A500.9.3.RB - Course Reflections

Leadership Foundations in Research was arguably the most useful course I’ve taken at any level, at any school, and in any subject. Unlike most courses that have a narrow focus, the information and knowledge I gained from this course can be used in virtually any other course and in essentially any aspect of one’s life. The major components of the class were necessarily slanted towards leadership and included critical thinking, action research, and digital presentation technologies.

Critical Thinking. For example, the critical thinking component of the course can be used in reasoning through any issue at work, home, or school. The first three weeks the coursework was focused on critical thinking with a slant towards leadership and was dedicated to the Paulian model of critical thinking using a popular textbook, Learning toThink Things Through: A Guide to Critical Thinking Across the Curriculum (4th ed.) (Nosich, 2012). I appreciated the textbook’s readability and extensive writing prompts. Along with Nosich’s textbook, Paul & Elder’s The Miniature Guide to Critical Thinking Concepts and Tools (7th ed.) was used. Because it took some effort to link the material between the two reading sources, I found it necessary to actively seek out and acquire another text to make sense of the first two. I settled on Paul & Elder’s Critical Thinking: Tools for Taking Charge of Your Professional and Personal Life (2nd ed.) in no small part because the miniature guide and Nosich’s textbook are based largely on this book as well as other works by Paul & Elder.

More Critical Thinking and Conspiracies. Similarly, an alternate model of critical thinking—the CARS Method—was used for nearly a full week as we explored conspiracy theories. This Credibility, Accuracy, Reasonableness, Support checklist is a surprisingly simple but powerful method. It’s somewhat of a variation on the who-what-when-where-why-and-how model many of us learned in elementary school. If I have any criticism of this model and source, it’s simply that there is, ironically, no seemingly credible source other than a publisher of higher education textbooks (The CARS Checklist (Credibility, Accuracy, Reasonableness, Support), 2003) and not so much as an allusion as to its origination. The source material itself is in a bit of disarray with no clear indications as to who or when the material was developed. Only an internet search revealed a likely source. Likewise, the presumed author’s website (http://www.virtualsalt.com/evalu8it.htm) is written in an out-of-date style from the early 1990’s. It contains multiple hyperlinks and no margins making it very difficult to read on a monitor using recent technology of the late 2010’s and confusing as to a beginning location. The site was last updated in December 2016—about 16 months prior to the present writing. The material contained within the website is immensely useful, albeit disorganized. The CARS Method would be an ideal graduate—or even undergraduate—project worth updating. Lastly, Santa Barbara City College has a useful checklist based on the same source material (C.A.R.S. Checklist for Evaluating Sources,. n.d.) and a hyperlink points to the original author’s site rather than the textbook publisher’s site.

Action Research. Once we gained insight into models and methods of critical thinking, we moved on to Action Research. I found the subject matter to be very useful not only in a professional environment but also a personal one. It offers a much-needed alternative to the classic research methods, notably the quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methods approaches widely used in research foundations courses. This module relied heavily on McNiff’s 2002 version of Action Research for Professional Development: Concise Advice for New Action Researchers (3rd ed.). However, despite repeated re-readings of this material, I found it lacking in being able to explain to me—a beginning action researcher—what action research is all about and how I should proceed. This is one area where the course material could be more explicit. While the source material was useful, it was clear that many class participants struggled with understanding action research. I found it necessary to reach outside the course materials, yet I still struggled to find appropriate material because I didn’t know what I should be looking for. I settled on Greenwood & Levin’s 2007 widely cited text Introduction to Action Research: Social Research for Social Change (2nd ed.). However, despite it being an introductory text, this book was overkill as it was not written for new researchers and unnecessarily slowed me down in the course. Regardless, once I understood the basic principles behind action research, I found it to be quite useful now and for the future. Surprisingly, I reverted to several of McNiff’s published books and found the following to be useful: You and Your Action Research Project (4th ed.) published by Routledge in 2016 and Action Research: All You Need to Know published in 2017 by SAGE Publications. Both books are well written, but it is unclear to me why two books exist from two different publishers. The contents of each one overlap to a significant extent so either one would do for this course. I have my personal preference for the Routledge book.

