The need for problem solvers has been at the top of employers wishlists for some time now. In fact the most recent results of surveys conducted by the National Association of Colleges and Employers, or NACE, found that a staggering 80.9% of employers look for elements of problem solving on resumes, right alongside communication skills and teamwork (2018). And this is no fluke. These surveys have repeated the same patterns year after year, finding problem solving to be a consistent contender for the top spot. With such a heavy need for problem solving the need for questioning universities ability to give their students those skills has become a hot topic. Though universities may find this to be a primary concern for education, the need for students to evaluate whether or not they are walking away with the skills necessary to succeed in the workforce may be just as important. The aim of this paper is to explore some of those questions in hopes of walking away with a further understanding of the current state of education outcomes in the University of Alaska Anchorage (UAA) ecosystem.

Before proceeding it is essential the term ​problem solving ​is defined. At face value it may seem simple enough. According to NACE’s ​Career Readiness Defined ​section of their website, problem solving is defined as “[exercising] sound reasoning to analyze issues, make decisions, and overcome problems. The individual is able to obtain, interpret, and use knowledge, facts, and data in this process, and may demonstrate originality and inventiveness.” Interestingly they also pair problem solving with ​critical thinking which some would argue is a bit different. For the sake of this paper I’ll use the term critical thinking as an umbrella term that encompasses problem solving because it implies a bit more than simply the ability to solve problems. A lot of money solves a lot of problems but doesn’t inform us of the kind of problem solving employers may be looking for. For this paper I’ll look into a style of thinking that can result in an enhanced ability to solve problems through effort as well as thinking in other aspects of life.

So, what is critical thinking? According to the authors of ​The Critical Thinking Initiative, Steven J. Pearlman and David Carillo, critical thinking is a process. It is the understanding and analysis of a situation, questioning and evaluating the parts that make up that situation, and the willingness to play with the complexities and uncertainties surrounding that situation. This process is meant to lead a thinker to a thorough understanding of the reality of a situation in order to make meaningful and deliberate conclusions (2019). There are a lot of components that go into critical thinking according to this definition, but there are essentially five elements that Pearlman and Carillo highlight. They are: analyze, question, evaluate, complicate, and conclude. To be more specific they can be understood as: compiling a source's claims, questioning elements of the source, evaluating the source to answer that question, explaining uncertainties in the evaluation, and any conclusions to be made after the process (p.45) (see appendix a). Against NACE’s definition a lot of those elements match up in the form of analyzing and obtaining information as well as the originality aspect of reaching conclusions or decisions. Pearlman and Carillo’s is a bit more specific and so it provides a stronger tool for measuring elements of critical thinking.

It may also be helpful to look at the current state of education according to organizations already looking into whether or not college’s are arming students with critical thinking skills. One such organization is the intergovernmental economic organization interested in raising worldwide economic progress, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. A 2016 report titled Skills Matter Further Results From The Survey Of Adult Skills found that young adults in the United States scored extremely low in problem solving in a technology rich-environments when compared to 19 other countries (2016). These results come from a digital assessment aimed at measuring the participants ability to “[use] digital technology, communication tools and networks to acquire and evaluate information, communicate with others and perform practical tasks” (p53). Though the use of technology is a bit specific, the elements of critical thinking still show up in the form evaluation and other terms like practical tests which may hint towards critical thinking connotations. Either way it may be helpful to understand that organizations are looking into these issues which are rising up from a lack of problem solving abilities in US citizens.

For this project I’ll be looking into how the University of Alaska Anchorage (UAA) attempts to answer this rising issue. However, with a wide variety of classes of varying subjects it would be next to impossible for me to evaluate all paths, so for the sake of my own abilities I’ve chosen to examine two classes that satisfy the university's General Education Requirements (GER). The GERs are a set of 37 credit hours that satisfy certain criteria which must be completed by baccalaureate students wishing to graduate. Interestingly enough, one of the learning outcomes according to the university’s web page on GERs for baccalaureate students is to “integrate knowledge and employ skills gained to synthesize creative thinking...” (2019). It’s important to note that the university does not define critical thinking in anyway, but when using Pearlman and Carillo’s definition I’ll investigate whether or not there are any of the elements mentioned above.

Methodology

Classes

The two classes being evaluated are Writing and the Professions (WRTG) and Interpersonal Communication (COMM). Both classes are 200 level classes that satisfy the GER and will be observed from the perspective of a student (me). I’ll be sitting in the classes and observing assignments as well as class discussions and nature of the curriculums.

WRTG is a writing class that teaches technical writing to be used in a professional setting. A lot of the work is written for a business setting, with assignments ranging from short business themed case studies to a final project and presentation involving rhetorical analysis and academic research. This class meets once a week for 3 hours, making it a more flexible class intended for busier students. This class completes one of two written communication requirements for baccaularete graduation. The class size is 14 students.

COMM is a communication class that teaches communication between people. Skills involved in interpersonal communication include listening, emotional, nonverbal, and empathy skills. Much of the coursework revolves around casual check ins, situational observations in movies and in person, and occasional games that require students to be vulnerable with each other. This class meets once a week for 3 hours, making it a more flexible class intended for busier students. This class completes the only oral communication requirements for baccaularete graduation. The class size is 14 students.

Assessments and Measures

The method for evaluation follows closely with Pearlman and Carillo’s definition of critical thinking. I look to see if there are elements of the pie chart included in the appendix located at the end of this paper (see appendix a). I observe whether or not there are opportunities for analysis in assignments, as well as any emphasis or teaching of evaluation of any sources if applicable. I also look into whether or not assignments offer students freedom to question the content. This includes choice regarding the nature of the assignments and whether or not students are allowed to follow their own lines of inquiry for personal creative expression. A final piece I’ll be looking for is how these classes deal with uncertainties and unknowns. I’ll be observing what level of direction assignments generally aim towards with less specific direction being regarded as a better opportunity to practice critical thinking. The findings will be my own personal experience while observing through the lens of the aforementioned definition of critical thinking. The experience covers my time from the beginning of the school year to just a few classes from completion with the halfway point being the primary observation period. In that time I’ve familiarized myself with the curriculum and completed a wide range of assignments that provide a good place to look for the elements of critical thinking.

Results

While observing through Pearlman’s and Carillo’s definition of critical thinking, my experience saw mixed results. On one hand, there were many instances of ambiguity and creative expression. There was a surprising amount of freedom and opportunity for improvisation, specifically in the COMM class. WRTG showed some of these same elements in the form of business situations that had no right or wrong answer by skewing the lines between right and wrong and leaving the student to decide the best course of action based on the information given. When combined with good feedback I would say these experiences led to growth in problem solving skills and overall led to a better comfort with the unknown. On the other hand, there were an abundance of bland assignments mimicking the information regurgitation assessments that often dominate most curriculum.

WRTG

One of the key components surrounding this class was teamwork. Every week we would get into random groups of three and work through some kind of case study. These case studies mirrored real world scenarios and required us to answer as if it were real. That meant compiling information in proper business formats like memos and letters in which we were asked to solve a problem of some kind with our unique answers based on the information given. The problems inspired many solutions, leaving a lot of decision making up to the student. I’d say these real world problem style assignments were a great opportunity to practice decision making as we needed to evaluate the situation and come up with a range of solutions in order to complete the assignment. These assignments always had rhetorical elements too which required us to evaluate our audience as much as the problem itself. Feedback was always fairly detailed, but there was no set grading criteria and we all walked away with A’s as long as we provided an answer. In some ways this could be seen as a weakness because reading feedback is never required and students usually care more about the grade, but I’d say the opportunity to think through these problems outweigh those weaknesses.

Working in a team also had its fair share of thinking. There would often be disputes on what the best course of action is, leading to a lot of discussion. Sometimes these discussions led to a lot of brainstorming and therefore a wide range of solutions to the proposed problems. We would usually evaluate each solution by weighing the pros and cons and running through our thought processes for why a solution may be better than others. That being said, I will say some groups simply wanted to get the assignment done and went with whatever seemed like the most obvious and practical solution. There is merit in that but it may have been more effective to require more than one solution to ensure we were exhausting our options. That is more of a fault on the students but did happen occasionally and is worth mentioning.

Towards the end of class year we were able to choose our own group to complete a research assignment of our choice so long as it was related to recycling. In that sense the level of freedom was fairly limited and may have hindered an opportunity to be creative with the presentation. However, elements of the project did seem to echo some of those critical thinking moves, particularly in analysis and evaluation. As a research project we were required to utilize evidence based findings using scholarly sources. This included some drilling on source evaluation which included understanding the sources credibility by evaluating the authority, cross checking facts, and relevance. We were also required to fill out annotated bibliographies which required a thorough understanding of the sources used by the paper, any strengths, and any weaknesses in the paper. The final project also included a rhetorical analysis which looked at the different audiences of our project. Different elements of the project utilized most class sessions which ultimately drove the curriculum.

One area in the curriculum that suffered slightly in terms of critical thinking was the book work we were required to complete. Weekly readings with supplemental online quizzes didn’t quite feel as effective as the case studies because they were all multiple choice questions. These questions often had obvious answers that didn’t require much thought at all. We also had a lecture every week for about an hour covering the reading topics which consisted of powerpoints and TEDx talks. Class participation was scarce as we would sit, listen, and read an abundance of slides. Without much opportunity for discussion the overall format felt bland and failed to elicit analysis or evaluation of any kind.

A final observation I felt shined was in a weekly reflection we were required to write and turn in. Every week we would have a few questions to answer about our thoughts and experiences with the content of that day's learning. This naturally led to a good deal of thinking about our own experiences and in some cases how we think. This metacognition was a valuable exercise and really helped make sense of some of the more abstract concepts we were learning about.

COMM

One aspect of the class that showcased elements of critical thinking was the emphasis on checking in. We would come in after a week full of adventures and report verbally to the class what we’ve been up to. After explaining some of the key events the teacher would engage in questions about different aspects of what happened. This required some focus and engagement in order to answer some of the deeper questions. The teacher would ask questions about how we felt in certain situations which required a bit of metacognition. I think it would have been more effective if we were required to write down what we said after saying it, but the experience was fairly conducive of thought regardless.

Another key component to this class were movie assignments where we would watch movies through the lens of different psychological theories like Maslow’s hierarchy of needs or Johari’s window. These assignments required us to evaluate the characters in the movie through specific criteria which I thought was an interesting thought exercise. These usually needed to be formatted as essays which allowed for some room for creativity. I will say that at times the rubric was a bit too structured and could potentially push us towards simply filling in the blanks. Another downside was a lack of meaningful feedback which was often very brief and vague. A great addition to these assignments were a reflection that had to be completed after finishing the paper. We would need to evaluate our own reactions to the characters as well as how we handled the assignment in general. These offered a great opportunity for noticing our own thought patterns and ultimately led to a deeper understanding of our experiences with different aspects of interpersonal communications.

One interesting component of this class was the lack of lectures. We often did some kind of exercise relating to a different area of interpersonal communication which involved the whole class working together. These ranged from creating and performing a poem to standing in a circle and working together to create animals with our bodies. Most of these assignments were meant to get us out of our comfort zone and required us to get to know one another. I think this was extremely effective in handling complications as we were often asked to perform unusual tasks. We also played a few different games that led to a healthy mixture of awkwardness and laughter. The more I think about it the class is basically ​hanging out 101, which I’m unsure is a good or bad thing. On one hand we did a lot of uncomfortable things but I’m not sure if I learned anything technical. I will say there was a lot of practical value, but it would help to know some of the more technical theories behind interpersonal communications. I think it could’ve been a good opportunity to look into more of the psychology of emotions and empathy.

A final portion of this class that offered opportunity for critical thinking was in the final project. It was an oral presentation on anything that had to last about 10 minutes. The student was given complete freedom to choose anything, which I thought was both good and bad. For one, it’s good that we could choose anything to look into because it offers a lot of creative potential. But this kind of assignment felt too open and there was virtually no time spent on planning out the presentation in class. This led me to choose something straight forward in the form of a how-to which ended up being more of a regurgitation of things I found than something more steeped in evaluation. The fault lies mostly on me for choosing something so simply, but with no direction this felt like the best option. I think if we had been required to plan out something in advance it would have led to more meaningful evaluation of the situation and ultimately more critical thinking.

Discussion

It was important to me to choose some kind of GER because I was skeptical on whether or not all classes would have elements of critical thinking and how some major would be more critical thinking heavy than others. I wanted to choose classes all students had access to and would need to take in order to graduate. When I read critical thinking was one of the GER learning outcomes it seemed like a perfect opportunity to put that to the test. I will say that the lack of any kind of definition for critical thinking does make it harder to judge whether or not that claim is accurate or not, but I’d say based on the definition provided here I was able to reach some meaningful findings.

For one, the use of practical assignments seemed like a much better catalyst for critical thinking than rote memorization and multiple choice tests. The case studies in WRTG and the hands on communication in COMM provided a great deal of evaluating and dealing with uncertainties. These kinds of assignments were also fun and engaging, which is something I don’t usually experience with some of my other coursework. Though, I will say at times it might’ve been just fun and not a lot of actual coursework. COMM had a tendency to be more relaxed and so I can’t say for sure if I’ve gained much from the practical games. While it was helpful in learning about my fellow classmates it did feel a bit like I was just hanging out with The Breakfast Club for a few hours.

That being said, teamwork and interaction with others also played a key role in both of these classes and led some moments of deep analysis and evaluation. The interaction with other students sometimes led to a lot of discussion, making for a much more thorough search for answers. My only complaint would be the lack of participation from other students at times, but that’s a criticism of the student and not the curriculum. However, there was no kind of team evaluation or grading system in place so there wasn’t much to stop that kind of lack of enthusiasm. Working with others did present some challenges, but in some ways it led to more opportunity to think critically because of the added need to manage the team. Overall, I would like to see more of these kinds of projects in the future because they ended up being a lot more engaging than I would’ve thought if I hadn’t experienced them.

