Manual for Critical Thinking - Learn the Tools the Best Thinkers Use

Contents The Design of this Manual 5 The Overall Design of the Text 6 (This section will help you plan how to “cover” the book, how to “break down” instructional goals, and how to present the goals of the course to the students.) The Book as a Whole. 6 Instructional Goals for a Course Based on the Book. 6 An Intuitive Foundation (Introduction and Chapter 1) 6 The Basic Tools (Chapters 2, 3, and 5) 6 Using Critical Thinking Ideas as Tools for Learning (Chapters 4, 6, and 7) 7 Developing as a Fairminded, Rational Thinker (Chapters 8 and 9) 7 Understanding the Stages of Critical Thinking as a Tool for Further Development (Chapter 10) 7 Part One: Re-conceiving the Nature of Instruction. Designing Instruction on a Coach/Performer Model. 9 (This section will help you to design instruction for the course as a whole). Introduction: Teaching the Discipline of Thinking 9 (This section introduces you to a model for making class sessions into working sessions for students) How to Use the Text 10 The Course Should be Work-intensive for the Students, But Not for the Instructor 10 Teaching Students to Think Through Content 11 Practicing What We Preach 11 Designing a Class is Both a Cognitive and an Affective Task 12 The Big Picture 12 Five Important Structural Determinations that Set the Stage for Everything Else 13 Concept of Critical Thinking 14 Designing a “Typical Day” 15 Assigning the “Think for Yourself” Activities in the Text 15 Using Peer Assessment to Teach Self-Assessment 15 Providing an Orientation to the Course 16 Seeing the Teaching of Critical Thinking as an Art 16 Using Engaged Lecture 17 Using Random Sampling Grading 18 Modeling Critical Thinking Moves 18 Modeling Intellectual Dispositions 19 Bringing Intellectual Standards Into Daily Practice 19 Designing Structures for Student Self Evaluation 20 Assessing Writing 20 Assessing Listening 20 Assessing Speaking 21 Assessing Reading 21 Requiring a Global Self-Assessment 22 Preparing the Class Syllabus 22 The Key Concept of the Course 22 The General Plan for the Course 23 Requirements 23 Grading 23 Textbook 23 Grading Policies 23 The Weighting of Papers in the Portfolio 24 What Each Grade Represents 24 The Grade of F 24 The Grade of D 24 The Grade of C 25 The Grade of B 25 The Grade of A 25 Using a Student Understandings Form 25 Requiring An Intellectual Journal 26 Encouraging the Development of Intellectual Empathy 26 Giving Tests 27 Using General Structures That Foster Deep Thinking 27 Using Tactics that Encourage Active Learning 28 Using a Socratic Teaching Approach 28 Using General Structures That Foster Deep Learning 29 Part Two: Thinking about the “Think for Yourself” Activities 30 (This chapter by chapter section will help you plan day-to-day classroom activities and assignments). Appendix 66 (The appendix includes forms that can be used as student handouts). Oral Examination 67 A Model for Developing Your Self-Assessment 68 Student Understandings Form 69 Developing Intellectual Empathy Through Role Playing 70 Format for Journal Entries 71 The Logic of “(name of the article)” 72 The Logic of an Article sample 73 Sample Logic of an Excerpt from On Civil Disobedience 74 Figuring Out the Logic of a Section or Chapter of the Textbook 76 The Logic of “(name of section or chapter of the textbook)” 76 Sample Logic of Chapter Nine, Part Two in the Textbook 77 Figuring out the Logic of a Textbook 79 Sample Logic of the Textbook Critical Thinking: Learn the Tools the Best Thinkers Use 81 Criteria For Evaluating An Author’s Reasoning 83 Author Biographies 84 Transparency Masters 85 (This section includes all the diagrams from the textbook that can be used as transparency masters). Introduction The Design of this Manual The design of this manual is not based on a chapter-by-chapter list of suggestions, but rather on a holistic scheme for teaching all of the chapters. Most of our suggestions represent teaching strategies applicable not only to the chapters of our textbook, but also to teaching (in general). They are based on an analysis of the weaknesses typically found in most traditional lecture/test formats (of college instruction). Our most basic premise is that one improves students’ learning by designing instruction so that students actively construct the knowledge and skills we want them to learn. In other words, content must be constructed in the mind for students to take ownership of it. To construct content in the mind is to think it through in any of a variety of disciplined ways. The best design instruction, then, is instruction that compels students to actively construct knowledge as they move through the course. Here is one of the most basic ways we can have students do this. Instead of asking students to merely repeat what we, or the textbook, has said about a given concept, we can ask them to give voice to the following. The concept of X basically means __________________________ (state this meaning in your own words. In other words, _________________________________________ (now explain in a few sentences what you meant by the first sentence). For example, ____________________________________________(now give us an example of what you meant---tying the concept to your experience, and our experience, so that we can better understand it). To illustrate with an analogy or diagram, _____________________________________ (now connect what you are saying to something similar, again, to help us better understand it.) Having students regularly state, elaborate, exemplify, and illustrate what they are learning (in their own words and connected to their own experience) compels them to take ownership in a deeper and more lasting way than does having them re-state the words of the textbook verbatim. The most ineffective teaching way to teach is the traditional and still most widespread practice of allowing students to impressionistically read the text and/or passively listen to lectures about its content. To help students construct knowledge as they work through the textbook, we have devised a series of THINK FOR YOURSELF activities throughout the text. Each of these activities is designed to help students begin to take ownership of the basic concepts in the text. If class time is focused on helping students to perform well on these activities, we feel confident that the goals of the text, as outlined below, will be achieved. We also strongly suggest that you work through these activities as you assign them to students. In doing so, you should more clearly see their usefulness and power in internalizing the important concepts in the text. (You also model intellectual humility for your students – an important intellectual trait). The Overall Design of the Text (with instructional goals) The Book As a Whole. Everybody thinks to some extent about mistakes they make and how to correct them. Critical thinkers are different in that they seek systematic ways to improve their thinking and create for themselves systematic practice to serve this end. This book is designed to help motivated learners develop into fair-minded critical thinkers. By critical thinking, then, we mean the art of devising systematic ways to improve the quality of your learning and your life (by systematically improving the thinking that underlies how you learn and how you live). By the end of the course, the students should demonstrate documented critical thinking skills, be articulate about their strengths and weaknesses as aspiring fairminded thinkers, insightful in discussing their stage of personal development as thinkers, and reasonably proficient in carrying out a realistic plan for the improvement of their thinking. Instructional Goals for a Course based on the book The plan for each section of the book is summarized in the following section. An Intuitive Foundation (Introduction and Chapter 1) In the introduction