(PDF) Do Programmes Delineating Critical Thinking as a Learning Outcome Facilitate its Teaching? International Baccalaureate Dip

Topoi DOI 10.1007/s11245-016-9409-9 Do Programmes Delineating Critical Thinking as a Learning Outcome Facilitate its Teaching? International Baccalaureate Diploma Programme and Lebanese Baccalaureate Programme Yara Yasser Hilal1 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2016 Abstract Critical thinking (CT) continues to be viewed as number of educational programmes including the Interna- a prerequisite skill for lifelong learning. It is not surprising tional Baccalaureate Diploma Programme (IBDP) and the therefore, that academic programmes delineate CT as a Lebanese Baccalaureate Programme (LBP) (IBO 2013; goal and a learning outcome. However, there are concerns Ministry of Education 1997). Therefore, it is expected of regarding the extent to which the aims and objectives of the teachers, students and administrators in these programmes programmes are aligned with pedagogies for CT. Both the to have a shared conceptualisation of CT encompassing its International Baccalaureate Diploma Programme (IBDP) definition, and methods of teaching and assessment. and the Lebanese Baccalaureate Programme (LBP) clearly The research studies the contribution of both the IBDP delineate CT as a goal and a learning outcome. The study and the LBP to the teaching of CT. The study examines the examines the facilitation of teaching CT in the IBDP and conception teachers have with respect to the definition, LBP. The study was conducted in two schools located in teaching, and assessment of CT, and examines the fre- Lebanon; one teaching the IBDP and the other the LBP. quency of adopting teaching methods that are conducive to Semi structured interviews, questionnaires, and class visits the teaching of CT. The study is pioneering in studying the were used to collect data pertaining to the teaching of CT teaching of CT in the IBDP and LBP in Lebanese schools. in the two programmes in grades 11 and 12. The study is pioneering in studying the contribution of both pro- 1.1 Defining CT grammes to the teaching of CT in Lebanese schools. A review of the literature reveals that there is no agreement Keywords International Baccalaureate Lebanese on one definition of CT (Beyer 2008; Ennis 1991; Facione Baccalaureate Critical thinking Teaching 1990; James et al. 2010; Jones 2007; Lipman 1988; Magno 2010; Moon 2008; Moore 2011a, b, 2013; Mulnix 2010; Paul et al. 1997; Pingry 1951; Rudd 2007; Siegel 1988; 1 Introduction Stanovich and Stanovich 2010; Terenzini et al. 1995; Weissberg 2013), and this may affect its teaching. A A review of the literature reveals that there is no consensus number of studies and theorists indicate that CT is a of a definition for critical thinking (CT). The plethora of holistic concept comprising different components (Bailin definitions available reflects the complex nature of CT 2002; Ennis 1985; Facione 2000; Halpern 1998; Hooks (Bailin et al. 1999; Flores et al. 2012; Griggs et al. 1998; 2010; Lipman 1988; Paul 1993; Yeh 2009). CT has two Lipman 1988; McPeck 1990; Moore 2013; Mulnix 2010; dimensions: skill and disposition (Beyer 2008; Clifford Paul 1993). However, CT remains an integral part of a et al. 2004; Dewey 1910; Ennis 1987; Facione 1990, 2000; Griggs et al. 1998; Halpern 2014; Norris, 1988; Siegel 1988; Willingham 2007; Yeh 2009). & Yara Yasser Hilal The skill component of CT leads to students ‘‘knowing

;

how’’ to think (Clifford et al. 2004; Dewey 1910; Ennis 1 Faculty of Education, McGill University, Montreal, Canada 1987; Facione 1990, 2000; Griggs et al. 1998; Norris 1988; 123 Y. Y. Hilal Siegel 1988; Yeh 2009). The disposition component refers teaching of CT (Abrami et al. 2008; Bailin 2002; Browne to the ‘‘willingness’’ and ‘‘inclination’’ individuals have to and Freeman 2000; Hooks 2010; Kaupp et al. 2014; Kuhn employ these skills (Dewey 1910; Ennis 1987; McPeck 1999; Rosefsky and Opfer 2012; Shim and Walczak 2012). 1990; Norris 1988; Siegel 1988; Yeh 2009), and this leads The strategies discussed below represent a non-exhaustive to students ‘‘wanting’’ to think (Beyer 2008; Clifford et al. list of general strategies that may be used across different 2004; Facione 2000; Halpern 1998; Ku et al. 2014). The subjects. The article uses the term Critical Thinking Delphi project (Facione 1990) provides a detailed account Friendly Teaching Methods (CTFTMs) to refer to them. of CT and the subskills and the subdispositions. Figure 1 depicts the components of CT. 1.2.1 Questioning The Delphi report describes the dispositions of the critical thinker as; ‘‘habitually inquisitive, well-informed, Questioning students’ statements and arguments represents trustful of reason, open-minded, flexible, fair-minded in an effective way to help students use different components evaluation, honest in facing personal biases, prudent in of CT such as; analysis, evaluation, interpretation, infer- making judgments, willing to reconsider, clear about ence, and explanation (Golding 2011; Jones 2012; Math- issues, orderly in complex matters, diligent in seeking ews and Lowe 2011; Meyers 1986; Orlich et al. 2008; Paul relevant information, reasonable in the selection of criteria, and Elder 2006). focused in inquiry, and persistent in seeking results which are as precise as the subject and the circumstances of 1.2.2 Wait Time inquiry permit’’ (Facione 1990: 2). The study adopts this specific and operational definition Wait time gives students ample time to reflect on the of CT to compare and analyse the participants’ conceptions questions posed and the answers given (Budd Rowe 1986; of CT. Meyers 1986; Tobin 1987; Walsh and Sattes 2015). The teacher waits for 3–5 s after asking the question and before 1.2 Teaching and Assessing CT any student answers (wait time 1), and then waits for 3–5 s after a student responds (wait time 2). This wait time Learners are expected to engage in CT when placed in a provides students with ‘‘quiet’’ time and prompts them to challenging situation (Abrami et al. 2008; Bailin 2002; think. Behar-Horenstein and Niu 2011; Beyer 2008; Dewey 1910; Facione 1990; Ku et al. 2014). Therefore, teaching strate- 1.2.3 Model CT gies that focus on inquiry, solving problems, evaluation, and are student centered are methods conducive to the CT can present an uncomfortable experience for many students which explains students’ resistance to engage in activities that require CT. Therefore, it is important for students to see their teachers engage in CT (Burger and Starbird 2012; Mathews and Lowe 2011; Meyers 1986). Wait time is one way of modelling thinking (Burger and Evaluate Starbird 2012; Meyers 1986; Walsh and Sattes 2015). During class time this can be done by teachers using phrases such as, ‘‘I am not sure’’, ‘‘let me think about this’’, Explain Analyse ‘‘I can see your point, but have you considered thinking about issue from this perspective?’’ CT 1.2.4 Relating Concepts to Students’ Daily Life Self - Regulate Infer This helps students relate to the topics being discussed and allows students to apply a number of CT components. Students engage in the interpretation, analysis, and evalu- Interpret ation of the concepts studied in reference to their daily lives (Daniels and Zemelman 2004; Phillips and Mackin- tosh 2011; Semerci 2006). Students also use the concepts in Fig. 1 The subskills of critical thinking (adapted Facione 1990) self-examination and self-correction. 123 Do Programmes Delineating Critical Thinking as a Learning Outcome Facilitate its Teaching?… 1.2.5 Group Work Moreover, the assessment of CT plays a role in its teaching (Boud 2000; Black et al. 2004; Clark 2012; Group work exposes students to different points of view Greenstein 2012; Moon 2008; Sahlberg 2006; Spencer where they are not only required to ‘‘listen’’ but to also 2013). Teachers adopt teaching strategies to meet the test incorporate these views into their own arguments (Brian requirements in what is referred to as the ‘‘teaching for the 2012; Fung 2014; Jansen 2012). In fact, engaging in group test’’ phenomenon (Popham 2008; Resnick and Resnick work can be an effective means to develop both the skill 1992; Wilson and Sloane 2000). One of the outcomes of and dispositional dimensions of CT. By working in a ‘‘teaching for the test’’ (Resnick and Resnick 1992; Wilson group, students are prompted to use their ‘‘evaluation’’ and and Sloane 2000; Wurdinger 2011) is that ‘‘what you ‘‘interpretation’’ subskills of CT to understand the different measure is what you get’’ (Hummel and Huit 1994: 10). ideas presented in the group. Exposure to different ideas CT is a process involving different subskills and sub- during group work is expected to positively reflect on dispositions (Ennis 1987; Lipman 1988; Facione 1990; students’ ‘‘open-mindedness’’ which is one of the compo- Halpern 2014; Jones 2012; Phrakhruvisitpattanaporn et al. nents of CT (Clifford et al. 2004; Facione 1990; Lipman 2012); therefore, depending solely on one exam to assess 1988, 2003; Norris and Ennis 1989; Stapleton 2011). In its development may prove to be a very challenging task integrating different ideas students need to be flexible to (Boud 2000; Black et al. 2004). Process assessments, such change their standpoints with the advent of adequate and as