Chapter 1

Core Issues in Developing Critical

Thinking Skills

Abstract This chapter starts with a discussion of what critical thinking is through
considering the debate which has been taking place on whether or not it can be
defined. This is followed by a discussion of how it can be taught, especially in the
EFL classroom. The issue of whether or not it can be assessed is then discussed.

1.1 Introduction

Thinking skills are essential skills if students are to achieve academic success at
college and in their professional careers and social lives (Lizarraga et al. 2010;
Swartz 2003). Marin and Halpern (2011) have also appealed for the instruction of
critical thinking to be a central part of general education at all high schools.
Learning critical thinking skills helps students to select relevant and useful infor-
mation, to generate and evaluate the information received, to find effective ways of
achieving their aims, and thus to become better problem solvers and decision
makers.
Although the importance of critical thinking is generally accepted, some con-
troversy still surrounds whether or not it can be defined and measured, and whether
or not it is possible to teach it in the Asian L2 context.

1.2 What Is Critical Thinking?

For many educators and researchers, critical thinking (CT) is not a new concept.
However, for the last two decades a debate has been taking place regarding whether
or not it can be clearly defined. Some scholars assert that critical thinking is a vague
notion (McPeck 1990), and that it is a tacit part of socialisation and can only be
developed in unconscious social practice (Atkinson 1997). Atkinson (1997) con-
cluded that critical thinking is not a definable educational concept, based on the
finding that many professors at an American university were unable to provide a clear

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2018 1

Y. Lin, Developing Critical Thinking in EFL Classes,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-7784-5_1
2 1 Core Issues in Developing Critical Thinking Skills

definition when asked to in interviews. Davidson (1998), however, he insisted that

such findings only reveal that we still lack a clear understanding of critical thinking,
rather than presenting evidence that casts doubt on its definability. Although it is
difficult to define critical thinking, and there is so far, no standard definition, those
who consider it to be an important concept have attempted to describe what it is.
Cottrell (2005) described critical thinking as a cognitive activity, focusing on
argumentation, which requires the use of the mind. Facione (2000) characterised
critical thinking as a self-adjusting process involving the use of cognitive skills to
make judgements and to improve the quality of judgements. This process of using
the mind often relates to reasoning, making judgements, and reflection (Sternbery
et al. 2007). When engaging in critical thinking, one needs to think reasonably and
reflectively in order to decide what to believe and what to do (Norris and Ennis
1989). Siegel (1988) emphasised the notion that a critical thinker should be one
who is move by reason. These definitions portray critical thinking as a
self-adjusting cognitive process in which the mind is used to make reasonable
judgements. The above researchers also emphasised the fact that reasoning, which
includes the analysis of evidence and drawing conclusions from it, lies at the heart
of critical thinking (Cottrell 2005).
Some scholars have defined critical thinking in terms of its most indispensable
components. According to Glaser (1941, cited in Fisher 2001: 3), these components
are attitudes, knowledge and skills, and he refers to ‘an attitude of being disposed to
consider in a thoughtful way the problems and subjects that come within the range
of one’s experience, knowledge of the methods of logical enquiry and reasoning
and some skill in applying those methods’. According to Swartz and Parks (1994),
the principal components are goals, skills and attitudes. These authors emphasised
the notion that the goal of critical thinking is to make critical judgements through
assessing the reasonableness of ideas. The critical thinking attitude implies that
judgements should be based on sound reasoning and, in thinking critically, one
needs to be open-minded. They also listed skills which can be used to generate,
clarify and assess the reasonableness of ideas, and further proposed a way to teach
these skills: this is the infusion approach, which is explained in more detail in the
next section. These definitions demonstrate that, for people to be critical thinkers, a
positive and open-minded attitude, relevant skills and knowledge of how to use
these skills are all needed.
Many educators and researchers have also believed that engaging in critical
thinking requires the particular skills and dispositions (Giancarlo et al. 2004; Fisher
2001; Ip et al. 2000; Facione et al. 1995), and it has consequently been suggested that
these skills can be taught (Abrami et al. 2008; Lipman 2003; Swartz and Parks 1994).
Skills are manifest in performance. Persons with stronger skills tend to be able to perform a
range of tasks requiring those skills with fewer mistakes. (Facione 2000: 72)

According to Facione (2000), the possession of skills enables us to perform better.

In the case of thinking skills, these can improve the quality of and effectiveness of
thinking. Ennis (1991) proposed that critical thinking skills could be categorised into
clarification skills, basic decision-making skills, inference skills and the skills of
1.2 What Is Critical Thinking? 3

supposition and integration. Swartz and Parks (1994) listed the skills used to assess
whether or not ideas are reasonable, which include accurate observation and reliable
resources for assessing basic information, the use of causal explanation, prediction,
generalisation and reasoning via analogy to achieve inference, and the use of con-
ditional reasoning to make deductions. Fisher (2001: 8) also described in detail the
important critical thinking skills, which include the abilities to:
• identify the elements in a reasoned case, especially reasons and conclusions;
• identify and evaluate assumptions;
• clarify and interpret expressions and ideas;
• judge the acceptability, and especially the credibility, of claims;
• evaluate arguments of different kinds;
• analyse, evaluate and produce explanations;
• analyse, evaluate and make decisions;
• draw inferences;
• produce arguments.
McGregor (2007) also proposed a core set of critical thinking skills, of which
some or all have been included in the critical thinking taxonomy provided by other
researchers (Wen 2009; Cottrell 2005; Fisher 2001; Halpern 1998). The following
descriptions of these skills are summarised from the ideas of the authors mentioned
above:
• Explaining and reasoning: ability to explain ideas by providing supporting
reasons and to clarify these reasons in rational and logical ways.
• Analysing and synthesising: ability to seek and analyse data, identify and
synthesise relevant and useful data that support conclusions.
• Generalising and summarising: ability to summarise useful data, and use them to
draw general conclusions.
• Evaluating and judging: ability to evaluate the data and make reasonable
decisions.
To be a critical thinker, however, having the necessary skills is far from enough.
According to John Chafee (cited by Facione et al. 2000), a critical thinker is not
merely someone who is able to reflect, explore and analyse, but one who chooses to
‘think in these advanced, sophisticated ways’ (p. 65). In other words, in order to
become a critical thinker, internal motivation, which is also widely known as a
disposition, is needed (Miri et al. 2007; Facione 2000). For the purposes of the
study on which this book is based, a student with a strong disposition towards
critical thinking is defined as one who shows him or herself to be active and willing
to ‘engage in and persist at’ challenging and complex thinking tasks (Halpern
1998). Additionally, appropriate attitudes, as proposed by Glaser (1941, in Fisher
2001) and Swartz and Parks (1994), and discussed above, are also taken into
account in this book. These attitudes enable learners to be open-minded with
respect to different views and all sources of data, and to make sound judgements
and decisions based on suitable analysis.
4 1 Core Issues in Developing Critical Thinking Skills

