analysis of instruction for critical thinking in distance learning materials

This article was downloaded by: [University of Birmingham]On: 10 October 2014, At: 16:41Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House,37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Distance EducationPublication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cdie20

Analysis of instruction for critical thinking in distancelearning materialsPeter J. Noordink & Som NaiduPublished online: 28 Jul 2006.

To cite this article: Peter J. Noordink & Som Naidu (1994) Analysis of instruction for critical thinking in distance learningmaterials, Distance Education, 15:1, 42-69, DOI: 10.1080/0158791940150105

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0158791940150105

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) containedin the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make norepresentations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of theContent. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, andare not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon andshould be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable forany losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoeveror howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use ofthe Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematicreproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in anyform to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cdie20

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/showCitFormats?doi=10.1080/0158791940150105

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0158791940150105

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Analysis of instruction for critical thinkingin distance learning materials

Peter J. Noordink and Som Naidu

This paper discusses procedures for the analysis of instructional strategiesincorporated into distance learning materials, especially with regard to thedevelopment of the higher order cognitive ability—critical thinking. It examinesthe function of task analysis as an integral part of the instructional design process,analysing three different approaches available to the instructional designer towardsthe analysis of tasks required of distance learners. Comparing the learninghierarchy, the concept hierarchy, and the information processing approaches, itwas found that the latter was the only one suitable for this current study becauseof the requirement that critical thinking be linked with domain-specific knowledge,rather than be learned as an independent ability. Different algorithms for both thestudent and the designer/analyst are included as part of the information processingapproach, and, although these methods are yet to be validated, they seem to offersufficient promise, while allowing the analyst to make further decisions during theanalysis.

Introduction and the problem

Task analysis is a process which describes and orders the component partsof complex performances, and necessarily includes the cognitive as well asthe behavioural tasks required for successful task performance. As such, itis an integral component of the instructional systems design (ISD) process,and one which, if performed poorly, could 'jeopardise the entire instructionaldesign process' (Jonassen, Hannum and Tessmer, 1989: 3). Resnick (1976)stated that task analysis is critical in providing the link between understandingcomplex psychological, and particularly cognitive, tasks with instructionaldesign.

However, a search through studies using task analysis procedures indicatesa paucity in the analysis of instruction contained in textual materials,especially in the development of higher-order cognitive abilities such ascritical thinking.

This paper highlights definitions and purposes of task analysis, discussessome of the methods open to instructional designers and analysts, and offersan algorithm, based on the information processing approach, for analysingcritical thinking instructional strategies embedded in distance educationstudy materials.

42

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

irm

ingh

am]

at 1

6:41

10

Oct

ober

201

4


Definitions and purposes

Ideally, task analyses should occur as part of the planning process for anycourse or course segment, and prior to the development of instructionalmaterials. One cannot plan or evaluate an instructional unit or componentwithout first determining what the students are required to achieve oncompletion of the instruction. In this sense then, task analysis is stronglyrelated to the setting of objectives, in that both of them are necessary duringthe planning stages if one is to construct an ordered sequence of instructionand assessment (Resnick, 1976). The use of taxonomies of objectives hasbeen included as an important process for task analysis in a handbook on thesubject (Jonassen et al., 1989).

There is disagreement amongst instructional developers and researchersfrom both the behavioural and cognitive schools regarding the definition oftask analysis, and the categorisation of task analysis procedures and techniques(Hoffman and Medsker, 1983; Kaufman, 1972; McCormick and Ilgren,1987; Miller, 1962). Naturally, tasks vary substantially within occupations—in an industrial setting, most employees have a high degree of psychomotortasks to perform, while in most managerial, educational and scientificsettings, higher-order mental tasks are more often required. Clearly, thisvariation in tasks and performance produces problems for instructionaldesigners and analysts. Overt behaviour is easily observed, and thus easilysubjected to analysis. Covert behaviour, on the otherhand, is unobservable,and thus difficult to analyse.

Even many of the behaviourists will acknowledge, however, the importanceof short- and long-term memory in task behaviour. For instance, Miller(1966) described a person's performance in a task which required theactivation or manipulation of an object, which necessarily includes covertcognitive behaviour such as judgement. This requires the person's short-term and long-term retention of information and experiences, the recall ofgeneral knowledge and concepts, inferring deductively, problem solving,and the following of rules. This equates with the definitional components ofcognitive theorists and researchers such as Resnick (1976) who defined taskanalysis as:

the study of complex performances so as to reveal the psychological processesinvolved. These analyses translate 'subject matter' descriptions intopsychological descriptions of behaviour. They provide psychologically richdescriptions of intellectual competence and are thus a critical step in bringingthe constructs of psychology to bear on instructional design (p. 51).

