Authors
- Diryugina Elena G.
- Yasvin Vitold A. Doctor of Education Sciences, Doctor of Psychological Sciences
Annotation
Critical thinking skills are included in the list of expected student learning outcomes in the educational standards of many countries, including Russia. This maintains the topicality of the question: How to develop students’ critical thinking at school? This issue has been studied for a long time, however, a solution for mass public school has not yet been found. It seems that in addition to introducing special courses on critical thinking and integrating relevant practices into subject content, it is also required to create a special learning environment. Thus, there is another focus in the issue of applying school’s resources: what kind of school environment should be created to stimulate the development of students’ critical thinking? This study considers the correlation between the qualitative and quantitative parameters of the school environment and the level of critical thinking of students in the last year of primary school (4th grade). The type and the value of the environmental parameters are defined by expert evaluation involving school staff and students. To determine the level of students’ critical thinking, an automated 4K monitoring tool was used. The study involved 1526 students of the 4th grade from 39 schools. The data was collected in 2020, 2021, 2022. A significant positive correlation has been identified between the level of environmental stimulation of students’ activity (activity scale) and the level of critical thinking development in primary school. The number of students at “advanced” level of critical thinking and the number of students at “developing” level correlates with the ratio of “creative”, “dogmatic” and “serene” types of environments. A positive correlation has been identified between the number of students at “advanced” level of critical thinking and the environmental parameter of “structuredness”.
How to link insert
Diryugina, E. G. & Yasvin, V. A. (2024). ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS OF DEVELOPING CRITICAL THINKING SKILLS OF PRIMARY SCHOOL STUDENTS Bulletin of the Moscow City Pedagogical University. Series "Pedagogy and Psychology", 18 (1-1), 54. https://doi.org/10.25688/2076-9121.2024.18.1-1.03
References
1.
1. National Research Council. (2008). Research on Future Skill Demands: A Workshop Summary. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/12066
2.
2. Reimers, F., & Chung, C. (Eds.). (2016). Teaching and Learning for the Twenty-First Century: Educational Goals, Policies, And Curricula From Six Nations. Harvard Education Press. https://doi.org/10.1080/15700763.2020.1734631
3.
3. World Bank. (2018). World Development Report 2018: Learning to Realize Education’s Promise. Washington, DC: World Bank. https://doi.org/10.1596/978-1-4648-1096-1
4.
4. OECD. (2019). Trends Shaping Education 2019. OECD Publishing, Paris. https://doi.org/10.1787/trends_edu-2019-en
5.
5. Dobryakova, M., Seel, N., Moss, G., & Froumin, I. (2020). A Framework of Key Competences and New Literacies. In: Dobryakova, M. & Froumin, I. (Eds). Key Competences and New Literacies: From Slogans to School Reality (pp. 34–60). Moscow: HSE University Publishing House. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.17323/978-5-7598-2177-9
6.
6. Bereiter, C., & Scardamalia, M. (1987). An attainable version of high literacy: Approaches to teaching higher-order skills in reading and writing. Curriculum Inquiry, 17(1), 9–30.
7.
7. Costa, A. L. (Ed.). (1991). Developing Minds: A Resource Book for Teaching Thinking. Vol. 1. Rev. ed. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
8.
8. Covington, M. V. Crutchfield, R. S., Davies, L. & Olton, R. M. (1974). The Productive Thinking Program. A Course in Learning to Think. Columbus, OH: Merrill Publ.
9.
9. De Bono, E. (1991). Teaching Thinking. Harmondsworth’ Middlesex: Penguin Books.
10.
10. Feuerstein, R., Rand, Y., Hoffman, M. B., & Miller, R. (1980). Instrumental Enrichment: An Intervention Program for Cognitive Modifiability. Baltimore: University Park Press.
11.
11. Davydov, V. (1996). Theory of developmental learning. Monograph. Moscow: INTOR. (In Russ.).
12.
12. Davydov, V. (1986). Problems of developmental learning: the experience of theoretical and experimental psychological research. Moscow: Pedagogy. (In Russ.).
13.
13. Dobryakova, M., & Seel, N. (2020). Pedagogical and School Practices to Foster Key Competences and Domain-General Literacy. In: Dobryakova, M. & Froumin, I. (Eds.). Key Competences and New Literacies: From Slogans to School Reality (pp. 323–355). Moscow: HSE University Publishing House. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.17323/978-5-7598-2177-9
14.
