A comparison of a subject-specific and a general measure of critical thinking

Renaud, Robert; Murray, Harry G.

doi:10.1016/j.tsc.2008.03.005

Cited by 69 publications

(63 citation statements)

References 24 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…We focused on the systematic design of subject matter instruction (supported by valid principles of instructional design research) as previous CT intervention studies did not systematically explore how subject matter instruction in itself may stimulate learning of domain-specific CT skills. The instructional interventions designed and implemented as part of a couple of previous Immersion-oriented CT empirical studies (e.g., Barnett and Francis 2012;Garside 1996;Renaud and Murray 2008;Stark 2012;Wheeler and Collins 2003) appear to show significant limitations. The interventions focused mainly on a specific component of the learning environment (e.g., small group discussion only), and only minimally emphasized other important learning environment components such as the types of learning tasks/problems designed for discussion (e.g., are the learning tasks challenging enough to provoke discussion among students?…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Systematic design of a learning environment for domain-specific and domain-general critical thinking skills

Tiruneh

Weldeslassie

Kassa

et al. 2015

Education Tech Research Dev

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Identifying effective instructional approaches that stimulate students' critical thinking (CT) has been the focus of a large body of empirical research. However, there is little agreement on the instructional principles and procedures that are theoretically sound and empirically valid to developing both domain-specific and domain-general CT skills. The purpose of this study was to examine the effectiveness of systematically designed subject matter instruction in stimulating the development of domain-specific and domaingeneral CT skills, and to investigate the relationship between the two. The study employed a pretest-posttest quasi-experimental design with two conditions: 45 students participated in an experimental condition and 44 students in a control condition. A learning environment, in the context of a freshman physics course, was designed according to the First Principles of Instruction model. The experimental condition followed the designed learning environment, while the control condition followed regular subject matter instruction that was not designed according to the First Principles of Instruction model. The experimental condition scored significantly higher than the control condition on a domain-specific CT test. The results also showed that better performance on a domain-specific CT test explained a significant proportion of the variance on a domain-general CT test. However, the experimental learning environment did not result in a significantly greater pretestposttest improvement in the acquisition of domain-general CT skills compared to the control learning environment. Instructional design principles that may contribute to the present understanding of the integration of CT skills within the regular subject matter instruction are discussed.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Systematic design of a learning environment for domain-specific and domain-general critical thinking skills

Tiruneh

Weldeslassie

Kassa

et al. 2015

Education Tech Research Dev

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…However, since critical thinking is not a general competence but rather a complicated set of general and specific factors, different measures of critical thinking should be utilized whenever possible. Renaud and Murray (2008) confirmed that the definitions and interpretations of critical thinking are various just like the methods utilized in its assessment. One matter regarding which Watson and Glaser (1980), Facione (1990a) and Simpson and Courtney (2002), as experts and theorists of critical thinking, critical thinking includes analysis, evaluation, and inference.…”

Section: Critical Thinking: Definition and Assessmentmentioning

confidence: 75%

“…As the extent of information and decisions proliferates, we may be at risk of having the responses, but not apprehending what they mean (Renaud & Murray, 2008). Critical thinking is regarded vital for democratic citizenship.…”

Section: Importance Of Critical Thinking In Educationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Is there a Relationship between Critical Thinking and Critical Reading of Literary Texts: A Case Study at Arak University (Iran)

Kohzadi

Azizmohammadi

Samadi

2014

ILSHS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Examining the theme, plot, and characters of a literary work is a common practice for students of literature so that they can criticize literature. Unlike a non-critical reading which provides readers only with facts, a critical reading also entails depicting how a book or a source illustrates the subject matter. Through various reading procedures including interpretation, inference and examining ideologies embedded in texts, readers can develop critical thinking. This paper aims at examining whether or not there is a relationship between critical thinking and critical reading of literary texts in higher education. To meet the mentioned aim, 121 EFL learners from Arak University were invited to participate in this study. After administrating English proficiency test, total numbers of students were 98 male and female. Data analysis was done through employing ANOVA and T-test.

show abstract

“…However, Ennis (1989) found that critical thinking has subject specificity (similar to domain specificity); therefore, evaluation scales for critical thinking abilities vary among different fields and require different design considerations to develop more proper educational or evaluation tools (Tiruneh, Cock, Weldeslassie, Elen, & Janssen, 2016). A study of Renaud and Murray (2008) using psychology as the learning content showed results consistent with Ennis' opinion. They compared two evaluation tools: domain-specific measure of critical thinking and general critical thinking scale.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 86%

The Development and Validation of a Mechanical Critical Thinking Scale for High School Students

Lin²,

Chang³

2016

EURASIA J MATH SCI T

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The purpose of this study was to develop a mechanical critical thinking scale for high school students. A stratified random sampling method was used to establish the norms. After pretests and item analysis, the scale was determined to have five subtest sections (i.e., recognition of assumptions, induction, deduction, interpretation, and evaluation of arguments) consisting of 25 items. In addition, using 1,954 high school students as participants, this study established a norm and investigated the differences among genders and ages. The results showed that male students had better mechanical critical thinking skills than did female students in terms of induction aptitude, while female students were better in evaluation aptitude. In addition, the mechanical critical thinking performance of 12th-grade students was superior to that of 10th-and 11th-grade students.

show abstract

A comparison of a subject-specific and a general measure of critical thinking

Cited by 69 publications

References 24 publications

Systematic design of a learning environment for domain-specific and domain-general critical thinking skills

Systematic design of a learning environment for domain-specific and domain-general critical thinking skills

Is there a Relationship between Critical Thinking and Critical Reading of Literary Texts: A Case Study at Arak University (Iran)

The Development and Validation of a Mechanical Critical Thinking Scale for High School Students

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About