How can critical thinking be taught?

[C_Felix]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

 

[athon]

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]

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]

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:

1. Ignorance is the antithesis to critical thinking;
2. Socrates is not a great starting point for beginner critical thinkers;
3. 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]

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 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]

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]

Along those lines, Carl Sagan's Baloney Detection Kit 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]

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]

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 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]

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]

(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]

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]

...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]

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