9427163124

CHER_A_161025.fm Pagc 179 Monday. March 13,2006 4:16 PM

I) Routledge

2 %    a Flanca Cmtę

Higher Education Research & Development Vol 25_y No. 2, May 2006, pp. 179-193

An ‘infusion’ approach to critical thinking: Moore on the critical thinking debate

W. Martin Davies*

University of Melbourne, Australia

This papcr argucs that generał skills and the varictics of subjcct-spccific discoursc arc both impor-tant for tcaching, leaming and practising critical thinking. The former is important bccausc it outlines the principles of good reasoning simpliciter (what constitutes sound reasoning patterns, invalid inferences, and so on). The latter is important because it outlines how the generał principles arc uscd and deployed in the scrvicc of ‘acadcmic tribes’. Bccausc critical thinking skills arc—in part, at least—generał skills, they can be applied to all disciplines and subject-matter indiscrimi-nately. General skills can help us assess reasoning independently of the vagaries of the linguistic discoursc we cxprcss arguments in. The papcr looks at the debatę bctwccn the ‘spccifists’—thosc who stress the importancc of critical thinking understood as a subjcct-spccific discoursc—and the ‘generalists’—those that stress the importance of critical thinking understood independently of disciplinary context. Tlie paper suggests that the ‘debate’ between the specifists and the generalists amounts to a fallacy of the falsc altemativc, and presents a combinatory-‘infusion’ approach to critical thinking.

Introduction

Tim Moore’s recent paper on the critical thinking debate between the ‘generalists’ and the ‘specifists’ is a timely piece, especially given the moves to introduce graduate skill assessment tests that incorporate ‘critical thinking’ (Moore, 2004). This paper argucs that, while cautious and provisional in his approach, Moore ultimately sides with the specifists. The paper claims that there is morę to the case for the generalist than Moore suggests. However, unlike Moore, I am not intending to adjudicate between the rival positions, but to suggest that they are complementary and altemative means to understanding ‘critical thinking’.

•The Teaching and Leaming Unit, Faculty of Economics and Commerce, University of Melbourne, Victoria 3010, Australia. Email: \vmdavics(«mnimclb.cdu.au

ISSN 0729-4360 (print)/ISSN 1469-8366 (onlinc)/06/020179-15

© 2006 HERDSA

DOI: 10.1080/07294360600610420

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10 11 12 1 3

14

15

16

17

18

19

20 21 22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42