essays, research papers, performance assessments, are reasonable evidence (Ennis 1987; Eisenhardt et al. 2012; valuable in assessing complex abilities, such as CT, that are Herreid 2004; Paul 1993). composed of more than one component (Bensley et al. 2010; Jakicic 2009; Jones 2012; Ku et al. 2014; Spencer 1.2.6 Research Papers 2013). Writing, in general, is one of the processes in which CT is 1.3 The IBDP ‘‘most evident’’ (Cavdar et al., 2012; Colley et al. 2012a, 2012b; Meyers 1986; Moon 2008). First, the com- The IBDP is characterized by its broadness and balance. prehension of concepts may require the ‘‘interpretation’’ of The curriculum is modeled by a circle representing six information sources. Second, students need to evaluate and academic groups surrounding the three core requirements judge the significance and relevance of the information of the programme (Fig. 2). Each group contains a certain gathered during the research. Third, they need to present, number of subjects. explain and support their arguments or findings with rea- sonable evidence, examples and analogies. These skills constitute part of the CT subskills (Ennis 1987; Facione 1990; Lipman 1988; Phrakhruvisitpattanaporn et al. 2012; Tishman et al. 1993). Research assignments also have the potential to develop a number of CT subdispositions (Meyers 1986; Moon 2008; Cavdar et al. 2012). While researching a new topic, students develop the ‘‘inquisi- tiveness’’ to learn and try to be ‘‘well informed’’; both of which are subdispositions of CT (Facione 1990). More- over, writing assignments require students to show ‘‘sys- tematicity’’ and a tendency to be ‘‘planful and strategic’’, which are also subdispositions of CT (Tishman et al. 1993: 151). 1.2.7 Students Learning Concepts Independently In learning concepts on their own, students are encouraged to ‘‘grapple’’ (Sizer and Sizer 1999) with new material, and are hence encouraged to engage in a number of CT com- ponents (Jones 2012; Ku et al. 2014; Meyers 1986; Sigel 1984; Ruggiero 1988) such as analysis and interpretation of the information given, evaluation of the information to Fig. 2 IBDP academic groups and core requirements. Source Inter- determine its relevance, significance and credibility. national Baccalaureate Organization 2012 123 Y. Y. Hilal Over the course of the 2 years, students are required to 2 Method choose one subject from each group, three of which will be studied at Higher Level (HL) and three at Standard Level The main research question of the study is ‘‘How do the (SL). In addition to the six subjects chosen, all students are IBDP and LBP facilitate the teaching of CT in grades 11 required to: (a) write an Extended Essay (EE) in a subject through 12?’’ The time span of the research is 15 months of their choice, (b) participate in Creativity, Action and (2012–2014), which the time needed to complete the Service (CAS), and (c) complete a Theory of Knowledge requirements of the IBDP and LBP. The general research (TOK) course. These three requirements are called the question was operationalised so that specific research areas ‘‘core requirements’’ (Fig. 2) of the programme and failure can be examined and measured (Cohen et al. 2007). to meet these requirements results in students not obtaining (a) What are the participants’ conceptions of CT? their diploma (IBO 2013). (b) What are the participants’ views regarding the The EE is a 4000-word essay written in a subject that effectiveness of the programme in facilitating the elicits motivation and interest in the students and aims at teaching of CT? acquainting them with independent research and writing (c) What is the frequency of adopting CTFTMs in IBDP skills. Students are prompted to employ a number of CT and LBP classes? subskills and dispositions such as evaluation and analysis (d) What are the challenges facing the teaching of CT in of information and open mindedness to consider different the IBDP and LBP? viewpoints. The TOK course is an interdisciplinary course that aims Answering the research questions necessitates the use of to unify academic disciplines and help students develop a both qualitative and quantitative research methods. coherent approach to learning (IBO 2011). In particular, Therefore, the research adopts a mixed-research design. the TOK course aims at developing students’ CT (IBO Answering questions a,b, and d requires qualitative meth- 2011). The course encourages students to engage in dis- ods while answering research question c requires a quan- cussions, exposing them to different ideas about the nature titative approach. of knowledge and giving them the opportunity to share their views with their peers (IBO 2011). 2.1 Sample CAS is a non-traditional course where students are required to complete a total of 150 h in planning and There are only six schools teaching the IBDP in Lebanon executing activities that are creative, represent a service (IBO 2014). Out of the six IBDP schools only one agreed to their community, and require them to engage in to participate in the study. Having selected the IBDP activity (IBO 2010). Students are also required to write a school, the selection of the LBP school became restricted reflection about the activities that they planned. There- to the characteristics of the geographical location, number fore, CAS represents an opportunity for students to of students in the school, number of students in grades 11 engage in CT. and 12, tuition fees, language of instruction, and liberality/ religiousness of the school. Aligning these characteristics 1.4 The Lebanese Baccalaureate with those of the IBDP school limited the number of LBP schools to four. Only one school accepted to participate in The secondary stage of the Lebanese educational system the research. extends over a period of 3 years (Ministry of Education Therefore, in choosing both the IBDP and LBP schools, 1997). Students admitted to this stage should have suc- purposive sampling was applied where the schools’ popu- cessfully passed the Brevet (grade nine) national exami- lation was selected based on predetermined criteria (Cohen nation. During the second year of the secondary education, et al. 2007). The two schools participating in the study will students opt to pursue their studies in either the humanities be referred to as School A, teaching the IBDP and School or science stream. In the third and final year, the science B, teaching the LBP. stream is further divided into General and Life Sciences, Both schools are located in the southern suburb of Beirut and the Humanities stream is divided into the Literature city Lebanon, have a student body of approximately 900 and Humanities stream, and the Socioeconomics stream. students and were established in the 1950s. The majority of Once students choose a certain stream, they are required to students in both schools is Lebanese; the percentage of study all the predetermined subjects of that stream (Min- international students in School A is 5 % and that of istry of Education 1997). Students have to pass the national international students in school B is 4 %. School fees are examinations to earn their diploma, there are no other also similar, and both schools state that they are non-se- requirements. lective in the admission of students to the IBDP and LBP. 123 Do Programmes Delineating Critical Thinking as a Learning Outcome Facilitate its Teaching?… Selecting participants from both schools was based on the researcher in reporting frequencies of these teaching purposive total population sampling. All teachers and stu- methods when observing classes. The second part of the dents in the IBDP and LBP schools were selected to par- teachers’ questionnaires required teachers to define CT and ticipate in the study. The reason for choosing total to state whether or not they are familiar with the term. The population sampling is that the number of either teachers or third part of teachers’ questionnaires contained open ended students in both schools was less than 20. Table 1 shows questions about the teaching and assessment of critical the sample details. Participants were clearly told that the thinking. data collected and the results obtained would be anony- The questionnaire was administered by the researcher. mous. Participants were also told that they had the right to All participants were given an ID number, which was not withdraw from the study at any time and they signed an revealed to anyone but the researcher, this enabled the informed consent. researcher to connect the results of the students’ and tea- cher’ questionnaires to results on the interview. Partici- 2.2 Data Collection pants were not given a specific time to complete the questionnaire. However, nearly all submitted their ques- All participants, teachers, and students, completed a tionnaire after 30–40 min. questionnaire, and were interviewed. Classes were observed over the 2 year period; 2012–2014. This section 2.2.2 Semi Structured Interviews details the data collection procedure for each of the data collection methods. All IBDP teachers (10) and LBP teachers (9) were inter- viewed by the researcher. The teachers’ interview pursued three aims: (a) investigating teachers’ understanding and 2.2.1 Questionnaires conceptions of CT including its teaching and assessment, (b) the facilitation of teaching CT in IBDP/LBP, and There