Analysis of LIS research articles 1997-2007: critical thinking, gender, and education.
Babalhavaeji, Fahimeh ; Ghiasi, Mitra
Introduction
Writing is a process. The beginning of the process will be with
thinking, and what follows will not be obviously separated from
thinking. An article must have components such as analysis, evaluation
of the topic, examination of findings, and inference, conclusions, and
discussion. A group of factors identified as the signs of critical
thinking must also be strongly present in the writing process.
Bean (2001) reviewed writing as a process that intrinsically comes
along with critical thinking. According to Kovalik & Kovalik (2007)
academic writing cannot be separated from critical thinking. Fisher
(2001) discusses how one must interpret or evaluate information
resources. Nosich (2005) and Martinez (2006) interpret reflection,
results, reasoning, and discussions as ways of evaluating resources.
Regarding critical thinking, some researches such as Ennis
(1996-2006), Paul (1990), and Facione (2001) believe that critical
thinking includes skills that can be developed in individuals
(particularly students) by education to produce people of greater
intellect. John Dewey, an educational science theoretician, suggests
that critical thinking is a psychological issue existing intrinsically
in human beings. He believed that "one can think reflectively only
when one is willing to endure suspense and to undergo the trouble of
uncertainty". He viewed this type of thinking as a set of
interconnections and communications and believed that, "Only when
relationships are held in view does learning become more than a
miscellaneous bag" (Dixon, 2005). What is certain is that research
(Ennis, 1979, Huff, 2000-Michita, 2001) indicates that teaching critical
thinking skills can have a positive impact on improving the writing
process, especially student compositions.
The role and importance of critical thinking in writing is clear.
Researchers cannot rely on collecting and offering mere data and
presenting a report based on findings. Being a critical thinker means
looking for hypotheses, searching various perspectives, and analyzing
without prejudice.
Context of Study
Writing as a process has been described by the Writing Center at
the University of North Carolina (2003). First, writers starts planning
to state what they desire to write. Then, they collect and prepare
subjects related to the topic. Next, they record and correct
information. Finally, they record and present the writing for readers.
A process of trial and error helps writers select issues, words,
and expressions to state the problem. The next stage is reconsider the
idea by a rational method and find sensible arguments. The final stage
is the satisfaction that the writer feels when obstacles have been
successfully overcome. A scientific text has to pass through all these
parts of the process. A variety of critical thinking factors have been
listed by experts Facione (2000) says that, "critical thinking,
thinking with judgment, would be reflective and targeted. His suggested
factors are: interpretation, analysis, evaluation, inference,
explanation, and self-regulation.
Paul & Elder (2006) suggest eight points for critical thinking
in a text :
1. Clarify purposes
2. Formulate clear questions
3. Distinguish accurate and relevant information from inaccurate
and irrelevant information
4. Reach logical inferences or conclusions
5. Identify significant and deep concepts
6. Distinguish justifiable from unjustifiable assumptions
7. Trace logical implications
8. Identify and think within multiple viewpoints
A text that complies with these points must be organized in a
standard framework. The organization of scientific articles follows a
framework called IMRAD: "Introduction, Methods, Results,
Discussion." The editors of scientific journals have accepted IMRAD
and use it to validate their publications. This study will review the
manifestation of critical thinking in research articles by Iranian
researchers in library and information science (LIS) from 1997-2007.
Literature Review
The review of research indicates that the critical thinking level
is low (Mckinnon & Renner, 1991-Pikkert & Foster, 1996-Zoller
and et al. 2000) and teaching it can have a positive impact (Ennis,
1979-American National Academic Achievement Assessment Association,
1981; Huff, 2000; Michita, 2001). Huff (2000) shows that both general
and distance education have the same impact on critical thinking. It can
be concluded that one should have greater consideration for critical
thinking in various educational levels and national/international
integrated planning must be done.
The studies on different critical thinking factors indicate that
there is no correlation between learning methods and critical thinking,
but there is correlation between age/gender and critical thinking, as
well as between curriculum type and critical thinking. In some
universities and schools where there are learners from different
countries with English language background, using critical thinking for
necessary subjects is effective (Ennis, 1979; Perkins, 1985; Carrithers,
Ling, and Beam, 2008; Weiler, 2005; Chen, 1996; Whitmire, 1998).