In Facione et al.’s study, one student stated that, ‘We know how to think, thank
you. But, frankly, we’re just not interested’ (Facione et al. 1995: 10). It is imme-
diately obvious that, without the willingness to think critically, one will be less
likely to do so in practice, despite having the ability. Facione et al. (2000) thus
advocated the importance of developing dispositions toward critical thinking,
because ‘knowing a person’s disposition allows us to predict how the person is
most likely to act or react in a wide variety of circumstances’ (Facione et al. 2000:
63). A person who has critical thinking skills may fail to take the opportunity to
demonstrate them, while a person with a disposition towards critical thinking will
take the opportunity to engage in it even if his or her level of critical thinking skills
is low (Ip et al. 2000).
In summary, critical thinking is important in the field of education, since it is an
essential tool of inquiry, for solving problems and making good decisions (Simpson
and Courtney 2002). Students should be actively involved in the learning activity
and able to apply their knowledge to solve learning and social problems, and to
analyse and organise information so they can make decisions. Moreover, through
applying critical thinking in learning and social practice, students can become more
open-minded and creative in finding out the best method of learning and the best
method of solving problems (Tiwari et al. 2006). Therefore, the aim of infusion
lessons in the study presented in this book (see Chap. 2) is to develop students’
critical thinking skills and increase their disposition towards critical thinking, both
of which they would then be able to apply to their learning and social life.

1.3 Can Critical Thinking Be Taught?

In addition to the debate on its definability, the discussion about critical thinking
has also extended to the issue of whether or not it can be taught, and if so, whether
or not it can be taught to L2 classes in Asian countries. On one side are those who
believe that critical thinking is too abstract a concept or too complex a process to be
taught (Simpson and Courtney 2002; McPeck 1990), or that it can only be acquired
unconsciously through social practice (Atkinson 1997). On the other side are those
who have identified the relevant critical skills and advocate both the need to teach
and the possibility of teaching critical thinking (Mason 2008; McGuinness 2006;
Davidson 1998).
More specifically, resistance to the possibility of teaching critical thinking is
often related to contexts, in particular, those of Asian countries and L2 classes.
Some scholars claim that critical thinking is in itself a Western phenomenon
(Ramanathan and Kaplan 1996; Fox 1994), so it is difficult to teach to members of a
society where critical thinking does not exist. Ramanathan and Atkinson (1999)
compared writing in English to writing in Chinese, and concluded that the style of
writing in America emphasises critical thinking more than is the case with Chinese
writing. They therefore suggested that critical thinking was more likely to exist in
Western culture. Western students practise critical thinking in their social lives,
1.3 Can Critical Thinking Be Taught? 5

while in the cultures of Asian students, silence, submission to authority, conformity

and harmony are valued (Wen and Clément 2003; Stapleton 2001; Davidson 1998;
Ramanathan and Kaplan 1996), so that becoming a critical thinker is difficult.
Moreover, in Asian countries, the teacher is considered to be a person of authority
in the classroom, and students are expected to be obedient to figures of authority
(Yang et al. 2006; Littlewood 2000; Liu 1998). China is no exception (Bush and
Haiyan 2000; Holliday 1994). If Asian students are taught how to think critically,
this will represent a challenge to the authority of teachers (Heyman 2008) because
critical thinking encourages students to evaluate the information they are given,
rather than simply accepting it without question.
On the other hand, it may also be difficult for ESL or EFL students with lower
proficiency to engage in critical thinking in English classes. L2 students tend to use
memorisation as their main strategy in learning English (Shahini and Riazi 2011).
When they are writing in English, they often retrieve thoughts and linguistic forms
from their memory and write these down (Larkin 2009). They are less likely to
create meanings and reconstruct linguistic terms. As a result, their engagement in
critical thinking can be impaired. For this reason, Atkinson (1997) warned that
teachers should be cautious about introducing critical thinking to ESL students.
However, as Davidson (1998) remarked, critical thinking may not be encouraged
in some cultural contexts, but this should not lead to the conclusion that it does not
exist in those societies. This view is supported by Stapleton (2001), who found that
although Japanese students were not as good at critical thinking as Western stu-
dents, they were able to think critically. He thus suggests that Japanese students had
positive attitudes towards using critical thinking, but lacked instruction on how to
improve the ability.
It should also be pointed out that the former position (namely, that critical
thinking is too abstract a concept or too complex a process to be taught) fails to take
into consideration the need to teach critical thinking in L2 classes and the benefits it
may bring, especially in Asian countries. As Atkinson (1997) proposed, critical
thinking is practised in students’ social life in many Western countries, and thus
there is less need for the teacher to create opportunities for students to rehearse and
perfect it. However, in many Asian countries, as mentioned earlier, such oppor-
tunities would seem to be more valuable for students, owing to the lack of emphasis
on critical thinking in their cultures. On the other hand, even if critical thinking is
not universally valued in some Asian societies, no one denies its importance in the
academic arena.
Furthermore, teaching critical thinking does not mean teaching it as a philo-
sophical concept, since the content of critical thinking is unlimited (Facione 2000).
The aim of teaching critical thinking is to teach ‘for and about’ it (Facione 2000:
80). ‘Teaching about’ refers to instruction in relevant skills and how to apply them
to solving problems. The aim of ‘teaching for’ is to expand the opportunities for,
establish appropriate attitudes towards and enhance the students’ willingness to use
those skills and engage in critical thinking. Lipman emphasised the fact that for
someone to be a critical thinker, practice is essential, since ‘knowing more is not
equivalent to thinking better’ (Lipman 2003: 76). We cannot claim that a person is a
6 1 Core Issues in Developing Critical Thinking Skills

critical thinker simply because he or she knows a lot about the concept of critical
thinking. Lipman gives the example that if the teaching of critical thinking consists
merely of giving students an understanding of what critical thinking is, this would
be no different from the case of teaching students to ride bicycles by telling them
the results of research into bicycle riding. One cannot engage in critical thinking
simply by knowing what it is and how to do it; real action needs to be taken to
practise it in order to develop the ability.
Based on the above discussion, it is clear that teachers can teach students to think
critically by introducing the relevant skills, cultivating their dispositions, and cre-
ating the opportunities for them to engage in this reflective, problem solving and
decision-making process. The author of this book also takes the position that critical
thinking needs to be introduced in Asian countries and L2 classrooms. Therefore,
the applicability and effects of teaching critical thinking are the concerns of the
study referred to in this book (so it is thus important to review the effects of
teaching critical thinking that have been found in previous research, see Chap. 4).

