How can critical thinking be taught?

[butterflycake]

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.

 

[Chupacabras]

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]

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]

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.

 

[Iconoclast08]

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

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

 

[Jeff Corey]

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 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.

Anyway, I hope you are wrong, because in a few weeks my Critical Thinking class starts and I hope they learn things that do transfer to the outside world. One thing I do is to require a paper on some questionable practice or belief that they may hold. For example, last year one student who was a big fan of chiropractors was quite surprised to find out that they weren't M.D.s and that many believed that subluxations caused diabetes. Another changed her mind about the "dangers" of vaccination. Just those two examples can make a difference in the "world they live in".

 

[shawmutt]

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]

"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]

fwiw, the impact factor of that journal is 0.248

 

[Fnord]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

 

[athon]

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 (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]

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]

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]

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...

...stick to the rules.

 

[dudalb]

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.