Whitmire (1998) also found that there could be a positive relationship
between scores, educational year, focus on library operations, casual
interactions between professors and students in universities, active
learning, and critical thinking. Chen (1996) observes finds a
relationship between gender and critical thinking and in this field
males performed better than females. Students' critical thinking
may vary because of individual differences and different cultural,
social, and educational opportunities.
Other important points in these studies are as follows:
* A positive relationship between information-seeking behavior and
critical thinking (Weiler, 2005)
* Curriculum justification is more important than critical
thinking/attitude to be chosen by students (Michita, 2001)
* In finance majors, curriculum does not affect students'
critical thinking development (Kayes, Ling, Beam, 2008)
* Group critical thinking has direct impact on critical thinking
development and learning is effective as well (Kayes, 2006)
The studies reviewing the relationship between critical thinking
and literature indicate that group learning affects critical thinking in
literature and improves it (Finlay & Faulkner, 2005). Studies
performed by Scanlan (2006) and Carroll (2004) show that teaching
critical thinking to students has had a positive impact on the learning
process and class compositions. Quitabamo & Kurtz's study
(2007) suggests that group writing significantly improves students'
critical thinking skill.
Purpose, Research Questions, and Hypotheses
The purposes of the study:
* Realize authors' rate of critical thinking factors in
research articles.
* Specify personal data (gender, education) in studied resources.
* Specify authors' use of "analysis" as a critical
thinking factor in the studied articles.
* Specify authors' use of "assessment" as a critical
thinking factor in the studied articles.
* Specify authors' use of "inference" as a critical
thinking factor in the studied articles.
* Specify authors' use of "explanation" as a
critical thinking factor in the studied articles
* Specify authors' use of "self-regulation" as a
critical thinking factor in the studied articles
By referring to the findings of this research, LIS authors may be
able to realize strengths and weaknesses of the literature to improve
writing quality. By using the research findings, editors and peer
reviewers can improve their review of submitted articles. The data may
affect future policy and planning of Journal Assessment Commissions. The
findings could be employed by committees for selecting books, journals,
and other library resources.
Research questions:
1. To what rate have critical thinking factors been used in the
research articles?
2. What is the quantity of critical thinking factors used in
studied articles regarding authors' gender?
3. What is the quantity of critical thinking factors used in
studied articles regarding authors' education?
Research hypotheses:
1. The reviewed articles rate of critical thinking factors is less
than average.
2. There is a significant relationship between gender and the use
of critical thinking factors in the studied articles.
3. There is a significant relationship between education and the
use of critical thinking factors in the studied articles.
Methodology
Statistical population
Statistical population of the study consists of 138 samples out 521
research-compiled articles published in Persian nucleus journals in
library-information science from 1997-2007. The
The journals are:
* Faslnam-e-ketab (Book Quarterly): Library and information studies
* Information science & Technology
* Library & Information science: The Quarterly Journal of
Library Organization, Museums & Documents Center of
Astan-e-Quds-e-Razavi
* Payam-e-Ketabkhaneh (Library Message Quarterly)
* Librarianship (Tehran University)
* Informology
Sampling method is based on systematic stratified random sampling.
Methodology
Content analysis method has been employed for the study. Although
the purpose of the study is to review critical thinking factors in
research literature and this includes searching and finding critical
thinking factors or their signs in purposed articles, the best method to
perform the study is considered content analysis.
Information collecting tools
A checklist based on Facione's critical thinking factors
(1990) and "international reading-writing critical thinking test:
accurate reading and basic writing assessment"(Paul & Elder,
2006) was used. In this inventory, major factors based on Facion's
plan were developed, then auxiliary factors were specified below each
major factor based on international test of Paul & Elder. Major
factors and their auxiliaries are as follows:
* Interpretation: indirect citation (with reference), data setting,
keywords.
* Analysis: purpose, main problem, main question, assumption,
assumption test, view point.
* Assessment: up-to-date resources, similar subject of resources
and text, analogy topic within text, and perspectives without prejudice.
* Inference: inductive, deductive, synthetic paragraph, inference
words, and conclusion.
* Explanation: metaphors, illustrating by using figures, charts,
and graphs.
* Self-regulation: discussion, illustrating.
To assess the factors, a Likert scale was used (very poor = 0, poor
= 1, average = 2, good = 3, excellent = 4).
To specify the research tool validity, LIS professors' views
about the factors and each relevant rate were collected by using Delphi
method.
The tool reliability is assessed by Cronbach's Test with
calculated statistics 73%.
Data Analysis
To describe data, common methods in descriptive statistics such as
frequency, calculating average indices, column/bar/dot charts were used.
Inferential statistics methods include parametric tests: T-test, one
sample T-test, and non-parametric tests: Mann-Whitney U, and
Kruskal-Wallis.
Findings
Research questions
Q1. At what rate do the research articles have regarding critical
thinking factors? Analyzing articles rate by isolating critical thinking
factors
Interpretation has the highest percentage (32.6%) at the poor rate,
and analysis has the highest percentage (60.1%) at the excellent rate.
Assessment, inference, and explanation have 42%, 37.5%, and 34.15% for
the good rate respectively, and none could reach 50%. Self-regulation
has the highest percentage (85.5%) at the poor rate.
Analyzing total rate of the articles based on all critical thinking
factors
As it can be seen, 67 articles have 48.6%, very good rate, the rest
(71 articles) with 51.4% indicate rates between very poor and good.
Q2. What is the quantity of critical thinking factors used in
studied articles regarding authors' gender?
The table shows that the number of male authors (82 = 60.9%) is
more that female ones (54 =39.1 %).
Chart 1. frequency distribution of articles rate regarding critical
thinking factors by isolating them based on gender
The chart shows males' articles excellence at the highest and
lowest rates. In self-regulation, the number of female authors'
articles is at the very good rate.
Q3: What is the quantity of critical thinking factors used in
studied articles regarding authors' education?
The table shows that most and least articles are written in master
and bachelor educational degree with 72.5% and 2.2% respectively.
Chart 2. articles rate frequency regarding critical thinking
factors based on educational degree.
The chart shows that master's degree has the highest and
lowest rates for all factors.
As a result of testing research hypotheses, research findings are
offered as follows:
Research hypothesis
H1. The reviewed articles rate considering critical thinking
factors is less than average.
Null hypothesis : Reviewed articles rate regarding critical
thinking factors with predicted average has no significant difference.
Alternative hypothesis : Reviewed articles rate regarding critical
thinking factors with predicted average has significant difference.
Research hypothesis : Reviewed articles rate regarding critical
thinking factors in research articles is below average.
Hypothesis review based on six critical thinking factors
To review this, the data of one-sample T-test for each factor are
as follows:
The data indicate that P value is statistically significant (-0.05)
for interpretation, analysis, inference, and self-regulation factors.
The null hypothesis is rejected and the alternative hypothesis
confirmed.
The review of empirical and theoretical mean difference for
interpretation, analysis, inference, and self-regulation indicate a
significant difference for both analysis and inference factors. This
suggests that the empirical mean is higher than the theoretical mean;
that is, the articles rate mean would be higher than the predicted mean.
As a result, the research hypothesis could be rejected. The data for
inference and analysis indicate that the empirical mean is lower than
the theoretical mean. Therefore the research hypothesis, that the number
of critical thinking factors used in reviewed literature is below
average, is confirmed.
For evaluation and explanation factors P>0.05 so null and
alternative hypotheses would be confirmed and rejected respectively
showing research hypothesis rejection for these two factors. The review
of empirical and theoretical mean difference indicates that mean usage
of these factors is close to average.
Hypothesis review based on total rate of articles regarding
critical thinking factors
The data of one-sample T-test indicate that the P value is
statistically significant (-0.05). The null hypothesis is rejected and
the alternative hypothesis confirmed. As a result there is a significant
difference between empirical mean and theoretical mean and research
hypothesis, reviewed articles rate regarding critical thinking factors
is below average, would be rejected. In other words the total rate of
articles based on critical thinking factors is above average and nearly
good.
H 2: There is a significant relationship between gender and the
usage of critical thinking factors in the studied articles.
Statistical hypotheses are as follows:
Null hypothesis: There is no significant relationship between
gender and articles rate based on critical thinking factors
Alternative hypothesis: There is a significant relationship between
gender and articles rate based on critical thinking factors
Research hypothesis : It is similar to the alternative hypothesis.
Hypothesis review based on critical thinking factors following data
for each factor are collected by using Mann-Whitney U test
The table values indicate that P value is statistically bigger than
0.05, so the null hypothesis is confirmed. The alternative (research)
hypothesis, a significant relationship between gender and each critical
thinking factor, is rejected. The review of collected means for male and
female authors indicates that there is a slight difference between males
and females' scores mean in articles. The means of all factors for
female authors are higher than males.
Hypothesis review based on total rate of articles regarding
critical thinking factors
Since P<0.05 therefore, the null hypothesis is rejected and the
alternative (research) hypothesis is confirmed. The comparison of
articles rate mean of male and female authors indicates that the average
rate of females' compiled articles is better than males' and
there is a difference between male and female authors in whole
population with 95% assurance.
H 3: There is a significant relationship between education and the
usage of critical thinking factors in the studied articles.
Statistical hypotheses are as follows:
Null hypothesis: There is no significant relationship between
education and articles rate based on critical thinking factors
Alternative hypothesis: There is a significant relationship between
gender and articles rate based on critical thinking factors.
Research hypothesis : It is similar to the alternative hypothesis.
Hypothesis review based on the six critical thinking factors
Kruskal-Wallis test date for each factor is as follows:
Table 11. The relationship between education and articles rate for
each critical thinking factors
Main Factors Kruskal-Wallis P value df Mean
statistic BD MD
Interpretation 1.339 0.720 3 56.17 70.35
Analysis 3.380 0.025 3 73.33 72.55
Evaluation 4/689 0.196 3 71.33 65.68
Inference 0.416 0.937 3 72.83 68.27
Explanation 1.428 0.699 3 47 69.54
Self-Regulation 3.545 0.315 3 50.59 68.41
Main Factors
Ph.D other
Interpretation 70.80 52.70
Analysis 67.60 17.60
Evaluation 77.40 97.40
Inference 72.13 76.30
Explanation 72.85 62.10
Self-Regulation 75.82 50.59
Statistically P>0.05 for each factor except analysis therefore,
which confirms the null hypothesis. There is a significant relationship
between education and articles rate based on critical thinking factors.
The null and alternative hypotheses for analysis factor are
confirmed. The comparision of means for analysis factor shows article
rate reduction in PhD degree.
Hypothesis review based on total rate of articles regarding
critical thinking factors
The data of Kruskal-Wallis test are as follows:
Table 12. The relationship between education and articles rate based on
critical thinking factors in general
Kruskal-Wallis P value df Mean
statistic
BD MD Ph.D Other
4.905 0.179 3 62.83 69.74 75.43 33.10
Since P>0.05, which confirms the null hypothesis. There is no
significant relationship between education and article rate based on
critical thinking factors, and the alternative (research) hypothesis is
rejected.
Conclusion
The research data indicate that analysis as a means of critical
thinking has been frequently used by authors (60.1%, mean = 3.33). The
analysis factor consists of "purpose", "statement of
problem", "main problem", "hypothesis",
"hypothesis test", and "viewpoint". Many experts
(Facione, Paul & Elder, Fisher, Ennic, etc.) consider critical
thinking factors to be skills. Therefore, it will be claimed that the
analysis skill of researchers is favorable, but the data indicate that
85.5% of articles have reached null rate (mean=0.48) that is very poor.
Since this factor consists of "discussion", and
"illustration", LIS researchers slightly benefit from
self-regulation skill and are not able to present appropriate
discussion. Researchers need to focus on discussion to challenge their
work and reconsider data.
Critical thinking factors interpretation, evaluation, and
explanation have the most articles at the third rate (good), but the
average of articles is low. Since the reviewed articles are research
articles, it is important to consider these factors. There is a
difference between the inference factor and the others. This factor has
gained the highest percentage of articles at average rate and the usage
mean (2.23) is slightly more than 2 (average). Therefore, it could be
concluded that by training appropriate writing styles this factor will
be promoted. Most articles have been placed at rate 4 (excellent).
Although the obtained percentage is below average, nearly 50% of
articles are at the high level. In this case the rate mean of works is
2.97 (good). Other studies on critical thinking quality in literature
(high school/university students' assignment) indicate a level that
is below average (Ennis, 1979; Mckinnon & Renner, 1991, Pikkert
& Foster, 1996; Zoller et al., 2000) but the present study shows
that the critical thinking quality in reviewed articles to be above
average.
Male authors have gained the highest and lowest percentage for
using all critical thinking factors and female authors have excelled at
self-regulation, reaching an excellent rate in 10 out of 15 articles. It
is interesting that this factor is considered the weakest. Total rate of
articles for critical thinking factors indicates that gender is a
significant factor; that is, female authors have a higher rate of
critical thinking skills than males, although the number of male authors
is larger. But for each factor by itself, there is no significant
relationship between articles by males and females. Chen (1996) also
found a difference between gender and critical thinking, with males more
successful than females, unlike the conclusion of this study. The
disagreement may depend on cultural or social differences, which require
further research.
The review of the relationship between education and critical
thinking indicates no significant relationship among all factors except
analysis. This factor is gradually reduced from B.S. to PhD educational
degree; that is, articles whose authors have a PhD degree have a lower
mean than those with B.S and M.S. regarding this factor. Although higher
degrees are supposed to increase authors' analytical skill, the
reverse is true in the articles studied.
The review of the articles for the relationship between education
and critical thinking factors indicates that generally there is no
significant relationship between education and critical thinking factors
in the articles. Collected means show the same result. In furthering
one's education, scientific and empirical abilities are developed,
and researchers can use more knowledge to improve scientific products.
The study indicates that instructional programs do not increasingly
employ critical thinking factors. For analysis factor the trend is
moving backwards. Evaluation and inference move up down and up from B.S.
to PhD. Researchers do not use critical thinking factors consciously for
three reasons:
* They may not become acquainted with the factors.
* They are not able to learn and use them properly.
* Although they know that they need to use critical thinking
factors, their knowledge is not practical.
This study also indicates that interpretation, explanation, and
self-regulation show better positions than analysis, evaluation, and
inference. Although mean growth, except for explanation, has not shown a
big difference, mean growth for explanation improved from 47% to 69.54%
(20%).
The quality of critical thinking in the articles analyzed is above
average and nearly good. There is a significant relationship between
gender and use of critical thinking factors in reviewed articles and
female authors have a higher mean than males. There is no significant
relationship between education and usage of critical thinking factors in
reviewed articles.
Recommendations
Considering the data following Recommendations are presented to
improve articles by using critical thinking factors:
1. Start teaching critical thinking skills in primary education and
continue it in higher education.
2. Organize expert teams acquainted with critical thinking and its
supplies to qualify articles for journals.
3. Put authorities' emphasis on using critical thinking
factors rather than article forms. In the other words there must be
consideration for quality of subjects, reasoning, conclusion, etc.
4. Perform similar research of foreign literature and compare its
data with this study or other studies to find appropriate strategies to
improve using critical thinking factors.
5. Perform similar research on literature of other scientific
fields to review other authors' competence of various subjects and
realize their strengths and weaknesses.
References
Bean, J. C. (2001). Engaging ideas: The professor's guide to
integrating writing, critical thinking, and active learning in the
classroom. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Carrithers, D, Ling, T., Bean, J. C. (2008). Messy Problems and Lay
Audiens : Teaching Critical Thinking Whithin The Finance Curriculum.
Bussiness Communication Quarterly, 71(2), 152-170. Retrieved 27, October
2008 from: http://bcc/sagepub.com/cgi/content/71/2/152
Carroll, R. T., Salazar, K. (2004). Critical thinking: In a guide
for the new millennium. (2nd Ed.). Boston: Prtson Custom Publishing.
Chen, Y. S., June. (1996). The study on critical thinking of adult
student. Bulletin of Adult and Continuing Education. 25, 253-272.
Dixon, F., Cassady, J., Cross, T., Williams, D. (2005). Effects of
technology on critical thinking and essay writing among gifted
adolescents. The Journal of Secondary Gifted Education (JSGE), XVI (4),
180-189. Retrieved May 5, 2007, from ERIC database
Ennis, R.H. (1979). A logical basis for measuring critical thinking
skills. Educational Leadership. 43. pp. 44-48
Ennis, R. H. (1996). Critical thinking. Upper Saddle River, NJ:
Prentice Hall.
