critical thinking dispositions as an outcome of undergraduate education

18
CRITICAL THINKING DISPOSITIONS AS AN OUTCOME OF UNDERGRADUATE EDUCATION Author(s): Nancy Lampert Source: The Journal of General Education, Vol. 56, No. 1 (2007), pp. 17-33 Published by: Penn State University Press Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/27798061 . Accessed: 02/05/2014 21:24 Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp . JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected]. . Penn State University Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The Journal of General Education. http://www.jstor.org This content downloaded from 82.8.252.116 on Fri, 2 May 2014 21:24:15 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Upload: nancy-lampert

Post on 25-Dec-2016

212 views

Category:

Documents


0 download

TRANSCRIPT

Page 1: CRITICAL THINKING DISPOSITIONS AS AN OUTCOME OF UNDERGRADUATE EDUCATION

CRITICAL THINKING DISPOSITIONS AS AN OUTCOME OF UNDERGRADUATE EDUCATIONAuthor(s): Nancy LampertSource: The Journal of General Education, Vol. 56, No. 1 (2007), pp. 17-33Published by: Penn State University PressStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/27798061 .

Accessed: 02/05/2014 21:24

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

Penn State University Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The Journalof General Education.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 82.8.252.116 on Fri, 2 May 2014 21:24:15 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Page 2: CRITICAL THINKING DISPOSITIONS AS AN OUTCOME OF UNDERGRADUATE EDUCATION

CRITICAL THINKING DISPOSITIONS AS AN OUTCOME OF UNDERGRADUATE EDUCATION

Nancy Lampert

Critical thinking ability is generally considered to be a desirable

outcome of an undergraduate liberal arts education. In his book

Assessment for Excellence, Alexander Astin (1993) states that "of all

the skills that are considered basic to the purposes of a liberal edu

cation, critical thinking is probably at the top of the list" (p. 47). Erwin and Wise (2002) note that "generic critical thinking and

problem-solving skills across the curriculum are mentioned in nearly

every discussion of general education" (p. 69). Yet few empirical studies have tested, the effectiveness of various instructional tech

niques in producing the outcome of improved critical thinking in

undergraduates (Halpern, 1993; Tsui, 1998, 2002). The roots of the construct of critical thinking can be traced back

2,500 years, to the teaching practice of Socrates, who developed a

probing method of questioning the claims made by others (Paul,

Elder, & Bartell, 1997). Contemporary scholars have defined the

construct of critical thinking as reflective thinking focused on the

evaluation of various alternatives (Ennis, 2002; Jones et al., 1995; Paul et al., 1997; Perry, 1999). Dispositions are described as incli

nations to use existing skills (Facione, Giancarlo, Facione, &

Gainen, 1995; Perkins, Jay, & Tishman, 1993). Students who

develop critical thinking dispositions are inclined to employ critical, reflective thinking when engaged in problem solving and analysis across various domains (Giancarlo & Facione, 2001).

In one longitudinal higher education study of undergraduate critical thinking dispositions, Giancarlo & Facione (2001) used the

California Critical Thinking Disposition Inventory (Facione &

Facione, 1992) to test the critical thinking dispositions of freshmen in

1992 and then again to test seniors four years later. The investigators found that, over the four years spent at the institution where data were

JGE: THE JOURNAL OF GENERAL EDUCATION, Vol. 56, No. 1, 2007.

Copyright ? 2007 The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA.

This content downloaded from 82.8.252.116 on Fri, 2 May 2014 21:24:15 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Page 3: CRITICAL THINKING DISPOSITIONS AS AN OUTCOME OF UNDERGRADUATE EDUCATION

18 Nancy L ampert

collected, students "came to endorse more strongly the ideal of

putting aside personal biases in the pursuit of good evidence and rea

son" (2001, p. 43). Overall, the researchers discovered more

increases than decreases in scores on the various scales quantifying

dispositions toward critical thinking. An additional finding of this study indicates that there was a

statistically significant difference in attitudes in four of the scales

when comparing students by discipline. The humanities, letters, and

languages students scored highest on "truth seeking" and "open mindedness" of all the discipline clusters represented?the other

discipline clusters being natural and physical sciences; mathematics,

computer science, and engineering; business administration and

communication; social and behavioral science and liberal studies; and undeclared. Business and communications students scored low est of all the discipline clusters on inquisitiveness, truth seeking, and

open-mindedness. Fine and performing arts students were dropped out of this study because of insufficient sample size.

