strathprints.strath.ac.uk€¦ · Web viewPsychological Knowledge for Teaching Critical Thinking:...

Psychological Knowledge for Teaching Critical Thinking: the agency of epistemic activity, metacognitive regulative behaviour and (student-centred) learning

Abstract

This study considers the case of a tutor whose students repeatedly evidenced significantly

superior critical thinking in summative assessment. For the purpose of surfacing appropriate

pedagogical action to promote critical thinking (Bassey, 1999),{Bassey, 1999 #16;Bassey, 1999

#16} the singularity of one tutor's reported pedagogical practice was explored through focus-

group discussion. Qualitative analysis of the data, theoretically informed by

phenomenography, suggested that the tutor's reported practice, when compared with that of

two peers, revealed clear pedagogical intentions to be necessary for teaching critical thinking;

and that these intentions can be explained through the literatures on epistemic activity,

metacognitive regulative behaviour and student-centred learning. It is argued that a

synthesised understanding of the literature that explores the nature and purpose of critical

thinking - as outlined in the first part of this paper - is a prerequisite for constructing domain-

specific pedagogical intentions for developing learners' critical thinking, and that it is this

extensive psychologically informed knowledge base which attenuates the risk of

educationally important aspects of learning being overlooked. (De Corte, 2000).

Keywords

Metacognition; Critical Thinking; Higher Education Pedagogy; Student-Centred Learning,

Variation Theory

Critical thinking – what it is and why it matters

Critical thinking is a broad and diffuse construct which is understood variously (Abrami et al.,

2008). The Delphi Committee (Facione, 1990) characterised critical thinking as cognitive

skills (each with corresponding subskills) and affective dispositions (to ensure the use of these

skills outwith instructional settings); a characterisation which continues to resonate in much

of the critical thinking literature. The realisation that knowledge can be the object of

discussion, has varied uses and may be judged valuable or worthless according to agreed rules

of enquiry is fundamental to the development of critical thinking. Such critiquing of

knowledge invokes the use and development of psychological tools such as reading, writing

and social interactions; which allow us to make meaning, form concepts, construct

representations and be aware of self; and through their power we can distance ourselves from

an immediate situation to consider alternative responses or ways of proceeding, so that we

need not be 'slaves' responding directly to environmental demands (Säljö, 1995).

1


There is little dissent from the view that the capacity for critical thinking is a valuable

outcome of education (Kuhn, 2009; Kuhn & Udell, 2007; Magno, 2010). Being able to think

critically allows persons to avoid pseudoscientific thinking (Halpern, 1998) and to further their

own conceptual understanding (Bereiter, 2002; Kuhn & Udell, 2007). In our pluralistic knowledge

age of increasing amounts of freely available information of unknown provenance, and ill-

defined problems which defy algorithmic solution, the intellectual capital of critical thinking

is a necessary resource (Angeli & Valanides, 2009; Zohar & Peled, 2008). Indeed, critical

thinking is considered to be a crucial aspect of the competence which citizens need to

participate in daily life and society (Johanson, 2010; Ten Dam & Volman, 2004). In a recent

global ideas marketplace run by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and

Development (OECD, 2010), the top priority for action to take in education was to teach

people to think; and that teaching to this end was preferable to teaching to standardised tests.

Nevertheless, students in higher education find critical thinking very demanding (Flores, Matkin,

Burbach, Quinn, & Harding, 2011; Kuhn & Udell, 2007). Not only is demonstrating critical thinking

the most challenging dimension of argumentation (a social practice with the potential to make

thinking explicit) but such guidance as students are given to exercise critical thinking is often

unspecified and, when explicitly mentioned as a requirement, is generally stated in vague

terms (Andrews, 2007; Davies, 2008).

Metacognition: its important strategic and epistemic components

The perceived importance of critical thinking has resulted in many pedagogical interventions,

the effects of which are viewed as mostly positive. However while the relative superior

effects of general and infusion approaches are contested (Abrami, et al., 2008; Angeli &

Valanides, 2009), others argue (Kuhn, 2009; Kuhn & Udell, 2007; Magno, 2010; Ten Dam &

Volman, 2004; Zohar & Peled, 2008) that skill development of itself is insufficient, pointing

to the importance of metacognition in critical thinking.

Monitoring one's thinking processes, checking on progress towards appropriate goals,

ensuring accuracy, and balancing likely costs and benefits of expending time and mental

effort are generally agreed to be essential elements of metacognition. A range of studies

demonstrate that the more persons are aware of their thinking processes as they learn and the

more that this is made an explicit feature of instruction, the more able learners are to control

goals, behavioural tendencies, and attention (Huff & Nietfeld, 2009; Zimmerman, 2008;

Zohar & Peled, 2008). Indeed, the importance of monitoring and managing one's thinking was

recognised in the original Delphi Report (Facione, 1990) under the label of self-regulation,

defined as:

2


the self-conscious monitoring of one's cognitive activities, the elements used in those

activities, and the results educed, particularly by applying skills in analysis and evaluation to

one's own inferential judgments with a view toward questioning, confirming, validating, or

correcting either one's reasoning or one's results (p.10)

As far back as 1998, Halpern was arguing that not only was metacognition's purpose to direct

and improve thinking skills but that metacognitive monitoring required to be explicit and

public to allow feedback on its effectiveness. This manuscript offers no conceptual

distinction for the constructs of metacognition and self-regulation. While the psychological

literature is concerned lest careless juxtaposition of the terms (together with that of self-

regulated learning) detracts from the study of self-directed activity and its role in academic

development (Alexander, 2008; Azevedo, 2009), the authors here accept that there is little

precise or agreed-on meaning for many of the constructs used in the educational research

literature (Ball & Forzani, 2007). Consequently they also accept that while the phenomena

represented by each of metacognition, self-regulation and self-regulated learning are not the

same (Efklides, 2008); the commonalities of a conceptual core of learner self-awareness and

intention to act offer a rationale for allowing the terms to be used interchangeably in an

educational context (Dinsmore, Alexander, & Loughlin, 2008). The broad brush strokes with

which metacognition is characterised in this manuscript are grounded in the necessity of

pedagogical knowledge being expansive (Merrill, 2009).

