How can critical thinking be taught? [Archive]

Chupacabras

14th August 2009, 11:35 AM

Entirely out of my imaginations, I think building examples based on real-life situations would be a good approach. Analyzing "case in point", either current or historical events and then proceeding to explain the theory behind it (fallacies, scientific method procedures, hypothesis building, etc...).

The story of so many discoveries is full of good and inspiring CT examples. One example I like much is Sagan (Cosmos) talking about Kepler confronting evidence with his religious upbringing.

One of the ideas (frustrations!) I have about this very issue is that CT is anything but exciting to anyone. It kills illusions and usually is perceived as a cold bucket of water.

Just blabbing... HTH

Roma

14th August 2009, 09:11 PM

My interest is as an aspiring elementary school teacher.

Thank you.

If you're teaching critical thinking to elemetary kids then try to keep it as simple as possible and relevant to them.

1. Help them find current news stories where popular opinions were later shown through "critical thinking" to be different than first believed. This should be fairly easy for the older kids but for the younger ones you might have to make up some silly news sories for them, eg.
"The city library has decided to allow monkeys to be in charge of the children's book department". Then ask the students if they think this idea will work and if they can think of any problems that could happen.

2. Help them through the use of magic tricks (learn one or ask if there is a child in the class that knows how to do one) to understand that what you see is not always what you think is true.

3. Ask them if they have ever heard of something that they don't think is true or that that don't understand then use critical thinking as a group to find out the answer. (detective work)

bpesta22

14th August 2009, 10:08 PM

Iconoclast08

14th August 2009, 11:51 PM

Welcome to the forum.

I highly recommend Schick and Vaughn's How To Think About Weird Things: Critical Thinking for a New Age. While it's a bit advanced for elementary school, there are some fantastic examples and excerpts in there that can be modified for younger kids. The above poster sounds right-on: Keep it simple and direct. And give fun examples and critical thinking puzzles for them to work on.

I think critical thinking is a personality trait and cannot really be taught. You're either born with a predisposition to "demand evidence" or yer not.

Given an in class example and being test on how to critically think about it is one thing; generalizing that behavior to the world they live in could be another.

Evidence? Citations?

There are studies that fly in the face of what you are saying here in the attitude polarization literature (e.g., Leshowitz et al., 2002, and more). I call you out.

Would you have said the same thing about Michael Shermer when he was an anti-critical thinking religious zealot?

Bpesta22, I long for the day that we can actually AGREE on something :rolleyes:

Reference:
Leshowitz et al. (2002). Effects of instruction in methodological reasoning on information evaluation. Teaching of Psychology, 29(1), 5-10.

Jeff Corey

15th August 2009, 07:46 AM

shawmutt

15th August 2009, 07:58 AM

Funny, I am currently rereading Carl Sagan's Demon Haunted World was reading about just this. He essentially is advising folks to let kids ask questions, and don't act like an all-knowing adult--don't be afraid to say you don't know the answer to something.

bpesta22

15th August 2009, 12:16 PM

"Teaching of psychology"-- lolz.

I didn't mean my statement to be combative. I just think that a large percentage of the population refuses to accept reason as the basis for believing or not believing in things. Good luck teaching them critical thinking.

JC

Watson might be able to pull it off, but only by extreme environmental manipulations, and even then, individuals will vary by their god-given personalities and ability levels.

I guess I should distinguish between teaching material and having students acquire new knowledge, versus then applying that knowledge (or mode of thinking) to the real world.

I suspect good luck with that. Can you post an abstract for the Leshowitz article?

bpesta22

15th August 2009, 12:19 PM

fwiw, the impact factor of that journal is 0.248

Fnord

15th August 2009, 12:56 PM

1. Allow children to ask questions.
2. Give an answer, if only to tell them to look it up.
3. If a child makes a claim, challenge them to provide citation.
4. Teach them the difference between truth and validity.
5. Teach them the difference between testimony and evidence.
6. Teach them about falsification and verification.
7. Teach them about the basic fallacies of reason (Sweeping Generalization, Straw Man, et cetera), and why they do not work.
8. Teach them the differences between belief, idea, hypothesis, theory, and fact.
9. Teach them how to research a claim, especially one that (a) is relevant to their worldviews, (b) is easily researchable, and (c) is both valid and truthful.

Then, on the second day...

;)

laca

15th August 2009, 01:25 PM

I think critical thinking is a personality trait and cannot really be taught. You're either born with a predisposition to "demand evidence" or yer not.

Might be, but when do you think a personality is fully formed? By elementary school? I would say not. So I think there is hope with children :)

bpesta22

15th August 2009, 01:28 PM

Might be, but when do you think a personality is fully formed? By elementary school? I would say not. So I think there is hope with children :)

Good point / question; I dunno. If it's like a certain other human behavior, the genetic component increases while the environment decreases to zero. I dunno for personality though.

I think at this point I officially derailed, so I will bow out now. Sorry to the OP and good luck with whatever approach you take!

Iconoclast08

15th August 2009, 05:16 PM

I didn't mean my statement to be combative. I just think that a large percentage of the population refuses to accept reason as the basis for believing or not believing in things. Good luck teaching them critical thinking.

Oh no, I didn't take it as combative at all. I totally agree that lots of people have low need for cognition and don't like to reason through things. And lots of them probably are resistant to change. However, I do think that people can and do turn that around. I don't see it as black and white as you suggested. Again, given your sentiments expressed in your earlier post, if you knew of Michael Shermer before he turned to science and reason, you may have been tempted to say "yep, it's in his personality."

I guess I should distinguish between teaching material and having students acquire new knowledge, versus then applying that knowledge (or mode of thinking) to the real world.

Good point. Would be interesting to see if/how they actually take the knowledge beyond the course and apply it (asking what's the stability of the effects induced).

Can you post an abstract for the Leshowitz article?

Sure.

In this article we describe an instructional program that focuses on applying causal reasoning and related principles of the scientific method to problems faced in daily life. In a highly interactive classroom setting, the instructor gives students repeated opportunities to apply methodological reasoning to real-world scenarios for the purpose of making informed decisions. In addition to describing the program, we report the findings of a capstone exercise that examined changes in students' beliefs toward legalization of marijuana after reading persuasive communications. Students who experienced the instructional program exhibited less bias in evaluating information and less attitude polarization than students in a comparison group. We discuss the implications of these findings for developing and evaluating instructional programs in methodological reasoning in psychology.

fwiw, the impact factor of that journal is 0.248

Yeah. Their rejection rate isn't as high as JPSP, so it must be crap.

But seriously, man-- that's why you read it for yourself and apply your knowledge of research methods, statistical inference, tenability of claims, quality of data, etc.

There do exist crappy articles in journals with those "high impact factors," ya know. Some can be quite embarrassing. And there do exist golden nuggets in the lower impact journals, though I agree they tend to be fewer.

bpesta22

15th August 2009, 05:31 PM

Oh no, I didn't take it as combative at all. I totally agree that lots of people have low need for cognition and don't like to reason through things. And lots of them probably are resistant to change. However, I do think that people can and do turn that around. I don't see it as black and white as you suggested. Again, given your sentiments expressed in your earlier post, if you knew of Michael Shermer before he turned to science and reason, you may have been tempted to say "yep, it's in his personality."

Good point. Would be interesting to see if/how they actually take the knowledge beyond the course and apply it (asking what's the stability of the effects induced).

Sure.

In this article we describe an instructional program that focuses on applying causal reasoning and related principles of the scientific method to problems faced in daily life. In a highly interactive classroom setting, the instructor gives students repeated opportunities to apply methodological reasoning to real-world scenarios for the purpose of making informed decisions. In addition to describing the program, we report the findings of a capstone exercise that examined changes in students' beliefs toward legalization of marijuana after reading persuasive communications. Students who experienced the instructional program exhibited less bias in evaluating information and less attitude polarization than students in a comparison group. We discuss the implications of these findings for developing and evaluating instructional programs in methodological reasoning in psychology.

Yeah. Their rejection rate isn't as high as JPSP, so it must be crap.

But seriously, man-- that's why you read it for yourself and apply your knowledge of research methods, statistical inference, tenability of claims, quality of data, etc.

There do exist crappy articles in journals with those "high impact factors," ya know. Some can be quite embarrassing. And there do exist golden nuggets in the lower impact journals, though I agree they tend to be fewer.

Thanks Icon-- I think I was a bit harsh here and I apologize / admit I was wrong.

My weaker claim is that individual's differ in the willingness and perhaps ability to think differently. One can probably indeed shift the bar up higher for everyone, even if the ranks remain after.

I tend to overestimate the importance of stable individual differences because most people underestimate them.

