Promotion of Critical Thinking through intervention in a didactic unit

The research that is presented tries to complement other experiences carried out on critical thinking in the educational field.

Despite the fact that critical thinking has been one of the most important educational goals of the last century (Dewey, 1910; Educational Policy Commission, 1961), there are still many demands made to increase this type of thinking in schools and institutes, and few interventions have been made.

We invite you to continue reading this PsicologíaOnline article about the Promotion of Critical Thinking through intervention in a didactic unit on the technique of detecting biased information in students of Compulsory Secondary Education in Social Sciences.

Index

1. Theoretical framework
2. What exactly is meant by critical thinking?
3. Conceptual approach
4. Method
5. Materials
6. Process
7. Data design and analysis
8. Discussion

Given the characteristics of today's society, there is a growing need to intervene quickly and effectively in the acquisition of

The explosion of information to which people are subjected is one of the most important reasons that authors such as Beltrán (1996) and Halpern (1998) have determined. The great advances offer to reach large amounts of information and of any type, in a very short time, which makes it possible to fall into passive acceptance, without asking for the meaning, or delving into the theme. And that's what research shows is happening.

Muñoz et al (2000) found that 90% of the E.S.O. they did not use critical thinking neither at school nor in their daily life.

In the United States, there are scary facts about the practice of critical thinking in schools. Lister (1992) determined that 78% of women and 70% of men read the horoscope believing that it was written for them. Kennedy et al. (1991) determined that the interest in teaching PC has come from the evidence that American students do not develop the ability to think about specific aspects such as the assessment of items that require explanation of criteria, text analysis or the defense of a judgment or a point of view. Paul (1990) determines that it is important that the field of PC extends to all disciplines and that it progressively increases over the years. Only in this way will the results be socially important. Meser and Griggs (1989) argued that 99% of students believe in things that cannot be verified such as ghosts, telepathy, the Bermuda triangle ...

The State Education Commission (1982), Baron and Sternberg, (1987), and Steen (1987) reached the same conclusion: the percentage of students who promote their superior thinking skills is decreasing ".

The National Assessment of Educational Progress (1981) reported that "few students could give more than a cursory answer in tasks and that the best responses showed little evidence of the development of PC strategies and problem solving problems".

The National Commission on Excellence in Education noted that "some seventeen-year-olds did not possess the expected higher-order intellectual abilities."

As has been observed, there are countless studies that conclude that most students do not have adequate thinking and learning skills, which further justifies conducting research that promotes this ability.

Therefore, it is shown (Siegel 1990) that interest in PC has arisen for several reasons: the lack of higher-order thinking skills among students and the need for them to be able to think critically when the modern world demands it and to participate fully in life democratic.

The best education for the 21st century must be based on learning critical thinking, thinking critically, thinking autonomously. According to Young (1980), if teachers use appropriate curricular methods and materials, students will increase their PC skills. This idea had already been determined in 1954 by Dressel and Mayhew, as they identified five PC skills and led an investigation showing how the school's curriculum and strategies could be developed to increase CP. Feldman and Newcomb also spoke on this topic.

What are the aspects that characterize a person who thinks critically?

Critical thinking has been defined by multiple authors Dressel and Mayhew (1954), McPeck (1981), Beyer (1985), Lipman (1985), Nickerson (1987), Wade and Tavris (1987), Chafee (1988), Kurfiss (1988), Hudgins (1989), Siegel (1989), Paul (1990), Stratton (1999), but the more consolidated definition, and the adopted, is the one carried out by Ennis (1985), in which critical thinking is conceived as rational, reflective thinking interested in what to do or to believe. It is admitted that there are ambiguities in this definition but it is the one that has the least inaccuracies and includes the most important aspects of the term, therefore it is the most accepted.

Critical thinking is the type of thinking that is characterized by managing, dominating ideas. Its main function is not to generate ideas but to review, evaluate and review what is understands, processes, communicates through other types of thinking (verbal, mathematical, logical...). Very illuminating is the analogy that Stratton (1999) uses between critical thinking and the data processing system used in libraries. Libraries are a set of ideas in books, magazines,... organized by a computer processing system. He does not have his own ideas but organizes and directs the ideas contained in books, magazines,... Similarly, critical thinking directs the ideas of other types of thinking by reviewing, evaluating, and reviewing them.

