INFLUENCE OF TYPE OF INSTITUTE, METACOGNITION, MARITAL STATUS AND THEIR INTERACTION ON CRITICAL THINKING

NovjeetSaini

ABSTRACT

Inthepresentstudysurveymethodwasemployed.ThepurposeofthepresentinvestigationwastostudytheInfluenceofTypeofInstitute,Metacognition,Marital StatusandtheirinteractiononCriticalthinking.Asampleof250Pre-ServiceSecondarySchoolTeacherswasselectedbyclusterrandomsamplingfromGovernment, Government aided and Private Institute. Critical Thinking Test developed by investigator was used to assess critical thinking of Pre-Service Secondary School Teachers. Thedatawereanalyzedusing3*3*2FactorialDesignAnalysis.

KEYWORDS:CriticalThinking,Metacognition,FactorAnalysis,MaritalStatus.

INTRODUCTION:

WatsonandGlaser(1980)definedCriticalThinkingasacompositeofattitude, knowledge,skillswhichincludeattitudeofinquirythatinvolveanabilitytorecognizetheexistenceofproblemandacceptanceofgeneralneedforevidencein support of what is asserted to be true knowledge of nature of valid inferences, abstractionsandgeneralizationinwhichweightandaccuracyofdifferentkindof evidencesarelogicallydeterminedandskillinemployingtheaboveattitudeand knowledge.

McPeck(1981)definedtheCriticalThinkingastheanalysisofgoodreasonsfor belief,understandingthevariouskindsofreasoninvolveunderstandingcomplex meaningoffield-dependantconceptandevidence.

McCormickandWhittington(2000)reportedthattheuseofproblemsets,individual and group written reports, group presentations, and laboratory test were showntoemphasizehighercognitivelevels,whichinturnleadtobetterCritical Thinkingskillsinstudents.

Adey(2001)describedthestructureofthinkingskillsasbeinglayered.Onelayer isageneralprocessingability Thisisvariouslydescribedasintelligence,workingmemory,formaloperations,multivariatethinking,andhigherorderthinking skills.Inadifferentlayer,thereisparticularthinkingskillsofwhichcriticaland creativethinkingareseenbyAdeyaskeynotes.HeidentifiedCriticalThinking asanalyticalthinking,aconvergenttypeofthinkinghedescribedasdivergentlateral- the type of thinking that generate new ideas. Other skills, which can be regardedasderivativesoftheseskillsareevaluativethinking,exploratorythinkingandhypothesizing.

Swartz (2003) summarized the key principals of Critical Thinking instruction, reflectingtheneedforbothstrategies:

a) Themoreexplicittheteachingofthinkingis,thegreaterimpactitwill haveonstudents.

b) Themoreclassroominstructionincorporatesanatmosphereofthoughtfulnessthemoreopenstudentswillbevaluinggoodthinking.

c) Themoretheteachingisintegratedintoinstruction,themorestudents willthinkaboutwhattheyarelearning.

Paul(2004)definedCriticalThinkingisselfdirected,selfdisciplined,selfmonitoredandselfcorrectivethinking.Itpresupposesassenttorigorousstandardsof excellenceandmindfullycommandoftheiruse.Itentailseffectivecommunicationandproblemsolvingabilities,aswellascommitmenttoovercomeournative egocentrismandsociocentrism.

Moseley et al (2005) described the development of Critical Thinking skill is oftenlistedasthemostimportantreasonforformaleducationbecausetheability to think critically is essential for success in the contemporary world where the rate at which new knowledge is created is rapidly accelerating.Although most educatoragreethatitisimportanttoteachstudentstheskillofCriticalThinking, thereismuchlessagreementaboutthewayinwhichlearningtothinkcriticallyis bestachieved,especiallyforthestudentsinhighschool.

Lai(2011)definedCriticalThinkingincludesthecomponentskillsofanalyzing arguments,makinginference,usinginductiveordeductivereasoning,judgingor

evaluating,andmakingdecisionsorsolvingproblems.Backgroundknowledge isnecessarybutnotasufficientconditionforenablingcriticalthoughtwithina given subject. CriticalThinking involves both cognitive skills and disposition. Thesedispositions,whichcanbeseenasattitudesorhabitsofmind,includeopen and fair mindedness, inquisitiveness, flexibility, a propensity to seek reason, a desiretobewell-informed,andarespectforandwillingnesstoentertaindiverse viewpoints.TherearebothgeneralanddomainspecificaspectofCriticalThinking.EmpiricalresearchsuggeststhatpeoplebeingdevelopingCriticalThinking competencies at a very young age.Although adults often exhibit deficient reasoning,intheoryallpeoplecanbetaughttothinkcritically

Ÿ

OBJECTIVEOFTHESTUDY:

To study the influence of Type of Institute on Critical Thinking of PreServiceSecondarySchoolTeachers.