Gravy

15th August 2009, 07:13 PM

athon

15th August 2009, 07:19 PM

How does one go about encouraging the development of critical thinking to students? On the web I've not encountered much research on this. Perhaps you could point me to some relevant research or give an opinion? My interest is as an aspiring elementary school teacher.

Thank you.

A good place to start is the Critical Thinking Education Group (http://www.criticalteaching.org/)(CTEG). They have a website containing a number of useful links, resources and will soon have a quarterly email newsletter.

Now...answering your question is obviously tricky to do in a few words. The first thing to consider is that critical thinking is a range of skills that essentially evaluates the information you receive. We all do this to some extent, however the values against which information is judged for its usefulness or inherent worth differ greatly.

Without going into too much detail, the epistemology (learning practices) we use throughout our lives develops in the formative, pre-adolescence years. It's damn hard to change this after early to mid adolescence, although learning skills themselves can be honed. This means most critical thinking programs succeed only with those who already have the basic values that match the needs of the program, providing them with a few extra 'thinking tricks'. Most people who attend such programs show little improvement when tracked several years later.

In short, critical thinking itself is not a single skill that one can teach in a learning program, but is a set of practices and values that need to be woven into a school's entire curriculum from a very early age.

Athon

athon

15th August 2009, 07:26 PM

I think critical thinking is a personality trait and cannot really be taught. You're either born with a predisposition to "demand evidence" or yer not.

I agree with you up to a point. I don't think it is innate, however I agree with your view that it isn't a simple skill that can be offered in a class setting.

The predisposition, in my view, comes from the cultural values you're raised with from a young age. That's why (from my research and experience) schools need to adopt a whole-curriculum approach from the first grades where a classroom social setting that encourages certain approaches towards learning is implemented.

This would entail rewarding good thinking over correct answers (likewise, avoiding punishment for wrong answers), working to reduce ownership of answers (i.e., changing one's mind given new information is a positive thing), encouraging discussion and critical assessment of one's own views (highlighting the flaws of your own and other's opinions) etc. Role modeling these behaviours is perhaps one of the strongest tools available to a teacher.

Athon

Iconoclast08

15th August 2009, 09:11 PM

Thanks Icon-- I think I was a bit harsh here and I apologize / admit I was wrong.

My weaker claim is that individual's differ in the willingness and perhaps ability to think differently. One can probably indeed shift the bar up higher for everyone, even if the ranks remain after.

I tend to overestimate the importance of stable individual differences because most people underestimate them.

No need for an apology. Just friendly, if not sometimes rambunctious debate on both ends, which I enjoy. No hard feelings at all. :)

By the way, I'm reading a fascinating book by a philosophically-inclined psychologist at University of Amsterdam called Measuring the Mind, which goes into the nitty-gritty interpretive lenses through which we view those pesky "latent variables" we had a passionate exchange over in the previous g/intelligence factor thread. Check it out sometime if you get the chance.

Sorry to derail the thread, by the way.

Out,
King Digression

boloboffin

16th August 2009, 12:22 PM

dudalb

16th August 2009, 01:47 PM

One book not good for teaching critical thinking to the beginner although it sounds ideal for the purpose is "Logic for Dummies".
It is more of a Cliff's note for a college class in formal Logic then a guide to critical thinking for the beginner. It uses a lot of the terminology and mathmatical formulas used in formal logic and that is guaranteed to scare people off.
There is a fun book called "Sherlock's Logic" though, which teaches the basics of critical thinking with the Great Detective as a guide.

coldcanuk

22nd August 2009, 10:31 PM

How does one go about encouraging the development of critical thinking to students? On the web I've not encountered much research on this. Perhaps you could point me to some relevant research or give an opinion? My interest is as an aspiring elementary school teacher.

Thank you.

I guess it depends on what grades we are speaking about here. Obviously attempting to teach critical thinking to a yougster in Grade 1 will be different then Grade 6 (and I guess your school system, in Canada, some places run elementary till 8th grade).

To someone in a later grade, I would think you would be able to teach "Check your sources" or rather "Follow your sources". Compare opinion columns, to "news" (I use the term loosely) articles and a book. Opinion columns general have very few references. "News" articles may have more empirical references (Constable said, "And then I saw him, in a green hood runaway"). Whereas books (or even something shorter, an essay) would have references to other sources. Higher grade levels would be able to find more information on the sources etc..
Some old-school logic philosophy might help. <A HREF="http://www.answers.com/topic/euler-diagram">Euler</A> circles are fairly simple. Such logic training for sets can also help show how one can generate convincing arguments etc..

Lower grades, say maybe 3 or 4, you could probably teach by analogy. Get them used to questioning statements. Example: "What if I told you the world was flat?" I would assume grade 3-4 would know the globe is round by then. Present them various old-school arguments and then ask them why. Then explain the questioning process afterwards ... things like I would guess...

Hrm.... perhaps my ideas are in the far left field, but hopefully some food for thought.

Wolfman

23rd August 2009, 06:05 PM

I think critical thinking is a personality trait and cannot really be taught. You're either born with a predisposition to "demand evidence" or yer not.

Given an in class example and being test on how to critically think about it is one thing; generalizing that behavior to the world they live in could be another.

I agree with you up to a point. I don't think it is innate, however I agree with your view that it isn't a simple skill that can be offered in a class setting.

The predisposition, in my view, comes from the cultural values you're raised with from a young age. That's why (from my research and experience) schools need to adopt a whole-curriculum approach from the first grades where a classroom social setting that encourages certain approaches towards learning is implemented.

This would entail rewarding good thinking over correct answers (likewise, avoiding punishment for wrong answers), working to reduce ownership of answers (i.e., changing one's mind given new information is a positive thing), encouraging discussion and critical assessment of one's own views (highlighting the flaws of your own and other's opinions) etc. Role modeling these behaviours is perhaps one of the strongest tools available to a teacher.

Athon
To expand on Athon's comments...I would compare critical thinking in many ways to athletic skills, or musical ability. There are some people who, genetically, are simply going to be superior at these things. Most people, even given the best training from the earliest possible age, are never going to be a Michael Jordan or a Mozart.

But that doesn't mean that other people cannot learn to play basketball, or to play the piano. They will not do it as well, but they can certainly be competent at it. And, by that same token, a Michael Jordan who was deprived of athletic training, or a Mozart who was never exposed to music, would never have become the masters that they did.

Same thing with critical thinking. It is true that there are some people who will never be brilliant critical thinkers, regardless of what kind of education they receive. But they can be better critical thinkers than they would be without any such training and education. And at the same time, we're giving those who do have the innate skills and abilities to be a great critical thinker the opportunity to develop that to the maximum.

QED

28th August 2009, 07:23 AM

I guess you aren't a big fan of J. B. Watson, "Give me a dozen healthy infants, well-formed, and my own specified world to bring them up in and I'll guarantee to take any one at random and train him to become any type of specialist I might select – doctor, lawyer, artist, merchant-chief and, yes, even beggar-man and thief, regardless of his talents, penchants, tendencies, abilities, vocations, and race of his ancestors. I am going beyond my facts and I admit it, but so have the advocates of the contrary and they have been doing it for many thousands of years. [Behaviorism (1930), p. 82]
The last line is often omitted from critics' citations and is key.
Steven Pinker spends a lot of time arguing, very convincingly, against the concept of behaviourism in his book "Blank Slate: The Modern Denial of Human Nature". Behaviourism isn't in accord with today's mainstream science. It may have been in the 1930, when genetics and genomics wasn't something that could be investigated by science.

I'm not saying that culture and upbringing doesn't have an important role to play, but it's role in shaping character is often overestimated.

HansMustermann

28th August 2009, 07:42 AM

You know, maybe I'd start from the science side.

I'm reminded of a Vince Ebert gag. He said something like that science is basically just about verifying suppositions. If I believe there's a beer in the fridge, then go and look, that's science. If I believe there's a beer in the fridge, but don't bother looking, that's religion. And if I look in the fridge, there's no beer, and I still believe there's a beer in the fridge, that's esoteric.

I think in a sense all the mental exercises actually hurt there. People get the idea that they can draw conclusions based on something that exists only in their imagination.

So what I wish I could teach more people to do is: bloody go check it.

Jeff Corey

28th August 2009, 07:57 AM

Steven Pinker spends a lot of time arguing, very convincingly, against the concept of behaviourism in his book "Blank Slate: The Modern Denial of Human Nature". Behaviourism isn't in accord with today's mainstream science. It may have been in the 1930, when genetics and genomics wasn't something that could be investigated by science.

I'm not saying that culture and upbringing doesn't have an important role to play, but it's role in shaping character is often overestimated.

