What *is* critical thinking?

[daijobu]

I hear a lot that parents want their students to have "critical thinking skills".  But I'm not really sure what that means.  

 

What does it mean to you?  How do you teach it?  Specific examples help!  

[Lori D.]

Just me, but when I say "critical thinking" or "critical thinking skills", I'm meaning a wide range of brain processing skills:

 

- puzzle solving -- logic puzzles, visual puzzles, word or math puzzles, 3-D and physical puzzles, etc.

- see and understand sequence of events or patterns

- see and describe similarities/differences

- look for and understand cause & effect

- look for "out of the box" solutions, or new or creative ways of doing things or using things

- predicting outcome (what WILL happen) based on what has already happened

- make connections

- analysis

- scientific inquiry

- inventing/creating

- make use of "trial and error"

ETA: and logical thinking, including skills like those mentioned by whitehawk: credibility, spotting fallacies, awareness of point of view/bias, etc.

 

How I "teach" critical thinking skills is more indirectly, throughout all the years of the child's growing up, and in everyday interactions:

 

- give them lots of unstructed time for imaginative play, exploration, experimentation, and discovery

- have on hand a wide variety of puzzles, activities, and games

- encouraged making new or alternate cards, rules, and results in games (examples: made our own Monopoly Chance cards; change a dynamic of a strategy game)

- lots of educational videos and library books for building a base of information to draw on

- reading lots of mysteries/whodunnits to encourage looking for clues and making predictions

- weekly family game night, with many game types: card games, money games, dice games, strategy games, logic-based games, resource allocation games...

- discuss, discuss, discuss everything, everywhere, at any time (examples: how/why does that work or what makes that go; what's the reason for this; how could this be different and what are the pros/cons of that; "why" and "how" of TV and movies, politics and current events, and of everyday life: "why did he make that choice, and what might the consequences be?" ... "how might that event effect the rest of the region?" ... "what do you think her reasoning for that might be?")

 

 

As part of our school schedule it looked like this:

 

- schedule weekly educational games and activities as supplements to our "spine" materials to encourage alternate ways of seeing/processing and making connections within similar topics (we esp. did this with math, but also language arts subjects)

- 1-4 pages of "fun pages" as part of scheduled school from informal materials  (examples: Critical Thinking Press, Dandylion, Tinman, and many other publishers)

- formal Critical Thinking and Logic programs/curricula (examples: Building Thinking Skills, Art of Argument, Fallacy Detective, Logic textbook, etc.)
- Socratic-method questions for any school subject, but most frequently in Lit., History, Science (see this past thread for ideas: How valuable are Socratic discussions)

- analysis questions (most frequently comes up when studying Literature, History and Science)

 

 

And here's a copy/paste "replay" from a previous response of mine that was specifically about what does "Logic" look like for people:

 

In the elementary grades, logic, critical thinking, and practice of problem-solving and out-of-the-box thinking types of activities were sprinkled throughout the day, and throughout the week. We did about 5-10 minutes each morning (1-2 pages) together from some critical thinking or logic puzzle workbook as a brain warm-up and part of our morning together time. I also included 2-4 pages of a variety of puzzle types as part of the daily "seatwork" when DSs were young elementary ages. We also did logic types of board games (along with other education fun things for various subjects) on our Friday fun days. When they were older elementary ages, logic computer games were included.

In middle school (grades 7/8), the goal was helping to develop logical thinking and ability, make connections, see cause/effct, and learn how to analyze. We continued with the morning "warm-ups", logic games as part of our weekly family game night, and worked through Fallacy Detective and Thinking Toolbox. We also started discussing movies and literature as a very gentle intro to analysis. We started some gentle Worldview materials to begin thinking through choice/consequence, and logical outcomes of ways of thinking.

In high school, the goal was analysis of literature, deductive reasoning in science, and understanding the underlying choices and consequences in different philosophical views, religions, and worldviews. In Geometry, we chose to do a proof-based program that required logical thinking to develop the proofs. DSs did Formal Logic with DH leading them through his old college textbook one year. We also did some formal Worldviews study and Comparative Religions study. We did a LOT of discussion of Movies, Literature, History, Worldview, Religion, and Philosophy throughout high school.

 

 

While these past threads are asking about Logic, there is a lot of overlap with Critical Thinking here:

 

When to start Logic & what to use?

Other books like Lollipop Logic & Critical Thinking Co.?

s/o from Where's the Logic thread? What if your child has never been exposed to this stuff? (the "why" of doing Logic)

Can someone educate me on Logic

Does anyone do 3 hours/week of Logic in logic stage? And if not, how much is proper? (how much time people spend on Logic in middle school)

Skipping Logic in 5th grade

Can you post your progression for teaching Logic?

What if I don't do formal Logic?

Edited September 19, 2016 by Lori D.

[Bluegoat]

I think many people don't really know what they mean when they say this, or teachers either.  They seem to think something like problem solving mixed with some level of skepticism, and it seems process-oriented rather than content oriented.

[73349]

To me critical thinking means

• developing awareness of the biases of narrators and, eventually, authors;
• selecting a variety of sources of information and evaluating their credibility; and
• in time, synthesis: an understanding built through bringing many perspectives together.

 

A person without good critical thinking skills might, for example, believe the contents of a chain letter or scam phone call that claims to be from an authority; read only the first result in a Google search and accept it as the full and accurate truth; continue friendship with a rumor-monger, compulsive liar or drama artist; and ignore evidence that doesn't fit with his or her existing ideas.

[Syllieann]

On this board it generally means the analysis of an argument. It would mainly be logic and rhetoric. Out in the rest of America, I believe it is an empty buzzword frequently used by people who abhor "rote" learning. It sounds better than, "We're not teaching the kids anything because we believe they can always look up whatever they need."

[desertflower]

I agree with whitehawk. 

 

How am I going to teach it?  I have a tentative plan.  I'm starting them off with books from the Critical Thinking Company.  Books such as, mindbenders, balance benders, cryptogram, and inference jones.  I also like books from Prufrock Press.  Books such as Primarily Logic and Logic Countdown.  And off the top of my head, I plan on using Fallacy Detective and Art of Argument when they are older. 

