Whimsical sponsors for critical thinking.

Abstract

This paper presents a method of addressing critical thinking in the classroom by using fictitious "sponsors" for the class. The purpose of this paper is to introduce an easy to use way to have business students practice critical thinking in the classroom.

Background

This paper had its genesis in Boyce and Borrego's Western Organization and Management Teaching Conference (WOMTC) 2003 session entitled "Reading the world: Applying critical practice in a time of uncertainty" (2003). Boyce and Borrego suggested an approach to teaching critical thinking and practice that involved the use of a problem posing pedagogy, rather than a problem solving one. This pedagogy was placed in an environment fraught with paradox and ambiguity and called for the growing of research questions in three stages: observation or experience; reflection; and question formulation. This pedagogy is particularly important for business schools as the vast majority of business students become practitioners, not theoreticians.

A variety of researchers suggest that it is important to teach using a problem posing pedagogy or to teach critical thinking to both traditional-aged students and to practicing managers. For example, Forbes (2003) suggests that a problem posing pedagogy is important to learning critical thinking and to dealing with the problems of "establishment-based" assumptions. Lingard and Lingard, et.al, extol a problem posing curriculum. (1995, 1997, 1998, 2000a, 2000b, 2000, 2002).

Hammerback (2002) and Cunliffe (2002) identify the need to teach critical thinking to managers. Guglielmino and Guglielmino (2001) address the importance of critical thinking in the self-directed learning process. Mingers (2000) emphasizes the importance of a "skeptical" approach to learning for management undergraduates. He draws heavily on Habermas (1978, 1979, 1984, 1993a), who identifies assumptions as a dimension of questioning or skepticism. Some researchers have found that there are barriers to teaching critical thinking. Schlick (1992) found that the quality movement proponents had difficulty teaching critical thinking skills to hourly workers with low literacy levels. Hackett (2001) suggests that reflective practice can only be taught when students are willing to engage in critical thinking. Higginbotham (1996) writes that it is possible to get those with their minds made up to rethink their positions and Smith (2000) discusses the importance of rewarding students who think critically. Perhaps most significant for me and for my readers, Chong (1996) strongly suggests that there is a need to upgrade teaching skills in the area of critical thinking.

The topic of this WOMTC session was of particular interest as the faculty at my university collaboratively identified core values and competencies (CVC's) to be made part of all courses taught at the university. The collaborative process was, in itself, an exercise in critical practice as well as in critical thought. We faculty used appreciative inquiry to identify aspects of our instructional practices that were working. We explicated the practices, identified the CVC's, and articulated them for further amplification in each of our courses.

Critical thinking is one of the CVC's. While we all agreed that some practice of critical thinking was embedded in every course, I and many others decided to take affirmative steps to make critical thinking overt in our courses. In my case, critical practice was to become overt on a daily basis, and would involve daily reinforcement of the need for practice with students. Lively discussion and sharing among the WOMTC participants followed Boyce and Borrego's session. My contribution to the discussion involved my use of fictitious sponsors for each of my classes.

Why use fictitious sponsors?

My university mirrors the trends towards globalization experienced by all businesses. Students come to the university from all parts of the world, a world infested by ubiquitous advertising and promotional activities. Commercial speech is omnipresent, understood, and accepted as natural by most, if not all students. The widespread availability of commercial information via all forms of media, but especially visually-based media, such as television and the internet, has in many ways standardized students' experience with regard to commercial speech.

Initial student reaction to a syllabus that mentions "Class Sponsors" is somewhat smug. The smugness is replaced by giggles when they learn that the sponsors are represented by letters of the alphabet and students are reminded of Sesame Street's similar use of letters of the alphabet as sponsors. This whimsical approach is used to secure and retain student attention through a critical, initial discussion of an inherently dry topic--critical thinking. In the loosest sense of the word, a sponsor takes on responsibility for what those sponsored will do or not do. The class sponsors become instruments of the responsibility for managerial decision-making to be made by the students. Their decisions can be only as sound as the critical practice that leads to the decisions.

Who/What are the sponsors?

The syllabus for each of my classes identifies the sponsors as the letters P, A, and D. "P" represents Pedigree, "A" represents Assumptions, and "D" represents Definition.

