Prescriptions Definitions
Conscious mentalism–Unconscious mentalism The study of mind should focus on conscious mental processes or structures versus a focus on unconscious mental processes or structures.
Contentual objectivism–Contentual The proper focus of psychology is behavior
subjectivism versus mental processes or structures.
Determinism–Indeterminism Human behavior or events can be explained entirely in terms of what led to them versus they can only partly be explained by what led up to them.
Empiricism–Rationalism Human knowledge is acquired by experience versus human knowledge is acquired by reasoning guided by innate mental abilities.
9781405174039_4_009.indd 113
9781405174039_4_009.indd 113 6/27/2008 4:37:06 PM6/27/2008 4:37:06 PM
David W. Carroll et al.
114
Prescriptions Definitions
Functionalism–Structuralism The proper focus of psychology is on activities/processes of mind or behavior versus the proper focus of psychology is on structures/contents of mind or behavior.
Inductivism–Deductivism Research should begin in observations versus research should begin with a set of claims assumed to be true.
Mechanism–Vitalism We understand behavior entirely in terms of physical, biological, and chemical structures and processes versus we understand behavior as the outcome of a special life force unique to living things.
Methodological objectivism– The primary data of psychology should Methodological subjectivism be observations every one can make versus
the primary data of psychology should be our own personal, subjective experiences.
Molecularism–Molarism Psychologists should break phenomena into the small units that build our behavior and minds versus psychologists should identify large units that organize our behavior
and minds.
Monism–Dualism Mind and matter are fundamentally the same
thing versus mind and matter are fundamentally different things.
Naturalism–Supernaturalism We can understand nature by discovering the laws that govern it versus we must understand that forces outside of nature (that exist separately from nature) guide it.
Nomotheticism–Idiographicism Psychology should focus on finding a few general laws that explain everything versus psychology should uncover the rules that explain particular events or people.
Peripheralism–Centralism Psychology should focus on external aspects of behavior versus psychology should focus on the internal aspects of behavior.
Purism–Utilitarianism We should seek knowledge for its own sake versus we should seek knowledge we can use for other purposes (e.g., to solve human problems).
Quantitativism–Qualitativism We should strive to define what we know in terms of measures and amounts versus we
9781405174039_4_009.indd 114
9781405174039_4_009.indd 114 6/27/2008 4:37:06 PM6/27/2008 4:37:06 PM
115
should strive to define what we know in terms of kinds or types.
Rationalism–Irrationalism Human behavior should be understood in terms of rational, intelligent mental and behavioral processes versus human behavior should be understood in terms of emotions and their impact on mental and behavioral processes.
Staticism–Developmentalism Psychologists should focus on a particular period in the life of individuals versus psychologists should focus on how people change over time.
Staticism–Dynamicism Psychologists should focus on what is constant in mind and behavior versus psychologists should focus on what changes and what
causes change.
9781405174039_4_009.indd 115
9781405174039_4_009.indd 115 6/27/2008 4:37:06 PM6/27/2008 4:37:06 PM
Critical thinking, also known as scientific thinking, involves a willingness to consider evidence and alternative sources of information before drawing conclusions (Wade &
Tavris, 2005). This form of thinking presents both a challenge and an opportunity for psychology instructors. The challenge arises with the realization that critical thinking is not a natural ability for every student. Halonen and colleagues (2003) referred to this initial developmental level as “untrained” (p. 198). However, the challenge of an untrained thinker becomes an opportunity, given that as faculty we can teach the ability to think critically with explicit, systematic instruction related to the process of gathering and evaluating information (Halonen et al., 2003).
Teaching the introductory psychology course provides a venue in which we can take advantage of that opportunity. In many cases, students in this course are in their first year of college and, as such, we have the opportunity to introduce fundamental thinking skills early in their academic career. Students who are still exploring potential majors may benefit from the accompanying emphasis on the science of psychology. In addition, the inclusion of introductory psychology as a general education requirement at many schools also means that students have the opportunity to delve into critical thinking across disciplines.