The significance of metacognition is in the learner's intention to direct mental effort to

developing cognitive resources over and above those implicit in the completion of a task:

what Bereiter & Scardamalia (1989) and Sinatra (Sinatra & Pintrich, 2003) call intentional

learning. Intentional learning is purposeful, internally initiated cognitive activity in the service

of knowledge construction and skill development, but it is not an automatic consequence of

formal educational experiences; since learners may address tasks in ways that economise on

mental effort and thereby avoid the additional effort through which they might become more

expert. The distinction between metacognition and cognition is neither clear nor absolute but

as a rule-of-thumb, cognitive activities help one to acquire, retain and transfer knowledge for

task execution, whereas metacognitive activities allow one to regulate and govern task

execution to ensure satisfactory levels of performance (Ku & Ho, 2010). It is the intentional

(non-algorithmic) development of these metacognitive resources which constitute the

furtherance of the learner's conceptual understanding, albeit that the construction of such

understanding is mediated through what learners themselves understand by the idea of

'learning' and what they understand as their role in the learning process (Clark & Schroth,

2010). Being metacognitive allows one to challenge/ be critical of what is presented as 'self-

3


evident'. Such feelings of control free individuals to consider different and more nuanced

ways of judging information from the environment (Efklides, 2008). Nevertheless,

metacognition is contextualised in cognition such that the strategies of planning, monitoring

and evaluating both inform and are informed by, declarative, procedural and conditional

knowledge. When individuals are aware of the specifics of their meta-level activity (as in

being well informed about content when evaluating an argument, anticipating alternative

implications of any one position when constructing an argument, or trialling methods in

different conditions to see which is more fit-for-purpose) they are then in a better position to

discriminate among inferences, recognise unstated assumptions, reason deductively, weigh

evidence and distinguish between strong/relevant and weak/irrelevant arguments (Ku & Ho,

2010; Magno, 2010).

As well as the regulative component of metacognition through which persons manage and

debug their knowledge and behaviour, there is an epistemic component (Kuhn & Weinstock,

2002); though whether the adjective is 'epistemic' or 'epistemological' continues to be a moot

point (Mason & Bromme, 2010). Epistemic cognition refers to wider understandings of what

knowledge is, and is at least implicit in understanding alternative solutions to problems and in

choosing one solution strategy as opposed to others (Maggioni & Parkinson, 2008; Mason,

Boldrin, & Ariasi, 2010). Epistemic thinking demands reasoning as to whether a particular

problem is indeed solvable (and if so, to what extent) and what a better or worse solution

strategy might be (Kitchener, 1983) and thereby obviates problem solution on the basis of

chance. In considering the extent of a problem's solvability and the veracity of alternative

solutions, individuals draw from their assumptions (known more formally as epistemic

beliefs) of the nature and construction of knowledge. These beliefs can be understood as

developmental along a trajectory of knowledge being understood as absolute, as being mere

opinion with everyone's equally valid, and as judgements to be evaluated on the basis of

argument and evidence. They can also be understood as multidimensional in which

knowledge is viewed as some composite derived from views about the certainty, simplicity

and source of knowledge together with views about the kinds of justification needed for

accepting any claim (Muis & Franco, 2009). Quite how these epistemic beliefs operate is not

fully clear but they would appear to influence learning both directly and indirectly

(Stathopoulou & Vosniadou, 2007); invoke deeper processing (Pieschl, Stahl, & Bromme,

2008); be context-sensitive (Mason, et al., 2010); be necessary for constructing knowledge

(Strømsø & Bråten, 2010) – possibly because of the their mediating effects on implicit

theories of ability (Chen & Pajares, 2010) – and for the development of argumentation

(Mason & Scirica, 2006).

4


Epistemic beliefs influence both learner and teacher. Learners’ beliefs begin as informal

knowledge which may influence reasoning, knowledge or study behaviour but are susceptible

to the influence of formal education (King & Kitchener, 1994; Maggioni, Riconscente, &

Alexander, 2006; Peters & Kitsantas, 2010; Valanides & Angeli, 2005) through which

learners can, iteratively, handle conflicting information, recognise authoritative sources and

become more sophisticated in their reasoning (Mason & Bromme, 2010). Maturing epistemic

beliefs thus exert a significant direct effect on academic achievement. But so, too, do teachers

whose different beliefs about knowledge and knowing result in different understanding of

specific pedagogical practices, such as which cognitive strategies better foster understanding

of domain knowledge, which methods foster construction of knowledge, and which questions

to ask (or not to ask) about the trustworthiness of available information (Maggioni &

Parkinson, 2008). These differences are manifest in different kinds of classroom discourse

that is likely to influence metacognitive processes. Furthermore, teachers' beliefs develop

into conceptually coherent frameworks of claims about, and practices in, the teaching of their

subject which are resistant to change (Van Driel, Bulte, & Verloop, 2007). Disciplinary

differences in conceptions of teaching and learning, pedagogical differences in teaching

approaches and outcomes, and the gap between learners and teachers in their respective

conceptions of teaching and learning can have implications for the types of provision made

for students which, in turn, may influence the extent of learners' conceptual change (Virtanen

& Lindblom-Ylänne, 2010).

The Study Context

The central importance of supporting students to become critical thinkers provides the context

for this study. One particular module within the field of Educational Studies, Children as

Learners, was designed to respond to the commonly reported phenomenon that many

students, but particularly novice students (in this case first year undergraduates in a Scottish

University), have difficulty in elaborating a problematised view of education. Structurally the

module positioned the student as pivotal in integrating the material from weekly lectures;

weekly student-led study groups; monthly tutor-led seminars; and prescribed reading in

preparation for lecture, study group and seminar attendance; to prepare for an end-of-module

examination. Access to the end-of-module examination was through satisfactory performance

on the Core Tasks (see below). Such integration is necessary if learners are to use their new

knowledge/skill in everyday life; and is enabled through personalised exemplification and

public demonstration of the knowledge/skill together with peer critique (Merrill, 2009).

Pedagogically, the module provided iterative opportunities for learners to:

5


1. Represent their thinking externally through expressing their own ideas and justifying

their views with reasoning informed by their reading

2. Interrogate journal articles to inform their understanding of:

a. what it means to adopt a critical stance

b. the conventions of academic writing

3. Integrate and record their thinking through construction and co-construction of

responses to open-ended tasks

4. Reflect on the nature of learning and the provisionality of knowledge

5. Work collaboratively to engender learners' collective cognitive responsibility in the

completion of Core Tasks (submitted for formative assessment, electronically).

