Interest in developing critical thinking skills in nursing students has grown in proportion to the demand for thoughtful, capable nursing professionals in healthcare. The National League for Nursing has required schools of nursing to combine teaching styles and course content to develop critical thinking, decision making, and independent judgement. Limited research has been done regarding the relationship of critical thinking ability to clinical decision-making. The purpose of this study was to determine the relationship between these two variables, using a sample of senior baccalaureate students in four schools of nursing.Two research questions were addressed: What is the relationship between critical thinking and clinical decision-making of senior baccalaureate nursing students? and, what is the relationship between selected demographic variables and critical thinking and clinical decision-making in senior baccalaureate nursing students?McPeck's (1981, 1990) critical thinking theory, which guided the study, emphasizes consideration of multiple factors in reaching a decision, toleration of differing conclusions, and the importance of teaching and evaluating critical thinking within the context of a discipline. Critical thinking was measured by the California Critical Thinking Skills Test (CCTST, Facione, 1993), a standardized, 34-item, multiple choice test which targets critical thinking skills. Test items are designed to be discipline-neutral and jargon-free, and have a Kuder-Richardson internal reliability coefficient of .70. Judgement in making clinical decisions was measured by the Nursing Performance Simulation Instrument (NPSI, Gover, 1970), which is composed of four simulations that depict typical nursing situations and test problem-solving proficiency. Six-month test-retest reliability of the NPSI was found to be r=.63. Demographic information on age, gender, GPA, number of completed college credit hours, healthcare work experience, healthcare licensure was collected from subjects.The sample included senior baccalaureate nursing students from four universities (N=88). Nursing faculty at each site was contacted before testing for approval to administer the exam to students. Informed consent was obtained from each subject, and students were able to withdraw from the study at any time. Verbal instructions were given to subjects, and confidentiality was insured by the use of a number identifier on each test. The instruments were administered by, and remained in, the possession of the researcher. Results obtained were reported to test sites as group data only. No risks or benefits were identified in participation in the study.Data analysis was done by a combination of methods, using Pearson product-moment analysis, t-test procedures, and canonical correlation. Results indicated that no relationship existed between critical thinking and clinical decision-making, as measured by the CCTST and the NPSI. The only statistically significant relationship was a weak positive correlation between age and performance on the NPSI. Canonical correlation analysis indicated the older subjects, with a lower GPA and, to a lesser extent, fewer credit hours tended to score higher on the NPSI and lower on the CCTST.The study was significant, in that the results will broaden the knowledge of the relationship between critical thinking and clinical decision-making in nursing. / School of Nursing

This investigation identifies end-user cognitive heuristics that facilitate judgment and evaluation during information retrieval (IR) system interactions. The study extends previous research surrounding relevance as a key construct for representing the value end-users ascribe to items retrieved from IR systems and the perceived effectiveness of such systems. The Lens Model of user cognition serves as the foundation for design and interpretation of the study; earlier research in problem solving, decision making, and attitude formation also contribute to the model and analysis. A self reporting instrument collected evaluative responses from 32 end-users related to 1432 retrieved items in relation to five characteristics of each item: topical, pertinence, utility, systematic, and motivational levels of relevance. The nominal nature of the data collected led to non-parametric statistical analyses that indicated that end-user evaluation of retrieved items to resolve an information problem at hand is most likely a multi-stage process. That process appears to be a cognitive progression from topic to meaning (pertinence) to functionality (use). Each step in end-user evaluative processing engages a cognitive hierarchy of heuristics that includes consideration (of appropriate cues), differentiation (the positive or negative aspects of those cues considered), and aggregation (the combination of differentiated cue aspects needed to render an evaluative label of the item in relation to the information problem at hand). While individuals may differ in their judgments and evaluations of retrieved items, they appear to make those decisions by using consistent heuristic approaches.

