Integrating direct and inquiry-based instruction in the teaching of critical thinking: an intervention study
Critical thinking is a unifying goal of modern education. While past research has mostly examined the efficacy of a single instructional approach to teaching critical thinking, recent literature has begun discussing mixed teaching approaches. The present study examines three modes of instruction, fe...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | Instructional science 2014-03, Vol.42 (2), p.251-269 |
|---|---|
| Hauptverfasser: | , , , |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | 269 |
|---|---|
| container_issue | 2 |
| container_start_page | 251 |
| container_title | Instructional science |
| container_volume | 42 |
| creator | Ku, Kelly Y. L. Ho, Irene T. Hau, Kit-Tai Lai, Eva C. M. |
| description | Critical thinking is a unifying goal of modern education. While past research has mostly examined the efficacy of a single instructional approach to teaching critical thinking, recent literature has begun discussing mixed teaching approaches. The present study examines three modes of instruction, featuring the direct instruction approach and the inquiry-based approach in different sequences and proportions, in enhancing Chinese secondary student's critical thinking performance. A total of 651 Grade 12 students participated in an 18-hour intervention with pre- and post-intervention measures on critical thinking performance and critical thinking dispositions. Specifically, critical thinking assessments utilizing different response format were used. Those who received training showed greater improvement on at least one of the critical thinking assessments compared to those who received no training. Participants' performances with regards to different critical thinking assessments are discussed. Benefits of adopting more than one instructional approach to teaching critical thinking are highlighted. |
| doi_str_mv | 10.1007/s11251-013-9279-0 |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>jstor_proqu</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_journals_1497355589</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><ericid>EJ1039456</ericid><jstor_id>43575226</jstor_id><sourcerecordid>43575226</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c360t-39a1bdc54ec61c1a7ad7222fa043640cd8c03233f547a2248655acec4320df193</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqFUMtKxDAUDaLgOPoBLoSC6-i9eTRTdyI-EdzoOsQ0HTOOqSapMH9vakXcubqP84JDyCHCCQKo04TIJFJAThumGgpbZIZScYqNZNtkBsCACqbULtlLaQUAKBYwI-vbkN0ymuzDsmp9dDZXJrSVDx-Djxv6bJIbr5TjYLPvQ9mr_OKq7Ix9GUV9V9nos7dmXQAfXsvzrHgUYnbx04VvVcpDu9knO51ZJ3fwM-fk6ery8eKG3j9c316c31PLa8iUNwafWyuFszVaNMq0ijHWGRC8FmDbhQXOOO-kUIYxsailNNZZwRm0HTZ8To4n3_fYfwwuZb3qhxhKpEbRKC6lXIwsnFg29ilF1-n36N9M3GgEPZaqp1J1KVWPpWoomqNJ46K3v_zLOwTeCFkXnE14KlhYuvgn-X_TVcp9_HUVXCrJWM2_ANYsjfY</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1497355589</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Integrating direct and inquiry-based instruction in the teaching of critical thinking: an intervention study</title><source>Jstor Complete Legacy</source><source>SpringerLink Journals</source><source>EBSCOhost Education Source</source><creator>Ku, Kelly Y. L. ; Ho, Irene T. ; Hau, Kit-Tai ; Lai, Eva C. M.</creator><creatorcontrib>Ku, Kelly Y. L. ; Ho, Irene T. ; Hau, Kit-Tai ; Lai, Eva C. M.</creatorcontrib><description>Critical thinking is a unifying goal of modern education. While past research has mostly examined the efficacy of a single instructional approach to teaching critical thinking, recent literature has begun discussing mixed teaching approaches. The present study examines three modes of instruction, featuring the direct instruction approach and the inquiry-based approach in different sequences and proportions, in enhancing Chinese secondary student's critical thinking performance. A total of 651 Grade 12 students participated in an 18-hour intervention with pre- and post-intervention measures on critical thinking performance and critical thinking dispositions. Specifically, critical thinking assessments utilizing different response format were used. Those who received training showed greater improvement on at least one of the critical thinking assessments compared to those who received no training. Participants' performances with regards to different critical thinking assessments are discussed. Benefits of adopting more than one instructional approach to teaching critical thinking are highlighted.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0020-4277</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1573-1952</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1007/s11251-013-9279-0</identifier><identifier>CODEN: INLSBJ</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Dordrecht: Springer</publisher><subject>Active Learning ; China ; Conscientiousness ; Critical Thinking ; Direct instruction ; Education ; Educational Psychology ; Educational Strategies ; Foreign Countries ; Grade 12 ; Higher education ; Inquiry ; Inquiry method ; Instructional design ; Intervention ; Learning ; Learning and Instruction ; Need for cognition ; Pedagogic Psychology ; Pretests Posttests ; Reasoning ; Secondary School Students ; Student Improvement ; Teachers ; Teaching Methods ; Thinking Skills ; Training</subject><ispartof>Instructional science, 2014-03, Vol.42 (2), p.251-269</ispartof><rights>Springer Science+Business Media 2014</rights><rights>Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013</rights><rights>Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c360t-39a1bdc54ec61c1a7ad7222fa043640cd8c03233f547a2248655acec4320df193</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c360t-39a1bdc54ec61c1a7ad7222fa043640cd8c03233f547a2248655acec4320df193</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/43575226$$EPDF$$P50$$Gjstor$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.jstor.org/stable/43575226$$EHTML$$P50$$Gjstor$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,799,27901,27902,41464,42533,51294,57992,58225</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttp://eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/detail?accno=EJ1039456$$DView record in ERIC$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Ku, Kelly Y. L.