 

And in my opinion, Teaching the Classics will help.  But that could just be me. 

 

I think logic games can help.  Games such as, chess and rush hour. 

 

That's mostly it for us.  :) 

[kiwik]

Usually I think it is a buzz word. Schools seem to think kids will learn it using whatever their current instruction method is and despite the teacher's lack of critical thinking ability and lack of instruction.

 

Example from friend's 6th grade teacher. Donald Trump is a good role model because he is rich. Whether or not he is a good role model is not dependant on how rich he is. Donald Trump is a good role model because he went bankrupt and didn't let it stop him getting rich again makes more semse although to me it doesn't make him a role model.

Edited September 19, 2016 by kiwik

[Critterfixer]

I just think of it as learning how to figure stuff out. That comes with everything we study, so I haven't bothered to pay it any particular mind. 

[justasque]

Interestingly, the 2012 Texas Republican platform specifically opposed "teaching critical thinking skills" because of concerns about "undermining parental authority".  This WaPo article from the time has some interesting thoughts, including a brief discussion as to whether critical thinking skill can actually be taught at all.

[shinyhappypeople]

I think that, in a nutshell, it's analyzing information and ideas for reliability, accuracy, etc. in order to come to a conclusion about something. 

 

My DH took a college course in critical thinking last year and his recently published Pearson textbook (you know, the same people publishing CC-aligned textbooks for millions of school children) defines it as "thinking about how you think."  The authors seriously couldn't (wouldn't?) differentiate between metacognition and critical thinking skills. The course just went downhill from there.  The authors put a lot of effort into telling the reader what to think in order to exercise good critical thinking  (in order to have good critical thinking skills, you should believe x. Believing y is the result of poor thinking).  It was truly bizarre.

 

Luckily DH used his critical thinking skills to question and ultimately discard the rubbish in the textbook, remember what he needed for the test, and then move on with his life.

[fralala]

Interestingly, the 2012 Texas Republican platform specifically opposed "teaching critical thinking skills" because of concerns about "undermining parental authority".  This WaPo article from the time has some interesting thoughts, including a brief discussion as to whether critical thinking skill can actually be taught at all.

 

As an aside, the professor that article quotes-- the author of an article it links to-- is Daniel Willingham, who also wrote "Raising Kids Who Read" and "Why Don't Kids Like School?" He says critical thinking "consists of seeing both sides of an issue, being open to new evidence that disconfirms your ideas, reasoning dispassionately, demanding that claims be backed by evidence, deducing and inferring conclusions from available facts, solving problems, and so forth. Then too, there are specific types of critical thinking that are characteristic of different subject matter: That’s what we mean when we refer to “thinking like a scientist†or “thinking like a historian.â€

[sweetpea3829]

I agree with what Lori posted up above and her approach is pretty much what we've been doing to develop critical thinking skills in our children.  

 

I also agree with Whitehawk's post regarding critical thinking in terms of analysis of an argument as well as in terms of literature.  

 

In a nutshell, to me, critical thinking boils down to reasoning.  And it underlies pretty much our entire educational approach.  I want my kids to use reasoning and critical thinking skills in math as they analyze a problem and develop a solution.  I want them to use critical thinking and reasoning when they read a piece of literature and attempt to understand the author's intent.  I want them to use critical thinking and reasoning in science when they fit scientific pieces together and attempt to understand cause and effect, but also, when they evaluate and develop theories.  

 

I want them to use critical thinking and reasoning in history and social studies, because again, it will help them to understand the cause and effect of historical events.  

 

Being strong in the areas of critical thinking and reasoning will contribute to the opinions they form as adults in regards to social issues.  And man alive, one need only take a gander at Facebook to see that critical thinking and reasoning are increasingly underdeveloped skills today.  

 

This to say...as in any skill, I think critical thinking and reasoning are natural skills for some folks, and very weak skills for others, regardless of instruction.  One of my kids has very poor reasoning...another has successfully used logic to out argue me since he was a toddler.  

 

 

 

 

[Bluegoat]

I always remember one year when we used a boxed curriculum, it came with a text to teach critical thinking - it was one of the first things we discarded as useless busywork. 

 

One of the things that always strikes me about the 'critical" aspect is that it doesn't seem to be well balanced against learning a certain amount of content or process - older kids I've seen come out of that style of teaching seem to have difficulty sometimes seeing the big picture because they never get far enough to see an issue holistically - they are critical of all the "parts" they learn before they get that far.

 

I really noticed this when I was a university student taking classes in the philosophy department - many couldn't get a real sense of a thinkers approach as a whole, and they seemed to think that rejecting the whole based on parts examined separately was good critical thinking.

[8filltheheart]

I a firm believer in focusing on critical thinking skills. not a buzz phrase for me. My teaching is focused on them.

 

An easy way to learn about how to incorporate critical thinking skills via your teaching methodology is to research Bloom's taxonomy. The difference between knowledge and the higher tiers demonstrates the difference.

[Earthmerlin]

Just me, but when I say "critical thinking" or "critical thinking skills", I'm meaning a wide range of brain processing skills:

 

- puzzle solving -- logic puzzles, visual puzzles, word or math puzzles, 3-D and physical puzzles, etc.

- see and understand sequence of events or patterns

- see and describe similarities/differences

- look for and understand cause & effect

- look for "out of the box" solutions, or new or creative ways of doing things or using things

- predicting outcome (what WILL happen) based on what has already happened

- make connections

- analysis

- scientific inquiry

- inventing/creating

- make use of "trial and error"

ETA: and logical thinking, including skills like those mentioned by whitehawk: credibility, spotting fallacies, awareness of point of view/bias, etc.