This chapter focuses on one possible strategy for explicit, systematic instruction related to critical thinking. It centers on the progressive application of nine critical thinking guidelines to assist students in evaluating information about personally salient issues. We have applied the strategy to integrate in-class lecture or discussion with out-of-class assignments related to both content-based and critical thinking objectives. Our strategy is consistent with the Elaboration Likelihood Model (ELM), which suggests that students are motivated to examine arguments more carefully when issues are important to them (Cook, Moore, & Steel, 2004). Furthermore, Cook et al. believe students are guided by an intrinsic need to be correct, which may result in a level of defensiveness regarding preexisting beliefs when they encounter traditional attempts to persuade. We hope to capitalize on this need for a subjective feeling of correctness without invoking defensiveness
Chapter 10
Critical Thinking on Contemporary Issues
Susan L. O’Donnell, Alisha L. Francis, and Sherrie L. Mahurin
9781405174039_4_010.indd 117
9781405174039_4_010.indd 117 6/27/2008 4:36:59 PM6/27/2008 4:36:59 PM
Teaching Critical Thinking in Psychology: A Handbook of Best Practices Edited by D. S. Dunn, J. S. Halonen, and R. A. Smith
© 2008 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. ISBN: 978-1-405-17402-2
118
by encouraging skills directly related to the central route to persuasion. ELM suggests a link between student motivation, willingness to apply effort, and personal relevance. Our strategy for teaching critical thinking requires students to analyze material that is relevant to their lives in order to maximize motivation and effort. Given their life experiences, it is likely that issues that are personally relevant to college students include the effects of parental divorce and maternal employment, violent video games or pornography, and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD).
Objectives associated with this approach are consistent with the developmental rubric for scientific inquiry articulated by Halonen et al. (2003). More specifically, the following discussion outlines a process that uses personally salient issues to assist students in moving from the “before training” category to the “basic” level on the rubric (p. 198). The issues are drawn from Taking Sides: Clashing Views on Psychological Issues (Slife, 2006), a volume in the extensive “Taking Sides” series published by McGraw-Hill.
Progressive “Stair-Steps” to Development
As a beginning teacher, one of us (SO’D) provided students with various issues from the Slife (2006) book with instructions to read the entries and write a response, confidently expecting high-level, integrative responses. The other author (AF) handed students a lengthy list of critical thinking guidelines with instructions to “apply them in analyzing an issue related to psychology.” In retrospect, both realize the naïveté of these approaches – we were each surprised with the low quality of the students’ responses and devastated at our perceived “failure” to teach them such an important skill.
Literature regarding teaching and critical thinking suggests that a progressive, “ stair- stepped” approach, consistent with Halonen et al.’s (2003) developmental rubric, is more effective at helping students develop thinking skills. Teachers can use the guidelines discussed in the following section in such a manner, allowing students to establish a foundation of fundamental skills and then practice those skills in conjunction with more advanced critical thinking. We begin by introducing students to a basic question that encourages critical thinking, such as “What is fact and what is opinion?” Then we provide instruction on related procedures, such as fact-checking, source identification, or logical analysis. Introducing each of the nine questions and their associated procedures one by one allows students to build skills in critical thinking piece by piece, without being overwhelmed. At the same time, there is a natural accumulation of skills, creating a stair-stepped approach. This progression allows for an additional advantage in that we can integrate the focus of each step into the various content areas commonly included in the introductory psychology course.
Guidelines for Thinking Critically
In formulating a strategy for teaching critical thinking, one author (AF) began by reviewing the critical thinking objectives noted in various teaching tools in psychology (e.g. Using
9781405174039_4_010.indd 118
9781405174039_4_010.indd 118 6/27/2008 4:36:59 PM6/27/2008 4:36:59 PM
119
Critical Thinking on Contemporary Issues
Taking Sides, n.d; Wade & Tavris, 2005). Triangulating information from various sources resulted in a list of “Nine Important Questions to Ask When Thinking Critically.” The nine questions focus on both the source of information and the presentation of information.
More specifically, the questions are:
1 What is fact and what is opinion?
2 Where do the facts come from?
3 What cause/effect relationships are proposed?
4 Are there faulty generalizations?
5 Is the issue oversimplified?
6 Is propaganda being used?
7 Is the information distorted?
8 Is deception being used?
9 Is stereotyping or ethnocentric thinking being employed?
We discuss each question in more detail in the following pages, including associated objec- tives and related content areas as well as examples of the ways in which we can use the Taking Sides book in practicing the related critical thinking skills.
Question #1: What is Fact and What is Opinion?
In this phase of critical thinking development, the objective is for students to develop the ability to distinguish between an assertion based on fact and an assertion based on opinion.
A fact is a piece of information supported by evidence and linked to empirical data. We then incorporate this association between facts and empirical data into a lecture on psychological science and the use of the empirical method, typically in the first week of class.
The Taking Sides Issue #8 discussion of divorce and its impact on children (Hetherington &
Kelly, 2006; Wallerstein & Lewis, 2006) brings a discussion to life while introducing important issues related to facts, opinions, and empirical evidence. We assign the task of reading both perspectives and then instruct students to find information on the Internet regarding each of the lead authors, Judith Wallerstein and E. Mavis Hetherington.
