Upload
lenhi
View
217
Download
1
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
ACTIVITYREPORTTheCriticalThinkingChallenge
ThePostgraduateExperienceAward2015/2016
VanessaDias,PhDStudentSchoolofPsychology,UniversityofKent
Introduction 3TheC.R.E.W.roles 5WorldCafédynamic 6Attendance 10PlanoftheEvent 11Scenarios 13Postgraduatestudents’feedback 16Conclusion 18
Introduction
InordertopromotecriticalthinkingskillsamongpostgraduatestudentsattheUniversityof
Kent,ahalf-dayevent,entitled‘TheCriticalThinkingChallenge’,washeldonthe19th
September,atKeynesCollege,UniversityofKent,Canterburycampus.
The‘CriticalThinkingChallenge’consistsinthediscussionofhypotheticalscenariosfrom
differentsciencefields(e.g.Stats,PublicPolicy)withinsmallteamsofpostgraduate
students.Thesescenariosoftenoffersocialandscientificdilemmastowhichthereisno
specificsolutionorwaytoapproach.Asaresult,studentshavetotalcontrolofhowthey
thinkandmanagetheirideas.
Figure1.Studentsworkingtogetherinthefirstpresentedscenario.
Withinteams(Figure1),eachpostgraduatestudentassumesoneofthefollowingfiveroles
(C.R.E.W.):
• Thecreative(C),
• Therebel(R),
• Theexplorer(E),
• Thewell-reasoned(W),and
• Theteamleader
Inaddition,postgraduatestudentsswaproleswiththeirteammembersthroughouteach
scenariodiscussionsession.Thismeansthateverystudentexperiencesanddevelopsaset
ofdifferentcharacteristicsaccordingtotheroletheyplayateachmoment.Theymustdo
thebesttheycanaccordingtotheattributedrole,knowingthatlatertheywillhave
opportunitytoframetheirideasthroughadifferentroleinthesameteamandinthesame
scenario.
Alongsidecriticalthinkingskillssuchascreativity,explorationofnewideasandtheabilityto
confrontandreflectuponthem,theCriticalThinkingChallengealsoenhancesother
importantpostgraduateskillssuchas:
• Selfandsocialawareness,
• Teamwork,
• Leadership,and
• Publicspeaking.
Theseskillsarenotonlyimportantforstudents’academicsuccessbutalsofortheir
professionaldevelopment.Regardingthis,theapproachwithwhichweinducedstudents,
usingaworldcafésetting,inspiredthemtobeengagedandgobeyondtheircomfortzones.
Therefore,thedynamicandsettingwerecrucialtomakepostgraduatestudentsnotonly
enjoythechallengebutalsotoexperienceandmodeldifferentskills.Inthefollowing
sections,moredetailswillbeprovidedonhowthechallengewassetandpresentedto
students.
TheC.R.E.W.roles
IntheCriticalThinkingChallengetherearefivedifferentroles.Beforegivingthescenarioto
students,theserolesarerandomlydistributed.Thus,eachstudentstartsthediscussion
assumingaspecificroleandmustframehis/herideasaccordingtoit.Belowisalistofthe
existentrolesandrespectivedescription.
TheCreative Theonewhothinksoutofthebox:providesneworupdatesideasorinsights.Thecreativecanbringthespiritofinnovationandcreativityintotheteam,defyingandchallengingoldwaysofthinking.
TheRebel Theonewhoprovidescounter-argumentstotheproposedideasorinsights.Spotstheweaknessesandstrengthsofanargumentoranidea.Challengesotherteammatesinaverystraightforwardmanner,questioningthemaboutwhattheysay.
TheExplorer Theonewhoteststheideasorinsightsdevelopedduringteamdiscussion.Seesthepracticalityofthediscussedideasandinsights.Verifiesiftherearenobetterwaystolookatthescenario.