and the first chapter, the student is introduced to the very idea of “taking charge” of one’s learning and one’s life (through the improvement of thinking). In these introductory chapters, we lay out a basic definition of critical thinking and introduce the relationship between thinking, feeling and motivation. We emphasize the importance of becoming a critic of one’s thinking, of understanding critical thinking development as a complex set of skills that happens in the mind only when, and to the extent, that one takes one’s thinking seriously. By the end of these two chapters, students should be conversant in the idea of “taking charge” of one’s learning and one’s life (through the improvement of thinking). As a whole, they should have a sense of the challenge that critical thinking represents and a notion of the kind of intellectual work required to develop as thinkers. The Basic Tools (Chapters 2, 3, and 5) In the next two chapters (chapters 2-3), the student is introduced to the basic tools of the critical thinking: command of the elements of thought and command of the standards for thought. Since these chapters summarize the basic tools of the critical thinking--- command of the elements of thought, command of the standards for thought ---it is not possible for students to gain more than an initial familiarity with them at first. It will take the whole of the semester for students to begin to use these tools somewhat intuitively and systematically. Nevertheless, one should expect students, at this stage, to develop an accurate understanding of these tools, a sense of their importance, and get initial practice in using them. They should also internalize the distinction between inert information, activated ignorance, and activated knowledge. In general, these two chapters should serve as a reference for use during the entire semester. Chapter 5 encourages students to take command of the questioning process, to learn the art of questioning. This chapter provides a number of tools that help students formulate essential, deep and important questions. It links with chapters 2 and 3, as it fosters students’ abilities to formulate questions using the elements of reasoning and intellectual standards. Using Critical Thinking Ideas as Tools For Learning (Chapters 4, 6, and 7) In chapters four and six, students are introduced to the art of designing one’s own learning, and evaluating the quality of one’s learning while learning. When these two chapters are successfully taught, students learn the importance of student self-assessment, begin to assess their thinking and work in any class they take at any time, and develop useful tools for learning any subject or discipline. In chapter six, we focus on the important understanding that every content area represents a form of thinking which highlights the logic of an integrated set of concepts or ideas. For example, the key to History as a subject for study is historical thinking that highlights the logic of events in the past. Students should display competence in the art of analyzing the underlying concept of any course they are taking, the form of thinking essential to the course, the logic of the subject, and the general plan for the course. Chapter seven lays out a number of useful and explicit tools for reading closely and writing substantively. When students successfully work through both parts of this chapter, and practice using the methods outlined in them, they should develop their ability to deeply comprehend what they read, to connect important ideas they read about with other important ideas they already understand, to write on important issues, clearly, logically, and with precision, and to use both reading and writing as important tools for learning. By working through these chapters, and using the ideas highlighted in them in multiple ways, students should become more independent and insightful learners, and develop skills of learning they can use the whole of their life. Developing as a Fairminded, Rational Thinker (Chapters 8 and 9) These two chapters focus on three primary concepts: fairmindedness, egocentricity and sociocentricity. When students develop critical thinking abilities, they can do so either in a strong-sense (ethical) or a weak-sense (unethical) way. To the extent that we fail to stress the importance of fairminded critical thinking, students are apt to ignore the ethical dimension of human thought. This is true because humans are naturally egocentric and sociocentric. In other words, the natural bent of the human mind is to think selfishly, narrowmindedly, and within a sociological framework. We do not naturally concern ourselves with the rights and needs of others, or the rights and needs of others outside our “groups.” Chapter eight, then, lays out a basic definition of fairmindedness, argues for the importance of working toward fairminded thinking as an important goal, and introduced various traits of mind essential for fairminded critical thinking. Chapter nine focuses on the importance of getting command of one’s egocentric and sociocentric tendencies – tendencies that are so large a part of human nature. When students have worked through this chapter, they should be able to demonstrate their ability to identify some patterns of egocentrism and sociocentrism in their thinking and their life. Understanding the Stages of Critical Thinking as a Tool for Further Development (Chapter 10) In the final chapter, we emphasize the importance of studying the stages necessary for critical thinking development and creating a “game plan” to further this development---one that emphasizes transforming our habits of thought, cultivating self-understanding and fair-mindedness. This chapter is based in the premise that, though no one becomes an ideal thinker, there is no upper limit to the degree to which we can raise the quality of our thinking. To move toward the ideal, it is helpful to have a clear conception of that ideal. As a result of working through this chapter, students should be able to describe the stages necessary for critical thinking development. They should also be able to accurately assess their own development using the stage theory, elaborating and detailing their self-analysis with examples from their life and work. Part One: Re-conceiving the Nature of Instruction. Designing Instruction on a Coach/Performer Model. Introduction: Teaching the Discipline of Thinking As we remarked in the introductory section: “By the end of the course, the students should demonstrate documented critical thinking skills, be articulate about their strengths and weaknesses as aspiring “fair-minded” thinkers, insightful in discussing their stage of personal development as thinkers, and reasonably proficient in carrying out a realistic plan for the improvement of their thinking.” This is an ambitious goal. What is more, it cannot be achieved simply by dutifully covering the content of each chapter in a series of lectures accompanied by periodic quizzes. Instead, to be successful we believe that we must change the central metaphor or conception through which we, and the students, think about our roles in teaching and learning. Most students become highly passive when listening to a lecture. They take on the role of “spectators” with the instructor appearing to them in the role of “performer.” Traditionally, even when students take some notes, the notes they take tend to be mechanically produced. They write down almost random excerpts from the lectures they hear. In other words, students do not actively engage the content being lectured about. However, to learn a body of content in a substantial way students must actively THINK through the content. They must begin to form important connections in their minds that reflect the important connections in the content they are expected to learn. As a result of actively processing the