Because as an art educator I have observed what many educators in the arts have witnessed, that art students actively engage in open ended problem solving, critical inquiry, and reflection, I became interested in studying critical thinking as an outcome of learning in

the arts. Art students practice reflective thinking and aesthetic inquiry when they create artwork as well as when they discuss their work and the work of others. The existing literature is rich with theory that such activities positively affect art students' ability to think critically. In Art

Criticism and Education, Geahigan (1997) explains how he believes art stimulates critical, reflective thinking: "Reflection, in turn, begins when students confront what John Dewey called a problematic situa

tion. Works of art are potentially problematic because they can be understood and evaluated in different ways" (p. 146). As Geahigan explains, works of art pose problems that can be resolved in many ways; so critiquing and interpreting works of art in a classroom

engage students in thoughtfully considering the multiple perspectives of fellow students on art content. Reflecting on multiple interpreta tions of subject matter is an aspect of critical thinking, so it stands to reason that engagement in critical and aesthetic inquiry fosters in art students a disposition to think critically. This line of reasoning is

prevalent in theoretical discussions on art education (Dorn, 1999;

This content downloaded from 82.8.252.116 on Fri, 2 May 2014 21:24:15 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Page 4: CRITICAL THINKING DISPOSITIONS AS AN OUTCOME OF UNDERGRADUATE EDUCATION

Critical Thinking Dispositions as an Outcome of Education 19

Eisner, 1998; Geahigan, 1997; Perkins, 1994; Stout, 1999; Winner & Hetland, 2001), but few empirical studies have tested the theory.

In her research on the social psychology of creativity, Amabile

(1996) describes creativity as "a novel, appropriate response to a

heuristic (or open-ended) task" (p. 38). She explains that heuristic

tasks are the direct contrast of algorithmic tasks: "those for which

the path to the solution is clear and straightforward?tasks for which an algorithm exists" (1996, p. 35). Notably, Amabile's description of

heuristic, open-ended tasks parallels Geahigan's (1997) description of works of art as "potentially problematic because they can be

understood and evaluated in different ways" (p. 146). Art educators and researchers are familiar with the many ways

that learning in the creative arts is flush with open-ended, heuristic

problem solving. In art production, students seek solutions for how

to convey meaning with visual imagery; and in critiquing art they seek answers on interpreting the work of others. Neither type of

inquiry is clear or straightforward; rather, they are ill structured and

require as Dorn (1999) explains, that students "pay attention to

particular details of individual cases and develop case-by-case inter

pretations" (p. 188). As Eisner (1998) states, the act of developing

unique, individualized solutions to open-ended aesthetic problems allows students "to recognize and accept the multiple perspectives and resolutions that works in the arts celebrate" (p. 58).

Given that Giancarlo and Facione did find discipline cluster differ ences in critical thinking dispositions in a study in which the fine and

performing arts students were dropped out because of insufficient sam

ple size, I believed that further study of differences in critical thinking

dispositions among higher education disciplines, including the arts, was

warranted. To investigate variances in critical thinking dispositions between arts and nonarts undergraduates, I designed a study similar to

that of Giancarlo and Facione, with fine arts students included.

Methodology

Rather than doing a longitudinal study, I collected data at one point in time. Using the same instrument as Giancarlo and Facione, the

California Critical Thinking Disposition Inventory (CCTDI), I

This content downloaded from 82.8.252.116 on Fri, 2 May 2014 21:24:15 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Page 5: CRITICAL THINKING DISPOSITIONS AS AN OUTCOME OF UNDERGRADUATE EDUCATION

20 Nancy Lampert

collected data from a convenience sample of 141 undergraduates at a

large university on the U.S. east coast and compared the critical

thinking dispositions of two discipline groups?arts and nonarts

undergraduates?and two class rank groups?freshmen and jun iors/seniors.