TheWell-reasoned Theonewholooksattheoverallconstructionofthearguments.Sportstheweaknessesandthestrengthsoftheideasorinsightsdiscussed,but,insteadofdefyingthestatusquoastherebel,thewell-reasonedisresponsibleforputtingtogetherthedifferentperspectivesandcontributionsfromtheteammembers.His/heroverallgoalistoestablishconsensuswithintheteam.
TheTeamLeader Theonewhorepresentsalltheteammembers.Wrapsupeverythingthattheteamproducesandmakessurethateveryoneishappywiththefinalproposal.Leadsandrepresentstheteam.
Toensurethatpostgraduateswouldinternaliseeachoftheseroles,thedifferentroleswere
explainedinthewelcomingsessionandahandoutwasprovidedtoeverygroup.Thisway,
studentscouldconsultthedocumentwhenevernecessary.
WorldCafédynamic
Inordertoprovideacreativeandengagingenvironment,wechosetodeliverourchallenge
inaworldcafédynamic.Thisapproachenablespeopletoshareideasandthoughtsthrough
apieceoftableclothandmarkers(Figures2and3)whiletheyinformallycandrinkaglassof
juiceorcoffee.
Everypersonisinvitedtocontributetothetableanddifferenttechniquescanbeused.In
theCriticalThinkingChallenge,postgraduateswereintroducedandinvitedtousedrawings
andmindmapsasawaytorecordtheirideasanddiscussionsabouteachscenario.These
toolswerealsoanimportantcontributiontothestudents’finalpitch–theyreferredtoand
usedtheirtableclothswhencommunicatingtheirmainconclusionstootherstudents.
Figure2.ExampleofatableclothproducedintheCriticalThinkingChallenge.Mindmapswereoneofthecreativethinkingtoolspassedtopostgraduates.
Figure3.ExampleofatableclothproducedintheCriticalThinkingChallenge.Drawingshelptothink‘outsidethebox’and
arealsooneofthetoolstoenhancecreativethinking.
Theoverallfeedbackfrompostgraduatesregardingtheworldcafésettingwasmainlythat
theyneverhadexperiencedthiskindofgroupdynamicbeforeandthatitwasmore
‘welcoming’inthesensethatpostgraduatesfeltmoremotivatedtoparticipateinthe
discussions.
CommunicationChannels
Toreachoutpostgraduatestudents,wemainlyusedthepostgraduatemailinglistandtwodifferent
socialmediachannels:FacebookandTwitter.Wealsoproducedflyers(Figures4and5)anddelivered
themintwophases:fourandtwoweeksbeforerunningtheevent.
Inwhatregardsthesocialmediaplatforms,wecreatedaTwitteraccounttoraiseawareness
aboutthechallenge(twitter.com/CTChallenge2016)aswellasahashtag-#jointheCREW–
toidentifyourpostsandinduceconversationonlineamongstudents.OnFacebook,we
postedabouttheeventinFacebookgroupsrelatedtotheuniversity,suchassocieties’
Facebookgroupsandwealsocreatedavatarsandcoverimagestoincreasethevisibilityof
thechallenge.
WealsogottheopportunitytopartnerupwiththeEmployabilityPointsandeachstudent
attendingtheeventwon15points.Thisalsohelpedustoraiseawarenessregardingour
challenge,leadingtomoretweetsandinterestamongpostgraduatestudents.
Attendance
Intotal,33postgraduatestudentsshowedinterestinparticipatingand10ofthesetookpart
inthechallenge.Webelievethislowrateofparticipantscanbeexplainedbythreemain
reasons:1)thetimingoftheevent,2)thechannelsusedtoreachstudents,and3)thelate
promotion.
Sincetheeventtookplaceinthewelcomingweek,manyPhDstudentswerestillnotback
oncampus,whileothersPhDandMastersstudentswerenotfullyinstalledyet.Thismade
manystudentscanceltheirsubscriptionlastminuteornotevenapply.
