Panel 1: Measuring Critical Thinking
Speaker: Dr. Vinay KUMAR / NTU Centre for Teaching, Learning & Pedagogy
Title: What counts as critical thinking?
Pretty much everyone agrees that critical thinking (CT) is a worthwhile goal of education. However, there’s less agreement about what critical thinking means. Books, papers and conferences on CT often begin with discussions of ‘What is critical thinking?’ and several answers have been offered, sometimes with implicit or explicit disagreement (e.g., Davies & Barnett, 2015; Haber, 2020; Hitchcock, 2018). Which are correct? Which is the real, actual critical thinking? How do we tell? What should count (and not count) as critical thinking? How would we adjudicate between better and worse candidates?
Drawing on recent work in the philosophy of the social sciences (Abend, 2023), in this presentation I
(1) First attempt to clarify the nature of the problem of defining CT
(2) Propose an organization of the research literature on CT based on how CT is conceptualized in particular studies. This could help us develop a better sense of (a) the repertoire of available concepts of CT that exist in the literature; and (b) what research findings mean not for CT in general but for specific concepts of CT in particular.
(3) Suggest that the question of what counts as CT–hat types of CT matter and what should be prioritized for research and pedagogy—is a value-laden one, with ethical or moral, social, political, and ecological implications. Thus, the question should be deliberated collectively, arguably by including stakeholders who may be impacted by what counts and doesn’t count as CT. Such as students, for example.
Speaker: Dr. Santhakumari THANASINGAM / Critical Education 21 Consulting Pte Ltd
Title: The Fundamentals of critical thinking – can we agree? (virtual presentation)
The ability to think critically is an important 21st century skill. Both content and writing educators often however find it challenging to cultivate it in their students (Bitchener & Banda, 2007; Holbrooke, Bourke, Fairbairn & Lovat, 2007, Lilis & Turner, 2001). This presentation will cover material from a PhD thesis (Thanasingam, 2019) and will discuss some of the reasons for the challenge.
The first part of the presentation will cover two main reasons why educators can be finding it a challenge to facilitate the cultivation of critical thinking in students. It will cover the ambiguous nature of the term critical thinking based on an extensive survey of the literature. For instance, how do the terms “critique”, “critical evaluation”, “academic criticism”, “critical consciousness” relate to one another. The various terms and definitions attributed to critical thinking will definitely impact what we are trying to cultivate in students and how. The second reason for the challenge has to do with disagreements about whether it can be taught, and if so, how. For instance, is critical thinking cultivated through immersion in the right contexts or is there a place for deliberate instruction?
In the second part of the presentation, I will provide a framework for conceptualizing critical thinking and discuss a justification for how the conceptual framework can be applied to create learning environments that can promote the development of critical thinking among students. This framework was applied in three Masters level business courses in the University of Auckland with good outcomes.
Panel 2: Reading, Writing and Critical Thinking
Speakers: Mr. John DELLA PIETRA, Dr. Ellie LAW, Dr. Joshua CHAN / Language Centre, Hong Kong Baptist University
Title: Bridging Concept and Application: Rethinking Genres for Critical Engagement in English for Academic Purposes
As transdisciplinary knowledge and generative AI reshape academia, new assessment designs are needed to ensure English for Academic Purposes (EAP) programs continue to effectively support student learning. One means by which that goal is being pursued is through a renewed emphasis on developing practical critical thinking (CT) skills. To this end, this paper outlines an 8-move framework for a literature review genre that supports critical thinking by blending guidelines with flexibility for independent decisions, affording space for students to exercise subjective and evaluative thinking. The first five moves focus on analyzing core concepts and foundational theories related to the student’s chosen topic, while the latter three require students to apply these to their own academic fields, connecting to current and future research trends. Exemplars with a shared structure but varied details encourage students to evaluate and adjust their own approach, developing critical judgment and evaluation skills. Antifragile in design, the genre adapts to diverse student responses, allowing for the application of critical thinking skills both within their specific disciplines and across different academic contexts. As a compass, it aids educators in aligning assessments with critical thinking goals and guides students through fundamental principles of academic discourse. The paper examines assessment methods that value understanding and independent thought, contributing to discussions on critical thinking in higher education.