 

How I "teach" critical thinking skills is more indirectly, throughout all the years of the child's growing up, and in everyday interactions:

 

- give them lots of unstructed time for imaginative play, exploration, experimentation, and discovery

- have on hand a wide variety of puzzles, activities, and games

- encouraged making new or alternate cards, rules, and results in games (examples: made our own Monopoly Chance cards; change a dynamic of a strategy game)

- lots of educational videos and library books for building a base of information to draw on

- reading lots of mysteries/whodunnits to encourage looking for clues and making predictions

- weekly family game night, with many game types: card games, money games, dice games, strategy games, logic-based games, resource allocation games...

- discuss, discuss, discuss everything, everywhere, at any time (examples: how/why does that work or what makes that go; what's the reason for this; how could this be different and what are the pros/cons of that; "why" and "how" of TV and movies, politics and current events, and of everyday life: "why did he make that choice, and what might the consequences be?" ... "how might that event effect the rest of the region?" ... "what do you think her reasoning for that might be?")

 

 

As part of our school schedule it looked like this:

 

- schedule weekly educational games and activities as supplements to our "spine" materials to encourage alternate ways of seeing/processing and making connections within similar topics (we esp. did this with math, but also language arts subjects)

- 1-4 pages of "fun pages" as part of scheduled school from informal materials (examples: Critical Thinking Press, Dandylion, Tinman, and many other publishers)

- formal Critical Thinking and Logic programs/curricula (examples: Building Thinking Skills, Art of Argument, Fallacy Detective, Logic textbook, etc.)

- Socratic-method questions for any school subject, but most frequently in Lit., History, Science (see this past thread for ideas: How valuable are Socratic discussions)

- analysis questions (most frequently comes up when studying Literature, History and Science)

 

 

And here's a copy/paste "replay" from a previous response of mine that was specifically about what does "Logic" look like for people:

 

In the elementary grades, logic, critical thinking, and practice of problem-solving and out-of-the-box thinking types of activities were sprinkled throughout the day, and throughout the week. We did about 5-10 minutes each morning (1-2 pages) together from some critical thinking or logic puzzle workbook as a brain warm-up and part of our morning together time. I also included 2-4 pages of a variety of puzzle types as part of the daily "seatwork" when DSs were young elementary ages. We also did logic types of board games (along with other education fun things for various subjects) on our Friday fun days. When they were older elementary ages, logic computer games were included.

 

In middle school (grades 7/8), the goal was helping to develop logical thinking and ability, make connections, see cause/effct, and learn how to analyze. We continued with the morning "warm-ups", logic games as part of our weekly family game night, and worked through Fallacy Detective and Thinking Toolbox. We also started discussing movies and literature as a very gentle intro to analysis. We started some gentle Worldview materials to begin thinking through choice/consequence, and logical outcomes of ways of thinking.

 

In high school, the goal was analysis of literature, deductive reasoning in science, and understanding the underlying choices and consequences in different philosophical views, religions, and worldviews. In Geometry, we chose to do a proof-based program that required logical thinking to develop the proofs. DSs did Formal Logic with DH leading them through his old college textbook one year. We also did some formal Worldviews study and Comparative Religions study. We did a LOT of discussion of Movies, Literature, History, Worldview, Religion, and Philosophy throughout high school.

 

 

While these past threads are asking about Logic, there is a lot of overlap with Critical Thinking here:

 

When to start Logic & what to use?

Other books like Lollipop Logic & Critical Thinking Co.?

s/o from Where's the Logic thread? What if your child has never been exposed to this stuff? (the "why" of doing Logic)

Can someone educate me on Logic

Does anyone do 3 hours/week of Logic in logic stage? And if not, how much is proper? (how much time people spend on Logic in middle school)

Skipping Logic in 5th grade

Can you post your progression for teaching Logic?

What if I don't do formal Logic?

I read the post about Socratic discussions. What kinds of questions would I ask a young 7 year old in order to open up such talks?

[Lori D.]

Just now seeing this quite late from when you posted this question:

 

I read the post about Socratic discussions. What kinds of questions would I ask a young 7 year old in order to open up such talks?

 

Open-ended questions and questions to help a child share their observations and thoughts can practice "thinking discussions". Questions like these might be a starting point:

 

"I am interested to hear your thinking about this." -- or -- "That is interesting. Tell me why you think that." 

"How would you solve this problem?"

"Where do you think we might find more information to solve this problem?"

"If we do this, what do you think will happen?" -- or -- "Let's predict what we think will happen next."

"What other ideas could we try?" -- or -- "Let’s think of all the possible solutions."

"What if _________?" (insert scenario or hypothesis)

"What do you think would happen if _________?" (insert scenario or hypothesis)

"What's the hardest (or best) (or most interesting) (or ______) thing about this?"

"What do you see going on here?"

"How might _________ (another person or character in a book) see things differently?"

Edited January 24, 2018 by Lori D.

[knitgrl]

To me critical thinking means

• developing awareness of the biases of narrators and, eventually, authors;
• selecting a variety of sources of information and evaluating their credibility; and
• in time, synthesis: an understanding built through bringing many perspectives together.

 

A person without good critical thinking skills might, for example, believe the contents of a chain letter or scam phone call that claims to be from an authority; read only the first result in a Google search and accept it as the full and accurate truth; continue friendship with a rumor-monger, compulsive liar or drama artist; and ignore evidence that doesn't fit with his or her existing ideas.

 

This is what library world used to call "information literacy."

 

[2_girls_mommy]

Memoria Press had a good article on this in their last issue of their catalog. 

[Syllieann]

Memoria Press had a good article on this in their last issue of their catalog.

Yes, I thought of this thread when I read it. The article is up on their website now.

https://www.memoriapress.com/articles/the-critical-thinking-skills-hoax/

[nixpix5]

Yes, I thought of this thread when I read it. The article is up on their website now.

https://www.memoriapress.com/articles/the-critical-thinking-skills-hoax/

This is what I was going to post too. I loved this article because it is how I have always thought about the term "critical thinking" It sounds like one of those catchy terms of the day that gets tossed around but nobody can define.

[8filltheheart]

Yes, I thought of this thread when I read it. The article is up on their website now.

https://www.memoriapress.com/articles/the-critical-thinking-skills-hoax/

 

 

This is what I was going to post too. I loved this article because it is how I have always thought about the term "critical thinking" It sounds like one of those catchy terms of the day that gets tossed around but nobody can define.

