4.1 Critical Thinking: How can we teach this?
Expanding your understanding and use of critical thinking
We all know that critical thinking is an essential part of the reflective project process and mark allocation. Students are brilliant critical thinkers and with excellent modelling and collaboration, research shows they can get steadily better throughout their school experience. This page explores critical thinking even further than a skill for just the reflective project by breaking it down further through values of inquiry. Critical thinking is for every subject and is everybody's business.
How can critical thinking be taught successfully by everyone?
The first obstacle is everyone realising the nature of critical thinking - what it is and is not as well as just how wide reaching its impact can be as a 21st Century skill. We all know employers request this trait in future employees but do we understand why and how we can support that?
The Conversation: Thinking about thinking helps kids learn: How can we teach critical thinking? [1]
In this article, Peter Ellerton at the University of Queensland, explores the nature of critical thinking and how it can be taught successfully in schools. The reflective project is ultimately a critical thinking process and fully realising this can be the hardest thing for students to do. Sometimes we can say the words 'critical thinking' too often and they lose all meaning so this article is helpful as it breaks down the ways that we can think critically through 'values of inquiry'
. This section here is a summary and analysis of Ellerton's article and how it fits within our context of the reflective project.
Let's start with what critical thinking is ... or in this case... is not.
'There are many definitions of critical thinking that are vague or ill-formed. To help address this, let’s start by saying what critical thinking is not.
First, critical thinking is not just being smart. Being able to recognise a problem and find the solution are characteristics we associate with intelligence. But they are by themselves not critical thinking...
... Second, critical thinking is not just difficult thinking. Some thinking we see as hard, such as performing a complex chemical analysis, could be done by computers. Critical thinking is more about the quality of thinking than the difficulty of a problem.
So, how do we understand what good quality thinking is?
Critical thinkers have the ability to evaluate their own thinking using standards of good reasoning. These include what we collectively call the values of inquiry such as precision, clarity, depth and breadth of treatment, coherence, significance and relevance'[1].
Values of Inquiry
Ellerton has stated the values of inquiry as precision, clarity, depth and breadth of treatment, coherence, significance and relevance. But first it is important to recognise the cognitive skills that are involved in critical thinking processes or, more generally, thinking skills. Interpretation, analysis, evaluation, inference, explanation and self-regulation[2]. And we can break these down more specifically:
Interpretation - categorising, decoding, clarifying meaning
Analysis - examining ideas, identifying arguments, argument deconstruction
Evaluation - assessing claims, assessing arguments, synthesising claims
Inference - querying evidence, conjecturing alternatives, concluding
Explanation - stating results, justifying procedures, presenting arguments
Applying the values of inquiry to the cognitive skill
Let's take the cognitive skill we all find the hardest to master in the reflective project: evaluation and, more specifically, assessing arguments and see how focusing on specific values of inquiry might help our understanding that evaluation, as a critical thinking process, is where we judge something's quality, importance or value. What is interesting here is that whilst we might be using a specific identified area of the cognitive skill of evaluation, our observations below have repercussions for the whole area of critical thinking in the reflective project. Inductive reasoning in action, I hope!
Evaluation: Assessing arguments
Clarity: Premises, conclusions and evidential relationships are articulated.
Accuracy: Strengths and weakness inherent in argument types, including inductive and deductive arguments, are identified in context.
Precision: Key terms are used correctly and amounts quantified where appropriate or necessary. The tools and processes of evaluation of inferences are explicitly stated.
Depth (complexity, relevance and significance): Suitability of evidential relationships examined with regard to the nature of the problem. Proposed causal and logical relationships identified and examined for weaknesses and strengths.
Coherence: Causal and logical connections tested. Inductive arguments are analysed for strength and weakness, including the use of analogies and generalisations. Deductive arguments are examined for validity and soundness. Logical fallacies identified and their effect on the argument assessed.
Breadth (alternatives, perspectives, collaboration): Additional information that may be necessary to strengthen the argument identified. Argument tested using alternative standards of various disciplines or methodological approaches[3].
What this means for the student when assessing arguments
What is the difference between inductive and deductive reasoning?
