Professionalization of Exercise Physiologyonline 
ISSN
1099-5862
Vol 5 No 11 November 2002 |
|
|
 |
| Critical
Thinking: A New Day Dawning in Exercise Physiology
Tommy Boone, PhD Professor and Chair Director, Exercise Physiology Laboratories The College of St. Scholastica Duluth, MN 55811 AS A COLLEGE TEACHER, I have been teaching for better than three decades. I have taught a minimum of eight academic courses a year (and at times, 10 to 12 including summer teaching) for essentially 35 years. Without being too specific, I have taught close to 350 academic courses; each requiring the usual lectures, grading, and laboratory experiences. Sometimes when I think about it for a minute, it seems like the first course was just yesterday. Little did I know as a college gymnastics coach that I would end up as a professor. I’ve been lucky throughout my life. And, I’ve enjoyed teaching (and even doing research) at several universities. So, what is the purpose of this brief article? Well, it has to do with an uncomfortable feeling when lecturing on “critical thinking”. It isn’t that this feeling is new. It is a feeling that I experience every academic year when integrating critical thinking into my lectures. By critical thinking, I mean the work that is required to reach a balanced view of a subject versus a significantly narrow view or one-sided presentation of data and/or information about a topic [1]. At times, I have questioned whether I should persist with the effort to teach students “how to think” versus “what to think”. To what extent I should emphasize critical thinking is not generally considered an ethical issue for college teachers. But, it might be argued that a specific role of college teachers is to protect and further the integrity of sound (i.e., legitimate) information. That means a redefinition, not necessarily abandonment, of information that is otherwise considered appropriate classroom content. To be very specific, despite the clear evidence of the lack of scientific information to support alternative therapies, there are indications that the therapies are not questioned. Books fail to demonstrate the truth of whether the therapies work or not. Teachers appear comfortable with teaching a therapy that is obviously a waste of time. In particular, it is wrong to yield to the interests of complementary and alternative forms of healthcare that have yet demonstrated the rigors of scientific analysis and publication. College teachers should understand this point better than most and, as an educated person; they should be interested in helping students think critically. This is exactly what I’ve been doing for many years. I’ve always felt that the idea of critical thinking (or critical reflection) sets the stage to move teaching beyond the era of passing on information to contemplation beyond existing beliefs and ideas. In recent years though, the idea of questioning what is published appears to cause some students to pull back with a certain opposition as if unknowingly wearing a cerebral straitjacket. If this view is too strong, give critical thinking a higher degree of priority in your class and see what happens. My thesis is that we live in a world that depends on what we are told to think. Seldom are we requested to be part of the “thinking process” or to think through a problem. Even for the educated, my viewpoint has long been that many teachers feel a responsibility, if not, an easier task of teaching to share information that is almost common knowledge than to challenge standard beliefs. They have come to understand the obstacles to teaching critical thinking skills. This is especially the case in exercise physiology. No where within the education of exercise physiologists is there the appropriate interest placed on college teaching (i.e., what is it and how it should be done) and critical thinking. Despite the talk about critical thinking, despite the world’s notion that critical thinking is crucial to getting at the truth, and despite the fact college teachers have failed to teach critical thinking, the 21st century exercise physiologist must teach critical thinking skills anyway. This is my struggle and, very likely, it is the struggle of all teachers to work at understanding the challenges of incorporating critical thinking into their classrooms (2-4). Today I grapple with it, how to do it effectively, and how I can demonstrate that the politics of the published manuscript need our best analysis. Perhaps, a logical beginning would be to define critical thinking. While there are numerous definitions [5-7], Beyer’s definition seems to make the most sense: “Critical thinking…means making reasoned judgments” [8]. In other words, to think critically is to judge in a disciplined manner the validity of a statement, research findings, and conclusions. This means that the critical thinker must be a skeptic at most of what he/she reads or is told. The skeptic is always reading the literature for evidence, clarity, and precision [9]. For example, has the author been totally honest with the statistics used in the article? Has the author met the reasonable expectation of dealing with conditions that may confound the findings? Are the facts accurate? Are the conclusions free from logical fallacies? Asking these types of questions help students (and others) apply critical thinking skills to their academic work. Back to my earlier point: My impression is that students find it somewhat difficult to examine logical relationships resulting from statistical analysis. This is not just a problem