Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-s2hrs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-11T10:39:41.107Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Evaluation of Halpern's “Structural Component” for Improving Critical Thinking

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 April 2014

Ana Mª Nieto  and
Carlos Saiz
Ana Mª Nieto*
Affiliation:
Universidad de Salamanca
Carlos Saiz
Affiliation:
Universidad de Salamanca
*
Correspondence should be addressed to Ana Mª Nieto, Departamento de Psicología Básica, Psicobiología y Metodología de las Ciencias del Comportamiento, Universidad de Salamanca, 37071 Salamanca, (Spain). Phone: 923- 294610- ext 3278. E-mail: acarracedo@usal.es
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Halpern (1998) proposed a four-component model for promoting the transfer of critical thinking. One of them, the “structural component,” focuses on how to organize teaching so that critical thinking skills can be generalized. Here, we assess the efficiency of that type of organization. Thus, one group of university students received instruction following the suggestions specified in that component and their performance was compared with that of other university students who received instruction in the same skills but using a different procedure, and with that of a control group. In comparison with the control group, the performance of both instructed groups was better after training. However, no significant differences were observed between either instruction group; both forms of instruction afforded very similar results.

Halpern (1998) propuso un modelo de cuatro componentes para promocionar la transferencia del pensamiento crítico. Uno de ellos, el “componente estructural”, se centra en cómo organizar la enseñanza para que las habilidades del pensamiento crítico puedan generalizarse. En este trabajo, evaluamos la eficiencia de este tipo de organización. Así, un grupo de estudiantes universitarios recibieron instrucción siguiendo las sugerencias especificadas en ese componente y su ejecución se comparó con la de otro grupo de estudiantes universitarios que recibieron instrucción en las mismas habilidades pero usando un procedimiento diferente, y con la de un grupo control. En comparación con el grupo control, la ejecución de ambos grupos instruidos fue mejor después del entrenamiento. Sin embargo, no se observaron diferencias significativas entre los dos grupos de instrucción; ambas formas de instrucción produjeron resultados muy similares.

Keywords

critical thinkinginstructionreasoningdecision-makingpensamiento críticoinstrucciónrazonamientotoma de decisiones
Type
Articles
Information
The Spanish Journal of Psychology , Volume 11 , Issue 1 , May 2008 , pp. 266 - 274
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2008

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Angelo, T.A. (1995). Classroom assessment for critical thinking. In Halpern, D.F. & Nummedal, S.G. (Eds.), Psychologists teach critical thinking [Special Issue]. Teaching of Psychology, 22, 6–7.Google Scholar
Brown, A.L. (1997). Transforming schools into communities of thinking and learning about serious matters. American Psychologist, 52, 399–413.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ennis, R.H. (1987). A taxonomy of critical thinking dispositions and abilities. In Baron, J.B., & Sternberg, R.J. (Eds.), Teaching thinking skills (pp. 9–26). New York: Freeman.Google Scholar
Ennis, R.H. (2003). Critical thinking assessment. In Fasko, D. Jr., (Ed), Critical thinking and reasoning: Current research, theory, and practice (pp. 293–313). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.Google Scholar
Ennis, R.H., & Millman, J. (1985). Cornell Critical Thinking Test, Level Z. (3rd ed.). Pacific Grove, CA: Midwest.Google Scholar
Ennis, R.H., Millman, J., & Tomko, T.N. (1985). Cornell Critical Thinking Test, Level X & Level Z-Manual (3rd ed.). Pacific Grove, CA: Midwest.Google Scholar
Glaser, R. (1984). Education and thinking: The role of knowledge. Americam Psyhologist, 39, 93–104.Google Scholar
Govier, T. (1987). Problems in argument analysis and evaluation. Dordrecht, Holland: Foris.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Halpern, D.F. (1998). Teaching critical thinking for transfer across domains. American Psychologist, 53, 449–455.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Halpern, D.F. (2003). Thought and knowledge: An introduction to critical thinking (4th ed). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Halpern, D.F. (2006). Halpern Critical Thinking Assessment Using Everyday Situations: Background and scoring standards. Unpublished report.Google Scholar
Herrnstein, R.J., Nickerson, R.S., Sánchez, M., & Swets, J.A. (1986). Teaching thinking skills. American Psychologist, 41, 1279–1289.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kennedy, M.Fisher, M.B., & Ennis, R.H. (1991). Critical thinking: Literature review and needed research. In Idol, L., & Fly Jones, B. (Eds.), Educational values and cognitive instruction: Implications for reform (pp. 11–40). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Kurfiss, J.G. (1988). Critical thinking: Theory, research, practice, and possibilities. ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report Nr. 2. Washington, DC: George Washington University.Google Scholar
Lipman, M. (2003). Thinking in education (2nd ed.). Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McPeck, J.E. (1981). Critical thinking and education. Oxford, UK: Martin Robinson.Google Scholar
McPeck, J.E. (1990). Critical thinking: Dialogue and dialectic. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Nickerson, R.S., Perkins, D.N. & Smith, E.E. (1985). The teaching of thinking. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. (Spanish translation:Ruano, L. &Ginard, C.. Enseñar a pensar: aspectos de la aptitud intelectual. Madrid: Paidós, 1994).Google Scholar
Paul, R. (1990). McPeck's mistakes. In McPeck, J.E. (Ed.), Critical thinking: Dialogue and dialectic (pp. 102–111). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Perkins, D.N. (1987). Thinking frames: An integrative perspective on teaching cognitive skills. In Baron, J.B., & Sternberg, R.J. (Eds.), Teaching thinking skills: Theory and practice (pp. 41–61). New York: Freeman.Google Scholar
Perkins, D.N., & Grotzer, T.A. (1997). Teaching intelligence. American Psychologist, 52, 1125–1133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Saiz, C. (2002). Enseñar o aprender a pensar. Escritos de Psicología, 6, 53–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Siegel, H. (1990). McPeck, informal logic, and the nature of critical thinking. In McPeck, J.E. (Ed.), Critical thinking: Dialogue and dialectic (pp. 75–85). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Ten Dam, G., & Volman, M. (2004). Critical thinking as a citizenship competence: Teaching strategies. Learning and Instruction, 14, 359–379.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Treffinger, D.J., Speedie, S.M., & Bruner, W. (1974). Improving children's creative problem solving ability: The Purdue Creativity Project. Journal of Creative Behavior, 8, 20–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tsui, L. (1999). Courses and instruction affecting critical thinking. Research in Higher Education, 40, 185–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar