Available online at www.sciencedirect.

com

Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences 15 (2011) 10871091

WCES-2011

Developing the skills of critical and creative thinking by probability

teaching
Einav Aizikovitsh-Udi * Miriam Amit
Ben-Gurion University, Israel

Abstract
The study reported here described a small step in the direction of developing additional learning units within the traditional
curriculum. It is apparent that if a teacher makes a decision to focus on improving higher order thinking and perseveres over time,
the chances are good that the teacher will succeed. The purpose of this study was to explore whether teaching our specially
designed learning unit would enhance the students' critical and or creativity thinking. The unit Probability in Daily Life was
taught to a group of tenth-grade students, with the purpose of encouraging critical thinking dispositions such as open-mindedness,
truth-seeking, self-confidence and maturity. The teacher encouraged class discussion and planned investigative lessons. The
students completed a pre and post CCTDI test. The findings of the present research are likely to help composing new study
programs and methods that can be based on the connection between critical thinking, creative thinking and the study of
mathematics, which this research brings.
Keywords: Critical Thinking, Creative thinking, Probabailty.

Current approaches in mathematics studies according to the new mathematics curriculum adhere to a conceptual
understanding of mathematics and emphasize investigation, problem solution, high-order skills and mathematical
discourse. The students are supposed to actively construct their knowledge and understanding, while the teachers
function as mediators by asking questions, posing challenges and assigning investigation tasks, and help the
students to think in deeper ways about various concepts, ideas and mathematical contexts. To study and teach
mathematics in such a way is a very difficult task, because the ways of teaching and learning are very demanding
and creative, requiring, among the rest, deep knowledge and understanding of mathematics on the teachers part,
coping with the unknown on the students part, and much intellectual effort on both the teachers and the students
part. The implications of this research on the study program were expected while taking into account the findings of
earlier researches; these findings point at the importance of learning experiences that develop critical thinking by
means of various specially designed curricula. The findings of the present research are likely to help composing new
study programs and methods that can be based on the connection between critical thinking and the study of
mathematics, which this research brings to light. Thus, this research offers new possibilities of extending the use of
critical and creative thinking development programs, and for their integration into the formal high-school
mathematics curriculum.

* Einav Aizikovitsh-Udi Tel.: +972549718810

E-mail address: [email protected]

18770428 2011 Published by Elsevier Ltd. Open access under CC BY-NC-ND license.
doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2011.03.243

1088

Einav Aizikovitsh-Udi and Miriam Amit / Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences 15 (2011) 10871091

Theoretical Framework

1.1. Mathematics and Creativity

In general, creativity is defined as "the cognitive skill of proposing a solution to a problem or making something
useful or novel from ordinary" (Hwang, Chen, Dung, & Yang, 2007, p. 193). Ervynck (1991) posits that
mathematical creativity in problem solving is the ability to formulate mathematical objectives and find their innate
relationships; it is the capacity to solve problems according to the appropriateness of integrating both the nature of
logic-deduction in mathematics education and its evolved concepts into its core. According to Silver (1997) and
Ervynck (1991), mathematical creativity has two characteristics, general and specific. General original or creative
thinking enables problem-solving or problem-posing in various fields creating innovative and original solutions of
the highest quality. These ideas or solutions are elegant and surprising. This kind of thinking is characterized by
mental flexibility, curiosity, a well-developed imagination, interest in finding solutions, the creation of metaphors,
and goal-oriented thinking. It is measured by the quantity and quality of its outcomes. Specific original or creative
thinking brings about creativity in a specific field. The realization of this creativity's potential requires a longer
period of maturation and development. The development and maturity are the results of experience and usually
manifest themselves in mature people. Chiu (2009) connected mathematical creativity with the students' ability to
solve routine and non-routine problems and even to approach ill-structured problems. Creativity has been considered
to be a critical component of advanced mathematical thinking (Ervynck, 1991).

