F O S T E R I N G CRITICAL THINKING T H R O U G H P R O B L E M S O L V I N G

IN H O M E ECONOMICS

By

BARBARA JEAN RAYNOR

B . E d . ( S e c ) , The University of British C o l u m b i a , 1981

A T H E S I S S U B M I T T E D IN P A R T I A L F U L F I L L M E N T O F

T H E REQUIREMENTS FOR T H E D E G R E E O F

MASTER OF ARTS

in

THE FACULTY O F G R A D U A T E STUDIES

(Department of Curriculum and Instructional Studies)

W e accept this thesis as conforming

to the required s t a n d a r d

T H E U N I V E R S I T Y O F BRITISH C O L U M B I A

APRIL 1990

c Barbara J e a n Raynor, 1990

 In presenting this thesis in partial fulfilment of the requirements for an advanced
degree at the University of British Columbia, I agree that the Library shall make it
freely available for reference and study. I further agree that permission for extensive
copying of this thesis for scholarly purposes may be granted by the head of my
department or by his or her representatives. It is understood that copying or
publication of this thesis for financial gain shall not be allowed without my written
permission.

Department of CURRICULUM AND INSTRUCTIONAL STUDIES

The University of British Columbia

Vancouver, Canada

Date APRIL 17, 1990

DE-6 (2/88)
 ABSTRACT

This study investigated whether critical thinking can be fostered in home

economics through teaching a problem solving approach in Family Management.

Secondarily, it investigated teacher behaviours which may foster critical

thinking abilities, the moral and ethical issues which the teaching of critical

thinking addresses, and whether the students were able to use problem solving in

real life situations.

The research involved the students and teacher in a Family Management

eleven class in rural British Columbia. All students in the class chose to

participate in the study. The study was conducted during twenty-six classroom

hours.

The study used action research as the research methodology. The research

included action/research cycles with time between for analysis and reflection.

The phase of data analysis and reflection was called the reconnaissance. Data

was collected through audio tapes of the classes, entries in the teacher's

journal, a checklist, and collected student work. The data collected in the first

reconnaissance phase established a description which served as a point of

reference for comparing and analyzing later observations.

Two cycles of action/research followed. Observations were made and data

collected as the critical thinking concepts were introduced. The introduction of

the macro-thinking skill of problem solving was combined with the micro-

ii
thinking skills of avoiding fallacies, observing, reporting and summarizing.

The research found that there was an increase in critical thinking

activities at the end of the study. Factors that were found to have effected this

change were: the teaching of a problem solving process, the teaching of micro-

thinking skills, certain teacher behaviours, and the classroom atmosphere. Home

economics was found to play a unique role in providing practice in real life

problem solving.

Further research is needed to determine if the skills the students learned

while problem solving in Family Management will carry over to everyday life.

iii
 CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES vi

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS vii

CHAPTER I: INTRODUCTION 1

The Purpose of the Study 4

Statement of the Problem 4

The Justification for the Study 5

Definition of Terms 6

Limitations 10

Assumptions 11

The Organization of the Thesis 11

CHAPTER II: LITERATURE REVIEW 13

Defining Critical Thinking 13

Critical Thinking in the Classroom 17

Critical Thinking in Home Economics Education 23

CHAPTER III: METHODOLOGY 30

Action Research 30

What is Action Research? 31

Why Use Action Research? 33

Planning For Research 34

Data Collection 34

Reflection 35

The General Idea 36

iv
 The Reconnaissance 37

CHAPTER IV: THE RESEARCH/ACTION CYCLES 50

Action 1 50
ProblemSolving 50
Fallacies 57
Discussion With Colleagues 68
Teaching Style 68
Summary of Action 1 69

Action 2 70

Observing 72
Discussion With Colleagues 76
Teaching Style 77
Summary of Action 2 78

CHAPTER V: SUMMARY, RECOMMENDATIONS, AND CONCLUSIONS 80

Summary of Major Findings 81

Discussion 94

Reflections on Action Research 100

Recommendations 104

Conclusions 108

LIST OF REFERENCES 109

APPENDIX A: LINEAR PROBLEM SOLVING MODEL 113

APPENDIX B: EDUCATIONAL ACTION RESEARCH 114

APPENDIX C: SELF-REFLECTION ON YOUR TEACHING: A CHECKLIST 115

APPENDIX D: CORRESPONDENCE 117

v
 LIST O F FIGURES

Figure 1: Problem Solving Model 8

Figure 2: Mary and Robin's Model 55

Figure 3: Sherry, Liz and Tara's Model 56

Figure 4: Liz and Tara's Model 64

Figure 5: Barb's Model 65

Figure 6: Debbie and Jane's Model 66

 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I wish to express my appreciation to Dr. Linda Peterat who chaired my

committee and spent many hours editing this thesis. I also wish to thank other

members of my committee, Dr. Eleanore Vaines and Dr. P. James Gashell.

vii
 CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

Critical thinking is a thinking process that goes beyond recall and

comprehension. It requires judgment and evaluation. It is an emancipating

process that encourages one to question the status quo and look beyond it for

possible answers. Fedje and Holcombe assert that our highly technological

society demands that we are able to process large amounts of data, facts,

opinions and values (1986). As our students will most likely be expected to deal

with an ever expanding body of information, it is our responsibility as educators

to help them develop critical thinking skills that will enable them to effectively

process this information. By teaching our students critical thinking we enable

them to utilize information to solve problems and make sound judgments rather

than contributing to a powerlessness that comes with the overloading of

meaningless information.

Critical thinking is receiving much attention in education today. Sternberg

states "probably never before in the history of educational practice has there

1
been a greater push to teach children to think critically" (1985a p.194). How one

"thinks" critically; how one teaches critical thinking; indeed, even if critical

thinking can be taught are matters for great debate in the educational literature.

Certainly, many authors believe that critical thinking can be taught (Ennis, 1962;

de Bono, 1983; Wassermann, 1987; Sternberg, 1987). Bloom and others developed

a taxonomy in the cognitive domain that categorized the levels of thinking

(1971). The top three levels are regarded as the higher order thinking skills:

analysis, synthesis, and evaluation. Bloom proposed that higher order thinking

skills can be taught to pupils if teachers use the taxonomy to develop their

questions and assignments. Ennis elaborated these levels in terms of critical

thinking skills:

1) ability to define and clarify such things as problems,

issues, conclusions,reasons, assumptions.
2) ability to judge the credibility, relevance, and
consistency of information.
3) ability to infer or to solve problems and draw
reasonable conclusions (1985, p.45).

Ennis also claims that these skills can be taught, and that they are indicators of

critical thinking.

Of those who argue that teaching critical thinking is possible, some see

problem solving as a means for critical thinking (Sternberg, 1985a; Quellmalz,

1985; Paul, 1985). By working their way through the steps to solving everyday

problems, students can be encouraged to think critically. The first step in

problem solving, identifying the problem, is probably the most difficult and

2
requires the most critical thinking (Sternberg, 1985a). The students solve

problems with the use of micro-thinking skills such as detecting bias,

identifying assumptions and finding fallacies (Beyer, 1984a).

The home economics curriculum in British Columbia, especially the Family

Management curriculum has a strong emphasis on the problem solving process. A

review of the intended learning outcomes in the Family Management curriculum

shows an emphasis on encouraging the development of problem solving skills

(Curriculum Development Branch, 1986). Although this focus is promising, it

seems to be limited by the tradition of teaching problem solving as a linear five

step process (see appendix A) where the teacher supplies the problem and the

students go through the steps without necessarily thinking critically about

possible solutions, or evaluating these solutions to choose the best one.

Sternberg states "in the everyday world, the first and sometimes most difficult

step in problem solving is the recognition that a problem exists (1985a p. 195).

In order for the students to become critical thinkers they need to practice

identifying the problem; brainstorming a thorough and diverse list of possible

solutions; evaluating the solutions instead of choosing their favourite or relying

on fallacious information. It seems that evaluation can occur only after the

student has considered the positive and negative aspects of each solution. This

focus on critical thinking within the problem solving process can appropriately

be integrated into the current Family Management curriculum.

3
The Purpose of the Study

The purpose of this research is to explore whether critical thinking can be

fostered through a problem solving approach to teaching home economics,

specifically Family Management. Beyer states that critical thinking should be

part of a district wide plan that incorporates thinking skills into all content

areas (1983). Home economics is no exception. "If we are to strengthen

individual and family life, we must not forget one of the basic skills that can be

used in everyday life -- thinking" (Fedje and Holcombe, 1986, p. 96).

Statement of the Problem

In exploring the major question of whether critical thinking can be

fostered through a problem solving approach to teaching Family Management 11,

the following specific questions will guide the research:

1. Do students show an increased ability to think critically after the problem

solving process is introduced?

2. Does the teaching of micro-thinking skills along with the problem solving

process encourage the students to be critical thinkers while problem solving?

3. What teacher behaviours foster the development of critical thinking?

4. What moral and ethical issues does the teaching of critical thinking address?

5. Will the students be able to use problem solving in real life situations?

4
The Justification for the Study

As mentioned earlier, Beyer states that critical thinking should be part of

a district wide plan that includes all grade levels and all subjects areas (1983).

Home economics with its focus on the family provides a unique opportunity for

teaching thinking skills within the context of everyday family situations. The

students will be able to practice critical thinking while solving real life

problems. With a focus on real life problems the students may find the concept of

problem solving more interesting and learn it more quickly. They may also be

more able to apply their knowledge later in life. While teachers have been

encouraged to teach critical thinking (Sternberg, 1985a,b; Beyer, 1984a,b;

Wassermann, 1987) specific examples of how this might be addressed has not

yet been done. This study will contribute to the body of knowledge in this area.

The theoretical significance of the study will be to discover if home economics

has a role in teaching critical thinking. The practical significance will be to

discover which teaching practices promote critical thinking in home economics

students.

5
Definition of Terms

Critical Thinking

The terms thinking, critical thinking, thinking skills, creative thinking,

and higher order thinking are often used to describe the same group of

behaviours. Ennis defined critical thinking as "reflective and reasonable thinking

that is focused on deciding what to believe or do" (1962, p.45). de Bono claims

that thinking is "the operating skill with which intelligence acts upon

experience" (1983, p.703). The list of definitions goes on, but, as Beyer suggests

there does seem to be consensus that "most educators agree that thinking

skills...are essentially mental techniques or abilities that enable human beings to

formulate thoughts, to reason about, or to judge" (1984a, p.486). In this study

students will be regarded as thinking critically when they use higher order

thinking skills such as analysis and evaluation to identify problems from a real

life scenario; and when they take that problem, propose possible solutions, and

evaluate these solutions.

Problem Solving

Problem solving is commonly seen as a five step process: 1) identifying

the problem, 2) listing possible solutions to the problem, 3) evaluating the

strengths and weaknesses of each solution, 4) choosing the best solution, and

6
acting on it, a n d 5) re-evaluating the choice (see appendix A ) . H o w e v e r , a s noted

earlier this five step problem solving p r o c e s s s u g g e s t s a linear form of problem

solving. T h e student c a n provide s e e m i n g l y correct information without ever

using higher order thinking skills. It c a n be a rote e x e r c i s e where for e x a m p l e ,

every time the problem is stated a s "teen p r e g n a n c y " the student lists the

s t a n d a r d solutions of adoption, abortion, marriage or single p a r e n t h o o d . In this

study, problem solving is taken b e y o n d the linear form and c o n s i d e r e d a s a

reflective, circular p r o c e s s (see Figure 1). That is, the s t e p s of problem solving

will not n e e d to be completed in a particular linear order. Rather, it is

r e c o g n i z e d that one might work on all parts of the p r o c e s s at the s a m e time. For

e x a m p l e , after brainstorming for p o s s i b l e solutions to a p r o b l e m , a p e r s o n may

realize that the problem has not b e e n clearly identified a n d may at this point

m o v e b a c k to an earlier step of clarifying the p r o b l e m . P r o b l e m solving is also

not intended to lead to one right a n d final a n s w e r . Rather, it is v a l u e d as a

p r o c e s s which helps an individual to direct o n e ' s thinking, and which s h o u l d

produce a number of solutions to any particular problem. It is e x p e c t e d that the

solution c h o s e n will be b a s e d on an individual's c i r c u m s t a n c e s at a particular

time a n d that a c h o s e n solution will continue to be r e - e v a l u a t e d .

7
FIGURE 1 PROBLEM SOLVING MODEL

8
 Beyer suggests that problem solving is a broader, all-encompassing

thinking process in comparison to the micro-thinking operations such as recall,

extrapolation and synthesis (1984b). He also claims that critical thinking is a

combination of micro-thinking skills with broader thinking processes such as

problem solving. For the purposes of this study, critical thinking is fostered

through the use of micro-thinking skills in the context of solving real life

practical problems.

Action Research

The method of research used in this study is action research. Action

research is also known as teacher research, classroom inquiry and naturalistic

research. In this study the definition formulated by Ebbutt is appropriate. He

defines educational action research as:

The systematic study of attempts to change and improve

educational practice by groups of participants by means
of their own practical actions and by means of their own
reflection upon the effects of those actions.(1985, p.156).

Family Management

Family Management is a course offered within the British Columbia home

economics curriculum. It was first offered at the grade eleven level in 1986.

The Family Management course is designed from an ecological perspective, that

is, it focuses on individuals, families, and other groups in society and their

9
interdependence on each other and the natural world. The emphasis in the grade

eleven course is on the growth and development of the individual in relationship

to other individuals, one's families and the broader society. The goals of Family

Management are:

a) to develop an understanding of self in relation to others;

b) to recognize the interdependence of self, family, and the environment;

c) to develop skills and knowledge for effective life management; and

d) to become active and contributing members of the community and society

(Curriculum Development Branch, 1986 p.5).

Limitations

Certain limitations are evident in this research. The study uses a small

sample of students and a single teacher. The study is done with a Family

Management eleven class made up entirely of young women. The class takes

place in a school in a small town in rural British Columbia. The study may not be

generalizable to other classes in other areas.

It cannot be claimed that this research is objective in the sense of a study

using statistically quantifiable data. As with any phenomenological research

there is a challenge to the researcher to remain objective. The best way to

approach this concern is to face the subjectivity of the study directly. Alan

Peshkin states that regardless of the type of research, quantitative or

10
qualitative there is always a degree of subjectivity (1988). He compels the

researcher to identify his or her subjectivity throughout the course of the

research, and to disclose to the reader where self and subject become joined.

Action research addresses the concern of objectivity by including a reflective

phase. During this time the teacher looks back on what has happened. She may

listen to audio or video tapes of the class, look at student work and discuss her

impressions with colleagues. By doing this one is able to distance oneself from

the data. This enables a viewing of the data in a more objective manner.

Assumptions

It is assumed that the development of thinking skills can, at least in part,

be evident through observing student behaviour. It is expected that improved

thinking skills will be exhibited in behaviours during class discussions, and

evident in written assignments and evaluative tests.

The Organization of the Thesis

This chapter has described the purpose of the study, its general focus, its

limitations and the definition of relevant terms. Chapter two presents a review

of relevant literature in critical thinking, problem solving, and teaching critical

thinking in home economics. Chapter three describes action research and the

design of the study. Chapter four discusses the reflection and action cycles in

11
relation to the data. Chapter five concludes the thesis and presents a summary

of major findings, implications, and recommendations together with some

suggestions for further research.

12
 CHAPTER II

LITERATURE REVIEW

This section reviews literature relevant to the study. It includes three areas

of review:

1. Defining critical thinking

2. Critical thinking in the classroom

3. Critical thinking in home economics education

Defining Critical Thinking

Teaching for thinking is not a new concept. John Dewey referred to it in

1933 when he talked about "reflective thinking" in teaching. In 1940 Glaser and

Watson developed the Watson-Glaser Critical Thinking Test (Paul, 1984). It was

intended to measure the subjects' ability for drawing inference, identifying

assumptions, reasoning deductively, drawing conclusions and evaluating

arguments. Smith emphasized the judgmental component of critical thinking

(1953). He wrote that critical thinking meant understanding what was meant and

being able to judge the value of it. In 1962 when Ennis wrote "A Concept of

13
Critical Thinking" he said he was "filling the gap" on the subject. He discussed

the research done on critical thinking in psychology, education and philosophy

and listed what he saw as twelve aspects of critical thinking:

1. Grasping the meaning of a statement.

2. Judging whether there is ambiguity in a line of reasoning.
3. Judging whether certain statements contradict each other.
4. Judging whether a conclusion follows necessarily.
5. Judging whether a statement is specific enough.
6. Judging whether a statement is actually the application of a
certain principle.
7. Judging whether an observation statement is reliable.
8. Judging whether an inductive conclusion is warranted.
9. Judging whether the problem has been identified.
10. Judging whether something is an assumption.
11. Judging whether a definition is adequate.
12. Judging whether a statement made by an alleged authority is
acceptable (p. 84).