were four purposes for administering the question- (c) identifying challenges the teaching of CT. naires: (a) to determine participants’ definitions/concep- Before administering and recording the interview, par- tions of CT, (b) to examine participants’ views on the ticipants were briefed about the purpose of the research, the contribution of the IBDP and LB to facilitating the teaching confidentially of the data they were giving and the duration of CT, (c) to determine the frequency of adopting a number of recording. All interviews started by asking participants of CTFTMs (discussed in Sect. 1.2) as reported by both general questions not necessarily related to the interview in students and teachers and (d) to highlight the challenges order to put them at ease. Some teachers were more that face teachers in teaching CT. The questionnaire was comfortable in answering questions in Arabic, these ‘‘semi-structured’’ where some questions were open-ended accounts were translated by the researcher. The interview and others were close-ended. The student and teacher time ranged between 20 and 25 min for teachers. questionnaires were divided into three parts, and each addressing a different area of the research. The first part of the students’ and teachers’ questionnaire, required them to 2.2.3 Class Observations rate different teaching methods using a scale of 1–5, where 1 = not at all, 2 = Rarely, 3 = Sometimes, 4 = Often and Since the aim of the observation was to investigate the 5 = Very Often. The questionnaire asked participants to adoption of predetermined CTFTMs, a semi-structured rate the teaching method/activity per subject as a total observation was adopted. The list included all the methods evaluation of the 15 months and not with reference to a that were present in the student and teacher questionnaires particular class. To make it easier for participants to rate (discussed in Sect. 1.2). All classes were videotaped with the different teaching methods a table was included with the camera placed at the end of classroom. Teachers were this part of the questionnaire that relates the frequency to informed about this procedure prior. Ten class visits were be reported with the percentage of classes in which the made per class per subject over the period extending from teaching method was used (Table 2). This method of 2012 to 2014 during which the researcher recorded the interpreting the frequencies is the same as the one used by frequency at which CTFTMs were used (Table 2). Table 1 Sample details School Number of teachers participating Number of students participating A (IBDP) 10 (TOK and English were taught by the same teacher) 6 B (LBP) 9 13 123 Y. Y. Hilal Table 2 Determining the frequency of the teaching method with • Importance of teaching CT respect to the number of classes in which it was used • CT assessment Number of classes in which Frequency score • CT assessment in IBDP the teaching method occurred • CT assessment in LBP at least once • Assessment of CT in programme 8–10 5 • Teachability of CT 5–7 4 • Disciplines’ potential to teach CT 3–4 3 • Teachers’ professional development in CT 1–2 2 • Time available for planning 0 1 • Class time available to teach CT • Students’ subject knowledge 2.3 Data Analysis The second step in the data analysis is ‘‘domain analy- sis’’ which categorizes the codes in bigger groups (Cohen Data from the same collection methods were grouped et al. 2007). The researcher categorized the codded data together retaining fidelity to the coherence of the instru- into the following larger domains: ment (Cohen et al. 2007). The researcher calculated the • Participants’ conception of CT which included the arithmetic mean of the frequencies per data collection codes; familiarity of CT, CT definition, and complexity method and presented these in graphs (Figs. 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8). of CT The researcher read the qualitative data several times to • Teaching and assessment of CT which included the ensure familiarity with the data. After which codes were codes; importance of teaching CT, CT assessment, given for data collected, and these codes were kept as teachability of CT, and disciplines’ potential to teach discrete as possible (Cohen et al. 2007). The following 14 CT codes were identified; • Assessment of CT in IBDP and LBP which included • Familiarity with the term CT the codes; CT assessment in IBDP and CT assessment • CT definition in LBP. • Complexity of CT • Challenges facing the teaching of CT which included the codes; teachers’ professional development in CT, time available for planning, class time available to 5.00 teach CT, and students’ subject knowledge. 4.50 This analysis allowed the researcher to make linkages 4.50 between the different domains which were then synthe- 4.11 4.06 3.94 3.94 sized and summarized to help answer the research 3.83 4.00 3.78 3.72 Average frequency of adopting CTFTMs 3.61 questions. 3.56 3.50 3.39 3.50 3.00 2.4 Validity and Reliability 2.50 The study uses methodological triangulation to help improve the validity of all results obtained (Denzin 1970). 2.00 In addition, the research uses different methods to ensure the reliability and validity of the results obtained in all 1.50 stages of the research; design of the data collection meth- 1.00 ods, data collection, and data analysis. All instruments used in the data collection were piloted before being adminis- 0.50 tered. Piloting the instruments in this study prompted the researcher to make a few changes to the instruments so that 0.00 they could better contribute to answering the research Chemistry English Arabic German History Economics ITGS Biology Physics Math TOK Average questions. In constructing the questionnaire, the researcher avoided Subject leading and assumption questions and used simple lan- Fig. 3 Average frequency of adopting CTFTMs as reported by IBDP guage throughout. The sequencing of questions is known to teachers have an effect on responses (Cohen et al. 2007). The 123 Do Programmes Delineating Critical Thinking as a Learning Outcome Facilitate its Teaching?… 4.22 Fig. 4 Average frequency of 4.5 Average frequency of adopting CTFTMs 3.81 3.75 adopting CTFTMs as reported 3.68 3.53 by IBDP students 4 3.33 3.21 3.11 3.11 3.5 2.97 2.65 2.59 3 2.5 2 1.5 1 0.5 0 Arabic English German History Economics ITGS Chemistry Biology Physics Math Average TOK Subject Fig. 5 Average frequency of 4 3.78 3.72 3.67 adopting CTFTMs as reported 3.39 3.5 3.33 3.28 3.33 3.33 3.3 Average frequency of adopting by LBP teachers 3.11 3.11 3.17 3 2.78 2.5 CTFTMs 2 1.5 1 0.5 0 Arabic English Civics Philosophy Geography Economics Sociology History Math Biology Chemistry Physics Average Subject Fig. 6 Average frequency of 3 Average frequency of adopting adopting CTFTMs as reported 2.42 2.5 2.34 by LBP students 2.16 2.17 2.2 2.13 2.21 1.9 2 1.75 1.67 1.66 CTFTMs 1.47 1.49 1.5 1 0.5 0 Arabic English Philosophy Geography History Civics Economics Sociology Math Chemistry Biology Physics Average Subject sequencing of questions was such that the term ‘‘critical teaching method as critical thinking-friendly may have thinking’’ was not mentioned to participants at the begin- prompted teachers to state that they have used it falsely. ning of the questionnaire. Since CT is an en vogue term in The teachers’ and students’ questionnaires were piloted on education (Abrami et al. 2008; Bailin 2002; Behar- students and teachers not participating in the study to Horenstein and Niu 2011; Moore 2013), describing a identify ambiguous questions and time needed for 123 Y. Y. Hilal Fig. 7 Average frequency of 6.00 Average frequency of adopting CTFTMs 5.00 adopting CTFTMs as reported by IBDP class visits 5.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 3.82 4.00 3.00 3.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 0.00 Arabic English German History Economics ITGS Chemistry Biology Physics Math TOK Average 4.00 Subject Fig. 8 Average frequency of 4.50 adopting CTFTMs as reported by Average frequency of adopting 4.00 LBP Class Visits 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.50 2.83 3.00 CTFTMs 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.50 2.00 1.50 1.00 0.50 0.00 Arabic English Philosophy Geography History Civics Math Chemistry Biology Physics Economics Sociology Average Subject completion (White 2000). Since the researcher adminis- answers were mostly affirmative. The researcher was tered the questionnaires in person, non-return question- therefore capable of obtaining, to some extent, a realistic naires were not an issue; further increasing the validity of view of the class atmosphere and teaching methods adop- the results obtained. The open-ended questions in the ted. In order to reduce reactivity and improve validity, questionnaires were analysed by two researchers and codes observations were done in two stages, each stage being one noted and discussed. and a half weeks long. During the first stage, the researcher Class observations were semi-structured, using a attended but did not videotape the classes whereas during CTFTMs (Sect. 1.2). The list was piloted by observing the second stage, the researcher videotaped. This was classes for 2 weeks, then modified such that teaching expected to reduce the effect of someone penetrating the methods were added and some were removed to make the class environment. To ensure the stability and reliability of observations more generic and applicable across the dif- the observations, the researcher observed classes at dif- ferent subjects. Teachers in both schools were told at the ferent times (Denzin and Lincoln 2000); in the morning beginning of the school year that their classes will be and in the afternoon. The videotape was played more than observed for research purposes, however they did not know once to ensure that different details in the class were noted the exact timing of the visit. Therefore, teachers in both increasing the reliability (Denzin and Lincoln 2000). schools were not expected to be overly prepared. The Although, there was one researcher observing the classes, researcher asked some students at the end of class whether inter-rater reliability was applied (Cohen et al. 2007; they would describe ‘‘today’s class’’ as typical; their Denzin and Lincoln 2000). Two researchers, separately, 123 Do Programmes Delineating Critical Thinking as a Learning Outcome Facilitate its Teaching?