The CCTDI is a 75-item Likert-type attitudinal measure that

tests the discipline-neutral internal motivation to approach problem

framing or problem solving by using thinking and reasoning

(Giancarlo & Facione, 2001). It is based on construct descriptions of

critical thinking dispositions that were developed in a two-year

Delphi expert consensus study sponsored by the American

Philosophical Association (Facione, Facione, & Sanchez, 1994). The

seven subscales of the instrument measure inquisitiveness, system

aticity, analyticity, truth seeking, open-mindedness, critical thinking self-confidence, and critical thinking maturity. A score of 30 or

below on a subscale indicates opposition to that characteristic; a

score of 40 indicates minimal endorsement of the attribute; and a

score above 50 indicates consistent endorsement of the characteris

tic (Facione et al., 1995). Total scores of less than 280 on the CCTDI

indicate an overall deficiency in disposition toward critical thinking

(Insight Assessment, 2005).

Alpha reliabilities for the CCTDI are reported as "between .90

and .91 across high school and college students" (Callahan, 1995,

p. 2). Because this study compared critical thinking dispositions across various undergraduate disciplines, the use of a reliable,

discipline-neutral measure appropriate for use with college students was indicated. The CCTDI allowed for comparisons of scores that measure opposition to or endorsement of characteristics inherent in

the disposition to think critically. A test of critical thinking skill is not an indication of an inclination to use the skill, whereas a measure of

critical thinking disposition indicates an inclination to use existing critical thinking ability (Facione et al., 1995).

Subjects in the study were recruited from introductory psychol ogy classes and introductory and advanced fine arts and art education courses. The cross-sectional sample consisted of four groups. In

Group 1 there were 32 freshmen nonarts students; in Group 2 there were 32 freshmen arts students; Group 3 was 32 junior and senior nonarts students; and Group 4 consisted of 45 junior and senior arts

This content downloaded from 82.8.252.116 on Fri, 2 May 2014 21:24:15 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Page 6: CRITICAL THINKING DISPOSITIONS AS AN OUTCOME OF UNDERGRADUATE EDUCATION

Critical Thinking Dispositions as an Outcome of Education 21

students. Nonarts students in the study were majoring in subjects such as forensic science, engineering, English, math, mass communi

cations, and so forth. All of the Group 2 arts freshmen were enrolled

in a first-year introductory art program. The arts juniors/seniors

group consisted of eight studio art and design students and 37 art edu

cation students.

Scores on the California Critical Thinking Disposition Inventory were compared and contrasted between the groups of arts and

nonarts students and between freshmen and juniors/seniors to inves

tigate the variance in critical thinking disposition between the

groups. Total CCTDI scores, as well as scores on the seven subscales

in the CCTDI, were compared using analysis of variance (ANOVA) statistical procedures to determine mean score variations between

the groups.

Results

A two-way ANOVA compared CCTDI total scores between the two

discipline groups: arts and nonarts undergraduates and the two class

rank groups.1 Figure 1 shows a graphic comparison of the mean total

CCTDI scores of the four groups. Table 1 shows the ANOVA results

for the comparison of total mean CCTDI scores of the four groups.2

o - E TO 0) S 280

Non-Arts Freshmen Non-Arts Seniors

GROUP

Figure 1. Graphic Mean Comparison of the Four Groups' Total California Critical

Thinking Disposition Inventory Scores

This content downloaded from 82.8.252.116 on Fri, 2 May 2014 21:24:15 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Page 7: CRITICAL THINKING DISPOSITIONS AS AN OUTCOME OF UNDERGRADUATE EDUCATION

22 Nancy Lampert

Table 1. Analysis of Variance of the Four Groups' Total California Critical Thinking Disposition Inventory Scores

Tests of Between-Subject Effects

Dependent Variable: TOTAL

Type III Sum Mean Source of Squares df Square F Sig.

Corrected Model 6668.910a 3 2222.970 3.225 .025

Intercept 12363778.8 1 12363778.81 17937.684 .000

ARTNON 1972.409 1 1972.409 2.862 .093

FRESHSEN 4196.895 1 4196.895 6.089 .015

ARTNON* 34.515 1 34.515 .050 .823 FRESHSEN

Error 94429.005 137 689.263

Total 12805502.0 141

Corrected Total 101097.915 140

a. R Squared = .066 (Adjusted R Squared

= .046)

No statistically significant difference in mean total CCTDI scores was found among the four individual groups in the sample (nonarts freshmen, arts freshmen, nonarts juniors/seniors, and arts

juniors/seniors) or between arts and nonarts students. Juniors/seniors had a significantly higher mean total score than freshmen (p

= .015). No interaction effects for class and discipline were found among the four groups.