Resnick mentions four criteria which are particularly important withininstructional design: (1) instructional relevance; (2) psychologicalformulation; (3) instructability, and (4) recognition of stages of competence.In other words, task analysis should answer a number of questions related

43

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

irm

ingh

am]

at 1

6:41

10

Oct

ober

201

4

Distance Education Vol. 15 No. 1 1994

to these criteria: (1) Is instruction pitched at tasks which are important forthe students to leam? (2) Will the analysis deliver information about theprocesses which are recognised by the psychological community? (3) Willthe results of the analysis be usable for future instruction? and, (4) Does theanalysis reveal differences between earlier and later degrees of competence,i.e. differences between the abilities of novices and experts (Resnick, 1976).Of the above criteria and related questions, we believe that only the fourthset would not be possible to determine in the current analysis of distanceeducation materials, because one unit of study would not necessarily allowa novice to become an expert—at least, not in four months of study. It wouldsurely require furtherexperiential learning for expert knowledge to develop.

Critical thinking is defined in this study as the analysis of arguments andstatements contained in information, and the determination of gaps,irrelevancies, and inconsistencies in the pool of knowledge within a domain.The ability to think critically therefore necessarily includes the ability toproduce or reproduce arguments which are consistent and valid within adomain. As such, it seems to be an important ability to attain, especially attertiary level (Bamett, 1989; Paul, 1984). It would also seem to be importantto analyse the extent to which textual materials, utilised in the instruction oftertiary distance education students, actually promote this ability.

In the next section of this paper, we will discuss briefly some of the variousmethods accessible to analysts and instructional designers, and also discusswhat seems to provide us with the most promising method in the currentanalysis—the information processing approach.

Possible methods of tasks analysis for this study

The learning hierarchy model

The learning hierarchy model was first introduced by Gagne (1968) torepresent skills to be learnt, theirordered relationships, and sets of prerequisiteskills required before any specific higher-order skill or ability can beacquired. These are arranged in a chart, with the terminal objective placedat the top of the hierarchy (see Figure 1), while the simplest are placed at thebottom. In this bottom-up technique, the designer begins with the terminalobjective, and then proceeds to define prerequisite tasks leading to theterminal task (Jonassen et al., 1989). Terminal objectives should be furtherbroken down into performance objectives, which are the specific outcomesof the instruction, atlevels appropriate fortask analysis (Petry, Mouton andReigeluth, 1987).

The learning hierarchy model views skills as falling into one of five areas—verbal information, intellectual skill, cognitive strategy, attitude, and motorskill. Gagne and Driscoll (1988) explain that intellectual skills or abilities

44

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

irm

ingh

am]

at 1

6:41

10

Oct

ober

201

4


are further arranged in order of increasing complexity, from discriminations(which require simple types of prior learning and knowledge), to concepts(which require discriminations as prerequisites), to rules (which requireconcepts as prerequisites) to higher order rules (which require simple rulesas prerequisites). They also describe special kinds of prerequisites which aidthe learning process: enabling and supportive. Enabling prerequisiteknowledge is that knowledge which is essential to learning, while supportiveprerequisite knowledge is that previously learned knowledge which may behelpful, but not essential to acquiring the current to-be-learned information.To elaborate this whole process, we provide a simple example. For individualsto be able to read a sentence, they need to be able to discriminate betweenwords, which requires some knowledge about letters (also requiringdiscrimination), conceptual knowledge about the semantics of these words,the rules applied to links between these words to form the sentence, andultimately, the meaning of the sentence and its connection to furtherinformation. The enabling prerequisite knowledge in this case would beletter recognition and discrimination, while supportive knowledge could behaving read a book, and relating the key points of the story in simple terms.

Higher order rule

Rule Rule

Definedconcept

Definedconcept

Concreteconcept

Concreteconcept

(Source: Jonassen et al., 1989, p. 40) Discrimination Discrimination

Figure 1.Levels of a learning hierarchy

45

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

irm

ingh

am]

at 1

6:41

10

Oct

ober

201

4


Thus, this model of task analysis and instruction as produced by Gagnedeclares the terminal objective as paramount, and that lower, subordinateobjectives should be learnt prior to higher ones being taught. Intellectualskills are further broken down into subskills, but none of the other four areas(verbal information, cognitive strategy, attitude and motor skill) seem tohave this requirement. Critical thinking seems to be able to fit into the mouldsomewhat, but with reservations, as will be discussed after the other modelsare presented.

The concept hierarchy approach

This type of analysis has been used for a number of decades, although notnecessarily in the field of task analysis (Jonassen et al., 1989). Developedfrom Gagne's hierarchy of intellectual skills, this technique also analysesgoals or behavioural objectives classified as intellectual skills. The mainquestion this approach seeks to answer is 'What must a student alreadyknow so that, with a minimal amount of instruction, this task can belearned'? (Dick and Carey, 1990: 50). The difference between this modeland the learning hierarchy model is the type of skill—the learning hierarchyrequires learners to develop intellectual skills as prerequisites to being ableto employ higher order skills and abilities. Within the concept hierarchymodel, concepts rather than skills are required before more difficult conceptscan be mastered. Critical thinking, although it contains a group of skillswhich can be developed, is an abstract cognitive psychological construct,and would seem to work within this model. This section thus analyses theextent to which the model offers procedures for the analysis of tasks in thedevelopment of critical thinking.

Referring to Figure 2, to reach the terminal goal or objective (box 7—problem solving), a student must first be able to meet each of the lower orderintellectual skills, which, in turn, require mastery of even more basic skills.Therefore, to be able to solve problems, the student must acquire the first andsecond rules, as depicted in boxes 4 and 6. However, prior to being able tomaster the first rule (box 4), the learner must have learnt concepts 1 and 2(boxes 2 and 3). Again, the second concept requires the discrimination skillto be able to proceed.