Surveys. As part of the Action Research component, surveys were utilized. There was nothing spectacular in this component, but I found it to be very useful in keeping abreast with available online technologies. It’s these online technologies that have simplified certain technical aspects of our lives while allowing us to focus on practical matters. For example, instead of focusing on statistical analysis of survey questions, we can put more effort into formulating meaningful questions. This may be highly useful in everyday action research. However, more emphasis should be placed on two areas: the first is question formulation and the second is security issues especially given the global skepticism of late. It has been widely publicized that much of the interference in the U.S. electoral processes were brought about by unsuspecting survey and quiz respondents. Question formulation appears to be a sticking point for many class participants for it was during the survey response segment that it became apparent many students did not know how to effectively frame questions, myself included.

Digital Presentation Tools. The exposure to various online digital presentation tools was also particularly useful. However, given the compressed time format for the course, a cursory overview was about all that could be managed. A substantial time commitment would be necessary to utilize these tools to realize just a fraction of their potential. For example, Prezi is touted as an alternative to Microsoft PowerPoint slide presentations. But, the amount of effort needed to prepare a meaningful presentation is outside the scope of a 9-week course. Still, it’s very much appreciated that students are made aware of various technologies available at little or no cost.

Summary. Leadership Foundations in Research was an outstanding course whose utility can be difficult to overstate. Of particular usefulness for me was the critical thinking component which can be applied to virtually any coursework and in any aspect of one’s life. The action research component provided a much-needed alternative to traditional research methods and can be immediately implemented in either personal or professional settings. More explicit direction for study materials would be useful for those students who may be unfamiliar with action research. Online survey tools move the researcher’s focus from technical issues such as statistical analysis to more practical concerns such as question formulation. Emphasis should be placed on security issues given recent skepticism brought upon unsuspecting survey and quiz respondents. Lastly, being exposed to available digital presentation technologies helps students keep abreast of low cost alternatives to traditional mainstream technologies.

References

C.A.R.S. Checklist for Evaluating Sources. (n.d.). Unpublished manuscript. Retrieved from https://www.sbcc.edu/clrc/writing_center/wc_files/handout_masters/CARS%20Checklist%20for%20Evaluating%20Sources.pdf

The CARS Checklist (Credibility, Accuracy, Reasonableness, Support). (2003). Retrieved from http://novella.mhhe.com/sites/0079876543/student_view0/research_center-999/research_papers30/conducting_web-based_research.html

Greenwood, D. J., & Levin, M. (2007). Introduction to Action Research: Social Research for Social Change (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.

McNiff, J. (2002). Action Research for Professional Development: Concise Advice for New Action Researchers (3rd ed.) Retrieved from http://www.jeanmcniff.com/ar-booklet.asp

McNiff, J. (2016). You and Your Action Research Project (4th ed.). London: Routledge.

McNiff, J. (2017). Action Research: All You Need to Know. London: SAGE Publications Ltd.

Nosich, G. M. (2012). Learning to Think Things Through: A Guide to Critical Thinking Across the Curriculum (4th ed.). Boston: Pearson Education, Inc.

Paul, R., & Elder, L. (2014a). Critical Thinking: Tools for Taking Charge of Your Professional and Personal Life (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education, Inc.

Paul, R., & Elder, L. (2014b). The Miniature Guide to Critical Thinking Concepts and Tools (7th ed.). Tomales, CA: Foundation for Critical Thinking Press.

A500.5.1.RB - Critical Thinking about Critical Thinking

Current State of My Critical Thinking Competencies

     What is the current state of my critical thinking competencies? I am aware of specific intellectual standards and make a conscientious effort to use them with the elements of reasoning. I make a diligent effort to use the elements of reasoning by “going around the circle” of the Paulian Model of critical thinking. I do this to develop intellectual traits and—when the opportunity arises and the setting is appropriate—discuss these traits with peers and those whom I am mentoring. I rely less on the visual aids available in the texts and online, but I still refer to them to help ensure I stay focused on continuing to develop my knowledge and understanding of these helpful tools. I do this with the goal of improving my decision making not only in my professional life but also my personal endeavors. (Nosich, 2012; Paul & Elder, 2014).

Have My Thinking Processes Changed at All Since I started the Course?