ANOVAs on the various subscales showed no significant mean

CCTDI subscale score differences among the four individual groups in the sample. ANOVAs did show that all juniors/seniors in the sample scored significantly higher than all freshmen subjects on three of the subscales: truth seeking (p

= .050), systematicity (p = .004), and inquis iti veness (p = .017). There were no significant differences between

juniors/seniors and freshmen on the four remaining subscales: maturity, open-mindedness, analyticity, and critical thinking confidence.

This content downloaded from 82.8.252.116 on Fri, 2 May 2014 21:24:15 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Page 8: CRITICAL THINKING DISPOSITIONS AS AN OUTCOME OF UNDERGRADUATE EDUCATION

Critical Thinking Dispositions as an Outcome of Education 23

In comparing the two discipline groups, arts and nonarts

students, ANOVAs on the various subscales showed that all arts

students in the sample scored significantly higher than all nonarts

student subjects on three of the subscales: truth seeking (p = .009),

critical thinking maturity (p = .002), and open-mindedness (p

= .032

[see Tables 2-4, Figures 2-4]). There were no significant differences between arts and nonarts students on analyticity, inquisitiveness, and critical thinking confidence. Nonarts students scored significantly higher than arts students on one of the subscales, systematicity (p = .047 [see Table 5, Figure 5]).

Table 2. Analysis of Variance of the Four Groups' Truth-Seeking Subscale Scores

Tests of Between-Subjects Effects

Dependent Variable: TRUTH

Type III Sum Mean Source of Squares df Square F Sig.

Corrected Model 474.510a 3 158.170 4.155 .007

Intercept 192155.361 1 192155.361 5048.261 000

ARTNON 269.739 1 269.739 7.087 .009

FRESHSEN 148.903 1 148.903 3.912 .050

ARTNON* 49.955 1 49.955 1.312 .254 FRESHSEN

Error 5214.724 137 38.064

Total 203858.000 141

Corrected Total 5689.234 140

a.R Squared = .083 (Adjusted R Squared

= .063)

This content downloaded from 82.8.252.116 on Fri, 2 May 2014 21:24:15 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Page 9: CRITICAL THINKING DISPOSITIONS AS AN OUTCOME OF UNDERGRADUATE EDUCATION

24 Nancy Lampert

Table 3. Analysis of Variance of the Four Groups' Maturity Subscale Scores

Tests of Between-Subjects Effects

Dependent Variable: MATURE

Type III Sum Mean Source of Squares df Square F Sig.

Corrected Model 492.120a 3 164.040 4.764 03

Intercept 270647.014 1 270647.014 7860.782 .000

ARTNON 334.435 1 334.435 9.713 .002

FRESHSEN 89.837 1 89.837 2.609 .109

ARTNON *

FRESHSEN 14.355 1 14.355 .417 .520

Error 4716.915 137 34.430

Total 284914.000 141

Corrected Total 5209.035 140

a. R Squared = .094 (Adjusted R Squared = .075)

Table 4. Analysis of Variance of the Four Groups' Open-Mindedness Subscale Scores

Tests of Between-Subject Effects

Dependent Variable: OPENMIND

Type III Sum Source of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.

Corrected Model 225.312a 3 75.104 2.673 50

Intercept 269136.327 1 269136.327 9577.430 .000

ARTNON 132.510 ? 132.510 4.715 32

FRESHSEN 51.964 ? 51.964 1.849 76

ARTNON * 57.390 ? 57.390 2.042 55 FRESHSEN

Error 3849.851 137 28.101

Total 278814.000 141

Corrected Total 4075.163 140

a. R Squared = .055 (Adjusted R Squared = .035)

This content downloaded from 82.8.252.116 on Fri, 2 May 2014 21:24:15 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Page 10: CRITICAL THINKING DISPOSITIONS AS AN OUTCOME OF UNDERGRADUATE EDUCATION