Critical thinking is made up of both skills and dispositions, as has been shown by authors such as Ennis (1986), Halone (1986), and Halpern (1989), among others.

If you dig even deeper, you can say that a person who thinks critically is one who, according to Paul (1992) has:

• Mental independence: possess dispositions and commitments to think autonomously, to think for oneself.
• Intellectual curiosity: be willing to understand the world.
• Intellectual courage: be aware of the need to direct ideas, beliefs, points of view,... through which we have a strong negative emotion.
• Intellectual humility: know the limits of our own knowledge.
• Intellectual empathy: be aware of the need to imagine, to put oneself in the place of others to understand them.
• Intellectual integrity: recognize the need for truth in the moral and intellectual standards implicit in our judgments of conduct or in the points of view of others.
• Intellectual perseverance: have a good disposition and awareness of the need for truth and an intellectual purpose despite difficulties, obstacles and frustrations.
• Have faith in reason: an increase in people in adopting their own conclusions through the development of their rational faculties, the reasonable description of conclusions, coherent thinking and logically, persuade others by reason and become reasonable people despite the deep obstacles of the characteristics of the human mind in relation to what we know.
• Act fairly: have a good predisposition and awareness of the need to address all unlikely points of view. It is the ability to reason without having reference to one's own feelings or interests, or feelings or interests of friends, community or nation. It implies adherence to intellectual norms without reference to our own advancement or the advancement of the group.

Once both the definition and the characteristics described have been described, it is necessary to determine how it has been understood this type of thinking in this research, that is, what is the position it occupies and what is the approximation adopted.

A described both the definition and the characteristics described, it is necessary determine how this type of thinking has been understood in this research, that is, what is the position he occupies and what is the approach adopted.

To carry out the most innovative intervention program, the classification of learning strategies carried out by Beltrán (1996), the which conceives critical thinking as a learning strategy that is part of the personalization processes, together with creative thinking and transfer, between others.

Critical thinkingLike any learning strategy, it is developed through a series of techniques. In this case, four were selected: detection of biased information, Socratic discussion, controversy and analysis of experiences.

To develop these techniques, the Beltrán (1996) strategy instruction model has been taken as a reference. This model (didactic unit or type lesson) is based on the ideas of theorists such as Anderson, Bloom, Beyer, Carroll, Vygotsky, Palincsar and Brown, Rosenshine and Zimmerman and Shunk, among others.

It has a mainly constructivist base, since it tries that accommodation occurs through the induction of imbalance and cognitive conflict in learning (Edelstein, 1992).

It has the following structure: introduction-approach (objectives and metaphor), teaching (explanation of the strategy using the three types of knowledge), modeling, practice, summary, transfer and evaluation (See Annex).

That is, the teacher introduces the skill: defines it or asks students to define it, offers the purpose of learning and focuses on the lesson. This helps students to have a mental set to perform the skill (Beyer, 1991). Next, the teacher explains the procedure and the rules or norms in which the skill consists. He then demonstrates how the skill is used and applied, so that students can then practice the skill, reflect and evaluate what happens when it is performed and the path they have employee. Finally, it is intended that students review the skill and try to do it in other situations, transfer it to other contexts (Nisbett 1990). A very important aspect to highlight is that the student is the protagonist and the teacher is a mediator, facilitator of learning. It is intended that the student be active, that he participates in his own learning.

This strategy allows students to: better understand their own thinking, increase the type of control aware of the skill taught, crucial for learning thinking skills (Bereiter, 1984; Sternberg, 1984; Segal and Chipman, 1984, Broen et al, 1981).

Comment that the scheme followed to develop the didactic unit is also based on the evolution or development that according to Fogarty (1993) they follow the thinking skills (acquisition of skills, giving meaning, application and transfer).

Of the four didactic units developed, one for each of the aforementioned techniques, only one of them has been put into practice, that of detecting biased information.