Pedigree, for purposes of my classes, represents the level of trust that can be attributed to the data or information under consideration. Is the source of the data reliable? How strong were the data gathering techniques? How large was the sample? Were the statistical techniques used valid for the situation and correctly applied? Was the journal or other source peer-reviewed? Were obvious biases of presentation observed in the article? Are there obvious omissions in the article or subject matter's presentation of points of view? The students are asked to wrestle with these and other questions designed to confront a frequent tendency to accept printed (or digitized) material as accurate and complete representations of a situation.

Many, if not most students readily grasp the need to establish pedigree of information and engage one another and the instructor in discussion of pedigree. These discussions tend to be lively, often acerbic. Little instructor prodding is needed after discussion begins. To enhance student understanding of the concept of pedigree, I often employ scavenger hunts that require students to use analogue and digital reference materials and our reference librarians to find data and information of high pedigree. I provide "low quality" comparisons for the students as well as a brief lesson on heuristics of comparative journal quality. We compare the high pedigree material with the low. Research well supported by data and propositions identifying multiple sides of an issue or research question tends to generate more discussion than anecdotal reporting. The students are required to address this (and the other) sponsor(s) in their essays and case study reports. This requirement necessitates the students behaving in a more critical manner to succeed in the course.

Assumptions, for purposes of my classes, represent those things the article or subject matter accepts as true without discussion; those things which must be true for the line of reasoning used to be valid. This sponsor poses much greater difficulty for students than pedigree. Many, if not most of them find it difficult to reflect below the surface-level artifacts of day-to-day conversation. Discussion comes only after prodding and leading by the instructor. The prodding and leading may be accomplished by devices as simple as scenario set-ups or the use of open-ended questions. Sometimes a more complex approach is used, for example, I often will ask students to consider what conditions must be present for some "moral" decision to be correct. As the conditions or situation are identified in detail, assumptions often come to light. I usually establish the need to be attentive to assumptions with a simple scenario set-up and a surface-level issue. Students are given a problem and data involving two companies and asked to make a decision. One of the two companies is a Canadian company and its data are expressed in Canadian dollars. The other company is a U.S. company and its data are expressed in U.S. dollars. Many, if not most students assume all dollars are U.S. dollars and attempt to solve the problem without being attentive to the metric (Canadian Dollars vs. U.S. Dollars). The students often make inappropriate decisions. (This exercise also primes the following "Definition" discussion.)

We gradually increase the depth of our consideration of Assumptions, often leading to discussion of Schein's Organizational Culture model (1992) and Senge's model of Double-Loop Learning (1990). Schein suggested that culture may be seen as a number of surface-level artifacts that represent or support strongly held organizational values and deep-seated assumptions about reality. Senge believes that problem-solving behavior often addresses symptoms (a single loop of observe, analyze, recommend, perform, observe), rather than including a second loop, to look deeper than the symptomatic level. Students often feel discomfort at the decomposition of their "reality." The magnitude and diversity of assumptions renders a young adult's world into a very complex one. Some students have difficulty accepting how "relative" situations may seem when assumptions have changed. Others have difficulty finding basis for ethical decision-making in a world that can be experienced in terms of different assumptions. Our consideration of assumptions often becomes a springboard for discussion of the development of personal and societal values. This transition is particularly useful in my university as both Diversity and Values-Building are CVC's.

The Assumptions sponsor has proven to be the hardest of the three sponsors for the students to understand. Consequently, I tend to harp on the need to question assumptions more often than I do pedigree or definition and I spend much more time explicating Assumptions.

Definitions, for purposes of my classes, represent communications issues that arise between and among the class members because they routinely use words or concepts without exploring commonality and differences in the meanings of the words and concepts. As with pedigree, many, if not most students readily grasp the need to ensure that they are discussing the same thing. Little instructor prodding is needed after discussion begins. To enhance student understanding of the definitional issues that they must face, I take them first to the inner sancti of several disciplines and ask about the definition of acronyms. For example, SFA may mean "Survey-Feedback-Action" within the Organization Development or Human Resources sub-disciplines. SFA may mean "Sales Force Automation" within the Marketing Discipline. SFA may mean "Success for All" (The California State-driven reading program) within the Education Administration sub-discipline. Students are then divided into small groups and asked to identify other ambiguous acronyms.

