Journal of Southern
Agricultural Education Research 18
Volume 56, Number 1,
2006
AN INVESTIGATION OF
THE CRITICAL THINKING ABILITY OF
SECONDARY AGRICULTURE
STUDENTS
Scott Burris, Texas Tech
University
Bryan L. Garton, University of
Missouri
Abstract
The purpose of this
study was to examine the relationship between student characteristics
and critical
thinking. Additionally, this study sought to determine the unique variance in
critical
thinking explained by
achievement level. The target population for the study was identified as
secondary agriculture
students. As part of a larger study, the sample consisted of 105 secondary
agriculture students
purposefully selected based on characteristics of the teacher. Critical
thinking ability was
determined by the Watson-Glaser Critical Thinking Appraisal® (WGCTA®)
(Form S). Mean scores
for critical thinking indicate that some level of critical thinking is present
in secondary
agriculture students. Males and females were similar in their ability to think
critically. Upper
classmen outperformed lower classmen on critical thinking. Students
categorized as higher
academic achievement levels exhibit higher critical thinking skills than
those students
categorized as lower achievement levels. Academic achievement level uniquely
contributed 18
percent of the variance in critical thinking score.
Introduction and
Theoretical Framework
Education has long
focused on teaching students to give a correct answer. Students often
complete assignments,
do well on tests and get good grades; yet, do not learn to think critically
(Brooks & Brooks,
2001). According to Brooks and Brooks (2001), teachers too often ask
students to recite,
define, describe, or list facts. Students are less frequently asked to analyze,
infer, connect,
synthesize, evaluate, think and rethink. Students have become familiar with
this
process of passing
knowledge back and forth without inquiring into how this information applies
to the real world
(Black & Deci, 2000). The concern over development of critical thinking skills,
or lack there of, has
led to a renewed focus of education.
The current
educational climate reflects the importance of learning not only content
information, but also
developing skills for thinking critically (Pithers & Soden, 2000). The need
for instructional
design to improve the thinking process has been substantiated in numerous
reports over the last
25 years (Halpern, 2003). In recent years, more emphasis has been placed in
the student’s ability
to understand and use information, not to merely posses it (Richardson,
2003). Furthermore,
college faculty identified critical thinking, along with problem solving, as
skills necessary for
every college graduate (Diamond, 1997).
While there appears
to be unanimous agreement regarding the importance of developing
students’ critical
thinking skills, there is much less agreement on exactly what constitutes
critical
thinking. The concept
of critical thinking was reflected in the teaching of Greek philosophers
such as Socrates,
Plato and Aristotle (Burbach, Matkin, & Fritz, 2004; Staib, 2003). Dewey
(1909, 1997)
described critical thinking as the suspension of judgment and healthy
skepticism.
Multiple descriptions
of critical thinking can be found in the literature (Beyer, 1987; Burden &
Byrd, 1994; Ennis,
1962; Halpern, 2003; Pascarella & Terenzini 1991; Simon and Kaplan, 1989;
Stahl & Stahl,
1991). Critical thinking is often linked with, compared to, and used
interchangeably with
problem-solving (Dressel & Mayhew, 1954; Facione, 1990; Moore &
Parker, 1994; Pascarella
& Terenzini, 1991; Sternberg & Baron, 1985) and higher order thinking
(Burden & Byrd,
1994; Ennis, 1985; Facione, 1990; Whittington, Stup, Bish, & Allen, 1997).
Early efforts of
Dressel and Mayhew (1954) established a framework for evaluating
critical thinking.
Their work identified five abilities associated with the concept of critical
thinking. Building on
the work of Dressel and Mayhew, Watson and Glaser (1994) provided the
following definition:
Critical thinking is
a composite of attitudes, knowledge, and skills which includes: (1)
attitudes of inquiry
that involve an ability to recognize the existence of problems and an
acceptance of the
general need for evidence in support of what is asserted to be true; (2)
knowledge of the
nature of valid inferences, abstractions, and generalizations in which
the weight or
accuracy of different kinds of evidence are logically determined; and (3)
skills in applying
the above attitudes and knowledge. (p. 9)
Consistent with this
definition, Watson and Glaser created a data collection instrument to
measure those skills
associated with critical thinking. The Watson-Glaser Critical Thinking
Appraisal® (WGCTA®)
(1994) measures critical thinking through five abilities: inference,
recognition of
assumptions, deduction, interpretation, and evaluation of arguments. Each of
the
five abilities is
represented by a score on a sub-test of the instrument; and collectively, they
represent an ability
to think critically.