Ÿ

Ÿ

TostudytheinfluenceofMetacognitiononCriticalThinkingofPre-Service SecondarySchoolTeachers.

TostudytheinfluenceofMaritalStatusonCriticalThinkingofPre-Service SecondarySchoolTeachers.

Ÿ

Ÿ

To study the influence of interaction between Type of Institute and Metacognition on Critical Thinking of Pre-Service Secondary School Teachers.

TostudytheinfluenceofinteractionbetweenTypeofInstituteandMarital StatusonCriticalThinkingofPre-ServiceSecondarySchoolTeachers.

Ÿ

Ÿ

TostudytheinfluenceofinteractionbetweenMetacognitionandMaritalStatusonCriticalThinkingofPre-ServiceSecondarySchoolTeachers

To study the influence of interaction between Type of Institute, MetacognitionandMaritalStatusonCriticalThinkingofPre-ServiceSecondarySchoolTeachers

HYPOTHESIS:

Ÿ

ThereisnosignificantinfluenceofTypeofInstituteonCriticalThinkingof Pre-ServiceSecondarySchoolTeachers.

Ÿ

Ÿ

There is no significant influence of Metacognition on CriticalThinking of Pre-ServiceSecondarySchoolTeachers.

There is no significant influence of Marital Status on Critical Thinking of Pre-ServiceSecondarySchoolTeachers.

Ÿ

Ÿ

ThereisnosignificantinfluenceofinteractionbetweenTypeofInstituteand Metacognition on Critical Thinking of Pre-Service Secondary School Teachers.

ThereisnosignificantinfluenceofinteractionbetweenTypeofInstituteand MaritalStatusonCriticalThinkingofPre-ServiceSecondarySchoolTeachers.

Ÿ

ThereisnosignificantinfluenceofinteractionbetweenMetacognitionand MaritalStatusonCriticalThinkingofPre-ServiceSecondarySchoolTeachers

Ÿ There is no significant influence of interaction between Type of Institute, MetacognitionandMaritalStatusonCriticalThinkingofPre-ServiceSecondarySchoolTeachers

METHOD:

Sample:

Thesamplecomprised250PreServiceSecondarySchoolTeachersofJalandhar andKapurthaladistrictsofPunjabstate.Thesamplewasselectedbyclusterrandomsamplingtechnique.Outof250,50PreServiceSecondarySchoolTeachers belongedtoGovernmentInstitute,100PreServiceSecondarySchoolTeachers belongedtoGovernmentAidedInstituteand100PreServiceSecondarySchool TeachersbelongedtoPrivateInstitute.Moreover,genderwise80weremaleand 170werefemales.

Tools:

Keepinginthemindthedemandandobjectivesofthestudy,standardizedtools were used to assess CriticalThinking, Metacognition and Marital Status of the students.ThetoolsusedtoassessCriticalThinking,MetacognitionandMarital Status were Critical Thinking Test developed by the investigator, Inventory of Metacognitive Self Regulation developed by Howard, McGee, Shia and Hong (2000)andEfforfulControlScalebyLonigan&Phillips(2001)respectively

Design:

Surveymethodwasemployedforthepresentstudy Thepresentresearchaimed to study the Influence of Type of Institute, Metacognition, Marital status and their interaction on Critical thinking. There were 3 types of institute, namely, Government, GovernmentAided and Private Institute. There were 3 levels of TypeofInstitute,3levelsofmetacognition,2levelsofMaritalStatus.Therefore, thedatawereanalyzedwiththehelpof3*3*3and3*3*2FactorialDesignAnalysesofVariance.

RESULTANDDISCUSSION:

TheobjectivewastostudytheinfluenceofTypeofInstitute,Metacognition,Marital Status and their interaction on Critical Thinking of Pre-Service Secondary SchoolTeachers.Therewere3TypesofInstitute,3levelsofMetacognitionand2 levelsofMaritalStatus.Sodatawereanalyzedwiththehelpof3x3x2Analysis ofVariance.TheresultsaregivenintheTable1

Table1:Summaryof3X3X2FactorialDesignANOVAforCritical Thinking

SourceofVariance Sumof Square df MeanSum ofSquare FValue

TypeofInstitute(A) 92.13 2 46.06 2.08 Metacognition(B) 32.61 2 16.30 0.74 MaritalStatus(C) 0.28 1 0.28 0.01