Critical Thinking Dispositions as an Outcome of Education 25

Non-Aris Freshmen Non-Arts Seniors Arts Fres rimen Arts Seniors

GROUP

Figure 2. Graphic Mean Comparison of the Four Groups' Truth-Seeking Subscale

Scores

Non-Arts Freshmen Non-Arts Seniors Arts Freshmen Arts Seniors

GROUP

Figure 3. Graphic Mean Comparison of the Four Groups' Maturity Subscale

Scores

Non-Arts free tunen NorvArts Senioro Arts Awhmn Arts Seniors

Figure 4. Graphic Mean Comparison of the Four Groups' Open-Mindedness Subscale Scores

This content downloaded from 82.8.252.116 on Fri, 2 May 2014 21:24:15 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Page 11: CRITICAL THINKING DISPOSITIONS AS AN OUTCOME OF UNDERGRADUATE EDUCATION

26 Nancy Lampert

Table 5. Analysis of Variance of the Four Groups' Systematicity Subscale Scores

Tests of Between-Subject Effects

Dependent Variable: SYSTEM

Type III Sum Source of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.

Corrected Model 543.914a 3 181.305 4.298 .006

Intercept 212912.844 1 212912.844 5047.070 .000

ARTNON 168.892 ? 168.892 4.004 .047

FRESHSEN 358.651 ? 358.651 8.502 .004

ARTNON * 44.112 ? 44.112 1.046 .308 FRESHSEN

Error 5779.405 137 42.185

Total 225017.000 141

Corrected Total 6323.319 140

a. R Squared = .086 (Adjusted R Squared = .066)

Non-Arts Freshmen Non-Arts Seniors Arts Freshmen Arts Seniors

GROUP

Figure 5. Graphic Mean Comparison of the Four Groups' Systematicity Subscale Scores

Discussion of Findings

The Giancarlo and Facione (2001) longitudinal study showed that four years of undergraduate education increased the disposition to

think critically. The findings of the study reported here show that juniors/seniors in the sample had a higher disposition toward critical

This content downloaded from 82.8.252.116 on Fri, 2 May 2014 21:24:15 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Page 12: CRITICAL THINKING DISPOSITIONS AS AN OUTCOME OF UNDERGRADUATE EDUCATION

Critical Thinking Dispositions as an Outcome of Education 27

thinking than freshmen, which sustains the Giancarlo and Facione

finding that time spent in college increases the overall disposition to think critically.

The Giancarlo and Facione study, which did not include fine arts

students, also showed significant differences among discipline clus ters on several of the CCTDI subscales. This study, which did

include fine arts students, also showed significant differences between discipline groups on several CCTDI subscales. In this

study, fine arts students scored significantly higher than nonarts

undergraduates on truth seeking, critical thinking maturity, and

open-mindedness ?suggesting that visual arts curriculum and

instruction may significantly enhance critical thinking dispositions. Interestingly, two of the subscales that arts students in this study scored significantly higher on, truth seeking and open-mindedness, are the subscales that humanities, letters, and languages students in

the Giancarlo and Facione study scored higher on than all other dis

cipline groups, indicating that there may be similarities in the critical

thinking dispositions of fine arts students and humanities, letters, and languages students.

Causality was not an aspect of this study, but the existing research on critical thinking and on creative arts curriculum and

instruction may offer indications as to how arts curriculum and

instruction may affect the disposition to think critically. Research has shown that critical thinking is enhanced by an emphasis on

classroom discussion, independent inquiry, problem solving, and

analysis (Astin, 1993; Ewell, 1994; King, 1994; Tsui, 2002). These pedagogical techniques are commonly used in higher education art

classrooms (Amabile, 1996; Cole, Sugioka, & Yamagata-Lynch, 1999; Cromwell, 1994; Stout, 1999). For example, in studio cri

tiques, a key component of art students' experience is discussion of the strengths, weaknesses, successes, and failures of their own work, as well as the work of fellow students and that of artists outside the classroom. It is notable that the very root of the word critique is the same root in the term critical thinking. Visual art students think crit

ically when discussing each other's and other artists' work and when

solving the problems of how to visually depict forms and concepts. No road maps are available to students approaching empty space that must be filled with effective visual communication or when