A Nation at Risk (National Commission
on Excellence in Education, 1983) questioned
the faltering
achievement of American students and called for investigations into existing
educational
structures. The National Commission on Excellence in Education specifically
identified concerns
about students’ lack of ability in critical thinking, higher-order thinking and
problem solving
skills. This concern over students’ ability to think critically was further
substantiated by
Norris (1985), who indicated that critical thinking was lower than expected in
the United States at
every stage of schooling.
The importance of
critical thinking has been reinforced by industry expectations. The
Secretary’s
Commission on Achieving Necessary Skills (SCANS) (1991) addressed this issue in
their report entitled
What Work Requires of Schools. The commission found that high
performance
workplaces required competencies in critical thinking. Among those critical
thinking competencies
identified were creative thinking, decision making, problem solving, and
reasoning (SCANS,
1991).
Support for the
development of critical thinking skills has also been apparent in the
expectations of
student performance in public schools. As a result of legislation, the Missouri
Department of
Elementary and Secondary Education (DESE)(1996) developed the Show-Me
Standards outlining
expectations of secondary students. These standards were a result of Senate
Bill 380, “The
Outstanding Schools Act” (1993), which called for the State Board of Education
to adopt performance
standards. The Show-Me Performance Standards target the development
of critical thinking
skills.
The standards are
categorized into four goals. Goal one of the Show-Me Standards
(DESE, 2004) states,
“Students in public schools will acquire the knowledge and skills to gather,
analyze, and apply
information and ideas”(p. 3). In addition, Goal Three of the Show-Me
Standards posits,
“Students in public schools will acquire the knowledge and skills to recognize
and solve
problems”(p. 3). Finally, Goal Four asserts, “Students in public schools will
acquire
the knowledge and
skills to make decisions and act as responsible members of society”(p. 3).
The value of critical
thinking skills is evident by the references to analysis, problem solving, and
decision making in
three of the four goals.
Critical thinking has
been examined through a variety of perspectives. Early studies in
agricultural
education sought to identify the critical thinking ability of students enrolled
in
secondary agriculture
classes. Findings indicated that secondary agriculture students did possess
some ability to think
critically (Rollins, 1990, Cano, 1990). Future studies have since
contributed to what
Cano initially described in 1990 as a shallow research base.
Studies have explored
the relationship between critical thinking and student
characteristics.
Torres and Cano (1995) reported that learning style explained significant
variance in critical
thinking. In contrast, Rudd, Baker; and Hoover (2000) found no significant
difference in
critical thinking by learning style. However, they did find gender to be a
significant
contributor to
critical thinking disposition. More recently, Meyers and Dyer (2004) found no
difference in
student’s disposition to think critically by gender or learning style.
Stronger connections
have been made between critical thinking and academic ability.
Rollins (1990) found
the best indicator of critical thinking ability in Iowa secondary agriculture
students to be the
score on the Iowa Tests of Education Development (ITEDs) reading sub-test,
accounting for 28% of
the variance in critical thinking score. Cano and Martinez (1991) reported
a substantial
positive relationship between critical thinking and cognitive ability as
defined by
the Developing
Cognitive Abilities Test. Rickets and Rudd (2005) identified grade point
average, as an
indicator of academic performance, as the best known indicator for explaining
critical thinking.
Critical thinking
continues to emerge as a primary focus in education. While the body of
literature related to
critical thinking continues to grow, there continues to remain disagreement of
factors that are
associated with the ability to think critically. One consistent product of
previous
studies on critical
thinking has been the call for continued investigation.
Purpose and
Objectives
The purpose of this
study was to examine the relationship between selected student
characteristics and
critical thinking. Additionally, this study sought to determine the unique
variance in students’
critical thinking explained by their achievement level. The following
research objectives
guided the study.
1. Describe selected
characteristics (gender, grade classification, achievement level, and grade
classification) of
secondary agriculture students.
2. Explore critical
thinking scores according to classifications of gender, grade classification,
and achievement
level.
3. Explain the
variance in critical thinking score accounted for by achievement level ability
when controlling for
differences in gender and grade classification.