The emphasis on student collaboration was underpinned by the evidence for learning

achieved through interactive engagement (Kirschner, Paas, & Kirschner, 2009) which

requires learners actively to complete a single, unified task that represents the shared

meaning, conclusions and effort of the group as a unit (Rochelle & Teasley, 1995). What

constitutes learning in collaborative work is not only the materials and the curricula but also

the challenges and opportunities of group interaction, particularly at solution-critical

moments, which are mediated through the metacognitions of the participants who question,

explain and reconcile relevant knowledge proffered by individual group members (Hurme,

Palonen, & Järvela, 2006; Kirschner, et al., 2009). Successful group task completion can

allow group members(Janssen, Kirschner, Erkens, Kirschner, & Paas, 2010) each to increase

flexibility and transferability in their own knowledge and skills provided the task requires

problem solution (Kirschner, et al., 2009). Goodyear (2007) suggests that tasks should foster

epistemic fluency: practising collectively the description, critique, argumentation and

explanation of ideas (Ohlsson, 1995). As well as epistemic activity (sharing efforts to

understand, identifying inconsistencies in collective knowledge, and using authoritative

sources) there must also be regulative activity (such as setting goals, monitoring collaborative

effort, and negotiating future courses of action). These process-related activities steer and

organise the construction of corporate knowledge, through reflecting intentions to engage

actively in the learning task, ensuring the co-ordination of different contributions, and

furthering the beneficial effects of social interaction (Damşa, Kirschner, Andriessen, Erkens,

& Sins, 2010; Hurme, et al., 2006). They also seem not unlike the negotiated elements of the

Joint Problem Space, which Rochelle & Teasley (1995) argue has to be constructed and

maintained if collaboration is to occur.

6


The impetus for the study was the observation that over three successive years, the end-of-

module assessment performances amongst students being tutored by one particular person

(herewith known as the Target Tutor) were significantly higher (χr2 = 77.5, df = 2, p. < .001)

than the performances of students being tutored by two other tutors (herewith known as

Comparison Tutors). The end-of-module assessment was student identification and selection

of a new article (not one that had been suggested, prescribed or recommended) for critical

analysis in terms of its theoretical underpinnings of learning, development or motivation; the

authors' assumptions about children; the veracity of the evidence offered; and some situation

of the article in the wider, related literature. Blind marking of assignments underwent

moderation and cross-marking. Given that the cohort of students all had very similar

academic entrance qualifications, that students were randomly assigned to tutorial groups and

that the tutors had all been party to the design of the module, it was deduced that the variable

of interest was the Target Tutor's pedagogy. A case-study was a logical approach with

Variation Theory (Åkerlind, 2005; Marton, 2007) influencing the design decisions.

Conventional wisdom has it that findings from case studies are limited because generalisation

cannot be established. Such 'wisdom' seems to be premised on the view that generalisation is

the only criterion of scientific adequacy; and that it has only one "crude commonsense

singular meaning" (Larsson, 2009) (p26). However, while generalisation based on

representative random sampling can reveal rule-based typical behaviour, it cannot illuminate

the apparently effortless performance which is a mark of expertise (Alexander, 2005;

Flyvbjerg, 2007). It was precisely the variation in the Target Tutor's account that this study

sought to reveal since her account, paralleled with those of the Comparison Tutors, could

illuminate critical features of difference (Marton, 2007) with the intention of suggesting, if

not making plain, what might be contributing to the Target Tutor's students’ superior

performance. Variation is a fundamental idea in what is now referred to as Variation Theory

(Marton, 2007) which posits that a qualitative shift in one’s understanding (as distinct from

factual and/or procedural additions and/or elaborations) occurs when a phenomenon that was

once taken-for-granted is seen in a new light. This discernment, of simultaneously

experiencing the phenomenon as it was, and as it is now, signals that learning has taken place

(Bowden & Marton, 1998). Further, learning within a formal environment is significantly

enabled when the teacher situates learners to discern, and focus on, the critical aspects of

variation (Booth & Hultén, 2003; Marton & Pang, 2006). Variation Theory has evolved

within phenomenographic research; initially concerned with the ways in which particular

phenomena are experienced variously by different actors, but now further concerned with

how to characterise the different descriptions (Harris, 2011). The relevance of Variation

Theory to this study is that what was being sought was not an account of the most

7


representative tutoring experiences but of what were uncommon experiences; in order to

extrapolate to other relevant pedagogical situations in which the improvement of tutoring was

an aim (Flyvbjerg, 2007; Larsson, 2009; Postareff & Lindblom-Ylänne, 2008). The very

singularity of the case was examined for the typicality which might be instrumental (Stake,

2003) in the practice of the Target Tutor. Specifically, the question being addressed was,

'What psychological knowledge does the tutor implicitly bring to bear when teaching critical

thinking?' The question sought to elicit the variations amongst tutors in the expectations they

had of, and their experiences of engagement with, students in whom they were trying to

develop critical thinking. Expectations and Engagements as characterised in this study were

considered to be fundamental elements of the teaching endeavour. The teacher assumes, or

guides learners towards particular states of preparedness to establish common ground –

Expectations - and then constitutes with learners the meaningfulness of the intended learning

outcome(s) – Engagements - (Marton, 2007). As well as the data gathering described below,

the academic profiles of each participant tutor, as portrayed on personal web pages, were

scrutinised for educational and professional qualifications and experience.

Data Gathering and Explication

Data on tutors' pedagogical practices were gathered through focused group discussions in

which the efficacy of the module was being evaluated. Such evaluations were common

practice for the tutors since shared reflections on earlier teaching episodes provide a basis for

surfacing pedagogical points of emphasis. The overall focus of discussion was the teaching

of higher order thinking in terms of students' regulative and epistemic development.

Regulative development included the extent to which students were:

discovering implications for self-understanding from their reading

generalising from the module's accountability requirements to monitor and regulate

their study behaviours

developing intellectual curiosity

Epistemic development included the extent to which students were:

searching for evidence to justify a particular position

qualifying the certainty of their knowledge/understanding

examining and reconciling alternative viewpoints

The group discussions (two, each of about 90 minutes) were facilitated by an experienced, but

disinterested, academic and scribed by a (briefed) research assistant. Transcriptions were

8


checked by participants for factual accuracy, as a regular and accepted practice of meeting

notes being kept as an audit trail for subsequent continuing professional development and

quality assurance purposes. Focus group discussion allows shared and common knowledge to

be identified, variation in discussants' role conceptions to be examined, and possibilities for

professional development among discussants to emerge (Woodring, Foley, Rado, Brown, &

Hamner, 2006).

The data were explicated through a simplified version of Hycner's (1985) process.