Sammanfattning ”Nu får du tänka själv! En vetenskaplig essä om det kritiska tänkandet på förskolan.”   Denna uppsats handlar om kritiskt tänkande på förskolan och tar sin utgångspunkt i två dilemman. Det första beskriver ett reflektionsmöte där jag och mina kollegor diskuterar ett utåtagerande, men kritiskt tänkande, barn. Det andra skildrar ett boksamtal där jag inte lyckas väcka några kritiska tankar hos två av barnen i gruppen. Mitt syfte med uppsatsen är att utifrån dessa dilemman undersöka mina egna föreställningar om kritiskt tänkande. Jag frågar mig vad jag menar med begreppet och belyser hur det påverkar mig som pedagog. Övriga frågeställningar handlar om vad utbildning syftar till och jag tittar närmare på läroplanens formuleringar. Jag diskuterar om kritiskt tänkande går att lära sig och undersöker även begreppet frihet och språkets betydelse.      Uppsatsens metod är essäskrivandet där jag utifrån mina berättelser reflekterar och fördjupar reflektionerna genom att koppla dem till litteratur inom pedagogik och filosofi och till förskolans läroplan. Min uppsats tar en historisk utgångspunkt i Immanuel Kants verk om pedagogik och upplysning. För att diskutera utbildning använder jag Gert Biestas pedagogiska teorier och framför allt hans uppdelning av utbildning i kvalifikation, socialisation och subjektifiering.      Min essä bekräftar reflektionens betydelse och förespråkar en aktiv diskussion kring begrepp och deras innebörder. / Abstract “Think for yourself! An essay on Critical Thinking in Preschool”   This essay focuses on critical thinking in a preschool context and begins with two self-experienced stories. The first one describes a reflection meeting between me and my colleagues where we discuss an unruly, but critical thinking, child. The other one portrays a book conversation where I fail to evoke critical thoughts in two of the children. Based on these two stories, my purpose is to investigate my own conceptions of critical thinking. I ask myself what I comprise in these conceptions and I illustrate how it affects me in my work as a preschool teacher. Furthermore, I examine the purpose of education and take a closer look at the preschool curriculum to see what sort of critical thinking it includes. I debate whether it is possible to teach critical thinking and also discuss the notion of freedom and the significance of language.      The method of this work is essay writing which means that I – through my stories – reflect and deepen those reflections by relating them to theoretical literature in pedagogy and philosophy as well as the curriculum.      My main literature has a historical perspective in the works of Immanuel Kant concerning education and enlightenment. I also use a theoretical framework from Gert Biesta, and especially his notions of the three functions of education: qualification, socialization and subjectification.       My essay confirms the importance of reflection and advocates an active discussion concerning various conceptions and their significance.

The importance of developing learners’ self-regulated learning and critical thinking has captured the attention of researchers in recent decades. But interventions that are effective in developing such skills are scarce in the English school context. This study reports on the creation, design, implementation, piloting and evaluation of such an intervention - a four-week internet-based extra-curricular critical thinking course, Is this the right room for an argument? Designed by the researcher as a University of Oxford outreach course, it was provided, for the purposes of this study, to a group (N = 617) of eleven and twelve year old state-school students in England. Based upon self-regulated learning (SRL) and critical thinking (CT) research literature, the intervention comprised four elements which have been linked to progress in both SRL and CT: dialogic argumentation, written counterargumentation, self-reflection in a learning journal and critical thinking tests. The effectiveness of the intervention was evaluated by constructing three experimental conditions and one control condition, which isolated the effects of different combinations of the intervention activities. Structural equation modelling, regression techniques and repeated measures analysis of variance were used to detect main and experimental effects on change in SRL and CT over time, whilst autoregressive cross-lagged path analysis models were specified to explore the process of SRL in action over the course of four learning events. There was an anticipated overall main effect of the intervention, on change in aspects of SRL, with small and medium effect sizes, and on CT, with a medium effect size. It was hypothesised that the use of the learning journal would promote change in SRL and that participation in argumentation would promote progress in CT. Both hypotheses were supported. Participants who self-monitored their learning experience in a learning journal reported significantly more gains in aspects of their SRL, compared with those who did not, with small and medium effect sizes. The extent of participation in dialogic argumentation predicted change over time in CT, with a small effect size, in metacognitive knowledge, with a large effect size and in motivational beliefs and efficacy for learning, with medium effect sizes. Repeated measures analyses detected significant and positive trends over time in metacognitive activity (elaboration strategies, volitional strategies, critical thinking and metacognitive experiences), with effect sizes ranging from small (volitional strategies) to large (elaboration strategies). A process analysis tracked metacognitive activity over four learning events, detecting statistically significant reciprocal relationships between observed critical thinking and self-reported elaboration strategies, and between volitional strategies and metacognitive experiences. Findings suggest that this intervention had a positive effect on change in both self-regulated learning and critical thinking. Specifically, the more participants engaged in dialogic argumentation the more the change in both outcomes. The effects of the intervention, on change in self-regulated learning, were significantly enhanced when the critical thinking activity (argumentation) was accompanied by the self-regulatory activity (the learning journal).

The purpose of this study was to develop an instrument to determine the study skills of college freshmen.