On that note, something unique to these classes is they are 3 hour classes meeting once a week instead of the usual 1 hour and 15 for 2 days a week. I thought this was an interesting aspect of the classes because with more time comes the opportunity to go in depth on certain topics. I also think the reason these team based assignments worked well was because we had much more time to work together. Our interactions with each other would usually last about an hour which you don’t typically get in a 1 hour class because of the lecture component. I’d be interested to see if this added time had anything to do with the enhanced feeling of engagement I was experiencing with my groupmates. If the curriculum was the same as the 1 hour classes I wonder what kind of differences I would have had in having discussions with less time. In some ways this does complicate the overall design of the project because I can’t say for sure whether or not these 3 hour classes are the same experience as the 1 hour classes. Therefore it may be best to understand the findings with this in mind before making any conclusions.

Another interesting experience was the two different kinds of final projects I had in each class. The WRTG project was much more structured and had thorough planning up to its final completion. The COMM project was the exact opposite having no planning other than a proposal. They also differed slightly in the freedom given to the student. I was interested to see how I would treat both projects and was surprised by the amount of frustration I had with the COMM project. With no direction or planning I ended up choosing something extremely safe which didn’t up being as engaging as my WRTG project. The planning that went into the WRTG project really built it up to be a grand finale and offered more opportunity to revise and reevaluate. The COMM project felt like I was going through the motions and simply completing the assignment for the grade. I thought with free reign I’d have done something more exciting but with no planning I found myself opting for the simplest solution Akums razor style. It seems that a guided planning phase really made the difference and would have likely helped make the COMM project more enjoyable and conducive to critical thinking by means of deep evaluation and revision.

That revision is key in practicing critical thinking as I noticed in the host of reflection assignments provided by both classes. Reflection and revision are not exactly the same thing, but I think they utilize a lot of the same processes. Both require an evaluation of what happened in order to make some kind of meaningful change or observation. The reflection assignments offered a good opportunity for metacognition that seemed to deepen with every assignment. The first few were a bit awkward, but as I got the hang of it I became a lot better at noticing my actions and thought patterns. I think this kind of exercise is excellent for the student because it offers a glimpse at what they do where they may have not noticed before. I think this can lead to constructive criticism of oneself which can lead to healthy growth in students wishing to break old habitual thought patterns that may be hindering their full potential.

Conclusions

The two University of Alaska Anchorage GER classes I took do have elements of critical thinking embedded in their curriculums. It’s hard to say whether or not the 1 hour 15 minute version of these classes offer the same experience, but these once a week versions seem to be in decent shape. Lectures in both classes did suffer, but the addition of hands on work along with student to student interaction and reflection assignments proved to be valuable assets by showcasing some elements of the critical thinking process as examined through Pearlman and Carillo’s work. Further observation of classes is needed before a complete picture of the critical thinking ecosystem is understood. As a final word I will say that the UAA general education outcome needs to define its use of the term critical thinking. With the rise in demand for critical thinkers in the job market there is some level of obligation the university has to answer those demands, and I think the best place to start would be in defining that term in a way that informs the reader of what that looks like.

References

Careers Readiness Defined ​Retrieved from: https://www.naceweb.org/career-readiness/competencies/career-readiness-defined/

General Education Requirements (GERs) for Baccalaureate Degrees (2019) R​etrieved from: https://catalog.uaa.alaska.edu/undergraduateprograms/baccalaureaterequirements/gers/#ti er1text

NACE Staff (2018). ​EMPLOYERS WANT TO SEE THESE ATTRIBUTES ON STUDENTS’ RESUMES​ Retrieved from: https://www.naceweb.org/talent-acquisition/candidate-selection/employers-want-to-see-t hese-attributes-on-students-resumes/

OECD (2016),​ Skills Matter: Further Results from the Survey of Adult Skills​, OECD Skills Studies, OECD Publishing, Paris

Pearlman, S. J., Carillo, D., & Foundation for Critical Thinking. (2019). The critical thinking initiative: Student handbook (3rd, Fall 2019 ed.). California: Foundation for Critical Thinking

General Education Requirements (GERs) for Baccalaureate Degrees (2019) Retrieved from: https://catalog.uaa.alaska.edu/undergraduateprograms/baccalaureaterequirements/gers/#ti er1text

Appendix A


__________________________________
NICK K. KERLE is a Sophomore pursuing a Baccalaureate degree in English. This piece was selected by Professor Jacqueline Cason.