Inevitably several students come back with the information that Wallerstein is the fore- most authority on divorce in this country. When asked the source of this claim, students credit a Web site listed on the first page of results from a Google search of her name—
a Web site duplicating the inside cover of her book jacket (Wallerstein, Lewis, & Blakeslee, 2002). This observation leads to a natural discussion of the difference between fact and opinion. The recognition that all opinions are not equally valid is an important first step for students who are still learning to think scientifically (Ruggiero, 2006).
Question #2: Where do the Facts Come From?
Having established the difference between facts and opinion, the next task is to differenti- ate between diverse sources of empirical information. The objective at this stage is for
9781405174039_4_010.indd 119
9781405174039_4_010.indd 119 6/27/2008 4:37:00 PM6/27/2008 4:37:00 PM
120
students to be able to identify strengths and weaknesses of information sources. This objective is directly linked to issues addressed in discussions of the various research methods employed by psychological researchers.
Taking Sides Issue #5 on ADHD addresses this objective, while giving students expo- sure to the PsycINFO database and introducing the biological perspective on behavior. In light of a growing number of children being diagnosed with ADHD, students find this issue interesting. The two papers on this issue discuss the use of behavior genetics research (twin and adoption studies) to determine genetic explanations for ADHD. In the process, students tend to ask which method of research is “right.” These inquiries allow for a class discussion on using different research techniques to triangulate toward “truth,” rather than simply looking at an issue in black-and-white terms.
Issue #7 in Taking Sides, which focuses on the topic of maternal employment, also provides a reference for discussing the sources of information. Noting that the authors of the articles are from different disciplines (developmental psychology and sociology/
anthropology) provides for a discussion of the usefulness of cross-disciplinary study and the value in terms of breadth of understanding.
Another approach to understanding the nature of specific facts allows students to exam- ine research findings from a different perspective. Returning to the Taking Sides issue on divorce (Issue #8), we assign students to look up information about the two different research samples used by Wallerstein and Hetherington. The findings reported in the two articles are quite different, which can be traced to the study populations—the sources of their facts. Wallerstein’s study is based on a clinical sample, whereas Hetherington’s is a normative sample. Both sets of findings are certainly “facts,” but are they both equally helpful for understanding the impact of divorce on children? Rather than a simple “yes” or
“no” response, this discussion requires in-depth thinking about how each set of findings illuminates different types of influences and how both conclusions can contribute to the understanding of an issue. Such a discussion can be beneficial for introducing the notion that even conclusions that appear to contradict each other can be valid in helping us to understand human behavior from a psychological perspective, what Halonen et al. (2003) referred to as interpretation within the descriptive skills domain.
Question #3: What Cause/Effect Relationships are Proposed?
In psychology, despite the reality that much of the research on interesting social conditions tends to be limited by correlational data, findings are often condensed into sound bites that make it seem as if the research is causal in nature. The objective of this step is not only to remind students that “correlation does not equal causation,” but also to think critically about assertions of causal relationships presented in various contexts. Lecture, discussion, and textbook readings support this objective by delineating the characteristics of experi- mental research compared with correlational designs. In class, we address causality using multiple issues. First, we return to Issue #8 on divorce. We create a list of the negative outcomes that Wallerstein and Lewis (2006) credit as effects of divorce, such as anger, or fear of intimate relationships. Then we brainstorm as many other possible causes of those outcomes as we can think of, such as poor parenting or peer relationships. This activity
9781405174039_4_010.indd 120
9781405174039_4_010.indd 120 6/27/2008 4:37:00 PM6/27/2008 4:37:00 PM
121
Critical Thinking on Contemporary Issues
serves to illustrate the idea that outcomes are often multidetermined and complicated.
We ask students whether it is reasonable to assume that divorce is the sole cause of all these different outcomes or if some of them might occur in individuals who are from nondivorced homes. Their writing assignment requires them to review several different papers on the effects of divorce and describe whether any of the data are actually causal.
The Taking Sides issue of video games and violence (Issue #16) provides another engag- ing topic for practice. Gentile and Anderson (2006) produce correlational data that they believe suggests that violent games cause violence in children; Olsen (2006) contends that the data are not conclusive in terms of causation. Gentile and Anderson include a para- graph in their paper discussing how developmental science is producing a body of work that allows for causal conclusions despite the lack of experimental data. We have students respond to that assertion in writing. These issues allow students to discuss the idea of whether correlational data can ever “prove” causation, such as the data the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) used when it declared in a 2000 joint statement with five other medical groups that television violence causes aggression in children (AAP, 2000).