That quote was from 1930 and not representative of the form of radical behaviorism developed by Skinner and misrepresented by Pinker.http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa4032/is_200210/ai_n9135892/?tag=content;col1

Aitch

28th August 2009, 09:23 AM

Strangely enough, when I was looking up my old school (to do with another thread) I found that they teach a course in Critical Thinking at A-Level (http://www.stbedescollege.co.uk/academic/curriculum/sixth-form/).

Mind you, you can also do Theology. Wonder how many students take both?:eek:

Safe-Keeper

28th August 2009, 12:59 PM

I'm taking a few courses I'm missing at a high school in my city, and I'm currently taking, among other things, History and Philosophy, which will teach critical thinking and logical skills.

Piscivore

28th August 2009, 01:23 PM

I've taught critical thinking to my kids by raising them in an environment in which they cannot necessarily trust anything they hear.

NewtonTrino

28th August 2009, 02:07 PM

I think playing tricks on them and then revealing the deception later can be very effective. This is how I learned critical thinking, by being burned!

bpesta22

28th August 2009, 05:43 PM

I think playing tricks on them and then revealing the deception later can be very effective. This is how I learned critical thinking, by being burned!

So there really was no lost puppy or free candy?!

Richard

29th August 2009, 03:18 AM

Welcome, butterflycake. Here's one resource that you may find helpful: http://criticalteaching.org/ Note the forum with its own resource links. Several JREF forum members participate there.

I don't know how many of this forum's members teach critical thinking or the sciences to youngsters, but many, like Jeff Corey, Athon, Jeff Wagg (JREF General Manager), Mattus Maximus, and others have created critical thinking and science curricula for older students and might have helpful hints for you. You could try sending them a PM.

The Skeptic Society publishes Junior Skeptic and has a website (http://www.skeptic.com/junior_skeptic/).

The contributors to Teen Skepchick (http://skepchick.org/teen/) are older than elementary school age but would make good role models and might have solid suggestions for you.

I am known for my work countering bogus conspiracy theories about 9/11. I've received hundreds of emails from people who had fallen for these theories and who thanked me for helping to improve their critical thinking skills. Most of these people are adults. In turn, many of those skills I learned, or sharpened, right here. If old dogs can learn critical thinking skills, I have no doubt that youngsters can do the same.

There is a new interview out on the Skeptic Zone podcast for this week, at www.skepticzone.tv. That is episode #45.

It is with Leanne Rucks, who is the co-creator of the Philosothon. Along with Kylie Sturgess, the interviewer, and a keen group of educators and administrators, they have been working on a high-school competition for critical thinking, along with contributing / teaching the new Philosophy and Ethics course in Western Australia. The group WA APIS that Leanne mentions does training for Primary and Secondary teachers to introduce and support them with the Community of Inquiry in schools.

In addition, what the Philosophy for Children program does is cater (and in fact, has its original origins in encouraging from pre-primary years up) for the primary years of schooling as well as the secondary. You can contact Kylie for more information at her www.podblack.com blog, but if you look on the banner of her site for the posts about 'Skepticism - Gender, Activism and Education' - you'll discover, like people have said, it takes more educational demands than just a skeptic blog with a handful of young people on it! ;)

Some links about Philosophy for Children can be found at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_Lipman
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/children/
and it's embedded in the high school course as mentioned by Kylie and Leanne at:
http://www.curriculum.wa.edu.au/internet/Senior_Secondary/Courses/Philosophy_and_Ethics

The Critical Thinking Education group members Kylie Sturgess (who recorded the interview with Mark for episode #1 of the SZ podcast - Hi Gravy!), Barbara Drescher and Matt Lowry (another member of this forum board) - will be at Dragon*Con. Kylie has significant experience in researching the Philosophy for Children model and all three members will be presenting at various panels on the Skeptic and Science Tracks. As Athon has said - http://criticalteaching.org/.

bookitty

29th August 2009, 01:20 PM

rsaavedra

29th August 2009, 01:39 PM

I think playing tricks on them and then revealing the deception later can be very effective. This is how I learned critical thinking, by being burned!
Truly, there's a lot of teaching/learning by doing and experiencing. I would try to have them realize that their own senses and first impressions/intuitions aren't foolproof, in fact are very biased and can lead to flawed conclusions.

Kids and people in general have to realize by themselves that instead of having to decide or choose on the validity of some claim, the best rational choice is to suspend belief until sufficient convincing evidence is available.

5. Teach them the difference between testimony and evidence.
8. Teach them the differences between belief, idea, hypothesis, theory, and fact.

Teach them the differences between opinion and fact as well.

athon

29th August 2009, 06:50 PM

Thank you all for the many links. I'm currently trying to teach my niece and nephew to think more critically. They are teens attending a young-earth creationist private Jr. High & high school. I can not directly counter the creationism, but I can try to give them the skills to do it for themselves.

It is easier with the niece. Although she's younger, she's a bit more cynical. But it's not just that. For her the debunking is the good stuff. She would rather figure out how a TV ghostbuster faked it than believe in ghosts.

The boy wants the world to be full of possibility. He wants to believe in ghosts. He understands how to use CT but will only apply it to a single situation at a time. The big picture remains the same. That ghost might have been debunked but that doesn't prove that there aren't ghosts. The fact that NO ghost has ever been scientifically proven will not register. So he does not approach the next ghosthunt with any skepticism and will defend any small suggestion that ghosts are real while ignoring other evidence within that situation.

It is almost as if there is a personality trait that leads to CT.

You've nailed it there. :) It does come down to personality traits quite a bit. Skills are easy to teach, and often come quite naturally to those who have the personality traits to question and evaluate information based on their objectivity.

So, the question is how does one influence a personality trait?

Think of it this way - our social brains tend to model themselves on others we like and respect. Teenage years are big years of change, and personalities can change siginificantly during them. However, most of the evaluation tools they use are picked up before then, which makes it tricky to predict how to best encourage an adolescent to pick up the values necessary for thinking critically about the world.

Here's my advice - first of all, who do the kids look up to? What things do they enjoy? Music? Sport? Art? Find role models in each field who you think they might appreciate and engage in it with them. Are you somebody they like and respect? Hang out with them and do some cool stuff. Don't preach or critically evaluate their beliefs for them. Let them see you do it to other beliefs. Importantly, let them see how you do it to your own beliefs - let one or two 'fall' in front of them, letting them see how you graciously lose faith in something when you learn new information.

I have to be honest, and say over the years I've had less and less appreciation for how skeptics approach education. Most people think teaching is the same as communicating. Yet 'how' one communicates makes all the difference.

Athon

rsaavedra

29th August 2009, 07:50 PM

athon

29th August 2009, 08:23 PM

In one the links submitted to this thread I found a link to this interesting article by Mortimer Adler:

Critical Thinking Programs: Why They Won't Work (http://radicalacademy.com/adlercritthinkingpro.htm)

While I agree with the meat of Adler's article, his sentiments on the matter are a little misleading. The pedagogy behind critical thinking is a little more complicated than he insinuates when he says good teaching across the entire curriculum should inherently convey critical thinking values.

Critical thinking courses, by and large, seem to do little to create life long critical thinkers. Returning to students several years later and subjecting them to one of the many critical thinking evaluation tools out there seems to show that in the majority of cases, they tend to lose those skills that they demonstrated at the end of the course. In other words, they go back to the same old social thinking skills they had prior to the course, given time.

This makes sense, when you think about it. We haven't evolved to intuitively think in a fashion that risks putting us into conflict with the social group, so a six month course won't change that.

Yet while it's easy to say 'good' teaching should rely on teaching students to think as they learn, it's almost dismissive of the underlying mechanisms that turn a student into an effective critical thinker. Believe it or not, most of the ways teachers present a curriculum runs against critical thinking. Simple measures such as how a teacher discourages wrong answers, presents information authoritatively, encourages cohesion within group work (i.e. differences of opinion are discouraged), transmission-based teaching etc. all diminish the values necessary for good critical thinking. Yet while teaching culture is slowly changing, classroom management and curriculum pressures still mean teachers will find it difficult to avoid such age-old practices.

Athon

rsaavedra

30th August 2009, 09:12 AM

Believe it or not, most of the ways teachers present a curriculum runs against critical thinking. Simple measures such as how a teacher discourages wrong answers, presents information authoritatively, encourages cohesion within group work (i.e. differences of opinion are discouraged), transmission-based teaching etc. all diminish the values necessary for good critical thinking.
Yes I agree with that.

I'm surprised at finding among some of the other links some rather dogmatic statements. For instance in the CriticalTeaching.org site, bolds are mine:

http://www.criticalteaching.org/pages/FAQ.html#WhyIsCTImportant
Throughout most of human history, survival and wellbeing has primarily relied on how well an individual can contribute to their social group. Communities were strictly personal affairs, with relationships strongest between family members and known peers. The struggle for survival in a dangerous world selected for those brains that worked well within familiar relationships. Therefore the lives of our ancestors depended largely on the sharing of beliefs than over the accuracy of information.

