act as barriers to critical practice amongst tertiary students? Is critical practice only a problem for undergraduate students? What preconditions, such as a thorough knowledge of the subject, must exist before a student can demonstrate critical thinking? Does critical thinking entail knowing what a specific lecturer's expectations are?

The problem

The project referred to above, evolved as a result of a concern shared by academics across faculties (voiced in staff colloquia on critical thinking) and staff of the Learning Assistance Centre at the University of Western Sydney Nepean, that many undergraduate students had not developed the critical practice skills[1] that are expected at a tertiary level - a concern shared elsewhere in academia (Whitely, 1994, Bailey, 1992, Chubb, 1992).

Hamilton & Trewhella (1993) note that a large body of students proceed to university study without a clear understanding of the tertiary culture - an important component of which is the expectation of critical analysis that should be undertaken by the student. The discourse (or ways of believing, talking, writing and valuing) of tertiary study (Gee, 1990) may not be understood by many students, especially those from other cultures. (Samuelowicz, 1987). Particularly at issue in this project were the conflicting and/or implicit discourses about what constitutes writing that is identified as demonstrating successful critical practice (James & Scoufis, 1995).

In part, the difficulty in demonstrating critical practice skills may relate to the lack of cultural capital (the specific skills required to take a critical approach to a particular field of study) of a significant number of tertiary students, especially those from culturally diverse backgrounds or from families where they are the first to attend universities. Students from such backgrounds may not share cultural norms that support the criticism of authorities and critical reflection (Kress, 1995). Such an approach to knowledge is frequently expected of tertiary students (Iwayoto, 1992, Chubb, 1992). The student body of the University of Western Sydney, Nepean is drawn from diverse backgrounds. A significant proportion of the student body are from a non-English speaking background (38.2%) or from families with no prior university experience (49.1%).

The difficulties created in teaching such a diversity of students are particularly evident in first year classes. The committee for the Advancement of University Teaching (CAUT) in their 1993 project brief: The first year experience - University responses to a more diverse population, note "that we can no longer assume (if indeed we ever could) that universities are a largely intellectual elite body groomed by their secondary schooling and social background for university study". CAUT emphasised the need to make such expectations and practices of tertiary study explicit. (McInnis et al, 1995, p.1).

In an era of flexible and mass education, Knight (1994) points out that it is even more important for university lecturers to make explicit practices that once were left implicit. Thus it cannot be assumed that students will intuitively learn critical practice without explicit teaching or modelling. (Craigie, James & Spolc 1995).

This concern to explicate critical thinking skills for undergraduate students led to the formation of the Critical Thinking Network at the university - a collaborative research group whose members came from a number of faculties and the Learning Assistance Centre.

The project

• generate a summary and profile of critical analysis/practice as evidenced in student assignments within the University of Western Sydney, Nepean
• analyse and describe the ways in which different faculties approach critical practice
• initiate discussion and debate within the university about the teaching and learning of critical practice
• evaluate the effectiveness of using students' assignments to analyse/teach/learn undergraduate critical practice.

By highlighting not only expected outcomes of critical analysis but also the processes students went through in producing their work, this text seeks to encourage the reader to reflect on their own learning or metacognitive processes. It is well recognised that student learning is facilitated when the student is made aware of their own cognitive processes and can thus exert control over them (Biggs, 1988, Bain, Lietzow & Ross, 1993).

The debate regarding the nature and definition of critical thinking and the significant split between the field specific school of Critical Thinking (associated with McPeck, 1990) and the generalisability school (Ennis, 1987, amongst others) is reflected in the book where lecturers across faculties acknowledge both commonalities and differences in their approach to Critical Thinking. The specificity of some of the comments in particular areas of study, such as nursing reflect the fact that different fields of study hold different value systems and belief structures that inform and direct patterns of thinking.

The book Critical Analysis - What is it? provides models, which although not prescriptive, allow teaching staff to demonstrate their expectations and ways of arguing in their academic context (Luke 1995). By providing models of critical literacy within a discipline, common ground is created for all students (including those from non English speaking cultural backgrounds) to understand critical analysis.

The debate that is occurring as a consequence of this project has acted as a change agent and encouraged reflection on teaching learning practices. Actions plans have been suggested by academics including the introduction of a quarterly student/staff teaching/learning newsletter in the Commerce Faculty to share information regarding teaching critical practices, teaching strategies and to act as a forum for ongoing debate. Such initiatives have resulted from a research environment where academics and students were encouraged to reflect on their own understanding of critical analysis and its associated processes rather than in an environment where critical processes were prescribed by the research group. As Crebbin (1994, p 126) notes "such reflection (by lecturers) requires an environment where academics can freely share differing views"

Evaluation

This pilot evaluation has been carried out with a first year lecture group (Australian Employment Relations). This group of first year students, approximately 350 in number, were issued with a free copy of the book. The students were then offered a further opportunity to use the book in adjunct tutorial sessions, 108 students enrolled to attend the extra tutorials and 46 actually attended.