1.4 How Can It Be Assessed?

Those scholars who cast doubt on whether or not critical thinking can be defined
also doubt whether or not it can be assessed, claiming that such a vague concept
cannot be measured (Pithers and Soden 2000). In this book, however, the opposite
position was assumed, since, as shown in the discussion in Sect. 1.2, it is possible to
define the concept, and thus it can be assessed. Effective assessment is important for
research into the teaching of critical thinking, since it will contribute to the validity
of measured results. It also allows for a comparison to be made of results within and
between groups.
Some assessments measure critical thinking by tests involving multiple-choice
questions. The Watson-Glaser Critical Thinking Appraisal (WGCTA) is distin-
guished by its long history, having been first designed in 1937, with US and UK
versions being further developed in 1980 and 1991 respectively (Hassan and
Madhum 2007). Although many studies of college students have benefited from its
contribution in providing valid and reliable results (Hergovich and Arendasy 2005;
Brown et al. 2001; Girot 2000), one of its limitations is that it is concerned solely
with the ability to think critically, and fails to investigate the disposition to do so
(Ku 2009).
Facione et al. (1994) developed a set of tests to evaluate both critical thinking
skills and relevant dispositions, including the California Critical Thinking Skills
Test (CCTST) and the California Critical Thinking Disposition Inventory (CCTDI).
The former is a multiple-choice test, while the latter uses six-point Likert scales.
These have been widely used in college (Blondy 2011; Ozturk et al. 2008; Yang
et al. 2008; Raymond et al. 2005; Giancarlo and Facione 2001) and high school
(Miri et al. 2007) studies, and have been proven to be valid and reliable (Phillips
et al. 2004; Facione et al. 1994). Both the CCTST and CCTDI have been translated
1.4 How Can It Be Assessed? 7

into Chinese and were revised by Luo and Yang in 2002 and 2001 respectively. The
Chinese versions have also been used in studies of college students (Liu and Zhao
2010; Luo and Yang 2001) and high school students (Zhou et al. 2012, 2010,
2007), with the results also supporting the validity and reliability of these tests.
However, these tests have their limitations (Facione et al. 1995). On the one hand,
the CCTST may not motivate test-takers to engage in deep thinking. They can
complete the test by guessing, and still arrive at correct answers. Takers of the
CCTDI test may understand the purpose of the test and select desired responses in
order to get high marks. In such cases, the CCTST can fail to reveal test-takers’
actual ability in critical thinking, and the CCTDI can fail to reveal actual
dispositions.
Facione et al.’s measurements of critical thinking are valuable for gaining insight
into the disposition to think critically, since, as many studies have suggested, a
disposition to think critically is a significant predictor of cognitive development
(Rapps et al. 2001), school performance (Ip et al. 2000) and the development of
critical thinking (Facione 2000; Facione et al. 1995). Rapps et al.’s (2001) study
investigated four factors influencing cognitive developments, and the results
revealed that only a disposition to think critically was able to predict all the levels of
cognitive development targeted. Ip et al.’s (2000) study suggested a significantly
positive correlation between the strength of critical thinking dispositions and grade
point averages (GPA). Facione et al.’s study (1995) revealed a greater development
in critical thinking on the part of those students who had a strong disposition
towards critical thinking when entering the university than those with a weaker
disposition on entering. Therefore, assessments which target both skills and dis-
positions are useful.
Other researchers began to assess critical thinking through the assessment of
written texts produced by the participants. According to Lantolf (2006), writing is a
way of vocalising or revealing cognitive activities and processes and thus makes
them recordable; it is therefore an indication of whether or not learners have used
critical thinking in real practice and of how they have used it. The Ennis-Weir
Critical Thinking Essay Test (Ennis and Weir 1985) was designed for use with high
school and college students and has been used in many studies (Williams and
Worth 2009; Clifford et al. 2004; Yeh 2001; Dunham 1997). It targets students’
ability to judge and formulate arguments, and the results reflect to some extent their
ability in and disposition towards using critical thinking (Ku 2009). One limitation
of the Ennis-Weir test is that it may not be able to reveal the actual critical thinking
ability of EFL and ESL learners, especially those from Asian countries, since it was
designed for native English speakers (Dunham 1997). The topics included may not
be familiar to many EFL and ESL learners. Stapleton (2001) claimed that lack of
familiarity with the topic of writing could restrict students in demonstrating their
critical thinking ability.
Stapleton (2001) then proposed a model that may be used to identify key ele-
ments of critical thinking in argumentative writing in which the topic can be
selected and designed by the researchers. These elements include an argument,
defined as a claim with a supporting reason, evidence, opposing viewpoints,
8 1 Core Issues in Developing Critical Thinking Skills

refutations and conclusions. Using this model, researchers can take the educational
background, age and language level of writers into account, and then select more
suitable topics for them to demonstrate their critical thinking. This model has been
adopted by Alagozlu (2007) and is deemed to be a useful tool. However, more
studies are needed to examine its reliability and validity.
Chapter 2
The Infusion Approach

Abstract Infusion was first developed as an approach to teaching thinking skills

with content instruction by Swartz and Parks in 1994, and handbooks (Swartz et al.
1998; Swartz and Parks 1994) which guide teachers in designing their own lessons
were provided. Since then this approach has been adopted in many studies (Dewey
and Bento 2009; Abrami et al. 2008; Kirkwood 2000), and the results reveal that
infusion lessons are helpful and practical (for details see Chap. 4). This chapter
discusses the theoretical basis of the infusion approach from sociocultural per-
spective, and explains conceptual framework of infusion lessons.

2.1 Introduction

McGuinness (2000) listed five benefits of employing the infusion approach, which
are as follows:
• thinking skills can be matched directly with topics in the curriculum;
• content instruction is invigorated, thus leading to deeper understanding;
• classroom time is used optimally;
• teaching for thoughtfulness is directly supported across the curriculum;
• the transfer of learning can be more easily promoted and reinforced at other
stages.
It is practical and easy to follow, especially for teachers who are making their
first attempt. At the same time, an infusion approach takes advantage of the school
lesson timetable, allowing the teachers of subjects to target the development of
thinking and the learning of subjects at the same time.

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2018 9

Y. Lin, Developing Critical Thinking in EFL Classes,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-7784-5_2
10 2 The Infusion Approach

2.2 Theoretical Basis of the Infusion

Approach—SCT Perspective

Before discussing the framework of an infusion lesson, it is important to explain