Before commenting on the approach that has been adopted, it has been deemed necessary to highlight a series of aspects on which the intervention program (most innovative) carried out is based:

• The use of various types of information sources, be they historical texts, advertisements, hobbies... that imply that the skill is used in contexts in which the subjects move.
• That the teaching model is direct or directive and inductive, (Beyer, 1990), as it has been described, in the explanation of the teaching model, previously. The use of both teaching models avoids monotony in learning, the best adaptation of the contents,... To point out that although the teaching model is directive, this does not imply, far from it, that the teacher is the protagonist and only actor in learning.
• A highly detailed action plan, a practical guide (Hudgins, 1977), is provided to avoid just telling the subject to act!
• Both the dispositions and the skills of critical thinking have been taken into account.
• Cooperative learning strategies have been used given the great benefits they offer: great retention of the topic discussed, increased attitudes through learning, increased opportunities for higher-order information processing, and increased interpersonal relationships among group members (Johnson and Johnson, 1986).

Regarding the approach or approach adopted for the teaching of critical thinking, comment that It is called as mixed. That is, the combination of general dispositions and skills together with specific experiences and knowledge within an area of ​​interest (in this case the social sciences) at the institute. It is necessary to make a little clarification. The mixed approach, as mentioned above, includes both the general approach, where skills or principles are found general principles of critical thinking, such as the specific approach in which there are two sub-approaches, that of infusion and immersion. Of which the infusion subaproximation has been adopted in this research, since the teaching of standard topics and the inclusion of general principles have been incorporated.

Authors such as Brell, Ennis, Sternberg, Nickerson and Perkins and Salomon, defend this type of approach.

The subject selected to develop the intervention program, as mentioned, has been the social sciences. This discipline has been selected because it is considered to be one of the best for developing thought critical, because it belongs to the curriculum, and because it is developed in the classes in which it has been developed Program.

In addition, according to Tulchin (1987) this subject does, facilitates students to use the tools and methods of critical thinking to evaluate evidence, detect inconsistencies and incompatibilities, draw valid conclusions, construct hypotheses and realize both the possibilities of opinions and facts when studying this subject, and specifically the topics selected for the program of intervention.

There are many authors who defend that critical thinking should be developed in this subject, they highlight: LeCop, (2000), Pitchers (2000), Craver (1999), Beltrán (1996), Bitner (1991), Santos Rego (1991), McPeck (1990), Tulchin (1987), Strom and Parsons (1982),

It is also important to explain that given the important relationship that exists between learning to think and learning the use of content is critical thinking needs to be taught in the teaching of a discipline of knowledge, in this case the social sciences (Pitchers, 2000). In other words, the teaching of critical thinking must be considered as a fundamental part of the curriculum and therefore must be framed within the main flow of instruction (Swartz, 1991).

Once the need to intervene in critical thinking has been justified, having described the conception and approach that has been adopted of said strategy of learning, determined the characteristics of the intervention program (more innovative) and justified the selected subject, it is necessary to specify that the general objective of this research is to determine if the intervention program carried out in the information detection technique biased in the subject of social sciences, has increased critical thinking in students (of the experimental group) of Secondary Education Mandatory

In this way, you can:

• Determine the level of the students in critical thinking before and after the intervention. And therefore of improvement, if it exists.
• Decide the effectiveness of the intervention program of the biased information detection technique.
• Inform the educational institution (institute) of the level that their students have in that skill.
• Raise awareness in educational institutions of the importance of fostering critical thinking in students for their daily life.

But you can go further. That is, what is important in this research? The most important thing is what the students are going to be capable of doing if they acquire critical thinking skills both in school and in life daily. What would that imply? What would students be able to do if they were taught to think critically? The possibilities are very numerous both inside and outside the school institution. Some of the most important situations according to Stratton (1999) are the following:

• In those that affect general life, students will be able to

be inquisitive when considering a broad set of problems, try to be well informed, be alert to opportunities to think critically, trust the reasoned investigation processes, they will have an open mind to consider different points of view, they will be flexible in the consideration of alternatives and opinions, they will understand the opinions of others, they will delve into the reasons and conclusions, they will be honest with their own biases, prejudices, stereotypes, sociocentric and egocentric tendencies, they will be prudent when suspending, making or altering judgments, they will have a good disposition to reconsider and revise points of view where honest reflection suggests a change, mainly.

• In those that affect specific topics, issues or problems

Students will be able to clarify a certain question or issue, to order complicated work, to carry out the steps to carry out to carry out a search for important information, to be reasonable in the selection and application of criteria, to focus attention on the matter to try. And to be persistent in the difficulties that are encountered, among other aspects.