Explication, rather than analysis (which implies - possibly uncritical- disaggregation), was the

means by which the data were interrogated, as this seeks to investigate the constituents of

tutors’ views in the context of their overall reflections on students' regulative and epistemic

development. Concern for a necessary relationship between overall context and units of data,

without which a unit of analysis has limited and possibly distorted meaning (Hycner, 1985),

is consistent with a phenomenographic approach (Marton & Booth, 1997). Briefing of the

research assistant emphasised the importance of bracketing her own world-view of pedagogy,

the likelihood that transcribed data would reflect variation and differences in views expressed,

the desirability of participant exemplification through reference to student behaviour, and the

value of noteworthy paralinguistic communication. The research assistant was also

responsible for tagging views to tutors (T1, T2, and T3) and to conceal tutor identity until

explication was complete. After units of general meaning (words, phrases, and non-verbal

expressions which reflected coherent meaning) had been delineated, about seven hundred

units of relevant meaning (those that made reference to either tutors' Expectations of students

or their Engagements with students) were extracted. Expectations were identified as what

tutors believed/anticipated students could do; and what they required/insisted upon from the

students. Examples would be 'many students are not good time managers' or 'I tell the

students that they must read in advance of the class'. Engagements were identified as tutors'

reported behavioural involvement in, and undertakings to, the students' tasks. Examples

would be 'I encourage students to express their views' or 'when students report that a task is

difficult; I ask them to reframe the task as two smaller tasks'. Engagements can be thought of

as pedagogical prompts to facilitate development while Expectations were regulative pre-

requisites to allow learning to take place. Disaggregating the units related to Expectations

and Engagements recognised the importance of the larger context when extracting relevant

meaning while focusing on the participants' pedagogical reasoning, and smoothing data

management (Åkerlind, 2005). To attenuate the possibility of inappropriate subjectivity

biasing the extraction process, a PhD student skilled in phenomenographic research was

trained to impartially ratify or rescind the extracted units. Elimination of redundancy in units

of relevant meaning was contextualised in repeated transcription readings to take account of

9


paralinguistic communication and the chronology of the focus group discussions. A validity

check of relevant meaning extracted with each of the participating tutors, by the research

assistant and the PhD student, confirmed the credibility and coherence of the clusters of

Expectations and Engagements.

Results

Inspection of tutors' curriculum vitae yielded modest distinguishing information: all had first

and higher degrees; all engaged in quality research and publication; all were licensed by the

General Teaching Council (Scotland); they were Associates/Fellows of the UK Higher

Education Academy; and had experience of teaching in higher education ranging from 10 to

25 years. Only the target tutor’s portfolio was psychologically informed.

Indicative Sample of Expectations and Engagements

Given the genesis of the study, the explication of the data resulted in the relevant units of

meaning being organised as (tutors’) Expectations and Engagement of Students. Tables 1 & 2

refer to Comparison and Target Tutors’ respective Expectations. Tables 3 & 4 refer to

Comparison and Target Tutors’ respective Engagements. Indicative units numbered within

Tables.

Insert Tables

Discussion

The issue underpinning this study was the significantly superior performance of one tutor's

groups of first-year students over three successive deliveries of an Educational Studies

module. Since there is a close relationship between what students learn and tutors'

conceptions of learning (Marton, 2007), understanding variation in Expectations and

Engagements can raise tutors' awareness and precipitate reflection on how variation in their

own practices might be related to their students' learning (Trigwell, Prosser, & Ginns, 2005);

and goes some way to addressing the regularly reported theory-practice gap (De Corte, 2000).

However, listing differences in Expectations and Engagements does not of itself explain the

effectiveness of the Target Tutor's pedagogy. Rather, the quality of such pedagogy emerges

as a function of the tutor's knowledge of (in this instance critical thinking) content and her use

of this content in nuanced, learner-centred judgements: when to provide information, when to

require learner accountability, when to question and challenge, when to direct and when to

require self-direction (Marton, 2007; Merrill, 2009). Her theoretical and practical understanding

of how to support students in their critical thinking can be understood in terms of epistemic

10


activity, regulative behaviour and (student-centred) learning. In short there seemed to be

minimal disconnect between psychological research and educational practice.

Firstly, the practice of discourse (describing, explaining, critiquing etc.) about the module's

content was the clear focus in the types of response the Target Tutor expected from students

[See Units 2.3, 4.1, 4.3 in Tables]. Fostering connections between the abstract content of the

module and the full range of discursive practices allowed her to view the students' epistemic

development (Goodyear, 2007; Ohlsson, 1995) as something that she could influence, rather

than as being limited by a hypothesised developmental stage [Unit 4.6]. While all three tutors

expected students to engage in group activity, and organised tasks which required students to

communicate current understandings [Units 1.3, 3.4, 3.5, 3.6], the Target Tutor additionally

required students to co-construct agreed-upon meaning (through questioning a particular

position, marshalling evidence for alternative positions and reconciling differences) [Units

4.2, 4.3] thereby stimulating more sophisticated discourse and increasing attention to task

content; which in turn results in higher academic attainment (Gillies, 2003; Kirschner, et al.,

2009; Van den Bossche, Gijselaers, Segers, & Kirschner, 2006). Particularly with novice

students, epistemic activity is a means of getting students to understand the problematic

nature of tasks [Units 4.1, 4.8], rather than expecting them to be accomplished in their

communicative interactions and so to direct students to concentrate on the most fundamental

aspects of the task favours epistemic development (Baker, De Vries, Lund, & Quignard,

2001). Further, the refinement of epistemological understanding requires not only that there

be a divergence in view but that the point(s) of anomaly are debated and reconciled on actual

or hypothesised empirical evidence (Howe, Tolmie, Duchak-Tanner, & Rattay, 2000;

Schwarz & Linch, 2007) [Units 4.7, 4.8]; the outcome of which permits conceptual change.

To help students the Target Tutor seemed aware that not only were novice students in an early

phase of learning to be academically critical, but that it was necessary for their comparatively

primitive knowledge structures (mental organisation of information) to adapt and converge on

those of the (expert) tutor since knowledge structures are superior to knowledge acquisition in

predicting skilled performance (Kivlighan, Markin, Stahl, & Salahuddin, 2007) [Unit 4.5].

The Target Tutor seemed to view her role as one of engendering competence acquisition

rather than satisfaction with competence validation (Sternberg, 2005) [Unit 4.4].

Secondly, the Target Tutor seemed clear that epistemic activity would not take place in a

collaborative setting unless there was regulative behaviour amongst the group members

[Units 2.4, 2.7, 4.10]. Her appreciation of the beneficial effects of group activity on

individual achievement would include not only the social dimension (Tolmie et al., 2010) but

the recognition that constructing mutually shared cognition is predominantly a cognitive

11


activity (Olivera & Straus, 2004; Van den Bossche, et al., 2006) [Units 2.7, 4.3]. But while

metacognition allows the learner to manage and direct internally initiated cognitive activity,

there are reasons to believe that metacognitive consciousness has to be nurtured: knowledge

construction is necessarily time-consuming and effortful; a tendency to preserve extant

conceptual knowledge unless the necessity of its revision is compellingly obvious; and lack of

awareness as to how to think may reinforce strategic learners to be satisfied with the

procedural knowledge that allows immediate task resolution (Kuhn, 2009; Kuhn & Udell,

2007; Magno, 2010) [Unit 1.6]. However, the Target Tutor's own understanding of

metacognition (Wilson & Bai, 2010) would support her in underscoring the importance of

both intentionality and self-regulation through routinely probing students to provide further

explanations [Units 4.1, 4.4, 4.6, 4.9], in contrast to Comparison Tutors who accepted

incomplete or ambiguous explanations (Webb et al., 2008) [Unit 1.4]. Her emphasis on

evidence-based claims and their appraisal [Units 4.1, 4.2, 4.8, 4.9] being the focus of tutor

and student-led activity meant that the Target Tutor privileged critical thinking (over, say, the

administrivia of group arrangements). The need for time for constructive discussion and

debate and for the routinisation of regulative behaviour in the service of superior content and

epistemic knowledge, seems to be necessary (Brunstein, Betts, & Anderson, 2009; Ku & Ho,

2010; Maggioni & Parkinson, 2008; Magno, 2010; Peters & Kitsantas, 2010; Schunk, 2008)

and would appear to have been recognised by the Target Tutor [Units 2.1, 2.2].