From within this perspective, students must have developed a sufficientknowledge structure about the concept or concepts before higher orderprocesses can occur. According to Reigeluth (1983: 348), a knowledgestructure reveals 'relationships among pieces of knowledge (among facts,concepts, principles and procedures)'. Conceptual structures comprisethree types: parts, which are the components of a given concept; kinds,which are the varieties within the concept; and matrices, which are tables ofcombination of two or more conceptual structures (Reigeluth, 1983).

46

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

irm

ingh

am]

at 1

6:41

10

Oct

ober

201

4


Instructional goal onproblem solving

First rule identified as'What learner needs toknow to solve problem*

Second rule identified as'What learner needs toknow to solve problem'

First concept identifiedas 'What learner needsto know to leam firstrule'

Second concept identifiedas 'What learner needs toknow to leam first rule'

Concept identified as'What learner needs toknow to leam second rule'

Discrimination identifiedas 'What learner heeds toknow to leam secondconcept'

1

(Source: Dick and Carey, 1990, p. 51)

Figure 2.Hypothetical hierarchical analysis

of a problem-solving goal

Thus, the instructional designer, for any given set of related concepts (alsocalled 'co-ordinate concepts' by Tiemann and Markle, 1978), could map outrelationships through the use of a diagrammatical concept hierarchy. Thisdiagrammatic representation can also be used as a learning aid by students,because it gives an overview of relationships amongst the major areas orconcepts covered in each of the lessons or study modules (Naidu andBernard, 1992).

47

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

irm

ingh

am]

at 1

6:41

10

Oct

ober

201

4


Before beginning a concept hierarchy analysis, the analyst must firstdetermine whether the task or content within the instructional segment canbe formed into a conceptual hierarchy. This procedure or informationshould contain concepts or principles which must be learned, but also whichcan be grouped in a hierarchical order (Jonassen et al., 1989). As mentionedpreviously, this can be organised either by kinds (for instance, electricalequipment into entertainment, labour saving, comfort or food storagecategories), or by parts (to continue with the electrical example, groupedinto casing, wiring, mechanical, switching, lighting categories), or by acombination of the two into a matrix (Reigeluth, 1983).

This information is then placed into hierarchical order, with the superordinateconcept uppermost, the subsidiary concepts in the second row, and so on,until the most subordinate concepts known by the learner are reached. Thisshould then form a tree-like diagram revealing the relationships betweeneach of the concepts. Naturally, instructional designers would consult withcontent specialists prior to final implementation of the instruction.

To aid instructional designers conduct concept hierarchy analyses, Jonassenet al. (1989: 297,298) devised a sequence of steps, as follows:

1. determine if a concept hierarchy analysis is applicable;

2. gather sources of task information;

3. identify concepts from the task or content information;

4. select a method for categorising and grouping these concepts;

5. identify the most superordinate concept;

6. generate the subordinate concepts for the most superordinate concept;

7. generate the most subordinate concept levels;

8. review the concept hierarchy;

9. field-test the hierarchy.

In this model, groups of conceptual items or terms are arranged into anhierarchical presentation, forease of eitherlearningorpresentation. However,these concepts can also be defined in either abstract or concrete form. Forexample, one can differentiate the concrete and abstract hierarchicalstructures, or differentiate further within the conceptual structure, either asa parts or a kinds conceptual structure (Reigeluth and Stein, 1983). Theseauthors also discuss the procedural order structure, in which the lowerprocedure must be performed before higher procedures can be completed.

Foshay (1983) used this model successfully with the analysis of instructionin computer program debugging. Foshay compared the three methods of

48

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

irm

ingh

am]

at 1

6:41

10

Oct

ober

201

4


concept hierarchy, information processing and learning hierarchy analysesat some length, in terms of types of information, and the macro- and micro-levels of instructional sequence (these are summarised in Figure 3).

Type ofinformation

Macro-levelinstructionalsequence

Micro-levelinstructionalsequence

Learninghierarchy

Concepthierarchy

Informationprocessing

(Source: Foshay, 1983, p. 9)

condition,observable

behaviours,criteria

concepts andrelationships

. cognitive skills

bottom-up

none (or top-down)

progressivecomplexity

events ofinstructionalmodel

conceptpresentation

algorithms; erroranalysis

Figure 3.Summary of features of the three

approaches to task analysis

After evaluating the three models, he found that the concept hierarchyanalysis was superior for this type of instruction, using the 'kinds' taxonomydiscussed by Reigeluth and Stein (1983). In his instruction of computerdebugging, Foshay found that the concept hierarchy method proved mostsuccessful, because the cognitive processes were fairly simple. He claimedthe specification of conditions and criteria of performance were impracticalin the other two methods of analysis, and the concept hierarchy modelpresented elegant and precise prescriptions for instructional design, aproperty which the information processing method seemed to lack.