how the approach works, and thus reveal how it can facilitate the development of
students’ cognitive and learning abilities. This book will discuss from the per-
spective of sociocultural theory (SCT), which is that effective learning takes place
in meaningful interaction, and the process of learning is the process of internali-
sation. SCT emphasises the role of mediation in the process of cognitive devel-
opment and effective learning (see below for further discussion), which involves the
use of the human mind. The teaching of critical thinking is related to the ways in
which the mind is used, and thus influences the mediation.
In the process of effective learning, mediation occurs twice. Mediation is a
fundamental function of the human mind (Lantolf and Thorne 2007). It enables
humans to interact with themselves, each other and the world, and effective learning
arises from this interaction (Wegerif et al. 1999). It occurs first when learners
interact with the world outside of their minds to acquire new knowledge and obtain
assistance; the second time it occurs as part of the inner mental process of inter-
nalisation by means of which learners achieve independent development (Kozulin
2002). In the field of education, this implies that instruction should be explicit; in
other words, students should be given clear explanations of what they are being
asked to learn. It is essential that teachers tell students about the knowledge that
they do not know. This can be linked to research into the teaching of thinking which
proposes that explicit instruction on the part of the teacher is more beneficial to the
development of thinking than attempting to promote thinking without giving direct
instructions (Abrami et al. 2008; Halpern 1999; Bangert-Drowns 1990). The study
presented later in this book therefore emphasises the importance of including
explicit instruction in both thinking skills and knowledge of the L2 in classroom
teaching, which is also one of the characteristics of the infusion approach (for
further discussion see Sect. 2.3).
The second time meditation occurs is during the process of internalisation, which
gives learners the ability to solve problems independently. Internalisation refers to
the process whereby an individual ‘moves from carrying out concrete actions in
conjunction with the assistance of material artefacts and of other individuals to
carrying out actions mentally without any apparent external assistance’ (Lantolf
2000: 14). Once internalisation is complete, learners gain conscious control over the
knowledge acquired. L2 learners acquire the target language through the internal-
isation of linguistic forms and knowledge. The process of internalisation includes
gaining an understanding of new knowledge and forms, using these to achieve
specific goals and to modify existing knowledge (Swain and Lapkin 1995; Nobuyoshi
and Ellis 1993). Learners can gain an understanding of this knowledge from explicit
instructions and modelling by teachers and by practising during interactions.
However, although learners can modify their existing knowledge with the help of
artefacts and other people, it is first necessary for them to know what to modify:
2.2 Theoretical Basis of the Infusion Approach—SCT Perspective 11

in other words, to be aware of their mistakes, problems and difficulties. This should
also be applied to second language acquisition (SLA): learners should be encouraged
to produce more output of the target language (Swain 2000), thus enabling them to
notice their mistakes and limitations in the target language (Swain 1995). In partic-
ular, they should be encouraged to practise so as to be able to use syntactic forms fully,
for instance in writing, since this will expand the opportunities for them to notice their
mistakes and limitations.
In SCT, language plays a role as the most common and powerful artefact that
humans use to interact with the world, with each other and with themselves (Lantolf
and Thorne 2006). We use language in the form of private speech as a way of
mediating our mental processes. Private speech can become social when we use its
patterns and meanings to communicate with others, and it can also be directed
inward when we regulate our own mental functioning (Lantolf and Thorne 2007).
Therefore, in infusion lessons, English is not only the subject to be learned, but also
a communication tool, which learners can use to verbalise and visualise their private
speech. Combining the teaching of critical thinking with the teaching of L2 can
facilitate meaningful communication in the target language, since the communi-
cation is focused on the discussion of a topic after thinking critically.
Vygotsky (1987) claimed that an essential mechanism for the internalisation of
socially constructed forms, especially in SLA, is imitation (Lantolf and Thorne
2006). Imitation is not mere parroting or repetition (Lantolf 2006). Rather, it is a
method of ‘absorbing what is present in others and of making it over in forms
peculiar to one’s own temper and valuable to one’s own genius’ (Baldwin 1915,
cited in Valsiner and van der Veer 2000: 153). In other words, imitation in L2
learning refers to noticing the components and rules of language in others’ ex-
pressions and reconstructing these components in order to compose desired
expressions. The application of this view to classroom teaching leads to the need for
modelling and the promotion of the creation of meaning (Lantolf and Pavlenko
1995). The importance of modelling is emphasised in the teaching of both thinking
skills (Facione 2000) and language (van Gelder 2001; Celce-Murcia 1991) in terms
of how to use the skills, language and knowledge in real practice. Creating meaning
requires the learners to reconstruct linguistic forms and knowledge in order to
express their own ideas. This enables students to master the ‘finite means’ of
producing the ‘infinite possibilities of expression’ (Chomsky 1966: 29). Integrating
critical thinking with subject teaching in L2 classes encourages students to use the
target language to express their critical and creative ideas; in other words, it
encourages them to use the target language to create their own meanings.
Vygotsky introduced the concept of the Zone of Proximal Development
(ZPD) to describe the distance between ‘actual development level as determined by
independent problem solving and a higher level of potential development as
determined through problem solving under adult guidance or in collaboration with
more capable peers’ (Vygotsky 1978: 86). Since in many countries, including
China, there are still large numbers of students in classes in high schools, collab-
orative learning is valuable. Collaborative learning provides opportunities for stu-
dents to exchange ideas, and to seek and obtain help from each other. Therefore,
12 2 The Infusion Approach

group discussion can be used to promote interaction and collaborative learning.

Although the concept of the ZPD emphasises the importance of assistance from
others, in their study Swain and Lapkin (1998) found that those people who pro-
vided assistance did not necessarily have to be more capable. In the study presented
later in this book, the students were assigned to discussion groups according to their
seating arrangement in the classroom: each student and his deskmate simply turned
around and formed a group of four with the two students seated behind them (see
Chap. 6), rather than reorganising them to form combinations of students with
different achievement levels. This method allowed them to operate in an environ-
ment they were familiar with and to continue their discussion out of class.
Finally, in the process of development, metacognition is an important function of
the process of internalisation. It regulates our mental processes and determines
‘how we use knowledge to direct and improve the thinking and learning process’
(Halpern 1999: 73). Learners can achieve self-regulation in their cognition and
learning. This means that the capability of internalisation can be extended to sub-
sequent learning (Centeno-Cortés and Jiménez 2004). Some researchers have found
that the teaching of thinking skills helped students to become aware of their
learning process, and that it is conducive to fostering learning, especially for lower
achievers (Kramarski et al. 2002; Quicke and Winter 1994; Powell and Makin
1994).

2.3 Conceptual Framework of the Infusion Approach

When discussing the conceptual framework of infusion lessons, it is essential to

understand the meaning of ‘infusion’. According to Swartz and Parks (1994), there
are two main types of instruction in thinking: direct and curricular context-free
teaching, or using methods which provoke thinking in the curricular context. The
former refers to explicit instruction in how to use thinking strategies, and this type
of instruction is often used in contexts separate from the rest of the school cur-
riculum, with specially designed material (e.g., De Bono 1985; Dawes et al. 2000;
Blagg 1991). The latter refers to the promotion of thinking by using methods such
as, for example, collaborative learning, higher-order questioning, or inquiry
learning, but without direct instruction in thinking strategies themselves (e.g., David
and Taverner 2008; Macleod and Holdridge 2006; Peter et al. 2002). Infusion
means to combine these two types of instruction by providing direct instruction on
thinking skills and processes together with specific methods to promote thinking,
and this has been proven to be more effective than using either type of instruction
individually (Marin and Halpern 2011).
In the study referred to in this book, the conceptual framework for infusion
lessons was adapted from the one developed by Swartz and Parks (1994), and at the
same time, group discussions were used to activate students’ thinking and learning
(see Fig. 2.1 below). In this framework, it is clear that infusion lessons focus on the
thinking process of learning, and are closely connected to SCT.
2.3 Conceptual Framework of the Infusion Approach 13

• The teacher provides instruction on thinking skills and

content objectives.
introduction

• The teacher models how to use thinking skills to solve

learnign problems.
• Students complete thinking task in groups by using
thinking skills and subject knowledge.
thinking • Students share group ideas with the whole class and the
actively teacher provides feedback.