Issue #18, whether pornography is harmful, centers on the same argument that there is no actual causal evidence that the use of pornography leads to rape. Both video games and pornography are salient issues, drawing a great deal of student interest, and men in par- ticular are motivated to believe that these are harmless pastimes, thus making for a lively set of papers. For both topics, a key component of this assignment is to require the PsycINFO search to cover both sides of the issue in order to prevent students from sub- mitting only literature reviews that support their preexisting views.
Question #4: Are there Faulty Generalizations?
With this question, we progress from identifying and critiquing the sources of informa- tion to introducing a more detailed analysis of both the source and the use of the infor- mation. The objective is for students to learn to identify situations in which information presented as fact is taken out of the context within which it was initially generated. In our experience, students often have an initial bias that all research should apply to all people.
We would like to help them understand that research targeting a specific population is valuable, but the conclusions then need to be limited to that population. This is a difficult idea, so we bring back a familiar topic—Issue #8 (on divorce)—and revisit the idea that Hetherington and Kelly’s (2006) and Wallerstein and Lewis’s (2006) findings are not wrong, merely specific to their particular study populations. We move to Issue #7 and consider the generalizability of the research on maternal employment in both papers. We have them look at sample characteristics and determine to whom the results apply, revisit- ing the idea that one author is writing about children and the other is writing about ado- lescents. Again, not wrong, but different. The presentation of antidepressant use and suicide (Issue #12) is particularly useful for identifying generalizations. An initial step is to analyze the characteristics of the samples used for the referenced research and determine to whom the results apply, pointing out the section in the Healy and Whitaker (2006) paper referring to epidemiological studies. We then use this topic as a reference point for teaching about “representative” samples, including discussion of the difference between a
9781405174039_4_010.indd 121
9781405174039_4_010.indd 121 6/27/2008 4:37:00 PM6/27/2008 4:37:00 PM
122
representative sample and a targeted sample. We also discuss samples of convenience, highlighting the amount of research carried out on college students, linking back with earlier discussions of research methods. One author (SO’D) used to do this exercise discussing representative samples before targeted samples, but found that students found this approach more difficult. Our guess is that beginning the discussion with generalizable research, as is implied by the representative sample, serves to confirm students’ initial bias, making it more difficult to eventually dislodge from their thinking.
Question #5: Is the Issue Oversimplified?
As students become more experienced in analyzing the data used to support an assertion, it is also important to encourage them to consider ideas that are “watered down” in order to make them more accessible to nonscientists. The objective at this stage is to improve students’ ability to identify alternative explanations or contrasting perspectives on an issue.
Multiple intelligences (Issue #10) provides an opportunity for structured practice related to this objective. Having heard a simplistic form of the theory of multiple intelligences in school and other venues (e.g., a warm-fuzzy “we’re all intelligent in different ways” idea), students frequently indicate their support, thinking they understand it. Reading these chapters often leads to the discovery that their understanding was superficial at best.
Gardner (2006) presents a strong, multidisciplinary set of scientific criteria by which he determines whether a characteristic can be considered an intelligence (e.g., specific structures in the brain or effects of brain damage). Gottfredson (2006) reports equally scientific findings that support the presence of a generalized factor, or “g,” that underlies other specific characteristics (e.g., verbal fluency or mathematics). As students are focusing on attempting to decide which view is correct, we often need to remind them that even the scientific community is split and perhaps they are not really qualified to draw a conclu- sion. We can then turn the discussion around to usefulness, considering ways in which each view of intelligence can help us to understand human behavior. Students resist being told that they are not qualified to make a judgment on an issue, but learning when it is appropriate to rely on experts is an important part of critical thinking.
Question #6: Is Propaganda Being Used?
Considering generalization and simplification encourages students to focus on the presen- tation of information. Questioning the uses of propaganda introduces another dimension in considering the intent of the presenter or author. By this point, students are well versed in the idea that, in psychology, facts come from empirical research (which tends to exclude propaganda, we hope!). Realistically, however, students obtain information from a wide range of nonacademic publications. The objective is not to encourage students to view all attempts at persuasion as negative, rather to increase students’ ability to recognize when propaganda is being used in order to allow them to evaluate an assertion independent of peripheral attempts to persuade and influence. In other words, the objective is to increase ability to evaluate the content of the argument rather than, or in spite of, the presentation.
9781405174039_4_010.indd 122
9781405174039_4_010.indd 122 6/27/2008 4:37:00 PM6/27/2008 4:37:00 PM