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.

Figure4.Flyerfrontview

Figure5.Flyerbackview

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.