Cultivating Critical-Thinking Dispositions Throughout the Business Curriculum

Abstract

Critical thinking is an essential component of managerial literacy, yet business school graduates struggle to apply critical-thinking skills at work to the level that employers desire. This article argues for a dispositional approach to teaching critical thinking, rooted in cultivating a critical-thinking culture. We suggest a two-pronged approach of (a) clearly defining critical thinking and selecting an accessible model for applying it and (b) integrating critical thinking consistently throughout the business curriculum. We illustrate implementation of this strategy in our revised MBA curriculum and conclude by challenging others to consider adopting a cultural and dispositional approach.

Keywords

critical thinking disposition management communication managerial literacy MBA programs transfer

Introduction

Critical thinking is essential in business today, but too many business school graduates lack sufficient ability to apply it adequately in the workplace. Employers are explicitly calling for critical-thinking skills from current and prospective employees. When we entered “critical-thinking skills” into the job search website CareerBuilder, more than 3,000 job ads arose. Many of these ads accompanied their call for critical thinking with words like “strong” or “excellent.” Yet, approximately half of the over 700 managers responding to theAmerican Management Association’s 2012Critical Skills Survey rated their employees’ critical-thinking skills as average or below (American Management Association, 2012). Additionally, a recent national survey of business and nonprofit leaders in the United States revealed that more than 75% of those surveyed said they want more emphasis in education on critical thinking, complex problem solving, and written and oral communication (Hart Research Associates, 2013).

Business schools have long recognized the importance of teaching critical thinking.Forman (1999)identified critical thinking as a key element of “managerial literacy,” which involves not only possessing strong oral and written communication competencies but also—and more important—being adept at applying them in a rhetorically sensitive way to various situations and discourse communities, using ever-changing technologies effectively, wisely, and strategically. Critical thinking has long been mentioned as a goal of assignments in business and managerial communication courses (e.g.,Dyrud & Worley, 1998;Hill, Hynes, Joyce, & Green, 2011;Muir, 1996) and in other business courses as well, at both the graduate and undergraduate levels (Carrithers, Ling, & Bean, 2008;Meisel & Fearon, 2006;Paulson, 2011;Sharifi, McCombs, Fraser, & McCabe, 2009). Furthermore, many business schools currently promote critical thinking as a key outcome and selling point for their programs. Despite these intentions, given employers’ continued call for improved critical-thinking skills, there is still a need for students to more effectively develop critical-thinking skills that they can not only apply in the classroom but also take with them and use in the workplace as well.

Thus, the question of how best to prepare business students to capably apply critical-thinking skills after they graduate remains open. The problem is not that critical thinking is unteachable—others have demonstrated that it can be taught (Reid & Anderson, 2012). Instead, we argue here that the problem with teaching critical thinking in business schools rests inhowit is taught.

In this article, we draw on theories of critical thinking and dispositions toward it (e.g.,Siegel, 1988;Wilson, 2003) to argue that the objective of teaching critical thinking in a business curriculum should be framed as a task of creating critical-thinking dispositions in students, rather than as a skills-development task. Dispositions, in contrast to skills or abilities, reflect deep internalization of critical-thinking habits and shape an individual’s general orientation to thinking. A dispositional approach to thinking implies a more robust and ingrained orientation to it, such that individuals will be more likely to apply critical thinking across different domains and situations. Based on work byTishman, Perkins, and Jay (1995), we explain how critical-thinking dispositions emerge from cultures of critical thinking, developed and reinforced throughout a curriculum. We then extend this work by advancing two curriculum design tenets as essential to developing such a culture: first, clearly defining critical thinking for the curriculum, including selecting a model to reflect the definition; and second, providing consistent practice in applying the definition and model across the whole curriculum.

We discuss how both clear definitions and models of critical thinking as well as consistent practice instill and reinforce a critical-thinking culture, and we go on to contribute concrete examples from our own newly revised graduate business curriculum as illustrations of how schools can implement these ideas. We include specific descriptions of classroom activities and assignments along with related feedback from students on their experience of our new culture. We conclude with a discussion of how this article extends thinking and practice around teaching critical thinking and opens doors for additional research in this area.

Critical-Thinking Dispositions

The ability to analyze and formulate good arguments is foundational to effective communication, both written and oral. Writing well involves thinking critically, so writing and critical thinking are inextricably linked (Carter, 2007). Critical thinkers use analytical skills to assimilate and evaluate information they receive from others, and they use critical thinking to formulate and advance their response. One effective means for teaching this complex set of abilities lies in helping students develop a disposition toward critical thinking.

A critical-thinking disposition consists of a general orientation focused on deep internalization of critical-thinking habits (Nickerson, 2011). It reflects one’s frame of mind or spirit toward critical thinking (Wilson, 2003), including an inclination, sensitivity, and ability toward it (Perkins, Jay, & Tishman, 1993), as well as general orientations toward objectivity, intellectual honesty, impartiality, use of principle, and curiosity (Siegel, 1988).Tishman, Jay, and Perkins (1993)called thinking dispositions “ongoing tendencies that guide intellectual behavior” (p. 148). Measures of critical-thinking dispositions assess inquisitiveness, open-mindedness, systematicity, analyticity, truth seeking, critical thinking, self-confidence, and maturity (Wilson, 2003). A disposition toward critical thinking stands in contrast to simple ability. Ability reflects the extent to which one can complete associated tasks, whereas a disposition toward critical thinking indicates a greater inclination to use critical-thinking skills across various situations (Wilson, 2003). The disposition is thus more useful than simply possessing an ability to think critically.

