31
Have We Demystified Critical Thinking?
showed less miscalibration than poor students. In addition, these data suggest that all
students recalibrate based on feedback – all students showed less miscalibration over the
three papers – but high performing students did so more than mid- or low-level students.
Furthermore, the data suggest that the benefits of recalibration transferred to the new
report format for mid- and high-level students whereas this transfer did not occur for low-
level students.
Results such as these underscore the importance of metacognitive skills as a compo-
nent of critical thinking and performance. They also indicate that some students are
better at metacognitive tasks—knowing what they know. Strategies that develop stu-
dents’ abilities to monitor their understanding of the materials and skills they are learn-
ing should increase their performance in the class. Angelo and Cross (1993), among
others, presented multiple ideas for classroom assessment techniques that can help
develop students’ metacognitive skills.
Conclusions
It is important to demystify faculty members’ and students’ conceptions of critical think-
ing. As instructors who would like to facilitate critical thinking in our students, we can
benefit from having a comprehensive conception of critical thinking. First, having an
understanding of what critical thinking is, and making its role and importance explicit to
our students (Halpern, 2003), can help provide a backdrop on which to design critical
thinking activities for a course. Recognizing that critical thinking involves both cognitive
skills and propensity elements can help us to design effective class activities that draw on
both of these factors (Halonen, 1995). We should also consider the level of our students’
cognitive skills when designing activities. Finally, providing students with opportunities to
develop their metacognitive skills at all levels can be crucial in developing their critical
thinking.
0
1234
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
Report
Mean (
SE) Miscalibration
Low
Mid
High
Figure 3.2. Mean (+ SE) miscalibration score for low-, mid-, and high-level performers on each of
four laboratory reports.