content, students must create (that is, construct) in their minds a SYSTEM of interconnected ideas. They must come to recognize that they grasp these ideas only when they can effectively use them to pose questions, make observations, interpret information, trace implications, and transform their way of seeing and thinking about the dimension of the world that the subject represents. Our text is based on this active and engaged way of looking at learning and instruction. As a result, we think of the process of becoming a disciplined thinker as analogous to the process of becoming proficient in a sport or art. That is, we believe that teaching is most effective when instructors approach instruction as a good coach approaches the cultivation of skilled players. We design intense PRACTICE in the fundamentals. As in a sport, in thinking there are skills and abilities, habits, and values. All three blend together in integrated performance. Good players display their skills, their habits, and their values. This model applies not only to the teaching of critical thinking (in general) but also to teaching critical thinking within subject domains (historical thinking, biological thinking, mathematical thinking, sociological thinking, anthropological thinking, thinking like an engineer, thinking like a professional nurse, thinking like an effective student, etc…) We need to design instruction, therefore, so that the students see the class principally as a place to for ACTIVE ENGAGEMENT IN A DISCIPLINED PERFORMANCE. We in turn should be there on the sidelines coaching them, making sure that they are performing as they should. We should be ready, as it were, to blow the whistle when we see the class failing to “perform” the assigned tasks in the right way or in the right spirit. We should design the class so that it is difficult for the students to adopt a passive role. In short, we hope this manual will aid you in discovering practical ways to become a better coach of your students (as they engage in increasingly skilled thinking under your direction). Here are some general suggestions to begin with (in accordance with the visual diagram below): Approach every class session with a clear sense of the thinking you are looking for in the students. Be prepared to model (or act out) the thinking you want. Design activities so that students both generate and assess thinking In other words, in teaching for critical thinking you should design the class so that you model the thinking you are looking for (on that particular day). This requires you either to think aloud in front of the class or to present the class with thinking in written form. Once modeled for the students, we should look for the students to engage in practice that emulates the model (not slavishly but in the spirit of the model of course). Shortly after the students engage in some guided practice, they need to assess that practice, discovering thereby their strengths and weaknesses. This discovery of strengths and weaknesses must be a regular part of their learning, not something they discover six weeks into the course after receiving the results of a quiz. How To Use the Text There are, no doubt, alternative ways to use the text successfully. You may devise strategies that we have not thought of. The specific suggestions we have represent methods and strategies we have developed through our instructional experimentation. Judge for yourself their plausibility. Test them in the spirit of empiricism. Those that work (i.e., improve instruction) keep; those that do not work, abandon. The Course Should be Work-intensive for the Students, But Not for the Instructor There are two significant mistakes instructors should take steps to avoid. The first is designing classes so students can pass them without thinking deeply about the content of the course. The second is designing classes so that the instructor must work much harder than the students. Let us consider both these ideas briefly in turn. In a class that consists mainly of lectures with periodic quizzes and examinations, it is often true that students can get a passing grade by simply “cramming” effectively for the quizzes and tests. Many students have developed cramming skills to the point that they misleadingly create the appearance of understanding a body of content by intensive cramming before the test. The problem is that most cramming feeds only the short-term memory. Students adept at it will say things like, “I got an A in Statistics last semester, but don't ask me any questions about it. I’ve forgotten most of what I learned.” If students are to become disciplined thinkers, they will need to do most of the work that is done in and for the class. Teachers often make the mistake of thinking that students learn well only when instructors spend hours “preparing” for class, (e.g. learning information they then tell to students). But learning to think well requires many opportunities for practice in thinking through problems and issues, in applying concepts in one’s thinking to real life experiences. And students can do this only when we design classroom structure so that they are working to understand and apply the fundamentals of critical thinking. We therefore recommend that instructors spend the majority of their time coaching students, sitting on the sidelines, listening to peer interaction, providing feedback on the sorts of problems in thinking they are noticing in students. In other words, just as in teaching basketball you would focus on coaching players to better play basketball, in teaching thinking you want to coach students to better think. If basketball players are to learn to play basketball better they must learn the fundamentals of basketball and then get on the court and practice playing the game while focusing on the fundamentals. And they must do this over and over again. In the same way, if students are to learn critical thinking skills, they must learn the fundamentals of good thinking and then practice thinking through problems and issues while focusing on the fundamentals of good thinking. They must do this over and over again, thousands of times. This role of “coaching” rather than “imparting information” is very difficult even for the best teachers. We too often fall into the “cover the content” trap. But we must ask ourselves whether we are covering the content or whether the students are covering it. You can cover lots and lots of content in a one-semester course. That is, you can “give” lots of information to students. But that doesn’t mean that your students are able to take it into their thinking so that they are then able to use it in any meaningful way. If students are to learn anything well they must actively work to bring what they are learning into the structures of their minds. They do this through reading, writing, speaking, thinking and rethinking. Teaching Students to Think Through Content There is a particular set of performances we are striving toward in teaching any body of content. We want significant concepts from the content to be internalized (in this case critical thinking concepts). We want students to leave our classes with the content of the course available to them in their minds, so that they can actually use the content in the "real" world. What does this have to do with thinking in general, and good thinking in particular? Everything. Whatever we learn must be internalized by our minds, so as to be usable to our minds. Thinking is the only vehicle for that internalization and use. When students think poorly while learning, they learn poorly. When they think well while learning, they learn well. So if we are serious about wanting our students to internalize critical thinking and use it effectively in their lives, both academic and personal, then we should be very interested in their ability to think well during our instruction. For example, every