Thirdly, the Target Tutor appeared to have a sophisticated conception of learning. While the

design of the module directed learning in a sequence of purposeful interdependent activities,

the Target Tutor also stressed student accountability in learning [Units 4.5, 4.10], unlike the

Comparison Tutors who seemed accepting of student dependence [Units 1.1, 1.2, 1.5, 3.2,

3.3]. Through preparation for, and engagement in, the Core Tasks each student was

responsible for representing ideas, working to develop ideas, monitoring the plausibility of

ideas, specifying the reasoning underlying particular positions, speculating on how ideas

might be tested, and judging the consistency and situational transfer of thinking. The Target

Tutor thus expected students to explain their understanding of knowledge, to make

connections between module material and real world-situations and to engage in substantive

and elaborated communication [Units 2.6, 4.3, 4.6, 4.7]; all practices which are characteristic

of constructivist pedagogy which precipitates superior academic achievement (Loyens,

Rikers, & Schmidt, 2008; Nie & Lau, 2010). Nuthall (2005) was of the view that much of

what sustains teaching is "ritualised routine supported by widely held myths about learning

and ability" (p 895) and that if teachers do not give primacy to searching for direct evidence

of student learning, they can only have some idealised judgement of their own practices in

relation to what is euphemistically referred to as 'good' or 'best' practice [Units 1.5, 1.6, 1.7].

12


Uncommonly, perhaps, the Target Tutor believed that her intervention would improve

thinking and increase expertise rather than viewing students as pathologically weak and/or

being unduly challenged (Rosenfeld & Rosenfeld, 2008; Sternberg, 2005) [Units 4.5, 4.6].

Regardless of whether students' thinking could be characterised as nascent, advanced,

competent, proficient or expert, the Tutor was concerned that tacit knowledge - a criterial

characteristic of expertise (Alexander, 2005) - be prioritised [Unit 4.9]. She recognised the

utility of developing verbal expertise (Didierjean & Gobet, 2008) as the mechanism through

which we learn the processes employed by experts in the emphasis she gave to the different

skills of argumentation [Units 4.2, 4.3]. Her extensive scaffolding and subsequent fading of

student learning (Nückles, Hübner, Dümer, & Renkl, 2010) [Units 2.1, 2.2, 2.5] would also

imply that she was aware of expertise reversal effects and the need to balance instructional

guidance with the learners' knowledge base (Kalyuga, 2007), to avoid excessive or redundant

cognitive overload.

Clearly the meaning given to the variation in Expectations and Engagements reported here are

open to challenge: other literature might well yield different insights. This is a criticism to

which qualitative research in general and phenomenographically-oriented research in

particular can be exposed (Åkerlind, 2005; Morse, 2006). However verification of the

meaning offered here is strengthened (Morse, 2006) by the care with which 'self-correcting'

checks were built into each stage of data explication: the transcribed records of the initial

discussions were checked by all participants for factual accuracy; the extracted clusters of

Expectations and Engagements were 'owned' by their respective tutors and corroborated as

credible and coherent; and finally the plausibility of the theoretical interpretations were

critiqued by a psychopedagogue within the authors' reference group.

Conclusion

The superior academic performance of one tutor's students, in an otherwise controlled

context, suggested that the Target Tutor's pedagogical practices were in some way(s) unusual.

Analysis of her reported pedagogy, compared with that of Comparison Tutors, revealed that

her expectations of students were clear and stringent and her engagement of students required

student argumentation. The differences between the Target Tutor and the Comparison Tutors

can be understood as differences in understandings of epistemic activity, metacognitive

regulative behaviour and (student-centred) learning. Student-centredness is lauded as a

general mechanism to promote learning. However, what this study illustrates is that without

embedding student-centred features in the content of what is to be learned, tutor practices are

less incisive. While the Target Tutor's sources of psychological knowledge did not map onto

13


her behaviour in a simplistic way, they appeared to equip her synergistically with crucial

cognitions and metacognitions to allow her to determine what was academically, situationally

and subjectively appropriate in the particular teaching situation. At will she appeared to have

flexible plans of action to engage students, to emphasise shared thinking and reasoning, to use

extant knowledge and to extrapolate to other situations. Such cognitive and metacognitive

knowledge is crucial for tutors (Maggioni & Parkinson, 2008) as it is this which supports

them in enabling students to persist with problems, become proficient in explaining their own

thinking and resolve differences in perspective. This study contributes to the evidence that

tutors’ explicit attention to salient variations in what it is that is to be learned (in this context

how to think more or less critically) determines how effective teaching will be. There was

variation in tutor Expectation of, and (cognitive) Engagements with, students. There was also

task and development-specific variation in the ways that the Target Tutor engaged particular

students in her classes. Clearly, given the agreed importance of the need for students to

become critical thinkers, there is a case for higher education pedagogy more generally to be

informed by the theoretical and practical implications of metacognition.

ReferencesAbrami, P., Bernard, R., Borokhovski, E., Wade, A., Surkes, M., Tamim, R., & Zhang, D. (2008). Instructional

interventions affecting critical thinking skills and dispositions: a stage 1 meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 78, 1102-1134.

Åkerlind, G. (2005). Variation and commonality in phenomenographic research methods Higher Education Research and Development, 24(4), 321-334.

Alexander, P. (2005). Teaching towards expertise. British Journal of Educational Psychology, Monograph Series II(3), 29-45.

Alexander, P. (2008). Why this and why now? Introduction to the special issue on metacognition, self-regulation, and self-regulated learning. Educational Psychology Review, 20, 369-372.

Andrews, R. (2007). Argumentation, critical thinking and the postgraduate dissertation. Educational Review, 59, 1-18.

Angeli, C., & Valanides, N. (2009). Instructional effects on critical thinking: performance on ill-defined issues. Learning and Instruction, 19, 322-334.