1.2. Critical Thinking Abilities by Ennis and Dispositions

Seven aspects of critical thinking were considered as objective assessment criteria for evaluating the
incorporation of critical thinking in students' mathematical education and they are induction, deduction, value
judjing, observation, credibility, assumptions, and meaning. Although these aspects of critical thinking are listed
separately, overlap between them exists to a certain extent. For example, one might argue that deduction is involved
in much induction, calling for the listing under deduction of the items listed under inductions. Similarly, one might
also argue that observation and credibility judgements call for the implications of principles, a deductive process and
should also be listed under deduction. This legitimate overlap is partially expressed by the items of the Cornell
critical thinking of level Z (Ennis, Millman & Tomko 2005). Our ever-changing and challenging world requires
students, our future citizens, to go beyond the building of their knowledge; they need to develop their higher-order
thinking skills, such as system critical thinking, decision making, and problem solving (Profetto-McGrath, 2003;
Riddell, 2007; Sezer, 2008). There have been significant changes in the past decades in the field of education.
Whereas earlier the teacher was at the center and the emphasis was put on what to teach, todays education involves
teaching how to think, and in particular, how to be a critical thinker. Critical thinking is necessary in every
profession, and it allows one to deal with reality in a reasonable and independent manner (Harpaz, 1996,1997;
Lipman, 1991, McPeck, 1994). Critical thinking has been investigated largely in terms of thinking skills that involve
the cognitive domain. For decades, promotion of students thinking has been the focus of educational studies and
programs (Facione, 1987; Facione & Facione, 2000). Each of these programs has its own definition of thinking
and/or of skills. Some use the phrase cognitive skills (Zoller, 2007) while others refer to thinking skills (Resnick,
1987; Zohar & Dori, 2003), but they all distinguish between higher- and lower-order skills. Resnick (1987)
maintained that thinking skills resist precise forms of definition; yet, higher order thinking skills can be recognized
when they occur. Thus, there seems to be no clear consensus as to what exactly critical thinking is. Some see it as
simply everyday, informal reasoning (Galotti, 1989), whereas others feel differently. Lipman considers it to be
different from ordinary thinking because it is both more precise and more rigorous, as well as self-correcting. Our
research is underpinned by several questions raised by Passmore (1980): what do we mean by teaching a student to

Einav Aizikovitsh-Udi and Miriam Amit / Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences 15 (2011) 10871091

1089

become a critical thinker? How can this be accomplished successfully? Does it merely involve giving the necessary
facts or rather nurturing the student's disposition, molding the personality, or is something else involved? Is being a
critical thinker a matter of habit? Passmore does not have answers to all these questions, but in his article he does
claim that in the process of developing critical thinking we have to stress the student's natural disposition. Facione
and Facione (1996, 2000) propose a taxonomy of dispositions that includes such elements as cognitive maturity,
searching for truth, open-mindedness, systematicity, analyticity, self-confidence, and curiosity. They developed the
California Critical Thinking Disposition Inventory (CCTDI) which was originally intended to be used to measure
critical thinking dispositions in college students but has been successfully adapted to be used in high school.
Another question then arises as to whether dispositions are something that can be changed or improved. Through our
research, we hope to shed some light on these questions. The California Critical Thinking Dispositions Inventory
(CCTDI) was administered at the beginning and end of the unit.
1.3. The Infusion Approach by teaching Unit "Probability in the daily life"

There are two main approaches for fostering CT: the general skills approach, which is characterized by designing
special courses for instructing CT skills, and the infusion approach (Swartz, 1992), which is characterized by
developing these skills by embedding them in the teaching of the set learning material. According to this approach
there is a need to reprocess the prescribed content material in order to integrate the teaching of thinking skills intothe
conventional instruction. In this report, we will show how we integrated the mathematical content of "probability in
daily life with CT skills from Ennis' taxonomy, reprocessed the curriculum, tested different learning units and
evaluated the subjects' CT skills. One of the overall research purposes was to examine the effect of the infusion
approach on the development of students critical thinking skills through probability instruction. The overarching
research purpose was to examine the effect of developing CT by the infusion approach. This evaluation was
undertaken using the Cornell questionnaire (a quantitative test) and quantitative means of analysis .in this learning
unit, which is a part of the formal National Curriculum in Israel, the student is required to analyse problems, raise
questions and think critically about the data and the information. In our research we did it with probability in daily
life.The purpose of the learning unit is not to be satisfied with a numerical answer but to examine the data and its
validity. In cases where there is no single numerical answer, the students are expected to know what questions to ask
and how to analyse the problem qualitatively, not only quantitatively. In addition to being provided with statistical
tools students are encouraged to use their intuitive mechanisms to help them estimate probabilities in daily life.
Simultaneously, students examine the logical premises of these intuitions, while being alerted to possible
misjudgements in their application. Here, the key concepts are: probability rules, conditional probability and Bayes
theorem, statistical relations, causal relations and subjective probability (Liberman & Tversky 2002)

2. Methods
The pilot study reported here was conducted over the period of one academic year in the framework of a larger
PhD research and involved one group (n=72) of tenth-grade students in regular high school. The group consisted of
thirty students, all high achievers, aged fifteen to sixteen. The teacher was one of the researchers. The learning unit
Probability in Daily Life (Lieberman & Tversky, 1996) comprised fifteen lessons, each lasting ninety minutes,
and was modified by the researchers to combine critical thinking skills with the probability topics it initially
contained (Aizikovitsh & Amit, 2008). This unit in probability studies, which is part of the formal mathematics
curriculum of the Ministry of Education was chosen because of its rationale of "learn[ing] issues relevant to the
daily life, which include elements of critical thinking (Liberman & Tversky, 2001, p.3). In the unit the student is
required to analyze problems, raise questions and think critically about the data and the information. The purpose of
the unit is to teach the students not to be satisfied with a numerical answer but to examine the data and their validity.
In cases where there is no single numerical answer, the students are required to know what questions to ask and how
to analyze the problem qualitatively, not only quantitatively. Along with being provided with statistical instruments,

1090

Einav Aizikovitsh-Udi and Miriam Amit / Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences 15 (2011) 10871091

students are redirected to their intuitive mechanisms to help them estimate probabilities in daily life.
Simultaneously, students examine the logical premises of these intuitions, along with misjudgements of their
application. This unit examines the term probability regarding everyday problems. The uniqueness of the original
Lieberman and Tverskys unit lies in the fact that it allows one to learn interesting subjects of everyday relevance
through mathematics. This involves critical thinking elements such as: tangible examples from everyday life,
questioning the reliability of information, accepting and dismissing generalizations, rechecking quantitative data,
doubting, etc.
3. Results and Discussion
The research described here constitutes a small step in the direction of developing additional learning units within
the traditional curriculum. Current research being undertaken by the authors is exploring possible additional
methods of CT evaluation, including: the CCTDI scale (Facion, 1992), questionnaires employing various
approaches, and a comprehensive test composed for future research. The general educational implications of this
research suggest that we can and should lever the intellectual development of the student beyond the technical
content of the course, by creating learning environments that foster CT, and which will, in turn, encourage the
student to investigate the issue at hand, evaluate the information and react to it as a critical thinker. It is important to
note that, in addition to the skills mentioned above, in the course of this lesson the students also gained intellectual
skills such as conceptual thinking and developed a class culture (climate) that fostered CT. Figures 1 and 2 show the
sub-tests of the results of the CCDTI test (Fig. 1,2).

Students practiced critical thinking skills as, open mindedness and inquisitiveness by studying probability. In this
program of instruction, the following skills were demonstrably practiced: referring to information sources,
encouraging open-mindedness and mental flexibility (all questions), a change in attitude and searching for
alternatives. A very important attribute is cognitive determination to be able to express one's attitude and present
an opinion that is supported by facts. In this instructional sequence, students could be seen to be searching for the
truth, they were open-minded and self-confident.

4. Discussion
In much of the literature on critical thinking we see that there is no significant improvement in all the sub-tests
during one year of learning (Barak & Dori, 2009; Ben-Chaim, Ron, & Zoller, 2000). In the sub-tests of our group
we did see a marked improvement in systematicity, analyticity, and maturity. On re-examining these sub-tests we
noticed that they consisted of a group of questions involving a certain experiment where all the information was
presented in the form of tables. During this learning unit we repeatedly worked with tables and we therefore came to
the conclusion that the familiarity of the students with the tables enabled them to deal with the statements made and

Einav Aizikovitsh-Udi and Miriam Amit / Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences 15 (2011) 10871091