 

I just read that article.  Cothran's argument is equally bogus. If you look at clearly defined pedagogies that focus on progressing through the stages of learning or thinking like Bloom's taxonomy, then there is absolutely no "downplay [of] basic factual knowledge."  Knowledge/remembering is the base of the pyramid that the higher order thinking skills are built upon.  The taxonomy is a hierarchy of skills.  Understanding is built upon knowledge.  Applying is built upon both knowledge and understanding.  Analyzing incorporates the lower 3 skills.  Evaluating and creating incorporates all of the lower 4. 

 

Here are just 2 links describing the stages:

http://paffa.org/docs/sidemodules/32167_DOK%20Compared%20with%20Blooms%20Taxonomy.pdf

http://www.nwlink.com/~donclark/hrd/bloom.html

 

Most education (fill in the blank, matching, etc worksheets) dwells in knowledge, the lowest level of learning.  Kudos to those educators who want their students to move beyond memorizing facts to progress through the stages of critical thinking and on to evaluating and creating.  

 

(But it is no surprise that MP published that article since their curriculum is workbook oriented and not "critical thinking" oriented.  ;) )

Edited January 24, 2018 by 8FillTheHeart

[Penelope]

I don’t see that Cothran’s article is contradicting anything about the idea of progressing from factual knowledge to higher order thinking. He is saying that you can’t skip the content knowledge and the study of logic and jump right into “critical thinkingâ€.

I don’t think he is talking about specific pedagogies in typical schools, but about what actually happens in the classroom.

 

It’s asking kids to have opinions about things when they have no basis of opinion and don’t understand what questions they need to ask and what information they need to learn to develop an argument about the matter.

 

I found this article talking about how Bloom’s is often misunderstood. http://teachlikeachampion.com/blog/blooms-taxonomy-pyramid-problem/ While Cothran doesn’t reference the model at all, I think the post makes reference to the problem he is talking about.

[Syllieann]

I just read that article. Cothran's argument is equally bogus. If you look at clearly defined pedagogies that focus on progressing through the stages of learning or thinking like Bloom's taxonomy, then there is absolutely no "downplay [of] basic factual knowledge." Knowledge/remembering is the base of the pyramid that the higher order thinking skills are built upon. The taxonomy is a hierarchy of skills. Understanding is built upon knowledge. Applying is built upon both knowledge and understanding. Analyzing incorporates the lower 3 skills. Evaluating and creating incorporates all of the lower 4.

 

Here are just 2 links describing the stages:

http://paffa.org/docs/sidemodules/32167_DOK%20Compared%20with%20Blooms%20Taxonomy.pdf

http://www.nwlink.com/~donclark/hrd/bloom.html

 

Most education (fill in the blank, matching, etc worksheets) dwells in knowledge, the lowest level of learning. Kudos to those educators who want their students to move beyond memorizing facts to progress through the stages of critical thinking and on to evaluating and creating.

 

(But it is no surprise that MP published that article since their curriculum is workbook oriented and not "critical thinking" oriented. ;) )

But I think you are actually agreeing with him. He is saying that critical thinking only exists when it is built on the basic factual knowledge. What you are talking about as “critical thinking†is different from what is plastered across the websites of American school districts. They want to to teach critical thinking INSTEAD OF boring facts. Both you and Martin contend that basic content knowledge must be mastered before moving up in Bloom’s taxonomy to the level of “critical thinking.â€

[8filltheheart]

But I think you are actually agreeing with him. He is saying that critical thinking only exists when it is built on the basic factual knowledge. What you are talking about as “critical thinking†is different from what is plastered across the websites of American school districts. They want to to teach critical thinking INSTEAD OF boring facts. Both you and Martin contend that basic content knowledge must be mastered before moving up in Bloom’s taxonomy to the level of “critical thinking.â€

Cothran's tone is mocking and dismissive. While he definitely argues for knowledge-based education and its necessity, I do not see him acknowledging that research and pedagogies do exist that do promote critical thinking skills outside of teaching logic.

 

While the people he describes might be missing the need for student mastery of foundational knowledge (and it is a very broad brush to extrapolate his handful of examples to "not one in a hundred even knows what he means by this term"), it seems to me that his goal is to convince readers that they are just a catch phrase that no one can define. Based on the comments in this this thread, I would say he succeeded in validating his position.

 

My point is that they are defined. Whether or not they are defined and implemented correctly ps system is outside the realm of this thread. The question of the OP asked what they are. They are not undefined catch phrases. They can be easily defined and addressed in a homeschooling setting.

 

ETA: fwiw, I agree with the premise that knowledge-based education is boring. I would poke my eyes out if I had to teach anything even closely resembling a worksheet-based education. There are lots of ways to master knowledge that do not stagnate at boring and equally progress kids through the stages of learning with the acquired knowledge.

Edited January 25, 2018 by 8FillTheHeart

[goldenecho]

Process oriented rather than content oriented sums it up for me.  Critical thinking is a thinking skill that can be applied to multiple disciplines.   You can teach it within a content lesson, but the idea is that they are learning more than something that can only be used related to that content--that you're learning a way of thinking/figuring things out that can be applied to nearly any subject. 

 

I think many people don't really know what they mean when they say this, or teachers either.  They seem to think something like problem solving mixed with some level of skepticism, and it seems process-oriented rather than content oriented.

 

[Tsuga]

I work for a company that tries to evaluate this in applicants from a variety of backgrounds.

 

We decided it had to do with a curious mind and the willingness to worth through to the end of the question, regardless of effort required.

 

People who ask why because they care about why, who ask how because they believe it is essential to doing well, people who ask "what if".

 

Pretty much sums up everything we want in the candidates who are going to do the biggest, bestest projects. Having the skills to ask questions diplomatically and intelligently is a huge plus, and then after that the ability to follow up (attention and persistence). Following that, specific tools like information literacy.

 

We have learned that if you ask, follow up, and make notes, you're going to get literally everything else. It's not hard.

