How can critical thinking be taught?

[coldcanuk]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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

 

[Safe-Keeper]

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]

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

 

[NewtonTrino]

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]

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]

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.

The contributors to Teen Skepchick 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]

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.

 

[rsaavedra]

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]

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]

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

 

[athon]

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

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]

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]

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]

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]

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