• The teacher asks questions to guide students to reflect on

their thinking process.
thinking about
thinking

• The teacher facilitates additional opportunities for students

to apply their thinking skills to similar and different content
applying to promote transfer.
thinking

Fig. 2.1 Conceptual framework of infusion lessons

An infusion lesson begins with a clear introduction to thinking skills and content
objectives. This should remind students of their prior knowledge and establish
connections. The teacher should also demonstrate the significance of learning these
thinking skills and explain the possible benefits. This can be linked to SCT in that
learners first learn new knowledge through interacting with the world outside of
their minds. The teacher’s introduction enables students to understand what they are
to learn about and why they should learn it, and further, enables them to be clear
about what should be internalised later on.
Next, the teacher helps the students to activate their thinking in the learning
process. The teacher first models how to use these thinking skills to solve problems
in learning. Then he or she asks the students to complete a thinking task through
group discussion. This interweaves the explicit thinking skills to be learned with the
content of the subject (in this case, the English language), and makes a lesson an
14 2 The Infusion Approach

infusion lesson. It provides opportunities for students to make their first attempt to
use the skills and knowledge which have just been taught, and helps them to initiate
the process of internalisation. The use of thinking skills promotes a deep under-
standing of subject knowledge. Students need to engage in a task which encourages
them to reconstruct knowledge in order to think of their own ideas. At the same
time, the target language is also used as a communication tool for students to
express their own ideas, and to exchange and discuss ideas with others. This
contributes to effective language learning, which encourages learners to create
meanings using the target language. Group discussion also creates opportunities for
them to offer help to or seek help from others, and thus promotes interaction and
collaborative learning. After group discussion, students are invited to share their
group ideas with the rest of the class, and the teacher provides comments. This
creates opportunities for students to gain more inspiration from others, and to have
their mistakes, if any, pointed out to them. This also enables the teacher to guide
students to progress to the next stage of metacognition.
In the metacognition stage, the teacher asks students some reflective questions
about what kind of thinking they have applied, how they did this, and how effective
it was (Swartz and Parks 1994). The students are then involved in metacognition,
which can promote more effective thinking and learning, and which also contributes
to internalisation. Such reflective questions might include: what kinds of thinking
did you engage in? How did you carry out this kind of thinking? Is this an effective
way to engage in this kind of thinking? (Swartz and Parks 1994), and what is the
difference between this way of thinking and the way you applied in the past? Would
you use this method in the future? Why? (Assaf 2009). This stage is crucial in
bringing about effective learning and encouraging metacognition. It helps students
either to seek a better way of thinking, or to be consistent in their use of similar
thinking skills and processes.
Finally, the teacher needs to create more opportunities for students to apply
similar thinking skills and processes to similar content, in order to promote near
transfer, and to apply them to different content to promote far transfer. In the present
study, near transfer was promoted through the use of a subsequent individual
written task completed after class on a topic similar to that of the group discussion.
Since the topic of writing is related to the topic of the thinking task in class, this
facilitates near transfer, in which thinking skills are applied to similar content, and
at the same time requires the students to use complete syntactic forms of the target
language to express their ideas, which is crucial in the process of SLA. Far transfer,
which refers to the application of thinking skills in different contexts and topics,
was promoted by repetition of the same type of task later in the term.
2.4 Thinking Tasks 15

2.4 Thinking Tasks

Studies have revealed the usefulness of thinking tasks in promoting thinking and
understanding (e.g., Zhou et al. 2010; Yang et al. 2005; Centeno-Cortés and
Jiménez 2004). Specifically, Virjo et al. (2001) found that the value of these tasks
was that they increased students’ motivation and helped to make students aware of
their learning needs. Students became more active in making contributions while
completing the tasks, and they also recognised the areas where they lacked
knowledge and became aware of what they needed to know more about.
This may contribute to internalisation if students subsequently learn more to help
them understand their existing knowledge. Ozturk et al. (2008) also found that tasks
based on problem solving and decision making promoted students’ tolerance of the
ideas of others and improved their evaluation of information. The results obtained
from the CCTDI revealed that the increase in critical thinking dispositions in the
experimental group was significantly greater than in the comparative group. Similar
results were obtained by Tiwari et al. (2006), in that problem-based tasks promoted
students’ critical thinking dispositions, and this improvement was significantly
greater than in students who only received traditional lecturing.
Various educators have proposed different functions and methods of using dif-
ferent types of thinking task; for example, Leat (2001), Lin and Mackay (2004),
Butterworth and O’Connor (2005). This book briefly introduces three popular
thinking activities, which were used in the study discussed later in this book:
namely, ‘Odd One Out’, ‘Fact or Opinion’ and ‘Six Thinking Hats’.

2.4.1 Odd One Out

Odd One Out is a cognitively demanding activity (Schwab and Dellwo 2016). It
focuses on the characteristics of things, which in EFL can be individual words,
phrases or sentences. Students need to discover the differences and similarities
between the items provided and choose the odd one out. The students complete the
task by themselves using the knowledge learned in the current lesson or previous
lessons. This is an easy and enjoyable task, which contributes to the consolidation
of existing knowledge and understanding of the target language. It is a suitable task
for students who have only just begun to take infusion lessons.

2.4.2 Fact or Opinion

The aim of the Fact or Opinion task, on the other hand, is to develop critical
thinking skills. Lin and Mackay (2004) suggest that it can be introduced in the early
stages of a course to raise awareness of critical thinking. Students need to
16 2 The Infusion Approach

distinguish facts from opinions and give reasons for the judgements they make.
This helps students to develop their own opinions (Leat 2001) and make effective
decisions (Lin and Mackay 2004). It is a versatile tool for developing critical
thinking, while at the same time it is also a highly challenging task for teachers to
use, since the concept ‘fact’ relates to the nature of knowledge (Leat 2001).
Therefore, this question should be defined and introduced to students at the
beginning of the lesson (Lin and Mackay 2004).

2.4.3 Six Thinking Hats

The Six Thinking Hats task designed by De Bono enables students to ‘think in
different ways rather than engaging in several different types of thinking simulta-
neously’ (McGregor 2007: 140). Each hat represents a different way of thinking
(see Table 2.1 below). The white hat symbolises facts. The red hat deals only with
emotions and feelings. The black hat concerns potential difficulties. The yellow hat
refers to the positive characteristics of things: for example, their value or benefits.
The green hat is worn when providing suggestions and alternative proposals.

