|
LRC
RESOURCES:
Standard
Operating Procedures (SOPs) - May 2007 (note:
these files are password protected)
*
LRC students and staff: contact tflemming1@gsu.edu for password.
Click
Here to Download the Entire Bundle
APS
2004 Conference
“Critical
thinking” has become a hot topic within cognitive, educational,
and other areas of psychology. Researchers continue to investigate
what critical thinking is and how/whether it can be improved. Two
components of critical thought that appear to be lacking in undergraduate
psychology students are (a) the ability to distinguish statements
of fact from inferential or interpretive statements, and (b) the
ability to detect logical fallacies in arguments. A computerized
drill was designed (Washburn, 19992) to address this first weakness.
In the present poster, we reconsider this computer-based-education
tool and describe a second use and an updated platform for the drill,
which allows students to read brief passages and to answer questions
about target sentences. Data were analyzed from 74 undergraduate
students that have been tested with the software. The students (N=42)
who completed the “distinguishing fact from interpretation”
version of the task showed significant improvement in performance
across the test (p < .01). Similarly, the 22 students who completed
a “logical fallacies” version of the exercise performed
significantly better in detecting flawed arguments, both across
the exercise and in a pre-test / post-test comparison (p < .05).
It should be noted that neither group of students particularly enjoyed
the drill, however, nor felt that it was beneficial (despite behavioral
data to the contrary). It appears that the software described here
is a useful, if unpopular, tool for improving selected critical
thinking skills of undergraduate students.
Culture
Prefigures Cognition in Pan/Homo Bonobos (SRCD Monograph,
2005)
Sue
Savage-Rumbaugh, William M. Fields, Par Segerdahl and Duane Rumbaugh
|