Ennis, R. H. (2006). An outline of goals for a critical thinking
curriculum and its assessment. CriticalThinking.Net. Retrieved September
21, 2006, from http://www.criticalthinking.net/goals.html
Facione, P. A., Facione, N. C. (2000). The disposition toward
critical thinking: Its character, measurement, and relationship to
critical thinking skill. Informal Logic, 20(1). Pp 61-84. Retrieved
March 12, 2006, from world wide web :
www.insightassessment.com/pdf_files/J_infrml_Ppr%20-%20disp%20&%20skls.pdf
Facione, P. A. (1990). The California critical thinking skills
test: College Level Technical Report #1--Experimental validation and
content validity .California : The California Academic Press. Retrieved
March 12, 2006, from world wide web :
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/downlowd?doi=10,1,1,131,8583.pdf
Finlay, S. J.; Faulkner, G. (2005). Tete a tete: Reading groups and
peer learning. Active learning in Hiereducation, 6(1), 32-45. Retrieved
June 3, 2008 from the World Wide Web :
http://alh.sagepub.com/cgi/content/6/1/32
Fisher, A. (2001). Critical thinking: An introduction. Cambridge,
UK: Cambridge University Press.
Huff. M.T. (2000) .A comparison study of live instructional versus
interactive television for teaching MSW students critical thinking
skills, English. Research on Social Work Practice. 10(4), 400-416
Kayes, D. C. (2006, December). From climbing stairs to riding
waves: Group critical thinking and its development. Small Group
Research, 37 (6). Retrieved June 3, 2008 from the World Wide Web :
http://www.sagepublications.com
Kovalik, D. L., Kovalik, L. M. (2007). Thinking language
simulations: The blending space for writing and critical thinking.
Simulation Gaming. 38(3), 310-322. Retrieved October 28, 2008, from the
world wide web : http://sag.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/38/3/310
Martinez, M. E. (2006). What is metacognition? Phi Delta Kappan,
67, 696-699.
Mckinnon, J.W, Renner, J.W.1991. Are colleges concerned with
intellectual development? American Journal of Psychology, 39-105
Michita, Y. (2001). Critical thinking of university student in
reading non-academic materials, attitude and ability differences in
relation to academic level and major. Journal of Educational Psychology.
1(49), 41-49.
Nosich, G. M. (2005). Learning to think things through: A guide to
critical thinking across the curriculum. (2nd Ed.). Upper Saddle River,
NJ: Prentice Hall.
Paul, R. (1990). Critical Thinking: What every person news to
survive in a changing world (A.J.A. Binker Ed.). Sonoma: Center for
Critical Thinking and Moral Critique Sonoma State University.
Paul, R., Elder, L. (2006). The International Critical Thinking
Reading and Writing Test: How Do Assess Close Reading and Substantive
Writing. Dillon Beach, CA: Foundation for Critical Thinking. Retrieved
December 21, 2007, from world wide web:
www.criticalthinking.org/files/Readandwritingtest2006-DC.pdf
Perkins, D.N. (1985). Post primary education has little impact on
informal reasoning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 77, 562-571.
Pikkert, Joost J. J., Foster, L. (1996) Critical thinking skills
among third year Indonesian English student. RELC Journal, 27(2), 56-64.
Retrieved June 3, 2008 from: http://www.sagepublications.com
Quitadamo, I. J., Kurtz, M. J.(2007) Learning to improve using
writing to increase critical thinking performance in general education
Biolog. CBE--Life Sciences Education, 6(2), 140-154. Retrieved June 3,
2010 from Eric Database.
Scanlan, J. S. (2006)." The effect of Richard Paul's
universal elements and standards of reasoning of twelfth grade
composition". Research Proposal Presented to the Faculty of the
School of Education Allian International University, San Diego.
Retrieved June 1, 2008, from:
http://www.Criticalthinking.org/resources/SScanlan.pdf
Weiler, A. (2005). Information-seeking behavior in generation Y
students: motivation critical thinking, and learning Theory. Journal of
Academic Librarianship, 31(1): 46-53. Abstract Retrieved, 2005, from ISA
Database.
The Writing Center: University of North Carolina. (2003) What is
writing? Retrieved April 18, 2010, from world wide web :
www.unc.edu/depts/wcweb/pdf/writing.pdf
Whitmire, E. (1998). Development of critical thinking skills: an
analysis of academic library experiences and other measures. College and
Research Library, 59(3), 226-273
Zoller, U.B. [et.al] .(2000). The disposition toward critical
thinking of high school and university science Students: an Iter-Inter
Israeli--Italian study. International Journal of Science Education
.22(6), 571-582
This article was extracted from the PhD dissertation of Mitra
Ghiasi (2010) Content analysis of written literature of library and
information science from the view point of critical thinking during
1376-1386=1997-2007, supervised by Dr. Fahimeh Babalhavaeji
Fahimeh Babalhavaeji
Department of Library and Information Science
Science and Research Branch
Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran
Mitra Ghiasi
PhD student of Library and Information Science
Science and Research Branch
Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran
Table 1. Descriptive Statistics for Q1 based on critical thinking
factors
Rate Factors 0 1
N Percent N Percent
Interpretation 45 32.6 42 30.4
Analysis 6 4.3 4 2.9
Evaluation 16 11.6 37 26.8
Inference 21 15.2 10 7.2
Explanation 40 29 22 15.9
Self-Regulation 118 85.5 3 2.2
Total 246 29.7 118 14.2
2 3
N Percent N Percent
Interpretation 27 19.6 15 10.9
Analysis 11 8 34 24.6
Evaluation 27 19.6 58 42
Inference 39 28.3 51 37
Explanation 14 10.1 47 34.1
Self-Regulation 2 1.4 0 0
Total 120 14.5 205 24.8
4 Total
N Percent N Percent
Interpretation 9 6/5 138 100
Analysis 83 60.1 138 100
Evaluation 0 0 138 100
Inference 17 12.3 138 100
Explanation 15 10.9 138 100
Self-Regulation 15 10.9 138 100
Total 139 16.8 828 100
Table 2. Descriptive statistics for Q1 based on critical thinking
factors in general
Rate Frequency 0 1 2 3 4 Total
N 7 12 26 26 67 138
Percent 5.1 8.7 18.8 18.8 48.6 100
Table 3. Distribution of authors' gender
gender N Percent
female 54 39/1
male 84 9/60
Total 138 100
Table 5. Descriptive Statistics for Q3 base on educational degree
educational degree N Percent
B.D. 3 2.2
M.D. 100 72.5
Ph.D 30 21.7
Other 5 3.6
Total 138 100
Table 7. one-sample T-test for each critical thinking factors
Main t df p value Empirical and theoretical
element means difference
Interpretation 6.941- 137 000 0.71739-
Analysis 15.036 137 000 1.3333
Evaluation 0.872- 137 0.385 0.07971-
Inference 2.296 137 0.023 0.23931
Explanation 1.477- 137 0.142 0.18116
Self-Regulation 14.089 137 000 1.51449-
Main Empirical mean Std. Deviation
element
Interpretation 1.2829 1.21421
Analysis 3.333 1.04171
Evaluation 1.9203 1.07433
Inference 2.2391 1.22358
Explanation 1.8188 1.44098
Self-Regulation 0.4855 1.26281
Table 8. one-sample T-test for total rate of articles
t df P-value Empirical Empirical Std.
and theoretical mean Deviation
means
difference
9.350 137 000 0.971 2.97 1.220
Table 9. The relationship between gender and articles rate based on
critical thinking factors.
Main element Mann- Z P value Mean
Whitney U
Females Meals
Interpretation 2267 0.004- 0.996 69.52 69.43
Analysis 1926.5 1.512- 0.130 75.82 65.43
Evaluation 1888 1.687- 0.096 74.54 64.98
Inference 2110 0/712- 0.477 72.43 67/62
Explanation 2161 0.483- 0.629 71.48 68.23
Self-Regulation 1023.5 1.681- 0.093 73/86 66.70
Table 10. The relationship between gender and articles rate based on
critical thinking factors in general
Mann-Whitney U Z P value Mean
female male
1685.5 2.545- 0.011 80.29 62.57