This model also shows some promise in terms of critical thinkingdevelopment, except that it would present critical thinking as a concept tobe developed separate from the content in a course of study. If criticalthinking is a general rather than a domain specific ability, this may bepossible. However, critical thought is ineffective unless it analyses thethread of reasoning within an argument or statement and compares thisgiven information with previously known declarative and proceduralinformation. In this sense it needs to be learned in tandem with declarativeand procedural knowledge and not as a separate concept, which can belearned independently from supporting knowledge.

49

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

irm

ingh

am]

at 1

6:41

10

Oct

ober

201

4


It seems, therefore, that the search must continue fora task analysis strategywhich offers guidelines for being able to analyse both content and informationprocessing together for the development of critical thought.

The information processing approach

The information processing approach became popular in the 1960s(Anderson, 1990) as a branch from both behavioural psychology andcomputing science. With the advent of computers, it was proposed thatcovert human thought mirrored the processes of the computer. Thus humanproblem solving, metaphorically compared with the computer (Newell andSimon, 1972), is based on information, and the processing of this informationis the acting out of this process in the form of behaviour. The human mindis described as a mechanism where information is input, stored, retrieved,and operated upon, and contains the levels of sensory, short-term (orworking), and long-term (or semantic) memory (Resnick, 1976).

Thus, the information processing analysis (or IPA—Jonassen et al., 1989)approach focusses on cognitive processes rather than the behaviouralstimulus-response approach, and outlines a performance sequence (bothovert and covert), rather than the learning sequence of the learning hierarchyanalysis. IPA focussesonthecovertcognitiveprocesses used by acompetentor expert performer (Jonassen et al., 1989). The expert utilises not onlyprocedural knowledge (knowledge about how to perform various cognitiveactivities), but also declarative knowledge (knowledge about facts andinformation) to solve problems or achieve some aim. Indeed, it has beenargued that 'all cognitive activities are fundamentally problem solving innature' (Anderson, 1990:221). Gearly, the expert organises an extensivearray of various types of knowledge within the domain in which thisexpertise is founded, to achieve this problem solving result.

IPAs are normally conducted through the use of algorithms, which mirrorcognitive processes (Foshay, 1983) (see Figure 4). The cognitive tasks aredescribed as a sequence of operations and decisions, and begin with an'input' or 'start', and end with an 'exit' or 'end'. Operations are actions'accomplished by the performer, such as adding, recalling or summarising',and decisions are steps which involve a 'choice or judgement by theperformer, such as selecting, choosing or evaluating' (Jonassen et al., 1989:61). Decisions, in the form of questions, are normally depicted by diamondsin the algorithm, and the 'Yes' or 'No' response leads to consequences ofthis branching to an alternative operation, or another decision. Each decisionor operation in the sequence is recorded as a discrete step.

To devise the IPA, then, the analyst can either request the expert performerto 'talk through' the process, describing the cognitive process whileperforming the task, or the analyst can describe these processes. Theresultant algorithm's sequences, operations and decisions can be quite

50

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

irm

ingh

am]

at 1

6:41

10

Oct

ober

201

4

(Input)

(Operation)

Enter withproblem to

solve

Define problem

List possiblesolutions

Generateconsequences

for each solution

Select bestsolution

Test solution

(Source: Jonassen et al., 1989, p. 67)


YESIs

thereanother viable

solution

Didthe solution

solve theproblem

YES

Problemsolved

(Decision)

(Exit)

Figure 4.Information processing analysis

of the scientific method

51

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

irm

ingh

am]

at 1

6:41

10

Oct

ober

201

4


different between analysts, since performers may accomplish the same taskvia various methods, especially with complex tasks and procedures.

Because the algorithms are consistent with the analyst's personal model ofcognitive processing, the set of mental operations and parameters will varybetween analysts (Foshay, 1983). These analyses should include at least thethree following general principles, which Foshay outlines. First, they shouldinclude cognitive processes, which in turn should contain fairly genericoperations, such as recalling from long-term memory(LTM), holding inshort-term memory (STM) information perceived by sensory register,chunking, discriminating, searching, and decoding. Second, close attentionmust be given to any relationships between these operations. Thus, ifprocessing needs to occur in STM, it must be shown that new or existinginformation exists there. And third, the algorithm must remain within thelimits of the human information processing system. These limits includeresearch which points out that humans have the ability to encode and decode'chunks' of information the size of four to seven bits of information.

In summary, the IPA approach has as its basic tenet the view that input,processing of information, storage and output are important and necessaryaspects of learning. Since the processing of information is seen as occurringin serial fashion, cognitive processes can be determined and represented ina diagram in the form of an algorithm. Normally, expert performancestrategies are studied in a bid to develop instructional methods for thedevelopment of novice cognitive strategies, incorporating both proceduraland declarative knowledge. Standard symbols are predicated uponassumptions held in this model, that selection, evaluation and decision-making are integral in learning, and thus should be offered in instruction.Foshay (1983) includes the three principles of cognitive processes,relationships between operations, and the recognition of and remainingwithin the limitations of the human information processing system.

This section has described a number of techniques in the task analysisprocess used by various analysts for various analyses. The methods ofbehavioural, learning hierarchy, concept hierarchy, and informationprocessing (IPA) were described. In the following sections the advantagesand disadvantages of each of these are discussed.