Methods and
Procedures
Population and Sample
This study was part
of a larger investigation and utilized a descriptive correlational
design. While the
target population for the study was identified as secondary agriculture
students in Missouri,
participants were limited by the design of the larger study. Subjects in the
study were part of a
purposive sample. Students were included in the study based on selection
criteria of their
agriculture teacher. Twelve teachers were selected based on characteristics of
their teacher
preparation program. All selected teachers had been exposed to a similar
preservice
departmental
philosophy of education, completed similar requirements for teacher
certification, and
received similar instruction in teaching methodology. The resulting sample
consisted of 140
students. Achievement score date were unavailable for 35 students resulting in
a usable sample for
this study of 105. Due to the limitations of the sampling procedures,
findings from this
study are representative of subjects included in the study and should not be
generalized beyond
this sample.
Instrumentation
Two data collection
instruments were used. Critical thinking ability was determined by
the Watson-Glaser
Critical Thinking Appraisal® (WGCTA®) (Form S). The WGCTA® is a
standardized,
copyrighted, assessment tool for assessing the success of programs and courses
in
developing critical
thinking skills (Watson & Glaser, 1994). The instrument includes exercises
which are purported
to be examples of problems, statements, arguments and interpretations of
data which are
regularly encountered at work as well as at school and in other activities. The
WGCTA® is designed to
measure critical thinking as a composite of attitudes, knowledge, and
skills. The
instrument is available in parallel forms A and B and is also available in an
abbreviated version
(Form S). Form S was used for this study as it is approved for secondary
students and can be
completed in approximately 45 minutes.
The reliability of
the WGCTA® had been previously established and was detailed in the
test manual.
Reliability estimates for Form S of the WGCTA® were reported as a Cronbach’s
alpha coefficient of
.81 (r = .81) (Watson & Glaser, 1994). According to Watson and
Glaser
(1994), “the content
validity of the WGCTA® in classroom and instructional settings may be
examined by noting
the extent to which the WGCTA® measures a sample of the specified
objectives of such
learning programs. The statewide objectives of public education in Missouri
clearly identify the
importance of critical thinking skills as evident by the references to
analysis,
problem solving, and
decision making. The construct validity of the WGCTA® can be evaluated
by noting its
relationship to other tests. Watson and Glaser (1994) report significant
relationships between
the WGCTA and test of general intelligence (Otis-Lennon Mental
Ability
Tests, the California
Test of Mental Maturity, and the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale
Verbal
IQ).
A second data
collection instrument was developed by the researcher. This instrument
was completed by the
agriculture teacher and consisted of demographic information (gender and
grade classification)
and achievement data. Student achievement was operationally defined as
the score on the 7th
grade administration of the science portion of the “Missouri Assessment
Program” (MAP). The
MAP is a standardized assessment system developed to evaluate student
proficiency on the
state adopted academic standards. The MAP assesses students in
communication arts
and science in grades 3, 7, and 10. Mathematics and social studies are tested
in grades 4, 8, and
11. As part of the larger study, teachers reported the score on the science
portion of the MAP as
that was the area most related to agriculture. The seventh grade
administration was
utilized because it was the most recent administration completed by all
secondary students in
the study.
Conclusions and
Recommendations
In the study, 35% of
the students were female and 65% were male. Data from the
Missouri Department
of Elementary and Secondary Education (DESE, 2005) indicate
approximately 30% of
students enrolled in secondary agriculture classes for 2003-04 were
female and
approximately 70% were male. Therefore, it can be concluded that the sample
approximates the
gender distribution of secondary agriculture students in Missouri.
Sophomores, juniors,
and seniors made up almost 85% of the sample. While this is
uncharacteristic of
statewide enrollment figures, it is understandable given the selection criteria
for this study.
Teachers were included based on their ability to incorporate a specific unit of
instruction into one
of their courses. The unit most appropriately fit into an Ag Science II or
Natural Resources
class. Each of these courses is typically regarded as upper level courses.
State reports for
2004 indicated the 40% of students state-wide were performing at or
above the nearing
proficiency level on the MAP. Forty-four percent of the students in this
study
were classified as nearing
proficiency or higher. The MAP achievement levels imply that
students in
agriculture courses are performing at least as well as the state-wide
population of
students. As
education continues to deal with accountability issues, it is reassuring that
agriculture students
are performing as well as general populations. Future research is necessary
to investigate the
contributions agriculture programs make toward standardized testing.