14. Williams, R. B. (2015). Higher-Order Thinking Skills. Challenging All Students to Achieve. N.Y.: Skyhorse Publ.
15.
15. Collins, R. (2014). Skills for the 21st century: Teaching higher-order thinking. Curriculum & Leadership Journal, 12(14), 1–8.
16.
16. McCollister, K., & Sayler, M. F. (2010). Lift the ceiling increase rigor with critical thinking skills. Gifted Child Today, 33(1), 41–47.
17.
17. Denishcheva, L., Krasnyanskaya, K., Pinskaya, M., Avdeenko, N., & Mikhailova, A. (2018). Formation of competences “4K” by means of subjects. In: Оbukhov, А. (Ed.). Scientific and practical education, research training, STEAM education: new types of educational situations. A collection of reports of the IX International Scientific and Practical Conference “Research activities of students in the modern educational space”, Moscow, 08–10 February, 2018 (vol. 1, pp. 64–76). Moscow: Interregional social movement of creative teachers “Researcher”. (In Russ.).
18.
18. Jakubowski, M., & Wiśniewski, J. (2020). Poland: The Learning Environment that Brought About a Change. In: Dobryakova, M., & Froumin, I. (Eds). Key Competences and New Literacies: From Slogans to School Reality (pp. 232–254). Moscow: HSE University Publishing House. (In Russ.). https://doi.org/10.17323/978-5-7598-2177-9
19.
19. Peterson-Badali, M., Rees-Johnstone, E., Wilson, E., Shahfazlollah, A., Freedman, B., Belchetz, D., Grose, K., Miller, L., Gallagher, M. J., & Laing, P. (2020). Canada (Ontario): a unifying theme for canadian education is equity. In: Dobryakova, M., & Froumin, I. (Eds.). Key Competences and New Literacies: From Slogans to School Reality (pp. 66–98). Moscow: HSE University Publishing House. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.17323/978-5-7598-2177-9
20.
20. Uglanova, I., Orel, E., & Brun, I. (2020). Measuring creativity and critical thinking in primary school. Psikhologicheskii zhurnal, 41(6), 96–107. (In Russ.). https://doi.org/10.31857/S020595920011124-2
21.
21. Mislevy, R. J., Almond, R. G., & Lukas, J. F. (2003). A brief introduction to evidencecentered design. ETS Research Report Series, (1), 1–29.
22.
22. Yasvin, V. A. (2019). The school environment as a subject of measurement: expertise, design, management. Moscow: National Education Publ.
23.
23. Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2017). Self-determination theory. Basic psychological needs in motivation, development and wellness. New York: Guilford Press.
24.
24. Gordeeva, T. O. (2006). Psixologiya motivacii dostizheniya. A textbook for university students studying in the field and specialties of psychology. Moscow: Smy`sl. (In Russ.).
25.
25. Leоn, J., Medina-Garrido, E., & Núñez, J. L. (2017). Teaching quality in math class: The development of a scale and the analysis of its relationship with engagement and achievement. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, 895. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00895
26.
26. Fatou, N., & Kubiszewski, V. (2018). Are perceived school climate dimensions predictive of students’ engagement? Social Psychology Education, 21, 427–446. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11218-017-9422-x
27.
27. Bondarenko, I. N., Ishmuratova, Yu. A., & Tsyganov, I. Yu (2020). Problems of the relationship between school engagement and academic achievements in modern teenagers. Journal of Modern Foreign Psychology, 9(4), 77–88. (in Russ.). https://doi.org/10.17759/jmfp.2020090407
28.
28. Howard, J. L., Bureau, J. S., Guay, F., Chong, J. X. Y., & Ryan, R. M. (2021). Student motivation and associated outcomes: A meta-analysis from self-determination theory. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 16(6), 1300–1323. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691620966789
29.
29. Aelterman, N., Vansteenkiste, M., Haerens, L., Soenens, B., Fontaine, J. R., & Reeve, J. (2019). Toward an integrative and fine-grained insight in motivating and demotivating teaching styles: The merits of a circumplex approach. Journal of Educational Psychology, 111(3), 497–521. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000293
30.
30. Jang, H., Reeve, J., & Deci, E. (2010). Engaging Students in Learning Activities: It Is Not Autonomy Support or Structure but Autonomy Support and Structure. Journal of Educational Psychology, 102(3), 588–600. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0019682