In this way, the main research hypothesis is the following: is the intervention program effective? significant differences between students in the control group and the experimental group in the post-test and in the experimental group before and after the training program. intervention.

In this way, it will be possible to see if the students in the experimental group are better critical thinkers than those in the control group.

Sample.

The sample is made up of 28 students (of which 15 are women and 13 are men), 11 form the experimental group and 17 the control group, belonging to the first course of the E.S.O. of a Community Compulsory Secondary Education Institute Autonomous of Madrid.

Age and socioeconomic level have been considered as controlled variables, since it is similar in all the subjects of the sample.

This school stage has been selected because it is believed that it is where the ability of critical thinking can be developed more effectively given the level of development of the students as stated by McPeck (1992). Like McPeck, Presseisen (1991), argues that in adolescence there is an increase in cognitive abilities and there is the opportunity for a more complex change of thinking, which makes the development of thinking ability more conducive critical.

Authors such as King and Kitchener, (1994), King, Kitchener, Davison, Parker and Wood, (1983), and Kitchener and King (1981), among others, affirm that at that age the ability to weigh and evaluate the competence of arguments or rules according to rules of evidence or general principles of questions, hence the importance of the intervention to this age.

There are several studies that have shown the effectiveness of teaching critical thinking in secondary school students. Those carried out by Lawson (1993), Shayer and Adey (1992) and Baker and Piburn (1990), among others, stand out.

Two have been the measuring instruments used. Both questionnaires have similar characteristics. That is to say, its structure is similar, and it is made up of two parts: the first is made up of ten multiple-choice questions, the The second part consists of a series of open questions where the subject is encouraged to justify each of the answers given. The open questions start from, have as a reference, two texts belonging to primary sources of history, that is, they are texts extracted from the works of historians, and not from social science textbooks, since the effectiveness of the use of primary sources for the teaching of critical thinking has been demonstrated (Craver, 1999).

The first questionnaire has been used to know the level of the students, both the experimental and control groups, in the technique of detecting biased information before the intervention program. It is considered as a pretest.

On the other hand you will find the second questionnaire used after the intervention programs. Both the experimental group and the control group are passed to see if there are significant differences between the groups and if these have been caused by the intervention program. This second questionnaire is called posttest.

Two different questionnaires have been used because according to Ennis (1993) it is the most recommended, since if the same questionnaire is used before and after the intervention program, the questions may be learned and the results may not be entirely reliable.

This author also determines that it would be advisable not to use two forms or approximations of the same questionnaire. In this research, it can be seen that the questionnaires are very similar, but if one delves into both it can be seen that the similarity is mainly structural, since the multiple choice questions are different (they focus on different aspects of the information technique biased) and open questions are about different texts, and although the use of the same skills is encouraged, the demand for these is different.

Regarding the validity of these questionnaires, comment that according to Cronbach's a, the first questionnaire has a validity of 0.59, and the second questionnaire of 0.67. Taking into account the characteristics of both questionnaires, it is normal for this type of validity to appear, so it can be determined that the validity of both is medium-high.

At the time of the realization of the measurement instruments, of evaluation there are several considerations that have been taken into account:

• The vocabulary used has been tried to be easy and accessible to students to ensure complete understanding. The second person singular has also been used so that the questionnaires are accessible and direct to the students, more personal.
• The topics that have been selected to develop the measurement instruments are characterized by being socially important for the students, which makes them are much more motivated when it comes to learning the technique and that such knowledge is retained for much longer and in greater depth (Muñoz et al, 2000; Tulchin, 1987).
• As previously determined, the questions are both multiple-choice, developmental or open, to encourage justification of the answers and reflection on them. The use of open-ended justified questions offers the opportunity to assess dispositions and organize CP skills and dispositions that support complex problems. The use of multiple-choice questions provides proof of knowledge of the criteria and their application in certain contexts (Norris, 1989; Ennis, 1990).
• The multiple-choice questions are self-contained, that is, do not ask for more information than the questionnaires offer.
• The degree or level of structure of the questionnaires is high if the classification is followed carried out by Ennis (1993), that is, argumentative texts are offered with a number of ambiguities or biases. Students are asked the values, existing positions are described, they reflect on their intention, they try to see if they are capable of applying, transferring, ...