There are competing ways in which critical thinking is presented in the

literature. Edward de Bono has devoted much of his professional life to

developing curriculum that will teach children how to think critically. He

believes that thinking skills should be taught in isolation as a distinct

discipline. De Bono claims that when thinking skills are taught within a subject

area children can be distracted from the thinking skill they are supposed to be

learning by the subject content. The students are not thinking about thinking

(metacognition) they are thinking about the subject. De Bono states that we

cannot teach generalizable thinking skills through specific course content,

instead we must teach them thinking tools in isolation and then apply them to

14
other subjects. He introduced the C o R T program (Cognitive Research Trust)

which is being used in schools in Venezuela, Australia, the United States,

Canada, Great Britain, Malaysia and Israel (de Bono, 1983). "By law, Venezuelan

school children in every grade must have two hours of direct instruction per

week in thinking skills" (p. 705). The C o R T program consists of a series of

thinking skills or "tools" which any teacher with a minimum of training can teach

to her students.

On the other hand Richard Paul is opposed to conceiving of thinking skills

as discrete "micro-logical" skills, which he calls critical thinking skills in the

weak sense. He writes that thinking skills are integrated into the person and are

"...ultimately intrinsic to the character of the person and to insight into one's

own cognitive and affective processes" (1984, p.5). Raths, Wassermann, Jonas

and Rothstein would agree. They wrote that "thinking is associated with the

whole man. It is not restricted to the cognitive domain alone. It embraces

imagination...values, attitudes, feelings, beliefs, and aspirations" (1986, p.xxiii).

Eisner would also agree. He states that we cannot separate the cognitive and

affective domains and in fact that the two domains are interwoven and one

cannot take place without the other (1985). Paul claims that only with this

understanding of critical thinking can we develop technical and emancipatory

reasoning. Technical reason being "...skills that do not transform one's grasp of

one's basic cognitive and affective process..." and emancipatory reason

15
"...generate not only fundamental insight into but also some command of one's

own cognitive and affective processes" (1984, p.5).

While de Bono claims that his tools for thinking can be taught by any

teacher with little or no training, Paul states that we should put a great deal of

effort into training teachers to teach thinking skills within established subject

areas. He suggests that teachers should have access to university level courses

in critical thinking, critical thinking tests, a full range of resources and on going

support in the classroom.

Sadler and Whimbey (1985) claim that thinking skills should not be broken

down into discrete units. "Teaching people to think is like teaching them to

swing a golf club: its the whole action that counts" (p.199). They, like Paul

(1984) write that thinking skills must be incorporated into all levels and in all

subjects.

Although the debate for teaching thinking skills in isolation and for

integrating thinking into all subjects continues, the question this research

addresses is supported by the positions of Paul (1984), Raths, Wassermann,

Jonas and Rothstein (1986) and Eisner (1985) who claim that thinking skills

must be taught within the context of all subjects. One major problem with

trying to teach thinking skills as a distinct subject is that the educational

system has to support the concept, as does Venezuela with its compulsory two

hours of direct instruction per week in thinking skills. If the system does not

16
support the i d e a of t e a c h i n g thinking in isolation, the c l a s s r o o m t e a c h e r will

have difficulty in trying to find the time in an already c r o w d e d curriculum.

Another c o n c e r n with t e a c h i n g thinking skills in isolation is the transferability

or lack of transferability to other a r e a s . If thinking skills are taught in

isolation will the student be able to apply them to all subjects a n d e v e r y d a y

problem s o l v i n g ? Thinking skills n e e d to be taught within the context of all

subject a r e a s . This c a n be done by any teacher at all levels in all subjects,

whether it is m a n d a t e d by the system or not. It can b e c o m e a p r o c e s s that is

s h o w n to the students a s a m e a n s of p r o c e s s i n g the content in the s a m e way that

a t e a c h e r might instruct the c l a s s how to conduct a s c i e n c e experiment. The

i s s u e of isolation v e r s u s integration a r i s e s from the q u e s t i o n of whether

thinking skills are generic and g e n e r a l i z a b l e to all a r e a s of thinking or whether

thinking skills are s p e c i f i c to e a c h subject a r e a . T h i s r e s e a c h a s s u m e s that

s o m e thinking abilities are g e n e r a l i z a b l e a n d s o m e unique. T h e r e f o r e , a question

of c o n c e r n is the s p e c i f i c nature of critical thinking that c a n be fostered in home

economics.

Critical Thinking in the Classroom

R e c e n t writers s e e s o m e problems with the way thinking has been taught

in s c h o o l s to date (Beyer, 1 9 8 4 a ; Sternberg, 1 9 8 7 a ; W a s s e r m a n , 1987). B e y e r

writes that there are five major r e a s o n s why e d u c a t o r s are not doing a g o o d job

17
of teaching thinking skills. First, he s a y s there is not c o n s e n s u s on what

thinking is a n d what skills are involved. S e c o n d , the d e v e l o p e r s of the

instructional materials do not clearly state the skills they m e a n to t e a c h . Third,

most t e a c h e r s do not use teaching m e t h o d s that are c o n d u c i v e to critical

thinking. Fourth, s c h o o l s are skill oriented. Finally, the e m p h a s i s on a c h i e v e m e n t

tests in most s c h o o l s inhibit the t e a c h i n g of thinking s k i l l s .

S t e r n b e r g a g r e e s that there are p r o b l e m s with the w a y that thinking is

being taught (1987). He s a y s that the programs are d o o m e d to failure before they

even begin b e c a u s e of s o m e of our ideas about teaching and learning. Sternberg

writes that we operate under eight fallacies that obstruct the t e a c h i n g of

critical thinking before we e v e n begin. First, "the t e a c h e r is the t e a c h e r a n d the

student is the learner"(p.456). He s a y s in order to foster critical thinking both

the t e a c h e r a n d the students must take on the dual roles of t e a c h e r and learner.

Certainly in a world where we realize that e a c h p e r s o n h a s s o m e t h i n g to

contribute to the body of knowledge this s h o u l d not be difficult. A thinking

p e r s o n s h o u l d realize that in our s c h o o l community we all learn together.

S e c o n d , "critical thinking is the students job a n d only the students job"(p.457).

T h i s fallacy a s s u m e s that critical thinking c a n take p l a c e without the t e a c h e r

m o d e l i n g the behaviour. This w o u l d be like a t e a c h e r teaching mathematics

without s h o w i n g the students how to do the problems on the b o a r d . Third, "the

most important thing is to d e c i d e on the correct program"(p.457). Sternberg says

18
that we must first decide on our goals and then decide how to go about

accomplishing them. Fourth, "our choice of a program must be preceded by a

complex set of binary choices, such as infused versus separate instruction or

process-based versus holistic instruction"(p.458). Here Sternberg is criticizing

school boards and teachers who see only two ways of teaching thinking, and see

the two ways as being mutually exclusive. He would prefer that we look at a

variety of ways of teaching critical thinking, that we accept there are several

methods, and each has its own strengths. The "best" way to teach critical

thinking may be to use some of each theory. Fifth, "what really counts is the

right answer"(p.458). In critical thinking, rather than the right answer, it is the

thought process that counts. Sixth, "class discussion is primarily a means to an

end" (p.458). Again, in critical thinking the process of discussing is the most

important part. Seventh, "mastery-learning principles can be applied to critical

thinking, just as they can be applied to anything else" (p.459). The concept of

mastery learning does not apply. How can one say that one's thinking is 90%

correct? There is no ceiling on the level of performance. Finally, "the job of a

course in critical thinking is to teach critical thinking" (p.459). Sternberg says

that we cannot teach children to think, they must teach themselves. Our task as

teachers is to provide them with the opportunity. Encouraging students to think

critically is not just desirable it is a responsibility. If we want our next

generation to be thoughtful citizens who can contribute to the welfare of the

19
w o r l d , w e must be sure they have the ability to think critically. Hopefully with a

new generation of thinkers old i d e a s of the i m p o s s i b l e will be r e p l a c e d with the

inspirations of the possible.

S e l m a W a s s e r m a n n c o n c u r s that there have been problems with the

implementation of critical thinking in the s c h o o l s (1987). O n e problem comes

from our m i s u n d e r s t a n d i n g of what t e a c h i n g thinking entails. Often t e a c h e r s try

to introduce thinking e x e r c i s e s a n d are frustrated by the o u t c o m e , not taking

into a c c o u n t that students have gone through a s y s t e m that s t r e s s e s facts a n d

a c h i e v e m e n t on tests. S h e a l s o s t r e s s e s the importance of t e a c h i n g style a n d

c l a s s r o o m a t m o s p h e r e to the e n h a n c e m e n t of thinking.

Hultgren (1989) states that s o m e t i m e s in our rush to t e a c h thinking skills

we do not sufficiently reflect on our own thinking. S h e c l a i m s that many

t e a c h e r s feel p r e s s u r e to t e a c h for thinking without u n d e r s t a n d i n g the essence

of critical thinking. T h i s p r e s s u r e c a u s e s t e a c h e r s to d e v e l o p "...quick-fix

solutions in the form of t e c h n i q u e s that are applied to content, a n d applied to

s t u d e n t s , in the h o p e s that with practice, t h e s e skills will be l e a r n e d " (p.11).

Hultgren is a l s o critical about educators w h o apply the s a m e t e c h n i q u e s to the

t e a c h e r s , giving them w o r k s h o p s and "how-to" r e s o u r c e s and s p e c i f y i n g "...what

skills s h o u l d be taught, where a n d w h e n " (p.11). Hultgren s u g g e s t s that students

a n d t e a c h e r s n e e d to e x p e r i e n c e critical thinking rather than rushing to learn

thinking skills.

20
 T h e s e criticisms highlight the c o n c e r n s of s e v e r a l authors with the

current state of critical thinking e d u c a t i o n today (Beyer, 1984a; Sternberg,

1 9 8 7 ; W a s s e r m a n n , 1987; Hultgren, 1989). K e e p i n g t h e s e criticisms in mind we

have a n e e d to study how we c a n best foster critical thinking.

M o s t agree that the teaching of thinking is c o m p l e x (de B o n o , 1 9 8 3 ;

S t e r n b e r g , 1987; B e y e r , 1983; W a s s e r m a n n , 1987; R a t h s , 1986; P a u l , 1984).

There is not a single method of teaching or a single issue to consider, de B o n o

a r g u e s the n e e d to have separate instruction in thinking a s well a s incorporating

it into all subject a r e a s (1983). Others argue that teaching thinking must be

integrated into the curriculum ( P a u l , 1984; B e y e r , 1 9 8 3 ; S t e r n b e r g , 1987).

S t e r n b e r g states that students n e e d to learn h o w to s o l v e real life problems

which includes being able to identify that there is a problem (1985a). Others

s t r e s s the importance of c l a s s r o o m a t m o s p h e r e , s a y i n g that a proper c l a s s r o o m

a t m o s p h e r e c a n promote intuitive understanding a n d motivate learning (Beyer,

1983; S a d l e r a n d W h i m b e y , 1985). Hultgren states that the teacher is the most

important part of the thinking p r o c e s s in the c l a s s r o o m (1989). S h e is the

catalyst that e n c o u r a g e s the new knowledge a n d b e h a v i o u r s . T h e t e a c h e r must

understand critical thinking, think critically a n d e s p o u s e critical thinking, "...if

you playact being a thinker, you will b e c o m e one" (de B o n o , 1985 p. 6).

A n o t h e r way to t e a c h critical thinking is through processes such as

d e c i s i o n making a n d problem s o l v i n g . B e y e r c l a i m s that we t e a c h critical

21
thinking by c o m b i n i n g the broader thinking p r o c e s s e s s u c h a s problem solving

with the micro-thinking o p e r a t i o n s s u c h a s extrapolation and synthesis (1984).

O t h e r s a g r e e that problem solving is a method for t e a c h i n g critical thinking

(Sternberg, 1985; Paul, 1985).

S o m e authors are c o n c e r n e d that the typical l e s s o n s for t e a c h i n g problem

s o l v i n g , a n d therefore critical thinking are unrealistic ( B e y e r , 1 9 8 4 ; S t e r n b e r g ,

1984; P a u l , 1 9 8 5 ; S h o r , 1980; Laster, 1987). T h e y believe that the t e a c h i n g we

do in thinking s h o u l d prepare the students to handle real life p r o b l e m s .

Sternberg, B e y e r and Laster agree that one of the most difficult s t a g e s in the

problem solving p r o c e s s is defining the problem or e v e n admitting that there is a

problem in the first p l a c e . Often in c l a s s r o o m e x e r c i s e s the first step is s k i p p e d

over by the t e a c h e r w h e n s h e s u p p l i e s the problem for the students. Students

n e e d to learn how to recognize problems, not just how to solve t h e m . E v e r y d a y

p r o b l e m s tend to be ill-structured a n d the information that is n e e d e d to s o l v e

them is not clear (Laster, 1987). Everyday problems do not have a "best

solution", there are usually a variety of solutions a n d often the final c h o i c e is a

v a l u e judgment (Brown a n d P a o l u c c i , 1979). A s Sternberg states "solutions to

important e v e r y d a y p r o b l e m s have c o n s e q u e n c e s that matter" ( 1 9 8 5 a , p.198).

A s e c o n d i s s u e in the t e a c h i n g of critical thinking is what is sufficient

e v i d e n c e to indicate that students are critically thinking? L i p m a n s t a t e s that

students are thinking w h e n they c a n use g o o d judgment that is b a s e d on criteria,

22
is s e l f - c o r r e c t i n g , a n d is s e n s i t i v e to context (1988). He s a y s that critical

thinking must be b a s e d on criteria in order to be legitimate, that we must be

able to b a c k up our c l a i m s with r e a s o n s a n d criteria for the r e a s o n s . Other

criteria u s e d are validity, evidential warrant a n d c o n s i s t e n c y . He also claims

that critical thinking is evident w h e n the p e r s o n c a n d i s c o v e r their own

w e a k n e s s e s a n d correct what is at fault. In the a r e a of self-correction L i p m a n

s p e a k s about the a d v a n t a g e of turning the c l a s s r o o m into a community of inquiry.

In s u c h a community the m e m b e r s are not only r e s p o n s i b l e for their own

thinking, but also for other m e m b e r s of the community. In this w a y both the

individual a n d the community b e c o m e s e l f - c o r r e c t i n g . T h e final a s p e c t that

L i p m a n d i s c u s s e s is that thinking must be sensitive to context. T h e thinker must

be able to c o n s i d e r e a c h event a n d behaviour as unique within its own context,

a n d must c o n s i d e r that context w h e n thinking.

Critical Thinking in Home Economics Education

P r o b l e m solving can be fostered in any subject a r e a , a n d home e c o n o m i c s

is no e x c e p t i o n . Problem solving is an integral part of home e c o n o m i c s education

philosophy. In 1954 W i l l i a m s o n a n d Stewart Lyle wrote "life is one problem

following another... problem solving e x p e r i e n c e s are important in l e a r n i n g , are

important in pupil d e v e l o p m e n t " (p. 128).

23
 Making inferences. Detecting bias. Identifying stated and
unstated assumptions. Distinguishing between reliable and
unreliable sources of information. Old process? New process?
A part of home economics? Absolutely! These processes, along
with other thinking skills, are part of our past (Fedje &
Holcombe, 1986, p.94).

The philosophy of teaching critical thinking in home economics is not new. Home

economics has always had a potential to be a subject in which students are asked

to analyze, synthesize and evaluate as well as reason, judge and conclude. The

teacher must adopt teaching for thinking as a personal philosophy if she is to be

effective.