Today's world is a different place. As we move into the future, members of our global community are becoming increasingly reliant on information that leads to good decision making. An increasing reliance on science and technology to make decisions about our health, finance and state of mind demands information that has the best chance of proving useful. With useful information becoming such a commodity, it's important that tomorrow's citizens will have the ability to find and apply it successfully.

I find those statements a bit uncritical and dogmatic. It is not really trivial to state that a struggle for survival selected those "brains" that worked well within familiar relationships in the past, and their lives depended largely on the sharing of beliefs over accuracy of information; and even if that selection worked that way, then how it be so easily stated that such balance isn't as important nowadays? I get the gist and don´t mean to suggest I necessarily disagree with the statements; just think they are rather dogmatically presented, no evidence or insufficient evidence supporting them.

athon

30th August 2009, 05:13 PM

I find those statements a bit uncritical and dogmatic. It is not really trivial to state that a struggle for survival selected those "brains" that worked well within familiar relationships in the past, and their lives depended largely on the sharing of beliefs over accuracy of information; and even if that selection worked that way, then how it be so easily stated that such balance isn't as important nowadays? I get the gist and don´t mean to suggest I necessarily disagree with the statements; just think they are rather dogmatically presented, no evidence or insufficient evidence supporting them.

You might have a point in that it is more of an opinion-based conclusion, and should be voiced as such (maybe by putting 'we believe' in there). However, the reasons behind our desires to teach critical thinking aren't objective and should not be stated as such. They are based on the perceived need for effective thinking skills to address an obvious difference in how society has changed.

I'm not sure how necessary it is to provide evidence supporting the fact that we now live in a more globalised community than we did several thousand years ago, one that is less collectivist and one that depends more on information as a resource. I'll admit it could just be my biased view, but it's a bit like saying our technology is more sophisticated than it was a few thousand years ago or the average person knows more about the universe today than compared with a few thousand years ago.

I appreciate the concern that the site is promoting critical thinking while including statements that have no supporting evidence linked to claims it makes. It is a work in progress and I'll admit is far from perfect (given we've all got day jobs as well). The feedback is appreciated.

Athon

rsaavedra

30th August 2009, 08:16 PM

I appreciate the concern that the site is promoting critical thinking while including statements that have no supporting evidence linked to claims it makes. It is a work in progress and I'll admit is far from perfect (given we've all got day jobs as well). The feedback is appreciated
From your comment I understand that you are involved in the creation of that site, really didn't know. Well, all for the better, that way the feedback was provided inadvertently right to the appropriate destination :) I did understand where the gist was coming from, yet an evolutionary biologist might have objections asking for support for that claim about "brains" that worked well within familiar relationships in the past getting selected in the struggle for survival. It's not a big deal after all, just sounded a bit dogmatic to me.

athon

30th August 2009, 09:20 PM

From your comment I understand that you are involved in the creation of that site, really didn't know. Well, all for the better, that way the feedback was provided inadvertently right to the appropriate destination :)

Indeed. :) I should have made it clear that I'm one of CTEG's founders.

I did understand where the gist was coming from, yet an evolutionary biologist might have objections asking for support for that claim about "brains" that worked well within familiar relationships in the past getting selected in the struggle for survival. It's not a big deal after all, just sounded a bit dogmatic to me.

No, I do see your point and appreciate you making it. I'm not sure I'd go so far as say it's 'dogmatic', yet I do agree that the material could be clarified.

Actually, I did discuss this topic with an anthropologist a year or two ago, which was what led me down this path of considering the differences in human sociology and the evolution of our brains. I'm unconcerned with whether the concept is sound - I've done plenty of reading/discussing on the topic over the years to be satisfied that human neurology evolved to suit a social environment that is very different to the one we are forced to deal with today.

But I will get around to addressing this clearer in the text one of these days.

Athon

C_Felix

2nd September 2009, 09:54 AM

Ex teacher here.
5th grade (10-12 year olds)

I used to love logic puzzles!
Mary has a house with one window.
Bobby has a pool.
Jimmy's neighbor never goes swimming.
etc...

We used to make our own as well.

Don't know if that is really teaching ciritical thinking, but it might be a start.

***
We used to build a ramp with a wood plank and two SS text books.
We'd roll a marble down the ramp a few times and average (the mean) the distance.
Then we'd double the height of the ramp (that's four books to the doubling challenged) and the class would ALWAYS say, "Well, it should go twice as far."
Enter the scientific method...
We'd write up our hypothesis.
Test.
Compare to hypothesis...etc...

***
Scientific method in SS.
If we were to make our own nation, how would we start?
I'd always suggest making a supreme leader! (Of course I'd suggest myself.)
Then we'd see the problems associated with that system.
The smarter kids would suggest a system of checks and balances. (But not in that language)
Then we'd scientific method this out.
"Are there any examples in history to suggest that having a system of checks and balances is a good way to keep a leader's power in check? Are there any examples of this?"
Then off to the books, well, internet these days...

Cynic

8th September 2009, 09:19 PM

Critical thinking courses, by and large, seem to do little to create life long critical thinkers. Returning to students several years later and subjecting them to one of the many critical thinking evaluation tools out there seems to show that in the majority of cases, they tend to lose those skills that they demonstrated at the end of the course. In other words, they go back to the same old social thinking skills they had prior to the course, given time.

This makes sense, when you think about it. We haven't evolved to intuitively think in a fashion that risks putting us into conflict with the social group, so a six month course won't change that.

My oldest child has just entered kindergarten and since her birth I've been trying to devise how to teach my kids how to think without telling them what to think. For the reasons above, it's not easy. You can't trust schools to teach logic, formal or otherwise. (They would probably face stiff resistance if they even tried.) And by the time they hit college, it not only isn't required, but is generally far, far too late. To make it all worse, I run the risk of turning them into a argumentative pendants no one wants to talk to.

Yet while it's easy to say 'good' teaching should rely on teaching students to think as they learn, it's almost dismissive of the underlying mechanisms that turn a student into an effective critical thinker. Believe it or not, most of the ways teachers present a curriculum runs against critical thinking. Simple measures such as how a teacher discourages wrong answers, presents information authoritatively, encourages cohesion within group work (i.e. differences of opinion are discouraged), transmission-based teaching etc. all diminish the values necessary for good critical thinking. Yet while teaching culture is slowly changing, classroom management and curriculum pressures still mean teachers will find it difficult to avoid such age-old practices.

True, and I only see this getting worse, as the amount of information to convey increases and the time to convey it in doesn't. Couching knowledge in terms of justification for it can help, but it's no substitute for slowing down and exploring a bit.

When I work with my kid, I try to get her to explain how she got to the answer. I think that more than anything, emphasis on that aspect will do the most good. The answer itself, if correct, is great, but knowledge must be secondary to understanding, IMO. In my experience, a desire to understand and not just absorb knowledge will do more to ensure that they'll challenge themselves and hold themselves to a higher standard of thought than all the critical thinking "classes" in the world.

athon

8th September 2009, 09:35 PM

My oldest child has just entered kindergarten and since her birth I've been trying to devise how to teach my kids how to think without telling them what to think. For the reasons above, it's not easy. You can't trust schools to teach logic, formal or otherwise. (They would probably face stiff resistance if they even tried.) And by the time they hit college, it not only isn't required, but is generally far, far too late. To make it all worse, I run the risk of turning them into a argumentative pendants no one wants to talk to.

There is a big difference between being critical and thinking critically. Probably one of the most important values you can role model for your kids is the ability to revise what you know. Show them that all people are allowed to believe something, but it should be justified reasonably and they can always change their mind later.

Communicating their epistemology to others is less important than simply being that way themselves. They're welcome to argue, of course, but sometimes the battle isn't worth fighting.

True, and I only see this getting worse, as the amount of information to convey increases and the time to convey it in doesn't.

I'm not sure it is, to be honest. It's a commonly recited mantra, that education is getting worse, especially regarding logic and reason. Yet in my experience, pedagogy has improved significantly. It is a slow process, true, and not everybody will be happy with the outcomes. There is no magic bullet to end social thinking or eradicate beliefs in the paranormal or pseudoscience. But we have progressed.

When I work with my kid, I try to get her to explain how she got to the answer. I think that more than anything, emphasis on that aspect will do the most good. The answer itself, if correct, is great, but knowledge must be secondary to understanding, IMO. In my experience, a desire to understand and not just absorb knowledge will do more to ensure that they'll challenge themselves and hold themselves to a higher standard of thought than all the critical thinking "classes" in the world.

Sounds like you're doing a perfect job. :)

Schools can never match the home when it comes to educating kids in values. They can try to provide resources, and a certain environment conducive to learning, but in the end, it's the homelife that has the biggest impact. Always will.