… watched the videotapes and rated the frequency at which 3.1 What are the Participants’ Conceptions of CT? the CTFTMs were used; the two ratings were compared and discussed to reach a consensus. The notes, that the two The two codes from qualitative data that proved helpful in researchers made, were compared and carefully analysed. answering this research questions is, ‘‘familiarity with the In designing the questions of the semi-structured inter- term critical thinking’’ and the ‘‘importance of teaching views, the researcher used simple language and avoided CT’’. All participants confirmed their familiarity with the leading questions and questions involving assumptions term critical thinking and consented over its importance in (Cohen et al. 2007). All interview questions were piloted. students’ academic development (Table 3). This result One researcher conducted all the interviews. The accords with studies examining teachers’ familiarity with researcher asked the predetermined questions in the same the term and its importance (Bailin et al. 1999; Carlgren order to all the participants this helped standardize the 2013; Paul et al. 1997; Golding 2005; Ku et al. 2014; Toy process and improve the reliability (Cohen et al. 2007; and Ok 2012). This is also aligned with both the IBDP and White 2000). The interviews were audiotaped and they LBP delineating CT as a goal and a learning outcome (IBO were transcribed by two researchers. The transcripts of 2013; Ministry of Education 1997). However, teachers in both researchers were compared and consensus was both programmes did not consent over a conception for CT, reached. The transcripts were also shown to the respon- as seen from analysing the code ‘‘CT definition’’ (Table 3). dents to ensure that the way their responses were accurately This is in accordance with the literature review (Facione transcribed; increasing responses’ validity (White 2000). 1990; James et al. 2010; Magno 2010; Moon 2008; Moore The study has a comparative nature therefore the 2011a, 2013; Rudd 2007; Stanovich and Stanovich 2010; researcher followed standardized procedures in adminis- Weissberg 2013). However, all teachers in both pro- tering the questionnaires and in conducting interviews and grammes described CT as a being a holistic ability com- class observations. Questionnaires were administered and prising different subskills (Table 3); this is also in interviews were conducted in the mornings in both schools alignment with a number of conceptions in the field (Bailin by the same researcher. The class observations were also et al. 1999; Ennis 1991; Facione 1990; Paul et al. 1997; made by the same researcher during mornings and Stanovich and Stanovich 2010; Weissberg 2013). The afternoons. majority of IBDP teachers, seven out of ten, defined CT in Informants’ bias can also occur at this stage in the terms of evaluation and/or analysis, both of which are research (Drever 1995). The researcher was not in a components of the Delphi Project definition (Facione ‘‘powerful’’ position at the schools and participants knew 1990). As for the three other teachers, one related CT to that she had no role in decisions pertaining to their eval- questioning knowledge, and the two others, who were uation. This might have reduced the impact of informant science (chemistry and physics) teachers, related it to bias on the results. During all the interviews, the researcher problem solving and the scientific method. In contrast, the also refrained from giving her view on any of the questions. majority of LB teachers, seven out nine, defined CT in This was done to avoid influencing the informants’ opin- terms of reflection or criticism. The remaining two teachers ions, which may have reduced neutrality in the research defined CT as analysis and inference, or evaluation, res- (Powney and Watts 1987). onating with the Delphi Project definition of CT (Facione 1990). In terms of the number of subskills included in the 2.5 Limitations of the Study definitions given by teachers, the majority of definitions, seven out nine, included only one subskill. Finally, The study had two limitations. The first was the small although dispositions are considered to be an integral part sample size. The second was environmental bias; the of CT (Clifford et al. 2004; Dewey1910; Ennis 1987; researcher could not control all the conditions under which Facione 1990, 2000; Halpern 2014; Norris 1988; Siegel the questionnaires, interviews, and class visits were done 1988; Yeh 2009), none of the definitions given by either the such as participants’ health, well-being and mood on the IBDP or LBP participants comprised dispositions. The day of data collection. absence of dispositions from the definitions of IBDP teachers does not accord with the IB learner profile where a number of CT dispositions are present such as; caring, risk 3 Results and discussion takers, open-minded (IBO 2011). The LBP does not make explicit reference to dispositions of CT (Ministry of Edu- This section examines, the teachers’ views regarding CT cation 1997). and the frequency of adopting CTFTMs. The results are The fourth code identified in the data analysis is ‘‘the categorised according to the research questions and codes teachability of CT’’ which also adds to a better under- and domains generated in the data analysis. standing of the participants’ conceptions of CT. Teachers 123 Y. Y. Hilal Table 3 IBDP and LB teachers’ views on CT and its implication Code IBDP and LBP teachers’ views Sample Quotations from teachers’ Implications for the teaching of CT responses Importance All teachers stated that CT is important for ‘‘CT is a skill necessary for the 21st Teachers are expected to use a variety of CT the development of independent thinkers century’’ (IBDP Arabic teacher) of CTFTMs since they viewed CT and lifelong learners ‘‘CT is directly correlated with lifelong as comprising different components learning’’ (IBDP TOK teacher) The lack of a local definition in both ‘‘Students cannot make contributions if schools is expected to impact the they are not critical thinkers’’ (LBP teaching methods used Physics teacher) The absence of dispositions from all Definition of Different teachers defined CT differently ‘‘CT is the ability to think out of the box’’ definitions is expected to impact the CT (IBDP English teacher) teaching/modelling of CT dispositions ‘‘CT is analysing and evaluating’’ (IBDP Math teacher) ‘‘CT is not taking things for granted’’ (LBP math teacher) ‘‘CT is the art of questioning’’ (LBP English teacher) Components Teachers agreed that CT comprises ‘‘It is a combination of different skills such of CT different components of higher order as; evaluation and inference’’ (IBDP thinking, but did not consent over what English teacher) these components are ‘‘I think it is similar to the scientific Teachers made no reference to CT method and the ability to solve dispositions problems’’ (IBDP chemistry teacher) ‘‘It is the ability to criticise’’ (LBP English teacher) ‘‘It is related to reflection and deep thinking’’ (LBP Math teacher) Complexity Teachers acknowledged the complexity of ‘‘It is a complex term, it seems to consist of CT CT and stated that they find it difficult to of a number of different skills’’ (IBDP define Biology teacher) ‘‘CT is not only one skills it is a combination of different skills, this is what makes it difficult to conceptualise’’ (LBP Math teacher) Teachability IBDP and LBP teachers stated that CT is ‘‘Critical thinking can be taught and can Teachers viewing CT as a teachable of CT teachable provided that the appropriate be learnt just like any other skill’’ (IBDP ability is expected to encourage teaching methods are used. history teacher) them to adopt CTFTMs IBDP teachers stated that CT can be learnt ‘‘Critical thinking can be taught, however by all students it all goes back to the students’ ability to LBP teachers placed students’ ability as a learn a difficult skill’’ (LBP English caveat for the teachability of CT Language teacher) Subjects’ All teachers stated that all subjects are ‘‘Critical thinking can be taught in any Teachers’ belief that the subjects they potential to conducive to the teaching of CT subject’’ (IBDP Biology teacher) teach are conducive to the teaching teach CT The majority of LBP teachers stated that ‘‘Critical thinking can be taught in any of CT is expected to motivate them there are subjects that are more subject, it has so many faces’’ (IBDP to use CTFTMs conducive to the teaching of CT. IBDP History teacher) teachers did not indicate this ‘‘In analysing texts in Arabic or English classes there is no right and wrong answers, students are encouraged to present arguments that support their answers, this is critical thinking. In math however, students know that there is a right answer’’ (LBP math teacher) In Arabic, there is no right and wrong answers, it a matter of perspective, which makes it easier to ask ‘‘why’’ and ‘‘what do you think’’ hence teaching for critical thinking (LBP Arabic teacher) 123 Do Programmes Delineating Critical Thinking as a Learning Outcome Facilitate its Teaching?