Development of critical thinking of master’s degree students using STEM cases

Introduction. Today, a modern state needs people capable to regular intensive implementation of innovative activity in order to keep competitiveness in a dynamically changing world that is undergoing a significant increase in the amount of new information and its fast obsolescence. The need of modern economy for innovators inevitably leads to the shift of priorities in education from memorising and reproducing of a specified amount of knowledge to the development of students’ independent thinking, which, accordingly, requires teachers’ certain qualities and critical mentality.

The aim of the research was to identify the components of critical thinking important for innovative activity and search for the ways of development of these components in young teachers, entering a master’s programme Modern Natural Science.

Methodology and research methods. In the course of the research, the methods of the analysis and synthesis of scientific and scientific-methodological publications devoted to the development of higher order thinking skills and the concept of STEM education (Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics) were employed. The assessment of the level of students’ thinking and its changes was carried out through diagnostic tasks and empirical observation of educational and project-based activity of undergraduates and school students.

Results and scientific novelty. The key components of critical thinking for the implementation and realisation of innovative activities were identified: creative, rational, logical, reflexive and metacognitive. To assess the development of components, a set of problem-situational tasks (STEM cases) was developed. Diagnostic tools were introduced to measure the level of critical thinking skills formation. The authors described the methodology for working with STEM cases through the example of the development and presentation of hybrid technology of lifting the sunken ship with a damaged hull, based on the students’ understanding of characteristics of the aggregate state of water. The results of approbation of the presented methodology used in small groups at various educational levels prove that its implementation contributes to the development of critical thinking in students, if the plots of cues are based on real problems of science and technology, and the solution requires contextual use of educational material, building a mathematical model, generating rational ideas of new or improved technologies.

Practical significance. The research demonstrates the possibilities of acquisition by students of higher order thinking skills within the studied academic disciplines in the natural-science cycle without introduction of a special course in educational programmes.

1. Penrose R. Teni razuma: V poiskah nauki o soznanii = Shadows of the Mind: A Search for the Missing Science of Consciousness. Translated from English by A. R. Logunov, N. A. Zubchenko. Izhevsk: IKI; 2005. p. 688. (In Russ.)

2. Chernigovskaya T. V. Jazyki cheloveka: mozg i kul’tura = Languages of the person: brain and culture. Psihofiziologicheskie i nejrolingvisticheskie aspekty processa raspoznavanija verbal’nyh i neverbal’nyh patternov kommunikacii = Psychophysiological and neuro-linguistic aspects of the process of recognition of verbal and non-verbal patterns of communication. Under the editorship of T. V. Chernigov, Yu. E. Shelepin, O. V. Zashchirinskaya. St.-Petersburg: VVM; 2016. p. 11-16. (In Russ.)

3. Fayer S., Lacey A., Watson A. STEM Occupations: Past, present, and future. Spotlight on Statistics [Internet]. Washington, DC: U. S. Bureau of Labor Statistics; 2017 [cited 2019 Mar 26]. Available from: https://www.bls.gov/spot-light/2017/science-technology-engineering-and-mathematics-stem-occupations-past-present-and-future/pdf/science-technology-engineering-and-mathematics-stem-occupations-past-present-and-future.pdf

4. Dunn J. Critical Thinking in Japanese secondary education: Student and teacher perspectives. Critical Thinking and Language Learning. 2015; 2: 29-39.

5. Saravanan V. Thinking schools for learning and practice. Educational Research for Policy and Practice. 2005 Aug; 4 (2): 97-113. DOI: 10.1007/s10671-005-1543-x}

6. Hassan S. R., Rosli R., Zakaria E. The use of i-think map and questioning to promote higher-order thinking skills in mathematics. Creative Education. 2016; 7 (07): 1069-1078.

7. Halpern D. Psihologija kriticheskogo myshlenija = Psychology of critical thinking. Translated from English Moscow: Publishing House Piter; 2000. 512 p. (In Russ.)

8. Solodikhina M. V., Solodikhina A. A., Nemolochnov E. V. Project-based activity and critical thinking. Fizika v shkole = Physics at School. 2018; 2c: 289-291. (In Russ.)

9. Facione P. Critical thinking: What it is and why it counts. Measured Reasons and the California Academic Press; 2010. 28 p.

10. Mulnix J. W. “Thinking critically about critical thinking”. Educational Philosophy and Theory. 2010; 44: 471. DOI: 10.1111/j.1469-5812.2010.00673.x

11. Rizvi S., Donnelly K., Barber M. Oceans of innovation. The Atlantic, the Pacific, Global Leadership and the Future of Education. Translated from English by N. Mikshina. Voprosy obrazovanija = Education Issues. 2012; 4: 109-185. (In Russ.)

12. Pentin A., Kovaleva G., Davydova E., Smirnova E. Science Education in Russian Schools as Assessed by TIMSS and PISA. Voprosy obrazovanija = Education Issues. 2018; 1: 79-109. (In Russ.)