TypeofInstitute×Metacognition (A×B) 140.83 4 35.21 1.59

TypeofInstitute×MaritalStatus (A×C) 260.27 2 130.13 5.88*

Metacognition×MaritalStatus (B×C) 16.78 2 8.39 0.38

TypeofInstitute×Metacognition× MaritalStatus(A×B×C) 84.69 3 28.23 1.28 Error 5161.22 233 22.15

Fromtable1,itcanbeanalyzedthat:

InfluenceofTypeofInstituteonCriticalThinking:FromTable1,itcanbeseen thatFvaluefortheTypeofInstituteis3.02,whichisnotsignificantat0.05level with df = 2/223. It indicates that the mean score of Critical Thinking of PreService Secondary School Teachers belonging to Government, Government AidedandPrivateCollegesofEducationdonotdiffersignificantly Inthiscontext, the null hypothesis namely, “There is no significant influence of Type of InstituteonCriticalThinkingofPre-ServiceSecondarySchoolTeachers”isnot rejected.Itindicatesthatthereisnosignificantdifferenceinthemeanscoresof CriticalThinkingofPre-ServiceSecondarySchoolTeachersbelongingtoGovernment,GovernmentAidedandPrivateInstitute.

Influence of Metacognition on Critical Thinking: FromTable1,itcanbeseen thatFvaluefortheMetacognitionis0.35,whichisnotsignificantat0.05level with df = 2/223. It indicates that the mean score of Critical Thinking of PreService Secondary School Teachers belonging to Low, Average and High Meatcognitiongroupsdonotdiffersignificantly Inthiscontext,thenullhypothesis namely, “There is no significant influence of Meatcognition on Critical Thinking of Pre-Service Secondary School Teachers” is not rejected. It may, therefore,besaidthatCriticalThinkingofPre-ServiceSecondarySchoolTeacherswasindependentofMeatcognition.

Influence of Marital Status on Critical Thinking: FromTable1,itcanbeseen thatFvaluefortheMaritalStatusis0.01,whichisnotsignificantat0.05level with df = 1/233. It indicates that the mean score of Critical Thinking of PreServiceSecondarySchoolTeachersbelongingtomarriedandunmarriedMarital Status groups do not differ significantly In this context, the null hypothesis namely,“ThereisnosignificantinfluenceofMaritalStatusonCriticalThinking ofPre-ServiceSecondarySchoolTeachers”isnotrejected.Itmay,therefore,be saidthatCriticalThinkingofPre-ServiceSecondarySchoolTeacherswasindependentofMaritalStatus.

InfluenceofInteractionbetweenTypeofInstituteandMetacognitiononCritical Thinking: From Table 1, it can be seen that F value for the interaction betweenTypeofInstituteandMetacognitionis1.16,whichisnotsignificantat 0.05levelwithdf=4/223.Itindicatesthatthethereisnosignificantinfluenceof theresultantoftheinteractionbetweentheTypeofInstituteandMetacognition onCriticalThinkingofPre-ServiceSecondarySchoolTeachers.Inthiscontext, the null hypothesis namely, “There is no significant influence of interaction betweenTypeofInstituteandMetacognitiononCriticalThinkingofPre-Service SecondarySchoolTeachers”isnotrejected.Itmay,therefore,besaidthatCritical Thinking of Pre-Service Secondary School Teachers was independent of interactionbetweenTypeofInstituteandMetacognition.

InfluenceofInteractionbetweenTypeofInstituteandMaritalStatusonCritical Thinking: FromTable1,itmaybeobservedthattheFvaluefortheinteractionbetweenTypeofInstituteandMaritalStatusis5.88,whichissignificantat 0.05levelwithdf=2/233.ItindicatesthatinteractionbetweenTypeofInstitute and Marital Status produced significant influence on Critical Thinking of PreServiceSecondarySchoolTeachers.Thus,thenullHypothesis,namely,“There is no significant influence of interaction betweenType of Institute and Marital Status on Critical Thinking of Pre-Service Secondary School Teachers”, is rejected.Graph5.1hasbeenplottedforknowingthetrendofinfluenceofinteractionType of Institute and Marital Status on CriticalThinking of Pre-Service SecondarySchoolTeachers.FromGraph5.1itcanbeseenthatinGovernment Colleges of Education unmarried Pre-Service Secondary School Teachers had significantlylowermeanscoreofCriticalThinkingascomparedtothemarried Pre-Service Secondary School Teachers. The trend was same in case ofAided Colleges of Education. However, in case of Private Colleges of Education unmarried Pre-Service Secondary School Teachers had significantly higher meanscoreofCriticalthinkingascomparedtomarriedPre-ServiceSecondary SchoolTeachers.Inthelightoftheseobservations,itcanbesaidthatPrivateColleges of Education were more effective for unmarried Pre-Service Secondary SchoolTeacherswhileGovernmentandAidedCollegesofEducationweremore effectiveformarriedPre-ServiceSecondarySchoolTeachersintermofCritical Thinking.