A research report submitted to the Faculty of Humanities, University of the Witwatersrand, in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Masters of Education. Johannesburg, 2016 / Argumentation is viewed as an important pedagogical tool that is central to the teaching and learning of science. Research has shown argumentation as one of the pedagogical practices that promote meaningful learner talk and engagement. In South Africa, most such research has been carried out in high schools and universities on tutored ability in argumentation. There is no research on untutored learner ability in argumentation in primary school science. This study sought to address this gap by determining untutored learner argumentation in science in a Gauteng primary school. I wanted to establish whether and how untutored learners argue and the nature of their arguments. I also wanted to examine the evidence that they give to support assertions. I observed learner interactions in my two Grade 7 science classes through small group discussions and whole class discussions. All the participants were from a public primary school in Gauteng. These learners were untutored (had not been taught) in argumentation, but as their teacher, I had been exposed to argumentation through participation in a masters course. I used qualitative research methodology and drew from Toulmin’s Argument Pattern (TAP) to determine the construction of arguments during the science lessons. I used an analytic frame work by Erduran, Simon and Osborne (2004) which helps to categorize the various components of an argument into different levels. My findings indicated that learners who are untutored in argumentation are able to formulate arguments. Literature has reported that untutored learners in high schools in South Africa present only level 2 arguments. In this study, Grade 7 learners who are untutored in argumentation were able to formulate level 3 arguments in some instances. The study further revealed that some of the learners were able to support their arguments using scientific evidence although most tended to be simple constructs consisting of only data and claims. The fact that they were taught by a teacher, who is tutored in argumentation, may have literature bearing on the learners’ argument ability. Current work in South Africa has shown how untutored teachers do not argue: how untutored learners do not argue: how tutored teachers learn to argue and how tutored learners can learn to argue. What we do not know is how untutored learners argue if they have a tutored teacher. Further research might inform teacher education and classroom argumentation in constrained environments where learners are generally untutored as is the case in many South African classrooms.

A research report submitted to the faculty of Science, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Masters of Science by combination of coursework and research report. Johannesburg, 2016. / The merits of argumentation for science teaching and learning have been established not just for South Africa, but globally. However, little is known about what both students and teachers understand by argumentation for science learning and teaching. This study aimed to investigate what seventy nine students and two teachers understood about argumentation and to examine the nature of students written scientific arguments. A sample of 79 students from two high schools in the north of Johannesburg, South Africa, was selected to complete a questionnaire that included a single Multiple Choice Question task. Students’ respective teachers were interviewed for their understanding on argumentation. The interviews were inductively analysed to extract themes related on teachers’ perspectives on argumentation. The MCQ task item was analysed using Toulmins Argumentation Pattern as adapted by Erduran et al, to show levels of argumentation. The rest of the questions on the questionnaire were analysed according to my research questions to get students’ understanding on argumentation. Three main findings were found from the study. Firstly, students understand what a good scientific argument constitutes of. They mentioned debates and discussions as an opportunity to engage in an argument. Secondly, teachers demonstrated an understanding that argumentation requires facts and evidence to support claims. Meanwhile, findings also show that teachers value science arguments as they demand students to use evidence, rather than opinions to support their claims. Thirdly, most students struggled to construct levels at a higher level. This meant that most students wrote arguments that consisted of a claim, data/ evidence or a weak warrant. Hence, arguments were at levels 1, 2 and seldom at level 3. Students written scientific arguments revealed that only 24 out of 79 students were able select the correct scientific answer. The remaining fifty students selected the wrong answer and their arguments were based on the incorrect scientific justification that, when a solid substance is in a gaseous phase in a closed system it would have lesser mass, simply because gas weighs less than a solid. This was a common misconception that most students had. These outcomes imply that there is a need to train teachers how to help students write valid scientific arguments, the inclusion of more debates and consideration to ideas as to how students can construct written argument. Lastly, those argumentation practices should assist teachers on how to minimise students’ misconception on the law of the conservation of mass. As such, argumentation can serve as an instruction for learner-centred approach to teaching and learning of science. Keywords: argumentation, written argument, nature of an argument / LG2017

