Thesis (Ph. D.)--University of North Texas, Dec., 2007. / Title from title page display. Includes bibliographical references.

Research paper (M.A.) -- Cardinal Stritch College -- Milwaukee, 1971. / A research paper submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts in Education (Reading Specialist). Includes bibliographical references (p. 33-36).

Thesis (M.I.T.)--The Evergreen State College, 2007. / Title from title screen viewed (6/24/2008). Includes bibliographical references (leaves 150-155).

Thesis (Ph.D.)--Murdoch University, 2008. / Thesis submitted to the Faculty of Arts and Education. Includes bibliographical references (leaves 275-306)

Thesis (Ph. D.)--University of Alabama at Birmingham, 2007. / Additional advisors: Lois M. Christensen, Lynn D. Kirkland, Maryann Manning, Deborah Strevy. Description based on contents viewed Feb. 8, 2008; title from title screen. Includes bibliographical references (p. 108-114).

Thesis (M.I.T.)--The Evergreen State College, 2007. / Title from title screen viewed (6/25/2008). Includes bibliographical references (leaves 148-154).

This one-semester pretest-posttest case study of 3rd and 5th year female preservice teachers at the University of Victoria in British Columbia (N = 8) involved teaching for critical thinking and an evaluative view of knowledge in elementary social studies. Philosophical and psychological perspectives of critical thinking provided an evaluative view of knowledge, intellectual resources, and cognitive tasks for responses to critical challenges about belief and action (Bailin, Case, Coombs, & Daniels, 1993; Facione, 1991; Siegel, 1992). This integrated conception of critical thinking guided instruction, instrument selection, and interpretation of qualitative evidence. Instruction utilized an interactive constructive approach that involved social and pedagogical challenges appropriate to adults students but related to the elementary social studies curriculum. Multiple measures of critical thinking dispositions, view of knowledge, and argument proficiency revealed moderate dispositional strength toward critical thinking, mixed views of knowledge, mixed argument proficiency, and small positive gains over the duration of instruction. Pretest-posttest measures included Facione and Facione's (1992) California Critical Thinking Disposition Inventory (CCTDI), Kuhn's (1991) interview protocol for view of knowledge and argument proficiency, and a written argument paralleled the posttest interview evidence. Most changes aligned with the nature of instruction and instrumentation. CCTDI entry-level results were aligned with results reported for samples from other college and university studies whereas exit-level results displayed more positive change than reported in other studies. Posttest views of knowledge were mixed (evaluativists = 4, multiplists = 1, absolutists = 3), largely consistent with the pretest, and exhibited more evaluativism than reported in other studies. Proficiency in argument was somewhat less than found in other studies, but increased slightly, particularly the generation of alternative theories over the duration of the study. Compared with interviews, written arguments revealed stronger rebuttals and somewhat weaker use of evidence. Inconsistencies across qualitative results and formal results aligned with the nature of the instruction, assessment tasks, evaluation criteria, and some problematic aspects of instrumentation. Participants stated that interactive constructivism; justification of ideas against explicit criteria, an early emphasis on developing a rationale for teaching to an evaluative view of knowledge; the use of examples, non-examples, and borderline examples to generate criteria for key ideas; and instructor-student interaction to monitor and adjust instruction to maximize clarity were positive features of instruction. An excessive concept load and inadequate compatible prior learning experiences were identified as impediments to clarity. / Graduate

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.

Thesis (M.A.)--Ohio University, June, 2009. / Title from PDF t.p. Includes bibliographical references.

Proposes a new model for teaching inquiry and critical thinking in the middle school science classroom. This model will assist students in learning the evidence for evolution for themselves, as well as assisting them in developing skills in critical thinking and inquiry. The objective of this model is to create a more scientifically literate student body who can go on to pursue an even greater understanding of the nature of science.