that I have encountered [10]. Their skills in asking questions, making judgments, looking at a phenomenon from different points of view, and identifying assumptions are not well developed. And, yet it is imperative that students “develop and effectively apply critical thinking skills to their academic studies, to the complex problems that they will face, and to the critical choices they will be forced to make as a result of the information explosion and other rapid technological changes” [11]. Students must be able to make sound decisions about personal and civic affairs [12]. This is so important that I have taken on the “conference style of learning” in my classes. By this, I mean that I try to facilitate the “asking of questions and the discussion that helps students build on ideas”. As I said, “I try…” because at times I believe that little serious critical thinking is taking place. Many of my students either listen passively or see me challenging the ideas of others. Regarding the latter, even the simplest challenge, such as “Why did the author write the title as presented? How did the author arrive at the research findings? Are the conclusions valid?” At first glance, these questions are obvious. But the passive nature of many students does not encourage a critical understanding of their own thinking and biases. As students, they are not likely to challenge the premises and biases of others. This is a problem because teachers want students to: 1. Know the difference between good and bad science.As I have said, as a college teacher, the challenge has been to get students beyond the idea that everything that is written, believed, or talked about is correct and honest information. I have written about this challenge on several other occasions. It is about helping both teachers and students acquire the capacity to read and analyze the exercise physiology body of knowledge critically and knowledgeably. Using the classroom as a “thinking classroom/laboratory” is one way that I have taught critical thinking skills. Unlike straight lectures or discussion groups, where the content in the text or research article is accepted as truth and unchallenged, the thinking classroom/laboratory is designed to encourage the “analysis” of the course (and related) content. Students are encouraged to: Textbook Content 1. Look for the author’s bias.Published Articles 1. What are the assumptions and reasons for the research?I expect students to come away from the “psychophysiology of health and exercise” class knowing how to think critically. However, it isn’t as intuitive or automatic as we might have believed. For certain, it is not easy to teach. Few teachers learned it explicitly [13] even though exercise physiologists have placed considerable effort in studying information in the context of the scientific method. The problem therefore is that the translation of critical thinking from reading scientific articles to the classroom has not been successfully carried out. Students in exercise physiology are not being taught the ability to be in control of their thinking. Instead, they are being told “what to think”. Their course work and lectures are full of elements, ideas, and concepts of what to do as though thinking is non-changing, as though the content is the absolute right and the only way to interpret it. Clarity, accuracy, precision, and relevance are seldom touched upon. Whether the author has a balanced perspective in the content is not discussed. It is simply too easy to teach the common agenda. The ultimate goal is for all teachers, not just exercise physiologists, to get their students to read an article not just for its content, but for its accuracy and other intellectual standards. This shouldn’t be the problem that it is today, especially since critical thinking goes back at least to 1941 [14]. College teachers have had plenty of time to teach students how to control their thinking. I’ve had time, too. It isn’t easy and when students fail to get the message, it is even harder to do. The bottom line is that most of us are not self-directed thinkers, and we don’t spend a lot of time “thinking about thinking” or “thinking outside of the box”. We need to do more work in this area. Exercise physiology has an immediate and widespread need for professionals who can study a research article (or any written material) and examine its assumptions, work through the strengths and weaknesses of the content, and consider different points of view and the implications. In other words, we need more exercise physiologists who have the ability to reason critically. Hence, our overall philosophy ought to be that “exercise physiology is a profession of members who understand what thinking is and have worked at being responsible for their own thinking.” It is (or should be) one of our 21st century goals, especially since it will not happen automatically. In fact, as Eichhorn [15] points out, “It may be asking too much of people…to suddenly change their thinking habits.” Teaching for thinking must be nurtured. Eichhorn also points out that: “There are times when it would be easier to give students ‘the answer’ than to work them through the thinking they need to get to the answer themselves. Critical thinking emphasizes logic and requires the questioning of assumptions; therefore, it can challenge people’s biases and prejudices and cause students discomfort. Sometimes this comfort gets taken out on members of the College faculty and staff.” The traditional framework of education that most students are exposed to does