Advantages and disadvantages of the three approaches for thisstudy

Jonassen et al. (1989) note that there is no one particular technique or modelof task analysis which is better or worse than another. The basic requirementsof the training or instruction determine the method used.

In the selection of a task analysis strategy, there are a number of variableswhich affect the analysis process. These are (1) the diversity of tasks being

52

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

irm

ingh

am]

at 1

6:41

10

Oct

ober

201

4


analysed; (2) the instructional situation (i.e. whether psychomotor orlearning tasks); (3) the designer's experience and training; (4) the instructionaldevelopment model being applied; and (5) the type of task analysis alreadycompleted (Jonassen et al., 1989: 17-18). Since the tasks currently underreview are those which involve a higher order thinking ability, this excludesany model which analyses only behavioural task performance. In theprevious discussion, it was determined that behavioural task analysis wasinappropriate for the current study, simply because critical thinking is acognitive ability, and not a physical task performance.

Gagne's learning hierarchy model was suitable in some respects, in thatterminal objectives for successful intellectual task performance are specified,although in hierarchical order. In this model, 'lower' intellectual skills needto be mastered before higher order intellectual skills can be learned. Again,this requirement to order hierarchically the skills does not suit the presentstudy, because it is not desirable to develop critical thinking as a singularconcept. The major requirement for effective critical thought is that thecritical thinker first develop a knowledge base about the content beforecritical thought can take place. Since critical thinking is indelibly linkedwith knowledge, analyses the consistency and validity of information, andcannot be taught separately from declarative and procedural knowledge,there needs to be some technique which incorporates both types—theknowledge and the ability of critical thinking pertaining to thatknowledge.

Critical thinking, as a cognitive ability, also does not seem to contain skillswhich can be structured in a way similar to otherintellectual skills portrayedby the learning hierarchy model. It is true that, with regard to criticalthinking development, subordinate skills are necessary before thesuperordinate ability (critical thinking) can be mastered. Many of thesesubordinate skills are interrelated sub-skills which require similar cognitiveprocesses. For instance, to be able to analyse an argument, one needs to beable to deduce conclusions regarding information in the appropriate domain.

One also needs to use deductive processes to be able to analyse theeffectiveness of solutions for problems, explain or define a concept, test ahypothesis, or make decisions correctly. However, one could not justifiablyargue that, once a student has leamt the skills of deduction, induction andargument analysis, that student could reason critically in an effectivemanner in all subject areas. There also needs to be the associated developmentof knowledge in a particular domain before this could take place. Thestudent needs to understand concepts within this domain. This could clearlybe developed using the concept hierarchy model. For effective criticalthinking, the learner also needs to determine lacking or irrelevant information,and search for expert information to fill the gaps in the given statements orarguments.

53

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

irm

ingh

am]

at 1

6:41

10

Oct

ober

201

4


Using the information processing approach for analysing criticalthinking tasks

Students entering into a unit of study would not necessarily follow theobvious path requiring them to read introductory material before theyproceed with the more factual, declarative and procedural information(Williams, 1992).

However, it is assumed that the expert leamer would become familiar withall of the requirements for mastery of information and problem-solvingencapsulated within the study materials. Determining what the expertlearner does in this situation is basic to the IPA model (Resnick, 1976).

Instructors teaching through text naturally prefer students to read all of theinformation written in their materials, but realise few students would do so.When designers and instructors at the University of Southern Queenslanddesign and write the text, certain procedures are followed in an attempt tosimplify learning. As shown in Figures 5.1 to 5.5, the expert distance leamerwould follow these procedures as outlined in the following steps:

1. Students should begin their studies in a unit by reading and analysingthe objectives contained in the unit specifications (which also containsa synopsis and rationale, topics or modules covered in the unit, textsand materials to be purchased, unit workload, assessment details, staffinvolved in the unit, and any further information whichmay be peculiarto the unit). If personal prior knowledge is required as a prerequisite,and is unavailable, it would be best for the student to acknowledge this,and discuss this with the instructor. It is possible the person may havesome of this knowledge (otherwise he or she would not have chosen theunitin the first place), but furtherinformation in the unitobjectives mayindicate this is not so, or was not made clear previously.

2. Expert learners then proceed to the next step—that of determining whatit is they are expected to learn from the information given. Ideally, atthe beginning of every module contained in the study book, writersinclude a set of terminal objectives, indicating what the learner issupposed to know, or be able to perform upon completion of thatmodule. These should be specified in behavioural terms, such as 'listall of the characteristics of a mammal', or 'compare and contrastcognitive and behavioural psychology'. Again, if the student is unclearabout some of the prerequisite knowledge required for successfulcompletion for that section of study, it is best to acquire this informationfrom an authoritative source—either a textbook or the instructor.

3. Once the leamer understands what it is that is required for mastery, heor she should then learn both declarative and procedural information,usually beginning with introductory material necessary to link priorknowledge stored in long-term memory with the current knowledge.

54

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

irm

ingh

am]

at 1

6:41

10

Oct

ober

201

4


ANALYSEUNIT

OBJECTIVES

Determine personalprior knowledge for

each objective

Isprerequisiteknowledgerequired?