Five were the sessions used, one to carry out the first questionnaire (pretest), three to develop the intervention programs, and another to carry out the second measurement instrument (posttest).

The duration of the pre-test and post-test sessions, and each of the intervention program sessions, was About an hour. There was no time limit for the completion of the questionnaires.

The questionnaires were made individually by students. Given that some questions presented understanding problems, it was decided to read question per question and making some other explanation to be answered below individually.

For the development of the most innovative intervention program, it was divided into three parts (since there were three sessions). In the first one, the strategy and technique to be developed, the objectives, the metaphor were presented and the differences were drawn to motivate and describe the technique in question. Comment that both the drawing representing the metaphor (balance) and the drawing of the differences were displayed on the blackboard using posters. In the second session, what was done in the first session was recalled, the three types of knowledge (the procedural was exposed on the blackboard by means of a poster), the modeling was carried out and a first practice. In the third and last session, another practice was carried out, the transfer and a summary.

The use of posters has been carried out on the recommendation of O'Reilly (1990), since according to this author it helps to remember and motivates more easily.

As it has been possible to deduce throughout the text, two groups of students have been used. The experimental group has been given the intervention program described above. The control group has been given a traditional intervention program.

Both groups have passed a pretest and a posttest.

For the data analysis, it is necessary to highlight that in the questionnaires the maximum score that could be obtained was a ten. Each question was scored with a half point if the answer was correct, and zero if it was incorrect. There are questions that are not completely incorrect, so these have been scored with twenty-five hundredths.

In order to obtain the results in the second part of the questionnaire (open questions), the answers have been categorized. The categories are made up of all the responses, even if only some of them have the highest frequency.

Regarding the analysis of the data, comment that there have been four necessary statistical analyzes. In all of them, the statistical test of Student's t has been used, given the characteristics of the variables, the sample, the number of groups, ...

First, it is necessary to check whether there are significant differences between the groups before the intervention program.

In this case, the significance level associated with t is 0.087. This value is greater than the preset alpha of 0.05, so it can be determined that the hypothesis is accepted null, that is, there are no significant differences between the groups before the intervention programs, in the pretest. That is, the groups are equivalent before the intervention programs are carried out.

Secondly, it is necessary to check if there are significant differences between the pretest and the posttest of the experimental group. A value of t has been obtained that has an associated significance level of 0.22, less than the predetermined a (0.05). Therefore, the null hypothesis is rejected, so it can be determined that there are significant differences in the experimental group before and after the intervention program.

Regarding the analysis to determine if there are differences between the groups after the intervention program (in the posttest), comment that the reasoning is similar to that carried out previously when checking if there were differences in the pretest. It has been found that the level of significance, associated with the student's t, obtained is 0.14, lower than the predetermined a (0.05). Therefore, the null hypothesis is rejected. Therefore, it can be said that there are significant differences between the two groups after carrying out the intervention programs (to the experimental group).

Finally, comment that it has been verified if there are differences in the control group in the pretest and posttest. In this case, the significance level associated with t is 0.55, greater than the predetermined a, so it can be reject the null hypothesis, and determine that there are no significant differences in the control group in the pretest and posttest.

From the data obtained, what can be concluded? Has the most innovative intervention program been effective? Are the differences found due exclusively to the intervention program?

In the first place, it can be said that, according to the statistical analyzes carried out, there are significant differences both in the experimental group before and after the intervention program as in the two groups after the completion of the intervention program (post-test). But, can it be concluded that the intervention program has been effective? In principle yes, since the groups before the intervention program were equivalent, and if after said program they are not, the change has probably been caused by the intervention program, since the rest of the variables have been controlled.

Possible limitations:

The first limitation may be the time used for the implementation of the intervention program. The results would be different if the program had been run over a quarter rather than two weeks. The deepening, management and transfer of the skill in general and of the developed technique in particular would be much greater and with more depth (Beyer, 1991).

Also, it must be taken into account that the research cannot be considered taking into account a single measure of the CP, multiple measures are necessary to be able to triangulate the results. Therefore, it is necessary to be cautious with the results and interpretations.

Regarding the number of subjects, comment that a greater number of subjects would have been more advisable, and especially its application in the rest of the levels of Compulsory Secondary Education for its subsequent generalization to the population to which the sample.