The sessions were run prior to the due date for the first essay and were facilitated by "Peer Mentors", a group of high achieving 3rd year undergraduates in Commerce. The Peer Mentors were trained by one of the project team with regard to the methodology for sessions and use of the book. They also received instruction on group dynamics and facilitation of discussion from a qualified psychologist. Each of the six Peer mentors facilitated three one hour sessions once a week.

These sessions were based on the principles of Supplemental Instruction (see Farrell, 1996) and the use of model essays from the book. The emphasis was on identifying essay structure, student writers' arguments, critical analysis and different approaches to answering questions. The aim of the adjunct tutorials was to give first year students the opportunity to work out, through facilitated peer discussion, what is expected in a university essay in their faculty, and how to write an essay which demonstrates critical analysis.

A 'debriefing' workshop was then held with Peer Mentors to discuss problems encountered and to gain feedback on the success of the adjunct tutorials. The Peer Mentors were generally enthusiastic about the sessions and recommended that the book and adjunct tutorials be incorporated into courses. Most felt that the book was useful but that the model essays in the book which were from 3rd year students were too difficult for first year students.

Further evaluation of the book with this lecture group will be done by questionnaires and focus interviews. There will also be some comparison of essay results between the group of students who attended sessions, those who enrolled but did not attend and those who did not enrol. Interviews will also be conducted with lecturers in this subject to assess whether they perceived that student essays demonstrated a clearer understanding of what is expected in a university essay, essay structure and critical analysis.

Evaluations of the book are also being carried out in a 3rd year Commerce subject, Management of Employee Performance, and have involved distribution of copies of the book to each student, working with the book in class and completion of questionnaires. Further copies of the book have been distributed, within and outside Nepean University, to evaluate its usefulness to academic staff, academic support staff and students.

Future directions

CAUT identified the need to communicate clearly expected learning outcomes to undergraduate students. The project, discussed above, is encouraging academics to clarify their expectations of critical practice and by using student models and peer mentoring, is assisting students to understand how to produce work that demonstrates critical analysis. In so doing, it is hoped that the project is beginning to unmask the process of critical practice fro undergraduate students of the university.

References

Bain, J. Lietzow, E. & Ross, B. (Eds.) (1993). Promoting teaching in higher education: Reports from the National Teaching Workshop. Queensland: Griffith Institute for Higher Education.

Biggs, J. (1988). The role of metacognition in enhancing learning. Australian Journal of Education, 32(2), 127-138.

Chubb, I. (Chair) (1992). Higher Education Achievement Quality report of the Higher Education Council. National Board of Employment, Education and Training. Australian Government Publications Service: Canberra.

Craigie, J, James, B & Spolc, P. (1995). Undergraduate Critical Practice. Paper presented at the ANZSSA Ninth Biennial Conference, University of Waikato, Hamilton, New Zealand, January 1995.

Crebbin, W. (1994). Teaching in higher education for active and lifelong learning. Ballarat: University of Ballarat.

Ennis, R. H. (1987). A taxonomy of critical thinking dispositions and abilities. In J. B. Baron & R. J. Sternberg (Eds), Teaching thinking skills: Theory and practice. New York: Freeman & Co.

Farrell, H. (1996). Critical practice and undergraduate students. Paper given at the first National Tertiary Literacy Conference; Research & Practice, Victoria University of Technology, 15-16 March 1996.

Gee, J. (1990). Social Linguistics and Literacies: Ideologies in Discourses. London: Falmer Press.

Hamilton, G. & Trewhella, M. (1993). A readiness gap at some universities (letter). The Melbourne Age, 24 August.

Iwayoto, H. (1992). Critical thinking and business people. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Western States Commerce Association.

James, B. & Scoufis, M. (1995). Critical analysis for undergraduates: unmasking the process. Paper presented at the Fourth International Literacy Education and Research Conference on Learning, Townsville. 29 June-2 July 1995.

Knight, J. (1994). Steering at what distance? The political economy of equity, diversity and quality in the August 1993 Higher Education budget statement. The Universities Review, 37, 2. NTEU.

Kress, G. (1985). Linguistic processes in sociocultural practice. Victoria: Deakin University Press.

Luke, A. (1995). Multiliteracies in one workplace. Education Australia, 30, 28-30.

McInnis, C. James, R & McNaught, C. (1995). First year on campus - diversity in the initial experiences of Australian undergraduates. A Commissioned Project of the Committee for the Advancement of University Teaching pub by Centre for the Study of Higher Education University of Melbourne.

McPeck, J. E. (1990). Teaching critical thinking. New York : Routledge.

McTaggart, R. (1991). Action research: A short modern history. Geelong, Victoria: Deakin University Press.

Samuelowicz, K. (1987). Learning problems for overseas students. Higher Education Research and Development, 6(2), 121-133.

Whitely, A. (1994). Critical Thinking/Questioning Skills. A meta-model for cognitive development in management education. Curtin University of Technology's Graduate School of Business.

Endnote

1. The terms critical thinking, critical practice and critical analysis are used interchangeably as this reflects the practice of lecturers and the diversity of student work included in the project. Academics and students interviewed came from both vocationally oriented faculties such as the performing arts to more academically oriented faculties such as humanities.