     My thinking processes have changed since I started the course. Most central to the changes is that I use a more systematic approach in my thinking than I previously did. My initial definition of critical thinking shows that I did have some awareness of intellectual standards, traits, and elements of reasoning but, it was not clearly organized:

Critical thinking is using sound reasoning, empathy, fairness, and unbiased judgement. It considers context, purpose, writer/speaker/thinker, and target audience. It also involves questioning whether or not a statement or claim meets standards. If the statement, claim or thought does not meet standards, the statement, claim or thought must be rejected or modified (Kurek, 2016).

     The Paulian Model of critical thinking has given me a systematic approach to my thinking which may be summarized as using intellectual standards, applying them to the elements of reasoning, and developing intellectual traits. Figure 1 is a simplified graphical representation of the Paulian model.

     When comparing definitions of Ennis, Lipman, and Paul, my earlier perception was that while “Ennis and Lipman are almost linear in their definitions, Paul is more circular. That is, we need to continually reevaluate what we are thinking to continually improve it" (Kurek, 2017). I need to rethink what I thought. Not one of the three is linear. Ennis uses the concept of reflective thinking. That is, stepping back to evaluate my thinking, checking to see if it met my standards. If not, I must go back and think again. Similarly, Lipman uses the concept of self-correcting thinking. If my thinking is not sensitive to context and standards, I must go back and rethink things but this time I must be sensitive to context and standards. Paul simply says, “thinking about your thinking, while you’re thinking” (Nosich, pp. 1-2). All three are reiterative processes and none are linear.

Have I Been Able to Internalize any of the Techniques and Concepts I have Learned?

     The process of reflection has had a significant effect on internalizing the techniques and concepts I learned. By making a determined, conscientious effort to use critical thinking methods, they are becoming more natural. I still have a long way to go to make all the standards, elements and traits second nature but, I’ve made strides in my efforts to internalize them. For example, when reading a news article, I’m more aware of the need to think about the point of view of the author and in what context it is being presented. I make sure that my assumptions about their point of view is not biased. While I may not “go around the circle” for every article or video I consume, I do so for issues that are truly important to my values or those around me.

What will it take to make lasting, positive changes in the way you think?

     I want to master my knowledge and understanding of the Paulian Model of critical thinking, to become an expert, to lead by example. I want to be able to share critical thinking techniques and processes with others so they can improve their thinking not for me but for themselves and those around them. The most viable way for me to achieve this is to continue to make a conscientious effort to use the tools and techniques from this course to improve my thinking as I pursue my lifelong learning endeavors.

References

Kurek, D. (2016). A500.1.4.DQ - Critical Thinking [Online discussion post]. Retrieved from https://erau.instructure.com/courses/44425/discussion_topics/605167

Kurek, D. (2017). A500.1.4.DQ - Critical Thinking [Online discussion post]. Retrieved from https://erau.instructure.com/courses/60630/discussion_topics/853256

Nosich, G. M. (2012). Learning to Think Things Through: A Guide to Critical Thinking Across the Curriculum (4th ed.). Boston: Pearson Education, Inc.

Paul, R., & Elder, L. (2014). The Miniature Guide to Critical Thinking Concepts and Tools (7th ed.). Tomales, CA: Foundation for Critical Thinking Press.

A500.4.3.RB - Ballet Slippers or Adorable?

Values which we deem important are largely influenced by cultural norms. For instance, in mainstream American culture, it is our right to make choices in the pursuit of whatever makes us happy. When we perceive our rights are being curtailed or violated, we tend to push back, to fight for our rights, even if our choices seem unreasonable.

The right to choose may be based on whether we view our lives as fatalistic or self-determined. If we view our life as fatalistic or predetermined, then the right to choose probably has less meaning to us. On the other hand, if we believe in self-determination, then we likely place a high value on the right to choose. When we don’t have the option to choose, our standards are not being met. Our view of the right to choose is based on our values and, it is our values that serve as a standard in how we evaluate our lives. For example, if I’m away from home and can find only unhealthy food to satisfy my physical needs for calories, I may choose to eat it anyway but feel emotionally less satisfied because the food was unhealthy.

More options may lead to better choices based on our perceptions of value or criteria, or what we think is important to our needs at that time. For example, if I need a new set of tires for my vehicle in order to pass state inspection requirements, I may have set the bar low and opt for the cheapest tires on the market. On the other hand, if I deem personal safety as among my criteria, I may choose tires that satisfy my perceptions or judgement of safer tires, not ones that will simply get my vehicle through minimum standards of state inspections.