Athon

Cynic

8th September 2009, 10:22 PM

I'm not sure it is, to be honest. It's a commonly recited mantra, that education is getting worse, especially regarding logic and reason. Yet in my experience, pedagogy has improved significantly. It is a slow process, true, and not everybody will be happy with the outcomes. There is no magic bullet to end social thinking or eradicate beliefs in the paranormal or pseudoscience. But we have progressed.

It's been over 15 years since I was inside a grade school as a student, so I don't have a good grasp on the current reality. From what I experienced back in the day, however, in terms of critical thinking anyway, was a transition from draconian "this is how it is" methods to a style that overshot independent thought altogether and told everyone that everyone's ideas are all equally valid. In other words, from not critical (don't think, just accept this information) to not critical (don't think, feel). From be like the herd to I'm OK, you're OK.

Obviously this sort of thing varies from class to class as requirements change. You don't get a lot of squishy thinking in math, just as you don't see much rigor in American Lit. That's not really what I meant though -- I trust that most teachers are bright enough and serious enough to avoid silly extremes.

What I meant though is quite literally the effect of having increased information to cram into their heads and the same amount of time to teach it. It leads to classes being mostly overviews and surveys of the material and not enough practical, well-rounded application to really understand what it's all about on a gut level. Theory is great and necessary, but without some grounding it's all going to sublime in short order. Of course, sometimes to alleviate the time crunch the opposite happens, where kids are given nothing but practical instruction with little appreciation for what it is they're learning. That's the root of the "teach the test" issue when you get down to it. My point is, something's got to give, which means, something has to suffer. I'm concerned that whatever it is will also shrink opportunity for critical challenge.

Prometheus

8th September 2009, 10:33 PM

Last year I visited the house I lived in at college and spent some time talking to the current crop of students there. I have to say, I was stunned by how much brighter, well informed, and quick witted they were than I remember myself or my friends being at that age. Granted, this is a top-tier university so it's skimming the cream of the crop, but still it means at least some of our K-12 education system has been doing something right.

athon

8th September 2009, 10:51 PM

I've visited a lot of schools in my time, either in delivering professional development, presenting to students or working with teachers in delivering one of several programs. Granted, most of my direct experience is limited to Australia and the UK, however I do work in connection with US educators from various fields.

Schools do vary a lot in their culture and curriculum, teacher experience, student backgrounds etc. Some focus more on student behaviour, others on curriculum, and others still on extra-curricular endeavours. I know there are very few schools who aren't doing the best they can with what resources they have, which is another variant.

When I say that pedagogy is improving, I don't mean all schools are better today than they were before. I do mean that the focus of educational culture adapts to suit the needs of society, progressing slowly (shifting of teacher paradigms) and improving in terms of empowering students with the necessary thinking skills. There will always be shortfalls, bad experiences and cries for improvements in specific fields. However, I know ten years ago that critical thinking wasn't discussed much in educational circles, let alone skepticism, while today they are words that can be found in many educational documents from government level down to classroom resources.

Yes, we still have some way to go. But those who think we've slid backward usually aren't speaking from an informed position.

Athon

Prometheus

8th September 2009, 11:09 PM

athon

8th September 2009, 11:57 PM

Just today, I was invited to give a talk on career decision making to a few classes at a local high school. I'd like to approach the topic from a critical thinking perspective. Any helpful suggestions would be much appreciated. :)

Hm, interesting. I've given talks on science careers, but never careers in general.

I tend to suggest to kids that in today's world you're never committed to the one career like people used to be. As with critical thinking, you need to be flexible in what represents your occupation. Never think about yourself in terms of what job you do, but rather what skills you have.

Not sure how you'd explicitly bring critical thinking into it, except to be reasonable and logical when it comes to considering opportunities. Not every kid is going to be a doctor or a lawyer - and that is ok. Not all adolescents know what they want to be when they leave school, either. It's a matter of diversifying experience and - again as with critical thinking - being aware that it's ok to not have the answers, so long as you don't make decisions prematurely without good information (including 'Am I really prepared to do that?' and 'Is that what I want to do, or is it what others want me to do?').

Athon

KoihimeNakamura

9th September 2009, 05:12 AM

I kinda wish I was taught a method of analysis when I was younger - I find it a nightmare to try to pick up now.

Wildtime

9th September 2009, 10:55 PM

I kinda wish I was taught a method of analysis when I was younger - I find it a nightmare to try to pick up now.

I'm in the same boat. Although I try to think critically, my initial introduction to critical thinking was through the various podcasts I found on iTunes. Since then I've learned three things:

Ignorance is the antithesis to critical thinking;
Socrates is not a great starting point for beginner critical thinkers;
Critical thinking should be taught at the elementary level.

School kids will encounter a similar set of challenges. Their parents may watch Oprah or subscribe to some form of 'alternative' science/medicine/history, and it is our first priority to give their kids the tools to think for themselves. Socratic questioning may be the obvious starting point for some, but at any school level (including post-secondary) it is extremely BORING!!! Just give them a simplified checklist with justifications and they'll do fine. In fact, it will help them exponentially throughout their entire educational experience. With internet websites taking over more than its fair share in the bibliography section of an essay/thesis/report the student should realize which sites are legitimate (Richard Lenski's Long-Term E. coli Experimental Evolutionary Experiment website), somewhat legitimate (Wikipedia), and BS (anything related to Woo, Creationism, 'energy' not related to a unit of work, etc.).

One of the lectures I attended at the Royal Tyrrell Museum was on teaching evolution, and not only was the Teaching Evolution (http:<forward slash, forward slash> evolution.berkeley.edu/) website brought to light, but so was Teaching Science (:) http:<forward slash, forward slash>undsci.berkeley.edu/), a sister project which not only clarifies the scientific process, but introduces a rudimentary checklist of critical thinking (Your Science Toolkit). This site also divides its teaching objectives by grade-levels, which is also helpful.

NOTE: replace <forward slash, forward slash> with //. I haven't made 15 posts yet, so apparently I can't type in websites yet.

rsaavedra

10th September 2009, 08:21 AM

Just give them a simplified checklist with justifications and they'll do fine. In fact, it will help them exponentially throughout their entire educational experience.
Along those lines, Carl Sagan's Baloney Detection Kit (http://users.tpg.com.au/users/tps-seti/baloney.html) might be worth mentioning in this thread. It is not really aimed for kids, but it could be simplified, and just the notion of a "Baloney Detection Kit," and of assuming a sort of "truth detective" role, I think will very much appeal to kids.

Cynic

10th September 2009, 08:47 AM

I sort of shy away from teaching more direct forms of skepicism to my girls. (Which is easy to say since they're so young they won't understand it anyway yet.) I want to keep the focus on fully considering and thinking through a problem and less on how to deconstruct crap thinking and prove it wrong. Partly that's because I don't want to sabotage them socially before they're able to handle themselves. But also because I've encountered too many of what I consider knee-jerk skeptics, who substitute doubt for thought. That might be useful to get them to avoid believing any old thing they hear, but avoiding that is only half of what drives me to teach critical thought. I want them to be leaders, not critics.

Mainly what I'm saying here is that things like the Bologna Detection Kit aren't just advanced, but too fully adult for what I want to get across. There's so much squishiness, where guidelines offer red flags, but not concrete proof. And so many people operate from such guidelines in a manner that suggests that they don't fully get that. IMO, formal logic is the foundation, one that must be learned before taking shortcuts.

rjh01

10th September 2009, 06:05 PM

Along those lines, Carl Sagan's Baloney Detection Kit (http://users.tpg.com.au/users/tps-seti/baloney.html) might be worth mentioning in this thread. It is not really aimed for kids, but it could be simplified, and just the notion of a "Baloney Detection Kit," and of assuming a sort of "truth detective" role, I think will very much appeal to kids.

From the link
Arguments from authority carry little weight (in science there are no "authorities").

Does that mean that everyone's opinion is equally valid?

Cynic

10th September 2009, 06:29 PM

Not really. Just just means that source is no substitute for evidence. The information isn't useless, just not grounds for belief all by itself.

athon

11th September 2009, 06:13 PM

Not really. Just just means that source is no substitute for evidence. The information isn't useless, just not grounds for belief all by itself.

I might pull you up there and ask what you think you mean by the word 'evidence'. (it's a drum I beat a lot around here, so don't worry - I'm not picking on you for it :p In fact, it's probably the biggest concern I have in skeptical education.)

It's a term that's bandied about a lot as if it is an objective quality of information, yet few skeptics stop to really consider what the word means to others.

Athon

Kahalachan

11th September 2009, 06:48 PM

If we're talking little kids here, I think teaching them the difference between fact and opinion would suffice to get their brains developing in the right direction.