In relation to the recognition of critical thinking as a way

of being, the insight came forward that to become a critical
teacher is to have the courage to enter into a common search
with students, such that the distinction between student and
teacher becomes blurred (Hultgren, 1989, p.33).

In home economics, problem solving can be taught in the context of or in

reference to real life situations. In his list of eight fallacies about teaching

critical thinking, Sternberg states that one problem is teachers who believe that

the teacher teaches and the student learns. In home economics there has always

been a place for a "learning together" attitude. The students often bring problems

to class that the teacher was not prepared for, but the teacher and student work

together, both learning.

Another concern of Sternberg's is the teacher who sees thinking as the

students job. As discussed earlier, the teacher and the student must work

together in their pursuit of critical thought. Home economics provides the

24
teacher the opportunity to be a thinker. The nature of home economics is such

that it is closely linked to the individual and the family. As the class tackles

problems that come out of families they are asked to reason, judge and draw

conclusions. This process involves the entire class as a community taking on a

challenge (Hultgren, 1989).

Sternberg asserts that another problem with most classrooms is the

"correct" answer attitude (1987). Brown and Paolucci point out that home

economics should have a moral reasoning emphasis. There is rarely a "correct"

answer in family conflicts. The exercises in class should ask students to clarify

their beliefs and help them to express and support their point of view (1979).

Process should be the emphasis in home economics classes. Learning how to do

things, how to find information, how to decide which information is useful, how

to solve problems and how to incorporate these decisions into real life is what

home economics education should be about (Laster, 1987).

Janet Laster talks about the kinds of problems we ask students to solve in

home economics (1987). She claims problems fit along a continuum from well-

structured to ill-structured. She agrees with Sternberg that most of the

problems posed in school are well-structured problems that come complete with

a recipe to solve them. Laster agrees with other writers that the problems most

students will face in real life are the ill-defined ones (Sternberg, 1985a; Paul,

1985; Beyer, 1984b). Laster goes on to discuss the special role of home

25
economics in teaching students "practical" problem solving. She states that

problem solving skills are an essential area of home economics education

content. She suggests that real life problems are "messy" because they lack

clear formulation, yet they are important because they are most likely to affect

the students and their families. "Through reasoned problem solving home

economics concepts are integrated and directed toward improving the lives of

individuals, families, and society as a whole" (1987, p.1).

There has been research on the teaching of critical thinking in home

economics. One study by Tabbada showed that the teaching of critical thinking

skills in a foods class increased the students' mastery of the content, but did not

foster critical thinking as measured by a critical thinking test (1987). In her

conclusion Tabbada suggested that further studies in the area should include

classroom observations and video recordings to determine better if critical

thinking was occurring.

Other teachers reflecting on their experience as educators suggest that

teacher behaviour is linked to the success of teaching critical thinking (Roe,

1987; Kowalczyk, 1987; Stark, 1987). A flexible attitude, an open and honest

classroom atmosphere and even "bizarre" teacher behaviour was found to

increase student participation and thinking. When the teacher behaved in

"bizarre" ways by role playing and making nonrational statements the students

were more willing to take risks themselves. Each stresses the importance of

26
classroom discussion in fostering of critical thinking. However, such

discussions must be more that just talking. They must have an underlying

learning process whereby the students learn how to critically examine a topic.

Stark found that as some students discussed their values and beliefs, the other

students realized how many possible solutions a problem could have (1987). As

classroom discussions continued, the students were able to generate more

alternate solutions. Roe concluded, although she used no measurement tool, that

after introducing critical thinking, her students not only asked more questions in

class, but more higher order thinking questions (1987).

Summary

This chapter discussed the research on critical thinking, beginning with

definitions of critical thinking. Next,competing ways of viewing critical thinking

were discussed. deBono says that any teacher can teach critical thinking through

a series of thinking skills. Paul and others claim that critical thinking is best

taught by trained teachers who incorporate thinking skills in every subject.

Hultgren states that it goes much deeper than either of these. She says that

critical thinking is a philosophy that the teacher internalizes and shares with

her students as they embark on a "thinking voyage" through the course content.

Next, a discussion of the problems with the way critical thinking is

currently being taught was presented. Teachers have operated under the

27
fallacies that the teacher teaches and the students learn, critical thinking is the

students job, the most important thing is to decide on the correct program, that

there is only one good program, what really counts is the right answer, class

discussion is primarily a means to an end, mastery-learning principles can be

applied to critical thinking and that we can teach children to think critically.

Thus, it is suggested that to foster critical thinking may require profound

changes in teaching beliefs and practices.

A discussion followed about some possibly better ways to address the

teaching of critical thinking. Many who believe that critical thinking can be

taught see problem solving an effective way of teaching it. Problem solving

though must be taught differently than it has been in the past. There must be an

emphasis on defining and identifying problems; and the problems should simulate

real life problems.

The chapter concluded with a discussion of the role home economics has to

play in critical thinking education. Critical thinking and problem solving have

always been a part of home economics education. Home economics with its

emphasis on daily living in families offers an opportunity for "practical" problem

solving.

The intent of this study is to explore whether home economics,

specifically Family Management, can foster critical thinking through problem

solving. The study will be conducted using action research as the method for

28
data collection and interpretation.
 CHAPTER III

METHODOLOGY

Action Research

The research methodology chosen for this study was influenced by the

subject of the research, critical thinking. Although there have been tests devised

for measuring critical thinking there is evidence that critical thinking and the

approaches that may foster it in the classroom need to be studied by other

methods (Wassermann, 1989; Tabbada, 1987). Wassermann argues that we have

become besotted with trying to measure critical thinking with standardized

tests. She fears that we will find ourselves assigning higher order thinking

skills (HOTS) scores to our students and saying things such as "she is not

thinking at her grade level". Wassermann goes on to say:

One of the most valuable yet rarely acknowledged assessment

tools in educational practice is the sustained, thoughtful,
day-to-day observation of student behaviour by a competent,
professional teacher (p.369).

30
What is Action Research?

Action research provides a methodological frame for this study. Action

research which itself involves critical thinking particularly in the reflective

phases is a particularly appropriate research methodology. "Over the past few

years, an alternate research tradition has been evolving in this country. It goes

by various names: teacher research, classroom inquiry, naturalistic research,

action research" (Goswami & Stillman, 1987 p.I). Action research involves the

collection of data from students and the teacher in the form of notes, audio and

video tape recordings, journal entries, student interviews, parent interviews,

classroom artifacts and so on (Bassey, 1986). After the data is collected, the

researcher, usually the teacher herself, reflects on the data, often with the aid

of colleagues. The teacher then analyses the data and draws conclusions.

Michael Bassey sees action research as having three components: 1) the

person seeks improvement in his or her action, 2) the process is democratic in

that its participants are involved in the process (not 'research subjects') and 3)

it must be reflective (1986). Action research is reflective, and is often

conducted with the intention of improving the teacher's actions. A crucial

aspect of action research is reflection by the teacher during the research event.

Reflection is itself a part of critical thinking. Reflection implies a looking back

at what has been done, how it has been done; and evaluating or judging the

effectiveness. Reflection on a particular plan and action may be done shortly

31
after or during the action ( B a s s e y , 1986). Activities w h i c h facilitate reflections

include the t e a c h e r recording perceptions a n d e v e n t s in a journal a n d d i s c u s s i o n s

with the s t u d e n t s . Action r e s e a r c h includes the students s o that the t e a c h e r and

students learn together. D i s c u s s i o n with a c o l l e a g u e is a third m e a n s of

facilitating reflection. T h e t e a c h e r c a n u s e her journal to facilitate reflections

with a c o l l e a g u e . T h i s p r o c e s s of reflecting with a c o l l e a g u e p r o v i d e s the

t e a c h e r another p e r s p e c t i v e on her e f f e c t i v e n e s s a n d through critical q u e s t i o n s

a n d d i a l o g u e facilitates more objective analysis and reflection.

S o m e authors on action r e s e a r c h have d i a g r a m m e d the p r o c e s s of planning,

action a n d reflection ( K e m m i s et al, 1 9 8 1 ; Elliot, 1 9 8 1 ; Ebbutt, 1985). All three

models start with a general i d e a which through a stage of r e c o n n a i s s a n c e lead

to formulating a g e n e r a l p l a n , taking action, o b s e r v i n g the implementation of the

action, evaluating w h i c h i n c l u d e s reflection, a n d then either continuing with a

s e c o n d r e s e a r c h c y c l e , or a revising of the original plan. Ebbutt's model (see

a p p e n d i x B) unlike the other two is not a spiral. Ebbutt criticizes the others

b e c a u s e "if in moving along a spiral (or spiral staircase) one w i s h e s to return to

an original starting point, then one must retrace or repeat o n e ' s s t e p s back up or

down the spiral" (1985, p.164). Ebbutt claims that his model is " . . . a s e r i e s of

s u c c e s s i v e c y c l e s , e a c h incorporating the possibility for the f e e d b a c k of

information within and between c y c l e s " (p.164). B e c a u s e of this more flexible

nature of Ebbutt's m o d e l , it w a s u s e d in this study to guide the action r e s e a r c h .

32
Why Use Action Research?

Rowland is concerned that teachers often do not take the time to reflect

on their own teaching (1986). He believes that it is vital that teachers

investigate the meaning of children's activities and take the time to reflect and

develop insights. The proponents of action research say that teachers have been

doing their own research in their own classes all along (Goswami & Stillman,

1987; Boomer, 1987; Britton, 1987; Martin, 1987; Berthoff, 1987). Cummings and

Hustler stress the importance of teachers uncovering problems or matters that

they perceive as important, not what an outside source thinks is important

(1986). Teachers observe and question what goes on in their classrooms,

hypothesize about what they observe and develop skills that help them address

problems. Then they step back and analyze and interpret what they have seen.

Action research does not take place in laboratories and it does not treat the

classroom as though it was a laboratory. Teachers ask the questions themselves,

they observe, document and draw conclusions with the help of their students and

other staff members. Action research has to do with ownership. The research is

owned by the teacher and her class.

In this study through an action research process, I will research my own

teaching of a Family Management 11 class with the intent of exploring the

research question "can we teach critical thinking through a problem solving

approach to home economics, specifically Family Management?

33
Planning For Researching

I u s e d Ebbutt's m o d e l , " E d u c a t i o n a l Action R e s e a r c h " , to conduct this study

(1985). T h e model begins with a statement of the general idea, w h i c h guides the

subsequent research. After the general idea h a s b e e n e s t a b l i s h e d the r e s e a r c h e r

d o e s the first r e c o n n a i s s a n c e . T h e r e c o n n a i s s a n c e is c o n d u c t e d many times

during the r e s e a r c h / a c t i o n c y c l e s and includes observation and d a t a gathering as

well a s reflecting through " d i s c u s s i n g , negotiating, exploring opportunities,

a s s e s s i n g possibilities a n d e x a m i n i n g constraints" (Ebbutt, 1985 p.164).

After the first r e c o n n a i s s a n c e has been done the r e s e a r c h e r formulates an

overall plan, w h i c h is more detailed and precise than the general i d e a . It

i n c l u d e s s p e c i f i c information about how the r e s e a r c h will p r o g r e s s . The

r e s e a r c h e r then d e c i d e s what action to take b a s e d on the overall plan and m o v e s

into the Action 1 p h a s e . While the Action 1 p h a s e p r o g r e s s e s the r e s e a r c h e r

implements her plan. A s e c o n d r e c o n n a i s s a n c e is c o n d u c t e d and the researcher

then d e c i d e s whether to continue into Action 2, revise her overall plan, or a m e n d

the general i d e a . T h u s , the c y c l e s continue until the r e s e a r c h is e n d e d .

Data Collection

The data w a s collected for all the r e c o n n a i s s a n c e p h a s e s from the

behaviours of both myself and the students. A u d i o tapes were m a d e of the

l e s s o n s in s u c h a way that both the students and I could be heard. T h e tapes were

34
used to verify information that was recorded in my journal. The tapes also

allowed me to later listen to the class from a more objective stand point.

Student assignments were collected and photocopied. I kept a daily reflective

journal to record my impressions and data that were missed by the tapes. The

journal included such things as passing comments heard while students worked

on assignments, my reaction to techniques tried in the class, and my feelings

about the process. I also used a "Self-Reflection" checklist (see appendix C)

developed by John Barell that helped me identify teaching behaviours in myself

that encouraged or hindered critical thinking (1985).

Reflection

The reconnaissance phases included time for reflection, an essential

component of action research. Reflection as it was done in this study included

many things. First, the collected data was studied. The reseacher looked for

trends, evidence of learning, progress in the students' work, and so on. At the

same time the researcher asked herself questions about the data: Why did this

happen? What does it mean? What could I do differently next time? Is this

evidence of thinking? A third part of the reflection was less concrete. The

researcher asked herself how she felt at the time or how her students felt. She

attempted to draw an intuitive picture of the class and its nature.

35
The General Idea

The first step of the action/research cycle was to establish the general

idea. In the case of this research, the general idea was fostered first by a

curiosity and more specifically after a review of literature on the topic of

critical thinking. The general idea for this study was to question whether

critical thinking could be fostered through a problem solving approach to home

economics, specifically Family Management. The general idea included a method

for integrating critical thinking into the course material.

The first concept introduced in Action 1 was problem solving. Not the

traditional, linear form, but the more flexible model (figure 1). The second

concept introduced was one recommended by Louis Raths and his colleagues

(1986). The students were shown how to discuss and make decisions without the

use of fallacies.

The Action 2 cycle included the introduction of other micro-thinking

skills: 1) comparing, that is teaching students to compare things by looking at

all their similarities and differences; 2) classifying, an extension of comparing,

grouping according to similarities and differences; 3) summarizing, involving the

selection of what counts; 4) observing and reporting, learning how to pick out

important events; 5) interpreting, drawing inferences; 6) finding assumptions,

for the main conclusion to be accepted, the underlying assumptions must be

accepted; and 7) inquiring, seeing how knowledge is constructed (Raths et. al.

36
1986).

A third component of the general idea was that certain teacher behaviours

were more likely to foster critical thinking. The teacher behaviours that were

observed were some of those recommended by Barell (1985):

1. When the student asks an unexpected question, the teacher should say "what

made you think of that?"

2. The answer in the text book is not the only correct answer.

3. The teacher should be flexible in allowing discussions to include ideas and

values, not just content.

4. The teacher should encourage the students to seek alternate answers.

5. The students should be asked their reasons for giving cetain answers.

6. The teacher should ask higher-order thinking questions.

7. The students should be encouraged to critique each other's thinking.

8. The students and teacher should relate the course content to their own life.

9. The teacher should stress how to think, not what.

10. The teacher should encourage the students to listen to each other.

The Reconnaissance

Reconnaissance is part of all the phases in Ebbutt's action research model.

The first reconnaissance is done after establishing the general idea (1985). In

this study the general idea is that we can discover if critical thinking is

37
fostered through classroom problem solving, using micro-thinking skills, and

certain teacher behaviours. Reconnaissance is fact finding. It includes

"...discussing, negotiating, exploring opportunities, assessing possibilities and

examining constraints" (p.164). The reconnaissance for this study involved

observing the classroom, students and myself so that an overall plan could be

formulated and action could be taken. The data collected in this phase

established a description which served as a point of reference for comparing and

analyzing later observations.

The Timeline

The first reconnaissance began on November 25, 1988 and continued

through December 14. During this time I taped the class for six hours, recorded

impressions in my journal, used the checklist and collected student work. I

taped only six of the nine classes that took place during this time because one

class was spent reviewing a concept from the previous unit, during one class the

tape broke and for one class I was absent.

The Course Content

The course content covered during this phase was problem solving in the

traditional, linear manner; the human reproductive system and how pregnancy

occurs; the health hazards associated with pregnancy; childbirth and the stages

38
of labour; a father's viewpoint on being in the delivery room; nutrition and

pregnancy; and food guides for pregnant women.

The Students

At the time my reconnaissance began the class had been meeting for two

months. As is typical in secondary schools, students transferred in and out of

the class, but it was stable during most of the previous months. The class

consisted of twelve female students in grades ten, eleven and twelve. Two of

the students had previously been in "special" classes and were being integrated

back into the mainstream; three were doing a career preparation program in

Hospitality/Tourism; and the rest were in the general program. None of the

students were enrolled in a highly academic program.