Too many choices may overwhelm our ability to decide which option is the best choice. Too many options may lead to confusion as we try to mentally compare and contrast different possibilities or combinations and how they measure up to our perceptions of value. So, we may take the easy way and make a random choice. Or we may let someone else decide. Or we may try to rank order our values and start over. We might make a list or a matrix or a complicated decision tree. Or we might simply give up and walk away. If it’s over something trivial, there may be no harm and we go about our lives. On the other hand, we may unintentionally harm ourselves or others.

If we make no choice or, when we let others decide for us, we are relinquishing our right of self-determination. We give up control of our life and others decide whether or not we achieve a measure of happiness.

In leadership, making choices based on our values is imperative to the success of not only ourselves but those we lead. We should prioritize our decisions not on what’s simplest or easiest but rather on what’s congruent with our values.

References

Nosich, G. M. (2012). Learning to Think Things Through: A Guide to Critical Thinking Across the Curriculum (4th ed.). Boston: Pearson Education, Inc.

O'Connor, T. (2010). Free Will. Retrieved from https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2016/entries/freewill/

Paul, R., & Elder, L. (2014). Critical Thinking: Tools for Taking Charge of Your Professional and Personal Life (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education, Inc.

A500.3.3.RB - Organizational Leadership as a System

Organizational Leadership as a Body of Knowledge versus a System of Thinking

When viewing organizational leadership through the concept of a body of knowledge, we are looking at issues at a small or micro level as compared to viewing issues from a larger macro view. That’s to say, when using a body of knowledge to solve problems, we look at only those factors that may have a direct bearing on the issue. We tend to break things down into smaller components to determine why something is—or is not—working as expected. While such methods are useful, they do not allow leaders to see the larger issues that may be seen through a systems thinking approach.

If we think of organizational leadership as a body of knowledge, we may view it simply as facts, data, and information. It may limit our decision making to facts and data confined to one area or lead us to a less than optimal answer and perhaps miss opportunities to develop other solutions. On the other hand, if we think of organizational leadership as a system of thinking, we view multiple sets of facts, data, and information from more than one area and attempt to understand the effects each area has on the other one. Say, for example, we’re faced with an issue involving an employee’s substandard work performance as evidenced by multiple errors. If we consider only the information in front of us, we may incorrectly conclude that the individual does not have the aptitude to perform their assigned tasks. Using information we mistakenly believe to be true is known as activated ignorance (Paul & Elder, 2014, p. 354). On the other hand, if we consider other issues beyond the evidence--substandard work, we may find a very different matter, such as deficient training, to be the cause of the employee’s errors. Since the training was deficient, and we understand its detrimental effects, we can act on it to help correct the training process, retrain the employee to improve their performance, and add value to company performance. This is showing activated knowledge (Paul & Elder, 2014a, pp. 354-355). So, in this example, training affects employee performance and providing feedback of substandard employee performance affects training.

Systems thinking is understanding how different processes affect one another, their interconnectedness. Body-of-knowledge thinking views processes separately and without regard to how they interact with other processes. When organizational leadership is viewed as a system of thinking, leaders evaluate the different systems and their effects on the question at issue to reach a reasonable conclusion (Nosich, 2012, p. 188). When completing a series of courses while working towards a degree, we can view each course as a stand-alone entity and move on to the next course until we complete the series and obtain our degrees. Or, we can view each course as a system and use our new understanding to understand its effects on the next course. Leadership studies is not an end unto itself but rather a system to help us understand the interconnectedness of yet other systems such as project management.

References

Nosich, G. M. (2012). Learning to Think Things Through: A Guide to Critical Thinking Across the Curriculum (4th ed.). Boston: Pearson Education, Inc.

Paul, R., & Elder, L. (2014). Critical Thinking: Tools for Taking Charge of Your Professional and Personal Life (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education, Inc.

A500.2.3.RB - Tell Your Story

“[C]ritical thinking is thinking that is done well. It is thinking that meets high standards of thinking” (Nosich, 2012, pp. 133). These intellectual standards include clearness, accuracy, importance/relevance, sufficiency, depth, breadth, and precision (Nosich, 2012, p. 133). While all of these standards are important in my life, I will focus on just a few that I find myself using many times each day.