… Table 3 continued Code IBDP and LBP teachers’ views Sample Quotations from teachers’ Implications for the teaching of CT responses Assessment All teachers stated that it is important to ‘‘The IBDP encourages me to teach Teachers acknowledge that CT of CT include CT in assessments contributing critical thinking, I know if I do, my assessment is a driving force to to students’ final grade students will do better in their adopt CTFTMs IBDP teachers stated that the assessment assessment’’ (IBDP Biology teacher assess CT ‘‘The historical investigation is an LBP teachers stated that the programme assessment requirement that clearly does not have assessments that assess CT assesses students’ critical thinking in addition to their knowledge’’ (IBDP History teacher) ‘‘The TOK essay opens the eyes of the students to asking higher order questions’’ (IBDP Chemistry teacher) ‘‘The LBP exams require students to know a lot, they do not need them to analyse a lot’’ (LBP history teacher) The LBP exams do not assess critical thinking, but they include a lot of procedures for problem solving (LBP Biology teacher) ‘‘Teaching critical thinking requires a lot of a planning time and class time, when students are not assessed for critical thinking there is little motivation to teach it, unfortunately’’ (LBP Chemistry teacher) in both programmes described CT as a teachable ability ‘‘assessment of critical thinking in the programme’’ code is (Table 3). However, analysis of the code ‘‘disciplines’ a factor affecting the effectiveness of the programmes in potential to teach CT’’ revealed that teachers in both pro- facilitating the teaching of CT. Teachers in both pro- grammes perceived certain subjects to be more conducive grammes agreed on the importance of having assessment to the teaching of CT than others (Table 3). Research has that assess CT (Table 3). This is in accordance with liter- not been conclusive in identifying certain as lending ature highlighting the role of assessment in driving themselves more readily to the teaching of CT (Ennis 1985; instruction (Greenstein 2012; Moon 2008; Resnick and Ku et al. 2014; Moore 2011b; Paul 1993). However, IBDP Resnick 1992; Sahlberg 2006; Spencer 2013; Wilson and teachers stated that CT can be taught in all subjects, while Sloane 2000). Six out of the ten teachers referred to EE and LBP teachers stated that CT can be taught only in certain TOK essay as assessments that adequately assess CT and subjects; mainly the language arts (Arabic and English hence require teachers to adopt CTFTMs to help prepare language classes). This may have affected the frequency at students for these assessments (Table 3). which different teachers adopted CTFTMs. Interestingly, The two LBP teachers who viewed the programme as IBDP teachers did not mention TOK as a subject that is facilitating the teaching of CT were the Arabic and English more conducive to the teaching of CT although TOK Language teachers. However, both teachers did not attri- showed the highest frequency of adopting methods con- bute this to the programme itself but rather to the nature of ducive to the teaching of CT. the subjects they teach (Table 3). Both teachers stated that they have enough time to complete the course requirements 3.2 What are the participants’ views regarding and adopt CTFTMs. This view accords with the view that the effectiveness of the programmes these teachers had where they described some subjects to in facilitating the teaching of CT? be more conducive to the teaching of CT than others. Examination of the assessment of requirements of both All IBDP teachers stated that the IBDP facilitates the programmes reveals that the IBDP’s Internal Assessments teaching of CT, while the majority of LBP teachers (11 out (IA) resemble an example of process assessment which can 13) stated that LBP does not provide opportunities for the be used to effectively assess CT. These IAs contribute to at teaching of CT. Analysis of teachers’ responses reveals that least 20 % of the students’ final grade on the Diploma (IBO 123 Y. Y. Hilal 2013). While the LBP encourages teachers to use process requirements. The TOK is a course that helps students assessments, such as projects or research papers, these do reflect on their knowledge and its limitations (IBO not contribute to students’ final grade on their diploma 2013). IBDP teachers referred to TOK assessments as (Ministry of Education 1997). Therefore, assigning these assessing CT. Second in rank were the English and assessments is at the discretion of the teacher. Arabic language classes. Teachers and students in the One of codes generated during data analysis, was interview described these subjects as a platform to ‘‘assessment of CT in the programme’’. IBDP teachers express opinion where the boundary between right and agreed that the assessment requirements of the IBDP assess wrong answers is not clear. CT which in turn encourages them to adopt CTFTMs. This IBDP math classes show consistently lower frequencies is another indication to the importance of assessment in (according to the three data collection methods) in using driving instruction as supported by a number of studies CTFTMs. Where the frequency reported by teachers is (Resnick and Resnick 1992; Wilson and Sloane 2000; 3.61, IBDP students reported a frequency of 2.59, while Wurdinger 2011). The IBDP teachers referred to the class visits revealed a frequency of 2.21 (Figs. 3, 4, 5 and assessment requirements of the subjects they teach, for 6). This may be due to the view that the Math teacher had example the language arts teachers mentioned oral com- of the subject as being very clear in what is right and what mentaries, the history teacher referred to historical inves- is wrong. Students’ views were also supportive of the tigation, lab reports and projects were mentioned by all result; they consented that they don’t engage in discussion three science teachers, while the math teacher mentioned in math classes because answers can be either right or the mathematical investigation (Table 3). All of these wrong. The LBP results, also, indicate that some subjects assessments require students’ engagement in CT. All IBDP show a higher frequency of adopting CTFTMs than others. teachers referred to TOK essays and the EEs as assess- Similar to the IBDP results, the English and Arabic classes ments that formally assess CT. Class visits and students’ showed higher frequencies in adopting CTFTMs. This questionnaires confirmed that these assessments are used. result accords with LBP Arabic and English teachers However, LBP teachers agreed that the LBP does not viewing these subjects as being conducive to the teaching adequately assess CT which can adversely affect their of CT. adoption of CTFTMs (Table 3). Science and math LBP Another similarity with the IBDP results is the lower teachers stated that even the ‘‘analysis’’ questions on the frequency in using CTFTMs in the LBP Math class in national exams have solutions that have procedures which comparison with other LBP subjects. This result does not students can memorize and hence no longer qualify to reflect the view that the math teacher had of CT nor the assess CT. encouragement that students were given to engage in CT noticed during the class visits. During the interview, 3.3 What is the frequency of adopting CTFTMs? however, the Math teacher explained that answers in Math, unlike in other subjects, are clearly identified as right and Data needed to determine this frequency were collected wrong. using questionnaires completed by both teachers and stu- Responses on teacher and student questionnaires reveal dents in addition to class observations. Results indicate that civics, history, geography, philosophy and sociology, that: (a) there are subjects that use the CTFTMs more had the lowest average frequency in using CTFTMs. The frequently than others and (b) IBDP teachers use CTFTMs average frequency reported by LBP students’ responses more frequently than do LBP teachers. was 1.70 and that reported by LBP teachers was 3.21 (Figs. 5 and 6). Class visits show that the most common 3.3.1 Certain subjects use CTFTMs more frequently teaching method adopted in these subjects is lecturing. The than others results accord with students’ views of the subject where the majority of students described these subjects as requiring Results show that both IBDP and LBP include subjects that ‘‘memorization of facts’’. However, the syllabi of these use CTFTMs more frequently than others. The frequency subjects emphasize the importance of student-centered of using these methods as reported by teachers is higher approaches such as discussions, projects, and making an than that reported by students and class visits (see Figs. 3, effort to relate information to real life situations (Ministry 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8). of Education 1997). This is an example of the difference Results of teacher/student questionnaires and class between the written and taught curricula. visits in the IB school reveal that TOK had the highest Therefore, results obtained support the teachers’ views frequencies of 4.50, 4.22, 5 (these are the arithmetic that some subjects are more conducive to the teaching of means of the frequencies) respectively. This may be CT (Table 3). Results also indicate that teachers’ convic- explained in terms of the nature of the course and its tion about the importance of CT and its teaching are 123 Do Programmes Delineating Critical Thinking as a Learning Outcome Facilitate its Teaching?