 

But some people just don't ask questions.

[8filltheheart]

But some people just don't ask questions.

I love this. What an excellent summation, but so sadly true.

[dori123]

Great question. I often see "critical thinking skills" categorized as an offshoot of math on this forum. I suppose I can see a bit of that in terms of problem-solving and logic puzzles at a younger age, but I see it as teaching kids to be skeptical; to analyze meaning and intent; to define subtext, to evaluate details and how they relate to broad strokes; to scrutinize facts, opinions, media; to recognize agendas, spin, credibility, consistency, etc.

 

I teach these skills mainly through history; sometimes literature and often in writing.

[Penelope]

Okay, I am not picking on Bloom’s taxonomy in particular. I am just thinking out loud here about this whole discussion. I’m also not arguing for that MP article or saying that MP has everything right. I have used a handful of their products, that’s it.

 

But I do see that the system of formal logic is much more concrete than something like Bloom’s, which intuitively does look and sound correct (except, I am not sure I think that the levels of thinking are strictly hierarchical). But when you look online for how to teach with it, or how to implement the principles, you are flooded with educationese, first of all, and second of all, you find that it was created as a way of designing assessments of students. Most examples are things you are asking the students to do. I see a slight distinction there, because that is not teaching the skills themselves, it is merely asking the students to get there. I guess the leading them there when they aren’t getting it, is the teaching part? I am not saying there is no teaching involved, but I am not seeing how the taxonomy is a pedagogy in itself, but more like its name, a taxonomy, a classification system.

 

So, are these critical thinking skills innate to humans and just something that we have to coax out of them by asking them to do it, or are there ways and even systems of thinking that can be taught or at least explained, that can help one a more logical thinker?

 

Now, on the the other hand, with just saying “well, the term critical thinking is meaningless, we teach the system of logicâ€, is that teaching systems of logic is good, but there are a couple of problems boxing logic in as a subject. For one, it isn’t taught in the neoclassical paradigm until late middle school, at the earliest. Many children are surely capable of thinking about material beyond basic factual knowledge well before this (I also don’t agree with how I have seen Dorothy Sayers’ ages and stages have been applied. I think what was meant to be a general categorization for a talk she gave has been taken and applied literally, and doesn’t jive with what I have experienced with my own children).

 

Then once you teach formal logic, how will it be applied throughout the rest of education? This could be done well or it might not be done at all. Do students just begin thinking through everything using the logic they have learned, or do they see it as those boring classes they had that they can’t remember anything about?

 

I don’t see that critical thinking skills=logic, but I do think that studying logic is very useful. I also am wondering if what most people (including myself) do mean by critical thinking skills cannot be taught as much as caught. We are asking them to do what their brains are able to do, as they develop those abilities (or not, and stay focused on lower levels of learning, which I think we would all agree is a mistake). Formal logic is formalizing the process and helping to learn to analyze arguments in a more systematic way, which can be useful in thinking through material which has much higher complexity. So formal logic is far from necessary to be a critical thinker, but it is useful.

 

 

I have seen skepticism mentioned a couple of times and while I think a healthy skepticism leads to asking more questions and can result in critical thinking, skepticism in itself is not related at all to critical thinking IMO. I think too many people see being skeptical and not accepting everything they hear or read is enough, but then they don’t know how to critically evaluate a position. They stop after a question or two (what do I think about this?) and then fall into logical fallacies and get no further.

We are all susceptible to doing this and there is also the issue of analysis fatigue and resistance to re-examining long-held, favored positions. I think that along with critical thinking skills, some formal logic, and informal fallacies, I need to include some discussion and study of psychology and metacognition with my children.

Edited January 25, 2018 by Penelope

[Bluegoat]

Yes, totally being skeptical is not the same as thinking critically.  It can IMO actually make it impossible to do so if it's applied inappropriately, because at certain points thinking through ideas requires accepting them provisionally and thinking through a new systematic lens.

 

It's interesting to look at the skeptics movement which is big online now - it seems to think of itself as philosophical or scientific but often it seems to embrace strong logical positivism and scientism.  

 

I think it is probably accurate to say that critical thinking is caught rather than taught.  I do think formal logic is a nice way to do some study of thinking beginning in middle school, but the more useful elements are less explicit.  And formal logic itself is limited in application.  Narrative, using language well, reading other people's reasoning and arguments, mathematics, these are all ways of thinking rationally about reality. For older students in high school or university, simps reading many different important arguments and responses to them is likely to be as useful as formal logic.

 

 

Something that strikes me - I remember reading, on this website I think - an article posted about the form of the university humanities lecture.  I think it was a response to someone saying that now we could dispense with such an archaic way of communicating information.  The writer said no - this was a terrible misunderstanding - the form of the hour or two hour long lecture was in itself important and didactic - it taught students to pay attention to and follow a complex and extended argument, in a way that other formats can't.

 

That I think is my view - the main way you learn to "think critically" is actually to engage with real ideas in a logical way, holistically rather than in a fragmented way.  It's really a kind of narrative, though in it's highest form it goes beyond linear narrative.  For me, this very much informs my teaching even at the lowest levels.

[eternalsummer]

In my actual experience, both critical thinking and skepticism have not been taught as skills themselves, but as attitudes to have towards certain ideas (but definitely not others).  So in high school, we're taught to be critical thinkers and skeptical - but there are many things we are not allowed to challenge, or think critically, about, or to be skeptical about.  (this was even more true in college, ime, as the sociopolitical orientation was more uniform and absolute)

 

A brief list of things there is no allowance for thinking critically about, or being skeptical of: the expansion of the franchise, the role and function of slavery, women's lib in general, whether there are biological differences between the races (other than skin color and body/facial structures), miscegenation, the role of Jews in society and whether the holocaust happened or to what extent it happened, etc etc.

 

There are a zillion things you aren't allowed to question unless you are questioning them from the right angle (that is, the angle of the current paradigm).  You can analyze all the ways that holocaust deniers are wrong, but it is absolutely verboten to question the actual extent of the holocaust.