* LTM = Long term memory

Figure 5.1.Student analysis of

unit objectives

55

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

irm

ingh

am]

at 1

6:41

10

Oct

ober

201

4


ANALYSEMODULAROBJECTIVES

Determine personalprior knowledge for

each objective

Ispersonal

prerequisiteknowledge sufficient

at current levelof detail?

Ispersonal

knowledgesufficient?

Stop, andacquire this

from differentsource, e.g. text

Figure 5.2.Student analysis ofmodular objectives

56

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

irm

ingh

am]

at 1

6:41

10

Oct

ober

201

4


LEARN•I INFORMATION

IN MODULE

Make notes andmemorise key

points

Is thisinformation

consistent with priorknowledge and

objectives?

Hasthe

inconsistencynow beenclarified?

Stop, anddetermine point of

inconsistency throughdifferent expert source

e.g. readings

Figure 53.Student learning of

all modular information

57

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

irm

ingh

am]

at 1

6:41

10

Oct

ober

201

4


COMPLETEALL ACTIVITIES

AND EXTRAREADINGS

Employ learnedstrategies to answer

questions/solveproblems/learn

information

Hasknowledge

increased throughanswering/reflecting

on this activity.or reading?.

NO

YES

Stop, anddetermine gaps in

personal knowledge, andmeans to fill them.Proceed to fill gaps.

Ismore

knowledgerequired for

YES

Figure 5.4.Student completion of

in-text activities and reading

58

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

irm

ingh

am]

at 1

6:41

10

Oct

ober

201

4


COMPLETEWORK ON

ASSESSMENTITEMS

Evaluatepersonal

grade

F

Evaluate allrequirements of

assignment/examination

i

NO

YES

Isstandard

sufficient?

Ispersonal

knowledgesufficient to complete

the assessmentsuccessfully?

Complete assessment^and evaluate learningagainst instructional

objectives

Figure 5.5.Student completionof assessment items

59

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

irm

ingh

am]

at 1

6:41

10

Oct

ober

201

4


This may be in the form of a concept map (Novak, 1990), an advanceorganiser (Ausubel, 1968), or just discussing knowledge the studentsmay or should have learned previously. The instructor should explaineverything clearly and concisely in this material, giving the student amodel from which to write essays or assignments in return. It can hardlybe fair for instructors to write poorly-structured materials, and thenexpect students to present perfect academic work for marking. Thisinformation must also be consistent with the latest accepted andresearched information, or if there is some debate about the issuesinvolved, it should be clearly specified. Again, points of view must beclear and concise, and possibly ask the learner to decide on a personalstance, ratherthan the instructor demanding that students take his or herview. However, the critical and effective learner will be aware of theseissues and the stance the instructor has taken, will determineinconsistencies to clarify these points of view within the arguments, tosee which are valid and which are false assumptions.

4. Embodied within the modules, instructors should include activities andadditional readings for the students. Expert learners will be eager todetermine whether personal knowledge is sufficient for future use byattempting these activities, and reading relevant readings provided.Gaps in personal knowledge can easily be determined, and informationsought to fill these gaps. Again, a critical mind will determine thevalidity of arguments given by various sources.

5. Once all of the information has been mastered, the student should thenintegrate work into assessment items. This may require a continuationof studying further modules and readings, and completing associatedactivities. If questions cannot be answered, the learner should thenacknowledge this, and seek the information which would clarify thelack in knowledge. Once the student has attained all of the requiredinformation, the assessment item is handed in. If the instructor haswritten critical but constructive comments on the paper upon its return,the expert student will develop naturally further critical thinking abilitythrough the instructor's comments as a model of expert critical thinking,as well as leam more declarative and procedural knowledge from thecorrections made on his or her incorrect information in the assignment.

Procedures for analysing text-based instruction for critical thinkingdevelopment

Understandably, the flowcharts for the analysis of tasks embedded inlearning materials follow similar paths to that which the learner is expectedto accomplish. Therefore, the five major areas of unit objectives—modularobjectives, modular information, in-text activities and additional readings,and assessment items—need to be analysed by both the student and theanalyst. However, the duties to be performed by both are variant. The

60

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

irm

ingh

am]

at 1

6:41

10

Oct

ober

201

4


student has one or two goals in mind in studying this material—at least tobe able to pass or get a good grade in the unit, and hopefully be able to learnand retain all of the most important information expounded in the studymaterials. The designer or analyst, on the other hand, aims to produce and/or determine the best quality product by and through which the learner willprocess the information and procedures expressed in the materials. In thiscase, the designer needs to analyse the extent to which instructionalstrategies are utilised in the development of critical thinking ability. Sincecritical thinking is seen by many as imperative as an instructional goal fortertiary students, the more the instructional materials incorporate thesestrategies, the better is the instructional quality of the materials.

As shown in the algorithm produced in Figure 6.1, unit objectives are thefirst to be analysed. Commencing from the START position, we begin byanalysing the first objective contained in the unit specification. We need toask whether the objective is related to critical thinking as defined in thisstudy. If not, an understandable nil development in critical thinking willoccur, and the appropriate rating is given to the objective. If it is related tocritical thinking, a rating is given to the objective with regard to its strengthrelative to the cognitive ability.