This emphasis on deep internalization raises the question of how business schools can instill dispositions toward critical thinking in their students. Critical-thinking dispositions emerge from cultures of critical thinking (Tishman et al., 1995;Wilson, 2003). Thus, teaching critical thinking in a manner that students will retain and apply their skills involves creating a critical-thinking culture that cultivates and supports critical-thinking dispositions. Critical-thinking cultures provide opportunities for students to explore and grow in their thinking skills by welcoming examination of different viewpoints, perspectives, and options. Such cultures also celebrate a critical-thinking spirit, incorporating emotional factors in addition to cognitive ones (Wilson, 2003). Activities and processes within a critical-thinking culture model critical thinking and nurture positive attitudes toward it (Wilson, 2003).Tishman et al. (1995)specified that a critical-thinking culture in a classroom is rooted in (a) incorporation of exemplary thinking models, (b) interaction among students, and (c) direct instruction of concepts and skills. To bring these three principles to life, we offer here two essential steps toward creating a culture of critical thinking: first, clearly defining what critical thinking entails; and second, consistently practicing critical thinking throughout the business curriculum.

A Critical-Thinking Culture in Our MBA Program

Like many other institutions, our college of business, which once offered a separate communication course for MBA students, recently revised its MBA curriculum to move toward a more integrated approach, supplanting discipline-based courses with semester-long, transdisciplinary modules developed around business managers’ greatest demands, such as managing for the future, global environments, and strategy and structure development. During this redesign process, our MBA redesign committee and faculty committed to prioritize critical thinking as one of the key learning outcomes for our students, and we applied ourselves to cultivating our own culture of critical thinking within the new program.

Clearly Defining Critical Thinking

In the two-part framework for developing a critical-thinking culture in a business curriculum that we discuss in this article, the first part is clearly defining critical thinking and selecting an accessible and memorable model to represent it. A clear definition of any subject being taught is essential to student learning and progress. However, while many topics taught in school benefit from a consensually held definition, critical thinking is a concept with many varied definitions and representations in models. Thus, it is particularly important when establishing a culture around critical thinking that the curriculum operates within a clear, well-bounded definition of what does (and does not) constitute critical thinking. Settling on and advancing a clear definition and model of critical thinking is consistent with the explicit call fromTishman et al. (1995)for exemplary models of critical thinking as an essential element of a critical-thinking culture. Clear boundaries around what is included in critical thinking also serve as a basis for assessment within the classroom and for AACSB Assurance of Learning purposes.

While we argue the need for selecting and focusing on a single model of critical thinking throughout a business curriculum, we also advocate enabling students to recognize the key elements of critical thinking across different representations. Students ultimately need to be able to recognize and embrace critical thinking in their workplaces, even when it appears in a different form than the one they learned in school, as it undoubtedly will. Different workplaces offer different presentations of what it means to think critically. For example, students employed at Toyota, which uses a system called “A3 thinking” as the basis for its Plan-Do-Check-Act decision-making process (Sobeck & Smalley, 2008) must be able to apply what they learn in class about critical thinking to their workplace. Focusing in school on a single, clear definition and model of critical thinking gives students the opportunity to deeply internalize its essential elements and thus increases the likelihood that they can recognize and translate these elements into the different representations they encounter outside of school.

To determine the best definition of critical thinking for our revised MBA program, our redesign committee of faculty and MBA administrators learned as much as we could about how critical thinking is defined by others and how it is being taught. The committee found that many varied definitions and models have been developed to assist students and others in knowing what critical thinking entails. These definitions and models span from identifying specific aspects of evaluating arguments to outlining the entire cognitive process from idea generation to decision implementation. A survey of this literature reinforced our perceived need for the whole program to focus on a single definition and model in order to present a common perspective in terms of what constitutes critical thinking and to provide both faculty and students a useful frame of reference for growth and practice.

A more abstract conception of critical thinking, particularly in the business curriculum, regards it as the results-oriented thinking done by professionals rather than the knowledge-absorbing thinking that is often the focus of students. For example,Carrithers and Bean (2008)described their department’s effort to evaluate the critical-thinking skills of finance majors by holistically scoring written memos based on the degree to which the students displayed “thinking like a finance professional” (p. 16). But what does this type of thinking entail, specifically?

The common elements across critical-thinking definitions were generally closely connected to various aspects ofBloom’s (1956)taxonomy of learning, which included knowledge, comprehension, application, analysis, synthesis, and evaluation (Braun, 2004;Page & Mukherjee, 2007). For example,Browne and Keeley (2012)identified critical thinking by distinguishing between the “sponge” approach, where information is simply soaked in (focusing on the first three elements of Bloom’s taxonomy), and the critically oriented “panning for gold” (p. 3) approach that asks questions and evaluates the answers, thus including the last three elements of Bloom’s taxonomy.

