Scaffolding students' critical thinking: A process not an end game

被引:16
作者
Gunawardena, Maya [1 ]
Wilson, Kate [1 ]
机构
[1] Univ Canberra, Fac Educ, Canberra, ACT, Australia
关键词
Critical thinking; Thinking routines; Pedagogy; Assessment; Higher education; SKILLS;
D O I
10.1016/j.tsc.2021.100848
中图分类号
G40 [教育学];
学科分类号
040101 ; 120403 ;
摘要
Critical thinking (CT) is an integral learning outcome for almost all university courses, yet little is known about how teachers facilitate the learning of CT. The visibility of CT in university teaching is often obscure as it is not always specifically explained, observable and measurable: thus, teachers encounter numerous challenges in teaching and assessing students' CT skills. Employing 20 interviews and analysing 15 assessment tasks, this study investigated Australian university teachers' perceptions of CT and how they integrate CT into their pedagogies in four major disciplines (Business, History, Geography, Engineering). The data from all disciplines included in this study suggest that lecturers have clear understandings of CT and adopt targeted strategies in their teaching, yet they perceive that few students develop transferable CT skills. The reasons given for this perceived deficit in students' adoption of CT are predominantly student-related factors such as students' poor motivation, the misconception of learning goals, and students' lack of preparedness for higher-order thinking. The paper argues that teachers perceive CT as 'a product' rather than a developmental process, and that this perception impacts on their approaches to teaching CT. Teachers can overcome this dilemma by developing a culture of thinking in the classroom by overtly scaffolding students' development of CT, thus making the process much more visible for students.
引用
收藏
页数:10
相关论文
共 57 条
[1]  
[Anonymous], 2006, Are they really ready to work? Employers perspectives on the basic knowledge and applied skills of new entrants to the 21st century US workforce
[2]  
[Anonymous], 2012, QUALITATIVE RES DESI
[3]  
[Anonymous], 1997, PROFESSIONAL JUDGMEN
[4]  
Barnett R., 1994, LIMITS COMPETENCE KN
[5]  
BeharHorenstein L. S., 2011, Journal of College Teaching Learning (TLC), V8, P25, DOI [10.19030/tlc.v8i2.3554, DOI 10.19030/TLC.V8I2.3554]
[6]  
Bengtsen S., 2020, 4 PILLARS PHILOS HIG, DOI [10.1093/acrefore/9780190264093.001.0001/acrefore-9780190264093-e-1467, DOI 10.1093/ACREFORE/9780190264093.001.0001/ACREFORE-9780190264093-E-1467]
[7]  
Berrett Dan., 2012, CHRON HIGHER EDUC
[8]  
Bloom BS, 1984, HDB 1 COGNITIVE DOMA
[9]  
BOURDIEU Pierre., 2001, LANGAGE POUVOIR SYMB
[10]  
Bourdieu Pierre., 1998, STATE NOBILITY, VFirst