Table 2.1 De Bono’s six thinking hats

Coloured Type of thinking Focus questions
hat
White hat Focus on the facts, figures and information – What information do we
available have?
– What do we need to know?
– What information do we need
to get?
– What questions do we need to
ask?
Red hat Descriptions of emotions, feelings, hunches and What do I feel about this matter
intuition without giving reasons right now?
Black hat Focus on what could go wrong. Identifying – Does this fit the fact?
faults or weaknesses. Apply caution – Will it work?
– Is it safe?
– Can it be done?
Yellow Focus on identifying the value or advantages of – Why should it be done?
hat something. Focus on what benefits or savings – What are the benefits?
there might be – Why it is a good thing to do?
Green hat Focus on exploring of new and alternative – What can we do here?
proposals, suggestions and ideas – Are there some different
ideas/alternative things we
can do?
Blue hat Focus on thinking about thinking – What are we here for?
– What are we thinking about?
– What is the end goal?
2.4 Thinking Tasks 17

The role of someone wearing the blue hat is to think about thinking by taking
account of ‘all the other hats in order to arrive at a solution’ (Wyse and Dowson
2009: 86). When students ‘wear’ a hat of a particular colour, they are expected to
think in the way it represents.
Since different thinking tasks emphasise different thinking skills, when designing
infusion lessons, the use of different types of thinking task and the repetition of each
task should be considered. To complete different thinking tasks, different types of
thinking skills are required, and the acquisition of these skills enables students to
engage in different thinking processes and promoting different thinking skills.
Repetition of a task requires students to become involved in a similar thinking
process with different topics and content, and therefore facilitates better perfor-
mance of a specific thinking skill. The results of Ahmadian and Tavakoli’s (2010)
study showed that the repetition of the same tasks helped students to transfer their
performance to a new task. Interestingly, their study also found that the repetition of
tasks could enhance the complexity and fluency of L2 students’ speech, but not its
accuracy.
pter4Chapter 4Chapter4Chapter
The “Case” for Critical
Thinking David R. Terry

In 1990, after considerable discussion and debate, a panel of 46 experts from a variety
of fields devised a statement regarding critical thinking and the ideal critical thinker:

We understand critical thinking to be purposeful, self-regulatory judgment which

results in interpretation, analysis, evaluation, and inference, as well as explana-
tion of the evidential, conceptual, methodological, criteriological, or contextual
considerations upon which that judgment is based. Critical thinking is essential
as a tool of inquiry. As such, critical thinking is a liberating force in education
and a powerful resource in one’s personal and civic life. While not synonymous
with good thinking, critical thinking is a pervasive and self-rectifying human
phenomenon. The ideal critical thinker is habitually inquisitive, well-informed,
trustful of reason, open-minded, flexible, fair-minded in evaluation, honest in
facing personal biases, prudent in making judgments, willing to reconsider, clear
about issues, orderly in complex matters, diligent in seeking relevant informa-
tion, reasonable in the selection of criteria, focused in inquiry, and persistent
in seeking results which are as precise as the subject and the circumstances of
inquiry permit. Thus, educating good critical thinkers means working toward
this ideal. It combines developing critical thinking skills with nurturing those
dispositions which consistently yield useful insights and which are the basis of a
rational and democratic society. (Facione 1990, p. 21)

This certainly reads like it was drawn up by a committee, and it’s hard to quarrel
with any of it; the experts seem to be trying to please everyone, and that includes a
lot of people. To get a sense of the magnitude of the literature, my search of Google
using the phrase “critical thinking” on July 9, 2011, returned 36,200,000 listings. Let’s
be a little more selective and take a look at some of the relevant research literature.

Science Stories: Using Case Studies to Teach Critical Thinking

Copyright © 2012 NSTA. All rights reserved. For more information, go to www.nsta.org/permissions.
25
 Chapter 4

The first point to make is that most experts in the field do not regard critical
thinking as a body of knowledge to be delivered as a separate subject in school; instead,
it is like reading and writing, with applications in all areas of learning (Facione 1990).
Various approaches for teaching critical thinking have been proposed. The most
controversial issue involves whether it should be taught separately (the “general”
approach) or as an aspect of domain-specific instruction (Ennis 1989). Recent
research suggests that the epistemic culture of various disciplines influences the ways
in which critical thinking is understood (Jones 2007) while also acknowledging that
the content of thought does not strongly determine its process, which is driven more
by the type of task being addressed, resulting in important commonalities across
fields (Smith 2002).
One other point emerges clearly: Every definition of critical thinking seems to
require that students engage in a deeper processing of information than what occurs
in traditional science education (Furedy and Furedy 1985; Morgan 1995). This is ironic
because most science instructors claim that one of their key goals is to teach critical
thinking.
The origin of critical thinking as a goal for education dates back at least as far as
the ancient Greeks, when Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle encouraged their students
to realize that things often are not what they seem to be on the surface (Burbach,
Matkin, and Fritz 2004). Many educators have continued to stress the importance of
critical thinking, following John Dewey, who indicated in Democracy and Education
(1916, p. 179) that “all which the school can or need do for pupils … is to develop their
ability to think.”

Practical understanding tells us the following:

Learning that does not involve thinking is nothing but the memorization of facts
not understood, resulting in the formation of mere opinions, not the possession
of genuine knowledge and understanding. (Adler 1987, p. 11)

Critical thinking has found its way into influential science education reform
documents. The National Research Council (NRC) emphasizes throughout the
National Science Education Standards (1996) that a primary goal of science education
is to strengthen problem-solving and critical-thinking skills. In addition, Science for
All Americans contends that

[e]ducation should prepare people to read or listen … critically, deciding what

evidence to pay attention to and what to dismiss, and distinguishing careful argu-
ments from shoddy ones. Furthermore, people should be able to apply those same
critical skills to their own observations, arguments, and conclusions, thereby
becoming less bound by their own prejudices and rationalizations. (AAAS 1989,
p. 139)

26 national science teachers association

Copyright © 2012 NSTA. All rights reserved. For more information, go to www.nsta.org/permissions.
 The “Case” for Critical Thinking

In Shaping the Future: New Expectations for Undergraduate Education in Science,

Mathematics, Engineering, and Technology (1996), the National Science Foundation
(NSF) advises educators to “devise and use pedagogy that develops skills for
communication, teamwork, critical thinking, and lifelong learning in each student”
(p. iii). Meaningful education requires an understanding of the essential concepts
of science, but it is just as important that scientifically literate persons use critical
thinking as they apply scientific understanding to their lives. Literate individuals
must be able to use scientific information appropriately to make wise choices and
effectively solve problems they encounter in life. They must be able to make well-
informed judgments about the reliability and accuracy of scientific information that
is presented to them. People who are scientifically literate do not simply provide
information about scientific concepts in a quiz-show context. Scientifically literate
individuals must use science skillfully while working through the often complex
thinking tasks encountered in both their personal and professional lives (Swartz
1997).