Approaches to defining critical thinking have ranged from advancing a question-asking approach (e.g.,Browne & Keeley, 2012) to identifying the behaviors of a critical thinker (e.g.,Chartrand, Emery, Hall, Ishikawa, & Maketa, 2012;Nickerson, 2011;Paul & Elder, 2012) to Socratic dialog and logic (Epstein, 2013;Schwarze & Lape, 2011;Vaughn, 2012). Given this broad and divergent array of existing definitions and models of critical thinking, the task of narrowing to a single definition and accessible model that represents it can be daunting. Still, curriculum designers and, we believe, program facultymustreach consensus on a single approach to successfully develop and maintain a critical-thinking culture. We argue here that the exact definition and model selected is less important than the fact that those designing and implementing the curriculum agree on the definition and model. Successfully developing a culture of critical thinking is less dependent on the specific definition and model selected than on clearly codifying a definition and having an accessible, memorable model for it. The most important goal of having a clear definition and an accessible model representing that definition is to help students understand and apply the core elements that underlie critical thinking.

Our MBA faculty’s redesign efforts around critical thinking began by narrowing down the wide variety of ways to conceptualize critical thinking. To do so, the committee defined, for the new program, specific learning outcomes related to “critical thinking.” Based on the various definitions offered in the literature and on the faculty’s own experience, our redesign committee of faculty and MBA administration honed in on the following learning objectives for our students regarding critical thinking and decided that our students needed to be able to

Conduct a root cause analysis, differentiating symptoms of a problem from the driving factors behind those symptoms

Recognize and evaluate assumptions in their own and others’ thinking

Generate creative and evidence-based alternatives in their decision processes

Minimize cognitive biases in their thinking and decision making

Construct and assert a cogent argument

Clearly communicate their ideas in written and oral form

Embrace curiosity as a mindset

Choosing a Model

In addition to a definition that fits these learning outcomes, the faculty of the MBA redesign committee wanted a model that would (a) fit the selected definition of critical thinking; (b) be easily memorable, thus increasing the likelihood of student use and application beyond the classroom; and (c) be general enough to allow individual faculty members to add, emphasize, and tailor aspects of the model according to their own styles and priorities (i.e., we wanted sufficient, but not too much, detail). The committee thus selected from among those that defined critical thinking in terms of specific behaviors (e.g.,Nickerson, 2011;Paul & Elder, 2012).

Our committee decided on the RED model, as outlined in the bookNow You’re Thinking! Change Your Thinking . . . Transform Your Life(Chartrand et al., 2012). The model is based on three simple steps, which form the acronym RED: (a) Recognize assumptions, (b) Evaluate arguments, and (c) Draw conclusions. As bookends around these three steps, the model includes a preliminary consideration called “Stop and Think,” calling readers to be mindful and deliberate in their orientation to decision making and also a final phase in the thinking process called “Plan of Action,” which relates to decision implementation.Chartrand et al. (2012)accompanied this model with an easily accessible definition of “critical thinking” focusing on the higher levels ofBloom’s (1956)taxonomy (analysis, synthesis, evaluation), in a way with which we believed MBA students could easily connect in their roles as self-reflective managers and leaders.

[Critical thinking] means you want to understand more fully all the aspects and perspectives of people or ideas, not so you can judge or find fault but rather so you can evaluate more clearly and see the big picture and assess the value in something . . .critical thinking is all about you taking charge of your own thinking and owning your life. [emphasis in original] (pp. 96-97)

Our committee decided that this model and definition met the predetermined criteria well because both focused on the aspects of the thinking process that we believed were the most important. The definition and model were memorable and accessible to our students, and they left plenty of room for individual faculty to bring their own thinking exercises and tools into the way they taught it. This ease of adaptation was especially important in enabling individual faculty to commit to the collective use of the model.

Introducing the Model to Students

Our MBA faculty’s first step in introducing this model to students was to assess students on their critical thinking according to this approach. At the start of the first semester of our redesigned program, as part of introducing the concept of critical thinking and its use in the new MBA curriculum, students completed formal assessments of their critical-thinking skills (Pearson Education, n.d.) and their naturally favored thinking styles (Chartrand, 2010). The critical-thinking appraisal gave feedback to students on their strengths and opportunities for development on the aspects of the RED model (Chartrand et al., 2012). Our faculty offered this appraisal to help students internalize and personalize their own efforts at critical thinking and as a baseline for assessing their progress on critical thinking throughout the program. The thinking styles report complements the selected critical-thinking model and ranks seven different thinking styles (e.g., inquisitive, systematic) for each participant. This assessment gave students further insight into their own cognitive orientation and its value in problem solving and decision-making pursuits. An analysis of their thinking styles reports was the students’ first assigned writing project for the semester.

The formal thinking assessments also provided an opportunity for students to learn about and refine their thinking with each other. The faculty used the thinking styles reports to configure the students into learning teams for their first year in the program. The teams were assembled to maximize diversity of thinking styles. In these teams, students had the opportunity to learn the thinking styles of their teammates in class, helping them find complementary “thinkers” and leverage thinking strengths across their teams. Students conducted many activities in their learning teams, from small, in-class experiential exercises to year-long projects with real-life organizations. The responsibility for shared critical thinking and learning to both offer and accept constructive challenges to existing assumptions and patterns of thought helped reinforce the culture of critical thinking in our program. Overall, these formal assessments made critical thinking personal for the students and gave them concrete frameworks to use in planning their own development. In end-of-semester course evaluations, comments such as the following indicated that students found value in these activities: “The self-assessments helped me better understand myself and my interactions with others.”

Identification, presentation, and student appraisal, according to our definition and model, were key initial steps toward establishing a culture of critical thinking within our MBA program (Tishman et al., 1995). At the same time, our faculty worked to design a curriculum that deliberately integrated critical thinking throughout by providing consistent practice.

Consistently Practicing Critical Thinking

The second curriculum design tenet that we recommend to cultivate a critical-thinking culture is developing strategies that support consistent practice. Instilling and reinforcing a culture of critical thinking in a business program requires direct and consistent emphasis on it, along with both student-student and teacher-student interactions around it (Tishman et al., 1993). As our committee redesigned the MBA curriculum, we looked for ways to best support consistent practice and came to an agreement that fully integrating critical thinking into the curriculum was an essential step. So again, we looked to the literature and at other MBA programs and found that, like definitions of critical thinking, approaches to integration vary significantly.

Many schools assert that they integrate critical thinking into their business curricula. In our review of specific programs, we found that what “integration” is and how it occurs vary a great deal. One approach is to have separate courses dedicated to critical thinking or to include critical thinking as an element in management communication courses—see, for example, Stanford’s CAT (Critical Analytical Thinking) seminar and Washington University’s CTIC (Critical Thinking and Impactful Communication) program (Stanford Graduate School of Business, 2013;Washington University in St. Louis Olin Business School, 2013). One drawback to the separate course approach is that students will often fail to apply critical thinking outside of that course.Antonacopoulou (2010), for example, described how a weekend-based critical-thinking workshop at her university led to some dissatisfaction among students. She observed the need to “join forces” with other faculty, so that they could reinforce these concepts across multiple courses (p. S21). In addition to the “dedicated course” approach, we also found integration represented by teaching principles of critical thinking in courses on other topics, such as negotiations (Page & Mukherjee, 2007), accounting (Sharifi et al., 2009;Tan, Satin, & Lubwama, 2013), and marketing (Hershey & Walker, 2006). Such approaches, while effective in their own right, can be ad hoc and nonunified, which lessens their impact.Smith (2003)observed that “efforts to promote critical thinking in business schools . . . are often wanting in depth and substance” (p. 47) and called for more across-the-board integration of critical thinking to address this.

Smith’s (2003)perspective has been reinforced by those who argue in support of “deliberate practice” (Ericsson, Krampe, & Tesch-Römer, 1993).Ericcson et al. (1993)studied the idea of “deliberate practice” in developing expertise. They found that what they call deliberate practice is more important to becoming an expert than having innate skill. Deliberate practice “entails considerable, specific, and sustained efforts to do something youcan’tdo well—or even at all” (Ericsson, Prietula, & Cokely, 2007, p. 118). This work implies that simply repeating application of the concept is insufficient for fully instilling dispositional internalization. Rather, a culture of critical thinking entails monitoring progress and identifying areas of weakness such that students spend their time focusing on the aspects of critical thinking that are most challenging to them. Such weaknesses can become apparent when students apply a complete critical-thinking model (e.g., the student is very good at generating creative alternatives but has a difficult time recognizing assumptions), or they can emerge from difficulty translating the concept across domains (e.g., the student thinks critically in strategy contexts but is less successful applying it to operations, logistics, or finance). Deliberate practice in support of a critical-thinking culture requires continual and varied application of critical thinking in multiple different contexts, which in and of itself enhances critical-thinking dispositions (Chabrak & Craig, 2013).

Thus, for our school’s program, fully integrating critical thinkingacrossthe curriculum was the best means to achieve consistent deliberate practice and to support a culture of critical thinking. This integration required our faculty to anchor to the same definition and model of critical thinking in all modules throughout the curriculum and to provide practice in critical thinking every semester. The committee recognized that this would not be easy. When business faculty are asked to integrate critical thinking, writing, or other elements of managerial literacy into their courses, one problem is that the time and effort needed to do so often get pushed aside by what is perceived to be more direct discipline-based instruction (e.g.,Cyphert, 2002). One important advantage of integrating critical thinking into a curriculum at the cultural level is that it emphasizes that critical thinking and other aspects of managerial literacy are actually inherent in the disciplines, rather than separate from them.

Integrating the Model Into the Curriculum

With intentional and consistent application of our critical-thinking definition and model as the cornerstones of the curriculum redesign, the faculty in the new MBA program at our university went about truly integrating critical thinking into their classes in various ways, including lectures, assignments, exams, and group projects, as illustrated later in this article. How the definition and model are presented makes a difference. Instructors should not just passively transmit a clear definition but should actively embody it, using the designated model throughout classroom interaction to bring it to life for students. Therefore, the MBA faculty at our school pledged to use the RED model in all the modules that comprised our new program, consistent with calls for explicit teaching of the subject to develop a culture of critical thinking (Tishman et al., 1995). In addition to applying the RED model throughout the curriculum, the faculty’s approach within each semester’s learning module was to integrate critical thinking into classroom practices and assignments using many different methods.

Furthermore, the faculty designed assignments and classroom activities to provide opportunities for consistent, deliberate practice, using the RED model. They did this within semesters with, for example, one semester focused on learning concepts around planning, strategy, and analysis and then applying them to develop business plans for a local nonprofit organization. They also did this across semesters, as when student teams each carried their own project for a locally headquartered multi-billion dollar organization from the first semester (on managing people and the organizational context) through the second semester (on financial analysis and accounting) to the third semester (on the legal, regulatory, ethical, and organizational structural environments that bound management activities), wherein they presented their findings to executives in the organization.

With a strong commitment to integrating critical thinking throughout the curriculum, the faculty also acknowledged that the first semester would set the tone and base practices that would be reinforced throughout the program. They knew that the way the program introduced and wove critical thinking throughout the activities of the first semester would be the key to establishing a culture of critical thinking. They therefore paid careful attention to how, when, and with what frequency they invoked and practiced critical thinking throughout that semester. Below, we illustrate those efforts with descriptions of the specific learning exercises offered in the first semester of our redesigned MBA program, wherein the RED model and the associated definition as presented inChartrand et al. (2012)were introduced and applied. We also offer comments from students’ end-of-semester course evaluations, which provide insight into how our efforts to develop this culture affected students’ experiences with critical thinking and their orientations toward it.

In terms of content knowledge, because transdisciplinarity was a key objective of our redesigned program, the first semester focused on behavioral, cultural, structural, and financial aspects of managing people. Some of the activities designed to emphasize critical thinking in this semester are outlined below.

Reflection Papers

Reflection on personal experience has been shown to advance learning and to develop better thinking skills (Daudelin, 1996;Marsick, 1990). The faculty assigned six different short papers that had the same general assignment: Students were to reflect on a topic covered in class in order to critically analyze how the topic applied in their own life and to extract specific lessons or design developmental steps for their own use on the topic. Student comments on end-of-semester course evaluations indicated that these reflection papers were indeed helpful in getting them to think more critically beyond just course topics.

The assignments (reflection papers) were personal—targeted towards me specifically. I learned a lot of new insights about myself.

Reflection papers were really good for internalizing the concepts and objectives of the course.

I got a lot more out of each assignment when I applied the subject matter to my life and career.

The instructor helped me to start thinking in more detail about myself and tie various concepts from class to my functioning at work (or just in life in general). I started not only explaining what I do and how I do it, but why I do it.

Recognition of Common Cognitive Biases

Part of recognizing critical thinking across different domains involves awareness of tendencies in thinking that can interfere with desired thinking. Thus, some class time in the first semester was dedicated to discussing common cognitive biases that pervade individual- and group-level thinking and decision making (e.g.,Bazerman & Moore, 2008;Janis, 1982;Tversky & Kahneman, 1974) as well as common perceptual biases (e.g.,Merton, 1948;Ross, 1977). In all cases, to support our culture of critical thinking, students experienced the biases through experiential activities, reviewed the basic research behind the biases, and discussed methods for minimizing the role of these biases in thinking and decision making going forward.

Case Analyses

Case analysis—or applying problem-solving strategies to narratives about specific business cases—has a longstanding tradition in business curricula. Previous scholars have linked case pedagogy to the development of enhanced decision-making and critical-thinking skills (Clow & Wachter, 1996;Corey, 1996,1998;Crespy, Rosenthal, & Stearns, 1999). Business cases were often the basis for class discussions, applying a Socratic method of posing questions to students rather than providing answers, thus necessitating their use of critical-thinking skills in formulating responses to move the collective analysis forward. As students engaged in discussion of these cases, our culture of critical thinking was reinforced through student-student interaction as well as student-teacher interaction (Tishman et al., 1995). The following comments reflect students’ perceptions of the case analyses. Note that the first comment below references both critical thinking and deliberate practice, the next two reflect how critical thinking affected learning and understanding, and the final two reflect the value of student-student interaction.

Exposing us to the case study and general critical-thinking approaches early and often has been a great thing.

[The instructor] often challenged us to think outside the box. [The instructor] taught us new ways of thinking and new perspectives. This greatly increased my learning capacity in this class.

Pushed for deep thinking versus surface analysis.

The classroom was a safe place to express ideas and learn from one another.

LOVED in-class discussion, forced me to come prepared and challenge myself, plus learned lots from my peers.

Real-Life Problem Solving

The faculty did not limit students’ application of critical-thinking skills on business cases to narratives that were written for teaching purposes. Over the semester, students did two different analyses of “real life” cases—current situations in existing organizations—to further employ their critical-thinking skills. The first project was to analyze employee motivation in the employing organization of one of their team members. For the second project, students were tasked with either defining the problem for a multi-semester case from an outside organization or with analyzing an employer from among their team members. In all of these cases, students used critical-thinking skills around root cause analysis, identifying and testing assumptions, applying theoretical frameworks, and constructing a cogent argument to present their analyses and findings. Below are some comments from the course evaluations that reflect how this problem solving was valuable not only in the classroom but also in students’ lives outside of school.

[The instructor] constantly tried to get the class to broaden their thinking and ability to analyze situations.

I have learned so much in this course that I find myself stumbling over multiple options when faced with applicable real world problems! I learned too much!

I have learned a great deal in this course, both in the specific content (models, negotiation, etc.), but even more importantly in how to think about business situations and problems.

[The instructor] let us work out scenarios to grasp the concepts studied in class.