student comes into our classes with some habits of thinking. Without some encouragement and help in learning to think as a critic of their thinking, the students will simply process any content, including critical thinking, through their typical thinking. If rote memorization is the process they have come to use to "learn" content in the past, then they will use rote memorization to try to learn critical thinking. Of course, rote memorization is not an effective way to learn well. The result, then, will be poor performance in the class. The shift we are looking for in their thinking is a shift from depending on rote memorization and periodic cramming to disciplined thinking. Hence, one of the most practical things we can do as teachers is to present our agenda as one which requires regular, disciplined thinking. We tell the students on the first class day that thinking through the content is the key agenda item in the course. In this course the key agenda is organized, systematic thinking about thinking. Practicing What We Preach To help students become “critics” of their thinking, as instructors we must be “critics” of our own. In other words, a necessary condition for teaching critical thinking is the ability to think critically ourselves. Therefore, the best preparation for teaching critical thinking is routinely working on our own thinking to improve it. If, for example, we cannot identify our own faulty assumptions, we will not be able to help students identify their faulty assumptions. If we are unable to find the prejudices and stereotypes in our own thinking that lead to incorrect conclusions about people, we will not be able to help students do the same. If we do not know how to reason through conceptual questions, we will not be able to teach students to do so. Therefore, in critical thinking instruction, perhaps more so than in any other domain of instruction, a beginning ability to apply critical thinking principles to human life is imperative to teaching for skilled thinking. Of course, to begin practice in critical thinking, we must have a beginning understanding of the fundamental concepts and theory of critical thinking. One way to do this is to become a student of thinking along with your students. As you move through the textbook, you might want to complete the “think for yourself” activities along with your students. In fact, we highly recommend that you do. (And again, if you think of ways we can improve these activities, we would appreciate your feedback). We recommend that you apply the activities to your personal life where possible, so that you can see the power in applying critical thinking tools. We suggest that you begin experimenting with the strategies found in the two strategic thinking chapters. Then if you teach these chapters, you can provide examples from your own experiences of how students might use the strategies, which you thinking are the best to begin with, etc. Designing a Class is Both a Cognitive and an Affective Task Students (like all of us) spend most of their time thinking about what they personally value. Their emotional life keeps them focused on the extent to which they are ”successfully“ achieving their personal values—as measured by their personal thinking. We shall be successful in helping our students to begin to think critically only insofar as we are able to stimulate students to grasp the relevance of critical thinking to their personal life. If a student is personally to value critical thinking—and hence to strive to practice it unmotivated by a class or a grade—that student must discover the relevance of critical thinking to his own life. Of course, student thinking, like much human thinking in general, is often highly egocentric. There are many defense mechanisms that they use to resist discovering their own (egocentric) thoughts and emotions, defense mechanisms that keep them from growing intellectually. It is as if the thoughts and emotions that run their lives were unknown to them. Critical thinking can transform minds, but only if those minds open to them, only if those minds take them on, re-create them inwardly and personally. In some sense, all knowledge is personal, since no knowledge would exist without persons to have that knowledge. In the long run, we acquire only the knowledge we value. We internalize only those modes of thinking that seem essential to what we want and esteem. How, then, are we to design instruction with these ends and problems in view? We want critical thinking to take root in the thinking of the students; to live in the minds of students; to transform the way they think; to put them into possession of a new mode of thinking; to become a perpetual generator of new thoughts, understandings, & beliefs; to become an instrument of insight. And therefore we must design instruction with these ends continually in view…so that students take charge of their thinking & continually upgrade it. The Big Picture In an ideal world, students would come to us as self-initiating, skilled learners. If they did, we could help them acquire an education much more easily. In fact, if students came to college as self-initiating, skilled learners, they would not need official classes at all. They would only need a good library and some advice on how best to study and learn. They would impose assignments on themselves and do the work required to master the subjects they were studying. When they acquired, or felt they had acquired, the required level of knowledge in a subject, they could then be tested and certified (or re-directed) accordingly. Unfortunately, most students arrive at college with a relatively low level of motivation to learn and skill in the process of learning. Indeed, most have a predictable set of deficiencies that it does well to recognize from the outset so that one can take them into account in the design and conduct of instruction. In our experience, the following characterizations profile the weaknesses of the overwhelming majority of college students. In general, our students: do only what they are required to do tend to put off work on a project until they have a pressing deadline are poor listeners are poor readers are poor writers are poor oral communicators do not use language with care and precision have no intellectual standards do not know how to assess: ----their own work ----their own thinking ----their own emotions ----their own life Each of these characteristics, when present, require instructional strategies that “correct” for them. For example, if students do only what they are required to do and put off work on projects until they have a pressing deadline, then we have little choice but to design instruction so that there are frequent requirements. Many shorter assignments force students to do more regular work and hence produce a higher quality of learning than a few long assignments. In line with this thinking, we usually assign a short paper for every class day. We treat this paper as a “ticket” to class (those who do not have it done are asked to go to the library and complete it). We use random-sampling grading to avoid having to “grade” anything but a small sampling of the papers assigned, while yet designing day-to-day work so that students get immediate feedback (by participating in self-assessment groups). We use strategies in instruction which take into account all of the above characteristics of our students. You will find them interspersed through-out this manual. Five Important Structural Determinations that Set the Stage For Everything Else There are five defining dimensions of class design you will want to carefully think through: • your concept of the course, • the general plan for implementing that concept, • the requirements the students must meet, • the grading policies in the course (when applicable), and • performance profiles (that correlate with the grade levels). The