This content downloaded from 82.8.252.116 on Fri, 2 May 2014 21:24:15 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Page 13: CRITICAL THINKING DISPOSITIONS AS AN OUTCOME OF UNDERGRADUATE EDUCATION

28 Nancy Lampert

interpreting other artists' visual messages. These processes include

all of the elements that research has shown to influence critical

thinking: independent inquiry, problem solving, interactive discus

sion, and analysis. Art students continually think heuristically rather

than algorithmically when practicing their discipline (Amabile,

1996). The findings of this study show early indications that immer

sion in a discipline that requires constant heuristic problem solving,

inquiry, discussion, and analysis may condition the mind to

approach experiences with a disposition for accepting that there are

many possible solutions to complex problems?in other words, such a discipline may condition the mind to think critically.

The findings on the CCTDI subscale score differences between

discipline groups weigh heavily in favor of suggesting that arts cur

riculum and instruction had an effect on the results in this study. The

three subscales on which the arts students in this study scored sig

nificantly higher are described by Facione et al. (1994) as follows:

The truth-seeking subscale targets the disposition of being eager to seek the best knowledge in a given context, coura

geous about asking questions, and honest and objective about

pursuing inquiry even if the findings do not support one's self

interests or one's preconceived opinions.

The open-mindedness subscale addresses being tolerant of

divergent views with sensitivity to the possibility of one's own

bias.

The maturity subscale targets the disposition to be judicious in

one's decision making. The CT [critical thinking] mature per son can be characterized as one who approaches problems,

inquiry, and decision making with a sense that some problems are necessarily ill-structured, some situations admit of more

than one plausible option, and many times judgments must be

made based on standards, contexts, and evidence that preclude certainty, (pp. 345-347)

The descriptions of exactly what these subscales measure are highly

aligned with what research and theory on arts instruction describe as

This content downloaded from 82.8.252.116 on Fri, 2 May 2014 21:24:15 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Page 14: CRITICAL THINKING DISPOSITIONS AS AN OUTCOME OF UNDERGRADUATE EDUCATION

Critical Thinking Dispositions as an Outcome of Education 29

the main components of arts curriculum and instruction: creative

exploration and analysis of ill-structured problems that have more

than one possible solution. Except for the systematicity subscale, the

arts students scored neither higher nor lower than nonarts students

on the other subscales of the inventory. This is a strong indication

that the significant differences that exist between arts and nonarts

undergraduates in this study can be attributed to the above three sub

scales.

The systematicity subscale findings indicate that arts students

show a weaker disposition in this area than nonarts students,

indicating that they may require more guidance in organizing and

focusing their inquiry efforts. The systematicity subscale is

described as measuring "the tendency toward organized, orderly, focused, and diligent inquiry. No particular kind of organization (e.g. linear or nonlinear) is given priority on the CCTDI" (Facione et al.,

1994, p. 346). Although this study measured critical thinking dispositions

rather than critical thinking skills, Facione et al. (1995) explain that

"preliminary empirical studies using the CCTDI and its companion skills test, the CCTST [California Critical Thinking Skills Test], are

beginning to suggest that perhaps truth-seeking is the most crucial

dispositional attribute in predicting CT [critical thinking] skills"

(pp. 11-12). Notably, truth seeking is one of the three subscales on

which arts students scored significantly higher than nonarts

students.

Implications

The findings of this study may indicate that for nonarts undergradu ates to realize greater gains in critical thinking dispositions, they

must receive more exposure to heuristic-based curriculum and

instruction than they currently receive in many institutions. Also,

although this study did not compare the classroom climate and cul

ture that arts and nonarts subjects in the study experienced, research

indicates that creative thinking and enthusiasm for inquiry and

divergent thinking with heuristic-based problems are influenced by instructor attitudes and classroom climate (Amabile, 1996; Cole

This content downloaded from 82.8.252.116 on Fri, 2 May 2014 21:24:15 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Page 15: CRITICAL THINKING DISPOSITIONS AS AN OUTCOME OF UNDERGRADUATE EDUCATION

30 Nancy Lampert

et al., 1999; Cromwell, 1994). Hand in hand with exposing nonarts

students to more heuristics and critique-like discussions, it may be

necessary for college teachers in nonarts settings to adopt a less

authoritative approach and to be more receptive to divergent think

ing in order to foster a greater spirit of inquiry and open-mindedness in nonarts students.