"This apple is red" vs. "I like apples"

Kids will learn that a fact is some external observation that is agreed upon by independent observers and that liking apples is all in the mind.

Cynic

11th September 2009, 08:03 PM

(evidence) It's a term that's bandied about a lot as if it is an objective quality of information, yet few skeptics stop to really consider what the word means to others.

Evidence a peice of or body of facts, generally assumed to either support or weigh against a particular unknown. It gets misused a lot, IMO, because people have a tendency to declare a thing as evidence before it can be show for certain what it is evidence for.

I like to illustrate the problem with a rectangle mostly buried in the sand, where what the various exposed angles and sides are "evidence" for isn't certain until they're all revealed.

athon

11th September 2009, 08:29 PM

Evidence a peice of or body of facts, generally assumed to either support or weigh against a particular unknown.

I agree. Now, if we take a fairly good definition for 'fact' supplied conveniently by Kahalachan:

Kids will learn that a fact is some external observation that is agreed upon by independent observers and that liking apples is all in the mind.

...we have a problem - for it to be evidence, it needs people to agree that the observation relates to the unknown. As such, it is subjective to personal opinion on whether the observation increases or decreases confidence in a likely description of the unknown.

There is no objective qualifier for an observation to be related to a unknown cause. It's up to people discussing and coming to a common agreement. So, if somebody else disagrees, logically there is no way to dismiss their view. All arguments to do so would rely on logical fallacies.

Therefore while evidence is important, it alone can't be relied upon as a discriminating factor in determining good information from bad. They need a set of tools for determining their own confidence in the quality of that evidence.

It's a minor nit-pick, I know, however in my experience it is a fairly significant one. Nobody arrives at a conclusion independently of any evidence at all, so telling a person that they should use evidence is somewhat ineffective. A person might use popular opinion as evidence, and would technically be correct in doing so according to the above definitions (we observe the opinions of others, therefore we have a fact that is related to an unknown).

However, critical thinking relates to the evaluation of how likely it is that such a piece of evidence will lead to a useful conclusion. It's those values and thinking tools that are important.

Athon

Cynic

11th September 2009, 09:18 PM

...we have a problem - for it to be evidence, it needs people to agree that the observation relates to the unknown. As such, it is subjective to personal opinion on whether the observation increases or decreases confidence in a likely description of the unknown.

There is no objective qualifier for an observation to be related to a unknown cause. It's up to people discussing and coming to a common agreement. So, if somebody else disagrees, logically there is no way to dismiss their view. All arguments to do so would rely on logical fallacies.

Therefore while evidence is important, it alone can't be relied upon as a discriminating factor in determining good information from bad. They need a set of tools for determining their own confidence in the quality of that evidence.

The tools, and the will to use them. (That's the hard part, I fear.)

With things that can be proven, there is a point where evidence can conclusively and objectively discriminate. Before that point, there are degrees of objective and discrimination where some theories are ruled out and some remain plausible.

That's why I like the story of the buried rectangle. If a corner is poking out the sand, the angles can be measured and sides determined. Clearing not all is revealed, so observers can speculate that it might be a pyramid, or a square, or any number of things that happen to include the features that are visible. Dig a little bit and you might find more corners, further, perhaps ruling out the pyramid idea, but not a square or rectangle. Up until the point where findings are conclusive, it's improper to call the various discoveries evidence "for" anything in particular, though increasingly it will represent clear evidence "against" things.

This sort of interpretive error comes up constantly, and only the people in good command of the tool of which you speak handle themselves well with it. When it comes to things that can't be proven as such, logic and logic-y principles (especially parsimony, IMO) are the best way to go.

athon

11th September 2009, 09:40 PM

The tools, and the will to use them. (That's the hard part, I fear.)

Hence why I constantly refer to 'values'. :)

We all make decisions based on a hierarchy of values - those things that are most important at any given point in time. Being social creatures, we've got an innate heuristic that evaluates information based on who is providing it. This works well most of the time - however, in a world where information is becoming far more complicated and detailed, not to mention important for interacting in a global community, it's not going to cut it like it has done throughout most of our history.

That means finding a balance between our social way of thinking and the process of critical thinking that values an objective, internally consistent way of evaluating information. You are dead right that it is the hard part. Anybody can learn the skills, but communicating the importance of it is quite hard.

Athon

rsaavedra

11th September 2009, 10:10 PM

The quality and pertinence of the evidence is certainly critical. One interesting approach to teach critical thinking would be to show examples of some simple phenomenon involving causal connections, but presented in such a way that the phenomenon is not completely explained by the available evidence. Kids can then speculate and put forth hypothesis to explain the phenomena, at the same time exercising the kinds of questions to ask in order to seek the missing evidence, to identify and distinguish necessary vs. sufficient evidence, and in general to evaluate the quality or appropriateness of anything presented as "evidence."

Here's an example. There was a famous beach where hundreds of people use to sunbathe and swim. It was well known that at this beach there had been shark sightings and also shark attacks over decades. Researchers evaluated historical data, and observed that the more ice cream sold on the beach was always associated to higher numbers of shark sightings and shark attacks. Because of this correlation, people started speculating wheter eating ice cream increased your changes of being attacked by a shark, because sharks are known to have a very sensitive sense of smell, and this correlation was "evidence" that ice cream eaters attract more sharks.

But... is a correlation between ice cream sales and shark attacks adequate evidence to claim that eating ice cream will make it more likely for you to become a victim of a shark attack?

As it turns out, the actual explanation of that correlation involves a hidden variable: heat. For a given number of people at the beach, the hotter the day the more ice cream gets sold, and also, the more people goes in the water. And the more people in the water, the more likelyhood of shark attacks; hence the correlation. But the increase in ice cream sales was not at all attracting more sharks or causing more shark attacks.

That is just an example. Another one could use detective stories a la Sherlock Holmes. This kind of exercise in different contexts I think could be good training for the critical thinking muscles, so to speak, teaching them the habit of not jumping to conclusions too quickly.

Skeptic Ginger

11th September 2009, 10:23 PM

How does one go about encouraging the development of critical thinking to students? On the web I've not encountered much research on this. Perhaps you could point me to some relevant research or give an opinion? My interest is as an aspiring elementary school teacher.

Thank you.Easy, use the scientific method to develop (including a lit review of what has already been developed) the best ways to teach critical thinking to individuals and groups.

The mistake I see so often on this forum and in other discussions of this topic is the mistake of winging it. People give their opinions, qualified or not. They guess and often declare certain groups of people are unreachable.

How do you know that? Have you considered the vast amount of research already done in marketing, persuasion, and education? Have you considered treating this problem the same way we treat other problems? That is you gather the known data, you formulate hypotheses, you test them, revise them and continue testing and refining. You develop new hypotheses as your data base grows and original thinkers join the task.

Use the scientific method. This problem is no different than other problems. The scientific process is going to be the most productive means to your end.

Skeptic Ginger

11th September 2009, 10:33 PM

For example:

The Critical Thinking Community (http://www.criticalthinking.org/articles/index.cfm)Research in Critical Thinking
The Center conducts advanced research and disseminates information on critical thinking.

Each year it sponsors an annual International Conference on Critical Thinking and Educational Reform. It has worked with the College Board, the National Education Association, the U.S. Department of Education, as well as numerous colleges, universities, and school districts to facilitate the implementation of critical thinking instruction focused on intellectual standards.

The following three studies demonstrate:

1. the fact that, as a rule, critical thinking is not presently being effectively taught at the high school, college and university level, and yet
2. it is possible to do so.

To assess students' understanding of critical thinking, we recommend use of the International Critical Thinking Test as well as the Critical Thinking Interview Profile for College Students. To assess faculty understanding of critical thinking and its importance to instruction, we recommend the Critical Thinking Interview Profile For Teachers and Faculty. By registering as a member of the community, you will have access to streaming video, which includes a sample student interview with Dr. Richard Paul and Rush Cosgrove.

THE THINKING SKILLS RESEARCH (http://www.nwrel.org/archive/sirs/6/cu11.html)This summary is based on a review of 56 documents. Thirty-three of these are reports of research studies or reviews and are cited, with annotations, in the Key References section of the bibliography. Twenty-three are descriptive, theoretical, or guidelines documents or are concerned with research in areas other than the effectiveness of programs and practices. These reports are itemized in the General References.

Of the 33 key documents, 22 are research studies or evaluations, and 11 are reviews or syntheses of research. Subjects of these investigations include: general (or unspecified) student populations - 12 reports, elementary students - 9, secondary students - 9, and both secondary and postsecondary students - 3. The research involved regular, gifted, EMR, and Chapter 1 student populations; a representative range of racial/ethnic groups; and a balance of urban, suburban, and rural settings. Only three of the reports deal with student populations outside the United States. Five of the reports have teachers as well as students as their subjects.

