Enhancing students\u2019 critical thinking skills: is comparing correct and erroneous examples beneficial?

Lara M Van Peppen,Eva M Janssen,Tamara Van Gog,Anita E G Heijltjes,Peter P J L Verkoeijen

doi:10.1007/s11251-021-09559-0

Lara M Van Peppen, Eva M Janssen + Show 3 more

Open Access

https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-021-09559-0

Copy DOI

Abstract

There is a need for effective methods to teach critical thinking (CT). One instructional method that seems promising is comparing correct and erroneous worked examples (i.e., contrasting examples). The aim of the present study, therefore, was to investigate the effect of contrasting examples on learning and transfer of CT-skills, focusing on avoiding biased reasoning. Students (N = 170) received instructions on CT and avoiding biases in reasoning tasks, followed by: (1) contrasting examples, (2) correct examples, (3) erroneous examples, or (4) practice problems. Performance was measured on a pretest, immediate posttest, 3-week delayed posttest, and 9-month delayed posttest. Our results revealed that participants’ reasoning task performance improved from pretest to immediate posttest, and even further after a delay (i.e., they learned to avoid biased reasoning). Surprisingly, there were no differences in learning gains or transfer performance between the four conditions. Our findings raise questions about the preconditions of contrasting examples effects. Moreover, how transfer of CT-skills can be fostered remains an important issue for future research.

Highlights

Every day, we reason and make many decisions based on previous experiences and existing knowledge
There was no evidence of an interaction effect (learning: R2 = .07, F(1, 166) = .296, p = .587; transfer: R2 = .07, F(1, 166) = .260, p = .611) and we can, conclude that the relationship between practice type and performance on the posttest does not depend on performance on the pretest
Pairwise comparisons showed that time-ontask was comparable between erroneous examples (M = 862.79, SD = 422.43) and correct examples (M = 839.58, SD = 298.33) and between contrasting examples (M = 512.29, SD = 130.21) and practice problems (M = 500.41, SD = 130.21)

Summary

Introduction

We reason and make many decisions based on previous experiences and existing knowledge. To do so we often rely on a number of heuristics (i.e., mental shortcuts) that ease reasoning processes (Tversky & Kahneman, 1974). Our primary tool for reasoning and making better decisions, and to avoid biases in reasoning and decision making, is critical thinking (CT), which is generally characterized as “purposeful, self-regulatory judgment that results in interpretation, analysis, evaluation, and inference, as well as explanation of the evidential, conceptual, methodological, criteriological, or contextual considerations on which that judgment is based” Our primary tool for reasoning and making better decisions, and to avoid biases in reasoning and decision making, is critical thinking (CT), which is generally characterized as “purposeful, self-regulatory judgment that results in interpretation, analysis, evaluation, and inference, as well as explanation of the evidential, conceptual, methodological, criteriological, or contextual considerations on which that judgment is based” (Facione, 1990, p. 2)

Objectives

Results

Discussion

Conclusion