 

I feel compelled to add, and it is insane that I have to do so, that I don't personally hold many of the views I referenced above (that is to say, I think the Holocaust did happen), but the fact that I have to add that because of how monstrously unacceptable it is to question these things, among many others, even on an online anonymous forum (much less in class in school, where you might learn something), says to me that we don't teach critical thinking all that thoroughly in schools.  We might teach the skills, to a degree, but when we say wait, you may not try to apply them to these various categories of ideas unless you are doing so with the explicit and obvious perspective of upholding the common belief - it makes me skeptical about skepticism, tbh.

[Bluegoat]

I'm not sure if it was the case when I was a student, eternal, but it does seem to be the case now to a large extent.  I find it disheartening - even on the questions where I wholeheartedly agree.  Because if you can't examine those ideas, what do you really know about them?  And what kind of confidence will you have in your beliefs?

[2_girls_mommy]

Penelope, Bluegoat, and eternalsummer are all expressing things that I would never be able to express clearly but that I agree with tons. Love this. Wish I could speak (type) so well thought out. 

[eternalsummer]

I was actually a potential holocaust denier (I guess I should say I was a Holocaust Doubter) for about 3 hours one night; I had ordered Anne Frank's diary for DD (she was 9, it was waaay too early) and I reread it after the kids went to bed.  When we read it in school, which I am pretty well convinced every public schooled kid in America does at some point, in 8th grade honors English - so, advanced enough really to be encouraged to think critically, and we were so encouraged in some ways - it was presented as the diary of a girl who lived in an attic during part of the war and then was deported to a concentration camp and died there.  The things we thought critically about were why the Nazis were so bad and also why they were evil. Etc.

 

So on rereading, it is patently obvious to an adult reader that the diary is "fake" - that is to say, it's not just a strict typed-out version of what she wrote day by day.  It's clearly edited for effect and for organization and in some cases she knows things in the diary that she would not have known in real life at that time, etc.  

 

The difference between what I remembered being taught about Anne Frank, her diary, the Holocaust, etc., and the actual nature of the book I had just read made me doubt the whole thing.  If they were lying about her diary - if it was edited or maybe entirely made up (because if you've been taught both educationally and emotionally that something is real and authentic and then you discover it's edited, how sure can you be of it and the things it suggests?), then that threw the whole Holocaust into question for me.  Why would schools promote this diary if it isn't true?  If the neo-nazis are right about the fakeness of the diary, are they right about the rest of it (historically, not ideologically speaking)?

 

Anyway, so I spent several hours searching the Wikipedia archives and edits (they have this thing where you can see where people disagree with certain points, and the nature of their disagreements and/or changes to the articles, and sources, and etc.) and reading and investigating the various claims of people who said the diary was made up entirely or people who believed it was basically authentic, etc.

 

What I found in the end, of course, was that it had been edited, both by Anne and later by her father, to make it more effective, which included murking up the timeline a bit in some places.

 

Fine!  Sold!  The Holocaust was real after all, the anxiety receded (because what if you found out the Holocaust was fake?  That would be a hard thing to incorporate into most modern worldviews), all was well.  

 

But why didn't they just tell us this when they taught it in English in 8th?  The fact that it's edited - not just to remove unsavory content but to add or change things to fit the narrative somewhat - makes a difference in how you perceive it, and that's fine.  That's what the study of English, of all things, should be about!  Critical Thinking in English class should have involved questioning these things in the first place, not just questioning why the Nazis were so bad or why people were so easily taken over by them or whatever (with an acceptable range of responses and an unacceptable range of things you would never venture to respond or even try to think).

 

 

Anyway, that's my Stormfront story.

[eternalsummer]

And as an add-on to that, I guess I would say that in my experience, many people don't really get past that first shock of "this isn't what they pretend it is"; a lot of the there-was-no-holocaust sentiment on the very far right seems to me to be an expression of the feeling I had at first realizing the diary wasn't 100% straightforward.  The difference is that, on the whole, they hold on to that feeling, and instead of going through a careful examination of the evidence, the various claims, who is making the claims, the ways in which they are themselves biased or misinformed, etc.; they just say, to hell with it, there was no Holocaust, gas the Jews, race war now.  (only they don't say Jews, obviously).  Then they are susceptible to many other ideas that are based on the first (if you believe there was no Holocaust, and that someone made it up for some reason, or at least significantly embellished the severity, then that frame of reference suggests a very different paradigm for international relations than does one where the Holocaust was real).

 

So maybe there are two components to critical thinking; the first is the skepticism that is necessary to challenge biases and assumptions you may not even know you hold; the second is the method of investigation and careful analysis of the logic and evidence available to defend or discredit a claim.

[8filltheheart]

My take on this topic is quite different.  It is more about how students learn and engage with what they are learning and how they are expected to process ideas. It applies to children of all ages, not just older students.

 

I thought (briefly) about typing out a long reply explaining what I see as the distinction, but I have neither the time nor the desire to do so.  It is really as simple as teaching methods do impact how students are expected to master content and what they are expected to do with what they learn.   I don't think it is questioning for the sake of questioning or skepticism or challenging assumptions (though those may be outcomes).  It is far more complex.  It starts with how students are expected to acquire knowledge in the first place, what output is expected based on what they have learned, and goes on from there.

[fralala]

Frankly, the ability to deny the Holocaust-- even for an hour-- seems less to me about critical thinking than about lack of knowledge and life experience. That, to me, demonstrates a problem with one's education up to that point. That experience would seem to demonstrate that critical thinking cannot take place without a sufficient store of knowledge and experience.

 

This is kind of along the same lines for me as the discussion about Flat Earthers that took place here awhile back. People who think they're way ahead of the rest of us in their ability to think critically and be skeptical are often just woefully ignorant.

 

When my 4 year old argues with me that in Madagascar, they actually speak something called "Broopy Language," she is not thinking critically, even though I've never been to Madagascar.

 

If a certain group of people march in lockstep when it comes to a certain issue, and if they are significantly more educated than you on that topic, questioning them out of skepticism rather than a desire to comprehend more doesn't demonstrate critical thinking.