TrendofInfluenceofInteractionbetweenTypeofInstituteand MaritalStatusonCriticalThinking

Influence of Interaction between Metacognition and Marital Status on Critical Thinking: From Table 1, it can be seen that F value for the interaction between Metacognition and Marital Status is 0.38, which is not significant at 0.05levelwithdf=2/233.Itindicatesthatthethereisnosignificantinfluenceof theresultantoftheinteractionbetweentheMetacognitionandMaritalStatuson CriticalThinkingofPre-ServiceSecondarySchoolTeachers.Inthiscontext,the nullhypothesisnamely,“Thereisnosignificantinfluenceofinteractionbetween MetacognitionandMaritalStatusonCriticalThinkingofPre-ServiceSecondary SchoolTeachers”isnotrejected.Itmay,therefore,besaidthatCriticalThinking of Pre-Service Secondary School Teachers was independent of interaction betweenMetacognitionandMaritalStatus.

Influence of Interaction between Type of Institute, Metacognition and Marital StatusonCriticalThinking:FromTable1,itcanbeseenthatFvaluefortheinteractionbetweenTypeofInstitute,MetacognitionandMaritalstatusis1.28,which isnotsignificantat0.05levelwithdf=3/233.ItindicatesthatthethereisnosignificantinfluenceoftheresultantoftheinteractionbetweentheTypeofInstitute, MetacognitionandMaritalStatusonCriticalThinkingofPre-ServiceSecondary SchoolTeachers.Inthiscontext,thenullhypothesisnamely,“ThereisnosignificantinfluenceofinteractionbetweenTypeofInstitute,MetacognitionandMaritalStatusonCriticalThinkingofPre-ServiceSecondarySchoolTeachers”isnot rejected.Itmay,therefore,besaidthatCriticalThinkingofPre-ServiceSecondary SchoolTeachers was independent of interaction betweenType of Institute, MetacognitionandMaritalStatus.

Itmay,therefore,beconcludedthatCriticalThinkingofPre-ServiceSecondary School Teachers was found to be independent of interaction between Type of Institute,MetacognitionandMaritalStatus.

REFERENCES:

I. Adey,PA.(2001).Thecategorization&assessmentofthinkingskills.Paper presented at the EARLI conference Fribourg, Switzerland Retrieved from http://www.criticalthinking.org/resources/sscanlan.pdf

II. Lai, E (2011) Critical thinking: A literature Review Retrieved from: http://www.pearsonassessments.comhaiimagestmrs.CriticalThinkingReviewFinal. pdf.

III. Lonigan,C.J.,&Phillips,B.M.(2001).Temperamentalinfluencesonthedevelopmentofanxietydisorders.InM.W Vasey&M.R.Dadds(Eds.),Thedevelopmental psychopathology of anxiety (pp. 60–91). New York: Oxford University Press. Retrievedfromwww.thejo.com/archiever/vol6no1/arendpaer

IV Mccormick, D.F., & Whittington, M.S.(2000). Assessing academic challenges for their contribution to cognitive development. Journal of Agricultural Education, 41(3),114-122.Retrievedfromwww.insightassessment.com

V McPeck,J.E.(1981).CriticalThinkingandEducation.NewYork:St.Martin’sPress. Retrievedfromhttp://www.criticalthinking.org/resources/sscanlan.pdf

VI. Mosely, D., Baumfield,V., Elliott,J., Gregson,M., Higgins,S., Miller,J., & Newton, D.P.(2005).Frameworksforthinking:Ahandbookforteachingandlearning.Cambridge:CambridgerUniversityPress.Retrievedfromwww.insightassessment.com

VII. Paul, R.(2004). Our concept of criticalthinking.Retrivedfrom:http://criticalthinkingorg/aboutCT/ourconceptsCT.shtml.

VIII. Swartz, R. (2003). Infusing critical and creative thinking into instruction in high schoolclassrooms.InD.Fasko(Ed.),criticalthinkingandreasoning.Cresskill,NJ: HamptonPress.

IX. Watson, G.B., & Glaser, E.M., (1980).Waston & Glaser critical thinking appraisal manual: Form A & B. San Antonio, The Psychological corp. Retrieved from http://harvey.psyc.vt.edu/documents/wagnerharvegsiop2003.pdf