Critical Thinking Research Abstracts (http://74.125.155.132/search?q=cache:_xFvuAJWYtgJ:downloads.cas.psu.edu/4H/CTResearchAbst.doc+research+in+teaching+critical+t hinking&cd=9&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=firefox-a)

-

rsaavedra

11th September 2009, 10:58 PM

...includes a sample student interview with Dr. Richard Paul and Rush Cosgrove.

Off topic, but from your post just remembering that one of the first things that got me interested in Critical Thinking as a subject in itself was a book by Richard Paul that I came across in a library several years ago.

athon

11th September 2009, 11:43 PM

Off topic, but from your post just remembering that one of the first things that got me interested in Critical Thinking as a subject in itself was a book by Richard Paul that I came across in a library several years ago.

Richard Paul's research is pretty extensive and well conducted IMO, however it fails to take into account the reality of existing systems and the amount of change that would be required to adapt to his measures. In a perfect world, sure, they'd be great...but unless you can build an educational system from scratch, it ain't going to happen.

Athon

Skeptic Ginger

12th September 2009, 05:27 PM

Richard Paul's research is pretty extensive and well conducted IMO, however it fails to take into account the reality of existing systems and the amount of change that would be required to adapt to his measures. In a perfect world, sure, they'd be great...but unless you can build an educational system from scratch, it ain't going to happen.

AthonFor the record, I wasn't advocating any specific research or researcher. I was merely pointing out we should address this problem like we do others, that is with the scientific method.

athon

12th September 2009, 06:00 PM

For the record, I wasn't advocating any specific research or researcher. I was merely pointing out we should address this problem like we do others, that is with the scientific method.

Hey, no arguments here. :D I fully agree. It links in with what I was saying earlier - people don't tend to see pedagogy as a science like any other. Deanna's Kuhn's research (Skills of Argument is a good book to have on your shelf) has gone into perceptions of expertise in fields such as education. It's frustrating when you go to great lengths to gain a better understanding of such a field, and you get groups who tout themselves as an educational foundation who see little need to inform themselves on it.

Athon

thinkingman

30th September 2009, 07:17 PM

To teach people to think, one needs to allow them to think. Open ended questions and brainstorming sessions can help.

NewtonTrino

2nd October 2009, 09:23 AM

I still think that regularly tricking the students is what will really teach them.

Cynic

2nd October 2009, 02:52 PM

Wrong, tricked again. Wrong, tricked again.

(You can't have any pudding if you don't eat your meat!)

I dunno, I mean, the problem is that people are easy to trick.

jakesteele

2nd October 2009, 03:44 PM

athon

2nd October 2009, 05:39 PM

I still think that regularly tricking the students is what will really teach them.

Actually...no. It is a fast way to have kids distrust you, and therefore not subscribe to either your methods or the content of your lessons. It's not going to have the effect you think, which is make them think more critically about all of the information they receive.

Deliberately misleading students will only create further confusion and make them disconnect from your class.

Athon

quixotecoyote

2nd October 2009, 06:03 PM

I try to encourage it a little in my public speaking classes by asking 'why' type questions a lot.

Today we had an oral quiz where they had to correctly cite a source given to them (pity the poor student I gave the timecube excerpt to :)) and if it was one of the three kinds of supporting material discussed in the book.

Since matching a given source to example/statistic/testimony/none of the above can be a bit of a grey area, if they could make a rational argument to defend their choice, they got points.

This happens a lot in classes with essays, but I think the critical thinking aspect (however small) comes across better in a group/discussion context.

Clare Swinney

2nd October 2009, 10:14 PM

I know of a teacher in New Zealand who sharpens the children's discernment by showing them Al Gore's 'An Inconvenient Truth' and 'The Great Global Warming Swindle.'

It makes the children realise that while Gore's presentation seemed powerful and convincing on initial inspection, that this film is in reality, so steeped in blatant errors and misrepresentations, that it should be categorized as a political melodrama and renamed: The Biggest Lie Of The Century.

I think it really helps to show children the 2 sides of the coin, particularly in light of the rise of fascism - show them the version the government wants us to see, and the other, valid one.

He advised that the children loved 'The Great Global Warming Swindle'.

Prometheus

2nd October 2009, 10:17 PM

I know of a teacher in New Zealand who sharpens the children's discernment by showing them Al Gore's 'An Inconvenient Truth' and 'The Great Global Warming Swindle.'

It makes the children realise that while Gore's presentation seemed powerful and convincing on initial inspection, that this film is in reality, so steeped in blatant errors and misrepresentations, that it should be categorized as a political melodrama and renamed: The Biggest Lie Of The Century.

I think it really helps to show children the 2 sides of the coin, particularly in light of the rise of fascism - the one the government wants us to see, and the other, true one.

He said the children loved 'The Great Global Warming Swindle'.

Was this teacher attempting to teach critical thinking or irony?

Clare Swinney

2nd October 2009, 11:10 PM

Was this teacher attempting to teach critical thinking or irony?

It could have been irony too I suppose, if the children looked up to politicians. When 'The Great Global Warming Swindle' shows the scenes from 'An Inconvenient Truth' in which Al Gore is on a stage displaying the temperature and CO2 graphs separately saying: “When there is more carbon dioxide, the temperature gets warmer,” and this is followed by footage of Professor Ian Clark showing that when Gore’s two graphs are put together, it can be seen that the level of atmospheric carbon dioxide follows temperature -this really wakes people up to the fact that the fundamental assumption of global warming theory – that carbon dioxide causes the temperature to rise, is NOT supported by the evidence.
All children should be shown both as a lesson in critical thinking about politicians.

quixotecoyote

2nd October 2009, 11:57 PM

It could have been irony too I suppose, if the children looked up to politicians. When 'The Great Global Warming Swindle' shows the scenes from 'An Inconvenient Truth' in which Al Gore is on a stage displaying the temperature and CO2 graphs separately saying: “When there is more carbon dioxide, the temperature gets warmer,” and this is followed by footage of Professor Ian Clark showing that when Gore’s two graphs are put together, it can be seen that the level of atmospheric carbon dioxide follows temperature -this really wakes people up to the fact that the fundamental assumption of global warming theory – that carbon dioxide causes the temperature to rise, is NOT supported by the evidence.
All children should be shown both as a lesson in critical thinking about politicians.

Except that reading on Milankovitch cycles and the interaction of CO2 and temperature would have explained that. In other words, yes CO2 lags temperature, that doesn't mean CO2 doesn't affect temperature.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-lags-temperature.htm

In other words, teaching critical thinking would teach avoiding the non-sequitor of this premise not leading to the conclusion. It would also be a good moment to teach that when an argument isn't sound, the conclusion may still be true, and the position on climate change should be reached based on the overwhelming evidence rather than whether Al Gore presented his graphs correctly or not.

Clare Swinney

3rd October 2009, 12:11 AM

Except that reading on Milankovitch cycles and the interaction of CO2 and temperature would have explained that. In other words, yes CO2 lags temperature, that doesn't mean CO2 doesn't affect temperature.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-...emperature.htm

Who wrote about the "Milankovitch cycles"? Someone paid to come up with "evidence."
Dr Coffman, CEO of Sovereignty International, who headed a multi-million dollar research effort in the early-1990’s that studied the effects of global warming on ecosystems in the US, says there’s a cadre of scientists on “soft money” who are out of a job if they “don’t show a global-warming connection.” He says the US government is pouring an astronomical US$4 billion per annum into this research because on an elite political level, where the real power lies, there’s an agenda to establish a fascist one-world government, [1].
The UN, which is controlled by the elite, is preparing to take over as the government for all the world’s nations under the pretext of saving the planet from “global warming.” It aims to implement Agenda 21, which is supposedly about “sustainable development.” On cursory inspection, 21 looks reasonable, however, as Dr Michael Coffman who has taken the time to read UN documents, pointed out that the intention of the 40-chapter document is to reorganize the world around socialist, command and control regulation, as the elite view humans as earth’s primary contaminants. It will be a living nightmare for us if the elite have their way, which is why waking children up to the facts and getting them to engage in critical thinking where so-called "man-made global warming" is concerned is important.