Azevedo, R. (2009). Theoretical, conceptual, methodological, and instructional issues in research on metacognition and self-regulated learning: a discussion. Metacognition and Learning, 4, 87-95.

Baker, M., De Vries, E., Lund, K., & Quignard, M. (2001). Computer-mediated epistemic interactions for co-constructing scientific notions: lessons learned from a five-year research programme. In P. Dillenbourg, A. Eurelings & K. Hakkarainen (Eds.), European perspectives on computer-supported collaborative learning : proceedings of the first European conference on computer-supported collaborative learning (pp. 89-96). Maastricht: Unigraphic.

Ball, D., & Forzani, F. (2007). What makes education research "Educational"? 2007 Wallace Foundation Distinguished Lecture. Educational Researcher, 36, 529-540.

Bassey, M. (1999). Case Study Research in Educational Settings. Buckingham, United Kingdom: Open University Press.

Bereiter, C. (2002). Education and Mind in the Knowledge Age. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Bereiter, C., & Scardamalia, M. (1989). Intentional learning. In L. Resnick (Ed.), Knowing, Learning and

Instruction (pp. 361-392). Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Booth, S., & Hultén, M. (2003). Opening dimensions of variation: an empirical study of learning in a web-based

discussion. Instructional Science, 31(1-2), 65-86. Bowden, J., & Marton, F. (1998). The University of Learning. London: Kogan Page.Brunstein, A., Betts, S., & Anderson, J. (2009). Practice enables successful learning under minimal guidance.

Journal of Educational Psychology, 101(4), 790-802. Chen, J., & Pajares, F. (2010). Implicit theories of ability of Grade 6 science students: relation to epistemological

beliefs and academic motivation and achievement in science. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 35, 75-87.

14


Clark, M., & Schroth, C. (2010). Examining relationships between academic motivation and personality among college students. Learning and Individual Differences, 20, 19-24.

Damşa, C., Kirschner, P., Andriessen, J., Erkens, G., & Sins, P. (2010). Shared epistemic agency: an empirical study of an emergent construct. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 19(2), 143 - 186.

Davies, W. (2008). Not quite right: helping students to make better arguments. Teaching in Higher Education, 13, 327-340.

De Corte, E. (2000). Marrying theory building and the improvement of school practice: a permanent challenge for instructional psychology. Learning and Instruction 10, 249-266.

Didierjean, A., & Gobet, F. (2008). Sherlock Holmes – an expert’s view of expertise. British Journal of Psychology, 99, 109-125.

Dinsmore, D., Alexander, P., & Loughlin, S. (2008). Focusing the conceptual lens on metacognition, self-regulation, and self-regulated learning. Educational Psychology Review, 20, 391-409.

Efklides, A. (2008). Metacognition defining its facets and levels of functioning in relation to self-regulation and co-regulation. European Psychologist 13 277-228.

Facione, P. (1990). Critical thinking: a statement of expert consensus for purposes of educational assessment and instruction The Executive Summary of the Delphi Research Report. Millbrae: California Academic Press.

Flores, K., Matkin, G., Burbach, M., Quinn, C., & Harding, H. (2011). Deficient critical thinking skills among college graduates: implications for leadership. Educational Philosophy and Theory.

Flyvbjerg, B. (2007). Five misunderstandings about case-study research. In C. Seale, G. Gobo, J. Gubrium & D. Silverman (Eds.), Qualitative Research Practice (pp. 390-404). London: Sage.

Gillies, R. (2003). Structuring cooperative group work in classrooms. International Journal of Educational Research, 39, 35-49.

Goodyear, P. (2007). Discussion, collaborative knowledge work and epistemic fluency. British Journal of Educational Studies, 55(4), 351-368.

Halpern, D. (1998). Teaching critical thinking across domains: dispositions, skills, structure raining, and metacognitive monitoring American Psychologist, 53(4), 449-455.

Harris, L. (2011). Phenomenographic perspectives on the structure of conceptions: the origins, purposes, strengths, and limitations of the what/how and referential/structural frameworks. Educational Research Review, 6(2), 109-124.

Howe, C., Tolmie, A., Duchak-Tanner, V., & Rattay, C. (2000). Hypothesis-testing in science: group consensus and the acquisition of conceptual and procedural knowledge. Learning and Instruction, 10, 361-391.

Huff, J., & Nietfeld, J. (2009). Using strategy instruction and confidence judgments to improve metacognitive monitoring. Metacognition and Learning, 4, 161-176.

Hurme, T., Palonen, T., & Järvela, S. (2006). Metacognition in joint discussions: an analysis of the patterns of interaction and the metacognitive content of the networked discussions in mathematics. Metacognition and Learning, 1, 181-200.

Hycner, R. (1985). Some guidelines for the phenomenological analysis of interview data. Human Studies, 8, 279-303.

Janssen, J., Kirschner, F., Erkens, G., Kirschner, P., & Paas, F. (2010). Making the black box of collaborative learning transparent: combining process-oriented and cognitive load approaches. Educational Psychology Review, 22, 139-154.

Johanson, J. (2010). Cultivating critical thinking: an interview with Stephen Brookfield. Journal of Developmental Education, 33, 26-30.

Kalyuga, S. (2007). Expertise reversal effect and its implications for learner-tailored instruction. Educational Psychology Review, 19, 509-539.

King, P., & Kitchener, K. (1994). Developing Reflective Judgement. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.Kirschner, F., Paas, F., & Kirschner, P. (2009). Individual and group-based learning from complex cognitive tasks:

effects on retention and transfer efficiency. Computers in Human Behavior, 25, 306-314. Kitchener, K. (1983). Cognition, metacognition and epistemic cognition: a three-level model of cognitive

processing. Human Development, 26, 222-232. Kivlighan, D., Markin, R., Stahl, J., & Salahuddin, N. (2007). Changes in the ways that group trainees’ structure

their knowledge of group clients over training. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 11(3), 176-186.

Ku, K., & Ho, I. (2010). Metacognitive strategies that enhance critical thinking. Metacognition and Learning, 5, 251-267.

Kuhn, D. (2009). Do students need to be taught how to reason? Educational Research Review, 4, 1-6. Kuhn, D., & Udell, W. (2007). Coordinating own and other perspectives in argument. Thinking & Reasoning, 13,

90-104. Kuhn, D., & Weinstock, M. (2002). What is epistemological thinking and why does it matter? In B. Hofer & P.

Pintrich (Eds.), Personal Epistemology: the psychology of beliefs about knowledge and knowing (pp. 121-144). Mahwah, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Larsson, S. (2009). A pluralist view of generalization in qualitative research. International Journal of Research & Method in Education, 32(1), 25-38.