All members of the class participated in this study. In addition, I focused

on two students throughout the study in order to understand certain changes and

experiences at an individual level. I chose two students that were very

different. Tara is an average to above average student. She is very vocal in class,

participates in every class discussion and expresses thoughtful questions. She

has definite values and attitudes that are reflected in her discussions. She does

tend to think that she is right and others are wrong. I am hoping that I might

encourage her to empathize more with others. This would make her a more

valuable part of class discussions, and if she could carry that attitude onto later

39
life, so much the better. Barb is quiet, and has spent much of her schooling in

"special class" and is now being integrated into the mainstream. She does not

contribute to class discussions often but appears to be very interested in the

class. She does ask some questions and these show that she is listening and

involved in the subject matter. I am hoping that the class will give her more

confidence socially and academically. Another reason I chose her is because of

the common assumption that critical thinking is enrichment that is particularly

relevant to advanced students, not "regular" students in regular classrooms, and

certainly not to the learning disabled.

The Classroom

The classroom in which Family Management 11 was taught had previously

been a computer lab. There were massive cubicles covered with dark brown

carpeting down each side of the room which gave the whole room a gloomy tone.

The third wall was covered by a chalkboard and the fourth wall was mostly

windows. I taught only Family Management 11 in this room, and the three small

bulletin boards available were used by the regular teacher and were not available

to me. This made it difficult to establish the type of creative, stimulating

atmosphere I wanted. At least the room had tables instead of desks, so it was

conducive to small group work.

40
The Class

By November, the students had become a cohesive group. I always start the

course with units on The Self and Communication. In the unit on self I emphasize

self concept. We discuss how a person's self concept is created by those around

them. Put downs are not allowed in this class because it interferes with the

person's right to express themselves and with effective communication. This

helps to draw the students together and foster trust. In such a climate the

students are open and willing to discuss most topics. They are more willing to

take risks in such a warm and supportive environment. They are willing to share

personal experiences that relate to the topic being discussed.

It was during the class on November 30 that I came to realize what a

innate sense of curiosity the students possessed. We were watching a video on

the human reproductive system. The video was made using fibre optic cameras,

showing the inside of the human body as it traced the path of the sperm and ova. I

do not think the students were too interested in the information because all

their questions during and after the video revolved around how the filming was

done. For example:

"I sure hope they put that guy out"

"Who would volunteer to do something like that?"

"How could they do it with all that stuff around?"

I wondered how I could nurture this sense of curiosity and encourage the

41
students to apply it to all areas of the curriculum. This kind of curiosity is vital

to critical thinking. As I listened to the tapes I noted that I answered the

questions and treated them with the same respect as questions relevant to the

topic. Perhaps this is one way to encourage their curiosity.

The students often ask pertinent questions, assuming the role of

questioners and critics. For example, in discussions about child birth they asked:

"What would happen if the baby started to go back in?"

"I know someone who has a normal baby and she smoked -

How come?"

These questions exhibit that the students are not always willing to accept the

textbook information. Their life experience and their intuition has given them

different information. In this instance they are critically looking at the

information being presented to them instead of just absorbing it. On the other

hand, the students are not so narrow minded that they will not accept the

information. They are willing to listen to more information. When I began to

lecture, I was often interrupted by questions or challenges. This was not a

disruption because the questions were relevant. The questions were usually

generated by six students, especially Tara. In fact, only 50% of the students

participated verbally on a regular basis. I think this freedom to question must be

encouraged. I had to find a way to encourage the other students to ask questions

in class. Barb would sometimes ask me questions after class in private. I always

42
treated her questions with respect, hoping she would be more willing to ask her

questions in class. Perhaps I needed to tell her to ask her questions in class.

I believe that the students enjoyed the class and were interested in the

content. I realized this most when I listened to the tapes. When I announced the

topic for the lesson, or asked them to do an assignment, only once in the six

hours did I hear them groan. I was quite surprised to hear how much laughter

was in the classroom. Another factor that made me believe that the students

enjoyed the class was that I very seldom had to discipline them for not listening

or talking to others. Not once in the six hours of taping did I speak to a student

about the above infractions. All this made it a promising class to work with. If

they enjoy being here and learning the course content they should be willing to

learn new ideas as well.

One concern I had was the narrow minded nature of some of the students.

The students tend to see issues too much as black and white. For example, when

the topic of tubal pregnancy was discussed the students who were against

abortion in general were still opposed to it in this case where both mother and

child would die if the abortion was not carried out. Will teaching them critical

thinking help them to see the gray areas? I think that teaching them about

fallacies and how to avoid using them will help them learn how to form

arguments.

43
Problem Solving

On November 25, the first day of the reconnaissance, I introduced the

problem solving in the traditional linear manner (see appendix A). I wanted to

teach the problem solving process as I had always done to see if there was a

difference between this and the more flexible way I was planning to teach later.

After I had gone through the problem solving process on the board, the students

were asked to form groups and I gave them a problem to work through. The

problems were: 1) A teenage girl gets pregnant, 2) a teenage couple decides they

are not going to have sex, 3) a teenage couple decide that they will have sex, and

4) a teenage boy finds out that his girl friend is pregnant. I taught the process in

isolation at this point so the problems were not related to the content we were

learning. Instead, I chose Family Management related topics. The students

generated several possible solutions to the problems. The first group had the

problem of the teenage girl that got pregnant, their solutions were: she could

give it up for adoption, she could have an abortion, she could give the baby over

to a family member, she could give it to the father, or she could put it into a

foster home until she was able to care for it. The second group had the problem

of the teenage couple who decided that they did not want to have sex. Their

solutions were: they could avoid intimate situations eg. keep the lights on, they

could date in public places with lots of people around, and they could talk about

it. The third group had the teenage couple that wanted to be sexually active.

44
Their solutions were: they could d i s c u s s the c o n s e q u e n c e s of their actions, they

could d i s c u s s it with their parents, a n d they could find out about contraceptives.

T h e fourth group had the problem of the teenage father. Their solutions were: he

could marry her, he could leave her, he could support her a n d the baby, he could

adopt the baby, he could give her money for an abortion, or he could make her

have a miscarriage. T h e next step of the p r o c e s s was to evaluate e a c h solution.

T h e evaluation step is where I s e n s e d one problem with the five step

model. T h e students were expected to look at the positive and negative aspects

of e a c h solution in isolation. T h e y did this by d i s c u s s i n g the possible

c o n s e q u e n c e s of e a c h solution. G r o u p s like the fourth who had generated a long

list of possible solutions s o o n b o g g e d down with the amount of work and did not

finish the assignment. T h e y took a short cut a n d picked their favourite solution.

Another problem a r o s e with the finality of the decision. There was no flexibility

in this model to go back and revise the possible solutions or question whether

the problem w a s properly identified in the first place. I d e c i d e d that when I

introduce the new problem solving model I will s t r e s s the flexibility of the

model. T h e "new" model was not the direct result of this problem solving

exercise. It was something I had envisioned as I read from Sternberg and others,

regarding the unsatisfactory problem solving that went on in c l a s s r o o m s . I

wanted a model that would a d d r e s s the concern that the students n e e d e d practice

identifying the problem. It s e e m e d to me that a flexible model would allow the

45
students to go back to the problem statement and change it to another answer.

The Teacher

In order to become aware of my actions as a teacher, I analyzed the tapes

and filled out the checklist (see appendix C). From this analysis, I distinguished

actions I was taking which were likely to foster critical thinking from those

actions which could be changed to encourage better critical thinking. I observed

teacher behaviours in myself that were conducive to the fostering of critical

thinking in students. 1) I gave the students time to think about their answers

when I asked questions and only moved onto another student after I had asked the

question in a different way and the student had told me that they were not

prepared to answer the question. 2) I integrated my personal experiences into

the lesson and encouraged the students to do the same. 3) I modeled

thoughtfulness. For example, if a student asked me a question that I could not

answer I asked the students to help me and we speculated as to what the answer

could be. At the end we sometimes agreed that we do not know the answer.

The actions which could be worked on to foster better critical thinking in

the classroom were: 1) I lectured too much. In fact I discovered that during the

six hours of class time I lectured, lead a discussion, or showed a video 82% of

the time. From this information I concluded that more time needs to be spent on

student problem solving. 2) When the students answer questions or provide

46
information I tended to accept the answer too quickly thereby shutting off the

thinking of the other students. As I listened to the tapes I heard myself judging

some of the students answers by my response to them. For example, I heard

myself say "great" to an answer from a student. I think this may have misled the

others students to think that it was the "right" answer. From this information I

concluded that I needed to give a more neutral response to student answers. 3) I

needed to ask more probing questions which would encourage students to examine

their own reasoning and beliefs. The tapes revealed that I did not ask enough

probing questions. This information lead me to conclude that I must train

myself to make a conscious effort to ask probing questions. 4) I needed also to

increase the amount of higher order thinking questions. I discovered that I asked

some higher order thinking questions, especially evaluation questions, but I

believed I could ask more. I practiced asking more higher order questions. 5)

While I challenged students to generate original and creative ideas, I allowed

them to give up too easily. For example, when I asked them to adapt the Canada

Food Guide so that it applied to pregnant women most of the students complained

that they could not think of anything to do, so I allowed them to just copy the

original guide and put in the changes for pregnant women. I should have asked

them questions to stimulate their thinking so they could develop an idea. The

three students who did create a poster with their own ideas produced excellent

results. One student drew a pregnant woman with a huge round stomach. Within

47
the circle of the stomach she drew a fetus surrounded by food from the four food

groups. The second student (Tara) drew food inside of a refrigerator with each

shelf representing a food group. The third student laid out four tables with table

cloths and signs that identified each group. The food was beautifully presented

on the tables. From this experience I concluded that I had made some progress

towards creating a thinking classroom, but that there was much more I could be

doing.

Summary

These observations indicated the state of the class before intervention

began. As each of the next three phases are discussed they will be discussed in

reference to this base line data. From this reconnaissance I formulated an

overall plan that dictated the action in the next phase. The plan is to teach the

flexible model of problem solving, stressing the flexibility of the model and

making the evaluation simpler. I will teach about fallacies and how to avoid

using them. The reconnaissance generated questions that will guide the

monitoring and reflections in the next phase:

1) Will the flexible problem solving model encourage critical thinking?

2) How can I channel the student's curiosity and enthusiasm and channel it to all

areas of the curriculum?

3) How can I encourage all students to ask questions?

48
4) Will teaching them not to use fallacies encourage them

into thinking critically?

5) Can I lecture less and spend more time on student centred activities?

6) Can I avoid acknowledging a student when they give an answer that I consider

to be correct so that the other students continue to generate answers?

7) Can I ask more probing questions?

8) Can I ask more higher order thinking questions?

9) How can I challenge the students to be more creative?

49
 CHAPTER IV

T H E R E S E A R C H /ACTION C Y C L E S

After the first reconnaissance, it was time to move into the action phase

of the action research cycle. The reconnaissance ended just before the

Christmas holiday and I used the holiday to reflect on the class and generate the

questions listed at the end of the previous chapter. This part of the study began

on January 3 and went through twelve classes up to and including January 27.

The curriculum content during this time included problem solving, birth and birth

defects. The critical thinking skills I introduced at the same time were problem

solving and fallacies.

Problem Solving

In the first class we reviewed the problem solving model used in November

(see appendix A). I stood at the chalkboard and asked the students to recall the

five steps of the problem solving process. Tara was able to remember and list

the five steps. As she called them out I wrote them on the board in a circular

50
rather than linear form. At this point I introduced them to the flexible, circular

problem solving model (figure 1). I explained to the students that problem

solving should be a reflective, circular process. That is, the steps of problem

solving will not need to be completed in a particular linear order. Rather, one

might work on all parts of the process at the same time. For example, after

brainstorming for possible solutions to a problem, a person may realize that the

problem had not been clearly identified earlier and may at this point move back

to an earlier step of clarifying the problem. I explained that the model should

cover the page, allowing room to go back and add to their answers. I encouraged

messiness. I explained that changing their mind and crossing out old ideas was an

indication of thinking.

After we had gone over the model, we applied it to a case study. I wanted

the students to practice identifying the problem as part of learning the process,

so I read a letter written to an advice column. A girl had a friend who was a

little overweight and the girl's boyfriend teased her about it in front of his

friends. The girl was very hurt by this and asked her friend for advice. I asked

the students what the problem was.

Tara: Lack of love (I wrote it on the board)

Teacher: Do most of you agree that this is the problem?

O.K., Lack of self confidence could be another way of saying

it. (I wrote it on the board)

51
From this the students brainstormed eight possible solutions

including:

Liz: She should drop him.

Tara: She should talk to him about her feelings.

Debbie: She should lose weight.

Mary: She should see her boyfriend only when his friends are

not around.

When we had exhausted our list, I reminded the students about the flexibility of

the model. We went back to the problem statement and debated if it was the

problem. This time they decided that the problem was definitely that the girl had

a poor self concept. We then went on to evaluate each of the possible solutions.

As we went on Liz decided that we needed to go back and add another possible

solution (great!). She wanted to add:

"Her friend could tell the boyfriend how much he hurts her when he teases

her."

We evaluated the possible solutions by discussing whether the solutions were

practical and whether they truly addressed the problem . For example we decided

that "she should lose weight" was a poor choice because it had nothing to do with

the real problem. As a matter of fact, we began a lengthy discussion about body

image and self esteem. We decided that three of the solutions were the best:

52
 "the girl's friend should talk to the boyfriend"

"she should work on her self concept"

"she should drop him"

I explained that we needed to choose a solution and work it through the model. I

picked "she should drop him" as an example and worked it through the process.

Sally pointed out:

"If she drops him she would not have a boyfriend and that could make her

feel even worse about herself".

We decided this was not the best solution so we went back and said it would be

best for her to work on her self concept first (with her friend's help). Then drop

him.

I was pleased with the way the students worked through the model. I was

glad that they saw the flexibility of the model and went back to add to their

answers. Next, I wanted them to work through the model on their own. In pairs

they were given more advice column letters to work through: 1) A thirteen year

old girl hates food and is a picky eater. She is afraid that she's going to stunt her

growth. 2) A fifteen year old girl is on an emotional roller coaster. Fighting with

her brother one minute and getting along the next. 3) A seventeen year old boy

has a friend who drinks a lot, the friend's father is an alcoholic and he's afraid

that his friend may be too. 4) A young girl sees a bag lady on her way to school

each day, she wants to help the lady but does not know how. These problem were

53
chosen because they were all issues that effect families, and at the same time

they had many possible solutions. Each of these problems had obvious

superficial solutions, but the students can peel away the levels like an onion and

look deeper and deeper into the problem. The challenge is to encourage the

students to peel away the surface to get to the real problems underneath.

Each pair worked through one of the problems on their own. I did not want

to interfere, so I sat at my desk and did some other work. At the end of the class

I collected the students assignments. I could see that the students were still

thinking linearly. They still wanted to write out their ideas one after another in

a line. Three of the five groups did show some movement in their model. I did not

see anything crossed out, indicating that they had gone back to change their

minds. I wondered if they would be more flexible with unlined paper.

54
 £moTio^cd
poller Coas+er^SLpi'+cKrna of Moods
i
c-QO ^ee shrirxk - counsellor
1- ToiK TO pcxrervfs - -family
- iV\r\k of fbinas fnod" are causing \Ws
problem.

Ccorv'f cjo lo pa.ce.rvts sbouicl +ru awd fcUk

TO counselors> av\d someone- couUd proboJolu
W p ' h e r $\v\d \'s reditu u^rona a n d
discover flaeim H-^e -rn\n*s tWcct woodd lead
\\QX Wer \rnoods. UooK fxf W r problem from
\"V\e family poiyvf of v i c \ o .

Figure 2. Mary and Robin's Model

55
 -qo see docxor
force herself 4o
eaf o n d L meal aday
-ecd" -foods she,
Ukes
'she. +h\rvl<5 she
rvdres food bud"
her reoJ problem
i s uoarvrs aWevvhon
- bribe, her
-packers of food

~ i a i < rvsudion
fx<>

irv thai" d^redion

he VAM 11 be_ anofex ic
VS 3

* die,

du'dh'i ictanfif ^
real problem hospircU fo leach
sa^js Psycholo< her how fo oveK
Come thai- probleVYY
' eiKott.

