For Argument's Sake
In the latest issue of OCR News is a claim that students who take the AS in Critical Thinking improve their grades in their other A Level subjects by an average of one grade.
Students were compared against other students with similar GCSE profiles to ensure a fair comparison.
To what extent can we be confident that this is a reliable study?
If using GCSE data this is probably a reliable study. The problem is what caused these students to do well. Was it that Critical Thinking improved their analytical and other skills which enabled them to perform better in other subjects? This is something we have claimed for many years (and a hook I use to persuade bright kids to take up Critical Thinking). Or is it that those who take Critical Thinking, which is often an additional subject, are the more studious types who therefore revise more effectively etc? It would be interesting if the figures could be differentiated to show if the results were improved in centres where almost all students take Critical Thinking.
'and a hook I use to persuade bright kids to take up Critical Thinking' -- if there's no good evidence for CT's ability to raise results in other subjects, aren't you being disingenuous? I teach CT and, while I love the subject, can't bring myself to deploy such a suspect arguent to sell the course to students.
CT students themselves have told me that their CT studies have 'helped' in a variety of other subjects ( I teach them AS at KS4 so it helps them with their GCSEs).
How to prove that it then improves their grade is a different matter.
David - do you have a link to this claim?
I have uploaded a copy of this. The link is: http://www.thekjs.essex.sch.uk/yates/Documents/images/OCR%20News.jpg
If it is not true that Critical Thinking improves attainment elsewhere, then I would argue that there is no point in the subject being taught! Like you, I have anecdotal evidence from students and other staff that there is a transferrable benefit but I would agree that there is a need for further research. Critical thinkers, more than anyone, should be prepared to question the validity of such claims.
First of all, the research was conducted by OCR's parent organisation. OCR clearly have a vested interest.
There are several aspects of the study, as it is reported, that look convincing. The sample size would appear to be good and the comparison was apparently made between students of similar ability. Because of these positive factors, my conclusion is that this is a reliable study to quote in argument, although it is important to acknowledge the need for further research.
As we all know, correlation does not, on its own, prove causation. Therefore, just because there is a link between taking CT and getting good A Level results, it does not necessarily follow that it was the taking of CT that caused the good results. A question I would like to see answered is whether or not there is any other factor at work. For example, is there an important difference between the schools/colleges that offer CT and those that don't which might have an influence?
You must log in to post.