Active Learning
How do we achieve this desirable end? The answer is through active learning. Critical
thinking requires students to be actively involved in their learning (Browne and
Freeman 2000) as they attempt to understand and apply the information to which
they are exposed (Ahern-Rindell 1998/1999). The research suggests that instructional
techniques that include high-level questioning, authentic investigations, and small-
group learning might be the most valuable for improving critical-thinking skills
among students. Instructional techniques that encourage passivity in a learner are
probably not going to support and may even impede critical thinking (Browne and
Freeman 2000). In short, getting students to actively do something in the classroom
rather than sit passively taking notes is likely to produce the best results.
Physics professor Richard Hake persuasively demonstrated this essential point
when he published his study on 6,000 physics students. Students who merely
listened to lectures on the topic of mechanics performed much more poorly on
exams dealing with the topic than students who were taught the same material via
active learning strategies (Hake 1998). Richard Paul, an expert in the field of critical
thinking, recommended in Critical Thinking: What Every Person Needs to Survive in
a Rapidly Changing World (1992) that activities and assignments be designed so that
students must think their way through them. To develop students’ thinking skills in
the science classroom, instruction should require students to hypothesize, speculate,
generalize, create, and evaluate while providing opportunities for identifying and
solving problems, especially problems that are real and of interest and concern to
students (Pizzini, Abell, and Shepardson 1988). For students to improve their critical-
thinking skills, they must engage in critical thinking itself (van Gelder 2005).

Science Stories: Using Case Studies to Teach Critical Thinking

Copyright © 2012 NSTA. All rights reserved. For more information, go to www.nsta.org/permissions.
27
 Chapter 4

Here is more of the same: Lauer (2005) states that it is far more productive to
have students comprehend the essence of critical thinking through active learning
techniques such as case study teaching than for the teacher to describe critical
thinking in a lecture and ask for a definition on a test. And Johnson and Johnson
(1991) make the persuasive argument that interpersonal exchange within cooperative
learning groups promotes critical thinking. According to the American Association
for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) (1989), learning science is an active process
dependent on social interaction. Active conversations with instructors and peers are
necessary to develop a complete understanding of scientific concepts as well as to
encourage critical thinking. The strength of active learning strategies is that they
facilitate personal involvement with the material, provoking students into discussion
and evaluation. Thinking begins when a state of doubt exists about what to do or
what one believes (Browne and Freeman 2000).

Storytelling in Science Classes

Storytelling in the form of case-based teaching was introduced into Harvard
University’s law and business school curricula 100 years ago. These real-world prob-
lems, taught by a professor via the discussion method, introduced students to actual
scenarios that they were likely to face once they graduated. The method attracted
widespread admiration and is actively used today. In a Canadian medical school
(McMaster University) 50 years later, faculty members introduced another formal
version of storytelling called problem-based learning (PBL). In this instance, small
groups of medical students met regularly with faculty facilitators to try to diagnose
patients’ ailments given the limited information they received piecemeal. Both case-
based teaching and PBL have been successful because they are based on stories that
put learning in context and actively engage students in the learning process (Herreid
2006).
If we define case studies as “stories with an educational message,” it is evident
that there are many ways to tell the story. Accordingly, the case study approach can
be categorized into several major types depending on how the story is used in the
classroom: (1) by lecture, (2) by whole-class discussion, (3) by small groups (as in
PBL, for example), (4) through individual analysis, or (5) via lecture in large classes
using personal response systems (clickers) (Herreid 1998). Most of these case meth-
ods depend heavily on active learning strategies, which are linked to all of the desired
attributes of critical thinking. Cases encourage students to think through scientific
problems with a skeptical eye, asking them to see if the conclusions are justified by
the evidence. “If reading, arguing, and challenging are hallmarks of critical think-
ing, then case studies are the poster children for the process” (Herreid 2004, p. 13). A
large percentage of case study teachers would agree. In a survey of 1,634 case study
teachers, fostering critical thinking was one of the top two reasons they used the case
method (Herreid et al. 2011).

28 national science teachers association

Copyright © 2012 NSTA. All rights reserved. For more information, go to www.nsta.org/permissions.
 The “Case” for Critical Thinking

Why Case-Based Teaching Works

For most students, learning by doing provides far better and more lasting results
than learning through lectures (Naumes and Naumes 1999). Education policy in the
United States is moving toward such teaching strategies—including group problem
solving during lectures, problem-based learning, case studies, inquiry-based labs,
and interactive computer learning—to more actively involve students in the learning
process (Handelsman et al. 2004).
AAAS advocates the use of case studies, noting that understanding a case
requires students to integrate knowledge in multiple frameworks, including
historical, philosophical, social, political, economic, and technological contexts.
Furthermore, there is great potential for motivating students with cases, increasing
their understanding, expanding independent learning, and promoting information
assessment skills (AAAS 1989). Cases in science are usually fact-driven but often
are also open-ended because the data are inadequate or emotions are involved and
ethical or political decisions are at stake. The newest scientific ideas are often by
their very nature contentious, and different people often view evidence differently in
different contexts, sometimes leading to very different conclusions (Herreid 1997).
The case study method allows students to use their prior knowledge and interests
related to the case to construct new knowledge. Cases facilitate active and reflective
learning by exposing learners to complex situations, allowing them to discuss and
debate courses of action and providing them with the opportunity to create and
discover new ideas. Good cases are realistic and generate intrinsic motivation by
encouraging teamwork and accountability (Tomey 2003).
Many of the methods of case study teaching involve small groups, and we know
a great deal about these well-studied collaborative or cooperative learning strategies.
Peer collaboration encourages metacognition as students work together to identify
what they already know about a case and determine what they need to know. By
discussing their ideas with others, students come to appreciate other viewpoints and
also discover their own misconceptions (Waterman and Stanley 2004). A meta-analysis
of more than 300 studies that examined the relative efficacy of cooperative learning
on achievement in college settings found that cooperative learning promotes higher
individual achievement than either competitive or individualistic learning. The same
research demonstrated that college students learning cooperatively perceive greater
academic and personal social support from peers and instructors than do students
working competitively, and they become more socially skilled (Johnson, Johnson,
and Smith 1998).

Science Stories: Using Case Studies to Teach Critical Thinking

Copyright © 2012 NSTA. All rights reserved. For more information, go to www.nsta.org/permissions.
29
 Chapter 4

Problem-Based Learning (PBL)

Problem-based learning (PBL) is one type of case study method, but it has received
more serious assessment than perhaps any other educational technique. It has been
identified as one of the most promising instructional methods for promoting criti-
cal-thinking skills (Pithers and Soden 2000; Tsui 1999). According to Gijbels et al.
(2005), there are six core characteristics of PBL:

1. Learning is student centered.

2. Learning occurs in small student groups.
3. A tutor is present as a facilitator or guide.
4. Authentic problems are presented at the beginning of the learning sequence,
before any preparation or study has occurred.
5. The problems encountered are used as tools to achieve the required knowledge
and the problem-solving skills necessary to eventually solve the problem.
6. New information is acquired through self-directed learning.

