This mixed methods study compared the critical thinking skills of students at two post-secondary education institutions that utilize two different curriculum models. A contemporary institution that offers a core curriculum and degree specialization (majors) was contrasted with a Great Books school that utilizes a canon of primary sources and relies on Socratic dialogue in the classroom. All students who complete the four-year Great Books program are awarded a bachelor's degree in liberal arts as opposed to a specialized degree.
The two sample populations (N=25) had similar demographic profiles, high school experiences, and college entrance exam scores, as well as similar college grade point averages and college social experiences as determined by a questionnaire, project data sheet, and a series of interviews used to elicit qualitative data for this project. The critical thinking skills of the participants were assessed using the Ennis-Weir Critical Thinking Essay Test. Observable differences were found between the two sample populations' overall scores on the Ennis-Weir test, as well as their scores on three of the test's five subscales measuring evaluation of argument, deduction, and inference.
The findings of this project suggest that the curriculum and teaching methods at the school employing the Great Books model (n=14) may have a positive impact on the development of that sample population's critical thinking skills; however, many factors hinder the researcher from declaring absolute causation, such as the small sample population size, so attributing the reported differences solely to the Burgundy College curriculum and teaching methods is not possible.
|Commitee:||Reaka, Bryan Charles, Wiseheart, Barbara|
|School Location:||United States -- Missouri|
|Source:||DAI-A 74/05(E), Dissertation Abstracts International|
|Keywords:||Academic characteristics, Critical thinking, Ennis-Weir Critical Thinking Essay Test, Undergraduate|
Copyright in each Dissertation and Thesis is retained by the author. All Rights Reserved
The supplemental file or files you are about to download were provided to ProQuest by the author as part of a
dissertation or thesis. The supplemental files are provided "AS IS" without warranty. ProQuest is not responsible for the
content, format or impact on the supplemental file(s) on our system. in some cases, the file type may be unknown or
may be a .exe file. We recommend caution as you open such files.
Copyright of the original materials contained in the supplemental file is retained by the author and your access to the
supplemental files is subject to the ProQuest Terms and Conditions of use.
Depending on the size of the file(s) you are downloading, the system may take some time to download them. Please be