 

I am honestly a little floored that questioning an event that happened less than 100 years ago was presented as an argument for critical thinking rather than as a sad story of how critical thinking gets lost in the absence of sufficient education. I mean, there are very interesting historical arguments that take place, but this is not one of them. Not even close. Another reminder about how our schools are failing children.

[8filltheheart]

Frankly, the ability to deny the Holocaust-- even for an hour-- seems less to me about critical thinking than about lack of knowledge and life experience. That, to me, demonstrates a problem with one's education up to that point. That experience would seem to demonstrate that critical thinking cannot take place without a sufficient store of knowledge and experience.

 

This is kind of along the same lines for me as the discussion about Flat Earthers that took place here awhile back. People who think they're way ahead of the rest of us in their ability to think critically and be skeptical are often just woefully ignorant.

 

When my 4 year old argues with me that in Madagascar, they actually speak something called "Broopy Language," she is not thinking critically, even though I've never been to Madagascar.

 

If a certain group of people march in lockstep when it comes to a certain issue, and if they are significantly more educated than you on that topic, questioning them out of skepticism rather than a desire to comprehend more doesn't demonstrate critical thinking.

 

I am honestly a little floored that questioning an event that happened less than 100 years ago was presented as an argument for critical thinking rather than as a sad story of how critical thinking gets lost in the absence of sufficient education. I mean, there are very interesting historical arguments that take place, but this is not one of them. Not even close. Another reminder about how our schools are failing children.

Yes.

[Kalmia]

Daniel T. Willingham author of Why Don't Kids Like School is studies the neurobiology of learning. Here is an article on critical thinking and whether or not it can be taught he wrote for American Educator in 2007. From what I read in his book, I found most interesting that it is difficult to "think critically" about subjects you do not have got solid knowledge in. This rather supports SWB's neoclassical progression with younger students learning facts in the grammar stage and then beginning to question them in the logic stage and finally making decisions and arguments supporting them in the rhetoric stage. The ability to argue growing alongside one's knowledge.

 

https://www.aft.org/sites/default/files/periodicals/Crit_Thinking.pdf

[Earthmerlin]

Just now seeing this quite late from when you posted this question:

 

 

Open-ended questions and questions to help a child share their observations and thoughts can practice "thinking discussions". Questions like these might be a starting point:

 

"I am interested to hear your thinking about this." -- or -- "That is interesting. Tell me why you think that."

"How would you solve this problem?"

"Where do you think we might find more information to solve this problem?"

"If we do this, what do you think will happen?" -- or -- "Let's predict what we think will happen next."

"What other ideas could we try?" -- or -- "Let’s think of all the possible solutions."

"What if _________?" (insert scenario or hypothesis)

"What do you think would happen if _________?" (insert scenario or hypothesis)

"What's the hardest (or best) (or most interesting) (or ______) thing about this?"

"What do you see going on here?"

"How might _________ (another person or character in a book) see things differently?"

Cool, so stuff I'm doing already. I think truly 'Socratic' discussions should be reserved for later in her development when she's better able to handle such things?

[Lori D.]

Cool, so stuff I'm doing already. I think truly 'Socratic' discussions should be reserved for later in her development when she's better able to handle such things?

 

A lot of those questions are Socratic questions, so if you're already doing a lot of this, then you're already into the first steps of the journey into Socratic discussions... :)

[Bluegoat]

Frankly, the ability to deny the Holocaust-- even for an hour-- seems less to me about critical thinking than about lack of knowledge and life experience. That, to me, demonstrates a problem with one's education up to that point. That experience would seem to demonstrate that critical thinking cannot take place without a sufficient store of knowledge and experience.

 

This is kind of along the same lines for me as the discussion about Flat Earthers that took place here awhile back. People who think they're way ahead of the rest of us in their ability to think critically and be skeptical are often just woefully ignorant.

 

When my 4 year old argues with me that in Madagascar, they actually speak something called "Broopy Language," she is not thinking critically, even though I've never been to Madagascar.

 

If a certain group of people march in lockstep when it comes to a certain issue, and if they are significantly more educated than you on that topic, questioning them out of skepticism rather than a desire to comprehend more doesn't demonstrate critical thinking.

 

I am honestly a little floored that questioning an event that happened less than 100 years ago was presented as an argument for critical thinking rather than as a sad story of how critical thinking gets lost in the absence of sufficient education. I mean, there are very interesting historical arguments that take place, but this is not one of them. Not even close. Another reminder about how our schools are failing children.

 

It was a sad story, about the dangers of not teaching critical thinking.  The problem she pointed out is that when you try and fudge it, people may well bring critical thinking to what you've taught them later, but it may or may no be solidly founded.

 

If you teach a historical event as a kind of orthodoxy, if you don't teach for example how historical knowledge is evaluated (which IMO many people aren't, even university educated people) you will make even well founded ideas prey to a little critical evaluation.

[8filltheheart]

I personally have not observed (or believe) that young children do not actively engage in higher order critical thinking skills and that young kids are limited to only concrete thinking. I don't have the time to get into a discussion on the issue, but I googled a couple of links for others who might want to read about it from an alternative perspective (though I only skimmed the first one and only a couple of pages of the 2nd, but the Pooh questions seemed to reflect my thinking)

 

https://www.brighthorizons.com/family-resources/e-family-news/2014-developing-critical-thinking-skills-in-children

http://www.nicurriculum.org.uk/docs/skills_and_capabilities/foundation/thinkingskillsintheearlyyears_report.pdf

 

FWIW, with my own kids I spend far more time asking them questions to think about the answer vs. expecting them to memorize the answers.  There is a difference in how that impacts your teaching/interactions.