Inaddition,thechannelsusedtoreachpostgraduateswerenotsufficienttoengageand
raiseawarenessaboutthechallenge.Promotionwasessentiallydonebydistributingflyers
aroundcampus,postgraduateemailinglistandpostsonFacebook(e.g.PsychologySociety
group)andTwitter.Accordingtothefeedbackfromstudents,flyerswerenotatallan
effectivewayofpromotingtheevent,sincemostofthestudentswhoshowedinterest
onlinereportedthatthewaytheyhadknownabouttheeventhadbeeneitherthroughthe
postgraduatemailinglistorthesocialmediaposts.
Anotherreasonthatcansomehowexplainthelowattendanceisthatthepromotionofthe
eventonlystartedonemonthbeforeitsrealisation.SinceAugustisamonthinwhichmany
studentsareonholidays,webelievethatthisnegativelyimpactedtherateofregistered
students.
PlanoftheEventTheplanofactivitiesforthiseventwasthefollowing:
Time Activity Description2.00–2.45 Welcome Student’swelcoming,groupallocation,overviewof
thesession.BriefinformationregardingCriticalThinkingdynamic.
2.45–3.45 Scenario1 Groupdiscussionoftheworkscenario,swappingrolesevery15minutes.
3.45–4.00 Break
4.00–5.00 Scenario2 Groupdiscussionoftheworkscenario,swappingrolesevery15minutes.
5.15–6.00 Summary&Team’sPitch
Eachteamwillhave5minutestomakeanoverallsynthesisandpreparea5minutepitchwiththeirconclusions.
6.00–6.15 Awardannouncement&Closure
Thejurywillassesseachteamperformance,deliberateandannouncethewinningteam.
Asplanned,theeventstartedat2pmwithawelcomingsessioninwhichanoverviewofthe
challengewasgiven.Thusweexplainedtopostgraduatestudentshowtheeventwould
developthroughouttheafternoonandwhatwasthedynamicsustainingthe‘Critical
ThinkingChallenge’.
Wedividedpostgraduatestudentsintwogroupsof5peopleanddecidedtospendlesstime
ineachscenario,sincefewerstudentsturnedup.Asaresult,insteadofonehourper
scenario,postgraduatestudentsweregiven45minutestodiscussanddebatethescenario,
swappingrolesbetweenthemevery15minutes.
Afterdiscussingthescenariosingroups,postgraduatestudentsmadeasummaryofthe
discussedideasthroughouttheafternoonamongtheirpeersandpreparedtopresentan
overallsynthesistotheopponentgroup.Thepresentationwasmadebytheteamleaderof
eachgroup.Forthis,theyusednotonlyalistofsummarisedideasbutalsotheircloth
drawingsandnotes.
Sincewewereaheadoftime,wespentmoretimediscussingthepresentedideasby
postgraduatestudentsandreflectinguponnotonlythe‘CriticalThinkingChallenge’
dynamicbutalsouponthemainqualitiesoneshoulddevelopasacriticalthinker:
• creative,
• rebellious,
• explorer,
• andwell-reasoned,
whichcomposestheproposedC.R.E.W.framework.
ScenariosThescenariosproposedtopostgraduatestudentsweretwoexamplesfromKu,Hau,andHo
(2011)on‘TheLearningandTeachingofCriticalThinkingSkills:ScenarioAnalysis’.Inorder
toengagestudentsfromdifferentfields,weoptedtochoosetwoscenarioslinkedto
differentareas:onemorerelatedtothesocialsciences,andanotheronemorelinkedto
medicalsciences.Thechosenscenariosarepresentedbelow.
ScenarioI Youreadanewsarticleonabillionaire’speculiarhobby:helikestousebanknotesaswallpaperathome.Thebillionairehadtoomuchmoneytospend.Healreadyhadeverythinghewanted.Hedidnotwanttodonatehismoneytocharities.Sincewhoknowswhen,hedevelopedahobbytopastethebanknotesonhiswalls.Thispeculiarhobbyreceivedmuchcriticism.Manythoughtthatthosewhowerecapabletohelpothersshouldbeargreatersocialresponsibilityandcontributetosociety.Theyshouldspendmeaningfully,inwayssuchashelpingthepoor.Inresponse,thebillionairesaidthathewaswastinghisownmoneyanditwasnotother’sbusiness.Lotsofrichpeoplewastedtheirmoneyforpleasure,sowhyweretheynotgettingtheblame?Also,whydidhehavetogivehishard-earnedmoneytoothersfornothing?