In summary. It can be stated that there are significant differences between the groups in the posttest, and that these have been caused by the most innovative intervention program.

It can be concluded that the differences exist, and that they are greater than those reflected in the quantitative analysis. Therefore, it can be said that the intervention program carried out in the technique of detecting biased information in the social sciences subject, has increased critical thinking in students of compulsory secondary education.

Secondly, to comment that, it has been demonstrated once again, both the need and the possibility of teaching critical thinking (in this case through the detection technique of biased information), as determined by Kosoven & Winne (1995) Nisbett (1993), Perkins & Grotzer (1997), Gadzella, Hartsoe and Harpen (1989), Young (1980), Logan (1976), Dressel and Mayhew (1954), among others.

Finally, comment on the need to apply, to develop in a similar way to the one carried out the rest of the techniques that they form, which promote critical thinking, such as Socratic discussion, analysis of experiences and controversy (always taking into account the limitations found).

In this way, both the teaching and learning of the learning strategy in question will be more comprehensive, deeper, more effective. And in addition there will be one more instrument to try to meet the great demand that exists for the teaching of critical thinking both outside and within educational institutions.

Finally, it is necessary to thank both the Duque de Rivas Compulsory Secondary Education Institute as to all those who have made it possible for this project to take place, its enormous and valuable collaboration. Thank you.

This article is merely informative, in Psychology-Online we do not have the power to make a diagnosis or recommend a treatment. We invite you to go to a psychologist to treat your particular case.

If you want to read more articles similar to Promotion of Critical Thinking through intervention in a didactic unit, we recommend that you enter our category of Education and study skills.

• Baker, D.R. & Piburn, M.D. (1990). Teachers´perceptions of the effects of a scientific literacy course on subsequent learning in biology. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 27, 477-491.
• Beltrán Llera, J. TO. (1996). Instructional Psychology I. Variables and basic processes. Madrid: Synthesis.
• Bereiter, C. (1984). How to sep thinking skills from going the way of all frills. Educational leadership 42, 76-79.
• Beyer, B.K. (1991). Practical Stategies for the direct teaching of thinking skills. In Costa, A.L. Developing minds: a resource book for teaching thinking. Volume 1. Virginia: ASDC.
• Beyer, B.K. (1991). Teaching thinking skills: a handbook for secondary school teachers. Boston: Ally and Bacon.
• Beyer, B. K. (1985). Critical thinking: What is it?. Social Education 49, 270-276.
• Bitner, B.L. (1991). Formal operational reasoning modes: predictors of critical thinking abilities and grades assigned by teachers in science and mathematics for students in grades nine through twelve. Journal of research in science teaching 28, 265-274.
• Brown, A. et al. (1981). Learning to learn: on training students to learn from texts. Educational Researcher 10, 14-21.
• Camacho. J. (2000). Statistics with SPSS version 9 for windows. Madrid: Ra-ma.
• Chaffee. J. (1988). Thinking critically. Boston, MA: Joughton Mifflin.
• Costa, A. (1989). In L.B. Resnik & L.E. Klopfer (Eds). Toward the thinking curriculum: Current cognitive research. 1989 ASCD yearbook. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
• Craver, K.W. (1999). Using critical thinking skills in history. In K.W. Craver, Using Internet primary sources to teach critical thinking skills in history. London: Greenwood Press.
• Dewey, J. (1910). How we think. Boston: D.C. Health.
• Dressel, P.L., & Mayhew, L.B. (1954). General education: Exploration in education. Washington, DC: American Council on Education.
• Edelstein, W. (1992). Development as the aim in education. In F.K. Or it will be. Dick, & J.L. Patry (Eds). Effective and responsible teaching. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
• Educational Policies Commission. (1961). The central purpose of American education. Washington, DC: National Education Association.
• Ennis, R.H. (1993). Critical thinking assessment. Theory into practice 32, 179-186.
• Ennis, R.H. (1990). The extent to which critical thinking is subject-specific: further clarification. Educational Researcher 19, 13-16.
• Ennis, R.H. (1986). A taxonomy of critical thinking dispositions and abilities. In J.B. Baron & R.J. Sternberg (Eds), Teaching thinking skills. New York: Freeman.
• Fernández Díaz, Mª J., García Ram.