critical thinking dispositions as an outcome of undergraduate education
TRANSCRIPT
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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