From acronyms, we move to words and concepts, such as "equity" (significantly different meaning to Accounting / Finance majors verses Management / Organizational Behavior majors); "long-term" (significantly different meaning to Accounting majors verses Economics majors); "employee satisfaction" (significantly different meaning to employees verses management); and "corporate responsibility" (with its multitude of definitions).

When/Where are the sponsors used during the semester?

The need to "break for a commercial" arises in every class, and often several times during a class. On average, seldom do the commercial breaks endure for much longer than those we experience in the media. The discussions, of course, are of greater duration early in the semester as the learning curve is achieved.

The students are required to address pedigree, assumptions, and definitions in the formal papers and case studies they write. Pedigree, assumptions, and definitions must also be addressed in shorter, less formal web-based discussions. This frequent reinforcement of the concept is vital to success in essay examinations, as I do not prompt them during examinations. The commercial reminders keep the class lively and stimulate (at least temporarily) critical thinking.

How are the sponsors used?

The sponsors are used to break the routine of read, listen, rote-response. The need to address a sponsor-based issue both requires and facilitates student participation. The need often also drives oral articulation of the decision-making process, allowing for explication of and challenge of that process.

The sponsors are used to develop the problem-posing skills "in an environment fraught with paradox and ambiguity," as suggested by Boyce and Borrego (2003). Wrestling with assumptions and definitions often requires posing the problem in several ways. The varying points of view often help students see potential solutions that would have remained hidden had their sponsors not drawn student attention. This often can bring to light the complexity of our relations within the business world. Often the discussion of a current news issue or event is re-directed to an entirely different path by the (student or instructor initiated) invocation of one of the sponsors. Students are alerted to the potential points of view of other stakeholders and are encouraged to think globally.

Connection to Boyce and Borrego's Approach

Although the concept of using critical thinking and problem-posing pedagogy have a grounding in the literature (see Background above), my technique emerged after participating in numerous classroom discussions with students and grading many papers in which students failed to consider the PAD issues. PAD represented an initial attempt to consciously address critical thinking in all of my classes to overcome the shortcomings in classroom (or electronic/digital) discussions. The PAD technique continues to evolve. I had been using this approach to critical thinking as an adjunct instructor for several years before accepting my current assignment. In my former assignment, I taught more graduate students than undergraduates. I found that the graduate students readily handled the sponsors and the concepts they represented. Undergraduate students had a bit more difficulty. The use of PAD carried over very nicely to address critical thinking as a CVC in my current assignment. Although I have somewhat refined the use of the sponsors, the overall approach has been in use for about seven years.

The approach is similar to Boyce and Borrego's as a problem posing pedagogy. This is indeed attentive to an environment fraught with paradox and ambiguity. Boyce and Borrego's three stages: observation or experience; reflection; and question formulation, likewise spin-off consideration of pedigree, assumptions, and definitions. As observed by other writers over the years, Americans often jump from observation/experience to action, neglecting the reflection and question formulation stages. The sponsors force reflection and care in question formulation. By the second or third class each semester, students have begun to catch on to the sponsors' place in the class. Many students understand that the underlying data, the assumptions active in the paradigms involved, and the interface of paradigms represent possible, if not likely, sources of error or shortcoming in arguments in an article or discussion. Also, questions about the sponsors on mid-term and final exams are usually fielded well.

I teach at the beginning, middle and end of the Business curriculum. All of our School's students take my Business Policy and Strategy capstone course as seniors. Most of them attend one other course with me sometime before they are seniors. Unfortunately, when I begin to cover the PAD sponsors at the beginning of the capstone class, only some of my former students are able to identify the words that PAD represent or adequately discuss the meaning and use of my device. After reintroduction of the sponsors, many students are again able to use the cue of the sponsors to critique articles and discussions. It is suspected that re-enforcement of my approach to critical discussion may be needed if students are to retain and routinely use my device.

References

Boyce, M. E. and Borrego, S. E. (2003, February 22). Reading the world: applying critical practice in a time of uncertainty. Paper presented at WOMTC 2003 in Los Angeles.

Chong, K. C. (1996). Education for living tomorrow: premises for developmental planning. TheInternational Journal of Educational Management, 10 (4): 10.

Cunliffe, A. L. (2002). Reflexive dialogical practice in management learning. Management Learning, 33 (1): 35-62.

Forbes, D. (2003). Turn the wheel: integral school counseling for male adolescents. Journal of Consulting and Development, 81 (2): 142.