students, in other words, should know from the beginning what in general is going to be happening in the course, how they are going to be assessed, and what they should be striving to achieve. To put it yet another way, the students should know, from the beginning, what they are going to be doing most of the time—- THIS, especially in a course on critical thinking, should not be passive listening—-and what exactly is expected of them in that doing. The aim of the course should be carefully spelled out. It is usually helpful to contrast the aim with that of standard didactically taught courses. In addition to a written syllabus, the students should be given an orientation to the mechanics of the course. This orientation should include an oral explanation of the concept of the course, the plan, the requirements, the performance profiles and any other salient features of the design. The overall logic of the course should be made as clear as possible. You might consider using a “student understandings” sign-off sheet (a model will be presented to you). For students to learn any new concept well they must initially internalize the concept, then apply the concept to a problem or issue so that they come to see the value of understanding the concept. At the same time, they need to evaluate how well they are internalizing and applying the concepts they are learning. High quality thinking comes with routine practice in internalizing and applying theoretical structures of critical thinking If students are to learn critical thinking skills, abilities and traits, we need to provide many opportunities for them to 1) internalize the concepts of critical thinking, and to 2) apply those concepts to problems and issues (in their lives or in their coursework). For this reason, the text includes “think for yourself” activities for the students to complete following each major theoretical point. It is only when students apply what they are learning to actual situations or problems that they come to see the value in what they are learning. And only when they see the value in learning the content will they be internally motivated to do so. At the same time students are internalizing concepts and applying them in a meaningful way, they need practice in evaluating their work. Self-assessment is an integral part of critical thinking; it would be unintelligible to say of a person that he is thinking critically but is not evaluating his thinking. In the same way, it would be unintelligible to say of a student that she is thinking critically but is not evaluating her learning. Concept of Critical Thinking From the outset of the course you will want to be clear about the key concept of the course. This is the key idea underlying every idea you will be teaching. In the textbook, we articulate several different ways to conceptualize critical thinking. When you formulate the key concept for the course ask yourself this fundamental question: What is the most basic idea in this course that every other idea derives from and that when understood by students serves as a powerful idea in their thinking? One way of conceptualizing the key idea in the course can be found in our sample syllabus on page 22. Here is another: Critical Thinking is the art of taking control of one’s thinking. As such it means continually bringing thinking to the conscious level, followed by assessing it for quality, identifying its flaws, and then reconstructing it. If I am thinking critically, I understand the importance of routinely taking my thinking apart and assessing it using universal intellectual standards. The primary barrier to the development of critical thinking is our native egocentrism. Human beings continually reason. Every part of our lives are influenced by how well we reason. Therefore learning to reason better and to better understand the reasoning of others is the key to improving the quality of our lives. We do this through critical thinking. Thus the goal for the course was to design deep structures so that students would begin the life-long process of taking command of their minds. Designing a “Typical Day” In planning what happens on a daily basis in class, we suggest that instructors design classes that engage students in a similar routine for most, if not every class session. This is based on the premise that it is what we do on a typical day that determines how well we function. Just as what we eat and whether we exercise on a typical day determines in large part the quality of our health, what we do with our thinking on a typical day determines the quality of our thinking (and therefore the quality of our behavior). Therefore we want to design a daily structure for our classes that leads to daily practice in making the same kinds of intellectual moves again and again. For example, every day we want students to focus on clarity in thinking. This is the only way they will learn the value of thinking that is clear, and the skill of clarifying thinking. Every day we want students to have practice in writing, since we know they are generally weak as writers. Therefore, we require them to write a small amount for every class period. Every day we want to give students practice in giving one another feedback since we realize that through peer feedback they improve their ability to assess their own thinking. Therefore we designate time for peer feedback at the beginning of each class period. Assigning the “Think for Yourself” Activities in the Text Because we realize that it is all too easy for students to think they understand what they have read when in fact they understand it only on a superficial level, we have included “think for yourself” activities after each key conceptual point. We suggest that you have students complete all of these activities in the chapters you teach, writing our their answers whenever possible. Here is a basic format you might want to use for assigning these activities in creating your “typical day:” At the end of each class period, assign some section from the textbook for students to read. Where possible, ask students to write out their answers to the “think for yourself” activities within those sections. When students come to class on the next class day, place them in pairs or triads. Have each student read their paper aloud within their group. As the student is reading his paper aloud, have the other students in the group give the reader feed back on his paper, focusing on two or three intellectual standards such as clarity, relevance, depth. (see the next section, Using Peer Assessment to Teach Self Assessment, for a basic format for the peer feedback process). Then lead a brief discussion of the chapter or section you are focused on, using an engaged lecture format or socratic dialog. At the end of the class period, assign another section for the students to read and begin this process again. Using Peer Assessment to Teach Self Assessment One of the structures for holding students responsible for their thinking, and teaching them how to hold others responsible for their thinking is through peer assessment. Here is a basic structure you might try in your classes. Again, this format represents one example of a typical class day: Give the students a section or chapter to read from the text. Require them to complete one or more “think for yourself” activities, writing out their answers. When students come to class have them give each other feedback on their papers focusing fundamentally on the intellectual standards. For example, have them read their papers aloud in pairs or triads, one at a time. As one student reads his/her paper, the others give feedback on whether the points were clearly made (clarity), whether information used was relevant to the question at issue (relevance), whether the student dealt with the complexities embedded in the issue (depth), whether s/he considered alternative ways of looking