Inductive reasoning is when you use specific observations to lead to generalisations and conclusions. Deductive reasoning is when you test a hypothesis or existing generalisations or conclusions and see if they can be proved with specific examples.
'The main difference between inductive and deductive reasoning is that inductive reasoning aims at developing a theory while deductive reasoning aims at testing an existing theory.
Inductive reasoning moves from specific observations to broad generalisations, and deductive reasoning the other way around.
Both approaches are used in various types of research, and it’s not uncommon to combine them in one large study'.
Clarity: Every sentence counts and must be clear in how they are part of a logical analysis and assessment of arguments: This links firmly with the top band of Criterion C.
Accuracy: The success of your evaluation depends on what you do with the strengths and weaknesses you identify. In terms of 'accuracy', make sure that you relate the strengths and weaknesses you identify to the right, relevant context.
Precision: Using the right vocabulary and terminology specific to your ethical dilemma and career-related subject is important to add weight to your evaluation. This links firmly with Criterion D: Communication.
Depth: This is a chance to make sure that the strengths and weaknesses you elaborate on within the arguments you have identified and assessing, are wholly connected to the ethical dilemma at the heart of your reflective project. It is also a chance to be clear in your logical understanding of cause and effect.
Coherence: Overall there is a balance between your specific observations and how they link to the bigger picture as well as generalisations about the ethical landscape and dilemma itself and where your argument you are testing fits in.
Breadth: This is a good chance to bring in alternative ways of looking at the argument you are assessing and drawing in alternative perspectives.
Bringing this into classroom practice
What can this look like in the day-to-day classroom? This is not subject specific and whilst it can be addessed specifically in PPS lessons, it is also very much the arena of any DP and CRS subject too. The secret is not just to draw these ideas in but to make these explicit, not through teacher talk, but through visible thinking and meta-cognitive reflection.
Try learning experiences and assessments that help students to:
- Challenge assumptions
- Collaborate to frame problems
- Experiment with questioning
- Construct, analyse and evaluate arguments together
- Explore and apply individual values of inquiry
- Explore and be creative with other areas of cognitive skills such as interpretation, inference and self-regulation
- Try argument mapping where students can capture their reasoning along the journey of their thinking as it leads to a conclusion.
Try these thinking routines to help
Experimenting with Questions: Creative Questions by Harvard Project Zero[4]
Brainstorm at least 12 questions about the topic, concept, artwork or object. Try some of these Creative Question
Starts.
Creative Question starts
Why...? What if...? What is the purpose of...?
How would it be different if...?
Suppose that...? What if we knew...?
What would change if...?
Review your list, identify the most interesting questions,
and select one to discuss.
Reflect: What new ideas do you have about the topic, concept, artwork or object that you didn’t have before?
CONCEPT MAPPING: Ways Things Can Be Complex - a thinking routine by Harvard Project Zero[4]
A way of visibly exploring your thinking on a topic through concept mapping.
Complexity of parts and interactions
What are all the parts? How do these parts interact? (casually and otherwise)?
Complexity of truth
What are the undisputed facts and interpretations? What are the disputed facts and interpretations?
What are the uncertainties?
Complexity over time
How does it change over time? What happened before; what might happen next?
What causal factors are involved?
Complexity of engagement
Who are you in relation to this? How are you connected? What values, beliefs, emotions, come into play for you?
Complexity of perspective
What are all the different viewpoints, perspectives, lenses, stakeholders?
Footnotes
- a, b https://theconversation.com/thinking-about-thinking-helps-kids-learn-how-can-we-teach-critical-thinking-129795
- ^ Cognitive skills modified from Facione, P. A. (1990). Critical Thinking: A Statement of Expert Consensus for Purposes of Educational Assessment and Instruction
- ^ Values of inquiry concept from Kuhn, T. S. (1970). The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. International Encyclopedia of Unified Science. Chicago, University of Chicago Press. 2. Values of inquiry modified from Elder, L. and R. Paul (2001). "Critical Thinking: Thinking with Concepts." Journal of Developmental Education 24(3
- a, b The Ways Things can be Complex thinking routine was developed by Project Zero, a research center at the Harvard Graduate School