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ho, Irene T.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hau, Kit-Tai</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lai, Eva C. M.</creatorcontrib><title>Integrating direct and inquiry-based instruction in the teaching of critical thinking: an intervention study</title><title>Instructional science</title><addtitle>Instr Sci</addtitle><description>Critical thinking is a unifying goal of modern education. While past research has mostly examined the efficacy of a single instructional approach to teaching critical thinking, recent literature has begun discussing mixed teaching approaches. The present study examines three modes of instruction, featuring the direct instruction approach and the inquiry-based approach in different sequences and proportions, in enhancing Chinese secondary student's critical thinking performance. A total of 651 Grade 12 students participated in an 18-hour intervention with pre- and post-intervention measures on critical thinking performance and critical thinking dispositions. Specifically, critical thinking assessments utilizing different response format were used. Those who received training showed greater improvement on at least one of the critical thinking assessments compared to those who received no training. Participants' performances with regards to different critical thinking assessments are discussed. Benefits of adopting more than one instructional approach to teaching critical thinking are highlighted.</description><subject>Active Learning</subject><subject>China</subject><subject>Conscientiousness</subject><subject>Critical Thinking</subject><subject>Direct instruction</subject><subject>Education</subject><subject>Educational Psychology</subject><subject>Educational Strategies</subject><subject>Foreign Countries</subject><subject>Grade 12</subject><subject>Higher education</subject><subject>Inquiry</subject><subject>Inquiry method</subject><subject>Instructional design</subject><subject>Intervention</subject><subject>Learning</subject><subject>Learning and Instruction</subject><subject>Need for cognition</subject><subject>Pedagogic Psychology</subject><subject>Pretests Posttests</subject><subject>Reasoning</subject><subject>Secondary School Students</subject><subject>Student Improvement</subject><subject>Teachers</subject><subject>Teaching Methods</subject><subject>Thinking Skills</subject><subject>Training</subject><issn>0020-4277</issn><issn>1573-1952</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2014</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>8G5</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>GUQSH</sourceid><sourceid>M2O</sourceid><recordid>eNqFUMtKxDAUDaLgOPoBLoSC6-i9eTRTdyI-EdzoOsQ0HTOOqSapMH9vakXcubqP84JDyCHCCQKo04TIJFJAThumGgpbZIZScYqNZNtkBsCACqbULtlLaQUAKBYwI-vbkN0ymuzDsmp9dDZXJrSVDx-Djxv6bJIbr5TjYLPvQ9mr_OKq7Ix9GUV9V9nos7dmXQAfXsvzrHgUYnbx04VvVcpDu9knO51ZJ3fwM-fk6ery8eKG3j9c316c31PLa8iUNwafWyuFszVaNMq0ijHWGRC8FmDbhQXOOO-kUIYxsailNNZZwRm0HTZ8To4n3_fYfwwuZb3qhxhKpEbRKC6lXIwsnFg29ilF1-n36N9M3GgEPZaqp1J1KVWPpWoomqNJ46K3v_zLOwTeCFkXnE14KlhYuvgn-X_TVcp9_HUVXCrJWM2_ANYsjfY</recordid><startdate>20140301</startdate><enddate>20140301</enddate><creator>Ku, Kelly Y. L.</creator><creator>Ho, Irene T.</creator><creator>Hau, Kit-Tai</creator><creator>Lai, Eva C. M.</creator><general>Springer</general><general>Springer Netherlands</general><general>Springer Nature B.V</general><scope>7SW</scope><scope>BJH</scope><scope>BNH</scope><scope>BNI</scope><scope>BNJ</scope><scope>BNO</scope><scope>ERI</scope><scope>PET</scope><scope>REK</scope><scope>WWN</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>0-V</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88B</scope><scope>8A4</scope><scope>8BJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>8G5</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>ALSLI</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>CJNVE</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FQK</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>GUQSH</scope><scope>JBE</scope><scope>M0P</scope><scope>M2O</scope><scope>MBDVC</scope><scope>PQEDU</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>Q9U</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20140301</creationdate><title>Integrating direct and inquiry-based instruction in the teaching of critical thinking: an intervention study</title><author>Ku, Kelly Y. L. ; Ho, Irene T. ; Hau, Kit-Tai ; Lai, Eva C. M.