at the problem (breadth), etc. As students are giving feedback to one another, you should listen to the quality of the feedback, stopping the class periodically to discuss what the students are doing well and where they need improvement (focusing primarily on their use of the intellectual standards.) After each student has been given feedback by her/his peers, you might then discuss as a group the chapter’s main points. Here you might use an engaged lecture format. Finally, give the assignment for the next class period. If you decide to use this format, realize that it will take some time for you to learn how to give quality feedback focused on the intellectual standards. Therefore you may be uncomfortable coaching students in how to give feedback. However, if you internalize the basic meaning and use of the intellectual standards and routinely practice asking the kinds of questions we include in the text on intellectual standards, you should be able to learn along with your students. Providing an Orientation to the Course The students should know from the beginning of the course what in general is going to be happening in the course, how they are going to be assessed, and what they should be striving to achieve. To put it yet another way, they should know, from the beginning, what they are going to be doing most of the time and what exactly is expected of them in that doing. The aim of the course should be carefully spelled out. It is usually helpful to contrast the aim with that of standard didactically taught courses. You might begin the course with this sort of introduction: “This course is going to be different from any course you have taken thus far because the emphasis will be on actively developing your thinking. Everything we do in this class will be designed to help you become better and better at thinking. You will therefore not be asked to memorize information. Instead, you will be required to actively participate every day in class so that you can improve your thinking. Think of learning about thinking as you would of learning a sport. To learn to play tennis, you would need to first learn the fundamentals of tennis at an elementary level and then practice those fundamentals during every practice session. The same is true in learning to think better. You must be introduced to the fundamentals of good thinking. Then you must practice those fundamentals every day. Therefore I will design every class day with the primary purpose of helping you develop your thinking or reasoning skills. Why is this important? Because the quality of every decision you make will be directly determined by the quality of your reasoning abilities. In fact the quality of your life in general will be determined by how well you think in general.” Having provided the basic introduction to the course, you will want to provide a syllabus (see our sample on page 22). You might also include the following: student understandings form (see sample on page 69) grade profiles for the course (see sample on pages 23?25) The main point to consider during the orientation is that students should be given a clear view of precisely what you will be hoping to achieve during the course, along with your expectations and course requirements. You should explain in detail precisely how you expect to conduct the class. For example, if you plan to use engaged lecture where you routinely call on students using the random card technique, you should fully explain this procedure to students detailing how it works and why you are using it. Seeing the Teaching of Critical Thinking as an Art Teaching for critical thinking is an art not a science. Because the development of thinking is a complex process, and because students come to us with multiple and varying types of bad habits of thinking developed over many years, there is no one best way to teach critical thinking. No matter how skilled we become in teaching thinking, we can always improve. Therefore each day we walk into the classroom there is one predominant question driving our thinking: What can we do today to better reach these students? In other words, how can we modify what we are doing so students gain a deeper understanding of critical thinking and use it more often in their lives? We therefore strongly recommend experimenting in the classroom, using different structures for teaching skilled thinking and modifying those structures based on how well they work. Using Engaged Lecture As we have pointed out, one of the most important qualities of the critical thinking teacher is the ability to “coach” students in thinking, to become facilitators of learning rather than “givers of information.” When lecture is essential, we recommend use of what we call an “engaged lecture” format. Here are some suggestions for engaged lecture we have found to be especially effective: During the lecture, routinely stop and ask students to state in their own words their understanding of the content. This can be done through a “random card” format wherein you flip through a set of 3 by 5 cards, each containing one student’s name, calling on students randomly as their card happens to comes up. You keep shuffling the cards to ensure that each new draw is completely random. This strategy involves every student in the class (since any one of them may be called upon at any moment) and ensures that they are actively listening during the discussing. Another powerful strategy is to call on students (randomly of course) to state in their own words statements made by other students. So you might select one student to state her understanding of a concept you are introducing. Then randomly select another student to summarize what the first student said. Then ask the first person if the second person accurately represented what she had said. We recommend that you do this several times during the lecture so students learn to critically to every participant. In addition to fostering critical listening during the (engaged) lecture, we suggest that you routinely ask questions that probe student understanding of the content. These questions might focus on the elements of reasoning, questions such as: Focusing on purpose: What is the purpose of this chapter? What were the authors trying to accomplish in writing this chapter? Focusing on question: What questions are emerging for you as we think our way through this issue? What was the key question on the mind of the authors when they wrote this chapter? What is the most significant question embedded in this issue? Focusing on information: What information the authors use to come to these conclusions? How can we check to see if this information is accurate? Focusing on inference: What can we logically conclude about people based on the information presented in this chapter? What conclusions were made by these authors? Were these conclusions justified given the evidence? Is there a more reasonable interpretation of the evidence than the conclusions these “experts” have come to? Focusing on assumptions: What do authors take for granted about people? Should we accept these assumptions or should we question them? Focusing on concepts: What are the key concepts presented in the chapter (or textbook)? How would you elaborate your understanding of the concepts we have been discussing? Focusing on implications: If the authors are correct in the way they conceptualize critical thinking, what are some implications for your life if you learn to think critically? What about if you don’t? Focusing on point of view: What are the author’s looking at in this chapter, and how are they seeing it? Using Random Sampling Grading Though you might think that randomly calling on students might be intimidating to students, we have found that so long as it is not done in a “threatening” fashion, students come to accept it as simply part of the process. Furthermore, we have found no better strategy