Figure 3. Sherry, Liz and Tara's Model

56
 I am not ready to draw any c o n c l u s i o n s a s to whether the more flexible

model e n c o u r a g e s critical thinking. I am watching for s i g n s of the students

using a n a l y s i s a n d evaluation to identify p r o b l e m s . I am also looking for

e v i d e n c e of critical thought w h e n they m a d e judgments about the solutions. The

students did s e e m to understand how the model w o r k e d . I h a d originally planned

to s p e n d more time on the model in isolation, but I d e c i d e d that it would m a k e

more s e n s e to introduce a micro-thinking skill a n d integrate the two together.

Fallacies

T h e micro-thinking skill that w a s introduced first w a s one recommended

by Louis R a t h s a n d his c o l l e a g u e s (1986). T h e students were taught how to

d i s c u s s a n d m a k e d e c i s i o n s without the u s e of f a l l a c i e s . T h e fallacies that were

a d d r e s s e d w e r e : 1) attributions, attributing certain b e h a v i o u r s to certain causes;

2) e x t r e m e s , using extreme terms that permit no e x c e p t i o n s s u c h a s none,

a l w a y s or never; 3) either-or's, a fallacy of a c c e n t , that there are only two

possibilities; 4) qualifications, the i d e a of s a y i n g anything you want as long a s

you qualify it; 5) a n a l o g i e s , s a y i n g that s o m e t h i n g is like another; 6) if-then, a

c a u s a l relationship is being e x p r e s s e d ; a n d 7) evaluative statements, s u c h as a

" g o o d " presentation. Helping students to be aware of the fallacies that are u s e d

in e v e r y d a y d i s c u s s i o n a n d helping them to look d e e p e r for the truth s h o u l d help

them to think at a higher level.

57
 I decided to take time out to teach about fallacies in isolation because I

believe it is an important concept. In the past I have always criticized student

assignments for using faulty logic but I have never taken the time to teach about

fallacies. I explained to the students that by not using fallacies in their

arguments they would be forced to look deeper for the truth and to go beyond

mere opinion. I explained that using fallacies is a "cop out" and it interferes

with the ability to think critically. The avoidance of the use of fallacies is one

of the micro-thinking skills that should help them to reason better when problem

solving. I believe that this is one of the moral issues addressed in the research

question: What moral and ethical issues does the teaching of critical thinking

address. The use of fallacies to win a debate or make a point is not moral. If you

are discussing an issue with a person who is not as knowledgeable as you about

an issue it puts the person at a disadvantage. For example, a person who is

losing an argument on a controversial topic may use the phrase "I read

somewhere..." . The other person may back down thinking that their opponent has

read the information in a reliable source when the truth is they read it in a

pamphlet they were given on a street corner. Using fallacies is also a substitute

for rational thought. Allowing this to go on is not encouraging the students to

think critically and that is not ethical.

I spent three classes teaching the students about fallacies. At the

beginning of the first class I had them write a position paper on a controversial

58
topic. They had to chose a Family Management topic such as abortion or smoking

while pregnant, that they felt strongly about and take a side in the argument. I

gave these guidelines because I wanted to show them later how often we fall

back on fallacies to form arguments, especially when it is a topic with which we

are emotionally involved. When the students finished a one page position

statement I collected them and put them away until a later time. I then went on

to teach about the seven types of fallacies: attributions, extremes, either-ors,

qualifications, analogies, if-thens, and evaluative statements (Raths et al,

1986). The students showed that they understood by writing three examples of

each type. Each student scored 100% on this assignment, so I was sure they

understood.

The next day I had the students go through magazines and find examples of

fallacies in the advertisements. At first they asked me about most of the

advertisements, and I fell into the trap of answering them. Then when I realized

what I was doing I decided that rather than just telling them, I would go through

my thought processes aloud. For Example:

Barb: What's this?

Teacher: What message do you think that is giving you?

Barb: (Shrug)

Teacher: OK, its saying that people who drink that kind of

liquor are what kind of people?

59
 Barb: I don't know

Teacher: This guy here - I think he looks adventurous - like

he's off in another country - maybe Morocco

So that ad is saying....

Barb: (Shrug)

Teacher: That people who drink this liquor are adventurous

That would be an example off probably attribution.

As the students worked along they asked my opinion less often. They began to

evaluate by themselves according to a set of criteria. For example:

Tara: Mrs. Raynor, could you use this one - Kindergund?

And before I could answer - "That's not really anything."

The students discussed with each other as they evaluated:

Sally: Tara, this is like home cooking - that is an analogy.

Tara: Is that analogy?

Liz: This is like home - H O M E COOKING - that IS analogy"

Sally: Yeah!

As I walked around the room I was confident that the students understood what

fallacies were, but I wanted to be sure they could find them in another medium.

The next day I showed the students television commercials and we orally

identified the fallacies in them. After the first eight I was sure the students had

a firm grasp of the concept. I sent the students back to write another one page

60
position paper on the same topic they had written on the first day. This time

without fallacies. I think I have made them paranoid! Their one page arguments

have been reduced to a few cryptic lines. The arguments the students wrote were

much shorter, but they did not use fallacies. I am certain they will relax with

the concept as they use it more. I returned both papers to the students so they

could compare them and identify the fallacies in their first draft.

The next day I introduced them to the next part of the assignment, to write

a research essay without using fallacies. I explained about citing their sources

and using a bibliography to back up their arguments. The students could choose

their own topics as long as they dealt with birth, or birth defects such as twins,

Spina Bifida, Down's Syndrome, and Sudden Infant Death Syndrome (SIDS). The

students worked in the library for the next three classes preparing their

assignment. I did not tape these classes because it was impossible in the library

with the students spread all over. The following class the students did oral

presentations of their essays. Unfortunately the classroom was being painted and

we had to do the presentations in the library and once again, I could not tape

them. The oral reports were not impressive. Most of the students just read parts

of their reports. One exception was Tara and Liz, they did a report on SIDS using

puppets. Next time I give this assignment to students I will change it. I allowed

them to simply recite the information they had found. I did not give them the

opportunity to do anything with the information. Next time I will ask them to do

61
their presentation as a debate or a speech from one point of view. This would

give the students an opportunity to act on the information instead of just

repeating it.

When I graded the papers I coded the fallacies in the papers. I used the

coding system developed by Raths and his colleagues (1986): Attributions, A;

extremes, X; either-ors, E-O; qualifications, Q; analogies, An; if-then, l-T; and

evaluative statements, +/-. I was very impressed! Some students such as Tara

used no fallacies at all and the greatest number was seven. The students had

relied heavily on cited resource material . Once again I believe I could have

developed an assignment that would have given the students an opportunity to

use the information to think critically. Writing a research essay is in itself an

exercise in critical thinking. The students must judge the validity of the

information they read and decide what information they should include in order

to form their argument. Even so, if I had asked the students to take a certain

stand and write a position paper to support their argument it would have been a

better assignment.

Most of the students chose topics dealing with birth defects, so I showed a

video about a boy with Down's Syndrome. The movie dramatized what it was like

for one family to have and raise a child with Down's Syndrome. I showed this

video partly because of the information in it, but mostly so the students could

empathize with parents of disabled children.

62
Problem Solving

The following class was the last one in the cycle. I wanted to do another

problem solving exercise at the end of the fallacy unit to see if students were

problem solving differently from the beginning of the unit. Students worked

through the following scenario in pairs: A pregnant woman goes into the hospital

and has an amniocentesis. The doctor tells her that the baby has Down's

Syndrome (this time I gave them blank paper and coloured pens to work with).

The results were interesting. Two groups diagrammed a problem solving model

that looked more like a mind map. They put the problem in the centre and radiated

out with possible solutions and then radiated out again to evaluate each of the

solutions.

63
 X

/TO we

j reused bV
I j " ° /oves
h

fecund V

1
Keep

Figure 4. Liz and Tara's Model

64
Another group used a circular model, but each circle just contained possible

solutions. No evaluation here! I decided to watch for this next time and remind

them to evaluate.

ft rr\oikr -finds^
o u i h e r fto-bu^
has IWrvb

Gve. IT
^ ^ / loJk 4o her
AHNI OC£NT6SIS/VASbcmd a
+o a_ support \ I L^bg, babvj
Groug__^ NJ/ /she cotttd ^TvlTTF

\pvboo6r -f/hx bal W ANOl C A p p 6 D c o u , c i

Vvave,

Figure 5. Barb's Model

One group did a chain of circles with a solution, an evaluation, a decision, and

back to a decision.

65
 d i s c u s s e d v+wi
exxcK other

VtWJr T O

aroui? TO help cmt

!>carr<Lo! Keep
o>rvorf)'ov->5
1
baby 7

d^aissed
j,rd o.c-oo+i6r\
VOHBT IF T H E
BAfeV IS h£NTI4LL7
that a n
*V\e abor-ri abor-Kon would]
be. more

-lb doctar
jus+ TO ttyjuke ^ure
Y W +We child
\o each ottv
and +o -Hv
doctor ar\d

oJooHrt' orv

to maxe suxe

Figure 6. Debbie and Jane's Model

66
 I see progress! The blank paper helped. At first I was disappointed that

they did not reproduce "my" model, but then I realized that some of them had

found a different way to get to the same place. They were thinking! The two

groups that went to a mind map model had found a way that made it easier to

show their brainstorming and evaluation process. Although all groups identified

the problem and brainstormed for solutions and most had evaluated their

solutions, not one group picked a solution and worked through the consequences.

Perhaps it is not reasonable to expect them to chose a solution when it is a

fictitious situation. This leads me to wonder if they solve their own problems

this way!

I did not know of any way I could determine if they used problem solving in

their day to day life, so I decided (at the suggestion of my advisor) to ask them.

I asked them if they thought the problem solving process was useful and if they

had been using it outside of class. I was surprised by their response. Not so

much by what they said, but the enthusiasm with which they said it. The

response was overwhelmingly positive. For example:

Barb: Yes

Tara: Yeah

Debbie: I used it lots of times.

Wendy: I think I used it unconsciously before, but now I think

about what I am doing.

67
Discussion With C o l l e a g u e s

When I reflected back on this cycle I discussed the results of the class

with some colleagues who all teach critical thinking in their classes. These

colleagues and I are members of a society that meet and discuss "thinking" on a

regular basis. We have different teaching backgrounds but agree that thinking is

something we can teach to our students. I was feeling a little disappointed that

I could not see more change. They assured me that it takes time and the students

progress slowly. After all, the students have been taught very little critical

thinking in school. They encouraged me to continue with what I was doing.

Teaching Style

I listened to the tapes of the class to analyze my teaching during the

action 1 phase. The classes were much less teacher centred this session, 36% of

the class time compared to 82% in the first reconnaissance phase. I am still

working on Barb's confidence so she will ask questions in class. I notice I still

often answer the students' questions rather than asking them to reflect on their

questions or to find their own answer. I have heard some improvement in the

way I acknowledge a student when they give an answer that I considered to be

correct. I did not judge answers with an enthusiastic response as often this

time as during the first reconnaissance. I still need to work on asking more

probing questions and more higher order questions. All these things can continue

68
to be worked on more in Action 2.

Summary of Action 1

As I entered Action 1, I had questions to guide my observations. I have

not found answers to these questions yet, but I have gathered evidence to help

me answer them later. I also generated some new questions to add to the list as

I move into Action 2:

1) How can I encourage the students to understand that choosing a solution and

imagining the consequences is an equally important part of the problem solving

model?

2) Does it matter if the students use "my" problem solving model as long as they

use a method that generates thoughtfulness?

3) Will teaching other micro-thinking skills encourage the students to think

critically?

At this time I am not prepared to amend the general idea of this study that

critical thinking can be fostered through a problem solving approach to teaching

Family Management 11. Neither am I going to revise my overall plan. I am going

onto the next step of my plan which is to introduce other micro-thinking skills

and at the same time continue to problem solve with the class. I am therefore

ready to move into Action 2 and begin my monitoring and reconnaissance again.

69
Action 2

The general plan included introducing the students to other micro-thinking

skills: Originally I had planned to teach these skills in isolation and then

incorporate them into the curriculum content. After introducing fallacies during

Action 1, I decided that this task was too onerous. It would take a great deal of

class time to introduce each of these skills in isolation and then have the

students apply them. In fact, Beyer suggests that we should teach only three to

five new skills per grade (1983). I decided then to work on observing and

reporting, and summarizing.

The curriculum content during this action was human growth and

development. It seemed appropriate to focus on skills of observing, reporting

and summarizing while teaching child development since the observation of

children is commonly included in this topic.

Time Frame

Action 2 as discussed above occurred during the unit on human growth and

development. This unit began on February 14 and continued through March 16.

From March 6 to 16 the students worked on a toy making project that enabled

them to apply what they had learned about child development.

70
The Content

I started the unit on child development on February 14. I lectured and

wrote notes about child development on the board while the students copied the

notes. During these three classes the students and I interjected with stories to

illustrate the information.

Listening to the tapes of these three classes I was appalled at how much I

talked. I decided there must be another way to get the same information to the

students. One day when I was absent I left questions for the students to answer

that required them to use their notes.

The following day the lesson was to be on how to observe and record the

actions of a baby. I had arranged for a mother to bring her baby to class on the

following day. I planned to teach the students what to look for while observing

the baby. I photocopied an observation worksheet from a teacher's resource book

for the students to use. As I walked down the hall to the classroom, I was

thinking about my research questions and was feeling guilty about the last four

classes being so teacher centred. I decided that rather than my giving an

observation worksheet, the students could develop their own guide.

I explained to the students that observing and recording what the baby did

meant using precise language. I explained that saying the baby was "cute" was

not descriptive. I suggested that we make up a list of questions that we could

ask ourselves while we watched the baby, or we could ask the mother. The class

71
worked together and generated a long list of questions, such as:

Wendy: What is she fascinated by?

Tara: Does she like music?

Janet: Who is the baby most attached to?

Liz: What are her eating habits?

Barb: How many diapers does she use each day?

When we had over a page of questions (the original checklist only had 15) I

finally had to stop them. I was pleased to notice that Barb had contributed to the

list with three questions.

Observing

The baby and mother arrived the next day. In all the excitement I forgot to

turn on the tape, so I made sure I noted things in my journal right away. The

students had their questions. They watched for what they could and asked the

mother about things they could not observe such as how many diapers the baby

used in a day. The class was very successful. The students asked their questions

willingly. I did not have to prod the students to participate. The students asked

questions for a full fifty minutes.

The next day I had the students take their notes and write a paragraph

about the baby. This exercise gave the students an opportunity to practice

summarizing information. I reminded them that summarizing meant looking at all

72
the material they had observed and recording the things that were significant.

After they wrote their paragraphs I had them read them out to the class. It was

interesting to see how the students summarized the same body of information.

There were some things that everyone listed such as her name, age, and how

many diapers she used in a day. Almost everyone mentioned her weight at birth.

There were only two facts that were listed by only one student. One student

reported on a story about the baby not recognizing her newly bearded father and

crying. Another student wrote about the baby's problem with blocked tear ducts.

I asked the class why they thought each of these stories was discussed by only

one student. It turned out that each of the students had had a similar personal

experience with a baby they knew. I used the opportunity to discuss how a

person's perspective affects what they see when they observe something and

what they include in a summary. For example, they were all surprised by the

number of diapers the baby used in a day, so they all wrote it down and they all

included it in their summary.

We went on to generate a checklist for our visit to the primary school next

day. This time the students worked in pairs to make the list. Then I called the

students together and we compiled the information from all checklists. We

discussed the importance of using descriptive phrases and I supplied words for

observation such as: willingly, calm, nervous, eager, dreamy, erect.

The next day we went to the primary school for a two hour visit. The

73
primary school in our town includes Kindergarten to grade two. The principal had

arranged for the students to drop in and out of each classroom as they pleased.