Exam Questions on Critical Thinking

To reinforce conceptual understanding and to diagnose opportunities for deliberate practice in weak areas, faculty included short answer questions about the RED model of critical thinking on both the midterm and final exams for the course. Basic comprehension questions were asked such as the following: “What are the three key elements of the RED model of critical thinking?” Additionally, more applied questions were asked, such as, “What is your thinking style, and how does it affect your critical thinking?” These assessments provided useful feedback for students and instructors, and they reiterated to students the value that our institution placed on maintaining a critical-thinking culture. The responses to these exam questions were encouraging in that all of the students asked to recall and define the RED model were able to do so.

In addition to exercises designed to practice critical thinking, in order to reinforce it as both a cultural value and a critical basis for learning in the program, critical thinking was a specific and explicit line item in the grading rubrics for all written assignments and presentations in this module. Descriptions of what critical thinking entailed varied with the assignment but always included appropriate or inappropriate application of the RED model.

In quantitative assessments of the course at the end of the semester for the two different times it was taught, students further illustrated their experience of the critical-thinking culture. Average ratings across both instantiations of the first semester of the extent to which “the instructor created an atmosphere favorable to learning” were 4.94 on an agreement scale of 1 to 5 (n= 35). And ratings from the same group on the same 1 to 5 scale of the extent to which “the instructor encouraged me to broaden my thinking about the course content” also averaged 4.94.

Discussion

Existing research on critical-thinking dispositions provides a compelling framework for instilling critical-thinking capabilities in students that they can apply not just in school but in the workplace as well. Extending this research on critical-thinking dispositions, we have argued here that the demand for better critical thinking in business programs can be met programmatically, with a clear definition and model of critical thinking along with consistent opportunities to practice critical thinking throughout the curriculum. The strategic aim of this two-pronged approach rests in instilling critical-thinking dispositions in students by cultivating a critical-thinking culture throughout the business program.

In this article, we have explained how we have extended and applied the previous work on critical-thinking cultures and dispositions by arguing for a programmatic approach in business school curricula and offering specific examples of how our MBA faculty applied this in our school’s new MBA program. Building on the work of others who have recommended similar unified approaches (e.g.,Smith, 2003), we take a tactical perspective here to ground arguments for integration of critical thinking in specific aspects of the curriculum, and we provide examples of activities for doing so. Furthermore, we show why this approach is superior to existing practices that include dedicated, stand-alone courses or diversified faculty approaches to critical thinking within a curriculum.

We recognize that the approach we advocate here is not easy. It requires significant time and commitment from faculty.Page and Mukherjee (2007)discussed the significant dedication of time, both in instructor preparation and in class instruction, required to teach critical thinking successfully. Furthermore, many faculty members are more comfortable teaching in their discipline area of expertise and/or they may feel the content area is more important than critical-thinking skills. But separating content from thinking may be a false dichotomy because critical thinking is inherently intertwined with content. Critical thinkers better internalize content and have more resources available to recall and apply discipline-based content across different domains. The comments from the end-of-semester evaluations cited above indicate that students feel better prepared to do just that.

Implications and Future Research

The current trend in business curriculum improvement is toward cross-disciplinary and multidisciplinary integration (Athavale, Davis, & Myring, 2008;Moodie & Roebuck, 2013). One implication of future business programs crossing traditional disciplinary boundaries more frequently is that students will be called on to transfer learning across disciplines with agility. Critical thinking plays a key role here. Design principles such as the ones recommended here may be students’ best hope for capitalizing on what the newest and best curricular offerings have in store for them. Employers may see even greater benefit in their workplaces if students are taught well how to transfer thinking ability across different domains in school.

In addition to helping students cross disciplinary boundaries in their assimilation of curriculum content, critical thinking is also foundational to learning discipline-based material. Just as “learning to write” and “writing to learn” have often been mentioned as key elements of “writing across the curriculum” and “writing in the disciplines” (Carter, Ferzli, & Wiebe, 2007), students not only need to learn to think but also need to think to learn. Helping students develop a disposition for critical thinking will aid internalization of discipline-based content as well.

Finally, the general approach to teaching critical thinking that we offer here is not specific to MBA programs. It could be implemented in other business curricula or across other disciplines.

Our intent in this article is to advance a conversation about teaching critical thinking but not to have the last word. This article opens the door to a number of extensions through future research. For example, future studies could explore ways to more directly assess critical thinking for AACSB Assurance of Learning purposes, asMay, Thompson, and Hebblethwaite (2012)described for assessing writing. Additionally, a completely empirical exploration of the strategies advanced here would be useful. Because we are in the early stages of our own program, and our program is small, such an examination at our school is premature. However, a rigorous test of these strategies in another context would advance the conversation even further.

Conclusion

We argue here that the key to teaching critical thinking is in approaching the development of critical-thinking skills—and perhaps other aspects of managerial literacy as well—as a change in disposition rather than as teaching a specific skill. A culture of critical thinking, which supports developing such dispositions, can emerge from clarifying the definition of critical thinking along with choosing a memorable and accessible model for applying it and then integrating a single approach to critical thinking throughout the entire curriculum. Critical thinking is talked about often. Schools and employers alike stress its importance in today’s workplaces. We call for business faculty to give commensurate thought to what it means to teach this important ability. While we continue to hone our own efforts to do so at our school, our hope is that others will undertake similar approaches to including critical thinking as a part of managerial literacy.