for teaching critical listening. When we introduce students to this method, we remind them that we are concerned with the development of their thinking, and that we are not using this approach to intimidate them or make them appear ignorant in front of their friends. We then explain the logic of the process: to help them improve their critical listening abilities and better understand and represent what they hear. We also remind them that critical listening isn’t easy and that they should expect some discomfort in this process. Modeling Critical Thinking Moves It is most likely the case that your students are unaware of what highly skilled thinking looks like. They have probably rarely seen it modeled, and even then it was probably only implicitly modeled. Rather than just thinking well in front of students, we advocate explicit modeling of critical thinking “moves.” This means not only thinking aloud in front of students, but also calling attention to the “moves” you are making. Examples: In modeling disciplined thinking you might make moves such as these: “If I had to solve a problem like this, I would first make clear what my main purpose is as well as the precise question I am trying to solve. So let’s take a couple of minutes to do that….” (focusing on purpose and question) “Whenever I am thinking through an important complicated decision I always want to think through the implications of the various decisions I might come to. In other words I want to figure out what the likely consequences would be if I reasoned to this decision versus another decision.” (focusing on implications) “I realize that it is important to understand how authors are using concepts in their thinking. I therefore want to clarify the key concepts in the articles and books that I read. Let’s think aloud about what the author means when she uses the concept of x. I’ll begin. What I think she means is y, but do you have a better way of understanding or articulating her meaning? I am concerned about whether my interpretation is accurate.” (focusing on concepts) I always want to be clear about the issue I am dealing with, about what another person is saying, about what I am reading, etc. Therefore when I am unclear in a discussion, I ask questions of clarification. When I am unclear about the issue at hand, I focus on clarifying the question – either by clarifying the question in my own mind or asking others to clarify it. As I am reading, I repeat in my mind my understanding of the author’s meaning. I figure out what I understand and what I don’t understand about what the author is saying. (focusing on clarity) Whenever I am reasoning through a problem, I want to make sure I am using accurate information. Whenever it seems that other people are using questionable information in their thinking, I want to check to see if the information is accurate rather than simply accept it as true. I might ask the person how they know the information they are using is accurate. Or I might just look up the information for myself – depending on the circumstances. (focusing on accuracy) “Whenever I am reasoning through a problem, I want to make sure I use information relevant to the problem. I do this by writing out the question at issue as precisely as possible and then writing down the information I am using in thinking through the problem. In this way I can check to make sure the information is relevant to the precise question I am dealing with. (focusing on relevance and precision) “In reasoning through this issue it seems that it is important that I consider multiple ways of looking at the issue. I know this because whenever I am dealing with a problem that can reasonably be viewed from multiple relevant viewpoints I want to make sure I fully consider those viewpoints. If I fail to do so I will be reasoning in a narrow-minded way. So let me begin by stating the basic arguments that can reasonably be made with respect to this issue. Then you can see whether I have left out an important perspective. (focusing on breadth) For other intellectual moves you can model for students, refer to the questions which derive from our understanding of the elements of reasoning and the intellectual standards in chapters four and five. In modeling the thinking you want students to learn to do, you should point out exactly what intellectual moves you are making, why you are making them and invite students to critique the moves you are making. One strategy for doing this is to have the students observe the questions you are asking and the thinking you are displaying and then afterwards have the class discuss the moves you made. In any case, you want to make it clear that your primary intention is to help students learn to use these “moves” in their thinking every day. Modeling Intellectual Dispositions We also recommend that you model the intellectual virtues introduced in chapter one. For example, you can model intellectual perseverance, intellectual autonomy, intellectual courage, etc. We will focus here on just one of the virtues, intellectual humility, to give you an idea of the kind of modeling we recommend. Students cannot develop as thinkers if they are not willing to objectively critique their thinking and behavior. Unfortunately, through traditional schooling, students are not taught how to identify flaws in their thinking. Rather they are implicitly taught to cover up their weaknesses, to hide them. They are sometimes told that it is ok to make mistakes, but they quickly learn the negative consequences that come with making mistakes and admitting that there are problems in their thinking. Intellectual humility is rarely modeled for them. For example, they rarely if ever hear their teachers admit to making mistakes, or admit to not knowing the answer to a question within their discipline. They rarely, if ever, hear teachers say such things as: “I don’t know the answer to that, but let’s think through this problem together, realizing we are novices, that we don’t perhaps have all the relevant information we would need to solve the problem.” Or, “yesterday I was asked a question to which I answered x, but upon reflection I realized that I was not thinking as deeply about the question as I should have. In other words, I answered the question too quickly rather than taking time to think through its complexities. This is a common problem with thinking. We often go with our immediate response rather than disciplining our thinking to adequately answer the question with which we are concerned.” Our purpose in “thinking aloud” for our students in this way is to demonstrate for them how intellectual humility plays itself out in the mind of a skilled thinker. We want to show them that good thinkers readily admit (without embarrassment) when they don’t know something, that good thinkers ask questions when they are unclear about something, that good thinkers change their thinking when they hear arguments that are more reasonable than their own. In short, we want to demonstrate to students that we cannot develop as thinkers if we are intellectually arrogant. The old adage “actions speak louder than words” is useful in teaching intellectual humility. We cannot simply say that it is important to admit that we don’t know answers to questions or that we make mistakes, we must actually point out when we don’t understand something or when we make mistakes in thinking. Bringing Intellectual Standards Into Daily Practice Because it is through intellectual standards that thinking is assessed, it is important to bring intellectual standards into the daily practice of thinking that students are doing in our classes. One way of achieving this is by routinely ask students questions that force them to apply intellectual standards to their thinking, questions such as: I’m not clear about your position. Could you state it in other words? (clarity) Could you be more