… insufficient to prompt them to adopt CTFTMs. This Another factor mentioned is the time available for becomes more evident with teachers describing their sub- teachers to plan for classes that include opportunities for jects as not being conducive to the teaching of CT and the the engagement in CT. IBDP teachers consented that programme not facilitating its teaching. planning for CT classes requires considerable time and effort (Table 4). The majority of teachers (9 out 10) 3.3.2 CTFTMs are used more frequently in IBDP expressed that they are pressured with their teaching load than in LBP and other administrative duties, (eight out of the ten IBDP teachers were also subject coordinators). The same view Results from questionnaires and class visits indicate that all was shared with the LBP teachers where more than half the of the teaching methods examined in this study are used teachers were also subject coordinators. more frequently in the IBDP than in the LBP (Figs. 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8). This accords with the results pertaining to 3.4.2 Professional development and teachers’ knowledge teachers’ and students’ views regarding the facilitation of of CT teaching CT in both programmes. This result may be also an indication of the impact of the IBDP assessment All participants stated that attending CT workshops can requirements which necessitate the evaluation of CT. help them in teaching CT but also indicated that they Moreover, the presence of a TOK course, which had the have not attended any workshop dedicated to training in highest frequency in adopting CTFTMs, represents a dif- CT. This aligns with studies highlighting the role pro- ference between the two programmes. The TOK is an fessional development has on teaching (Al-Edwan and effective milieu for the teaching of CT. Al-Edwan 2011; DuFour, Dufour and Eaker 2008; The higher frequency of adopting CTFTMs in the IBDP Jackson, 2013) and in particular on the teaching of CT may be an indication that IBDP facilitates the teaching of (Al-Edwan and Al-Edwan 2011; Edler 2005; Sleeter CT more than the LBP. Further studies in this area may 2011). prove helpful to better understand the teaching of CT in both programmes. 3.4.3 Students’ subject knowledge 3.4 Challenges Facing the Teaching of CT LBP teachers indicated that knowledge is needed for stu- dents’ engagement in CT. Therefore, if students do not In order to better understand the facilitation of the teaching have the knowledge required in the field, teaching them CT of CT in IBDP and LBP the study examined the challenges can be very challenging. Literature supports that knowl- that face the teaching of CT. The challenges identified in edge is a prerequisite for engaging in CT (Bailin et al. this section were generated from the codes extracted from 1999; Hooks 2010; McPeck 1981; Scriven and Paul 2003; the teachers’ responses on questionnaires and during the Yeh 2009). However, CT is also needed in the construction interviews. of new knowledge (Brookfield 2012; Brown 1997; Facione 1990; Golding 2011; Nosich 2011; Ruggiero 1988; Sigel 3.4.1 Time 1984). The majority of IBDP teachers indicated that they use CT as a tool to help students better understand concepts IBDP and LBP teachers expressed their concern regarding (Table 4). the time they have to complete the course requirements while adopting the ‘‘time-consuming’’ CTFTMs. This 3.4.4 Pressure teachers face in preparing students correlates with the notion of academic coverage affecting for exams the teaching of CT (Meyers 1986; Coles 1993; Mandernach 2006; Greenstein 2012; Romanowski & Nasser 2012). All teachers (IBDP and LB) stated that they are pressured IBDP teachers expressed that they became accustomed to make sure all students perform well on external to the teaching of CT and view it as a means for teaching assessments (Table 4). LBP teachers stated that the their course, rather than simply being an objective to be absence of CT in assessments contributing to students’ final met (Table 4). IBDP teachers also stated that by adopting grades does not prompt them to teach CT, nor does it CTFTMs they are preparing their students to perform well motivate students to engage in it (Table 3). The IBDP on the assessments. LBP teachers in contrast, stated that teachers in contrast, stated that although teaching CT is their programme is long and therefore adopting CTFTMs time consuming and is faced by resistance from students, it that do not prepare students for the national examinations is is an assessment requirement, and therefore they need to not the best use of time (Table 4). teach it (Table 3). 123 Y. Y. Hilal Table 4 Challenges facing the teaching of CT as reported by IBDP and LBP teachers Challenge Teachers’ views Sample teachers’ quotations Implications on the teaching Time Time to plan Planning lessons with CTFTMs ‘‘It requires a lot of planning time, and this When planning time is not adequate for requires a lot of time is not always available’’ (IBDP physics teachers may be less encouraged to adopt teaching teacher) CTFTMs CT ‘‘Planning activities and discussions that include critical thinking requires time and research’’ (LBP English teacher) Time Concern about completing the ‘‘There is always a concern about finishing Teachers viewing the adoption of available course requirements when on time, however teaching for critical CTFTMs as preventing them from to adopt adopting CTFTMs. thinking enables me to meet the meeting the course requirements may CTFTMs IBDP teachers stated that they view requirements of the course faster’’ (IBDP hinder teachers from teaching for CT CTFTMs as a means to help them Biology teacher) Viewing CTFTMs as a means to complete finish the requirements ‘‘Teaching critical thinking helps students the course requirements may encourage LBP teachers stated that adopting understand concepts faster and prepares teachers to teach for CT CTFTMs presents an obstacle them for the assessment’’ (IBDP towards completing the course Chemistry teacher) requirements ‘‘The programmes are long, teaching CT takes a big part of class time’’ (LBP Math teacher) ‘‘Adopting such methods takes up a big part of the class time and does not prepare students for their exams’’ (LBP History teacher) Professional All teachers stated that they had not ‘‘I never received any professional Lack of professional development may development received any professional development on critical thinking’’ have led to the lower frequencies in development in CT ‘‘I would love to learn how to teach critical adopting CTFTMs All teachers stated that they would thinking’’ Teachers welcoming the idea of benefit from attending workshops ‘‘I want to know what critical thinking professional development correlates well on CT really means’’ with their view on the importance of CT in developing independent thinkers ‘‘I think if I learn more about critical (Table 3) thinking I would find better ways to teach it’’ Students’ LBP teachers stated this as a main ‘‘Having weak students is part of teaching. Teachers’ perceptions about their students’ subject challenge in adopting CTFTMs Teaching critical thinking helps students inability to engage in CT may affect the knowledge The IBDP teachers did not refer to fill their gaps’’ (IBDP Physics teacher) teachers’ adoption of CTFTMs this ‘‘Engaging students in critical thinking Placing students’ knowledge as a caveat helps them understand the concepts’’ for the engagement in CT can affect (IBDP Chemistry teacher) teachers’ adoption of CTFTMs ‘‘How can one begin to talk about CT when students refuse to study’’ (LBP Chemistry teacher) ‘‘It is a difficult task when students’ academic background is not up to grade level’’ (LBP Physics teacher) ‘‘Not all students want to engage in critical thinking, they are not motivated’’ (LBP History teacher) Pressure All teachers expressed that they feel ‘‘Of course a teacher’s evaluation is This pressure increases the effect teachers pressured to make sure that all improved when her students score 6 or assessment has on driving instruction face their students pass the IBDP and 7’’ (IBDP History teacher) LBP assessments ‘‘My final evaluation depends on my students’ performance in the national exams’’ (LBP Biology teacher) 123 Do Programmes Delineating Critical Thinking as a Learning Outcome Facilitate its Teaching?