Dialogical instruction and its relationship to cognition and two types of critical thinking in college students.

This study examines the effect of one method of direct critical thinking instruction, "dialogical instruction", on college student critical thinking, cognitive engagement, and self-regulated learning. In three undergraduate courses (Literature, n = 81; Ecology, n = 71; Philosophy, n = 52), control subjects received lecture-discussion instruction. Experimental subjects, taught by the same instructor the following semester, received dialogical instruction where students argue various positions on course issues, including those opposing their own (Paul, 1987). Two types of critical thinking were examined: higher-order thinking (analyzing, synthesizing, evaluating) and multilogical thinking (reasoning from different perspectives). On performance measures, control-treatment means were in the directions predicted on higher-order and multilogical thinking in Literature and Ecology courses. Mean differences were statistically significant in the Literature course on higher-order thinking. On a self-report measure, control-treatment means were in the directions predicted in all three courses on higher-order thinking, and in Literature and Ecology courses on multilogical thinking. Mean differences were statistically significant on multilogical thinking when all three courses were combined. Several main effects of motivation on self-report critical thinking surfaced. Subjects who were highly motivated (reported high intrinsic motivation, task value, self efficacy, and expectancy for success) also reported higher critical thinking, regardless of control-treatment status. Two-way anovas suggested that the treatment worked primarily with highly motivated students. Treatment subjects reported significantly higher critical thinking than control subjects: among subjects who valued course tasks highly (all courses combined, Literature); among subjects who were confident they could understand course material (Literature); and among subjects who expected to do well in the course (Ecology). Among subjects with low intrinsic motivation and low expectancy for success, treatment subjects reported either significantly higher or significantly lower rehearsal than control subjects, depending on the course (higher in Literature, lower in Philosophy). The moderating effects of motivation on self-report critical thinking and rehearsal were key findings. Overall, results in the Literature course were most consistent with study hypotheses. Five contributing factors were proposed (treatment fidelity, time on treatment, instructor role modeling, instructor self-monitoring/self-regulation, and course reward structures).PhDEducationUniversity of Michigan, Horace H. Rackham School of Graduate Studieshttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/103833/1/9409790.pdfDescription of 9409790.pdf : Restricted to UM users only