We were there over recess so the students had an opportunity to go outside with

the children and watch them play. The students enjoyed their visit. As I walked

around the school I found them reading to kindergarten children, helping a grade 2

student with her seat work and the basketball player in the class was found in

the gym with the grade one class teaching them how to shoot baskets. It was

interesting to see how different students reacted with the children. Tara was

strangely distant. She went to every class and took notes carefully, but she did

not get involved. Barb, on the other hand, was swept up by the children. Every

time I saw her she was playing with, reading to or talking with a child.

The next day we discussed our visit to the school. When I asked for general

impressions I was told:

Mary: They were animals!

Wendy: I thought the kindergarten kids would be shy, but they all

crowded around.

I could see they had a lot to share so I divided the chalk board into three

sections: kindergarten, grade one, and grade two. I had the students write their

observations on the board in the appropriate column. Some of their observations

were:

74
Kindergarten Grade One

-could print their name -liked to play

-could print the alphabet -enjoy music

-not shy -bored easily

-good manners -eager to give the answer

-content -no slouches

-good imagination -put up their hands

-played with opposite sex -some still write letters

backwards
-shared well

-open and honest

-memorized the storybooks

Grade Two

-liked math

-worked well together

-ask for help with their work

-more coordinated

-liked music

-like to show off their work

-more concerned about appearance

The students had observed the students and recorded the information. As

can be seen, they did a good job of summarizing the information. They were also

75
able to classify the observations and note the differences between the different

grade levels. We discussed how different and similar the students were at

different grade levels.

The next six classes were spent applying the knowledge they had to make a

child's toy. This in itself was an exercise in problem solving. The students were

given a problem: to make a toy that would meet the developmental and safety

levels of a child of a particular age. The toy had to be educational and had to be

inexpensive to make. The students had to hand in a short report with their

project. They had to explain how to use the toy, what age group it was for, safety

features they had thought of for a child of that age, the cost, and what the toy

taught the child and how that related to the childs's development. Tara made a

large fabric block. The block was soft and could be rolled on as well as pushed

around. Each side of the block had an activity on it such as counting, fastening

snaps, a zipper, velcro fasteners. Liz made a soft fabric book. It contained

dressing aids such as zippers, buttons, snaps etc. She was careful not to include

anything tiny that could be pulled off and swallowed. Sally made the same type

of book, but she stuffed it so it could double as a pillow. Barb made a puppet.

She said it could be used to teach face parts and could help the child pretend.

Discussion With Colleagues

Reflecting back on this cycle I discussed the results with colleagues. We

76
celebrated the students' development of their own checklists for observing

children. We agreed that the students need more practical exposure such as our

trip to the elementary school. We agreed that the micro-thinking skills I taught

in class needed to be taught over many years in many courses in order for the

students to become well versed in using them.

Teaching Style

The class had become less teacher centred in this cycle. Despite the first

three classes in child development only 27% of the class time consisted of

teacher- centred activities compared to 82% in the reconnaissance and 36% in

Action 1.

Barb has become more confident about speaking up in class. When we

created the checklist for the baby observation she contributed three ideas to it.

It was interesting to watch Barb at the primary school. She was the most

confident student in the entire class with the children. I am not surprised by

Barb's behaviour since I know she spends a great deal of time with her young

cousins. She seems to be more comfortable with younger children than her peers.

Tara continues to be very opinionated but she does not "put down" the ideas of

others. This is a change for her. At the beginning of the year she was certain

that she was right and others were wrong.

I am aware that I still answer the students questions too often instead of

77
turning the question back to them. This is something I still need to work on. I

did ask more higher order questions in Action 2, but I know I still have to work

on this as well.

Summary of A c t i o n 2

As I worked through Action 1 and Action 2 I had questions to guide my

observations. Although these questions will be discussed in Chapter V as I draw

conclusions from the study there were some observations I was able to make

after Action 2.

The students became better problem solvers. They showed more

flexibility in the process and generated more possible solutions. When they

brainstormed for possible solutions, their ideas were less predictable and more

outlandish.

By the end of Action 2 a larger number of students asked questions and

provided answers in class discussions. This could have been the result of my

attitude towards the questions. I tried to accept all questions as equally valid.

I was able to lecture less and spend more time on student centred

activities. The project of making a toy appeared to be a method of promoting

creativity amongst the students. This was a student centred activity and the

students produced excellent results. Not only did they produce toys that were

appropriate for the age they chose, they were able to explain why.

78
 My questioning technique improved. I was less judgemental when

receiving answers, I asked more probing questions, and I asked more higher order

questions.

The conclusion of Action 2 is not the end of critical thinking in my class.

It will continue through the rest of the year, continuing to build on these two

action research cycles.

79
 CHAPTER V

S U M M A R Y , C O N C L U S I O N AND R E C O M M E N D A T I O N S

This study investigated whether critical thinking can be fostered in home

economics through teaching a problem solving approach in Family Management.

Secondarily, it investigated teacher behaviours which may foster critical

thinking abilities, the moral and ethical issues which the teaching of critical

thinking addresses, and whether the students are able to use problem solving in

real life situations.

The study was conducted using Ebbutt's model,"Educational Action

Research" (1985). The research involved the students and teacher in a Family

Management class in rural British Columbia. The study began with a

reconnaissance, which included data gathering and reflection during nine classes.

The reconnaissance established a description of the the students involved in the

study, the classroom atmosphere, teacher behaviours and how students

approached the problem solving process. Data was collected through audio tapes,

entries in the teacher's journal, a checklist, and collected student work. The

data collected in the first reconnaissance phase established a description which

served as a point of reference for comparing and analyzing later observations.

80
The remainder of the study, lasting for another twenty hours, included two

cycles of observation and data gathering with time between each cycle for

analysis and reflection, and the development of new guiding questions for the

next research cycle.

Summary of Major Findings

One of the questions of this research was whether the students would

show an increased ability to think critically after the problem solving process

was introduced. When the students' early problem solving was compared to that

done later in the course, there was evidence of more flexibility in the students'

approach as they worked through the process. The students moved away from the

one directional linear form to the more cyclical. For example, during the Action

1 phase, the class was using the problem solving process to work through a

problem that a young girl was having with her boyfriend (see p. 51). At one point

Liz decided that we needed to go back in our model and add to an earlier step.

This demonstrated that the students did not see the process as a linear, one

direction model as they had in the past. Rather, they approached problem solving

as a reflective, circular process that need not be completed in a particular linear

order. They were able to work on different sections at the same time.

Another change that occurred after the problem solving model was

introduced was that the students generated a larger number of possible solutions

81
to problems. When using the traditional model of problem solving, they would

typically generate three responses because that was the way the model was

designed. With the new model the students generated between four and twelve

possible solutions. Never once did the students ask how many possible solutions

they must write down.

The possible solutions generated were not only larger in number, but also

more imaginative. In the past when the students generated three possible

solutions, they tended to be the three most obvious. With the new model the

students listed the obvious solutions, and ones that were more novel. They

listed solutions that required them to analyze the situation first in order to

generate the solution.

This evidence demonstrated to me that the students had become better

problem solvers because they generated more ideas, were more flexible in that

they were willing to change direction in the process in midstream, and their

answers were more varied. It is possible the model helped the students generate

more ideas because the term "brainstorm for possible solutions" was used. The

students were accustomed to brainstorming and they knew the goal was to list

as many ideas as possible. I know the flexibility was the result of the model.

The model was multi-directional and was meant to be used in that way. The

students were beginning to hold the whole process in mind while moving among

its various parts. They were critically re-assessing earlier interpretations and

82
going back to change or add on to the process. The form of the model was also a

consideration. When using the linear form there is no room to go back and add

answers. The flexible model was more conducive to adding information later.

I do not know if these changes, generating more and varied responses, and

changing direction indicated that the students' ability to think critically was

increased. I do know that their problem solving process improved and that

critical thinking skills such as analysis and evaluation were necessary for that

to happen. Looking at the question now, I realize that I should have asked if the

students would be encouraged to think critically, not if they were more able to.

It is not possible to say from my research if there was a change in the students

ability to think critically. The answer to that question would require empirical

data and my evidence is descriptive of the kind of thinking the students did.

The students did show, however, an inceased willingness to think

critically. They used micro-thinking skills such as analysis when asked to find

the problem in a real life scenario. They used evaluation when they were asked

to evaluate the possible consequences of the solutions they generated, and when

they were asked to give their opinion of an idea. They used critical thinking

when they questioned the answer from the teacher, another student, or the book.

They showed skills of analysis when they could give an answer and explain why.

They used the skills of observing, reporting and summarizing as we studied

children. They were able to apply their knowledge about child development to the

83
creation of a child's toy. Overall, they demonstated critical thinking daily.

I wonder now if my definition of critical thinking was appropriate. Earlier

I stated that in this study students will be regarded as thinking critically when

they use higher order thinking skills such as analysis and evaluation to identify

problems from a real life scenario, and when they take that problem, propose

possible solutions, and evaluate these solutions. As I am now at the end of my

action/research cycles for this study, I see this definition as simplistic. Now I

see critical thinking as something much more complex than students performing

skills. Richard Paul (1984) is opposed to conceiving of thinking skills as

discrete "micro-logical" skills which he calls critical thinking in the weak

sense. I agree with Paul when he writes that thinking skills are integrated into

the person and are "...ultimately intrinsic to the character of the person and to

insight into one's own cognitive and affective process" (1984, p.5). I must add

that the students not only demonstrated the skills listed above, but they also

showed that they have internalized these skills. They were beginning to become

critical thinkers. I began to realize that demonstrating skills was a small part

of what I was looking for. I listened to their questions, heard their answers and

watched them solve problems. They were thinking.

Another research question asked if the teaching of micro-thinking skills

along with the problem solving process encouraged the students to be critical

thinkers while problem solving. I saw no evidence that the micro-thinking skills

84
introduced in Action 2; observing, reporting, and summarizing, had any immediate

effect on the students' ability to problem solve, probably because the problem

solving exercises we completed did not require observing, reporting or

summarizing. Now I realize that these skills should not have been expected to

influence the student's problem solving. They may however, have added to the

students' internalizing of thinking skills thereby helping them to become more

thoughtful people. For example, asking students to observe a baby will teach

them how to observe babies. Perhaps it will also teach them that observation is

a function that requires attention and perhaps the next time they are asked to

observe something they may be more aware of the purpose of observation and

the need to establish criteria. They may also be aware of how their own

situation influences what they see when they observe, and be able to compensate

for their own bias.

The teaching of fallacies in Action 1 however, did appear to have some

effect on the students' problem solving. I know the students used few fallacies

in their revised one page position papers and in their research essays. I believe

they used fewer fallacies in their class discussions. During one discussion Liz

made a statement and then withdrew it saying "I guess that's a fallacy isn't it?".

The students did not use fallacies in their problem solving in Action 2. During the

linear problem solving activities taught earlier in the course, there was no

evidence of students using fallacies either. However, the earlier topics were not

85
as value ladened as those during the research cycles and may have been less

likely to generate fallicious statements.

Throughout the research the problem solving model evolved. It began as

the same linear model that I learned as a student and taught to my students. As I

changed and began to internalize critical thinking I grew dissatisfied with the

model. I taught "my model" to the students but as they applied the model, they

changed it again. The model became one of evolution to meet the changing needs

of the persons using it. I am sure the model will continue to change and evolve

as the needs of the users change.

A third research question addressed was what teacher behaviours fostered

critical thinking. I tried to address this issue by creating an atmosphere of

thinking. I encouraged the students to think. For example, I always tried to ask

the students "why" when they answered or asked a question in class. I wanted

them to explain their reasoning and thereby their thinking that took them to their

answer. I tried to validate their curiosity. When a student asked a question that

appeared to be off topic, I accepted their curiosity if not the content of their

question. I tried to ask the student "what made you think of that?" to help me

and themselves understand their reasoning. I believe that the classroom became

a supportive, thinking classroom where the students were not afraid to take

risks.

The teacher's attitude towards questions is also important in developing a

86
thinking classroom atmosphere. For example, at the beginning of the year, Barb

asked no questions in class, yet I knew she was very interested in the course

because she would wait and ask her questions after class. I encouraged her by

always treating her questions with respect, and by taking the time to talk with

her. As her confidence and the classroom atmosphere of trust was built she

began to occasionally answer and ask a few questions. Brainstorming helped to

build her confidence because all students call out several ideas and all ideas are

written down. By the time we developed our observation/question chart for the

baby's visit, she had grown enough to add three ideas to the list the class

generated. The students who asked several questions at the beginning of the

study continued to do so.

As the study progressed I tried to spend less time on teacher centred

activities and more time on student centred activities. During the first

reconnaissance phase the class was teacher centred 82% of the time. During the

Action 1 phase I reduced teacher centred time to 36% and in the Action 2 phase I

reduced it again to 27%. Making the class less teacher centred encourages the

students to develop their own ideas. It also makes them more accountable for

their own learning.

The way a teacher responds to a question or answer provided by a student

affects the way that student and other students provide answers in the future.

At the beginning of the study, I discovered that when the class was

87
brainstorming they would take their cues from me. When a student called out an

answer that I was waiting for I would respond more enthusiastically as I wrote

it down. The result was the students thought it was the "right" answer and

slowed down or stopped their responses. As the study continued I improved my

responses and our brainstorming improved.

I wanted to ask more higher order and probing questions. I improved

somewhat during the course of the study, but reached no where near my goal. I

think trying to address too many concerns was the cause of this short fall.

At the end of the first reconnaissance, one of the questions I asked myself

was whether I could challange the students to be more creative. This came out

of my frustration over trying to have the students produce alternate food guides

for pregnant women. One assignment designed to encourage creativity was the

baby's toy assignment. The students had to design and make a toy that was

appropriate for a child of a certain age. After they created the toy, they had to

explain to the rest of the class why their toy was appropriate for the

developmental age of the child they chose. Another creative assignment that

took place during a reflection stage of the study and therefore was not recorded

was the egg baby assignment. The students are given an egg to treat as a baby

for one week. The students were very imaginative with this assignment. While

I handed out the eggs, one student called out the exact time so each "new mother"

had a birth time to record on a baby announcement. The students named, clothed

88
and decorated their baby eggs. Reports from other staff members showed that

some students took their role playing very seriously.

I hoped that creativity would be integrated into their problem solving

process. Creativity would help them generate more diverse, possible solutions.

Another way creativity could be effective is when the students are asked to re-

evaluate as part of the problem solving process. Part of the process is to choose

a solution, and then pretend to look back and to re-evaluate that choice. The

students found this very difficult to do and would usually do it only when I

insisted. Perhaps teaching the students visualization would also help the

students with tasks like this.

In summary, there is evidence that the following teaching behaviours do

foster critical thinking: asking the students "why" when they ask or answer a

question, spending less classroom time on teacher centred activities, responding

to answers in a non-judgmental manner and asking probing questions. Some

behaviours that may foster critcal thinking are: accepting curiosity and

questioning as valuable in its own right, not just as it pertains to content, giving

creative assignments, encouraging creativity, and creating a classroom

atmosphere that encourages the students to be risk takers.

Another research question addressed the moral and ethical issues involved

with teaching critical thinking. I turned the class from being mostly teacher

centred to being mostly student centred. Ideally I hope that one day students

89
will be self- directed and the teachers' role will become more of mentor. It is

the moral responsibility of teachers to help students become self- directed

learners, who will be better able to deal with a future of information overload.

At the same time it is a struggle. Most people who become teachers do so

because they have an innate desire to help children. Teachers, like most adults,

tend to think they know the best way to do things and they must teach the

children. It is difficult to let children learn for themselves. We are afraid they

will fail and even if they do, we do not realize the valuable lessons that are

learned by failure. It is also difficult for the teacher to let go of her role as

expert and join the students in a learning community where the teacher and

students learn together and become more self- directed.

There is risk involved in fostering a student centred classroom. Parents

may not like students being asked to grade their own work; principals may not

like students not sitting in their desk quietly learning; colleagues may not like

the noise an active class produces; and students may not like the strain of

creating their own goals and assignments. Even so, if the teacher believes in her

moral responsibility to foster thinking students, she must take these risks. She

needs to create a supportive classroom atmosphere where the students are not

afraid to take risks either. Thus, the moral and ethical issues which venturing

into critical thinking gives rise to are: We need to decide what we are doing as

teachers. If our role in a democracy is to help develop students who are

90
independent, thoughtful citizens, then surely we must have a classroom where

the teacher and students learn together in a democratic, thinking classroom. The

experience of critical thinking affects the way the students approach the course

content. It encourages them to ask moral and ethical questions regarding the

content, rather than simply memorizing facts.

