The critical thinking debate: how general are general thinking skills?

Abstract

and-conditions-of-access.pdf This article may be used for research, teaching and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution , reselling , loan or sub-licensing, systematic supply or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae and drug doses should be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings, demand or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.

Facing up to the challenge: why is it so hard to develop graduate attributes?

“…This is a more fundamental question than what combination of skills, attributes and knowledge should be included on the graduate 'shopping list': it is about the nature of things on the list, and the nature of the list itself (Barrie, 2006, p.215). Barrie (2006) and others (for example, see Hager, Holland & Beckett, 2002;Moore, 2004) certainly make a valid point about the need for conceptual clarity. However, it is also important to acknowledge the danger of allowing long-standing theoretical disagreements to dominate the graduate attributes project, particularly if they serve as a barrier to university aspirations for curriculum change.…”

“…For some time now, researchers (Barrie, 2005;Barrie, 2006;Moore, 2004;Clanchy & Ballard, 1995) have argued that problems of implementation ultimately stem from the theoretically nebulous nature of the graduate attributes agenda. The variety of terms used by policy writers, often interchangeably, to describe desirable graduate outcomes is indicative of this confusion.…”

“…Opinion regarding this crucial relationship is similarly divided among universities' learning and literacy experts (Chanock, 2004). According to Moore (2004), this group falls into two distinct camps: the 'generalists' and the 'specifists'. The generalists first came to the fore in the 1970s and believe that attributes are indeed generic, and can therefore be taught separately from content and applied to any discipline.…”

“…Various concepts have been invoked to articulate this aspiration, ranging from that of the 'lifelong learner' (Boud, 2000) and a concern for developing students' capacity to judge their own academic and professional performance, to that of graduate attributes and/or skills (Barrie, 2004;Moore, 2004;Kirkpatrick & Mulligan, 2002), the 'knowledge society' (Candy, 2000) and 'mode 2 knowledge' (Barnett, 2000;Smith & Riley, 2003). While all these concepts are driven, to some extent, by external stakeholder expectations concerning employability and changing professional requirements, there is also an argument that is more central to the traditional role of the university as both custodian and creator of knowledge.…”

“…A lack of conceptual clarity about what we mean by terms such as 'attributes', 'skills' and the like, is well documented. So too are differences in the way we conceive graduate attributes, and the impact this has on the way relevant teaching strategies are designed, implemented and taught (Barrie, 2004;Barrie, 2006;Moore, 2004). Yet equally serious for academic staff charged with the project of developing them is the problem of conceptualising, implementing, and assessing graduate attributes within particular disciplinary contexts, for particular existing degree structures, and in relation to each other.…”