Loyens, S., Rikers, R., & Schmidt, H. (2008). Relationships between students' conceptions of constructivist learning and their regulation and processing strategies. Instructional Science, 36, 445-462.

Maggioni, L., & Parkinson, M. (2008). The role of teacher epistemic cognition, epistemic beliefs, and calibration in instruction. Educational Psychology Review, 20, 445-461.

15


Maggioni, L., Riconscente, M., & Alexander, P. (2006). Perceptions of knowledge and beliefs among undergraduate students in Italy and in the United States. Learning and Instruction, 16, 467-491.

Magno, C. (2010). The role of metacognitive skills in developing critical thinking. Metacognition and Learning, 5, 137-156.

Marton, F. (2007). Towards a pedagogical theory of learning. British Journal of Educational Psychology, Monograph Series, II(4), 19-30.

Marton, F., & Booth, S. (1997). Learning and Awareness. Mahwah, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Marton, F., & Pang, M. (2006). On some necessary conditions of learning. Journal of the Learning Sciences,

15(2), 193 - 220. Mason, L., Boldrin, A., & Ariasi, N. (2010). Epistemic metacognition in context: evaluating and learning online

information. Metacognition and Learning, 5, 67-90. Mason, L., & Bromme, R. (2010). Situating and relating epistemological beliefs into metacognition: studies on

beliefs about knowledge and knowing. Metacognition and Learning, 5, 1-6. Mason, L., & Scirica, F. (2006). Prediction of students’ argumentation skills about controversial topics by

epistemological understanding. Learning and Instruction, 16, 492-509. Merrill, M. (2009). First principles of instruction. In C. Reigeluth & A. Carr-Chellman (Eds.), Instructional-

Design Theories and Models (Vol. 3, pp. 41-56). New York: Routledge.Morse, J. (2006). Insight, inference, evidence, and verification: creating a legitimate discipline. International

Journal of Qualitative Methods, 5(1), 93-100. Muis, K., & Franco, G. (2009). Epistemic beliefs: setting the standards for self-regulated learning. Contemporary

Educational Psychology, 34, 306-318. Nie, Y., & Lau, S. (2010). Differential relations of constructivist and didactic instruction to students’ cognition,

motivation, and achievement. Learning and Instruction, 20, 411-423. Nückles, M., Hübner, S., Dümer, S., & Renkl, A. (2010). Expertise reversal effects in writing-to-learn.

Instructional Science, 38, 237-258. Nuthall, G. (2005). The cultural myths and realities of classroom teaching and learning: a personal journey.

Teachers College Record, 107(5), 895-934. OECD, O. f. E. C.-o. a. D. (2010). Raise your hand Retrieved 1st December, 2010, from

< http://www.oecd.org/topic/0,3373,en_2649_37455_1_1_1_1_37455,00.html > Ohlsson, S. (1995). Learning to do and learning to understand. In P. Reimann & H. Spada (Eds.), Learning in

Humans and Machines (pp. 37- 62). Oxford: Pergamon.Olivera, F., & Straus, S. (2004). Group-to-individual transfer of learning : cognitive and and social factors. Small

Group Research, 35, 440-465. Peters, E., & Kitsantas, A. (2010). Self-regulation of student epistemic thinking in science: the role of

metacognitive prompts. Educational Psychology, 30, 27-52. Pieschl, S., Stahl, E., & Bromme, R. (2008). Epistemological beliefs and self-regulated learning with hypertext.

Metacognition and Learning, 3, 17-37. Postareff, L., & Lindblom-Ylänne, S. (2008). Variation in teachers' descriptions of teaching: broadening the

understanding of teaching in higher education. Learning and Instruction, 18(2), 109-120. Rochelle, J., & Teasley, S. (1995). The construction of shared knowledge in collaborative problem solving. In C.

O’Malley (Ed.), Computer Supported Collaborative Learning (pp. 69–97). Berlin: Springer.Rosenfeld, M., & Rosenfeld, S. (2008). Developing effective teacher beliefs about learners: the role of sensitizing

teachers to individual learning differences. Educational Psychology, 28(3), 245 - 272. Säljö, R. (1995). Mental and physical artifacts in cognitive practices. In P. Reimann & H. Spada (Eds.), Learning

in Humans and Machines (pp. 83-96). Oxford: Elsevier Science Ltd.Schunk, D. (2008). Metacognition, self-regulation, and self-regulated learning: research recommendations.

Educational Psychology Review, 20, 463-467. Schwarz, B., & Linch, L. (2007). The role of task design and argumentation in cognitive development during peer

interaction: the case of proportional reasoning. Learning and Instruction 17, 510-531. Sinatra, G., & Pintrich, P. (Eds.). (2003). Intentional Conceptual Change. Mahwah, N.J: Lawrence Erlbaum

Associates.Stake, R. (2003). Case Studies. In N. Denzin & Y. Lincoln (Eds.), Strategies of Qualitative Inquiry (pp. 134-164).

London: Sage Publishers.Stathopoulou, C., & Vosniadou, S. (2007). Exploring the relationship between physics-related epistemological

beliefs and physics understanding Contemporary Educational Psychology, 32, 255-281. Sternberg, R. (2005). Intelligence, competence and expertise. In A. Elliot & C. Dweck (Eds.), Handbook of

Competence and Motivation (pp. 15-30). New York: The Guildford Press.Strømsø, H., & Bråten, I. (2010). The role of personal epistemology in the self-regulation of internet-based

learning. Metacognition and Learning, 5, 91-111. Ten Dam, G., & Volman, M. (2004). Critical thinking as a citizenship competence: teaching strategies. Learning

and Instruction, 14, 359-379. Tolmie, A., Topping, K., Christie, D., Donaldson, C., Howe, C., Jessiman, E., . . . Thurston, A. (2010). Social

effects of collaborative learning in primary schools. Learning and Instruction, 20, 177-191. Trigwell, K., Prosser, M., & Ginns, P. (2005). Phenomenographic pedagogy and a revised Approaches to Teaching

inventory. Higher Education Research and Development, 24(4), 349-360. Valanides, N., & Angeli, C. (2005). Effects of instruction on changes in epistemological beliefs. Contemporary

Educational Psychology, 30, 314-330.

16

http://www.oecd.org/topic/0,3373,en_2649_37455_1_1_1_1_37455,00.html


Van den Bossche, P., Gijselaers, W., Segers, M., & Kirschner, P. (2006). Social and cognitive factors driving teamwork in collaborative learning environments: team learning beliefs and behaviors. Small Group Research, 37(5), 490-521.

Van Driel, J., Bulte, A., & Verloop, N. (2007). The relationships between teachers’ general beliefs about teaching and learning and their domain specific curricular beliefs. Learning and Instruction, 17, 156-171.