Suggestions for Future Research

As this is one of the few empirical studies to compare the critical

thinking dispositions of undergraduate arts and nonarts students, a

great deal of future research is necessary to determine if the find

ings of this study will be sustained. A large-scale longitudinal

study that compares large population samples across multiple insti

tutions might provide further insight on the impact of visual arts

curriculum and instruction on critical thinking dispositions. Because this study tested freshmen art students in the spring, after one semester of exposure to arts curriculum and instruction, a lon

gitudinal study that tests all subjects upon entry to the institution

and then tracks changes in their critical thinking dispositions along the way would offer further illumination of these findings. Such a

study, if it tested freshmen upon entry, would more clearly indicate

if arts students begin college with differences in critical thinking

dispositions that might be attributed to arts learning at the

secondary level.

A large-scale study might also correlate results from several

instruments used as measures, including the CCTDI, a critical think

ing skills test, and creativity tests, as well as qualitative measures.

An experimental study using control groups, which compares the

impact of various types of art and nonart curricula and instruction

and which also examines the impact of varying kinds of classroom culture on critical thinking, is also suggested by these findings.

Additionally, any of the above suggested studies on undergraduate education might be extended to include secondary students to test

whether or not high school arts and nonarts instruction affects criti cal thinking skills and dispositions in any ways that may be related to university-level findings.

This content downloaded from 82.8.252.116 on Fri, 2 May 2014 21:24:15 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Page 16: CRITICAL THINKING DISPOSITIONS AS AN OUTCOME OF UNDERGRADUATE EDUCATION

Critical Thinking Dispositions as an Outcome of Education 31

Conclusion

Although this study was limited in scope and range by the setting, the cross-sectional design, and the small sample size, the findings are significant to educational practice. Not only do they sustain prior research findings about the influence of inquiry-based education on

critical thinking, they also represent empirical support for the theory that arts curriculum and instruction enhance the disposition to think

critically. It has long been believed that learning in the arts requires critical analysis and fosters an understanding of multiple perspec tives. The subscale results of this study show a clear strength in these

abilities in arts students and offer initial evidence that the arts do

indeed enhance the disposition to think critically.

Acknowledgments

This article is based on my doctoral dissertation, "A Comparison of the

Critical Thinking Dispositions of Arts and Non-Arts Undergraduates," School of Education, College of William and Mary, 2005.

Notes

1. For all statistical analyses, = .05 was the critical value used.

2. In all ANO VA tables, ARTNON is the label for the display of main effects between arts

and nonarts subjects; FRESHSEN is the label for the display of main effects between fresh

men and juniors/seniors; ARTNON * FRESHSEN is the label for the display of interaction

effects among the variables.

References

Amabile, T. (1996). Creativity in context. Boulder: Westview Press.

Astin, A. (1993). Assessment for excellence: The philosophy and practice of assessment and

evaluation in higher education. Phoenix: Oryx Press.

Callahan, C. (1995). The California Critical Thinking Dispositions Inventory. In J. Conoley &

J. Impara (Eds.), The twelfth mental measurements yearbook (pp. 1-3). Lincoln: B?ros

Institute of Mental Measurements. Retrieved July 11, 2004, from

http://buros.unl.edu/buros/jsp/search.jsp. Cole, D., Sugioka, H., & Yamagata-Lynch, L. (1999). Supportive classroom environments for

creativity in higher education. Journal of Creative Behavior, 33(4), 277-293.

This content downloaded from 82.8.252.116 on Fri, 2 May 2014 21:24:15 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Page 17: CRITICAL THINKING DISPOSITIONS AS AN OUTCOME OF UNDERGRADUATE EDUCATION

32 Nancy Lampert

Cromwell, R. (1994). Creativity enhances learning in college classes: The importance of

artists and poets. In R. Kelder (Ed.), Theories of learning: Teaching for understanding and creativity (pp. 217-225). New Paltz: State University of New York Press.