"Might makes right," so the saying goes. What does this mean? What does it mean to say that humans live by this saying? How can this saying that is considered by almost all as an expression of injustice play a justificatory role practically universally and ubiquitously? How can it be repulsive and yet, nonetheless, attractive as an explanation of the ways of the world? Why its long history? I offer a non-cynical explanation, one based on a re-interpretation of the saying and of both recognized and unrecognized related phenomena. This re-interpretation relies on the notion of a tacit justification for violence. This non-cynical, re-interpretive explanation exposes the ambiguity of the saying and the consequential unwitting, self-deceptive, fallacious equivocations that the ambiguity makes possible under common conditions. While this explanation, furthermore, focuses on thinking factors--specifically on fallacious thinking, on humans' unwittingly and self-deceptively committing the fallacy of equivocation--it does not deny the possible role of non-thinking factors; it only tries to show that the thinking factors are significantly explanatory. What is the ambiguity? "Might makes right" expresses two principles. The first principle is the common meaning, namely, that the dominance of the mightier over the weaker is right. This principle is generally considered to be not a definition of justice but an expression of injustice. The second principle, which is almost universally shared in a tacit and unreflective way, is a principle of life, namely, that it is right for any living being to actualize its potential. This second principle is originary and thus primary, while the first principle is derivative and thus secondary. The use of all powers, natural or social, can be ultimately derived legitimately or illegitimately from this primary principle. A common manifestation of "might makes right" is the unwitting abuse of power, an abuse that is not recognized as such by the so-called abuser, but that is rather suffered by this latter, who misapplies the second principle in situations that fall under the first principle, thereby unwittingly living by the saying, tacitly justifying abusive ways by it. This unwittingness calls for critical control and forgiveness.

The purpose of this quantitative research study was to compare Chinese and American students’ inclined level of critical thinking using the California Critical Thinking Disposition Inventory (CCTDI) (Insight Assessment, 2013). The literature of Paul and Elder (1996, 2000, 2005, 2010), Facione and Facione (1992, 1996) and Brookfield (2005, 2010, 2013) and the conceptual framework in this study provided the foundation for the main research question of whether there are differences between Chinese and American students’ scores on the seven individual scales and their total score on the CCTDI. The Sample included 41 Chinese and 50 American undergraduate and graduate students at Florida Atlantic University, a regional research university located in southeast Florida. Independent t-tests concluded that there were no differences between the 41 Chinese students and the 50 American students regarding their critical thinking dispositions on each of seven scales on the CCTDI. A factorial analysis of variance measured moderator questions to determine whether there was a difference between Chinese and American students’ CCTDI scores based on student gender, discipline of study, undergraduate or graduate status, or enrollment as an undergraduate within the United States. There were significant differences between the critical thinking dispositions of Chinese and American undergraduate and graduate students when comparing the scale of open mindedness and gender. There were also significant differences for the scale of confidence in reasoning and discipline. For the remaining questions, there were no significant differences. A Pearson’s correlation determined that there was no relationship between the length of time students had been in the United States and their scores on the CCTDI. Educational implications include that when problem-solving skills are developed in the college setting, critical thinking can be cultivated to help prepare students for work in future employment settings. Social implications include the use of critical thinking when faced with decision making in adults’ lives, as well as in their daily work. This study may be the foundation for future studies. Finally, educators may find the CCTDI helpful in positioning students’ critical thinking dispositions prior to learning or training activities. / Includes bibliography. / Dissertation (Ph.D.)--Florida Atlantic University, 2014. / FAU Electronic Theses and Dissertations Collection

Argumentive writing is not an easy skill to master. Students from middle school through college demonstrate weaknesses. In particular they fail to take a dialogic perspective, emphasizing their own position without considering addressing alternatives. Research has shown that engaging in dialog with peers is effective in enhancing students’ argumentive thinking and writing. The present study examines whether college students (n=30) show similar benefits when asked to engage individually in a dialogic argumentive writing task. They were asked to construct a dialog between two people holding opposing positions on an issue. Students in a comparison group (n=30) were asked to write an essay on the same issue. Subsequently students in both groups were asked to write a brief TV script conveying their view. Differences in students’ argumentive skills produced in the dialogs and essays were examined. Results showed that the dialog group more frequently included opponent-directed statements (sum of Critical single evaluation, Compare, Integrate other, and Integrate own/other) and integrative statements (sum of Integrate own, Integrate other, and Integrate own/other) in their writing, compared to the essay group. Differences in students’ writing of their TV scripts were also examined. On this assessment, the effect of the dialog largely disappeared, with students in both the essay and dialog groups focusing largely on their own position. Students’ level of epistemological understanding was also examined – that is, whether they regarded knowledge claims as largely facts (absolutist level), opinions (multiplist level), or judgments subject to scrutiny in a framework of alternatives and evidence (evaluativist level). Level of epistemological understanding was assessed immediately after the writing task to determine if constructing a dialog influenced students to take on a more evaluativist perspective in which the need for comparison of multiple perspectives is recognized. Students who had constructed a dialog were more often assessed to be at the multiplist or evaluativist levels of epistemological understanding (and never at the absolutist level), compared to students who had written an essay rather than constructed a dialog. Although the benefit of the dialogic writing task largely did not generalize to the more self-focused TV script writing task, these findings indicate that promoting a dialogic perspective, even without engaging in dialog with an actual person, can be beneficial in supporting argumentive thinking and writing and mature epistemological understanding.