… 4 Conclusion to adopt CTFTMs, (c) conducting research pertaining to the teaching of CT in other IBDP and LBP schools in Lebanon The study is the first to examine the teaching of Critical and (d) studying the impact that the nature of the subject Thinking (CT) in the International Baccalaureate Diploma has on the teaching of CT since results indicate that there Programme (IBDP) and the Lebanese Baccalaureate Pro- are subjects where CTFTMs were adopted more frequently, gramme (LBP). Teachers in both programmes did not irrespective of the programme adopted. consent on a definition of CT. However, this did not prevent them from teaching it. This may be due to teachers being aware of some of the components com- prising CT, which aligns with literature describing CT as References a holistic ability (Bailin 2002; Ennis 1985; Facione 2000; Halpern 1998; Hooks 2010; Lipman 1988; Paul Abrami P, Bernard RM, Borokhovski E, Wade A, Surkes MA, Tamim 1993; Yeh 2009). The presence of CT as a goal and a R, Zhang D (2008) Instructional interventions affecting critical thinking skills and dispositions: a stage 1 meta-analysis. Rev learning outcome renders both IBDP and LBP potentially Educ Res 78:1102–1134. doi:10.3102/0034654308326084 capable of facilitating the teaching of CT. However, this Al-Edwan Z, Al-Edwan Z (2011) The effectiveness of a training does not necessarily lead to CT being taught with an program based on cognitive research trust strategies to develop emphasis comparable to the importance it is given in the seventh grade students critical thinking in history course. J Soc Sci 7:436–442 curriculum. The main difference between the IBDP and Bailin S (2002) Critical thinking and science education. Sci Educ the LBP is the presence/absence of CT assessments. The 11:361–375. doi:10.1023/A:1016042608621 LBP does not contain adequate opportunities for the Bailin S, Case R, Coombs JR, Daniels LB (1999) Conceptualising assessment of CT. The DP assessment requirements, in critical thinking. J Curric Stud 31:258–302. doi:10.1080/ 002202799183133 contrast, frequently and explicitly include CT compo- Behar-Horenstein L, Niu L (2011) Teaching critical thinking skills in nents. This may be one of the reasons why CTFTMs higher education: a review of the literature. J Coll Teach Learn were more frequently used in the IBDP than in LBP 8:25–42. Retrieved from ERIC Database (EJ917467) classes. This result aligns with literature highlighting the Bensley DA, Crowe DS, Bernhardt P, Buckner C, Allm C (2010) Teaching and assessing critical thinking skills for argument role of assessment in driving instruction (Boud 2000; analysis in psychology. Teach Psychol 37:91–96 Black et al. 2004; Clark 2012; Sahlberg 2006; Moon Beyer BK (2008) What research tells us about teaching thinking 2008; Greenstein 2012; Spencer 2013). skills. Soc Stud 99:223–232. http://search.proquest.com/doc The research identifies a number of challenges that view/274617818?accountid=12339 Black P, Harrison C, Marshall B, William D (2004) Working inside teachers face in teaching CT. Professional development the black box: assessment and classroom learning. Phi Delta is one of them, teachers were expected to adopt methods Kappan 86(1):9–21 conducive to the teaching of CT when none of them has Boud D (2000) Sustainable assessment: rethinking assessment for the attended workshops on the topic; research highlights the learning society. Stud Contin Educ 22(2):151–167 Brian R (2012) Too big to fail: rethinking group work in a importance of teachers’ training (DuFour et al. 2008; restructured middle school. Voices Middle 20(2):35–39 Jackson 2013). The second challenge is students’ subject Brookfield S (2012) Teaching for critical thinking: tools and knowledge. When teachers perceived subject knowledge techniques to help students question their assumptions. Jossey- as a caveat for engaging in CT, lack of knowledge Bass, San Francisco Brown A (1997) Transforming schools into communities of thinking presented an obstacle in teaching CT. However, when and learning about serious matters. Am Psychol 52:399–413 CT was perceived as a tool to help construct knowledge Browne M, Freeman K (2000) Distinguishing features of critical then teachers did not consider students’ subject knowl- thinking classrooms. Teach High Educ 5:301–309. doi:10.1080/ edge as an obstacle towards adopting CTFTMs. Although 713699143 Budd Rowe M (1986) Slowing down may be a way of speeding up! J both IBDP and LBP teachers stated that they feel pres- Teach Educ 37:43 sured in making sure that all their students pass external Burger E, Starbird M (2012) The five elements of effective thinking. exams, the IBDP teachers stated that adopting CTFTMs Princeton University Press, Princeton has in fact helped them prepare their students for IBDP Carlgren T (2013) Communication, critical thinking, problem solving: a suggested course for all high school students in the 21st assessments highlighting the role of assessment in century. Interchange 44:63–81 instruction (Boud 2000; Black et al. 2004; Clark 2012; Cavdar S, Gamze S, Doe D (2012) Learning through writing: teaching Sahlberg 2006; Moon 2008; Greenstein 2012; Spencer critical thinking skills in writing assignments. Polit Sci Polit 2013). 45(2):298–306 Clark I (2012) Formative assessment: assessment is for self-regulated The present research sets the ambit for a number of learning. Educ Psychol Rev 24(2):205–249 further studies: (a) closer examination of the role of TOK Clifford JS, Boufal M, Kurtz JE (2004) Personality traits and critical in teaching CT, (b) the role of IA in encouraging teachers thinking skills in college students: empirical tests of a two-factor 123 Y. Y. Hilal theory. Assessment 11:169–176. doi:10.1177/1073191104 Halpern D (1998) Teaching critical thinking for transfer across 263250 domains: dispositions, skills, structure training and metacogni- Cohen L, Manion L, Morison K (2007) Research methods in tive monitoring. Am Psychol 53:449–455. doi:10.1037/0003- education. Routledge, Oxon 066X.53.4.449 Coles M (1993) Teaching thinking: principles, problems and Halpern DF (2014) Thought and knowledge: an introduction to programmers 13 critical thinking, 5th edn. Psychology Press, New York Colley B, Bilics AR, Lerch CP (2012a) Reflection: a key component Herreid CF (2004) Can case studies be used to teach critical thinking? to thinking critically. Can J Scholarsh Teach Learn 3(1):21–42 J Coll Sci Teach 33(6):12–14 Colley B, Bilics A, Lerch C (2012b) Reflection: a key component to Hooks B (2010) Teaching critical thinking: practical wisdom. thinking critically. Can J Scholarsh Teach Learn 3(1):1–19. Routledge, New York doi:10.5206/cjsotl-rcacea.2012.1.2 Hummel J, Huit W (1994) What you measure is what you get. Daniels H, Zemelman S (2004) Subjects matter: every teacher’s guide GaASCD newsletter: the reporter 1–11 to content-area reading. Heinemann, Portsmouth International Baccalaureate Organziation (2010) Creativity, action, Denzin N (1970) Strategies of multiple triangulation. In: Denzin N sevice: diploma programme guide. Peterson House, Cardiff (ed) The research act in sociology: a theoretical introduction to International Baccalaureate Organization (2011) Theory of knowl- sociological method. Butterworth, London, pp 297–313 edge: diploma guide. Cardiff: Peterson House Denzin NK, Lincoln YS (eds) (2000) Handbook of qualitative International Baccalaureate Organization (2013) Diploma programme research, 2nd edn. Sage, London assessment: principles and practice. International Baccalaureate Dewey J (1910) How we think. D.C. Heath & CO, Boston Organization, Geneva Drever E (1995) Using semi-structured interviews in small-scale International Baccalaureate Organisation (2014) IBO. Retrieved from research. The Scottish Council for Research in Education, Find an IB world school. http://www.ibo.org/programmes/find- Edinburgh an-ib-school/ DuFour R, DuFour R, Eaker R (2008) Revisiting professional Jackson R (2013) Never underestimate your teachers. Association for learning communities at work: new insights for improving Supervision & Curriculum Development, Alexandria schools. Solution Tree, Bloomington Jakicic C (2009) Assessment that makes sense. In: Jackick C, Guskey Edler L (2005) Critical thinking as the key to the learning college: a T (eds) The teacher as assessment leader. Solution Tree, professional development model. New Dir Community Coll Bloomington, pp 33–53 132:35–49 Jansen A (2012) Developing productive dispositions during small- Eisenhardt S, Besnoy K, Steele E (2012) Creating dissonance in pre- group work in two sixth-grade mathematics classrooms: teach- service teachers’ field experiences. SRATE J 21(1):1–10 ers’ facilitation efforts and students’ self-reported benefits. Ennis R (1985) Critical thinking and the curriculum. Natl Forum Phi Middle Grad Res J 7(1):37–56 Kappa Phi J 65:28–31. Retrieved from ERIC database James N, Hughes C, Cappa C (2010) Conceptualising, developing and (EJ312087) assessing critical thinking in law. Teach High Educ 15:285–297. Ennis R (1987) A taxonomy of critical thinking dispositions and doi:10.1080/13562511003740858 abilities. In: Baron J, Sternberg R (eds) Teaching thinking skills. Jones A (2007) Multiplicities or manna from heaven? Critical W. H. Freeman, New York, pp 9–26 thinking