[Bluegoat]

I personally have not observed (or believe) that young children do not actively engage in higher order critical thinking skills and that young kids are limited to only concrete thinking. I don't have the time to get into a discussion on the issue, but I googled a couple of links for others who might want to read about it from an alternative perspective (though I only skimmed the first one and only a couple of pages of the 2nd, but the Pooh questions seemed to reflect my thinking)

 

https://www.brighthorizons.com/family-resources/e-family-news/2014-developing-critical-thinking-skills-in-children

http://www.nicurriculum.org.uk/docs/skills_and_capabilities/foundation/thinkingskillsintheearlyyears_report.pdf

 

FWIW, with my own kids I spend far more time asking them questions to think about the answer vs. expecting them to memorize the answers.  There is a difference in how that impacts your teaching/interactions.

 

Yeah, I agree with this.  I think they do, although it's often not in the same way an older student will, and it will tend to top out.  So you won't see the kind of ability to abstract in younger kids that you see beginning to develop in the late teens and early 20s, and they do tend to be more concrete even than middle school kids.

 

But they certainly find relations between things and put them together, are capable of noticing problems in doing so.  I think in practice, many people who consider themselves neoclassical take a pretty common-sense approach.  Something like classical conversations seems to be on the more extreme side of pushing that age as just sucking in pure data.

 

The other side I think is the idea that since everything is in a book or online, you don't need data, just teach skills to find it and "think critically."  I've always though it is crazy that anyone who has real expertise in anything could believe that is a good idea.

Edited January 29, 2018 by Bluegoat

[Penelope]

I personally have not observed (or believe) that young children do not actively engage in higher order critical thinking skills and that young kids are limited to only concrete thinking. I don't have the time to get into a discussion on the issue, but I googled a couple of links for others who might want to read about it from an alternative perspective (though I only skimmed the first one and only a couple of pages of the 2nd, but the Pooh questions seemed to reflect my thinking)

 

https://www.brighthorizons.com/family-resources/e-family-news/2014-developing-critical-thinking-skills-in-children

http://www.nicurriculum.org.uk/docs/skills_and_capabilities/foundation/thinkingskillsintheearlyyears_report.pdf

 

FWIW, with my own kids I spend far more time asking them questions to think about the answer vs. expecting them to memorize the answers. There is a difference in how that impacts your teaching/interactions.

I agree with you here in the context of talking about young children.

 

When I read things like this, though, or other posts in this thread suggesting questions to ask,

my first thought is always, but of course! Doesn’t everyone (well, not everyone, but involved homeschooling parents, yes) talk to their children like this and “teach†like this? Even parents who focus most heavily on factual knowledge in the younger years do this kind of thing, right?

 

But I guess that is fallacious assumption.

 

**********

 

 

I do think that this kind of thinking contributes to the ability to follow more complex arguments at older ages. Along with content knowledge, advancing in reading skills, developing understanding of more complex grammar, studying logic in some form, etc.

[fralala]

It was a sad story, about the dangers of not teaching critical thinking.  The problem she pointed out is that when you try and fudge it, people may well bring critical thinking to what you've taught them later, but it may or may no be solidly founded.

 

If you teach a historical event as a kind of orthodoxy, if you don't teach for example how historical knowledge is evaluated (which IMO many people aren't, even university educated people) you will make even well founded ideas prey to a little critical evaluation.

 

Hmm. OK. I think I see your point. But when you say critical evaluation, is that the same thing as critical thinking?

Since we're asking what is critical thinking, I still see what you're referring to as evaluation more as  "fact-checking" than "critical thinking."

 

Why has this book been edited this way? is indeed a fine critical thinking question.

 

But it won't elicit critical thinking if you are not completely certain of the facts. If I ask my children, Why might one of his biographers have invented the story of George Washington and the cherry tree?, I am asking them to think critically. If they respond, "Because George Washington was invented; he is a mythical person invented to try to drum up American patriotism," they're not using critical thinking skills. They are demonstrating to me that there have been some gaps in their education, and maybe it's time for a trip to Mt. Vernon.

 

I'm not sure I agree that there can be "critical thinking" that isn't solidly founded. There can be criticism or skepticism that isn't solidly founded, but for critical thinking to occur, we cannot be in disagreement about empirical facts.

[Bluegoat]

Hmm. OK. I think I see your point. But when you say critical evaluation, is that the same thing as critical thinking?

Since we're asking what is critical thinking, I still see what you're referring to as evaluation more as  "fact-checking" than "critical thinking."

 

Why has this book been edited this way? is indeed a fine critical thinking question.

 

But it won't elicit critical thinking if you are not completely certain of the facts. If I ask my children, Why might one of his biographers have invented the story of George Washington and the cherry tree?, I am asking them to think critically. If they respond, "Because George Washington was invented; he is a mythical person invented to try to drum up American patriotism," they're not using critical thinking skills. They are demonstrating to me that there have been some gaps in their education, and maybe it's time for a trip to Mt. Vernon.

 

I'm not sure I agree that there can be "critical thinking" that isn't solidly founded. There can be criticism or skepticism that isn't solidly founded, but for critical thinking to occur, we cannot be in disagreement about empirical facts.

 

 

I think like a lot of things people can have part of the picture without the whole skill set, or the way they are taught can sabotage the skill.

 

I mean, in that example, she ended up actually looking to see how the book was edited and realized that the facts she had been taught were - not quite wrong but glossed over in an ultimately unhelpful way.  I can easily imagine someone having the initial question but not enough knowledge to realize what questions to ask next.  I suppose that might be a fact question to some extent, but I think it's closer to a process question around textual transmission.

 

I think it's difficult to separate fact and process questions.  I don't know a lot about Frank and how her diary was published.  In this example, I'd probably have read the book, realized it couldn't have been written that way, and I would have assumed that it was redacted or edited in some way, and then investigated.  It wouldn't have tripped me up mainly because I know something about how editors handle texts like these.  I don't have the facts about this book, but I have facts about others, that would lead to making reasonable guesses and asking helpful questions.

 

I'm not sure I agree about empirical facts requiring agreement - there are lots of places were scholarship doesn't agree on those, but the discipline can contain those differences and disagreements.

 

 

Anyway - what eternal summer mentioned is on my mind at the moment because I see ma dd13 in her school being deliberately sabotaged in that way.  She'll be ok, but I find it a bit scary that many students will not get anything better.