Adapting, Not Adopting: Barriers Affecting Teaching for Critical Thinking at Two Rwandan Universities

Abstract

A recent study of student learning at three of Rwanda's most prestigious public universities has suggested that Rwandan students are not improving in their critical thinking ability during their time at university. This article reports on a series of faculty-level case studies, which were conducted at two of the participating institutions in order to investigate some of the reasons behind these results. Although educational practices likely to foster critical thinking skills are required elements of the undergraduate curriculum at both institutions, the case study analysis suggests that these practices are being fundamentally altered during implementation, because of a limited understanding of the rationale for pedagogical change and low levels of faculty motivation to implement more laborintensive teaching methods. The findings suggest that teaching and learning policies are only likely to be effective if accompanied by pedagogical training and support for ongoing faculty development.

Importance and possibilities of development of critical thinking in the university: the teacher's perspective

“…The third major barrier referred to teachers' lack of knowledge about the real meaning of critical thinking and the difficulty of evaluating it. In the same line, Schendel (2016) in another study on the barriers to helping university students to develop critical thinking (from the teachers' perspective), found that on many occasions, the teaching staff had a limited understanding of the reasons and purposes of the pedagogical changes that were required from them, such as working on critical thinking with students. They also showed little motivation in implementing teaching methods that increased their workload.…”

Constructing departmental culture to support student development: evidence from a case study in Rwanda

“…Although the teaching and learning policies at both of the participating institutions require faculty members to implement the kinds of teaching activities found to encourage critical thinking in other university contexts, the evidence suggests that these activities are not being implemented as advocated by the literature in most of the participating faculties. Instead, these practices are being fundamentally altered during implementation, due to limited understanding of the rationale behind the reforms and, in some cases, limited faculty motivation [as discussed in Schendel (2016)]. …”

“…Teaching orientations have a significant impact on pedagogical practice, as the choices made by lecturers within classrooms are largely driven by their beliefs about both the purpose of education and their role in the learning process (Baxter Magolda 1999;Tabulawa 2013). Indeed, in the other participating faculties, teaching orientations were identified as one of the most substantial barriers preventing the successful implementation of KIST's centralized pedagogical reforms, as lecturers in the other faculties were found to be adapting the language of the centralized reforms to suit their pre-existing understandings about the practice of teaching (Schendel 2016). The 'learning facilitation' orientation evident across FAED, in contrast, is well-suited to the constructivist pedagogical approaches most likely to foster critical thinking skills and is likely to be fostered through the faculty's collective emphasis on supporting students to explore what is unknown in their field.…”

“…The study, conducted within three of Rwanda's public universities, investigated the impact of the new teaching and learning policies on student critical thinking ability and found that, despite emphasizing the kinds of pedagogical approaches found to improve critical thinking in other contexts, the reforms did not lead to an improvement in student critical thinking ability within the participating institutions (Schendel 2015). Subsequent case study analysis within five of the participating faculties attributed the limited impact of the reforms to a misalignment between the intentions of the reforms and the behavior of faculty members during implementation (Schendel 2016).…”

Vol 11, No 3 (2021): February

“…The perspective adopted in both cases was that of university teachers. Understanding the teacher's point of view about the importance of and potential for developing critical thinking among university students is key to make improvements in teaching and avoid teachers' resistance to innovation and change (Schendel, 2016). In view of the categories found, it can be stated that, in general, the participant teachers believe that it is very important to develop critical thinking in university education, and some of them say so unambiguously (f = 38; 24.3%).…”