One of the legacies from the first submission was a greater awareness that terminology and philosophical positions must be clearly stated and justified. Hopefully, there is some evidence that this has been done.

An added dimension brought to this paper is the considerably extended list of cited works. This is partly due to to the easy access to the many resources of Royal Roads University Library, particularly the ease with which one can access (and accurately cite: RefWorks!) a wide variety of on-line journals.

Journal articles can stimulate new, or extended, lines of argument in the written piece. This should greatly improve the quality of the work.

An important early phase is the ‘environmental scan.’ This serves almost as traffic control for the rest of the work. Crucial decisions are made at that stage based on all the vital ‘w’ questions: who, what, where, when and why.

The question periods at the end of the case study presentation certainly indicated the importance of carefully considering everything possible at the environmental scan stage. If nothing else, the researcher will be ready with a defence whenever someone questions later why some aspect that appears to fit naturally into this research piece is not actually included at all.

If something was felt too unimportant to fit into the study, there must be clear reasoning to support that position. And clear reasoning can only be conceived in a climate of critical review and questioning.

If questions reveal that some particular matter was not even considered by the research team, a rather dramatic problem, not to mention embarrassment, will then become obvious.

Lack of due diligence in the preparation of the environmental scan, and the subsequent central research question, will be exposed for all to witness. The credibility of the research work is likely seriously compromised at that point.

Long before that, though, the research project itself has to go through a defining process that gives direction to the research and help bring a sharp focus to the particular matter which the results of the research will help illuminate. Is the study to be quantitative or qualitative? What are the factors that drive that decision? Why are these factors important? Are there other factors that might have been overlooked?

The list of possible questions, driven by critical thinking, around a research question can indeed be extensive. Perhaps a process of critical thinking can be brought to bear on each possible question to establish whether it is important enough to be asked, or can safely be set aside.

A helpful starting point to understanding critical thinking is provided by Facione (2007).

His article lists and defines six core critical thinking skills as well as seven indicators that can help measure the disposition of an individual toward critical thinking. The six factors include analysis, inference and evaluation. The indicators (or personal traits) that could reveal an inclination toward critical thinking include: inquisitive, systematic and confident in reasoning.

Thus, a self-assessment of one’s own disposition to critical thinking is possible by comparing our analytical ability, and common practice, with the descriptions that the text provides.

The factors merely being present, however, are not on their own sufficient to categorically reveal that a certain person is a critical thinker. The skills and traits must actually be put to use. Mere possession is not enough.

Of course, one can say that if the ingrained characteristics of the critical thinker are not actually put to public use in a way that is obvious, the person might not be regarded as a person who thinks in a critical way.

In order to understand critical thinking, the author suggests we identify a person we are prepared to designate as a critical thinker and try to establish why we believe the person to be a critical thinker.

Perhaps this exercise would be helpful to our own critical thinking ability. How can we possibly make this determination without applying critical thinking skills as part of the evaluation? Take one of the author’s six skills: analysis. Analytical ability, among other things, includes the careful consideration of factors that lead to a conclusion. To make this determination, we must consider such questions as ‘What is it about a certain factor that drew one to a certain conclusion?’ or even ‘Why was a particular factor considered more important than some other factor, and how did that draw one toward a particular conclusion rather than some other one?’ Many other questions would no doubt be apparent, to a critical thinker, in a given situation.

The important thing is that vital questions need to be asked. These questions are ones that lead to deep probing of a stated position, or a factor or an assumption (especially assumptions). They tend to be, the article notes, what, why and how questions. These are questions that reveal a questioning and probing nature as well as deep introspection: arguably, core traits of the critical thinker.

Facione, P. (2007). Critical thinking: What it is and why it counts. Insight Assessment, The California Academic Press. Retrieved Aug 5, 2007 from http://www.insightassessment.com/pdf_files/what&why2007.pdf.

Both sessions placed an emphasis on deep exploration, reflection and analysis of ideas. An important point from the Writing Centre workshop was to weigh information against such questions as:

• So what?
• Why do I care?
• Why does that matter?
• How do I feel about that conclusion?

It should be helpful to keep these, and other questions, in mind as one prepares information that is to be shared with an academic audience.

A body of writing that is illuminated by the insights triggered by questions such as the above will be more valuable than a mere review of the same material with little evidence that a deep process of critical reflection has taken place.

An important component was identified by the commentary arising from the first assignment. Ideas and concepts should be introduced and then supported by illustrative examples. But almost as an intermediary between these two, there should be analysis that really delves into the ‘why’ of the idea.

Deeper reflection and more critical thought will generate better responses that go further to answering the many ‘why’ questions that can be raised.

The reading was more systematic and, one hopes, more efficient. It was easier to go through the article, looking for information about, the purpose of this work, the methods applied and the other criteria to be embodied in the Annotated Entry that we will present as a team.

The reading was, I hope, more investigative in the sense that one is constantly questioning everything. For example, in reviewing the method, one asks if this is indeed the best method(s) for the stated purpose. Are there flaws in the method? Are there flaws in the basic premise of this piece of research? Are the findings truly supported by the data?

Another key question: Are there significant gaps in this piece of work?

A useful idea from Bill’s session is that one should try to develop and refine a healthy skepticism when reading material of this nature.

Today, our team members read the article individually with the parameters of the assignment in mind. Tomorrow, we will gather to assemble some kind of consensus from our individual impressions of the article.

But I have this nagging feeling that I am doing the assignment back to front.

The description asks us to “examine your tacit assumptions … .” But am I doing that? Or, am I reading about some of the characteristics of learning and learners as found in the texts? When I see something that resonates with what I believe to be true that becomes one of the assumptions in which I am prepared to believe for the purpose of the assignment.

Or, another thought: Do I not harbour these assumptions anyway and the texts merely provide confirmation of these beliefs?

I will try to work through this conundrum as the week unfolds.

We are currently in the pre-residency phase and I am starting to grapple with the first assignment.