Footnotes

Authors’ Note

This study was considered exempt from review by the Institutional Review Board of Northern Kentucky University.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Author Biographies

Janel Blochis an associate professor in the Department of English at Northern Kentucky University and also works with the MBA program in the Haile/US Bank College of Business. She teaches undergraduate and graduate courses in business and professional communication and conducts research in workplace communication and business/professional communication pedagogy.

Sandra E. Spatarois an associate professor in the Department of Management at Northern Kentucky University. She teaches undergraduate, graduate, and executive courses in organizational behavior and leadership in the Haile/US Bank College of Business and conducts research on status and power in organizations and on organizational behavior pedagogy.

References

American Management Association. (2012).Executive summary: AMA 2012 Critical Skills Survey. Retrieved fromhttp://www.amanet.org/uploaded/2012-Critical-Skills-Survey.pdf

Antonacopoulou

E. P.

(2010).Making the business school more “critical”: Reflexive critique based on phronesis as a foundation for impact.British Journal of Management,21,S6-S25. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8551.2009.00679.x

Athavale

Davis

Myring

(2008).The integrated business curriculum: An examination of perceptions and practices.Journal of Education for Business,83,295-301. doi:10.3200/JOEB.83.5.295-301

Bazerman

M. H.

Moore

D. A.

(2013).Judgment in managerial decision making(8th ed.).Hoboken, NJ:Wiley.

Bloom

B. S.

(1956).Taxonomy of educational objectives.New York, NY:Longmans, Green.

Braun

N. M.

(2004).Critical thinking in the business curriculum.Journal of Education for Business,79,232-236.

Browne

M. N.

Keeley

S. M.

(2012).Asking the right questions: A guide to critical thinking(10th ed.).Upper Saddle River, NJ:Pearson.

Carrithers

Bean

J. C.

(2008).Using a client memo to assess critical thinking of finance majors.Business Communication Quarterly,71,10-26. doi:10.1177/1080569907312859

Carrithers

Ling

Bean

J. C.

(2008).Messy problems and lay audiences: Teaching critical thinking within the finance curriculum.Business Communication Quarterly,71,152-170. doi:10.1177/1080569908318202

10.

Carter

(2007).Ways of knowing, doing, and writing in the disciplines.College Composition and Communication,58,385-418.

11.

Carter

Ferzli

Wiebe

E. N.

(2007).Writing to learn by learning to write in the disciplines.Journal of Business and Technical Communication,21,278-302. doi:10.1177/1050651907300468

12.

Chabrak

Craig

(2013).Student imaginings, cognitive dissonance and critical thinking.Critical Perspectives on Accounting,24,91-104. doi:10.1016/j.cpa/2011.07.008

13.

Chartrand

(2010).My thinking styles: Development report[Measurement instrument].San Antonio, TX:Pearson Education. Retrieved fromhttp://www.thinkwatson.com/mythinkingstyles

14.

Chartrand

Emery

Hall

Ishikawa

Maketa

(2012).Now you’re thinking! Change your thinking . . . transform your life.Upper Saddle River, NJ:Pearson.

15.

Clow

K. E.

Wachter

M. K.

(1996).Teaching methodologies used in basic marketing: An empirical investigation.Journal of Marketing Education,18,48-59. doi:10.1177/027347539601800107

16.

Corey

R. E.

(1996).The use of cases in management education(No. 9-376-240).Boston, MA:Harvard Business School.

17.

Corey

R. E.

(1998).Case method teaching(No. 9-581-058).Boston, MA:Harvard Business School.

18.

Crespy

C. T.

Rosenthal

D. W.

Stearns

J. M.

(1999).Change and growth: Advances in the use of cases in marketing.Marketing Education Review,9(3),1-3.

19.

Cyphert

(2002).Integrating communication across the MBA curriculum.Business Communication Quarterly,65(3),81-86. doi:10.1177/108056990206500310

20.

Daudelin

M. W.

(1996).Learning from experience through reflection.Organizational Dynamics,24(3),36-48. doi:10.1016/S0090-2616(96)90004-2

21.

Dyrud

M. A.

Worley

R. B.

(1998).Critical thinking.Business Communication Quarterly,61(3),62-63. doi:10.1177/108056999806100306

22.

Epstein

R. L.

(2013).Critical thinking(4th ed.).Socorro, NM:Advanced Reasoning Forum.

23.

Ericsson

K. A.

Krampe

R. T.

Tesch-Römer

(1993).The role of deliberate practice in the acquisition of expert performance.Psychological Review,100,363-406.

24.

Ericsson

K. A.

Prietula

M. J.

Cokely

E. T.

(2007).The making of an expert.Harvard Business Review,85(7/8),114-121.

25.

Forman

(1999).Management communication and MBA education: An argument for management literacy.Selections,15(3),9-15.

26.

Hart Research Associates. (2013,Spring).It takes more than a major: Employer priorities for college learning and student success.Liberal Education,99(2). Retrieved fromhttp://www.aacu.org/liberaleducation/le-sp13/hartresearchassociates.cfm

27.

Hershey

Walker

(2006).Using the CPPD method of analysis for teaching case studies in the marketing management class.Marketing Education Review,16(2),45-57.