and the disciplinary context. Aust J Educ 51:84–103. Ennis R (1991) Critical thinking: a streamlined conception. Teach doi:10.1177/000494410705100107 Philos 14:5–25. doi:10.5840/teachphil19911412 Jones R (2012) What were they thinking? Instructional strategies that Facione P (1990) Critical thinking: a statement of expert consensus encourage critical thinking. Sci Teach 79(3):66 for purposes of educational assessment and instruction. The Kaupp J, Frank B, Chen A (2014) Evaluating critical thinking and Delphi Report. Millbrae, CA: California Academic Press. problem solving in large classes: model eliciting activities for Retrieved from ERIC database (ED315423) critical thinking development. Higher Education Quality Council Facione P (2000). The disposition toward critical thinking: its of Ontario, Toronto character, measurement, and relationship to critical thinking Ku K, Hao IT, Kit-Tai Hau H, Lai EM (2014) Integrating direct skill. Informal Log 20:61–84. http://search.proquest.com/doc inquiry-based instruction in the teaching of critical thinking: an view/218342135?accountid=12339 intervention study. Instr Sci 42:251–269. doi:10.1007/s11251- Flores K, Burbach ME, Quinn CE, Harding H (2012) Deficient 013-9279-0 critical thinking skills among college graduates: implications for Kuhn D (1999) A developmental model of critical thinking. Educ Res leadership. Educ Philos Theory 44:212–230. doi:10.1111/j.1469- 28:16–26. doi:10.3102/0013189X028002016 5812.2010.00672.x Lipman M (1988) Critical thinking: What can it be? Educ Leadersh Fung D (2014) Promoting critical thinking through effective group 45:38–43 work: a teaching intervention for Hong Kong primary school Lipman M (2003) Thinking in education. Cambridge University students. Int J Educ Res 66:45–62 Press, Cambridge Golding C (2005) Creating a thinking school. In: Wilks S (ed) Magno C (2010) The role of metacognitive skills in developing Designing a thinking curriculum. Australian Council for Educa- critical thinking. Metacognit Learn 5:137–156. doi:10.1007/ tional Research Ltd, Victoria, pp 29–41 s11409-010-9054 Golding C (2011) Educating for critical thinking: thought-encourag- Mandernach J (2006) Thinking critically about critical thinking: ing questions in a community of inquiry. High Educ Res Dev integrating online tools to promote critical thinking. InSight: 30:357–370. doi:10.1080/07294360.2010.499144 Collect Fac Scholarsh 1:41–50 Greenstein L (2012) Assessing 21st century skills: a guide to evaluating Mathews R, Lowe K (2011) Classroom environments that foster a mastery and authentic learning. Corwin, Thousand Oaks disposition for critical thinking. Learn Environ Res 14:59–73 Griggs R, Jackson SL, Marek P, Christopher AN (1998) Critical McPeck J (1981) Critical thinking and education. St. Martin’s Press, thinking in introductory psychology texts and supplements. New York Teaching of Psychology 25:254–266. doi:10.1080/00986 McPeck J (1990) Teaching critical thinking: dialogue and dialectic. 289809709711 Routledge, New York 123 Do Programmes Delineating Critical Thinking as a Learning Outcome Facilitate its Teaching?… Meyers C (1986) Teaching students to think critically. Josey-Bass, Rudd R (2007) Defining critical thinking. Techniques 82(7):46–49. San Francisco http://search.proquest.com/docview/216121043?accountid=12339 Ministry of Eduction and Higher Education (Republic of Lebanon) Ruggiero VR (1988) Teaching thinking across the curriuclum. Harper (1997) General education curricula and its goals. Ministry of and Row, New York Education, Beirut Sahlberg P (2006) Education reform for raising economic compet- Moon J (2008) Critical thinking: an exploration of theory and itiveness. J Educ Change 7:259–287 practice. Routledge, New York Scriven M, Paul R (2003) Defining critical thinking. http://www. Moore T (2011a) Critical thinking and disciplinary thinking: a criticalthinking.org/University/univclass/Defining.html continuing debate. High Educ Res Dev 30:261–274. doi:10. Semerci N (2006) The effect of problem-based learning on the critical 1080/07294360.2010.501328 thinking of students in the intellectual and ethical development Moore T (2011b) Critical thinking and language: the challenge of unit. Soc Behav Pers Int J 39(9):1127–1136 generic skills and disciplinary discourse. Continuum Interna- Shim W, Walczak K (2012) The impact of faculty teaching practices tional Publishing Group, New York on the development of students’ critical thinking skills. Int J Moore T (2013) Critical thinking: seven definitions in search of a Teach Learn High Educ 24:16–30 concept. Stud High Educ 38:506–522. doi:10.1080/03075079. Siegel H (1988) Educating reason: rationality, critical thinking and 2011.586995 education. Routledge, New York Mulnix J (2010) Thinking critically about critical thinking. Educ Sigel I (1984) A constructivist perspective for teaching thinking. Educ Philos 44(5):464–479 Leadersh 42(3):18–21. Retrieved from ERIC Databasae Norris S (1988) Research needed on critical thinking. Can J Educ (EJ310026) (Reveu Can Educ) 13:125–137. doi:10.2307/1495172 Sizer TR, Sizer NF (1999) Grappling. Phi Delta Kappan 81:184–190 Norris S, Ennis R (1989) Evaluating critical thinking. Midwest Sleeter C (2011) Professional development for culturally responsive Publications, Pacific Grove and relationship-based pedagogy. Black studies and critical Nosich G (2011) To think things through: a guide to critical thinking thinking. Lang, New York City across the curriculum. Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River Spencer JT (2013) I’m a better teacher when students aren’t tested. Orlich D, Harder R, Callahan R, Trevisan M, Brow A, Miller D Phi Delta Kappan 94(5):72–73 (2008) Teaching strategies: a guide to effective instruction. Stanovich K, Stanovich PJ (2010) A framework for critical thinking, Wadsworth Cengage Learning, Belmont rational thinking and intelligence. In: Preiss D, Sternberg RJ Paul R (1993) Critical thinking: what every person needs to survive in (eds) Innovations in educational psychology: perspectives on a rapidly changing world. Foundation for Critical thinking, Santa learning and human development. Springer, New York, Rosa pp 195–235 Paul R, Elder L (2006) The minitaure guide to critical thinking: Stapleton R (2011) A survey of attitudes towards critical thinking concepts and tools, 4th edn. Foundation for Critical Thinking, among Hong Kong secondary school teachers: implications for Santa Rosa policy change. Think Skills Creat 6:14–23 Paul R, Elder L, Bartell T (1997) California teacher preparation for Terenzini P, Springer L, Pascarella ET, Amaury N (1995) Influences institution in critical thinking: research findings and policy affecting the development of students’ critical thinking skills. recommendations. Sacramento: California Commission on Tea- Res High Educ 36:23–39. doi:10.1007/BF02207765 cher Credentialing. http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED437379.pdf Tishman S, Jay E, Perkins D (1993) Teaching thinking disposition: Phillips F, Mackintosh B (2011) Wiki art gallery: a case for critical from transmission to enculturation. Theory Into Practice thinking. Issues Account Educ 26(3):593–608 32:147–153. doi:10.1080/00405849309543590 Phrakhruvisitpattanaporn S, Piromjitrapong S, Asavabhumi S (2012) Tobin K (1987) The role of wait time in higher cognitive level A teaching method to develop a critical thinking of the students learning. Rev Educ Res 57:69–95 of the general education ecclesiastical school. J Soc Sci Toy B, Ok A (2012) Incorporating critical thinking in the pedagogical 8:467–471 content of a teacher education programme: does it make a Pingry R (1951) Critical thinking: What is it? Math Teach difference? Eur J Teach Educ 35(1):39–52 44:466–470. http://www.jstor.org/stable/27953860 Walsh JA, Sattes BD (2015) A new rhythm for responding. Educ Popham W (2008) Transformative assessment. Association for Leadersh 73:46–53 Supervision and Curriculum Development, Alexandria Weissberg R (2013) Critically thinking about critical thinking. Acad Powney J, Watts M (1987) Interviewing in educational research. Quest 26:317–328. doi:10.1007/s12129-013-9375-2 Routledge and Kegan Paul Limited, London White B (2000) Dissertation skills for business management students. Resnick L, Resnick DP (1992) Assessing the thinking curriculum:new Cassells, London tools for educational reform. In: Gifford BR, O’Conor MC (eds) Willingham D (2007) Critical thinking: Why is it hard to teach? Am Changing assessment, alternative views of aptitude, achievement Educ 31(2):8–19 and instruction. Kluwer Academic, Boston, pp 37–75 Wilson K, Sloane K (2000) From principles to practice: an embedded Rosefsky S, Opfer D (2012) Learning 21st century skills requires 21st assessment system. Appl Meas Educ 13(2):181–208 century teaching. Phi Delta Kappan 94(2):8–13. doi:10.1177/ Wurdinger S (2011) Time for action: stop teaching to the test and start 003172171209400203 teaching skills. Rowman & Littlefield Education, Lanham Romanowski M, Nasser R (2012) How critical thinking is taught in Yeh Y (2009) Integrating e-learning into the direct instruction model Qatari independent schools’ social studies classrooms: teachers’ to enhance the effectiveness of critical thinking instruction. Instr perspectives. Int J Educ 4(1):68 Sci 37:185–203. doi:10.1007/s11251-007-9048-z 123