The final question of this research asked whether students would be able

to transfer the problem solving process taught in Family Management into real

life situations. There was no way to test this question in this study, but I did

ask the students if they had tried to use the process in their everyday life. Most

of the students said they had. One student said she had always used a similar

process, but now she had names to attach to each of the steps, which implied

that she had become more conscious of the process.

The above five research questions were asked in reference to the larger

question of whether critical thinking can be fostered through a problem solving

approach to teaching home economics, specifically Family Management. At this

time it is appropriate to look at the definition of critical thinking that was used

for this study: students will be regarded as thinking critically when they use

higher order thinking skills such as analysis and evaluation to identify problems

from a real life scenario, and when they take that problem, work out possible

solutions and evaluate the solutions. As I stated earlier this definition is no

longer appropriate. Now I would define critical thinking as an internalization of

91
a variety of skills and attitudes that are exibited by the students through

curiosity, problem solving, questioning, decision making, valuing and a move

towards independent thinking and a feeling of empowerment.

The students were able to identify problems from real life scenarios. They

used the skills of analysis and evaluation to identify the problem. For example,

when we used the problem solving model to discuss the problem of the girl who

was having trouble with her boyfriend (see p. 51) the students did not state the

problem as "she is having trouble with her boyfriend", instead they analyzed the

situation and looked for the reason behind the problem. The students said that

her problem was lack of love and a poor self concept.

The students used evaluation when they considered the positive and

negative aspects of each of the possible solutions. They discussed each

alternative by discussing the possible consequences each action might have.

From this information they were able to make a choice. There is evidence that

the students were thinking critically. The students were thinking critically

because it was encouraged in this class. Critical thinking was expected of them

and they demonstrated it.

Thus, in conclusion this study found that critical thinking can be fostered

in Family Management. Teaching a problem solving approach was one of many

factors that fostered critical thinking. Other factors included using micro-

thinking skills, teacher behaviours that encouraged the use of critical thinking,

92
and the course content itself.

The students could be observed to be thinking. They applied their

knowledge, they analyzed situations, they evaluated solutions. They questioned

the teacher, the textbook and each other. They asked "why" and were able to

explain "why". Some of these behaviours were observed during the

reconnaissance, before the research/action cycles began, but as the year

progressed they grew more frequent and were generated from a larger number of

students.

The thinking was stimulated by all the factors listed above but also by the

course content. The course content of Family Management invites thinking. It is

easy to ask students to analyze a situation when it is "real" to them because

they are more willing to approach the assignment. The event you are discussing

may have happened to them or a friend of theirs, or could happen to them or a

friend of theirs. Topics studied during the research were the human reproductive

system, pregnancy, childbirth, and child development. When the students were

given a problem to work through such as "the doctor has just told you that your

unborn child has Down's Syndrome" they willingly approach it, because it had

personal meaning for them. Even doing a research project is more interesting if

the topic is "real". Therefore, Family Management does play a unique role of

giving students the opportunity to practice solving real life problems.

The original research question: can critical thinking be fostered through a

93
problem solving approach to teaching Family Management 11? has evolved

through this action research. Now I realize in addition to asking "can" I also

must ask "in what ways". Perhaps I should have assumed that critical thinking

can be fostered in every class and that home economics had a role in fostering

critical thinking in certain ways. The action research process led me to see my

question differently.

Discussion

The literature review discussed competing philosophies of the best way to

foster critical thinking, de Bono (1983) states that we should take time to teach

thinking as generic thinking skills, while Paul (1984) and others state that

thinking must be integrated into the course content of each subject. Still others

consider critical thinking to be a state of being where the person "lives" critical

thinking (Hultgren, 1989).

In this research all three philosophies were in part, applicable. First,

time was taken away from the course content to teach the skill in isolation. The

students needed to learn the process before they could apply it. The skill was

explained to them as a thinking skill that they would later be expected to apply

to the course content. It is important to be overt in the teaching of a process. If

the process and content are completely integrated, the student may have

difficulty understanding how the process operates. I remember a few years ago

94
when I first used brainstorming. I asked the students to call out all the ideas

thay could think of, but I was often unsatisfied with the results. I was focussing

on the content and forgetting about the process. Looking back I realize that I

never explained what the brainstorming process was, we just started listing

ideas. Now, I take fifteen minutes away from the course content to explain the

philosophy behind brainstorming and the rules. When problem solving was first

introduced to the students, it was explained as a model. The first time they

practiced applying the model they used topics that involved Family Management

issues, but the content did not matter. This method of taking time out of course

content to teach a process did take time away from the other course content, but

the time was brief and well spent.

After the students had a firm grasp of the problem solving process, they

then applied it to the course content for the remainder of the year. The process

became fully integrated into the course content. In the case of the micro-

thinking skills presented in Action 2, observing, reporting and summarizing, the

course content was used the first time we practiced the process.

In this study, the attention to micro-thinking skills and process alone

were considered insufficient. It became necessary to focus on teacher

behaviours and consider ways of being a teacher. The third way of viewing the

teaching of thinking, that it is a way of being that the teacher should adopt and

share with her students, was also addressed. I have come to realize that this

95
third way of viewing the teaching of thinking should be the ultimate goal. It is

only through the adoption of critical thinking as an orientation that students can

become thinkers. Anyone can practice thinking skills, but until these skills

become internalized and influence the person, they cannot become thinkers.

I have begun to assume this orientation. The process of this research and

my teaching style have led me through the first steps into this way of being. I

have joined a group of thinkers in my community. I use thinking skills to process

information, I ask questions, I listen to answers, and I am beginning to see

myself as a thinking person, de Bono (1985) compares a thinker to a cook. If you

want to be a cook all you need to do is gather the ingredients and cook. If you are

just starting you may not be a good cook, but no one can deny that you are

cooking. I have gathered my ingredients and have begun to "cook". As I practice

thinking, I will become a better thinker. If I spend my time with thinking people,

their modelling will help me develop my own skills. As thinking becomes less of

an activity and more of a lifestyle, I will take that attitude with me into the

classroom, and share it with the students.

Sternberg related eight fallacies that people who teach thinking have

operated under, thereby reducing the success of teaching thinking (1987).

Support for some of his fallacies was shown during the course of this study. The

first fallacy is that the teacher is the teacher and the student the learner. This

is a fallacy. The teacher needs to create a learning atmosphere in the classroom.

96
The teacher must back away from the role of the one who knows all and move

towards being one who learns. I found that I did learn from my students. Giving

the students the opportunity to be the teacher helps everyone because the class

becomes more open and honest as well as trusting. It also gives the students the

opportunity to be the experts which helps build their self concept.

The second fallacy is that critical thinking is the students job and only the

students job. I modelled thinking for my students. If they asked me a question I

could not answer, I admitted to not knowing and talked aloud while I tried to

think the answer through. This was my attempt to model thinking for them.

Doing this research was an exercise in critical thinking for me. The action

research model demanded that I reflect and think about my teaching. By being a

thinker I encouraged the students to be thinkers too. Thus, action research which

emphasizes the teacher as thinker and inquirer on her practice may have

contributed more to "thinking" than the critical thinking methodology itself.

Action research seems a particularily appropriate means for attempting to

develop critical thinking since it demands the teacher be an enquirer, not just

demand thinking of only students.

The fifth fallacy is that there is a right answer. It is easier in Family

Management not to fall into this trap. The content of Family Management is

largely studied within the context of attitudes and values, where there is no one

right answer, but a variety of choices that depend on a number of circumstances.

97
The assignments become exercises to test the process and the content together.

It is possible to evaluate the students understanding of the content and process

by having them produce things such as journal entries, short stories, posters,

role plays, class discussions, and mind maps.

The sixth fallacy is that class discussions are a means to an end. Class

discussions are many things. They provide an opportunity for the students to

demonstrate that they understand the process and content. They may provide the

students and teacher a way of working out an idea or plan. Class discussions are

also useful as an exercise in themselves. The students learn how to listen to

others, analyze what the person intends and to formulate an answer. I encourage

discussions. If the discussions appear to be "off topic" I usually allow them to

continue for a while because I know the students are learning skills from the

discussion itself.

The last fallacy is that the job of a course in critical thinking is to teach

thinking. Students cannot be taught how to think. In order for the process to

truly be thinking, the students must teach themselves. The most the teacher can

do is to encourage and foster the thinking.

Thus, many of Sternberg's fallacies were supported by this research. It is

best when teacher and students can learn together, critical thinking is not the

students job alone, there is no one right answer, class discussions are a valuable

process for students to master, and it is not the intention that classes which

98
teach critical thinking will make students think instead, they must teach

themselves.

Some writers state that students need to learn how to solve real life

problems, which includes being able to identify that there is a problem

(Sternberg, 1987; Paul, 1985; Beyer, 1984; Laster, 1987). This study showed

that the problem solving approach fostered critical thinking particularily

application, analysis, and evaluation. The students defined problems,

brainstormed and analyzed solutions, and evaluated choices, but I am not sure if

a classroom can provide a true practice ground for solving real problems. In real

life, the person involved cannot be as objective because they are emotionally

involved. It is easy for the students to say that an imaginary girl should have an

abortion, but when it is their body and their child, will they be able to calmly

weigh the consequences? Nevertheless, it seems that problem solving in Family

Management provided a context more "real" than generic thinking skills alone.

Laster says that home economics has a special role to play in teaching students

"practical" problem solving (1987). She suggests that real life problems are

messy because they usually lack clear, objective information and the final

decision really counts. Perhaps by giving the students many opportunities to

practice problem solving they will develop skills that may help them in real life

situations. It would be interesting to discover how much carry over there would

be from problem solving in Family Management to real life. This could be an area

99
for further research.

Reflections on Action Research

When I first read about action reseach, it had a feeling of familiarity about

it. I knew as I read that I had been an amateur action researcher all along. I am

a curious person and I often wondered why certain things happened in my

classroom. I would sometimes try different things just to see the outcome.

Once I decided on my reseach question, I was even more comfortable with

action research. It seemed appropriate to measure critical thinking with a

process that was an activity in critical thinking itself. As I worked through the

study, the task appeared onerous at times. Remembering to write in my journal

at the end of each class, remembering to bring the tape deck and turn it on, and

remembering to take copies of the students' work were some of the demands I

found challanging. Next time I will buy more expensive tapes. The machine eats

the cheap ones!

Overall, I enjoyed it. I found I was a better teacher than I had thought.

There were times I would walk away from a lesson feeling that I had done too

much talking, but later when I listened to the tapes I would realize that it was

not so. It was a growing experience. Instead of taking a still life picture of

what happened in my class before and after, I had the opportunity to grow and

change while the research was going on. The action/research process changed

100
my attitude towards teaching. I saw how important it was to create a learning

environment where the students and I learn together. The teacher must become

less of an "expert" and more of a mentor who leads the students on various

learning journeys. The teacher must also be the follower part of the time so she

can also learn. The students taught me a great deal during this research. They

changed the problem solving model to one that worked better for them. They

helped me to change my definition of critical thinking and brought me to realize

that my original question was not sufficient.

Unfortunately the school system as it is now is not structured for a

learning centred classroom. The system demands assignments and tests that can

be graded according to the present methods. As a teacher who hopes to help

students develop as independent thinkers this is frustrating. I continue to

introduce critical thinking and use alternate forms of evaluation such as journal

writing, student presentations and problem solving as much as possible, but

there are still times when I must use written examinations to evaluate the

students' mastery of content. Selma Wasserman (1989) stated: One of the most

valuble yet rarely acknowledged assessment tools in educational practice is the

sustained, thoughtful, day-to-day observation of student behaviour by a

competent, professional teacher (p.369). I believe this statement to be true. I

believe that I have become this thoughtful, competent teacher. The action

research method I used to conduct this research helped me discover how to

101
evaluate the students and myself in a fair way. I do not use the word objective

because objective is often not fair. Students must be evaluated independently

according to their learning style and needs.

I am now an action reseacher. I still forget to write in my journal

sometimes and I have not taped any classes lately, but I have joined a Program

For Quality Teaching (PQT). The PQT is a peer support system where someone

else sits in the back of my class and watches something for me, such as

recording the questions I ask so later I can analyze them for higher order

questions.

Action research is not easy to do while teaching full time. It demands a

great deal of time, but it is worth it. I now content myself to work on one thing

at a time. Right now, I am working on asking more higher order questions.

Ebbutts' model worked well for me. Having a model to follow helped to

focus the study. It helped to remind me where I was and how I needed to

continue. At the same time, it was a flexible model, because there was a system

for changing focus and direction. I liked the cycles of action and reconnaissance.

The reconnaissance gave the necessary time for reflection. I also liked the

flexibility, because just like my problem solving model, you can jump around in

it. The first step was to establish the general idea, but at anytime that general

idea can be changed. Just like problem solving where the student starts with a

problem statement, at any point in the cycle the student can return to the

102
problem and change it. When a researcher starts this kind of a study she may

think she has a clear idea of what she is looking for, but as time progresses she

may change her mind. This flexibility is important because I have now gone back

and changed the general idea. I have changed my original question and would like

to begin another study with this new guiding question: In what ways does

teaching problem solving in Family Management 11 foster critical thinking? This

would enable me to probe further the tentative questions and conclusions

emerging from this research.

As the cycles progressed I generated many questions. I hoped that the

answers would be found during the next cycle, but usually by the end I had found

no answers and even more questions. The asking of questions is a thinking

activity in itself. As you ponder why something might have happened, you break

it down into parts, but each part usually generates another question. This

continuous circle of questions is a necessary component of thinking. If you find

the answers too easily, you are not asking the right questions.

I began this study considering critical thinking to be a variety of

observable skills that could be observed as the students preformed them. As the

study progressed I realized that critical thinking involved more that using

certain prescribed skills. I realized that these skills could become internalized

to the point where it was difficult to observe them. They could become a part of

the person to the point that they could not necessarily be seen independently. As

103
I move on this continuum from seeing critical thinking as skills to seeing it as an

orientation I imagine myself continuing to create methods of fostering critical

thinking within the constraints of the current school system. I see myself being

a thinking person and thereby creating a thinking classroom. I see myself as a

pupil of my students and a leader to them as we embark on thinking journeys

through the course content. I hope that the school system will adapt to the

changes many educators are asking for. The schools must become less content

centred and more concerned with the process.

Recommendations

One recommendation for other action researchers is not to study too

many factors at once. I decided to implement the problem solving model and

micro-thinking skills at the same time as changing some teaching behaviours. It

would have been appropriate to have focussed on any one of these factors. I found

myself with too many different things to observe, and sometimes it was

difficult to determine if the change in behaviour was due to the micro-thinking

skills or the problem solving process. It would be difficult to teach macro-

thinking skills such as problem solving if the students did not have the micro-

thinking skills to apply, but the students have learned enough micro-thinking

skills through the rest of their schooling to be able to begin problem solving. A

fine tuning of the micro-thinking skills could come later.

104
 The teaching of thinking skills should be integrated into all subject areas.

Micro-thinking skills should be introduced to the students as the course content

requires it. For example, when the students need to "observe" as part of the

course, the skill of observation should be overtly presented to them, so they can

apply it to the content. By making thinking skills relevant to the course content

the students will have the opportunity to practice the new skill immediately. I

am not convinced that teaching generic thinking skills in isolation has the

desired carry over effect into subjects courses. Therefore, the process must

become joined to the content to such an extent that the two are inseperable. This

would mean that the curriculum would have to change its focus away from

content alone and towards process and content joined.

All teachers should not be required to take a course in critical thinking,

instead, they should be instructed that critical thinking is a process that is used

throughout each course to teach content. The courses should be designed so that

thinking skills are part of a process that is used to learn the content. Teachers

should be exposed to the philosophy of critical thinking and encouraged to take it

up as their own philosophy, but training teachers to teach thinking skills and

then giving the students tests to see how well they are thinking undermines the

intent of critical thinking.

