Education & Reseach

I recently attended the McMaster Symposium on Education & Cognition. One of the organizers, Dr. Joe Kim, told a very interesting story. He was with colleagues who were discussing the over-haul of a medical program at another Ontario university from its current incarnation to a more evidence-based program. Everyone joked, "What were they basing their medical training on before??!"

Hahahaha...right?! Seriously, what are you teaching medical students, if not what research has to say about the practice of medicine?!

After the jokes were over, Dr. Kim asked the faculty members he was with, "How many of you use evidence-based teaching practices?" No one laughed. There was mostly an uncomfortable silence.

This very much echos my own experience. When I started teaching, it was trial-and-error. I tried to emulate the instructors that I admired when I was an undergraduate, and I threw in a few things that I thought were interesting and innovative but had no reason to believe would work. I did not consult the literature.

There is a whole world of research on best practices for instructional design in high education, but far too few university-level instructors take advantage of it. It comes naturally to most researchers to go to the literature when they have a discipline-specific question, but for some reason, it doesn't occur to us to do the same thing when we have a teaching question. My own teaching practice has evolved to rely quite heavily on relevant educational and cognitive research, and I think I can genuinely call my practice evidence-based. I also think there is a move among instructors and educational developers at universities to make educational research more prominent in professional development.

I get a few students every year who challenge me on my teaching practice. They question my slides, or my evaluation rubric, or my exam questions, etc. I appreciate that students want to understand my motivation (it's part and parcel why I started this blog). I think students should challenge more of their instructors to produce evidence to support their teaching practice. At the very least, it will keep us on our toes! And it could very well motivate more instructors to migrate to evidence-based practice.

I wrote more about my experiences at the EdCog Symposium for the Centre for Teaching Innovation & Support (CTSI) blog. If you're interested in finding out about some of the research presented and some ideas about how I might implement practical applications of the research, click here to read on.

what is critical thinking?

I was working on my course learning objectives for Psy270 Introduction to Cognition in May, and I realized that I wasn't exactly sure what critical thinking was... I mean, I couldn't explicitly define it off the top of my head. Getting students to think critically about cognition is a major learning objective for the course. More generally, I think acquiring "critical thinking skills" are a major component of the undergraduate experience. Every instructor I know, in every discipline at U of T (and beyond), wants to teach their students critical thinking skills. But would I know it when I saw it? More than that, would students?

I actually have an intuitive sense of critical thinking skills, and I work really hard at creating exams that will target critical thinking skills. Even in a multiple choice format, you can write questions that challenge students to think critically about the material. These questions are more about novel applications of the material, and they challenge students to question the validity of their implicit assumptions. And so begins the definition of critical thinking.

I started my quest with the Wikipedia page on this – which is surprisingly thorough! I continued reading various sources on critical thinking, and while there is a lot of theory and several frameworks, I found myself identifying with several important characteristics of critical thinking:

1. Critical thinking is informed by evidence. If the evidence changes, so should the conclusions. The discipline of psychology has the scientific method at it's core, training each psychology student to be a scientific thinker. So make a claim, but I want to see some data to back it up.
2. It involves reflective skepticism. Students (and teachers!) should examine their own beliefs and how they interact with the interpretation of evidence.
3. As a result, it is easier to recognize errors and biases in one's own thinking. 
4. Sometimes, just recognizing the problem can be a major hurtle... Do you really know what the question is about? You might think it's about one thing, but it's really about something else. Be on guard!
5. There might be several solutions, but critical thinking involves prioritization in problem-solving. Maybe there are both top-down and bottom-up contributions to cognition, but in a particular circumstance, which one is more critical to the outcome?
6. Logical relationships are important - does the conclusion follow from the premise? Are you sure?
7. Out of this, it's easy to see that drawing conclusions and making generalizations that are warranted is a central characteristic.
8. Similarly, there are sometimes unstated assumptions that are important for drawing warranted conclusions. Take a second to see if you're considering all unstated assumptions!!

So let's do it! Let's think critically y'all! :D

In the fall, and particularly in my Introduction to Cognition class, I am going to work really hard at helping students see when I am engaging them in critical thinking. Recognizing that these are some skills we are practicing can go a long way in developing those skills! So if you're taking Psy270 with me, be prepared to be reminded of these characteristics over and over again. And be prepared for exams that test these skills!