ScenarioII Recentlyamedicalresearchpointedoutthatpetownersenjoybetterlongevityandhealththannon-petowners.Specifically,dogownersarelesssusceptibletoheartattacks.Uponlearningabouttheresearch,ahospitalplanstoworkwithananimalsheltertolaunchananimaladoptionprogram.Theprogrammakesitmandatoryforallrecoveringheartdiseasepatientstoadoptdogsaspets,inabidtolowermedicationuseandreducemedicalcosts.Theprogramtie-inpromotionswillalsoencouragemoreadoptions,providingnewhomesforabandoneddogs.
Inadditiontothescenarios,wealsopresentedstudentswithsomeleadingquestionsto
inspiretheirdiscussionstart.Thesequestionsarepresentedbelow.
Scenario1 • Howdoesthepubliccriticisethebillionaire’shobby?Whatarethebillionaire’sarguments?
• Ifyouwerethebillionaire,howwouldyoureacttopubliccriticism?• Canyoudescribethedifferentvaluesheldbythebillionaireandthe
critics?• Howshouldwedealwithconflictsresultingfromcontradictingvalues
whenourvaluesaredifferentfromothers?
Scenario2 • Whatisthedifferencebetweencorrelationandcausation?• Whataretherealimplicationsoftheresultsofthismedicalresearch?
Howshouldtheybeapplied?• Whatcanbeconsideredapartfromscientificresearch,whenmakinga
decision?• Wouldyousupportthisadoptionprogramme?Why?• Doyounoticethatwetendtotrustinacertaintypeofpeople(e.g.
doctors,judges)?Whatarethecharacteristicsamongthosepeople?Whyarewepronetotrustthem?
Figure6.Almostneartheevent,wecomparedwhatpostgraduateshadproducedandwhattheycouldalsoexplorefurther
intheirdiscussions.
Attheendofbothscenariosessionsandaftereachteam’spitch,werevisitedthescenariostoenhance
discussionandprovidedsome‘takeaway’ideas,establishingalinkbetweenwhatstudentshad
coveredintheirpresentationsandwhatelsecouldbediscussed.Belowaresomeofthe‘takeaway’
messagesthatemergedfromthediscussions:
Scenario1 • Whenweconsideranargument,weusuallylookathowconvincingthe
reasonis.Weshouldalsofindouttheassumptionsbehindtheargumentandjudgewhethertheassumptionsarerational.
• Societieswithdifferentcultureslivebydifferentvalues.Ourvaluesmightgoagainstthoseofadifferentsociety.
• Valuesareinfactrepresentationsofamentalmodel,bywhichourattitudeandbehaviouraremoulded.Amentalmodelgenerallyreferstotheunderlyingimplicitbeliefs,thinkingtendenciesorbiasesinourdailylives.
• Someofthementalmodelsarecertainlycorrect,butnotallofthem.Regardlessoftheauthenticityofthesemodels,ifyouacceptthemwithoutcriticaljudgment,yourattitude,wayofthinkingandbehaviourwillbeinfluenced.
Scenario2 • Thehospitaladministrationstaffhadnotcriticallyreviewedtherelatedresearchwhentheyproposedthedogadoptionprogramme.Boththeirunderstandingoftheprogrammeandtheresultingconclusionwereproblematic.
• Thehospitalhasdecideduponthedogadoptionprogrammebasedontheresultsofonlyoneresearch.Itisagainstthescientificspirittoblindlyputone’strustinanysingleresearch.
• Eveniftheresearchconclusionsarecorrect,weshouldnotdeterminesolelyfromtheresearchconclusionthatitisapplicabletoallsituations.
• Accordingtothemedicalresearchreportinthescenario,weonlyknowthatpetownersenjoybetterhealthandlongevitythannon-petowners.Wecannotdeterminewhatkindofrelationexistsbetweenthetwo–whichisthecause,whichtheeffect,orifotherfactorsareinplay.
Postgraduatestudents’feedback
Attheendoftheevent,weconductedabriefsurveyinordertoobtainstudents’feedback
andinformationonhowandwheretoimprove.Questionsregardedtheirimpressionson
aspectssuchastheirabilitytoapplytoapplytheknowledgelearnedandgroup
participation.
Fromthe10postgraduatestudents’attending(3Mastersstudents,5PhDstudents,2
unknown),9didcompletethesurvey.Answerstothemainitemsrangedbetween1–
stronglydisagreeand5–stronglyagree.Wealsoaskedpostgraduatestoratetheevent
overallfromexcellenttoverypoorandtoprovideuswithadditionalfeedbackonhowto
improvetheevent.Belowisatableshowingthelistofitems.
Item Average
Answersrangefrom1(stronglydisagree)to5(stronglyagree) Theeventmetmyexpectations. 4.78Iwillbeabletoapplytheknowledgelearned. 4.44Theeventobjectivesforeachtopicwereidentifiedandfollowed. 4.11Thecontentwasorganisedandeasytofollow. 4.44Thematerialsdistributedwerepertinentanduseful. 4.22Thetrainerwasknowledgeable. 4.89Thequalityofinstructionwasgood. 4.89Thetrainermetthetrainingobjectives. 4.89Groupparticipationandinteractionwereencouraged. 4.89Adequatetimewasprovidedforquestionsanddiscussion. 5.00
Answersrangefrom1(verypoor)to5(excellent) Howdoyouratetheeventoverall? 4.78
Overall,thefeedbackfrompostgraduatestudentswasverypositive.Expectationsweremet
andstudentsseemtobeconfidentabouttransposingthelearnedskillsintotheirdailylifeat
university.Moreover,thegeneralqualityofthetraining(e.g.‘Thematerialsdistributed
werepertinentanduseful’),accordingtostudents,wasquitepositive,rangingbetween
excellentandgood.
Whenaskedforopenfeedback,postgraduatesessentiallymentionedthatitwouldbegood
torepeattheeventmoreoftenormakeanotheredition.Belowisatablewiththestudents’
feedback.
Aspectstobeimproved OthercommentsBetterpreparationfortheroles-explanationthatrolesmeanthatforlongperiodsoftimeyoumaybetheonlyonespeakingandthatthatisok!
Shouldbearegularsociety!
Morebasicscenariostostart(needtobeclearerwhatwearediscussing).
Recommendtoholdanotherone.
Maybemorepromotion.Somorepeoplewillcome.
Couldbereoccurringlikeonceaweekoreverytwoweeksoreverymonth.
Ithoughttheteamdidgreat!Hopefullynexttimemorepeoplecome!
Ifeelthat(especiallyforthe1stscenario)thatobjectivesweren'tclearlystatedsowewerenotsureonwhatweweresupposedtobedoing.Examplesinthebeginningwouldhavebeenhelpful.
Asaconclusion,thesuggestedimprovementswillbediscussednext.
Conclusion
Eventhoughthereweretiming–holdingtheeventduringwelcomingweekrevealedtobe
quitechallenginginwhatregardsattendancerate-andcommunicationissues–more
directandspecificemailsshouldhavebeensenttoeachschool-,theCriticalThinking
Challengewaswellreceivedbypostgraduates.Duetoitsengagingnature,postgraduates
evensuggestedthatthiskindofinitiativeshouldoccurmoreoftenattheuniversity.
Thus,therearealotofaspectsthatcanandmustbeimprovedifanothersessionistobe
heldagain.Oneofthemainsuggestionsforimprovementistospendmoretimeonthe
explanationofthedifferentrolesandmake,perhaps,atrialscenario,justtoseeifstudents
reallyunderstoodthedynamicandwhatisrequiredatdifferentstagesofthechallenge.