Speakers: Dr. Sujata Surinder KATHPALIA, Mr. Roger WINDER / LCC, Nanyang Technological University
Title: Critical Thinking in Research Communication
Developing tertiary students’ higher order learning is an essential aspect of higher education and this particularly applies to teaching and learning in research communication courses offered to undergraduate and graduate students, where the focus is on applying critical thinking skills in specific academic disciplines. Although many studies have been conducted on promoting critical thinking in the context of academic writing, there are very few studies that examine the role of context (audience and purpose), different modalities (reading, writing and speaking), and educational technology in holistically preparing students for their academic success at university. Relying primarily on Bloom’s revised taxonomy of educational objectives (Anderson & Krathwohl, 2001), the objective of this paper is to evaluate the efficacy of classroom activities and assignments currently employed in our undergraduate and graduate research communication classes for engineering and science students at Nanyang Technological University (NTU) in developing critical thinking skills incrementally. As various studies have highlighted the struggles of students in acquiring and applying such skills, we examine whether sufficient scaffolding and support is offered contextually using different modalities and available technological tools to guide students in their learning journey to mastering more complex and sophisticated thinking skills necessary for academic success. It is hoped that recommendations based on this assessment will inspire discussion of how the acquisition of critical thinking skills in the classroom can be enhanced further to benefit students through their tertiary education and beyond.
Anderson, L. W., & Krathwohl, D. R. (2001). A taxonomy of learning, teaching, and assessing: A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives. New York: Longman.
Speaker: Ms. LE Phuong Anh / University of Macau
Title: Promoting Critical Thinking for Undergraduate Students through Activities with Conceptual Thinking and CER Framework in EAP Classes
Critical thinking forms the foundation of undergraduate education and is vital for success in both academic and professional environments. In language education, it is essential to develop students’ critical thinking skills, as this preparation can greatly enhance their future career success. The American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages (ACTFL) also advocates for incorporating 21st-century skills, such as critical thinking, into language courses because this approach aids students in navigating complex situations and boosts their professional growth. This study discusses the strategies of promoting critical thinking among undergraduate students through activities that integrate conceptual thinking and the Claim, Evidence, Reasoning (CER) framework in English for Academic Purposes (EAP) classes. In this study, conceptual thinking and the CER framework were introduced to 60 freshmen in three EAP classes. Data was gathered through classroom interactions, analysis of writing assignments, and informal discussions. By engaging students in those activities involving conceptual thinking and CER framework, the study aims to enhance students’ analytical and argumentative skills with a clear structure helping them organize their thoughts and arguments logically. The results indicate improvements in students’ ability to approaching issues from multiple perspectives and construct well-supported arguments. These findings suggest that combining conceptual thinking with the CER framework can be an effective approach to encourage critical thinking in EAP classroom settings.
Panel 3: Facilitating domain or task transference of CT
Speaker: Professor Hong-Chi Shiau / Shih-Hsin University
Title: Media Literacy and Critical Thinking: A Pegodagical Reflection on Social Media Role-play Assignment (virtual presentation)
Through the media literacy course in a college specializing media production, understanding of media bias is imperative for students before working in a wide range of media industries. In this pegodagical case study, students enrolled in media literacy class should be equipped with a strong foundation in critical thinking skills, including the ability to analyze information, evaluate arguments, and make informed judgments. In order to present a real-life media situation, students are provided with recent media issues for a role-play assignment where they assume different stakeholders including reporters, editors, advertisers, or consumer. This assignment engages them to evaluate the event through different lens and develop empathy while analyzing media messages. There are three scenarios assigned in these assignments – celebrity scandal, political campaign and greenwashing. Prior to the role playing, the educator first requires students to identify key stakeholders for an event and identify and analyze different perspectives on an issue. Group discussions afford students opportunities to share their opinions and insights on help them develop communication and collaboration skills while refining their critical thinking abilities. Subsequently, critical theories in line with media literacy are unfolded through the selection of sources, the use of language, and the framing of issues. In the end, the presenter evaluate advantages and challenges revolving around the assignment.
Speakers: Dr. Jennifer R. CASH, Dr. Pritpal SINGH / ICC & History, NTU
Title: What does “Design Thinking as Critical Thinking” mean? Reflections from an Interdisciplinary Collaborative Core module
In teaching NTU’s Interdisciplinary Collaborative Core module, “Science and Technology for Humanity”, we tell students that their weekly tasks to design innovative devices, programs, and other interventions to address the challenges of rapidly ageing societies, digitalized economic transformation, and the expansion of AI are examples of “design thinking as critical thinking”. We adopted this approach within the first semester of rolling out the course (in AY 2022-23) as a response to students’ demands for more engagement with the meaning of their coursework in a class that was heavily activity-based, and for more critical perspectives on activities that modelled business and product development scenarios. But how well have we built the bridges between design thinking and critical thinking? We use this paper as an opportunity to explore and discuss strengths of our existing course activities, how we can improve them, and – just as importantly – how we can communicate principles of both design and critical thinking to students across the university, as well as to our diverse body of instructors. We try to develop some visual models, based on our actual teaching materials, to communicate our concepts to new instructors, students, and other practitioners interested in similar approaches in courses that are general education, interdisciplinary, and activity-based.