Foucault, M. (1980). Power/Knowledge: Selected Interviews and Other Writings 1972-1977. Brighton: Harvester Press.

Foucault, M. (1982). 'Afterword: the subject and power', in H. Dreyfus and P. Rabinow (eds) Foucault: Beyond Structuralism and Hermeneutics (pp. 208-26). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Foucault, M. (1988). 'Truth, Power, Self: an interview with Michel Foucault', in Martin, H. Gutman and P. Hutton (eds) Technologies of the Self. An Interview with Michel Foucault (pp. 9-15). Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press.

Guglielmino, P. J. and Guglielmino, L. M. (2001). Moving toward a distributed learning model based on self-managed learning. S.A.M. Advanced Management Journal, 66 (3): 36-44.

Habermas, J. (1978). Knowledge and Human Interests. London: Heinemann.

Habermas, J. (1979). Communication and the Evolution of Society. London: Heinemann.

Habermas, J. (1984). The Theory of Communicative Action Vol. 1: Reason and the Rationalization of Society. London: Heinemann.

Habermas, J. (1992). Discourse Ethics: notes on a programme of philosophical justification, in J. Habermas (ed.) Moral Consciousness and Communicative Action (pp. 43-115). Cambridge: Polity Press.

Habermas, J. (1993a). Justification and Application. Cambridge: Polity Press.

Habermas, J. (1993b). On the pragmatic, the ethical, and the moral employments of practical reason, in J. Habermas (ed.) Justification and Application (pp. 1-17). Cambridge: Polity Press.

Habermas, J. (1994). What theories can accomplish-and what they can't, in M. Halter (ed.) The Past as Future: Jurgen Habermas Interviewed by Michael Halter (pp. 99-120). Cambridge: Polity Press.

Hackett, S. (2001). Educating for competency and reflective practice: fostering a conjoint approach in education and training. Journal of Workplace Learning, 13 (3/4): 103-113.

Hammerback, J. (2002). Embodying our messages, teaching our students: Professors and scholars. Vital Speeches of the Day, 69(2): 59-63.

Higginbotham, E. (1996). Getting all students to listen: analyzing and coping with student resistance. The American Behavioral Scientist, 40(2): 203-212.

Lingard, B. (1998), The disadvantaged schools program: caught between literacy and local management of schools. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 2(1): 1-14.

Lingard, B. (2000a), Federalism in schooling since the Karmel Report: from modernist hope to postmodernist performativity. The Australian Educational Researcher, 27(2): 25-61.

Lingard, B. (2000b), '"It is and it isn't': vernacular globalisation, educational policy and restructuring", in Burbules, N. and Torres, C. (Eds), Globalisation and Education, (pp. 79-108) Routledge, New York, NY.

Lingard, B., Hayes, D., and Mills, M. (2002). Developments in school-based management: the specific case of Queensland, Australia. Journal of Educational Administration, 40(1): 6-31.

Lingard, B., Knight, J. and Porter, P. (1995), "Restructuring Australian schooling: changing conceptions of top-down and bottom-up reforms", in Limerick, B. and Nielsen, H. (Eds), School and Community Relations: Participation, Policy and Practice, (pp. 81-99) Harcourt Brace, Sydney,.

Lingard, B., Mills, M. and Hayes, D. (2000), "Teachers, school reform and social justice: challenging reform and practice", The Australian Educational Researcher, 27(3).

Lingard, B. and Porter, P. (Eds) (1997), A national approach to schooling in Australia? Essays on the Development of National Policies in Schools Education, Australian College of Education, Canberra.

Mingers, John. (2000). What is it to be critical? Teaching a critical approach to management undergraduates. Management learning, 31(2): 219-238.

Schein, E. (1992). Organizational Culture and Leadership (2nd ED). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Schlick, J. D. (1992). Applying knowledge-enabling methods in the classroom and in the workplace. Quality, 31(8): 15-19.

Senge, P. (1990). The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice of the Learning Organization. New York: Doubleday.

Smith, E. A. (2000). Applying knowledge-enabling methods in the classroom and in the workplace. Journal of Workplace Learning, 12 (6): 236.

Klemic, D.B.A. is the Chairman of the Undergraduate Business Program at Notre Dame de Namur University in Belmont California.