Catherine M. Walsh

Dispositional Differences in Critical Thinking Related to Gender and Academic Major.

Dispositional differences among several university majors and across gender were examined in this exploratory study, using Faciones California Critical Thinking Disposition Inventory. Participants were 334 baccalaureate undergraduates (121 males, 213 females) enrolled in majors classified as practice disciplines (i.e., nursing, education, business) and nonpractice disciplines (i.e., English, history, psychology). A MANCOVA with grade point average as a covariate was conducted for majors, indicating significant main effects for major. Highest scores generally were found in English, psychology, and nursing. When majors were grouped into practice and nonpractice disciplines, nonpractice had generally higher disposition scores, and female scores in both practice and nonpractice disciplines were higher than males on Open-Mindedness and Maturity.

Measuring critical thinking: one step forward, one step back.

When critical thinking was identified as an explicit program outcome by the National League for Nursing in 1991, nursing programs were thrust into frenzied activity defining critical thinking and selecting instruments to evaluate it. This drove research on the measurement of critical thinking among nursing programs and the concomitant search for reliable and valid methodologies to systematically assess changes in critical thinking in their students. Although the ultimate goal of this process was curricular improvement, nearly 15 years later, faculty struggle to make sense of the data they have.

Factor structure stability of the California critical thinking disposition inventory across sex and various students' majors

The factor structure of the 1992 California Critical Thinking Disposition Inventory and its stability across sex and different types of college majors were examined in this exploratory study. Participants were 499 undergraduate students (151 men, 342 women, missing data = 6) at a four-year mid-Atlantic public university, ranging in age from 18 to 54 years (M = 23.3). Students were enrolled in majors classified as practice disciplines (nursing, education, and business) and nonpractice disciplines (English, history, and psychology). The inventory, a 75-item, forced-choice adjective checklist scale, yields seven subscores and a total score assessing the disposition toward critical thinking. Analysis indicated that, despite the small sample, the generated factor structure of the inventory was highly stable or similar for men and women for Factors I (Facione, et al. Truth-seeking) and II (Facione, et al. Open-mindedness) and was moderately stable for Factors IV (Facione, et al. Systematicity) and V (Facione, et al. Confidence). Factors III (Analyticity), VI (Inquisitiveness), and VII (Maturity) were not stable. For practice and nonpractice disciplines and for major, only Factor I was stable. The findings suggest further refinement of the inventory.

Measuring critical thinking in graduate education: what do we know?

Accrediting and specialty organizations agree that a masters education expands critical thinking skills gained during undergraduate study, yet a review of literature revealed a lack of research measuring critical thinking of students enrolled in postbaccalaureate education in nursing and other fields. Of 35 studies retrieved, 17 were conducted on undergraduate nursing students, with the remainder spread across practicing RNs, and masters level students in physical therapy, business, medicine, and nursing. A critique of this research and recommendations for future study are presented.

HESI Admission Assessment (A2) Examination Scores, Program Progression, and NCLEX-RN Success in Baccalaureate Nursing: An Exploratory Study of Dependable Academic Indicators of Success

In an effort to meet the demand for well-educated, high-quality nurses, schools of nursing seek to admit those candidates most likely to have both timely progression and first-time success on the National Council Licensure Examination for Registered Nurses (NCLEX-RN). Finding the right combination of academic indicators, which are most predictive of success, continues to be an ongoing challenge for entry-level baccalaureate nursing programs across the United States. This pilot study explored the relationship of a standardized admission examination, the Health Education Systems, Inc. (HESI) Admission Assessment (A(2)) Examination to preadmission grade point average (GPA), science GPA, and nursing GPA using a retrospective descriptive design. In addition, the predictive ability of the A(2) Examination, preadmission GPA, and science GPA related to timely progression and NCLEX-RN success were explored. In a sample of 89 students, no relationship was found between the A(2) Examination and preadmission GPA or science GPA. The A(2) Examination was correlated with nursing GPA and NCLEX-RN success but not with timely progression. Further studies are needed to explore the utility and predictive ability of standardized examinations such as the A(2) Examination and the contribution of such examinations to evidence-based admission decision making.

Desperate Times Call for Desperate Measures: Where Are We in Addressing Academic Dishonesty?

Much has been written about the prevalence of academic dishonesty in the past two decades. despite the dialogue, incidents have not only increased in number, but also in complexity as students discover even more creative and technologically savvy ways to circumvent the system. Gone are the days of simple plagiarism, glancing at another’s paper during an examination, or using cheat sheats. Violations have evolved from “low-tech” to “high-tech” infractions, with the expectation of more to come. Most faculty can personally attest to this grim reality and the ongoing challenges they face in either identifying or preventing these incidents. What is equally disheartening is that many faculty have had the unpleasant experience of addressing a cheating incident only to realize that students often show little or no remorse for such actions, and that there are likely countless other violations that go undetected. at a recent nursing educators conference, faculty shared various examples of cheating driven by desperation, opportunism, and, in some cases, a blatant disregard for what is right. Highly questionable acts have gone beyond the classroom, such as upper level students overenrolling in classes and later selling their seats to a sought-after class to underclassmen for profit. Nothing seems off limits. recent headlines about the Columbia university student who openly plagiarized a valedictory speech, stealing his remarks directly from a comedy routine, serves to further underscore the fact that academic dishonesty has reached epidemic proportions (aBC News, 2010). although this trend is unsettling in the larger academic community, it is even more disturbing when it involves students in nursing and related health fields, who are supposed to be guided by standards of professional practice and ethics, and who are preparing for entry into an environment where dishonest behaviors can have potentially dire consequences. there are several theories among academics as to why such breaches have increased so dramatically of late. a complex interplay of factors has been identified, ranging from the strongly held belief that there has been a deterioration in moral values of the current generation (tanner, 2004), to a persistent attitude among students whereby “doing the right thing” has been replaced by “doing what it takes.” some blame the current generation of “helicopter” parents (who have morphed to “stealth bomber” levels under extreme circumstances) and their offspring who believe that everyone deserves a trophy (and gets an “a” grade) regardless of the quality of the work submitted. Combine this with a lack of personal role models, popular media (including competitive reality shows) that glamorize such behaviors as a reasonable means of getting ahead, and a more accepting attitude on the part of faculty that “cheating happens.” these social changes, along with the pervasive use of the internet, an explosion in the proliferation of various technological devices (from smart phones to iPads), and an increase in distance education all provide a multiplicity of opportunities to cheat. dishonest actions have almost become the norm, rather than the exception, as they represent the necessary price to pay for survival in a high stakes environment where progression through a program, enhancing one’s resume for graduate school or honor society induction, and maintaining grades for scholarships and loans have taken precedence over behaving with integrity. Both parental and self-imposed pressure to be successful may also play a role as students resort to any means by which to achieve their lifelong dream of becoming nurses and to secure a career that can weather harsher economic times. Many students who may not have previously crossed the line now feel pressure to do so and, at the same time, find it easier to cross a line that seems to have become significantly blurred. the unprecedented levels and complexity of cheating have left many faculty dispirited and comparatively powerless to stay one step ahead of the combination of warpspeed technology and lack of ethical centeredness of students. as the definition of actions that are now considered “dishonest” broadens, so must the strategies to address them. traditional approaches of monitoring and taking punitive action against the student involved, while sending a message to others that such behaviors will not be tolerated, are only part of the answer. Preventive strategies must also be implemented. these include the careful proctoring of examinations, the use of antiplagiarism software, currency regarding technological advances in cheating (see Faucher & Caves, 2009, for a comprehensive and eye-opening list), and continued vigilance regarding the various methods to curtail opportunities for academic dishonesty.