not address the essential prerequisite provisions for critical understanding. Most students (and many teachers) accept on trust what is given to them; a situation that Mohanan [16] says does not facilitate the practice of critical thinking. For students to become aware that a certain percent of all published manuscripts are problematic since the author(s) have purposefully deceived the reader, it is important that teachers help them identify the problems by discussing the facts and arguments that support the conclusions. Exercise physiologists have an advantage over some teachers since they may have the data and/or facts to deal directly with the credibility or lack of credibility of the evidence. But, first, they must assume the responsibility to teach critical thinking. Those who don’t are probably avoiding doing so either because they think what they are doing in class is sufficient or, perhaps, they aren’t willing to encourage alternative thinking that may disallow and thus set the stage for much of what we think we know to crumble before our eyes. The interesting point here is that college teachers are suppose to base their thinking on the foundation of science, which is a type of scientific inquiry that is always questioning what we know. Without some skepticism, teaching is likely to be driven by an ignorance that is more of a “conclusion-driven” form of teaching “what to do” than by processes that lead to a higher-order critical thinking [17]. It may be that most college teachers adopt this way to teach because they understand the barriers to teaching students to think critically. Neal [18] concludes that “Students are often resistant to critical thinking because it is simply ‘hard’ and because many fail to understand its purpose or value”. Students don’t seem to get the big picture that critical thinking is based on asking questions, examining the evidence, looking at all sides, analyzing assumptions and biases, and avoiding emotional and personal desires. Broadly speaking, all college teachers should demonstrate a critical attitude; one that systematically questions not only what he/she is reading but teaching as well. Teachers who must see the evidence before believing a particular conclusion are concerned with the truth more so than being right. They understand the importance of rational thinking that is dependent upon [19]: 1. Critical examination of all assumptions.The exercise physiology degree is good only if the teachers help develop students with the ability to think; a condition that helps to guarantee against content deception, delusion in scientific papers, and in misleading ourselves and others in the practice of what we do. Our textbooks can’t help since they seldom teach students how to think. Coming to an understanding of “reliable knowledge” is possible through applying scientific thinking or, as it is commonly called, the scientific method [20]. Schafersman writes that anyone can “think like a scientist” if he/she practices critical thinking (i.e., learns the scientific method). Students, in particular, must learn how to think critically. Rational thinking helps the students reach “reliable” conclusions. It is based on empirical evidence (i.e., evidence that you can smell, see, touch, taste, or hear) rather than hearsay evidence (what someone says), testimonial evidence (evidence allowed in a court of law), or authoritarian evidence (books, people, TV commercials). Just as Schafersman [20] points out in his article entitled, “An Introduction to Science: Scientific Thinking and the Scientific Method” – the lack of critical thinking in college classrooms is a problem since “…the use of authoritarian evidence in education is so pervasive….” Critical thinking requires the examination of all types of evidence, including the lecture content of college teachers. Logical reasoning is not something that all students (and even teachers) can do correctly. It is however a discipline that demands our attention if we are going to reason correctly. Similarly, exercise physiologists should practice a “constructive discontent” type of thinking that allows for critical thinking and a skeptical attitude. Again, Schafersman [20] states it best: “The only way to escape both deception by others and the far more common trait of self-deception is to repeatedly and rigorously examine your basis for holding your beliefs. You must question the truth and reliability of both the knowledge claims of others and the knowledge you already possess.” As college teachers, we are faced every day with new information and new claims. Our challenge is to determine which claims are correct by practicing the scientific method not only in our research, but in our class lectures, too. For students reading this article, the scientific method is defined by the following sequentially related steps: 1. State the problem in the form of a scientific hypothesis.Critical thinking helps us to avoid wasting time and energy on incorrect, inaccurate, and even harmful ideas. The beginning of a new century is a time not only for staying on top of what we think we know but also for critical analysis; a time not only for valuing what it means to teach and what teachers do for society but also to look ahead and prepare students to meet the challenges ahead of them. And, so it is that this topic has been driven by the foundational assumption that describing and arguing for critical thinking has made some progress in creating a nurturing environment for a new era of faculty and student scholarship. References
Other Readings
|
