Employing an instructional approach called Community-Based Inquiry (CBI) to develop faculty expertise, this project is training faculty to build authentic inquiry into their curricula in order to measurably improve students' critical thinking skills and learning. While most national leaders and university faculty believe that critical thinking is a major goal of education and a major component of success in the STEM disciplines, it is clear that many graduates from American universities lack the skills necessary to think critically. This project is addressing this situation by recruiting faculty from STEM disciplines to build a faculty development infrastructure that helps reform STEM curricula and develop faculty expertise in eliciting critical thinking gains using a collaborative, peer-training support system. The impact of these reforms in curriculum and instruction on student critical thinking is being measured using the California Critical Thinking Skills Test. Research over the past 10 years indicates that CBI produces significant critical thinking gains compared to no gains for traditionally taught students. The CBI approach integrates four main components to elicit improvements in critical thinking skills: 1) authentic inquiry related to community need or student interest, 2) case study exercises, 3) peer evaluation and individual accountability, and 4) lecture/content discussion focused on critical thinking and problem solving. Research indicates that all four of these elements must be clearly focused on the goal of critical thinking in order to achieve substantive student improvement. Research also indicates that the CBI approach is particularly beneficial for students from a variety of underrepresented groups.
Across the United States people are becoming increasingly worried about the inability of college graduates to think critically and be globally competitive. Critical thinking is needed for success in almost every aspect of life, from choosing groceries, buying a car, having healthy relationships, and doing well at work. Research shows that critical thinking is important to college faculty and students, yet few students seem to develop critical thinking skills by graduation. We need our graduates to be able to critically think because our very way of life depends on it, affecting our economy and ability to solve major problems like climate change, national security, and energy. Improving critical thinking is a problem that must be solved, and now. American citizens should realize that many university faculty care very much about helping students become better critical thinkers. The question is how to best accomplish that goal. Most people are familiar with the drill-and-skill teaching methods we have all experienced in college, but there are more effective teaching methods that produce better critical thinkers. At Central Washington University, our research in critical thinking over the past 15 years shows that traditional teaching methods produce no measureable gains in critical thinking. Under the old model, women and minorities more frequently receive fail, withdraw, and drop grades than do white males. New teaching methods are needed to meet the diverse needs of a new generation of students. That’s where Community-Based Inquiry (CBI) comes in. As many in the business sector know, one of the best ways to learn is to immerse yourself in the field, learning and building the skills that enable success. It is no different in science. Results from this NSF-funded project show that active teaching models like CBI increase critical thinking by an average of 7 national percentile, and those gains can occur in as short a time period as 10 weeks. What CBI also does is make learning science more authentic and relevant for students and faculty alike. Some CBI example projects include watershed and agricultural chemistry, nutrition biochemistry of K-12 school lunches, local factors affecting climate change, cell culture research of factors influencing breast cancer development, and mathematical modeling of county public health data. This type of teaching model benefits everyone involved; students learn to function as real scientists, faculty are excited about what they teach, and local community members, business leaders, and legislators all see the value of a higher education and how it helps our country solve problems. CBI isn’t just good for students though. CBI also creates a framework for faculty to develop their teaching knowledge and skills in the context of their research passions. And we know what teaching strategies work because we measure how much students learn and develop their critical thinking skills. Faculty come to rely more on data and results to improve their practice, which helps students learn more effectively, which increases the intellectual capacity of our universities and communities. With CBI, everybody wins. Our grant project tested the idea of CBI at Central Washington University with a few faculty, and because of its success at helping students critically think, has spread to many faculty in the College of the Sciences. Students and faculty are happier with CBI too. Plus, our project reduces some peoples’ concerns that students learn less content with active learning methods like CBI. In fact, female and minority students learn more, not less, content than they did in traditional classrooms. Because CBI and related methods work so much better, and have data to show they are effective, more faculty are turning to these new teaching methods. In the end, faculty who desire a more authentic, effective college learning experience that builds critical thinking should consider using CBI.