precise? (precision) How can we check to see if the information you are using is accurate? (accuracy) How is what you are saying relevant to the question on the floor? (relevance) Can you articulate how you have considered the complexities in the issue? (depth) Can you articulate other reasonable ways of looking at the issue? (breadth) Is there a more logical interpretation than the one you have articulated? (logic) Have you focused on the most significant issue in dealing with this problem? (significance) Designing Structures for Student Self Evaluation Critical thinking is thinking that assesses itself. To the extent that our students need us to tell them how well they are doing, they are not thinking critically. Didactic instruction makes students overly dependent on the teacher. In such instruction, students rarely develop any perceptible intellectual independence and typically have no intellectual standards to assess their thinking with. Instruction that fosters a disciplined, thinking mind, on the other hand, is 180 degrees in the opposite direction. Each step in the process of thinking critically is tied to a self-reflective step of self-assessment. As a critical thinker, I do not simply state the problem; I state it and assess it for its clarity. I do not simply gather information; I gather it and check it for its relevance and significance. I do not simply form an interpretation; I check my interpretation to see what it is based on and whether that basis is adequate. Because of the importance of self-assessment to critical thinking, it is important to bring it into the structural design of the course and not just leave it to episodic tactics. Virtually everyday, for example, students should be giving (to other students) and receiving (from other students) feedback on the quality of their work. They should be regularly using intellectual standards in an explicit way. This should be designed into instruction as a regular feature of it. There are two kinds of criteria that students need to assess their learning of content. They need universal criteria that apply to all of their thinking, irrespective of the particular task. For example, they should always be striving for clarity, accuracy, and significance. And second, they need to adjust their thinking to the precise demands of the question or task before them. If there are three parts of the task, they need to attend to all three parts. If the question requires that they find specialized information, then they need to do just that. One simple structure to use in attending to this dual need is to provide students a set of performance criteria that apply to all of their work, criteria that they will be using over and over. Then, make specific provision for encouraging students to think in a focused way about the particular demands of any given task or question before them. There are a variety of additional structures that can be used: Assessing Writing Working in groups of four, students choose the best paper (according to the universal standards of clarity, logicalness, etc. as well as any specific criteria you have given them). Then they join with a second group and choose the best paper of the two (according to the same criteria). This last paper is read to the class as a whole and a class-wide discussion is held about the strengths and weaknesses of the papers chosen, leading to the class voting on the best paper of the day (again, always according to the specific criteria to which you are holding them accountable). Working in groups of three or four write, student write out their recommendations for improvement on three or four papers (from students not in the group). The written recommendations go back to the original writers who does a revised draft for the next class. Using this method every student receives written feedback on their papers from a “team” of critics. Working in groups of three or four take student take turns reading their papers aloud slowly and discussing the extent to which they have or have not fulfilled the performance criteria relevant to the paper. One student’s paper is read aloud slowly to the class while the instructor leads a class-wide discussion on how the paper might be improved. Then the students work in groups of two or three to try to come up with recommendations for improvement for the students in their group (based on the model established by the instructor). Assessing Listening Since students spend a good deal of their time listening, and since developing critical listening skills is difficult to achieve, it is imperative that students be held responsible for their “listening” in the classroom. Here are some helpful structures for helping students develop critical listening abilities: Call on students regularly and unpredictably, holding them responsible either to ask questions of clarification or to be prepared to give a summary, elaboration, and examples of what others have said. This is a powerful strategy we use everyday in the classroom. Ask every student to write down the most basic question they need to have answered in order to understand the issue or topic under discussion. Then collect the questions (to see what they understand or don’t understand about the topic). Or you might: call on some of them to read their questions aloud, or put them in groups of two with each person trying to answer the question of the other. Through activities such as these students should learn to monitor their listening, determining when they are and when they are not following what is being said. This should lead to their asking pointed questions. Reward students for asking questions when they do not understand what is being said. Assessing Speaking In a well-designed class, students often engage in oral communication. They articulate what they are learning: explaining, giving examples, posing problems, interpreting information, tracing assumptions, etc... They need to learn to assess what they are saying, becoming aware of when they are being vague, when they need an example, when their explanations are inadequate, etc... Here are three general strategies you can use to teach students to assess their speaking abilities. Students teaching students. One of the best ways to learn is to try to teach someone else. If one has trouble explaining something, it is often because one is not as clear as one needs to be about what one is explaining. Group Problem Solving. By putting students in a group and giving them a problem or issue to work on together, their mutual articulation and exchanges will often help them to think better. They will often help correct each other, and so learn to “correct” themselves. Oral test on basic vocabulary. One complex tactic that aids student learning is the oral test. Students are given a vocabulary list. They spend time studying the key concepts for the course. They are then put into groups of twos or threes and are asked to take turns explaining the concepts to each other. They are encouraged to assess each other’s explanations. When some seem prepared for the oral exam, they are assessed by the teacher. During this assessment the instructor is looking for a basic beginning understanding of the concepts, and the ability to give examples of the concept from one’s life. The students who pass then become “certifiers” or “tutors” and are assigned to assess other students (or tutor them). Everyone gets multiple experiences explaining, and hearing explanations of, the basic vocabulary. The oral examination we use can be found in the appendix. We give this to the students on the first day of class so they know exactly which concepts they will be expected to explain during the oral exam. We give this exam during the first few weeks of the class so students learn the most basic critical thinking vocabulary early in the course, vocabulary that is then used on a daily basis in class. You might wan