We proceed with the analysis by determining the next objective (if there isone), and continue in a similar manner to the objective just analysed, untilthere are no more objectives in the unit specification. We then proceed to thenext part of the analysis—analysing the modular objectives. If there are nomodular objectives, we give the section a nil rating, and proceed to themodular content.

Assuming there are objectives, the analyst needs to determine (see Figure6.2), as with the objectives in the unit specifications, whether each one isrelated to critical thinking or not, and if so, to what degree. Again, theappropriate rating is given. This operation continues until the last objectiveis reached, after which the analyst will proceed to the next operation—'Evaluate information given' (see Figure 6.3).

It is assumed in this study that a sufficient amount of information is requiredfor people to become critical thinkers. One cannot think critically aboutsomething until one has some knowledge of the subject under discussion.This assumption, then, is the rationale for the inclusion here of thisoperation. Clearly, previous learning could have been gained to allow alearner to be able to think critically without having to learn the informationcontained in each module (or chapter) of the study materials. However,unless clearly specified as a prerequisite, it should not be assumed by theinstructor that a student has learned, knows about, or even understandsinformation leading to the current information. Especially if new or difficultinformation is being discussed or presented, it is best to summarise the keypoints of the required prerequisite knowledge.

61

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

irm

ingh

am]

at 1

6:41

10

Oct

ober

201

4


The information the designer needs to analyse is that which motivates thelearner to think critically. If insufficient information is given in the moduleas lecturer notes, is the student asked to search for further information? Mostof the information in this operation may be presented in the accompanyingtextbook, which the students may have had to purchase for the unit. Themodule would then discuss or highlight the important points the studentneeds to leam, and give an indication of the further readings or activitieswith which the student should become familiar.

If the textbook is used extensively as the major source of information, doesit contain instructional strategies which promote critical thinking, presentingarguments and statements which are internally and externally consistent,relevant and valid? According to the extent that these conditions are met, theappropriate rating should be given.

Activities and readings (refer to Figure 6.4) are normally integral componentsof the information contained in the modules. As such, they should beevaluated with the previous operation (modular information), but berecognised for the special part they play in learning. Activities promoteactive learning, through getting the learner to relate the information topersonal experiences, to be creative and suggest further examples besidesthe ones given, or to carry out practical problem-solving tasks relating to thesubject under discussion (Rowntree, 1990). Thus, they promote learning byallowing the learner to interact actively with the information presented bythe lecturer/writer in the modules, or by the author in the textbook. Furtherreadings give the learner additional information, a broader perspective, andpossibly even one which is variant from the instructor's, something whichis not to be discouraged. If so, which information.and the related arguments,is valid, and are there missing or irrelevant bits of information? It is hopedthat the student is encouraged to think about these issues while studying thematerials.

Referring to Figure 6.5, students should continually evaluate whether theirknowledge in a unit is sufficient to enable the successful completion of anyassessment items, whether they be formative (usually not part of the finalgrade) or summative (added to the final grade). Assessment details shouldcontain sufficient information by way of criteria so that the student has ahigh level of understanding with regard to the standard of work expected forsubmission. Is this given in explicit detail? Has the instructor givensufficient previous instruction on how the student is to be analytical and tothink critically, and repeated this instruction here with the assessmentdetails? Is the student asked to solve intellectual or practical problems,giving valid arguments and rationales for making certain steps, instead ofsimply returning declarative knowledge as was given to him or her? Has thestudent been encouraged to learn actively, to analyse, synthesise andevaluate while assimilating knowledge, so that more effective learning canoccur?

62

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

irm

ingh

am]

at 1

6:41

10

Oct

ober

201

4


ANALYSEUNIT

OBJECTIVES

ki trelated tocritical

thinking?

Proceed withnext operation

No explicitdevelopment of

critical thinking atthis stage

YES

Give appropriate ratingagainst checklist andcritical thinking skill

Figure 6.1.Instructional designer analysis

of unit objectives

63

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

irm

ingh

am]

at 1

6:41

10

Oct

ober

201

4


ANALYSEMODULAROBJECTIVES

Another \ w/^Proceed withobjective? / H^next operation

k i trelated tocritical

thinking?



YES


Continue withnext module

(from Figures 6.4and 6.5)

Figure 6.2.The analysis of modular objectives

by instructional designer

64

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

irm

ingh

am]

at 1

6:41

10

Oct

ober

201

4


EVALUATEINFORMATION

GIVEN

Is theinformation

sufficient to enablecritical thinking?

Proceed withnext operation



YES


C Continue with SS.next module \ _

(from Figures 6.4 Jand 6.5) ^ ^ /

Figure 63.Instructional designer

evaluation of information

65

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

irm

ingh

am]

at 1

6:41

10

Oct

ober

201

4

Distance Education Vol. 15 No. 11994

EVALUATEACnVITYOR

READING / YES

Isthe student

asked to activelyprocess the

information?