Dorn, C. M. (1999). Mind in art: Cognitive foundations in art education. Mahwah, NJ:

Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Eisner, E. (1998). Does experience in the arts boost academic achievement? Journal of Art and

Design Education, i 7(1), 51-60.

Ennis, R. (2002, June 6). A super streamlined conception of critical thinking. Retrieved

December 29, 2004, from http://faculty.ed.uiuc.edu/rhennis/SSConcCTApr3.html. Erwin, T., & Wise, S. (2002). A scholar-practitioner model for assessment. In T. Banta &

Associates (Eds.), Building a scholarship of assessment (pp. 67-81). San Francisco:

Jossey-Bass Publishers.

Ewell, P. (1994). A preliminary study of the feasibility and utility for national policy of instruc

tional "good practice" indicators in undergraduate education. National Center for

Education Statistics, Washington, DC. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No.

ED372718.) Facione, N., Facione, P., & Sanchez, C. (1994). Critical thinking disposition as a measure of

competent clinical judgment: The development of the California Critical Thinking

Disposition Inventory. Journal of Nursing Education, 33(S), 345-350.

Facione, P. (1990). Critical thinking: A statement of expert consensus for purposes of educa

tional assessment and instruction. The Delphi Report Executive Summary. Millbrae:

California Academic Press.

Facione, P., & Facione, N. (1992). The California Critical Thinking Disposition Inventory. Millbrae: California Academic Press.

Facione, P., Giancarlo, C, Facione, N., & Gainen, J. (1995). The disposition toward critical

thinking. Journal of General Education, 44(1), 1-25.

Giancarlo, C, & Facione, P. (2001). A look across four years at the disposition toward critical

thinking among undergraduate students. Journal of General Education, 50(1), 29-55.

Geahigan, G (1997). Art criticism: From theory to practice. In T. Wolff & G. Geahigan, Art

criticism and education (pp. 125-278). Urbana: University of Illinois Press.

Halpern, D. (1993). Assessing the effectiveness of critical thinking instruction. Journal of General Education, 42(4), 238-254.

Insight Assessment (2005). CCTDI score interpretation. Millbrae, CA: Insight Assessment.

Jones, E., Hoffman, F., Moore, L., Ratcliff, G, Tibbits, S., & Click, B. (1995). National assess

ment of college student learning: Identifying college graduates' essential skills in writ

ing, speech and listening, and critical thinking. Washington, DC: National Center for

Education Statistics.

King, A. (1994). Inquiry as a tool in critical thinking. In D. F. Halpern & Associates (Eds.),

Changing college classrooms: New teaching and learning strategies for an increas

ingly complex world (pp. 13-38). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.

Paul, R., Elder, L., & Baiteli, T. (1997). California teacher preparation for instruction in crit ical thinking: Research findings and policy recommendations. Sacramento: California Commission on Teacher Credentialing.

Perkins, D. (1994). The intelligent eye: Learning to think by looking at art. Los Angeles: Getty Publications.

Perkins, D., Jay, E., & Tishman, S. (1993). Beyond abilities: A dispositional theory of think

ing. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 39(1), 1-21.

Perry, W. (1999). Forms of ethical and intellectual development in the college years: A

scheme. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.

This content downloaded from 82.8.252.116 on Fri, 2 May 2014 21:24:15 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Page 18: CRITICAL THINKING DISPOSITIONS AS AN OUTCOME OF UNDERGRADUATE EDUCATION

Critical Thinking Dispositions as an Outcome of Education 33

Stout, C. J. (1999). Artists as writers: Enriching perspectives in art appreciation. Studies in Art

Education, 40(3), 226-241.

Tsui, L. (1998, November). A review of research on critical thinking. Paper presented at the

Annual Meeting of the Association for the Study of Higher Education, Miami. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 427572.)

Tsui, L. (2002). Fostering critical thinking through effective pedagogy. Journal of Higher Education, 73(6), 740-763.

Winner, E., & Hetland, L. (2001). Research in arts education: Directions for the future. In

E. Winner & L. Hetland (Eds.), Conference proceedings from beyond the soundbite:

What the research actually shows about arts education and academic outcomes

(pp. 143-148). Los Angeles: J. Paul Getty Trust.

This content downloaded from 82.8.252.116 on Fri, 2 May 2014 21:24:15 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions