good practice guide: supporting critical thinking through

1

A guide for practitioners in higher education

Hilary Wason and Marion Heron

Good Practice Guide: Supporting Critical Thinking Through Purposeful Classroom Talk

2

AcknowledgementsWe would like to thank the Staff Educational Development Association (SEDA) for providing the funding to conduct this study and produce this Good Practice Guide, as well as the academics and professional services staff who have taken part in this research. Of particular mention are the staff who provided the good practice examples in this guide and who regularly participate in the CritTALK ‘Supporting Critical Thinking Through Purposeful Classroom Talk’ Community of Practice:

• Dr Francesca Arrigoni, Senior Lecturer in Physiology and Pharmacology • Amanda Baker, HackCentre Project Manager• Dr Paul Booth, Senior Lecturer, School of Arts, Culture and Communications• Liz Crighton, Associate Professor, Children’s Nursing • Dr Dora Stroumpouki, Senior Lecturer, Adult Nursing• Annie Yonkers, Faculty Employability Partner• Dr Gemma Shearman, Senior Lecturer, School of Life Sciences, Pharmacy and Chemistry

We would also like to thank our research assistant, Alina Hussain, for her help in conducting the research, and Claire Selby and Ellice Thatcher from Studio KT1 for designing this guide.

3

About the AuthorsHilary Wason is a Senior Lecturer in the Learning and Teaching Enhancement Centre at Kingston University. She is an Advance HE Senior Fellow and a National Teaching Fellow. Before moving into academic development, she lectured in business education and worked in a range of companies as a marketing and communications specialist. Her research interests are in supporting staff to learn how to teach critical thinking to enhance students’ academic attainment and employability. She has developed a range of Critical Thinking Skills Toolkits (Wason, 2016). These support staff to develop their awareness of the language of critical thinking and to provide teaching methods to use within their existing curricula. She is currently completing her PhD on this topic . This work achieved runner up for the SEDA Educational Development Initiative of the Year (2018). She has published in the areas of critical thinking, student transitions, student engagement and assessment and feedback. You can follow her at @h_wason.

Dr Marion Heron is a Reader in Educational Linguistics at the University of Surrey. She has a background in applied linguistics and has published in the areas of classroom interaction, dialogic pedagogy, academic speaking (oracy) skills and teacher education. Her work in educational linguistics focuses on the role of language in conceptual development and educational strategies to support and develop students’ language proficiency. She works with staff on developing awareness of their own classroom language, classroom interaction and developing educational dialogue in classroom interaction. You can follow her at @MarionHeron65 @LLL_research @SurreyIoE

4

0102

IntroductionPage 05-07

0304050607

Why is Critical Thinking and Dialogic Teaching important in Higher Education?Page 07-09

The Critical Thinking Skills ToolkitPage 10-11

The Good Practice Case StudiesPage 16-39

Dialogic Teaching ActivitiesPage 12-15

References0-42

AppendicesPage 43-54

5

BackgroundIt is widely acknowledged that explicit teaching within disciplinary curricula is needed to support students to develop critical thinking (Abrami et al., 2015). However, it is debatable whether higher education sufficiently develops these skills (Huber and Kunchel, 2016). This is perhaps due to teachers lacking the confidence and access to pedagogical support to help them to teach it (Nicholas and Raider-Roth, 2016). To address this, a series of disciplinary Critical Thinking Skills Toolkits have been developed at Kingston University and shared throughout the sector (Wason, 2016) (See Appendix A). These toolkits contextualise the meaning of and provide activities for teaching critical thinking within a range of academic and professional services disciplines (see Chapter Two for more details). However, despite its wide dissemination, and training on its use, teachers have identified that they are often unsure of the pedagogical principles underpinning the toolkit and how to use the resources. In short, they are still unclear about how they can teach it (Stedman and Adams, 2012).

Critical thinking is both supported by and developed through educational classroom discourse (Michaels, O’Connor and Resnick, 2008). This enables teachers and students to work together to reach a common understanding (Alexander, 2010). In addition, students make their thinking visible through reasoning, justification, challenging and explaining (Mercer and Dawes, 2014). With the support of a SEDA Research and Evaluation Small Grant 2020, the authors decided to investigate how the introduction of a dialogic teaching approach (Alexander, 2020) which foregrounds classroom talk and “capitalizes on the power of talk to further students’ thinking, learning, and problem solving” (Kim and Wilkinson, 2019, p.70) can support teachers’ use of the Critical Thinking Skills Toolkit. This Good Practice Guide outlines the key thinking behind the project and provides practitioners in higher education with resources to develop a dialogic teaching approach in conjunction with critical thinking in their disciplinary classrooms.

01 Introduction

6

The Project: Supporting Critical Thinking Through Purposeful Classroom Talk

This case study research explored the experiences of a group of teachers from a range of academic and professional services backgrounds who have used the principles of dialogic teaching to support their use of the Critical Thinking Skills Toolkit in the classroom. The overriding research question was:

How can teachers develop and use a dialogic pedagogy and teaching resources to underpin their use of the Critical Thinking Toolkit?

Teachers participated in an already established critical thinking community of practice (CritTALK) to develop and evaluate how a dialogic teaching approach supported their critical thinking teaching. Though a planned scheme of academic development activities, they were introduced to the principles and repertoires of dialogic teaching, developed their understanding, self-efficacy and skills and evaluated their experiences of using the approach to support tools from the Critical Thinking Skills Toolkit (Wason, 2016). The series of workshop sessions covered the topics outlined below using Alexander (2020) as a key text. The workshops also aimed to enhance the criteria of teaching quality, learning environment, student outcomes and learning gain as detailed in the Teaching Excellence Framework (TEF, 2017).

Table 1: CritTALK Community of Practice Academic Development Activities

Session 1 Dialogic teaching: six principles of dialogic teaching & dialogic teaching repertoires

Critical Thinking Skills Toolkit – The Critique

Session 2 Dialogic teaching: questioning and extending and appropriate language

Critical Thinking Skills Toolkit – The Argument

Session 3 Dialogic teaching: discussing, deliberating and argumentation / Ground rules for discussion

Critical Thinking Skills Toolkit: The CaseSession 4 Dialogic teaching: Dialogic feedback talk

Critical thinking Skills Toolkit: feedback as process

Session 5 Review of content and self-reflectionPreparation of materials and activities

7

How to use this Good Practice GuideChapter Two outlines the conceptual framework underpinning the project: critical thinking and dialogic teaching. Chapter Three and Chapter Four provide practical examples of activities which reflect critical thinking and dialogic teaching. Chapter Five presents a number of case studies provided by practitioners and exemplifies how dialogic teaching principles have been used with resources from the Critical Thinking Skills Toolkit (Wason, 2016). It is hoped that the range of disciplines represented in the case studies will allow all teachers to find appropriate and relevant activities, resources and techniques for their context. After each case study description there is a Reflection and Action activity for teachers to apply some of the ideas to their own practice.

Why is critical thinking and dialogic teaching important in higher education?

The importance of critical thinking is well recognised to equip students academically and for the requirements of the 21st century educational and employment landscape (Teo, 2019). As well as equipping students to excel academically (Ren, Tong, Peng and Wang, 2020), critical thinking equips students to navigate their way through the volume of information they are exposed to and the complexity of future work environments they could be entering (Zucker, 2019). While acquiring knowledge is still important, it is even more crucial that students are able to extract, synthesise and apply information to make decisions and develop and communicate solutions to complex problems (Teo, 2019). Consequently, critical thinking is an increasingly desired skill for Higher Education institutions to provide (Janssen, et al., 2019). The role of teachers is central to this (Abrami, et al., 2015) as is a pedagogic approach to enable students to develop the skills, dispositions and values to become a critical thinker (Teo, 2019). A range of methodologies can be used to teach critical thinking, for example case studies, problem based learning, cooperative learning, experiential learning, dialogue (Abrami et al., 2015; Bezanilla et al., 2019). However there is increasing evidence for the favourable use of dialogic teaching, for example teaching and student led discussions, question and answers and feedback to support critical thinking (Bellaera, et al., 2021). This provides further support for investigating how the principles of dialogic teaching could support the use of the Critical Thinking Skills Toolkit (Wason, 2016). These principles are now discussed.

02

8

Dialogic teaching

Dialogic teaching is evidenced by a particular type of classroom discourse, one in which teachers and students use educational dialogue to support critical thinking and develop students’ academic speaking skills. However, very little research has been carried out into dialogic teaching in the higher education sector. Notable exceptions include Engin’s work on dialogic interaction (2017), Hardman’s analysis of dialogic interaction in a lecture (2016), Heron’s examination of dialogic stance (2018) and Simpson’s study of preservice teachers’ reflections on dialogic teaching (2016). Given the importance of critical thinking in developing disciplinary understanding, it is surprising that dialogic teaching and classroom interaction have been largely unexplored (Heron and Dippold, 2021).

9

Specifically relevant to this project is the relationship between dialogic teaching and critical thinking. Cui and Teo (2021) argue that dialogic teaching is “a viable approach to develop students’ thinking and knowledge” (Cui and Teo, 2021, p.187). A strong body of research in the compulsory school sector provides evidence for the link between dialogic teaching and academic achievement. For example, Alexander and Hardman (2017) report on a project in which school teachers were trained in the use of a dialogic teaching approach. Results indicated that both students and teachers developed their classroom talk repertoires and interactional opportunities. In particular, teachers used more open questions.

This move to a dialogic teaching approach was found to have a positive effect on students’ academic achievement in English and Science. Also in the school context, Howe et al. (2019) concluded that when children use elaborated responses and querying – all critical thinking skills – their mastery of the curriculum improved, as measured by standardised tests. On the basis of this research, Vrikki et al. (2019) carried out a teacher training programme which developed teachers’ analysis and reflection on their classroom discourse. As a result of the project, teachers were found to have developed a more nuanced understanding of classroom talk and equitable participation.

Although set in the school context, there is no reason why the projects above are not applicable to the higher education context. Firstly, the classroom language promoted in the studies above reflects the language of critical thinking in HE - elaboration, argumentation, justification and questioning. Secondly, the approach to training teachers in a teaching methodology which foregrounds classroom talk is highly relevant to supporting teachers in using the Critical Thinking Skills Toolkit (Wason, 2016). Finally, the focus on using the language of critical thinking in spoken, interactive activities to support the development of conceptual understanding is equally valid in HE where academic speaking has been found to be key to developing disciplinary understanding (Mah, 2016).

The university classroom is a unique site for exploring how the development of educational dialogue through a dialogic teaching approach can support the use of the Critical Thinking Skills Toolkits which are now explained in Chapter Three with more detail in Appendix A.

10

To be meaningful, critical thinking skills cannot be taught in a vacuum and need development within disciplinary teaching (Hirsch, 2006). To address this, a series of discipline specific toolkits have been co-created with teachers, students and employers to support critical thinking teaching. Each toolkit contains fourteen branded learning and teaching tools with activities and guided worksheets (Wason, 2016).

The tools are designed to support teachers to shift from a transmission based teaching focus where students are taught their disciplinary content, to a facilitative approach where skills are taught within this content (Teo, 2019). The toolkit explains each of the main CT skills and how to practise them in the classroom and during independent study. Students are introduced to all of these tools at the start of their degree and use them regularly to support their learning. Each tool is branded with a name and logo and makes explicit which particular CT skill or range of skills students are developing during the activity. A detailed explanation of how to use each tool, downloadable worksheets and contextualised examples are also provided. The tools have been designed to support the development of Facione’s (1990) typology of critical thinking skills which follow:

03The Critical Thinking Skills Toolkit

11

• how to find credible and relevant information (information seeking)• how to make sense of it (interpretation)• how to recognise assumptions and bias, and identify and examine different types of data in detail (analysis),• how to evaluate the credibility of claims and arguments, (evaluation)• how to query evidence, read between the lines to draw conclusions and use deductive reasoning (inference) • how to present and explain the results of your findings, develop your argument and make sure you and others understand it (explanation)

The tools are currently being used by over 2000 students and 200 staff at Kingston University (KUL) St. George’s University London,(SGUL) Roehampton University (RU), the University of Surrey (UoS) and the New Jersey Institute of Technology.

Reflection and ActionHow do you currently teach critical thinking? Have a look at your learning outcomes and assessment. Which tools do you think you could use to scaffold the development of critical thinking to align with these learning outcomes?

12

A dialogic teaching approach helps stimulate both lecturers and students’ engagement in the learning and teaching process, making thinking more visible and democratic (Hattie, 2009). It also enhances the relationship between talking, critical reading and critical writing (Alexander, 2020). The following framework outlines the key principles of dialogic teaching (Alexander, 2020). Dialogic teaching is:

Collective: Participants address learning tasks together.Reciprocal: Participants listen to each other, share ideas and consider alternative viewpoints.Supportive: Students express their ideas freely, without fear of embarrassment over ʻwrongʼ answers, and they help each other to reach common understandings.Deliberative: Participants discuss and seek to resolve different points of view, they reason and support their positionsCumulative: Participants build on answers and other oral contributions and chain them into coherent lines of thinking and understanding.Purposeful: Classroom talk, though open and dialogic, is also planned and structured with specific learning objectives.

04Dialogic Teaching Activities

Remember that the way talk is facilitated and organised can make a difference, whether it is face to face or online. Think about whether the discussion for the whole class, in groups or pairs, if it is lecturer led or student led. Think about how the groups are organised so they can be inclusive. Think about varying the different types of talk and the pace of the activities.

13

Dialogic StanceDialogic teaching enables a pedagogical stance to be enacted on knowledge, learning and social relations. It helps students appreciate that learning is interactive, collaborative and that knowledge is not only transmitted but created through purposeful dialogue (Alexander, 2020, p.129). However, it is important to point out that classrooms cannot be dialogic all the time. There may be stages of a lesson when it is not appropriate for dialogue, or there may be institutional constraints that make dialogic teaching challenging (Lefstein, 2010). What is important, however, is that the teacher’s dialogic stance is one which recognises the key role of dialogue in developing disciplinary understanding (Heron, 2018).

Reflection and ActionThink about when it is appropriate in your class to encourage dialogic interaction, and when it is not. What does your answer depend on? Is it the aim of the activity? The physical space in which you are working? How might you adapt some of the constraints to be able to provide opportunities for more dialogue?

Questioning and ExtendingQuestioning is central to a dialogic teaching approach. Questions are important for critical thinking as they encourage students to analyse and think, articulate their thoughts, work collaboratively and work cooperatively.

Don’t forget the importance of getting students to practice their own techniques of questioning and to allow thinking time for students to respond!

14

Using Discussion, Deliberation and ArgumentationDiscussion involves the exchange of information and ideas. Deliberating involves considering the question or ideas. Arguing is about making the case for an idea by using evidence and support. All of these techniques can enhance and extend students’ thinking and reasoning.

Dialogic feedback talkA recent study has found that dialogic feedback talk is evidenced by a number of features (Heron et al., 2021) (See Table 2). The key dialogic principles of cooperation, reciprocity and support are fundamental to establishing a classroom environment in which students are comfortable sharing ideas and making their reasoning explicit. For this to happen, teachers need to ensure that they provide feedback which validates and confirms students’ contributions. Equally, teachers need to provide feedback that opens up the dialogue to other students and encourages students to elaborate and think critically about the topics. This can be achieved through a variety of questioning techniques. And finally, teachers need to provide input and content which students can then use as evidence to support their claims. These functions of dialogic feedback are represented in Table 2 below:

?

15

Table 2: Indicators of feedback talk

(Heron et al., 2021)

Reflection and ActionThink about your own feedback talk. If possible, audio record 5 minutes from a lesson and then analyse the feedback. How many of the indicators above do you hear / find? What is the impact on the interaction and learning?

All the above key principles of a dialogic teaching approach and repertoires are summarised in the Quick Guides in Appendix B.

Validating Acknowledging student input, e.g., thank you

Praising Praising a response, e.g., That’s great

Affirming Showing agreement with a response, e.g., yes, exactly

Consolidating Repeating /playing back a student’s response, e.g., S: Number eight is strong T: Number eight is very strong

Elaborating Building on a student’s response, could include giving an example, e.g., So what we are saying here is...

Correcting Providing a correct answer, e.g., Well at this stage they haven’t actually done the courses.

Negating Rejecting an answer, e.g., No

Requesting Clarification

Checking understanding of the student’s comment, e.g., Sorry?

Probing Seeking further details e.g., why do you think that?

Initiating Inviting others to speak, e.g., Would anyone like to comment?

16

The following series of case studies outline how a range of teachers across the arts, science, heathcare and professional services disciplines have incorporated dialogic teaching principles to support their use of the Critical Thinking Skills Toolkit (Wason, 2016).

Case study A:Using The Argument to encourage students to write logical and well supported arguments for their Major Project report.

Profile of the learners: MSc students: Project Management for creative practitioners

Aim of the activity: • To create awareness of a thesis statement, inductive versus deductive arguments, and the premise of an argument.

Dialogic teaching principles underpinning activity: interpretation • analysis • evaluation • inference • reciprocal • supportive • cumulative • purposeful • deliberative • as well as the repertoires of discussion and argumentation.

Step by step guide to running the activityStudents are introduced to the elements of a good argument as follows:

• the need for a clear structure, logic, presentation of robust evidence, critical and objective outlook i.e. own voice.

• students are introduced to two types of reasoning: Inductive (based on evidence to support the conclusion) and Deductive (known facts to ‘dictate’ the conclusion i.e. logic). Examples of both types of reasoning are given to highlight the differences.

05Good Practice Case Studies

17

Adaptation for different levelsThis activity could be used across all disciplines and levels where students are expected to use thesis statements and arguments to support their learning.

Impact of the ActivityStudents found the presentation of argument elements clear and unambiguous. There were no major concerns; however, some had difficulty discerning inductive verses deductive. Also, a mind map was shown to help students organise their ideas and to come up with a thesis statement. The main challenge with this session was students not being able to recognise a premise upon which an argument is based. Most seemed to confuse the reasoning of an argument with the premise.

• distorted arguments are then highlighted e.g. distortion of evidence (only weakest counter argument evidence is highlighted), restricted options (for or against), post hoc (after this therefore because of this).

• thesis statements are introduced i.e. central argument, must be debateable, helps to structure work.

• a task sheet is given whereby students need to identify inductive and deductive arguments.

• an argument is given whereby students need to analyse the premise on which the argument is based.

Reflection and ActionHow could you use the Argument tool to support students to unpack arguments and develop their own perspective with evidence? What principles of dialogic teaching could you use to support this?

18

Case study B: Using a dialogic teaching approach to support students’ return to academia

Profile of the learners: MBA Students – returning to higher education after a career in industry

Aim of the activity: This activity is part of a problem solving workshop (Hackathon) at the end of the induction programme for Masters of Business Administration (MBA) students. As this course is aimed at professionals looking to advance their career, the MBA programme introduces an academic framework of knowledge by developing learners’ emotional intelligence, critical thinking and inclusive leadership and management skills. The induction programme serves as a re-introduction to academia and underpins students’ progression from workplace practices to academic knowledge accumulation. The programme introduces learners to the overall structure of the course as well as useful resources for them to use, such as the library’s iCat system for reading resources and research. The activity introduces students to the Critical Thinking Skills Toolkit.

The students explored the following challenge linked to the restrictions at the time due to the second Covid-19 lockdown (January 2021):

The Kingston community is at a distance from one another and the university. What positive change can you think of to strengthen the sense of community? What is your role in this post-pandemic world and what are some innovations you can come up with?

19

Dialogic teaching principles underpinning activity Hackathons are designed to promote interaction and the development of a shared understanding of a challenge through dialogue. The purpose is to create a common mission, to explore solutions, to collectively deliberate in order to decide on one idea to build into a proposal and to create a presentation which students deliver collectively at the end of the activity. It uses student’s time in a purposeful and structured way to progress through the methodology in a collaborative manner. Students are asked to explore ‘who / what / when / why / where’ to get to the heart of the problem they were going to focus on in their group.

Step by step guide to running the activityPart 1• Introduction to the activity• Introduction to critical thinking• Blob Tree ice-breaker• Guest speaker (provided an insight of a live problem-solving activity linked to the

Covid-19 pandemic and the lack of PPE in hospitals)• Introduction to double diamond & briefing on the challenge• Group activity instructions

Part 2Groups work independently with facilitated drop-ins. Instructions below:• What has changed in your daily and weekly routines during the past month(s)? • How have bigger events or landmarks been impacted by Covid-19? (birthdays,

special occasions, religious festivals, family gatherings etc)• How have you interacted in your local community? (socialising, shopping, doing

business/banking, leisure)• Record all answers in your collaborative documents• Summarise the interview answers and find common themes you can explore• Explore the brief in your team to identify different aspects of the challenge. Ask

questions to clarify: who / what / when / why / where are these problems? Ask ‘how might we?’

• Agree a problem statement that you will try and fix, and a description of the customer or end user. Provide as much detail as possible about both

20

Reflection and ActionHow do you currently use ‘real world’ challenges and problems to support your students’ learning? How could could you use the Critical Thinking Skills Toolkit and the principles of dialogic teaching to support this?

Adaptations for different disciplines or levels:Hackathons can be adapted to each discipline with subjects being explored to match student’s learning outcomes. Challenges have been mapped to overarching world issues (UN SDGs or WHO) and given a specific link to the course/module topic. For example, with Life Science students we explore overarching themes but tailor it to each module’s topic: Level 4/1st year students explore the sustainability of hypodermic needles, Level 5/2nd year students explore how people’s lives are affected by chronic disease and Level 6/3rd year students explored applications to address chronic pain.

Impact of the activityThe impact of activities like these are a much more explicit understanding of the skill or attribute both on a collective and individual level. It creates a more equitable learning community for everyone when previously implicit skills are made explicit and supported not just through passive lectures but active and dialogic activities.

Part 3Instructions below:• Develop a range of possible solutions to address the problem articulated for the

people you’ve described. Use brainstorming to open up to new ideas. • What is our role in this post-pandemic world? What are some innovations you can

come up with?• Record your ideas in your collaborative documents• In your team evaluate your ideas and choose one to work on and come up with a

proposal.• Turn your proposal into an A4 poster or slide deck• Prepare your pitch - who presents what?

Part 4• 2 panels of judges listen to presentations followed by Q&A \15 minutes per team: • 8-10 minutes per presentation / 5-7 minute Q&A and feedback• Panels decide who presents to the whole group (3 groups per panel)• General feedback and closing.

21

Case study C: Using dialogic teaching methods to develop students’ confidence and metacognition with professional skills and attributes

Profile of the learners: One interdisciplinary undergraduate group of about 20 students on Kingston School of Art courses (both undergraduate and postgraduate).This activity can be adapted to work with 15-40 students.

Aim of the activity: • To explicitly interrogate what teamwork is and explore how it’s important for academic & professional development.

• To support students understanding of concepts like professional skills both in a collective and individual sense.

• To build confidence and a learning community.

Dialogic teaching principles underpinning activity: • collective • supportive • deliberative • purposeful (and to a lesser degree reciprocal and cumulative)

22

Step by step guide to running the activityIntroduce the topic [Teamwork] for the session.Then follow these instructions.

• Carry out a warm up icebreaker activity asking students how they feel about a topic. I like to use the Blob Tree tool or ask students to submit a Gif in a chat bar (if on Teams, Zoom or an online platform). This helps facilitate the session by getting a sense of how students feel about the topic, and is a very low stakes open ended question to softly encourage interaction without students needing to say much.

• Ask the group what they think the topic means. You can do this by open discussion or using a tool like the chat function or Mentimeter. This supports getting a sense of where the student’s level of understanding of a topic is, as well as capturing any contextual themes or surprising interpretations you may not have expected. At this point using open ended questions to elicit opinion is the aim of this discussion – to encourage participation, not to test who is right or wrong.

• Talk through the responses or discuss them if live, ask probing or follow up questions to those who have submitted responses to get them to expand, or allow space & time for students to agree or disagree with what others have said.Either come up with a collective understanding of what the topic means, or provide a definition (or a few) to bring everyone explicitly onto the same page.

• Ask another open ended question along the lines of “Why is xxx important for your academic development? Why is it important for your professional development?” The shift is now to a series of speculative questions. Again, not to test a binary “right vs wrong” style, but for students to start to explore answers in real time. This puts the focus back onto the students to be active in their justification and understanding of these skills. By having peers acknowledge these points, hopefully students will see themselves reflected in them more. Again, ask more probing questions, or ask students to use the reaction function (if on Teams/Zoom) to measure how much they may agree or disagree with a statement.

23

• Follow this discussion with any evidence you’ve found to support the answer to why it’s important (for Teamworking I use a slide that links effective teamworking to other skills employers look for) This confirms and supports what the students likely already said, which can be a confidence boost, supporting that they do actually know things.

• Conduct an activity around the topic. For Teamworking I have the students engage in a breakout room activity where I give them the task to “draw a bird” on a miro board in groups of 3-4 students. This is a modification of the “Think/Pair/Share” activity with an added element of creative/ non-verbal thinking.

• The point of this activity is to encourage students to discuss amongst themselves what the task is, and use dialogic thinking to explore how they’re going to ‘solve’ the brief. There’s an added element of students having to verbalize non-verbal thought in how to articulate how to draw something.This adds another layer of processing about how to communicate an idea to someone. I intentionally make the task semi-vague which is something that is explored later.

24

• When the activity is complete we come back to the main room and I show off the birds which usually results in lots of laughter because some birds are funny, some are badly drawn, some are very detailed. I ask students a series of open ended speculative and opinion-based questions around what they thought of this activity. What did they like about it? What did they find challenging? What surprised them about it? What did they learn about teamwork having done this activity? Depending on the level of engagement, this type of immediate reflection is a highly effective way to develop metacognition in the students. They realize very quickly different themes and elements that are important in developing effective teamworking habits. There’s no wrong way to have this discussion, but as a facilitator you can steer or prompt guiding speculative questions to try and tease out specific learnings. The main takeaway from this activity I want students to have is about the importance of having a collective understanding of a challenge. When you come to this activity with the task “draw a bird” some people may think chicken, others might think flamingo, others might think penguin. You need to discuss teamwork with your teammates before you start solving the problem otherwise you’re solving different problems.

• To ensure students get there, I may need to guide the discussion, but I don’t like to start by feeding that information to them at the outset. For example, sometimes in group discussions students will naturally address the brief by discussing how the instructions weren’t very clear – a speculative question that could be used following a statement like that could be “Why do you think I did it that way?”

• Each time I run this activity the discussion will be slightly different, but the consistent feature is the emphasis on using opinion and speculative open ended questions to encourage real-time reflective and critical thinking. Once the reflection discussion is over, you can follow it up with next steps. Using questions like “what tools have you used in the past?” “What would you do differently next time?” Give students clear resources and tips for continuing to develop the skill at hand.

25

Impact of the Activity The impact of activities like these are a much more explicit understanding of the skill or attribute both on a collective and individual level. It creates a more equitable learning community for everyone when previously implicit skills are made explicit and supported not just through passive lectures but active and dialogic activities. Adaptation for different disciplines or levels: These types of activities can be adapted for all courses and levels. In very simple terms the structure is as follows:

• Use dialogic teaching to explore & support the “what” and the “why” of a topic to develop a student-led, collective and inclusive understanding,

• Follow the initial dialogic section with a more traditional knowledge sharing segment where topics and information are introduced and/or confirmed

• Follow immediately with a dialogic reflective activity, again exploring the “what” and the “why” to reinforce the confidence building and development of metacognition of a topic.

Reflection and ActionHow do you think you could use guided discussion and questioning techniques to develop students’ awareness of skills development in the curriculum?

26

Case study D: Using questioning and feedback to support thinking critically about disciplinary concepts

Profile of the learners: Level 4 Physical Chemistry Students – 30 students

Aim of the activity: • To get students to explore and extend their knowledge about molecules in physical

chemistry though talking around both simple and more complex questions.

Dialogic teaching principles underpinning activity:

The Repertoire of questioning – Recall, Elicit facts. Elicit reasons (why is that the case?) Elicit opinion (what do you think about that?) Invite speculation (what would happen if...?) Probe further (why? , any more examples?) Questioning and Extending - Ask students to say more – ‘could you tell us more about X?’ Ask for evidence – ‘why do you think that?’ ‘Can you give an example?’ Challenge – ‘how do you know?’ ‘what other possible reason might there be?’ Agree / disagree and suggest – ‘Who agrees with [student] and why?

27

Step by step guide to running the activity• The module is run over 24 weeks and this activity is carried out every other week. Part

of every workshop is run based on one question like the examples provided. The first question is designed to get students discussing potential solutions with each other. This encourages cross table discussion where students get used to working through the rest of the discussion.

• The educator uses a range of opening questions to elicit facts and reasoning about

physical chemistry. For example ‘Do you think a saucepan of water will boil faster with or without and lid and why? ‘ The students then have to work down the different levels of the chemistry using questions to elicit opinion, invite speculation and probe further. These questions challenge them to think from the macroscopic to the microscopic, considering how the molecules move, what happens with the lid? where do the water molecules go? do they stay in, do they stay out, what happens to the heat, how does it transfer and everything else.

• The students have to think around the entire problem rather than just making a snap decision. They may think they know the answer, but through using questioning and extending their thinking by asking why? it encourages them to consider the solutions from a chemical point of view. So they have to take all of the knowledge which they have gained and then try to answer the question. It involves extending their knowledge and they find it an interesting challenge because there isn’t a simple yes or no answer.

Impact of the activityThis activity has scaffolded students thinking around both complex and everyday problems in physical chemistry. Through regular practice, students become acclimatised to the routine and expect questions during every workshop resulting in increased attendance. They have reported feeling more challenged and engaged in their disciplinary content.

Adaptation for different disciplines or levels:These types of questions could be easily adapted to different disciplinary contexts so are transferrable across the disciplines.

Reflection and ActionWhat type of questions do you currently use to build on and extend students learning? How could you use the principles of dialogic teaching to support this further?

28

Case study E: Using dialogic feedback talk to support students’ discussions on how to evaluate and critique research papers using ‘The Critique’

Profile of the learners: BSc Year 3 undergraduate pre-reg nursing studentsMSc Year 2 post-graduate pre-reg nursing students

Aim of the activity: • To critique published qualitative research papers using a recognised critiquing

framework.

• To enable students to link research to clinical practice by encouraging critical review of research papers.


• reciprocal • supportive • cumulative • purposeful • deliberative

Step by step guide to running the activity• The workshop starts with a presentation of the context and a reminder of the process

of the literature review and the five stages involved.

• Students are given a presentation and explanation of the Critique tool, as well a demonstration of where all material is located. Critique frameworks are also explained.

• Students critique the research papers filling in the key headings of the critique frameworks and present their findings to the larger group.

• Students are divided in smaller groups, for each to review and evaluate specific elements from the critique frameworks.

29

Two qualitative research papers are given to the group which ask the students to use:

a) the critique framework for qualitative research developed by Ryan, Coughlan and Cronin (2007) from the “Critical Thinking Skills Toolkit”, and

b) the CASP model for qualitative studies

• Students have the opportunity to conduct some individual reading and analysis, then share their views and together complete the elements of their critique frameworks. These elements are presented back to the whole class.

• Groups then present the outcome of their evaluation and critique to the whole class. The final part includes a general evaluation of the session, highlighting its main parts and how critique frameworks and tools help researchers, clinicians, managers, educators to evaluate research studies to ensure that evidence based practice is provided. Validating their input is a very important feature of our dialogic feedback talk at this stage.

• Dialogic feedback talk is used throughout the session. For example, the presentation on how to critique research papers by using specific frameworks is led by the questioning method, requesting clarification and students are praised for offering answers – either in the chat or by un-muting their microphones.

• Probing and elaborating are also essential as students are asked to clarify and explain where the information in the paper was found. The same approach was used for another seminar session in which students were asked to critique published quantitative research papers by using two critique frameworks for quantitative research.

30

Impact of the activityThe activity gives learners the opportunity to:

Adaptation for different disciplines or levels:This activity can be used by any discipline that includes critique and analysis of research studies as part of its curriculum.

Reflection and ActionHow could you use the Critique tool to support students to analyse an article? How could you use a group discussion activity to support this learning?

• Gain an insight into the research process• Explain and analyse the various stages of critiquing using a published

guide• Develop a template for critiquing• Become familiar with the best clinical research• Continue to develop the skills in critical analysis in order to translate re-

search• Work at three levels : independently, together as a group, and receiving

some coaching from the lecturer• Develop a culture where everyone listens to each other and is confident in

sharing ideas• Promote and support interaction using ‘Think, Pair, Share’• Develop peer teaching

31

Case study F: Using dialogic feedback talk to support students’ discussions on how to synthesise the evidence using the ‘Thematic Analysis Grid (TAG)’.

Profile of the learners: BSc Year 3 undergraduate pre-reg nursing studentsMSc Year 2 post-graduate pre-reg nursing students

Aim of the activity: • To enable them to record themes within academic papers in order to be able to

compare, contrast and synthesise research evidence.


•reciprocal •supportive •cumulative •purposeful •deliberative

Step by step guide to running the activity• The workshop starts with a presentation of the context and a reminder of the process

of the literature review and the five stages involved. This is linked to the Critique tool of the Critical Thinking Skills Toolkit.

• Students are given a presentation and explanation of the TAG tool. Students evaluate three research papers using the critique frameworks with the focus on the Results/Findings section of the research papers. Students are asked to identify three main themes emerged from the results of all three papers by using the TAG form. Students are divided in three smaller groups, for each to apply the TAG to the academic papers chosen for the workshop. Students have the opportunity to conduct some individual reading and analysis, then share their views and together construct a TAG, which they present back to the whole class. Students are encouraged to fully participate in the mini-group discussion and building their TAG for their group paper. During the third part of the session, each group presents the outcome of their TAG to the whole class.

• The final part includes a general evaluation of the session, highlighting its main parts

and how the TAG tool can help them identify a range of themes and supporting evidence across several papers. Dialogic feedback talk is used throughout the session. For example, validating their input and affirming are very important features of dialogic feedback talk as students are clear there is no wrong answer. Probing and elaborating are also essential as students are asked to clarify and explain the way their themes emerge and how they reach their conclusions.

32

Impact of the activityThe activity gives students the opportunity to:

• Identify and record evidence from a range of academic papers• Identify similarities and differences in arguments between authors• Evaluate the strength of evidence used• Reflect on the significance of the conclusions and identify any flaws in the

arguments or where more research is needed• Develop more deeply the skills of analysis, interpretation, evaluation and inference• Work at three levels : independently, together as a group, and receiving some

coaching from the lecturer• Develop a culture where everyone listens to each other and is confident in sharing

ideas• Promote and support interaction using ‘Think, Pair, Share’• Develop peer teaching

Adaptations for different disciplines or levels:This activity can be used by any discipline that includes analysis and synthesis of the research evidence as part of its curriculum.

Reflection and ActionHow do you think you could use the Thematic Analysis Grid to support your students to synthesis evidence as part of an assignment or class activity? How could you use the principles of dialogic teaching to support this activity?

33

Case study G: Using dialogic teaching to challenge the reporting of scientific concepts

Profile of the learnersPharmacy and Pharmaceutical Sciences students, level 4. Over 2/3 of the students come from the first 2 quintiles of the multiple deprivation index, large amount BAME (over 75%)

Aim of the activity• To improve student engagement in the classroom• To support students to recognise opinion and its value- or lack thereof. • To understand subjectivity and inherent bias in themselves.

Dialogic teaching principles underpinning activityThis exercise links to Alexander’s (2020) framework and is purposeful; collective, reciprocal, supportive, deliberative, cumulative. I use a range of questioning strategies, asking students how they feel, asking open ended questions, discussing misconceptions, thinking out loud. Providing a dialogic classroom environment and culture enables students to have the confidence and opportunities to ask questions themselves.

34

In class• The students are asked to read through the article in class because the majority of

the time they will not have done it out of class therefore a short article is relevant. The article has to be from a paper or something that has not been usually peer reviewed but is still considered something that needs to be respected. Usually the articles in magazines contain spurious data and therefore are really useful.

• The entire point of this exercise is for students to question their own opinions on something and how this can change. I would say that over 95% of the time students’ attitudes do change by the end.

• The question that is iterated again and again is the question of should this be published: is everyone allowed an opinion? When we start the workshop all students say ‘yes’.

• There is then a structured set of questions that follows that start off with the open question what did you think of this article? It is really important that everyone has an opinion . The lecturer (you ) say nothing about what you think, get them to rationalise why they have that opinion (in this case the article is about denialism).

• The next question to ask is what is the publication? What is the readership? Who is reading this paper? Who have the editors been? Therefore who in society would be reading this? Would you find this in a solicitors office? Would you find this in a cafe?

• The next question is to look at the title. The content of the article could be perceived as offensive and I start the lesson by saying that I have found one of the subheadings debateable and I don’t like it. I ask this class to tell me why I would find it debatable. I then go on to talk about the use of language and how emotional/emotive it is in this article. I ask the students to pick out any words that would not be written in a science paper. In this way I am getting students to reflect on how people can manipulate emotions by using different types of language.

Step by step guide to running the activity: Pre-Activity• There are three resources the students are given before the class. There is ‘The

Source’ tool from the Critical Thinking Skills Toolkit, the PDF of the article and an online resource for further reading. Ideally the students will have read through the article and filled in ‘The Source’ tool.

35

• I then go on to explain why it is not appropriate to call something ‘fact’ that is based on belief, such as a strong opinion. I then explain the principles of science. As science is based on reason and logic and is very objective we discuss subjectivity and objectivity and what that means. I use the example of MMR vaccines in 2002 (so the newspapers versus scientific evidence)- Have you seen a death with measles (read Roald Dahls letter after his daughter died of measles)

• I then repeat the question; is everyone allowed an opinion? Most of the class at this point still think it is appropriate.

• I then pick out spurious sentences within the article, stating that statistics are a particular nightmare and that scientists and experts keep adhering to them. I explain what that means and talk about the statistical method and also state that it means that we are open to changing our minds based on evidence.

• I then ask the students to see if they can find out anything about the author. The author in this example is a man who supports someone who was the health secretary for South Africa in 2002.

• I then say- ‘What did we know about AIDs when this article was written in 2012? Maybe nothing?

• Most students don’t know the timeline for the onset of HIV and its treatment and so therefore I talk to them about that about what happened in the 1980s about famous people dying with HIV, about the current endemic in South Africa and about when the peak of people dying occurred.

...?!

36

Impact of the activityStudents comment on the intensity of the workshop and how important it was to discuss such an important issue, building empathy of others suffering which is key attribute for their profession.

Adaptation for different disciplines or levelsThis discussion can be about a range of topics - not only those subjects allied to health-care. I think that where we are looking to develop the skill of being able to analyse what is fake news. There are mechanisms by which you can spot an article that is poorly written straight away and that which is very subjective. The Critical Thinking Skills Toolkit, sup-ported by a purposeful scaffolded discussion enables students to do this.

Reflection and ActionWhat strategies do you use to ensure that your classroom environment supports students to ask questions and give their opinions about their learning ? Think about how you could use the Source tool and build a discussion about the reliability of information about a topic in your discipline.

• I then go to the online resources where we find the statistics for the outcomes of those people who are for a better word, science deniers and how many hundreds of thousands of people have died as a consequence.

• I then asked the question again is everyone allowed an opinion?

• It is important that students recognise that when you go through a peer reviewed process it is an opinion based on evidence and it is not an opinion based on your own subjective feelings. Your feelings may cloud something but this is a good exercise for getting students to reflect on the truth of something and how it can be adjusted based on your own perspective.

37

Case study H: Use of a game ‘Difficult Decisions’ to stimulate critical thinking in a cohort of 3rd year undergraduate children’s nursing students.

Profile of the learnersBSc Year 3 undergraduate pre-reg children’s nursing students undertaking a module about caring for children and young people with complex and palliative care needs.

Aim of the activity• To consider multiple perspectives and the factors which influence how decisions are

made in children’s nursing / palliative and complex care. • To utilise evidence to support clinical judgement in children’s nursing• To enable them to link critical thinking to clinical practice by discussion and debate

using case scenarios.

Dialogic teaching principles underpinning activity• stimulating • challenging • collaborative • supportive opportunities to ask questions themselves.

Step by step guide to running the activity:

• The difficult decisions game was developed originally as a face-to-face learning activity but was adapted to online delivery due to the Covid 19 pandemic and requirement to deliver the module online using synchronous and asynchronous material.

• The module Canvas site was used to present a range of asynchronous learning activities which students were required to access and engage with prior to the game which was subsequently carried out via Teams synchronously. The asynchronous materials were linked to the Critical Thinking Skills Toolkit and included reading professional publications, scholarly peer-reviewed, articles, podcasts, videos featuring children and young people’s voices and their perspectives about decision making in relation to their condition and parent blogs.

38

• The Critically Listen activity was also posted on Canvas alongside the podcast (which was a radio 4 programme and panel discussion with a group of professionals from different backgrounds talking about how decisions are decisions are made with, for and about babies and children with complex and palliative care needs).

The Critically Listen framework below asked students to consider questions to aid their critical thinking in relation to their preparation for the game

• What do I know about this topic already?• What are the key concepts, theories being discussed?• What is the disciplinary terminology and what does this mean? • What are the key questions this session is answering?• What I have learned from today?• What is important? What do I need to remember?• How does this link to my other learning? (e.g. in labs, lecturers, tutorials?)• How does this link to my assessment?• What questions do I have about the session?• Why is it important to listen to children and young people’s views about their care and

treatment ?

The final part included a general evaluation of the session, highlighting what students had enjoyed and found beneficial to their learning and areas where they would have liked the game to be changed or developed.

This activity was associated with the learning outcomes of the module and the requirements of the summative assessment.

Impact of the activityThis activity gave students the opportunity to:

• Gain an insight into the factors which influence difficult decision making in children’s nursing e.g. legal and ethical issues

• Explain and analyse the different perspectives which need to be considered eg the child, parent, medical and nursing teams

• Familiarise themselves with a range of material and evidence and consider how this knowledge might inform their decision making

• Continue to develop the skills in critical analysis in order to translate into practice• Work at three levels : Independently, collaboratively in a small student group, and

receiving some coaching from the lecturer• Develop a culture of support where everyone listens to each other and is confident in

sharing ideas in a small peer group

39

Adaptations for different disciplines or levels:This activity can be used by any discipline that is involved in making difficult decisions in practice and could be adapted for adult nursing, mental health nursing, learning disability nursing or other healthcare professionals working with life limited children and young people.

40

06References

Abrami, P.. Bernard, R.,Borokhowvski, E., Waddington, D., Wade, A., and Persson, T. (2015) ‘Strategies for Teaching Students to Think Critically: A Meta-Analysis’, Review of Educational Research, 85(2), pp. 275-314.

Alexander, R. (2010). Dialogic teaching essentials. Singapore: National Institute of Education, 1-7.

Alexander, R. (2020). A dialogic teaching companion. Abingdon: Routledge.

Alexander, R. A., & Hardman, F. C. (2017). Changing Talk, Changing Thinking: Interim report from the in-house evaluation of the CPRT/UoY Dialogic Teaching project. Research Report. University of York and Cambridge Primary Review Trust. Available at http://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/151061/1/Alexander_Hardman_hard-man_2017_.pdf

Bellaera, L., Weinstein-Jones, Y., Ilia, S. and Baker, S. (2021), ‘Critical Thinking In Practice: The priorities and practices of instructors teaching in higher education’, Thinking Skills and Creativity, 41(1), pp. 1-16

Bezanilla, M., Fernandez-Nogueria, D., Poblete, M. and Galindo-Dominquez, H. (2019), ‘ Methodologies for teaching-learning critical thinking in higher education: The teacher’s view’, Thinking Skills and Creativity, 33(1), pp.1-10

Cui, R., & Teo, P. (2021). Dialogic education for classroom teaching: a critical review. Language and Education, 35(3), pp.187-203.

Danczak, S. Thompson, D and Overton, L. (2017) ‘What does the term Critical Thinking mean to you?’ A qualitative analysis of chemistry undergraduate, teaching staff and employers’ views of critical thinking’, Chemistry Education Research and Practice

Engin, M. (2017). Contributions and silence in academic talk: Exploring learner ex-periences of dialogic interaction. Learning, Culture and Social Interaction, 12, pp. 78-86.

Facione, P.A. (1990) Critical Thinking A statement of expert consensus for purposes of educational attainment and instruction. American Philosophical Association

41

Hardman, J. (2016). Tutor–student interaction in seminar teaching: Implications for professional development. Active Learning in Higher Education, 17(1), pp. 63-76.Hattie (2009)

Heron, M. (2018). Dialogic stance in higher education seminars. Language and Education, 32(2), pp.112-126.

Heron, M., Medland, E., Winstone, N., & Pitt, E. (2021). Developing the relational in teacher feedback literacy: Exploring feedback talk. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/02602938.2021.1932735

Heron, M.,and Dippold, D. (2021). Overview of classroom interaction: Definitions, models, practices and challenges. In: Dippold, D. & Heron, M. Meaningful Teaching Interaction at the Internationalised University: Moving From Research to Impact. (pp.3-12) Abingdon: Routledge

Hirsch, E. (2006), ‘The knowledge deficit: Closing the shocking education gap for American children’. New York: Houghton Miffin.

Howe, C., Hennessy, S., Mercer, N., Vrikki, M., & Wheatley, L. (2019). Teacher–student dialogue during classroom teaching: Does it really impact on student outcomes?Journal of the Learning Sciences, 28(4-5),pp.462-512.

Huber, C. and Kunchel, N. (2016), ‘Does college teach students’ critical thinking? A meta analysis’ Review of Educational Research, 86(2), pp.431-458

Kim, M. Y., & Wilkinson, I. A. (2019). What is dialogic teaching? Constructing, deconstructing, and reconstructing a pedagogy of classroom talk. Learning, Culture and Social Interaction, 21(1),pp.70-86.

Lefstein, A. 2010. ‘More Helpful as Problem than Solution: Some Implications of Situating Dialogue in Classrooms.’ In Educational Dialogues: Understanding and Promoting Productive Interaction, edited by K. Littleton, and C. Howe, pp.170–191. Abingdon: Routledge.

Mah, A. S. H. (2016). Oracy is as important as literacy: Interview with Christine CM Goh. RELC Journal, 47(3), pp.399-404. Mercer, N and Dawes, L. (2014). The study of talk between teachers and students, from the 1970s until the 2010s. Oxford Review of Education, vol. 40(4), pp.430-445.

42

Meirink, J.A., Imansts, J., Meijer, P., and Verloop, N. (2010) Teacher learning and collaboration in innovative teams, Cambridge Journal of Education, 40(1), pp. 161-181

Michaels, S., C. O’Connor, and L. B. Resnick.( 2008) ‘Deliberative Discourse Ideal-ized and Realized:Accountable Talk in the Classroom and in Civic Life.’ Studies in Philosophy and Education 27 (4), pp. 283–297

Nicholas and Raider-Roth (2016) ‘ A hopeful pedagogy for critical thinking’, Inter-national Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 10(2), pp. 1-10

Ren, X., Tong, Y., Peng P., and Wang, T. (2020), Critical Thinking Predicts Aca-demic Performance beyond general cognitive ability : Evidence from adults and children’ Intelligence, 82(1), pp. 1-10

Simpson, A. (2016).’ Dialogic teaching in the initial teacher education class-room:“Everyone’s Voice will be Heard’. Research Papers in Education, 31(1), 89-106.

Stedman, N. and Adams, B (2012) ‘Identifying faculty’s knowledge of critical think-ing concepts and perceptions of critical thinking instruction in higher education.’ NACTA Journal, 56 (1) pp. 9-14

Teaching Excellence and Student Outcomes Framework (October, 2017). Availa-ble from https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/up-loads/attachment_data/file/658490/Teaching_Excellence_and_Student_Outcomes_Framework_Specification.pdf

Teo, P. (2019). “Teaching for the 21st century: A case for dialogic pedagogy’, Learning, Culture and Social Interaction 21 (1) pp. 170-178

Vrikki, M., Kershner, R., Calcagni, E., Hennessy, S., Lee, L., Hernández, F., and Ahmed, F. (2019). The teacher scheme for educational dialogue analysis (T-SE-DA): developing a research-based observation tool for supporting teacher inquiry into pupils’ participation in classroom dialogue. International Journal of Research & Method in Education, 42(2), 185-203

Wason, H. (2016) ‘Embedding a Critical Thinking Framework for Undergraduate Business Students’, in Remenyi, D. (Ed.) 2016 Innovation in the Teaching of Re-search Methodology Excellence Awards: An Anthology of Case Histories, Reading: Academic Conferences and Publishing International

Zucker, A. (2019), ‘Using critical thinking to counter misinformation’, Science Scope 42(1), pp. 6-9

43

07Appendices

Name of tool Aim of tool Skills Developed

Critically Listen To develop your active listening skills, identify and interpret key concepts and theories from your lectures, seminars and tutorials and make connections between this and your reading. Level 4

Critical Thinking Skills:• Interpretation• Evaluation

Graduate Attributes: • Thoughtful• Creative• Professional

Critically Speak To develop your academic and professional oracy skills and empower you to contribute effectively to your academic and professional learning. Level 4

Critical Thinking Skills:• Interpretation• Analysis• Evaluation• Inference• Explanation

Graduate Attributes: • Thoughtful• Globally aware• Creative• Resilient• Proactive • Professional

The Source To make you aware of agenda and bias, belief v fact. Develop search terms, find, and critique and reference materials whilst considering credibility, reliability and appropriateness. Discriminate between sources, use valid information. Level 4

Critical Thinking Skills:• Information seeking

Graduate Attributes: • Thoughtful• Globally aware• Professional

Read Right To help read in a systematic way, understand and make notes about information/data contained in course text books. Level 4

Critical Thinking Skills:• Interpretation

Graduate Attributes: • Thoughtful

Appendix A:The Critical Thinking Skills Toolkit

44


Practitioner / Professional Insights

To interpret, analyse, and assess the quality of information and data in practitioner materials trade journals and professional sources. Recognise assumptions. Level 4

Critical Thinking Skills:• Interpretation• Analysis• Evaluation

Graduate Attributes: • Thoughtful

The Argument To develop the technique of objective reasoning and argument creation: identify, understand and interpret data accurately. Query evidence, assess claims, draw conclusions, use deductive reasoning. Level 4


Graduate Attributes: • Thoughtful• Creative• Proactive• Resilient

The Case To develop the CT skills needed when approaching a case study: recognise assumptions, analyse, interpret and assess quality of information, use deductive reasoning, draw conclusions. Level 5


Graduate Attributes: • Thoughtful• Globally aware• Creative• Resilient• Professional

The Critique To identify and interpret key themes within academic papers. Analyse and assess credibility of arguments, recognise assumptions, consider alternatives, use deductive reasoning. Level 5

Critical Thinking Skills:• Interpretation• Analysis• Evaluation• Inference

Graduate Attributes: • Thoughtful• Creative• Resilient

45


Thematic Analysis Grid To record themes within academic papers in order to be able to compare and contrast themes, query evidence, draw conclusions, and use deductive reasoning. Level 6



The Argument Map An alternative method of recording themes within a set of academic papers in order to be able to compare and contrast themes, query evidence, draw conclusions, use deductive reasoning. Level 6



The Critical Reflection To develop your critical reflection skills using academic literature, professional literature, debates, educational and professional experiences. It involves reflecting on action and explaining the impact on your learning, perspective and actions. Level 6



The Critically Reflective Discussion

To develop critical reflection in action e.g. during live scenario based learning activities. To orally reflect on discussions, draw on knowledge in the moment, provide a debrief and recommendations. Level 6


Graduate Attributes: • Thoughtful• Creative• Resilient • Professional

46


Critically Write To apply all of the above tools to write a critical review of literature, whether it is academic or practitioner/professionally based. Use well-reasoned, unbiased, justified arguments. Level 6

Critical Thinking Skills:• Evaluation• Inference• Explanation

Graduate Attributes: • Thoughtful• Creative• Professional

Critically Connect To make connections between each of the CT tools and use them together as appropriate in different learning contexts. Pro-vide ways of applying critical thinking to enhance graduate outcomes. Level 6

Critical Thinking Skills:• Information seeking• Interpretation,• Analysis• Evaluation• Inference• Explanation

Graduate Attributes: • Globally Aware• Resilient• Proactive• Thoughtful• Creative• Professional

47

Appendix B:Quick Guides

good practice guide: supporting critical thinking through

Documents