Kritiskt tänkande är ett centralt begrepp i högre utbildning, men begreppet är både svårfångat och värdeladdat och kan därförvara en utmaning att hantera i utbildningspraktiken. Syftet med denna text är att hjälpa lärare att bli tryggare i hur de kan tänkakring kritiskt tänkande och vad det innebär att stödja studenternas kritiska tänkande. Presentationen börjar med en genomgångav några begreppsliga frågor, främst kopplat till hur kritiskt tänkande ska ses som en konstruktion som det är lätt att reifiera.Ett centralt argument är att det är olyckligt att fastna i en diskussion av vad kritiskt tänkande "är" och att det istället kan varamer fruktbart att fokusera på vilka förmågor som vi önskar att studenterna ska utveckla för att bli kritiska tänkare. Här knyterarbetet an till Ennis (1987, 1993, 2011) inflytelserika diskussioner av kritiskt tänkande. Utifrån diskussioner om förmågor ochdispositioner som återfinns i den högskolepedagogiska litteraturen om kritiskt tänkande, argumenteras det för att fokus börligga på studentens förmåga att forma argument och att dra slutsatser baserade på detta. Det inkluderar förmågan att sklija påargument och åsikter. I samband med detta diskuteras emotionernas roll för kritiskt tänkande. Betydelsen av en adekvatkunskapsbas för kritiskt tänkande diskuteras också, liksom betydelsen av att studenterna behöver lämna sin komfort-zon somen del av sin utbildning för att kunna tänka kritiskt. Kritiskt tänkande ställs också i kontrast till kritik och till normativttänkande om de ska kunna stödja studenterna och examinera dem i relation til kritiskt tänkande. En övergripande slutsats är attäven om en "avmystifiering" av kritiskt tänkande kan stärka lärarna och ge dem en tydligare känsla av att ha kontroll, pekardet samtidigt på de krav som ställs på läraren som ska hjälpa studenterna att utveckla kritiskt tänkande.Litteratur:Ennis, R. H. (1987). A taxonomy of critical thinking dispositions and abilities. In J. B. Baron & R. J. Sternberg (Eds.), Seriesof books in psychology. Teaching thinking skills: Theory and practice (pp. 9-26). New York, NY, US: W H Freeman/TimesBooks/ Henry Holt & Co.Ennis, R. H. (1993). Critical thinking assessment. Theory into Practice, 32(3), 179–183.Ennis, R. H. (2011). Critical thinking: Reflection and perspective. Inquiry, 26(1), 4-18.

The use of fictional literature as “case studies” in psychology education has a potential to supportstudents' learning in various ways. To further the understanding of such applications of fiction, weinvestigated how clinical psychology students perceived reading fiction as a learning activity. The participants saw benefits for their clinical training, theoretical understanding, and self-awareness.They also saw use of fiction in their education as predominantly beneficial for their learningenvironment. How the present findings support our understanding of fiction as an educational deviceis discussed in light of previous studies about the potential of fiction in higher education.

The right to teach at university is a distinctive philosophical and legalconundrum but a largely unexplored question. Drawing onHumboltdian principles, the legitimacy of the university teacher stemsfrom their continuing engagement in research rather than possession ofacademic and teaching qualifications alone. This means that the right toteach needs to be understood as a privilege and implies that it isalways provisional, requiring an ongoing commitment to research. Yet,massification of higher education (HE) systems internationally has led tothe disaggregation of the academic profession with teaching-only positionsnow increasingly common. University teachers employed to bothteach and research face a narrowing set of performative expectationswith respect to how ‘research-active’ is defined. This paper challengesthese contemporary understandings and, drawing on historical evidence,argues that a broader definition of research and scholarshipneeds to underpin the basis of the right to teach.

(unpublished abstract)

Student motivation covers such a diverse set of behaviours that it must be explicated through specific theories, which can meet the needs for answering particular research questions. In this chapter, it is argued that the theory of possible selves can help us understand students’ individual expectations about the future, and these expectations’ function for motivation. Three areas are singled out as particularly interesting, for both theoretical and methodological reasons. The first is the complexity of emotional valence in possible selves, where recent findings show that it is an oversimplification to assume that possible selves are either positive or negative. The second is the important distinction between possible selves and more general strivings – for example in terms of life tasks – which in particular offer methodological challenges. The third is the notion of ‘possible others’, explicating the social dimension of possible selves with a potential to solve some methodological problems. All three areas are discussed with a particular focus on motivational issues for students uncertain about the life in academia or about the merits of higher education.

Conventionally, quantitative surveys are used for student evaluations in higher education, but the validity of this practice has been questioned. In the present study, we investigated a qualitative method for evaluating a bachelor’s programme. Forty-one first-year students and twenty-eight third- year students on a bachelor’s programme in Public Administration were asked to answer a single question in relation to their programme: ‘What could have been done in order to support your learning?’ The students provided rich responses of a depth and breadth not attainable through conventional surveys, making this method worthwhile for educational development at the programme level. The responses focused on students’ own learning rather than on judgement of teacher performance. The results indicate that the students underwent a transition from the first to third year, suggesting a shift in needs. For example, first-year students asked for direct interaction, whereas third-year students asked for feedback on accomplishments. Practical applications are discussed.

The claim that students should take responsibility for their learning is challenged through the alternative claim that students should be expected to take responsibility for their knowledge. It is argued that students can reflect on responsibilities for knowledge and teachers can support this in an everyday academic discourse regardless of discipline, whereas responsibility for learning is difficult to grasp without an elaborate learning theory. Further, the suggested shift from learning to knowledge will widen the scope to issues beyond learning, explicating a more nuanced student role. Through the focus on knowledge, students’ responsibilities relates to educational purposes, and points to expectations on critical thinking as well as the students’ academic freedom. It also makes it possible to discuss the mutual responsibilities of students and teachers with the same conceptual framework. This can also support the notion of students as co-creators of knowledge.