Evaluation is a concern for the teaching of thinking. As Selma Wassermann

states, it is not appropriate to measure higher order thinking with standardized

105
tests (1989). Changes in evaluation should be made so that content and process

can be evaluated together. This kind of evaluation would require training for

teachers so they would know how to evalute more that just content. The

evaluation tools could include student journal writing, projects, self- directed

assignments, role playing, debates and so on.

All teachers should be exposed to action research as part of their teacher

training. This would give teachers a powerful tool for being researchers in their

own classrooms, and would encourage them to take responsibility for their own

personal and professional development. I would recommend to anyone teaching in

British Columbia who decides to use action research, whether for the

implementation of critical thinking or for other issues, investigate if there is

support available from the Program For Quality Teaching ( PQT). This peer

consultation program sponsored by the British Columbia Teachers' Federation

trains teachers to gather data objectively in another teacher's classroom. It

saves a great deal of time when someone else can gather data for you regarding a

certain behaviour rather than you pouring over video or audio tapes of your class

trying to pick them out yourself.

There is indication for a need for further research. As I progressed

through my research I hoped the students were learning problem solving skills

that they would take with them into their everyday life. An interesting study

would be to discover if there is any relationship between taking home economics

106
courses in school and a later success in dealing with every day problems.

As teacher behaviours were studied in this research, it became apparent

that teachers' attitudes towards thinking and the classroom atmosphere she

created were major factors in the fostering of critical thinking in students. An

interesting study would be to determine what teacher behaviours best foster

critical thinking in the students and to determine if there are differences

between these factors. For example, what forms would the teaching of critical

thinking take in Foods and Nutrition or Clothing and Textiles?

This study demonstrated that a problem solving approach to teaching

Family Management did foster critical thinking. A study could be done to

determine if the course content of Family Management 11 had some influence on

this development. More importantly, the content of Family Management could be

adapted to encourage even more critical thinking. The focus could be move away

from content and towards process. The students could use problem solving and

decision making on a regular basis. The students should be asked what content

needs to be covered. They should also be asked to chose the problems that need

to be deliberated and the decisions that need to be discussed. In other words, the

students should be moved towards more ownership for the learning that does on

in the classroom.

107
Conclusion

This thesis has discussed the relationship between home economics and

critical thinking. While critical thinking is a process that all students should

learn in all subject areas, home economics provides a unique opportunity for

students to learn critical thinking within the context of real life situations.

While there is no evidence that the students will use problem solving skills they

learned in Family Management when real life problems face them, and they are

confused by emotions, it does seem that home economics with its focus on real

life family situations can better prepare students to solve everyday problems.

108
 REFERENCES

Barell, J . (1981). Self-reflection on your teaching: A checklist. In A.L. Costa (Ed.)

Developing Minds (appendix c). Alexandria, Virginia: Association for
Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Bassey, M. (1986). Does action research require sophisticated research methods?

In D. Hustler, A. Cassidy & E.C. Cuff (Eds.), Action Reseach in classrooms
and schools, pp. 18-24. London: Allen & Unwin.

Berthoff, A . E . (1987). The teacher as REseacrcher. In D. Goswami & P.R. Stillman

(Eds.), Reclaiming the classroom: Teacher research as an agency for
change.fpp 28-39). New Jersey: Boyton/Cook.

Beyer, B.K. (1983). Common sense about teaching thinking skills.

Educational Leadership. 41(10). 44-49.

Beyer, B.K. (1984a). Improving thinking skills: Defining the problem. Phi Delta
Kappan. 65. 486-490.

Beyer, B.K. (1984b). Improving thinking skills: Practical approaches. Phi Delta
Kappan. 65. 556-559.

Bloom, B.S., (Ed.) (1971). Taxonomy of educational objectives handbook: Cognitive

domain. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Britton, J . (1987). A quiet form of research. In D. Goswami & P.R. Stillman

(Eds.), Reclaiming the classroom: Teacher research as an agency for change.
New Jersey: Boyton/Cook.

Brown, M.M. & Paolucci, B. (1979). Home economics: A definition. Washington, D.C.:
American Home Economics Association.

Boomer, G . (1987). Addressing the problem of elsewheremess. In D. Goswami &

P.R. Stillman (Eds.), Reclaiming the classroom: Teacher research as an
agency for change. New Jersey: Boyton/Cook.

Cummings, C . & Hustler, D. (1986). Teachers' professional knowledge. In D.

Hustler, A. Cassidy & E.C. Cuff (Eds.), Action Reseach in classrooms and
schools, pp. 36-47. London: Allen & Unwin.

109
Curriculum Development Branch, Ministry of Education. (1986). Family
management curriculum guide 11/12. Victoria, B.C.:

de Bono, E. (1983). The direct teaching of thinking as a skill. Phi Delta

Kappen.64. 703-708.

de Bono, E. (1985). Six thinking hats. Toronto: Key Porter books.

Dewey, J . (1933). How we think. Boston: D.C. Heath.

Ebbutt, D. (1985). Educational action reseach: Some general concerns and

specific quibbles. In R. Burgess (Ed.), Issues in Education Research:
Qualitative Methods, (pp. 152-174). London: The Falmer Press.

Eisner, E. W. (1985). Cognition and curriculum: A basis for deciding what to

teach. New York: Longman.

Elliott, J . (1981). Action research: A framework for self evaluation in schools.

TIQL working paper, no. 1, mimeo, Cambridge: Cambridge Institute of
Education.

Ennis, R.H. (1962). A concept of critical thinking. Harvard Educational Review.

32.(1), 81-111.

Ennis, R.H. (1985). A logical basis for measuring critical thinking skills.
Educational Leadership. 43(2). 44-48.

Fedje, C . G . & Holcombe, M. (1986). Teaching thinking ... In home economics?

Illinios Teacher. 29. 94-96.

Goswami, D. & Stillman, P.R. (Eds.) (1987). Reclaiming the classroom: Teacher
research as an agency for change, pp. iii-v. New Jersey: Boyton/Cook.

Hopkins, D. (1985). A teacher's guide to classroom research. Philadelphia: Milton

& Meyers.

Hultgren, F. (1989). Using interpretive-critical inquiry perspective to study

critical thinking in home economics. Journal of Vocational Home
Economics Education. 7(1 ).p.10-35.

Kemmis, S. et al. (1981). The action research planner. Deakin: Deakin University
Press.

110
Kowalczyk, D. (1987). Critical and creative thinking: the classroom challenge.
Illinios Teacher. 30. 150-151.

Laster, J . F . (1987). Problem solving: Definition and meaning. In R. G. Thomas

(Ed.), Higher order thinking; Definition, meaning, and instructional
approaches, (pp.35-43). Washington D . C : Home Economics Educational
Association.

Lipman, M. (1988). Critical thinking - what can it be? Educational Leadership.

46_(1) 38-43.

Martin, N. (1987). On the move. In D. Goswami & P.R. Stillman (Eds.). Reclaiming
the classroom: Teacher research as an agency for change. New Jersey:
Boyton/Cook.

Paul, R.W. (1984). Critical thinking: Fundamental to education for a free society.
Educational Leadership. 42M). 4-14.

Paul, R.W. (1985). Bloom's Taxonomy and critical thinking instruction.

Educational Leadership. 42(8). 36-45.

Peshkin, A. (1988). In search of subjectivity - one's own. Educational

Researcher. 17(7). 17-22.

Plihal, J . (1989). Using a critical inquiry perspective to study critical thinking

in home economics. Journal of Vocational Home Economics Education.7(1).
36-47.

Quellmalz, E. S. (1985). Needed: Better methods for testing higher order thinking
skills. Educational Leadership. 43(2). 29-35.

Raths, E.R., Wassermann, S., Jonas, A. & Rothstein, A. (1986). Teaching for
thinking (2nd, ed.). New York: Teacher's College Press.

Roe, K.L. (1987). A teacher's view of teaching for critical thinking in home
economics. Illinois Teacher. 30. 159-161.

Rowland, S. (1986). Classroom enquiry: an approach to understanding children.In

D. Hustler, A. Cassidy & E.C. Cuff (Eds.), Action Reseach in classrooms and
schools, pp.25-35. London: Allen & Unwin.

111
Sadler, W.A., Jr., & Whimbey, A. (1985). A holistic approach to improving thinking
skills. Phi Delta Kappen. 67. 199-203.

Shor, I. (1980). Critical teaching and evervdav life. Boston: South End Press.

Smith, B.O. (1953). The improvement of critical thinking. Progressive

Education. 30. 129-134.

Stark, S. (1987). Developing critical and creative thinking through the use of the
synectics teaching model. Illinios Teacher. 30. 154-156.

Sternberg, R.J. (1985a). Teaching critical thinking, part 1: Are we making

critical mistakes? Phi Delta Kappan. 67. 94-198.

Sternberg, R.J. (1985b). Teaching critical thinking, part 2: Possible solutions.

Phi Delta Kappan. 67. 277-280.

Sternberg, R.J. (1987). Teaching critical thinking: Eight easy ways to fail
before you begin. Phi Delta Kappan. 68. 456-459.

Sternberg, R.J. & Baron, J.B. (1985). A statewide approach to measuring critical
thinking skills. Educational Leadership. 43(2). 40-43.

Tabbada, E. V. (1987). Exploring the development of critical thinking in home

economics. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Illinios,
Urbana - Champaign.

Thomas, R. G . (1989). Alternative research paradigms: A contrast set. Journal of

Vocational Home Economics Education. 7(1). 48-57.

Wassermann, S. (1987). Teaching for thinking: Louis E. Raths revisited. Phi Delta
Kappan. 68. 460-466.

Wassermann, S. (1989). Reflections on measuring thinking, while listening to

Mozart's Jupiter symphony. Phi Delta Kappan. 70(5). 365-370.

Williamson, M. & Stuart Lyle, M. (1954). Home making education in the classroom.

Way, W.L. (1989). Examining critical thinking in home economics education: An

empirical/analytical perspective. Journal of Vocational Home Economics
Education. 7(1). 1-9.

112
 APPENDIX A

LINEAR PROBLEM SOLVING MODEL

DEFINE THE PROBLEM

/
\
\
/ \
LIST POSSIBL F. SOLUTIONs

EVALUATE EACH SOLUTION

\
\ /
\
/
CHOOSE THE BEST SOLUTION AND ACT ON IT

RE-EVALUATE

113
 APPENDIX B
fx.

4- ! AMENDED
j GENERAL IDEA / I GENERAL
PLAN

AMEND
GENERAL
IDEA RECONNAISSANCE
RECONNAISSANCE

REVISED / , NEW OVERALL

%

OVERALL OVERALL PLAN -i—I PLAN

PLAN
REVISE
OVERALL
PLAN
/1\
/
ACTION 1

ACTION 2 ETC

/ \

MONITORING &
OR RECONNAISSANCE 7 OR

EITHER

\
ACTION 2 ETC.

\ /

Source: Ebbutt, J. (1965). Educational action research: some general

concerns and specific quibbles. In R. Burgess (Ed.) Issues in
Education Research: Qualitative Methods. London: The
Falrner Press, p.166, figure 3.

114
 A P P E N D I X C

Self-Reflection on Your Teaching: A Checklist

Using a scale of 1 to 5, rate your classroom and school according to the

following items:

5= Very Often 4= Often 3=Sometimes

2= Seldom 1= Hardly Ever

1. When the students pose unusual or divergent questions, I ask, "What made you
think of that?

2. Whatever the text says is accepted as the right answer.

3. When a decision has to be made between involving the class in a discussion of

an intriguing student idea (topic related) or moving on to "cover" content, I
choose the latter.

4. I encourage students to seek alternative answers.

5. Students give reasons for making statements.

6. I use subject matter as a means for students to generate their own questions
(or problems), which we then seriously consider.

7. When teaching, I sit or stand behind my desk.

8. Most questions posed during class can be answered with short one-word
answers.

9. Students spontaneously engage in critiquing each other's thinking.

10. Students relate subject matter to experiences in other subjects or in their

personal lives.

11. I stress what to think, not how.

12. Students often set objectives for their own learning.

13. Students spend time working collaboratively to solve subject matter

questions.

115
14. One focus in my classroom is trying to understand how and why people
(mentioned in texts) created ideas, solutions, experiments, rules, principles, and
so on.

15. My classroom mirrors the patterns of involvement practices in most faculty

meetings.

16. Students actively listen to each other.

Source: Barrell, J . (1985). Self-reflection on your teaching: A checklist. In A.L.

Costa (Ed.), Developing Minds (appendix C) Alexandia, Virginia: Association
For Supervision and Curriculum Development.

116
 APPENDIX D

CORRESPONDENCE

117
B a r b a r a Raynor
Box 2198

September 9, 1988

Superintendent of Schools

Dear Mr.

As p a r t of t h e r e q u i r e m e n t s f o r a m a s t e r s d e g r e e i n e d u c a t i o n
a t t h e U n i v e r s i t y o f B.C. I am p r o p o s i n g t o c o n d u c t r e s e a r c h
e n t i t l e d " F o s t e r i n g C r i t i c a l T h i n k i n g Through Problem S o l v i n g
i n Home E c o n o m i c s . " I hereby a p p l y t o your S c h o o l D i s t r i c t
f o r p e r m i s s i o n t o c o n d u c t t h e s t u d y i n my F a m i l y Management 11
class. The p r o p o s a l i s f o r t h e y e a r commencing September
1988, and t h e d a t a w i l l be c o l l e c t e d from t h e c l a s s d u r i n g
1988-89.

I am e n c l o s i n g a b r i e f summary of t h e p r o p o s a l t o o u t l i n e the
p u r p o s e and p r o c e d u r e s . E n c l o s e d a l s o i s a d r a f t of a
parental permission l e t t e r .

Thank you f o r y o u r a s s i s t a n c e w i t h t h i s r e q u e s t . If further

i n f o r m a t i o n i s needed or i f you have any q u e s t i o n s , p l e a s e ask
me .

Sincerely

Barbara Raynor

119
November 7, 1988

Dear Parent,

As p a r t o f t h e r e q u i r e m e n t s f o r a m a s t e r s d e g r e e i n e d u c a t i o n
a t t h e U n i v e r s i t y o f B.C., I am p r o p o s i n g t o c o n d u c t r e s e a r c h
e n t i t l e d " F o s t e r i n g C r i t i c a l T h i n k i n g Through Problem S o l v i n g
i n Home E c o n o m i c s . " The p u r p o s e o f t h i s r e s e a r c h i s t o
examine t h e ways i n w h i c h t e a c h e r s c a n e n c o u r a g e t h e i r
students to think c r i t i c a l l y .

The r e s e a r c h w i l l n o t a f f e c t t h e m a t e r i a l t h e s t u d e n t s w i l l
l e a r n , o n l y t h e way i n w h i c h i t i s t a u g h t . The same c o n c e p t s
w i l l be c o v e r e d i n t h e same d e t a i l , b u t t h e y w i l l be t a u g h t
with a problem s o l v i n g emphasis. This study w i l l involve
a u d i o t a p i n g o f 26 h o u r s o f c l a s s e s and l o o k i n g a t t h e
students assignments f o r changes. The s t u d e n t s w i l l n o t be
a s k e d t o commit a n y o f t h e i r own t i m e . The i n f o r m a t i o n
g a t h e r e d w i l l be c o m p l e t e l y c o n f i d e n t i a l and t h e a n o n y m i t y o f
t h e s t u d e n t s , s c h o o l and c l a s s r o o m p r o t e c t e d . The t a p e s w i l l
be e r a s e d a s s o o n a s my t h e s i s i s c o m p l e t e . The p a r e n t o r
s t u d e n t may w i t h d r a w from t h i s p r o j e c t a t a n y t i m e b y a
statement o r a l l y or i n w r i t i n g . Refusal t o cooperate w i l l
have no c o n s e q u e n c e s f o r t h e s t u d e n t .

I f y o u have a n y q u e s t i o n s c o n c e r n i n g a n y a s p e c t o f t h e
p r o j e c t , t h e p r o c e d u r e s t o be u s e d o r t h e e x t e n t o f y o u r
son's/daughter's i n v o l v e m e n t I would be happy t o d i s c u s s these
w i t h y o u . I c a n be r e a c h e d a t

Sincerely,

Barbara Raynor

I consent/ I do n o t c o n s e n t t o my c h i l d ' s participation in this

study.

s ignature

120