How can critical thinking be taught?

[athon]

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.

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

Athon

 

[quixotecoyote]

Warm fuzzies.

 

[thinkingman]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

 

[Bobby078]

amazon has some good books on critical thinking with exercises that help build the skills needed to do it