28.

Hill

K. L.

Hynes

G. E.

Joyce

M. P.

Green

J. S.

(2011).GMAT-AWA score as a predictor of success in a managerial communication course.Business Communication Quarterly,74,103-118. doi:10.1177/1080569911404052

29.

Janis

I. L.

(1982).Groupthink: Psychological studies of policy decisions and fiascos(2nd ed.).Boston, MA:Wadsworth.

30.

Marsick

V. J.

(1990).Action learning and reflection in the workplace. In Mezirow

(Ed.),Fostering critical reflection in adulthood: A guide to transformative and emancipatory learning(pp.23-46).San Francisco, CA:Jossey-Bass.

31.

May

G. L.

Thompson

M. A.

Hebblethwaite

(2012).A process for assessing and improving business writing at the MBA level.Business Communication Quarterly,75,252-270. doi:10.1177/1080569912441822

32.

Meisel

S. I.

Fearon

D. S.

(2006).Choose the future wisely: Supporting better ethics through critical thinking.Journal of Management Education,30,149-176. doi:10.1177/1052562905280833

33.

Merton

R. K.

(1948).The self-fulfilling prophecy.Antioch Review,8,193-210.

34.

Moodie

D. R.

Roebuck

D. M.

(2002).An integrated EMBA for an integrated world.Journal of Executive Education,1(1), Article 4. Retrieved fromhttp://digitalcommons.kennesaw.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1088&context=jee

35.

Muir

(1996).Using consulting projects to teach critical-thinking skills in business communication.Business Communication Quarterly,59(4),77-87. doi:10.1177/108056999605900409

36.

Nickerson

(2011).Critical thinking@Olin: A guide to understanding, learning, and practicing critical thinking.St. Louis, MO:Washington University.

37.

Page

Mukherjee

(2007).Promoting critical-thinking skills by using negotiation exercises.Journal of Education for Business,82,251-257. doi:10.3200/JOEB.82.5.251-257

38.

Paul

Elder

(2012).Critical thinking: Tools for taking charge of your learning and your life(3rd ed.).Boston, MA:Pearson.

39.

Paulson

(2011).Group communication and critical thinking competence development using a reality-based project.Business Communication Quarterly,74,399-411. doi:10.1177/1080569911424484

40.

Pearson Education. (n.d.).TalentLens Watson-Glaser II Critical Thinking Appraisal[Measurement instrument]. Retrieved fromhttp://www.thinkwatson.com/assessments/watson-glaser

41.

Perkins

D. N.

Jay

Tishman

(1993).Beyond abilities: A dispositional theory of thinking.Merrill-Palmer Quarterly,39,1-21.

42.

Reid

J. R.

Anderson

P. R.

(2012).Critical thinking in the business classroom.Journal of Education for Business,87,52-59. doi:10.1080/08832323.2011.557103

43.

Ross

(1977).The intuitive psychologist and his shortcomings: Distortions in the attribution process.Advances in Experimental Social Psychology,10,173-220.

44.

Schwarze

Lape

(2011).Thinking socratically: Critical thinking about everyday issues(3rd ed.).Upper Saddle River, NJ:Pearson.

45.

Sharifi

McCombs

G. B.

Fraser

L. L.

McCabe

R. K.

(2009).Structuring a competency-based accounting communication course at the graduate level.Business Communication Quarterly,72,177-199. doi:10.1177/1080569909334052

46.

Siegel

(1988).Educating reason: Rationality, critical thinking and education.New York, NY:Routledge.

47.

Smith

G. F.

(2003).Beyond critical thinking and decision making: Teaching business students how to think.Journal of Management Education,27,24-51. doi:10.1177/1052562902239247

48.

Sobeck

D. K.

II Smalley

(2008).Understanding A3 thinking: A critical component of Toyota’s PDCA management system.New York, NY:Productivity Press.

49.

Stanford Graduate School of Business. (2013).First-year curriculum. Retrieved fromhttp://www.gsb.stanford.edu/programs/mba/academic-experience/curriculum/mba1

50.

Tan

Satin

D. C.

Lubwama

C. W. K.

(2013).A real-world business approach to teaching M.B.A. managerial accounting: Motivation, design, and implementation.Issues in Accounting Education,28,375-402. doi:10.2308/iace-50393

51.

Tishman

Jay

Perkins

D. N.

(1993).Teaching thinking dispositions: From transmission to enculturation.Theory Into Practice,32,147-153. doi:10.1080/00405849309543590

52.

Tishman

Perkins

D. N.

Jay

(1995).The thinking classroom: Learning and teaching in a culture of thinking.Boston, MA:Allyn & Bacon.

53.

Tversky

Kahneman

(1974).Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases.Science,185,1124-1131. doi:10.1126/science.185.4157.1124

54.

Vaughn

(2012).The power of critical thinking: Effective reasoning about ordinary and extraordinary claims(4th ed.).New York, NY:Oxford University Press.

55.

Washington University in St. Louis Olin Business School. (2013).Curriculum. Retrieved fromhttp://www.olin.wustl.edu/EN-US/academic-programs/full-time-MBA/curriculum/Pages/default.aspx

56.

Wilson

B. A.

(2003).The effect of a business communications course on students’ disposition to think critically.Delta Pi Epsilon Journal,45,118-132.