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c360t-39a1bdc54ec61c1a7ad7222fa043640cd8c03233f547a2248655acec4320df193</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2014</creationdate><topic>Active Learning</topic><topic>China</topic><topic>Conscientiousness</topic><topic>Critical Thinking</topic><topic>Direct instruction</topic><topic>Education</topic><topic>Educational Psychology</topic><topic>Educational Strategies</topic><topic>Foreign Countries</topic><topic>Grade 12</topic><topic>Higher education</topic><topic>Inquiry</topic><topic>Inquiry method</topic><topic>Instructional design</topic><topic>Intervention</topic><topic>Learning</topic><topic>Learning and Instruction</topic><topic>Need for cognition</topic><topic>Pedagogic Psychology</topic><topic>Pretests Posttests</topic><topic>Reasoning</topic><topic>Secondary School Students</topic><topic>Student Improvement</topic><topic>Teachers</topic><topic>Teaching Methods</topic><topic>Thinking Skills</topic><topic>Training</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Ku, Kelly Y. L.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ho, Irene T.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hau, Kit-Tai</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lai, Eva C. M.</creatorcontrib><collection>ERIC</collection><collection>ERIC (Ovid)</collection><collection>ERIC</collection><collection>ERIC</collection><collection>ERIC (Legacy Platform)</collection><collection>ERIC( SilverPlatter )</collection><collection>ERIC</collection><collection>ERIC PlusText (Legacy Platform)</collection><collection>Education Resources Information Center (ERIC)</collection><collection>ERIC</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Social Sciences Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Education Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Education Periodicals</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences (IBSS)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Research Library (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>Social Science Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>Education Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>Research Library Prep</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences</collection><collection>Education Database</collection><collection>Research Library</collection><collection>Research Library (Corporate)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Education</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Basic</collection><jtitle>Instructional science</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Ku, Kelly Y. L.</au><au>Ho, Irene T.</au><au>Hau, Kit-Tai</au><au>Lai, Eva C. M.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><ericid>EJ1039456</ericid><atitle>Integrating direct and inquiry-based instruction in the teaching of critical thinking: an intervention study</atitle><jtitle>Instructional science</jtitle><stitle>Instr Sci</stitle><date>2014-03-01</date><risdate>2014</risdate><volume>42</volume><issue>2</issue><spage>251</spage><epage>269</epage><pages>251-269</pages><issn>0020-4277</issn><eissn>1573-1952</eissn><coden>INLSBJ</coden><abstract>Critical thinking is a unifying goal of modern education. While past research has mostly examined the efficacy of a single instructional approach to teaching critical thinking, recent literature has begun discussing mixed teaching approaches. The present study examines three modes of instruction, featuring the direct instruction approach and the inquiry-based approach in different sequences and proportions, in enhancing Chinese secondary student's critical thinking performance. A total of 651 Grade 12 students participated in an 18-hour intervention with pre- and post-intervention measures on critical thinking performance and critical thinking dispositions. Specifically, critical thinking assessments utilizing different response format were used. Those who received training showed greater improvement on at least one of the critical thinking assessments compared to those who received no training. Participants' performances with regards to different critical thinking assessments are discussed. Benefits of adopting more than one instructional approach to teaching critical thinking are highlighted.</abstract><cop>Dordrecht</cop><pub>Springer</pub><doi>10.1007/s11251-013-9279-0</doi><tpages>19</tpages></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 0020-4277 |
| ispartof | Instructional science, 2014-03, Vol.42 (2), p.251-269 |
| issn | 0020-4277 1573-1952 |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_proquest_journals_1497355589 |
| source | Jstor Complete Legacy; SpringerLink Journals; EBSCOhost Education Source |
| subjects | Active Learning China Conscientiousness Critical Thinking Direct instruction Education Educational Psychology Educational Strategies Foreign Countries Grade 12 Higher education Inquiry Inquiry method Instructional design Intervention Learning Learning and Instruction Need for cognition Pedagogic Psychology Pretests Posttests Reasoning Secondary School Students Student Improvement Teachers Teaching Methods Thinking Skills Training |
| title | Integrating direct and inquiry-based instruction in the teaching of critical thinking: an intervention study |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-07T07%3A16%3A14IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-jstor_proqu&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Integrating%20direct%20and%20inquiry-based%20instruction%20in%20the%20teaching%20of%20critical%20thinking:%20an%20intervention%20study&rft.jtitle=Instructional%20science&rft.au=Ku,%20Kelly%20Y.%20L.&rft.date=2014-03-01&rft.volume=42&rft.issue=2&rft.spage=251&rft.epage=269&rft.pages=251-269&rft.issn=0020-4277&rft.eissn=1573-1952&rft.coden=INLSBJ&rft_id=info:doi/10.1007/s11251-013-9279-0&rft_dat=%3Cjstor_proqu%3E43575226%3C/jstor_proqu%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1497355589&rft_id=info:pmid/&rft_ericid=EJ1039456&rft_jstor_id=43575226&rfr_iscdi=true |