Virtanen, V., & Lindblom-Ylänne, S. (2010). University students’ and teachers’ conceptions of teaching and learning in the biosciences. Instructional Science, 38, 355-370.

Webb, N., Franke, M., Ing, M., Chan, A., De, T., Freund, D., & Battey, D. (2008). The role of teacher instructional practices in student collaboration. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 33, 360-381.

Wilson, N., & Bai, H. (2010). The relationships and impact of teachers’ metacognitive knowledge and pedagogical understandings of metacognition. Metacognition and Learning, 5, 269-288.

Woodring, J., Foley, S., Rado, G., Brown, K., & Hamner, D. (2006). Focus groups and methodological reflections: conscientious flexibility in the field. Journal of Disability Policy Studies, 16, 248-258.

Zimmerman, B. (2008). Investigating self-regulation and motivation: historical background, methodological developments, and future prospects. American Educational Research Journal, 45, 166 -183.

Zohar, A., & Peled, B. (2008). The effects of explicit teaching of metastrategic knowledge on low- and high-achieving students. Learning and Instruction, 18, 337-353.

17


Indicative Sample of Expectations and Engagements

Table 1 Comparison Tutors' Expectations of Students 1.1 It's my experience that students new to higher education find time management difficult.

Although they are advised to spend the entire day doing module-related work I don’t blame them for hovering round my ankles asking for direction as to which tasks they are to do because they are not timetabled beyond lectures or tutor-led seminars

1.2 In the current climate students experience many demands on their time. They often cannot overtake all the preparation that we set

1.3 I tell the students that I am interested in their views, and not to just report what others are saying

1.4 Students can find the reading demanding. I'm not surprised if they set it aside, and ask for explicit tutor interpretation at the class. We should not ask them to read journal articles in first year

1.5 I often feel that if I get each student to speak at least once during the seminar, then I have achieved my objectives

1.6 Students find critical thinking difficult. As a first step they need to be able to recognise the difference between describing what is observable, and making interpretations of their descriptions. When they can do that fairly easily I feel as though I have gone as far as I can with first years

1.7 When students marshal their reading into categories indicating which articles speak to them more/less clearly, I can see that they have thought about their reading

Table 2 Target Tutor's Expectations of Students 2.1 I make it clear that the time allocated to this module should be taken up with a mixture of

carrying out prescribed reading, working in student-led study groups on aspects of the Core Tasks and attending lectures and/or seminars

2.2 I say to the students, "If you treat Fridays after the lecture as 'free' time you are unlikely to be well enough prepared to cope with the module assessments"

2.3 I draw students' attention to the importance of their participation in the self-directed study groups to achieve personal understanding of the material

2.4 Students are reminded that their study group is for them to manage and that it exists to enable them to draft, re-draft and agree the Core Task response to which they are contributors

2.5 When some students invoke their idealised model of the tutor's role - to answer student questions - I explain that there will probably be some questions which I will answer but there will be lots of other times when I specifically want the students to share knowledge, ask questions, and seek each other's feedback

2.6 I tell my students that it is not acceptable to report their critiques in terms such as, " I really believe that…or personally, I think that…or in my opinion" unless these remarks are followed by reference to psychologically informed texts

2.7 It is important that students come to seminars fully prepared. I emphasise that they must engage with the prescribed reading, with their peers in the student-led study groups and with the lecture-related tasks which have been assigned

18


Table 3 Comparison Tutors' Engagement of Students 3.1 I ask the students how they view the ideas of the study/article being considered.3.2 During the tutor-led seminars, I keep a watching brief on how the groups are working

together. If there is a group in which all members don't appear to participate, I'll join that group for a bit and give them the benefit of my experience

3.3 I model for the students how to 'gut' an article. They really appreciate this. If they've made some attempt to determine the author's rationale, purpose and method, I'm pleased to be able to elaborate on what they've done and point out what they’ve missed

3.4 Since this is a module about children as learners, I encourage the students to think about some of their own ideas, practices and theories about children. It's always important to start from where the students themselves are, so matters about which they may have had first-hand experience (school refusal, buying gifts, restrictions on television viewing, going out with friends etc.) are useful platforms from which to get the students to speak

3.5 I encourage students to express their views. They always seem keen to share these with peers. Towards the end of the seminar I'll chair a Q and A session. The students help each other to find the answers and if they get very stuck, I can make my contribution

3.6 I ask the students to make clear if they think the findings in the article ring true in their experience of practice in the field

Table 4 Target Tutor's Engagement of Students 4.1 I ask the students what sort of evidence the study/article offers in support of its findings. At

other times I ask students for specific references to evidence that they are citing( to show them that I might want to read the original source from which they are quoting)

4.2 I find that it is useful to have the students exemplify what evidence they will accept as justification for favouring one educational practice over another. Students often remark that they need to think hard when I ask them to include in their responses whose authority they accept; and why this authority is a believable one

4.3 It's important for the students to learn that knowledge is not static so I have them speculate on what further evidence might be gathered about the issue in question, and what that evidence might be like so I ask questions like, "What is the problem?", "What do you know about the problem so far?" "What would be useful to know about this problem?", "What's your plan to gather such knowledge?"

4.4 Students need to be able to be aware of what might be implicit. I ask the students what they can infer from their reading of an article about the author's assumptions of learning and how it happens, or how discipline can work in the classroom or whatever

4.5 When students say that they can't determine the author's rationale I disaggregate this into smaller segments such as, "What do the authors see as gaps in knowledge about the topic?" "How do the authors know that there are gaps?" or " What do the authors intend to do about such gaps?"

4.6 I suppose I emphasise the importance of good thinking being something that is made explicit when I say to the students, "Can you compare how you used to think about this with how you think about it now?" or "Explain to the others why you consider that that answer is correct or wrong"

4.7 I try to draw their attention to the difference between anecdotal and substantiated views so I might ask, "How does your explanation compare with the theoretical explanation offered at the lecture earlier this morning?" or "Is this explanation a scientific definition or an everyday definition?"

4.8 If the students make a claim such as, "children learn well when they are given specific instructions", I ask them how they know this. For each unsubstantiated statement that they make I ask, "What's your evidence"? I tell students to look for studies which provide evidence

4.9 When students tell me that they can't find evidence for a particular position, I set them the task of searching for studies described in their prescribed reading text

4.10 A number of the students in my group have reported that if it weren't for the Core Tasks, they wouldn't bother to do the preparatory reading tasks

19

strathprints.strath.ac.uk€¦ · Web viewPsychological Knowledge for Teaching Critical Thinking:...

Documents

Transcript of strathprints.strath.ac.uk€¦ · Web viewPsychological Knowledge for Teaching Critical Thinking:...