13. Griffiths D. H. Physics teaching: Does it hinder intellectual development? American Journal of Physics [Internet]. 1976 [cited 2019 Mar 26]; Vol. 44; 1: 81-85. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1119/1.10144

14. Lyubimov L. L. Learning standards must be scrupulously implemented, not improved. Reflections on the end of compulsory education? By Oleg Lebedev. Voprosy obrazovanija = Education Issues. 2017; 2: 258-282. (In Russ.)

15. Zagvyazinsky V. I., Shafranov-Kutsev G. F., Andreeva O. S., Belyako¬va E. G., Volodina E. N., Volosnikova L. M., et al. Podgotovka pedagoga-issledovatelja v universitetskom obrazovanii = Training of a teacher-researcher in university education [Internet]. Tyumen; 2017 [cited 2019 Mar 26]. Available from: http://tmnlib.ru:82/upload/books/PPS/Zagvyazinskij_514_Kol-monografiya_2017.pdf (In Russ.)

16. Volkov E. N. Learning to scientific (critical) thinking and visual objectification of knowledge: Maintenance, practice, tools. Vestnik Nizhegorodskogo universiteta im. N. I. Lobachevskogo. Serija: Social’nye nauki = Vestnik of Lobachevsky State University of Nizhni Novgorod. Series: Social Sciences. 2016; 2 (42): 199-203. (In Russ.)

17. Altshuller G. S. Tvorchestvo kak tochnaya nauka = Creativity as exact science. 2nd ed. Petrozavodsk: Publishing House Scandinavia; 2004. (In Russ.)

18. Semenov I. N., Stepanov S. Yu. Refleksiya v organizacii tvorcheskogo myshleniya i samorazvitii lichnosti. Voprosy psihologii = Psychology Issues.1983; 2: 35-42. (In Russ.)

19. Spitzer M. Antimozg: cifrovye tekhnologii i mozg = Antibrain: digital technology and the brain. Translation from German by A. G. Grishin. Moscow: Publishing House AST; 2014. 288 p. (In Russ.)

20. Gerring J. What is a case for it? American Political Science Review. 2004; 98, Issue 2: 341-354.

21. Smolyaninova O. G., Khramova L. N., Kolokolnikova Z. U., Mitrosenko S. V., Lobanova O. B. Realisation of a case technologies in vocational education of future teacher. Sovremennye problemy nauki i obrazovanija = Modern Problems of Science and Education [Internet]. 2015 [cited 2019 Mar 26]; 4. Available from: http://www.science-education.ru/ru/article/view?id=20683 (дата обращения: 26.03.2019) (In Russ.)

22. Kaufman S. B., Quilty L. C., Grazioplene R. G., Hirsh J. B., Gray J. R., Peterson J. B., et al. Differentially predict creative sciences and sciences. Journal of Personality. 2015; 84: 248-258.

23. Kazun A. P., Pastukhova L. S. The practices of project-based learning technique application: Experience of different countries. Obrazovanie i nauka = The Education and Science Journal [Internet]. 2018 [cited 2019 Mar 26]; 20 (2): 32-59. Available from: https://doi.org/10.17853/1994-5639-2018-2-32-59 (In Russ.)

24. Paul R., Binker A., Martin D., Adamson K. Critical thinking handbook. Santa Rosa, CA: Foundation for Critical Thinking; 1995. 56 p.

25. Gompers P. A., Mukharlyamov V., Xuan Y. The cost of friendship. Jour¬nal of Financial Economics [Internet]. 2016 [cited 2019 Mar 26]; 119, № 3: 626¬644. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfineco.2016.01.013

26. Tobias S., Everson H. T. Knowing what you know and what you don’t: Further research on metacognitive knowledge monitoring. College Board Research Report [Internet]. 2002 [cited 2019 Mar 26]; 3. New York. Available from: https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED562778.pdf

27. Helle L., Tynjala P., Olkinuora E. Project-based learning in the secondary theory, practice and rubber sling shots. Higher Education. 2006; 51, Issue 2: 287-314.

28. Bos M. G., Wierenga L. M., Blankenstein N. E., Schreuders E., Tamnes C. K., Crone E. A. Longitudinal structural brain development and externalising behaviour in adolescence. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, and Allied Disciplines [Internet]. 2018 Sep 25 [cited 2019 Mar 26]; 59 (10): 1061-1072. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6175471/

29. Toga A. W., Thompson P. M. Mapping brain asymmetry. Nature Reviews Neuroscience [Internet]. 2003 Jan [cited 2019 Mar 26]; 4 (1): 37-48. Available from: https://www.nature.com/articles/nrn1009

30. Zagvyazinsky V. I., Strokova T. A. Resistance to innovation: Essence, preventive measures and ways out. Obrazovanie i nauka = The Education and Science Journal. 2014; 3 (112): 3-21. (In Russ.)

31. Solodikhina M. V. Interrelation of two substantial lines of the subject “Natural sciences”. Fizika v shkole = Physics at School. 2016; 2: 50-55. (In Russ.)

32. Solodikhina M. V., Оdintsova N. I. Cases in physics lessons. Fizika v shkole = Physics at School. 2019; 1: 18-26. (In Russ.)