[1] Global Warming or Global Governance?, (2007), documentary by Dr M. Coffman http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4860344067427439443#

jayman

3rd October 2009, 12:34 AM

quixotecoyote

3rd October 2009, 12:59 AM

Who wrote about the "Milankovitch cycles"? Someone paid to come up with "evidence."
Dr Coffman, CEO of Sovereignty International, who headed a multi-million dollar research effort in the early-1990’s that studied the effects of global warming on ecosystems in the US, says there’s a cadre of scientists on “soft money” who are out of a job if they “don’t show a global-warming connection.” He says the US government is pouring an astronomical US$4 billion per annum into this research because on an elite political level, where the real power lies, there’s an agenda to establish a fascist one-world government, [1].
The UN, which is controlled by the elite, is preparing to take over as the government for all the world’s nations under the pretext of saving the planet from “global warming.” It aims to implement Agenda 21, which is supposedly about “sustainable development.” On cursory inspection, 21 looks reasonable, however, as Dr Michael Coffman who has taken the time to read UN documents, pointed out that the intention of the 40-chapter document is to reorganize the world around socialist, command and control regulation, as the elite view humans as earth’s primary contaminants. It will be a living nightmare for us if the elite have their way, which is why waking children up to the facts and getting them to engage in critical thinking where so-called "man-made global warming" is concerned is important.

[1] Global Warming or Global Governance?, (2007), documentary by Dr M. Coffman http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4860344067427439443#

Ahh, right off into conspiracy theory wacko land then. I misread you as possibly being simply confused. Sorry to take up your time.

athon

3rd October 2009, 10:58 PM

I think Clare unintentionally brings up an interesting point - using specific content to teach critical thinking presents inherent dangers.

Teachers all have agendas. It's inescapable - either we want to teach anthropogenic climate change as being factual, or it's a swindle, or we're somewhere in between. We want to show homeopathy as bunk or a useful form of medication.

Even away from controversial topics, teachers present information that may be wrong. I'm certainly not immune from it and have realised a few times that I've been teaching a process incorrectly, mostly because of a misunderstanding. There are a dozens of kids who grew into adults with a misconception thanks to me, and I like to pride myself on doing my homework.

Critical thinking cannot come down to a single teacher's pedagogy. It cannot be taught using content, and it cannot be taught by tricking kids, showing them 'self-evident bs' or role-modeling situations where a teacher is right and others are wrong. It cannot be unitised in a curriculum, mandated within a specific program by governments or communicated as a buzz-word.

It has disheartened me for years that whenever threads like this one show up, a large percentage of advice offered by skeptical teachers is based on speculation and nonsense, and conflicts with pedagogy I've spent years educating myself on. It's sad because the passion for change is there, but the willingness to learn how to do it properly is not. Skeptics are quick to say what needs to be done but ironically are unwilling to educate themselves on something they feel they know intimately without having done their homework. Perhaps the most pathetic moment was when somebody within the JREF said they believed there was no difference between education and communication. That from a foundation which calls itself educational!

With all that said, quixotecoyote's example above should be heeded. It's a great way to teach critical thinking - group work without a focus on a specific agenda, practicing evaluation of information in a positive, encouraging light, with the teacher role modeling. Quixote, from the Athon School of Critical Thinking you get five gold stars. :D

Sorry for the rant, folks, but the frustration does well up sometimes. :(

Athon

quixotecoyote

4th October 2009, 12:41 AM

:)

Warm fuzzies.

thinkingman

4th October 2009, 08:23 PM

One way to teach critical thinking is to allow for students to make their own decisions and own choices without judgment. Then they will realize there is no right answer and they can think things through by themselves.

Cynic

4th October 2009, 08:37 PM

I dunno. I think encouraging students to think there is no right answer is the same as convincing them there are no wrong answers. How do we pull critical thinking out of an environment like that? I've often found myself in groups, especially in high school and college, where the rule was that everyone's opinion is equally valid. For someone interested in engaging in critcal thought, that's the sort of zone where they might get a touch apathetic.

Perhaps I misunderstand you?

rsaavedra

4th October 2009, 11:24 PM

It has disheartened me for years that whenever threads like this one show up, a large percentage of advice offered by skeptical teachers is based on speculation and nonsense, and conflicts with pedagogy I've spent years educating myself on.
Don't take it too personally. On the one hand , the OP asked for pointers to research, or just opinions (opinions not necessarily from teachers). On the other hand, while there has been research on this topic, I think there isn't yet a clear-cut methodology that works best to teach critical thinking. So the jury is still out there.

(Wearing Devil's Advocate hat now)

Moreover, before Critical Thinking was a pedagogical research topic, there had been magnificent critical thinkers everywhere in the history of the human intellect. So their teachers must have been doing something right, even if it was speculation and not based on years of pedagogical study and research on critical thinking. Hard to prove that nowaday teachers will not be able to achieve similarly successful results without the recommendations of that research.

athon

5th October 2009, 03:46 AM

Don't take it too personally. On the one hand , the OP asked for pointers to research, or just opinions (opinions not necessarily from teachers).

Sure. If somebody came in asking for pointers on how to fix a light switch, though, I'd hope an electrician's perspective would be heeded over an amateur who got some tips by watching a renovation program on television.

On the other hand, while there has been research on this topic, I think there isn't yet a clear-cut methodology that works best to teach critical thinking. So the jury is still out there.True. But simply because pedagogy is such a vague field of research, it doesn't automatically place all opinions about critical thinking on an even playing field.

Moreover, before Critical Thinking was a pedagogical research topic, there had been magnificent critical thinkers everywhere in the history of the human intellect. So their teachers must have been doing something right, even if it was speculation and not based on years of pedagogical study and research on critical thinking. Hard to prove that nowaday teachers will not be able to achieve similarly successful results without the recommendations of that research.I'm confused as to your point. Of course there are a number of teaching methods and environments that are conducive to learning how to think critically. Some are better than others. Some people create these classroom environments simply by virtue of their personal beliefs, regardless of their philosophical position on critical thinking. Others practice effective critical thinking pedagogy based on informed decisions. Others still will create classroom environments that will have a negative impact on a student's ability to learn the necessary skills, in spite of their passion and desire to do otherwise.

I do apologise if I'm coming across as abrupt, however a number of years ago I moved from a previous career into education in order to work out precisely how to encourage the next generation to be as critical as possible. I didn't simply want nice warm fuzzy feelings - I wanted evidence-based ideas that had the best chance of working in the real world.

I've found that for all the passion skeptics have, when it comes to education many of them are as ignorant as they arrogant. Some are shining stars - don't get me wrong. I could name half a dozen skeptics who are also teachers who deserve medals for their results. Yet I also speak to a lot of skeptics who are quite happy to tell me how critical thinking should be taught, how I should be petitioning governments, and what revolutionary actions need to be made. None of which has an iota of evidence supporting it. And when I try to point out the realities of the situation, I'm either told bluntly I'm wrong or - as is more often the case - simply ignored.

It's a major reason why I tend not to call myself a skeptic, in fact.

Sorry for the rant, but yeah, it's become something of a flash point with me.

Athon

Prometheus

5th October 2009, 12:51 PM

Sure. If somebody came in asking for pointers on how to fix a light switch, though, I'd hope an electrician's perspective would be heeded over an amateur who got some tips by watching a renovation program on television.

True. But simply because pedagogy is such a vague field of research, it doesn't automatically place all opinions about critical thinking on an even playing field.

I'm confused as to your point. Of course there are a number of teaching methods and environments that are conducive to learning how to think critically. Some are better than others. Some people create these classroom environments simply by virtue of their personal beliefs, regardless of their philosophical position on critical thinking. Others practice effective critical thinking pedagogy based on informed decisions. Others still will create classroom environments that will have a negative impact on a student's ability to learn the necessary skills, in spite of their passion and desire to do otherwise.

I do apologise if I'm coming across as abrupt, however a number of years ago I moved from a previous career into education in order to work out precisely how to encourage the next generation to be as critical as possible. I didn't simply want nice warm fuzzy feelings - I wanted evidence-based ideas that had the best chance of working in the real world.

I've found that for all the passion skeptics have, when it comes to education many of them are as ignorant as they arrogant. Some are shining stars - don't get me wrong. I could name half a dozen skeptics who are also teachers who deserve medals for their results. Yet I also speak to a lot of skeptics who are quite happy to tell me how critical thinking should be taught, how I should be petitioning governments, and what revolutionary actions need to be made. None of which has an iota of evidence supporting it. And when I try to point out the realities of the situation, I'm either told bluntly I'm wrong or - as is more often the case - simply ignored.

It's a major reason why I tend not to call myself a skeptic, in fact.

Sorry for the rant, but yeah, it's become something of a flash point with me.

Athon

This has been a sore spot with me also, though not just with Critical Thinking. It's stunning how little real research is relied upon in many areas of pedagogy, while the same feel-good buzz words keep cropping up in what appears to be something like a 10 year cycle. I work primarily in language teaching and have bounced around quite a bit since I left graduate school almost 20 years ago, but I've yet to find a school that even begins to implement what I was taught as 'state-of-the-art' language pedagogy. Almost everyone's still using the same methods that were outdated in the 1970's.