Return toFigure 6.2—'Analysemodular objectives'

Figure 6.4.Instructional designer evaluation of

the in-text activities and extra readings

66

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

irm

ingh

am]

at 1

6:41

10

Oct

ober

201

4


/ EVALUATE/ FORMATIVE\ AND/OR / <\ SUMMATIVE /\ ASSESSMENT/ Y E S

Has thestudent been

given instructionsrequiring critical

thinking?YES




YES

Return toFigure 6.2—

'Analyse modularobjectives'

Figure 6.5.Instructional designer evaluation of

formative and summative assessment items

67

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

irm

ingh

am]

at 1

6:41

10

Oct

ober

201

4


Conclusion

In this paper we discussed some of the methods open to the instructionaldesigner or analyst in either predetermining or evaluating instructionalstrategies for the development of student, higher order, cognitive abilitiessuch as critical thinking. After having found that the learning hierarchy andthe concept learning models contained problems with the instruction forcritical thinking, because of its need to be linked with content knowledge,these were discarded. We found, however, that the information processingapproach seemed to be an appropriate model. An algorithm was presentedwhich would enable an in-depth analysis of instruction for critical thinkingin distance learning materials. Although this procedure has not yet beenvalidated, it promises to be a useful tool for this purpose. One of theproblems which may occur is the lack of sufficient detail, so that the analystwill need to make unspecified decisions during the analysis.

References

Anderson, J.R. (1990) Cognitive psychology and its implications. New York: W.H.Freeman.

Ausubel, D.P. (1968) Educational psychology: A cognitive view. New York: Holt,Rinehart and Winston.

Barnett, R. (1989) The idea of higher education. Milton Keynes: The Society forResearch into Higher Education and Open University Press.

Dick, W. and Carey, L. (1990) The systematic design of instruction. Glenview, III:Scott, Foresman/Little, Brown Higher Education.

Foshay, W.R. (1983) Alternative methods of task analysis: A comparison of threetechniques. Journal of Instructional Development, 6, 4, 2-9.

Gagne, R.M. (1968) Learning hierarchies. Educational Psychologist, 6, 1-9.

Gagne, R.M. and Driscoll, M.P. (1988) Essentials of learning for instruction.Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Hart, L.A. (1986) A response: All 'thinking' paths lead to the brain. EducationalLeadership, 43, 8, 45-48.

Hoffman, C.K. and Medsker, K.L. (1983) Instructional analysis: The missing linkbetween task analysis and objectives. Journal of Instructional Development, 6, 4,17-23.

Jonassen, D.H., Hannum, W.H. and Tessmer, M. (1989) Handbook of task analysisprocedures. New York, NY: Praeger.

Kaufman, R.A. (1972) Educational system planning. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:Prentice-Hall.

McCormick, EJ. and Ilgen, D. (1987) Industrial and organizational psychology(8th edn). London: Allen and Unwin.

68

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

irm

ingh

am]

at 1

6:41

10

Oct

ober

201

4


Miller,R.B. (1962) Task description andanalysis. In Gagne, R.M. (ed.) Psychologicalprinciples in system development. New York: Holt Rinehart and Winston.

Miller, R.B. (1966) Task description and analysis. In Gagne, R.M. (ed.) Psychologicalprinciples in system development. New York: Holt Rinehart and Winston.

Naidu, S. and Bernard, R.M. (1992) Enhancing academic performance in distanceeducation with concept mapping and inserted questions. Distance Education, 13,2, 218-233.

Newell, A. and Simon, H.A. (1972) Human problem solving. Engewood Cliffs, NJ:Prentice-Hall.

Novak, J.D. (1990) Concept maps and vee diagrams: Two metacognitive tools tofacilitate meaningful learning. Instructional Science, 19, 29-52.

Paul, R.W. (1984) Critical thinking: Fundamental to education for a free society.Educational Leadership, September, 4-14.

Petry, B., Mouton, H. and Reigeluth, C.M. (1987) A lesson based on the Gagne-Briggs theory of instruction. In Reigeluth, C.M. (ed.) Instructional theories inaction. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Reigeluth, C.M. (1983) Instructional design: What is it and why is it? In Reigeluth,CM. (ed.) Instructional design theories and models. Hillsdale, NJ; LawrenceErlbaum.

Reigeluth, CM. (1987) Lesson blueprints based on the elaboration theory ofinstruction. In Reigeluth, CM. (ed.) Instructional theories in action. Hillsdale, NJ:Lawrence Erlbaum.

Reigeluth, C.M. and Stein, F.S. (1983) The elaboration theory of instruction. InReigeluth, CM. (ed.) Instructional design theories and models: An overview oftheir current status. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Resnick, L.B. (1976) Task analysis in instructional design: Some cases frommathematics. In Klahr, D. (ed.) Cognition and instruction. Hillsdale, NJ: LawrenceErlbaum.

Rowntree, D. (1990) Teaching through self-instruction: How to develop openlearning materials. London: Kogan Page.

Tiemann, P.W. and Markle, S.M. (1978) Analysing instructional content: A guideto instruction and evaluation. Champaign, III: Stipes.

Williams, I. (1992) Where and how do I begin? An investigation of how USPstudents address external study materials. A Seminar Presentation, December 8,Distance Education Centre, University of Southern Queensland.

69

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

irm

ingh

am]

at 1

6:41

10

Oct

ober

201

4

analysis of instruction for critical thinking in distance learning materials

Documents