1091

answer these specific questions more easily. The CCTDI is a self report of the students' beliefs, values, attitudes and
opinions consisting of seventy-five separate items. Questions or statements are posed to which the students have to
reply how strongly they agree or disagree ( on a scale from one to six). By studying the students' responses, a
profile of seven critical thinking sub-dispositions can be reached. The dispositions measured are: truth seeking,
which shows flexibility in considering alternatives and opinions; open-mindedness, which shows the understanding
of others' opinions; analyticity, which shows how persistent the student is in the light of difficulties encountered;
systematicity, which shows how diligently the student went about seeking relevant information; confidence, which
refers to the student's confidence is his/her own ability to reason; inquisitiveness, which shows how concerned the
student is to become and stay well-informed; and maturity, which shows how careful the student is in making or
changing his judgments. During the CCTDI we find we find the stages of the creative thinking by Ervynck (1991).
Ervynck suggested three necessary stages for the development of mathematical creativity: (i) a preliminary technical
stage, (ii) a stage of algorithmic activity, and (iii) a stage of creative (conceptual, constructive) activity. The first
stage refers to the practical application of mathematical rules and procedures without knowledge of the theoretical
source. The second stage emphasizes the use of procedures in order to perform a mathematical operation with the
knowledge of the theoretical source. Finally, the third stage involves activity that is unrelated to a known algorithm,
where it entails a new understanding of definitions or wording a new theorem and its proof.
References
Aizikovitsh, E., & Amit, M. (2009). An innovative model for developing critical thinking skills through mathematical education. In L. Paditz &
A. Rogerson (Eds.), Proceedings of the International Conference of the Mathematics Education into the 21st Century Project: Models in
developing mathematics education (pp. 19-22). Dresden, Germany: University of Applied Sciences.
Barak, M., & Dori, Y. J. (2009). Enhancing Higher Order Thinking Skills among Inservice Science Teachers via Embedded Assessment. Journal
of Science Teacher Education, 20(5), 459-474.
Ben-Chaim, D., Ron, S., & Zoller, U. (2000). The Disposition of Eleventh-Grade Science Students toward Critical Thinking. Journal of Science
Education and Technology, 9(2), 149-159.
Chiu, M, -S. (2009). Approaches to the teaching of creative and non-creative mathematical problems. International Journal of Science and
Mathematics Education, 7, 55-79.
Ervynck, G. (1991). Mathematical Creativity. In: D. Tall (Ed.), Advanced Mathematical Thinking (pp.42-53). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.
Ennis, R. H. (1987). A taxonomy of critical thinking dispositions and abilities. In J. B. Baron & R. J. Sternberg (Eds.), Teaching thinking skills:
Theory and practice (pp. 9-26). New York: Freeman.
Ennis, R.H. and Millman, J. (2005). Cornell critical thinking test, level X (Fifth Edition). Seaside, CA: The Critical Thinking Company.
Facione, P. A., & Facione N. C. (1994). The California Critical Thinking Skills Test: Manual. Millbrae, CA: California Academic Press.
Facione, P. A., Facione, N. C., & Giancarlo, C. A. (1996). The California critical disposition inventory: Test manual. Millbrae, CA: California
Academic Press.
Facione, P. A., Giancarlo, C. A., Facione, N. C., & Gainen, J. (2000). The disposition toward critical thinking: Its character, measurement, and
relationship to critical thinking skills. Informal Logic, 20, 61-84.
Halpern, D. F. (1996). Thought and knowledge: Introduction to critical thinking. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Halpern, D. F. (1998). Teaching critical thinking for transfer across domains. American Psychologist, 53, 449455.
Harpaz, Y. (Ed.). (1996). Education for critical thinking. Jerusalem: The Ministry of Education and Culture.
Harpaz, Y. (1997). Teaching and learning in thinking communities. Jerusalem: Branco Weiss Institute for Fostering Critical Thinking.
Lieberman, V., & Tversky, A. (1996). Critical thinking: Statistical considerations and intuitive judgments. Tel Aviv: Open University.
Lieberman, V., & Tversky, A. (2001). Probability thinking in daily life. Tel Aviv: Open University.
Lipman, M. (1991). Thinking in education. New York: Cambridge University Press.
McPeck, J. (1994). Critical thinking and the `Trivial Pursuit`: Theory of knowledge. In K.
Passmore, J. (1980). The philosophy of teaching. London: Duckworth.
Resnick, L. B. (1987). Education and learning to think. Washington DC: National Academy Press.
Silver, E. (1997). Fostering creativity through instruction rich in mathematical problem solving and problem posing. ZDM, 3, 75-80.
Swartz, R. J. (1992). Critical thinking, the curriculum, and the problem of transfer. In D. N. Perkins, J. Lochhead, & J. Bishop (Eds.), Thinking:
The second international conference (pp. 261-284). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Walters (Ed.), Re-thinking reason: New perspectives in critical thinking (pp. 101-117). Albany, NY: State University of New York Press
Zohar, A., & Dori, Y. J. (2003). Higher order thinking skills and low achieving students: Are they mutually exclusive? Journal of the Learning
Sciences, 12,145-181.