Accuracy is an important standard (Nosich, 2012, pp. 138-141) in my life. I hate being wrong or made to look a fool. In this same vein, I don’t want to make others look a fool and would hope that they don’t like being wrong either. For example, if I tell my coworker that all tasks for the day have been completed when they actually haven’t been fully completed, the trust he or she has in me can be damaged. This bond of trust works the other way as well. Say, for example, a friend points me to a website with claims of questionable validity. If I spend time looking through a news report that has no merit or is flat out wrong, I feel like my time has been wasted. Nowadays, with the prevalence of smart devices and social media as a means of communicating or getting news, it’s easy to fall victim to stories of intrigue where something sounds true or plausible but may turn out to be highly inaccurate.

Other standards important to me include depth and breadth (Nosich, 2012, pp. 147-151). If I need to settle an issue, I consider what options are available, then inquire further into several of them to decide which one is the best solution. If I want to move to some other city, I might look at a map to see what places might pique my interest. I then start digging deeper to see what these communities may offer in the way of wages to support my needs and activities that suit my interests to help narrow my choices.

It isn’t entirely clear to me when I became aware of the concepts of accuracy, breadth, and depth. But, they became more important when I joined the military where it was essential to think about whether or not orders were properly followed. As I gained more responsibilities, I then had to be certain that I was giving reasonable consideration to alternative solutions and passing along accurate information for those troops under my leadership as well as to the leadership above me. Applying intellectual standards to elements of reasoning apply not only to my professional life but also my personal life.

References

Nosich, G. M. (2012). Learning to think things through: A guide to critical thinking across the curriculum (4th ed.). Boston: Pearson Education, Inc.

A500.1.5.RB - Intellectual Perseverance

Paul’s system of critical thinking—the Paulian Model—describes several valuable intellectual traits that we should exhibit not only as students but also leaders. That’s to say, good leaders and students should have certain traits. To improve our thinking from lower order to higher order and finally to highest order thinking, we must develop critical thinking skills and traits. Among those traits is intellectual perseverance. (Paul & Elder, 2014, p. 7, 13-15).

Table 1. Three Levels of Thought (from Paul & Elder, 2014, p. 7).

	Level 1	Level 2	Level 3
Level of Thought	Lowest Order	Higher Order	Highest Order
Deliberation	Unreflective	Selectively Reflective	Explicitly Reflective
Skill Level	Low to Mixed	High	Highest
Critical Thinking Tools	Frequently relies on gut intuition	Lacks critical thinking vocabulary	Routine use of critical thinking tools
Fairness	Largely Self-Serving/Self-Deceived	Inconsistently fair, may be skilled in sophistry	Consistently fair

Intellectual Perseverance is pushing through an issue you don’t understand until you do understand it. It’s going from simple knowledge to understanding where knowledge is, for example, spouting off facts and figures while understanding is seeing the interrelationships between them to come to reasonable conclusions (Valuable intellectual traits, 2014). Adler and Van Doren, in How to Read a Book, claim that if we read a book and completely understand everything the author says, then we have not increased our understanding. And if we do not understand everything the author has written, then we must put forth an effort to understand the ideas presented to us (1972, pp. 6-10). And that takes perseverance.

But being a successful leader or student is not all about books. Books can give us information, but it takes perseverance on our part to evaluate and understand it. Understanding information and opposing points of view within different contexts often does not come easy. We must push ourselves to see how the facts relate to one another to increase our understanding of the issues to make good decisions. After all, it’s about understanding and being fair to the people and organization we are leading. Similarly, to be successful in our coursework, we must be able to see the interrelationships between not only the concepts within each subject but also how the subjects relate to one another.

References

Adler, M. J., & Van Doren, C. (1972). How to Read a Book: The Classic Guide to Intelligent Reading (Revised ed.). New York, NY: Simon & Schuster.

Paul, R., & Elder, L. (2014). The miniature guide to critical thinking concepts and tools (7th ed.). Tomales, CA: Foundation for Critical Thinking Press.

Valuable intellectual traits. (2014). Retrieved from http://www.criticalthinking.org/pages/valuable-intellectual-traits/528