Embedding the teaching of critical thinking in specific domains: Dual vs. composite views of critical thinking skills and disposition

Efforts to stimulate the development of critical thinking (CT) have long been intertwined with controversies over its conceptualization. Several scholars give a comprehensive overview of CT by suggesting that it includes a cognitive skill dimension and a dispositional dimension (e.g., Ennis, 1996; Halpern, 2014). The inclusion of the dispositional dimension is based on the assumption that acquisition of cognitive skills alone does not suffice for reflective and reasonable thinking. However, the distinction between mastery of a set of cognitive skills and dispositions has been less clear. Some suggest a pure contrast between the two claiming that one must be disposed to think critically as well as have the skills to do so (Ennis, 1996; Halpern, 2014). Accordingly, a list of cognitive skills in interpretation, analysis, evaluation, inference, and explanation, and dispositional elements such as inquisitiveness, self-confidence, open-mindedness, intellectual curiosity, flexibility in considering alternatives, and fair-mindedness are generally suggested (Facione, 1990; Halpern, 2014). Ennis (1996) particularly argues that CT skills and CT dispositions should be viewed independently because someone could have the disposition to, for example, clarify and seek understanding without having the ability to ask pointed questions. However, Perkins and colleagues (1993) reject the usual dispositions-skills dual contrast, and conceive disposition as an overarching construct encompassing three components: inclination, sensitivity and ability. They define inclination as the tendency to engage in a given behavior due to motivation and habits, sensitivity as the feeling for opportunities for implementing the appropriate behavior, and ability as the actual skill to deploy the behavior (Perkins et al., 1993). In contrast, others (Facione, 1990; McPeck, 1990) embrace a composite account of CT skills and CT dispositions without drawing a visible line between the two. The composite account holds the view that the term “CT skills” includes in its meaning a reference to CT dispositions besides the acquisition of sets of mental procedures. For example, McPeck (1990) insists that a person who is proficient in a given skill can be said to have the disposition to execute that skill as one must develop the disposition to use those skills. Based on data collected for a research project on the design, implementation and evaluation of learning environments for CT, we will discuss in the conference our views of CT skills and CT dispositions and how we translated those views in designing and evaluating learning environments for CT. For the purpose of our research, Halpern’s definition of CT is adopted: CT as the use of a set of cognitive strategies that increase the probability of a desirable outcome (Halpern, 2014). A domain-specific CT test (Tiruneh, De Cock, Weldeslassie, Elen, & Janssen, 2016) and domain-general CT test (Halpern, 2010), which are assumed to evaluate both the cognitive and dispositional dimensions of CT were administered to evaluate the effectiveness of systematically designed learning environments. The advantages and limitations of our experiences will be discussed and future directions on the dual vs. composite views of CT skills and CT dispositions will be elaborated with respect to CT instructional approaches and assessment.status: publishe