Mean scores for
critical thinking indicate that some level of critical thinking is present in
secondary agriculture
students. A lack of comparative information on secondary level critical
thinking ability
makes interpreting the level inherently more challenging. Students in the study
scored considerably
lower than normative date for various professions on the same form of the
WGCTA (Watson &
Glaser, 1996). More information is needed for students at a similar grade
level.
Helmstadter (1985)
criticized the WGCTA indicating that mean scores tend to progress
logically with age.
Findings from this study indicated that an increase in grade classification
resulted in an
increase in critical thinking ability. Upper grade-level students outperformed
lower grade-level
students on critical thinking. In spite of Helmstadter’s concern, Rollins
(1990)
Journal of Southern
Agricultural Education Research 26
Volume 56, Number 1,
2006
study resulted in
similar findings using a different measure of critical thinking. It is not
clear
whether that increase
is a result of education or a result of development.
Educators should continue
to value the development of critical thinking. As teachers
strive to incorporate
strategies into their classroom, differences among grade levels should be
considered. While
findings from this study only indicate that differences may exist between
students at different
grade levels, additional studies should be conducted to determine the extent
to which grade level
impacts a student’s ability to think critically. Likewise, strategies most
effective for
developing critical thinking should be identified through future research and
employed in
agriculture programs.
There exists some
disagreement in the literature regarding the influence of gender on
critical thinking.
Rudd, Baker, and Hoover (2000) described gender as a significant variable in
critical thinking
disposition. In contrast, current findings indicate males and females are
similar
in their ability to
think critically. This finding is consistent with research on college students
(Myers & Dyer,
2004). Possible differences in these findings may be a result in the
inconsistent
descriptions and
measures of critical thinking.
Findings indicate a
moderate (Davis, 1971) relationship between achievement level and
critical thinking
ability. Students categorized as higher academic achievement levels, as defined
by the MAP, exhibit
higher critical thinking skills than those students categorized as lower
achievement levels.
This relationship is in agreement with previous studies that have linked
measures of academic
ability and critical thinking (Cano & Martinez, 1991, Ricketts & Rudd,
2005; Rollins, 1990).
A variety of
definitions of critical thinking have been posed. While some call for
harmony or unity in
our approach to critical thinking, perhaps the partitioning of critical
thinking
as a construct is more
appropriate. Contradictory findings related to critical thinking could be a
result of many
sub-constructs. The relationship between academic achievement and critical
thinking may indicate
that efforts to measure critical thinking may be really measuring academic
achievement. As
definitions are continually refined, our instruments of measurement must be
refined as well.
Eighteen percent of
the unique variance in critical thinking scores can be attributed to
achievement level
category. Similarly, Rollins (1990) found that 28% of variance in critical
thinking, measured by
the Cornell Critical Thinking Test, could be explained by score on the
Iowa Test of
Education Development (ITED) reading subtest. Both findings support the
argument that
academic performance is the best-known variable for explaining critical
thinking.
References
Beyer, B.K. (1987). Practical
strategies for the teaching of thinking. Boston, MA: Allyn and
Bacon, Inc.
27 Journal of
Southern Agricultural Education Research
Volume 56, Number 1,
2006
Black, A.E. &
Deci, E.L. (2000). The effects of instructors’ autonomy support and students’
autonomous motivation
on learning organic chemistry: A self-determination theory
perspective. Science
Education, 84, 740-756
Brooks, J.G., &
Brooks, M.G. (2001). The case for constructivist classrooms. Alexandria,
VA:
Association for
Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Burback, M.E.,
Matkin, G.S., & Fritz, S.M. (2004). Teaching critical thinking in an
introductory
leadership course utilizing
active learning strategies: A confirmatory study. College
Student Journal, 38(3),
482-493.
Burden, P.R., &
Byrd, D.M. (1994). Methods for effective teaching. Boston, MA: Allyn and
Bacon, Inc.
Cano, J. (1990). The
relationship between instruction and student performance at the various
levels of cognition
among selected Ohio production agriculture programs. Journal of
Agricultural
Education.,
31(2), 74-80.
Cano, J., &
Martinez, C. (1991). The relationship between cognitive performance and
critical
thinking abilities
among selected agricultural education students. Journal of Agricultural
Education, 32(1),
24-29.
Dewey, J (1997). How
we think. New York: Houghton Mifflin. (Original work published
1909).