These characteristics are aligned with important aspects of critical-thinking

research. The general goal of PBL is for students to develop successful problem
solving in both the acquisition and application of knowledge (Gijbels et al. 2005).
Students work in cooperative groups to solve deliberately ill-defined or open-ended
real-world problems that engage their curiosity and drive their learning (Mierson
1998). They learn to identify the problems of a specific discipline, analyze them, and
contribute to solutions (Gijbels et al. 2005). Students learn to ask critical questions
and identify what they need to know to answer their questions, as well as where to
find the answers. These features of problem-based learning emphasize the kinds of
critical-thinking skills that are essential in science education.
Generally, one or more faculty members facilitate the problem-solving process,
acting as coaches and role models for the students. According to Sheella Mierson
(1998, p. S16 ), “The problems lead the students to learn basic concepts rather than
being presented as applications of concepts they have already learned.” Problem-
based learning enables students to learn a body of essential knowledge, use knowledge
effectively in the context of problem situations both in and out of school, and extend
or improve that knowledge to develop strategies for dealing with future problems
(Delisle 1997). As students experience problem-based learning, they progress to the
level of an expert in a discipline, characterized by the coherent and flexible use of
knowledge to describe and solve novel problems (Gijbels et al. 2005).
Developing critical-thinking skills in science classrooms requires the active
engagement of students in problem-solving activities as well as a reorganization

30 national science teachers association

Copyright © 2012 NSTA. All rights reserved. For more information, go to www.nsta.org/permissions.
 The “Case” for Critical Thinking

toward more student-centered activities in which conceptual understanding

rather than memorization is taught (Narode et al. 1987). The lectures, textbooks,
and perfunctory laboratory activities that are typical of science education often
leave students with incomplete or incorrect knowledge of scientific principles,
underdeveloped intellectual skills, and little awareness of the influence of science
on their lives. Students are often successful when solving formal textbook problems,
but incorrectly interpret the same scientific principles when asked to solve problems
posed in real-world contexts (AAAS 1989). Problem-based learning is seen as a
promising solution to some of the lack of critical-thinking and problem-solving
ability in education today (Barrows 1996).

A Bit of Theory: The Constructivist Model and the Case Method

Problem-based learning derives from the theory that learning is a process in which
the learner actively constructs knowledge, with instruction playing a role only to the
extent that it enables and fosters constructive activities (Gijselaers 1996). Successful
learning requires a continuous reworking of ideas through an individual’s experi-
ences. It is crucial that learners observe experiences from multiple perspectives,
reflect on those experiences, and then use new knowledge to make decisions and
solve problems (DeMarco, Hayward, and Lynch 2002). Most researchers agree that
problem-based learning achieves a positive effect because the experience of working
through a problem activates a mental model that facilitates performance. Capon and
Kuhn (2004) believe that this activated model has the potential to allow for superior
acquisition of new material (due to connections to previous knowledge structures),
superior recall of new material (because of increased retrieval pathways), and supe-
rior integration of new material with existing knowledge (leading to restructuring
and enhanced conceptual coherence). Their research supports the last possibility as
the most likely, describing the benefit of problem-based learning as its power to pro-
mote sense making.
The general shift within the education community toward constructivist learning
perspectives has led to the development of several theories regarding student thinking
and learning, including that of situated cognition (Herrington and Oliver 1999),
which supports many of the ideas related to the benefits of the case study method
for promoting critical thinking. Situated cognition exists in various forms and is also
referred to as cognitive apprenticeship, situated learning, and legitimate peripheral
participation. All forms share the idea that learning and doing are inseparable and
that learning is a social process (Hendricks 2001).
The theoretical framework of situated cognition relies greatly on the work
of L. S. Vygotsky (1978), who proposed that learning results from complex social
interactions, with individuals most often interacting and cooperating within the
context of some shared task. Certainly the group problem-solving aspect of the case
method of teaching fits this description. More recent research in the area of situated

Science Stories: Using Case Studies to Teach Critical Thinking

Copyright © 2012 NSTA. All rights reserved. For more information, go to www.nsta.org/permissions.
31
 Chapter 4

learning has emphasized the role of the learner as a “cognitive apprentice” who
gains knowledge through imitation and practice in cooperative, authentic activities,
entering at the periphery of the community and gradually becoming more active and
engaged (Brown, Collins, and Duguid 1989; Lave and Wenger 1991). In this manner,
learners are able to gain motivational support, participate in shared thinking and
expertise, and engage in conflicts stimulating further debate. An additional benefit
is that students are exposed to different models of thinking and learning strategies
(Gieselman, Stark, and Farruggia 2000).
From this brief sortie into the literature, it seems abundantly clear that no matter
how we look at the case method of teaching, whether it is through the practical lens
of a classroom teacher or with the eye of an educational theorist, the case method
is a formidable weapon against apathy and sloth in the classroom. Moreover, with
regard to the major thrust of this book, problem-based learning and other case
study methods encourage the development of independent critical thinkers more
effectively than other methods of instruction (Arambula-Greenfield 1996; Grunwald
and Hartman 2010; Quitadamo et al. 2011). This book provides an instructional
resource that should encourage the development of critical-thinking skills in our
science students.

References
Adler, M. J. 1987. “Critical thinking” programs: Why they won’t work. The Education Digest 52
(7): 9–11.
Ahern-Rindell, A. J. 1998/1999. Applying inquiry-based and cooperative group learning strategies
to promote critical thinking. Journal of College Science Teaching 28 (3): 203–207.
American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS). 1989. Science for all Americans: A
project 2061 report on literacy goals in science, mathematics, and technology. Washington, DC:
AAAS.
Arambula-Greenfield, T. 1996. Implementing problem-based learning in a college science class.
Journal of College Science Teaching 26 (1): 26–30.
Barrows, H. S. 1996. Problem-based learning in medicine and beyond: A brief overview. In
Bringing problem-based learning to higher education: Theory and practice, ed. L. Wilkerson
and W. H. Gijselaers, pp. 3–12. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Bloom, B. S. 1956. Taxonomy of educational objectives, handbook 1: Cognitive domain. New York:
Addison Wesley.
Brown, J. S., A. Collins, and P. Duguid. 1989. Situated cognition and the culture of learning.
Educational Researcher 18 (1): 32–42.
Browne, M. N., and K. Freeman. 2000. Distinguishing features of critical thinking classrooms.
Teaching in Higher Education 5 (3): 301–309.
Burbach, M. E., G. S. Matkin, and S. M. Fritz. 2004. Teaching critical thinking in an introductory
leadership course utilizing active learning strategies: A confirmatory study. College Student
Journal 38 (3): 482–493.
Capon, N., and D. Kuhn. 2004. What’s so good about problem-based learning? Cognition and
Instruction 22 (1): 61–79.
Delisle, R. 1997. How to use problem-based learning in the classroom. Alexandria, VA: Association
for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

32 national science teachers association

Copyright © 2012 NSTA. All rights reserved. For more information, go to www.nsta.org/permissions.