Diamond, R. M.
(1997). Curriculum reform needed if students are to master core concepts [Web
Page].URL
http://chronicle.com/search97cgi/s97_cgi? [2004, December 15].
Davis, J.A. (1971). Elementary
survey analysis. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Ennis, R.H. (1962). A
concept of critical thinking. Harvard Educational Review 32(1), 81-111.
Ennis, R.H. (1985). A
logical basis for measuring critical thinking skills. Educational
Leadership, 43(2), 44-49.
Facione, P.A. (1990).
Critical thinking: A statement of expert consensus for purposes of
educational
assessment and instruction. Millbrea, CA: The California Academic Press.
Halpern, D.F. (2003).
Thought and knowledge: An introduction to critical thinking (4th
edition).
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates.
Helmstadter, G.C.
(1985). Review of Watson-Glaser critical thinking appraisal. In J. V.
Mitchell (Ed.), Ninth
mental measurements yearbook (p. 1693-1694). Lincoln, NE:
University of
Nebraska, Lincoln, Buros Institute of Mental Measurement.
Missouri Department
of Elementary and Secondary Education (2004). Missouri assessment
program: Guide to
interpreting results.
Retrieved May 2nd, 2005 from
http://www.dese.mo.gov.
Missouri Department
of Elementary and Secondary Education (1996, March). The show-me
standards (Section 160.514,
Revised Statutes of Missouri, and the Code of State
Regulations, 5 CSR
50-375.100.) Jefferson City, MO.
Moore, B.N., &
Parker, R. (1994). Critical Thinking. Mountain View, CA: Mayfield
Meyers, B.E., &
Dyer, J.E. (2004). The influence of student learning style on critical thinking
skill. Proceedings
of the Thirty-first Annual National Agricultural Education Research
Meeting, 31, 379-390.
National Commission
on Excellence in Education (1983). A nation at risk: The imperative for
education reform. Washington DC:
Author.
Norris, S.P. (1985).
Synthesis of research on critical thinking. Educational Leadership, 42(8),
40-45.
Pascarella, E., &
Terenzini, P. (1991). How college affects students: Findings and insights
from
twenty years of
research.
San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass.
Pithers, R.T. &
Soden, R. (2000). Critical thinking in education: A review. Educational
Research, 42(3), 237-249.
Richardson, V.
(2003). Constructivist pedagogy. Teachers College Record 105(9),
1623-1640.
Ricketts, J.C., &
Rudd, R. (2005). Critical thinking skills of selected youth leaders: The
efficacy
of critical thinking
dispositions, leadership, and academic performance. Journal of
Agricultural
Education 46(1),
32-43.
Rollins, T.J. (1990).
Levels of critical thinking of secondary agriculture students. Journal of
Agricultural
Education,
31(3), 47-53.
Rudd, R., Baker, M.,
& Hoover, T. (2000). Undergraduate agriculture student learning styles
and critical thinking
abilities: Is there a relationship? Journal of Agricultural Education,
41(3), 2-12.
Secretary’s
Commission on Achieving Necessary Skills (1991). What work requires of
schools
A SCANS report for
America 2000. Washington
D.C.: US Department of Labor.
Stahl, N.N., &
Stahl, R.J., (1991). We can agree after all: Achieving a consensus for a
critical
thinking component of
a gifted program using the Delphi technique. Roeper Review,
14(2), 79-88.
29
Staib, S. (2003).
Teaching and measuring critical thinking. Journal of Nursing Education,
42(11), 498-508.
Sternberg, R.J.,
& Baron, J.B. (1985, October). A statewide approach to measuring critical
thinking skill. Educational
Leadership, 40-41.
Simon, H.A., &
Kaplan, C.A. (1989). In Posner, M.I. (Ed), Foundations of cognitive
sciences.
(pp. 1-47).
Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Torres, R.M., &
Cano, J. (1995). Critical thinking as influenced by learning style. Journal
of
Agricultural
Education, 36(4),
55-62.
Watson, G., &
Glaser, E.M. (1994). Watson-Glaser critical thinking appraisal manual. San
Antonio: The
Psychologic Corporation: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, Inc.
Whittington, M.S.,
Stup, R.E., Bish, L., & Allen, A. (1997). Assessment of cognitive
discourse:
A study of thinking
opportunities provided by professors. Journal of Agricultural
Education, 38(1),
46-53.
