Critical Thinking in Schools

[dougie]

I have been thinking about critical thinking and it`s teaching in schools. I have two very young children and hope that when they go to school they will be taught this skill, i do not know if there is anything in the current curriculum which will support this, if there is not, i was wondering if you think a petition to Downing street would be a good idea,and also on how to word it and promote it,so it could acheive the maximum efficiency it could in the time limit that Downing street allows,

[lost thought]

I didn't learn about critical thinking untill 3 months ago so I'm still learning to use it, I used to rely on being a cynical person but that can only serve so far it would have been good to have been taught it in school.
I have a grandson and I will be teaching him critical thinking it might spare him some of the hurt and woe of having to learn the hard way.

Lost Thought

[NorthernSoul]

I came out of secondary education in 2006 and still have siblings in secondary and primary education. To the best of my knowledge critical thinking is either not taught at all, or is limitedly taught but the term critical thinking it self is not used.

Some secondary school History classes touch on what to look for in a reputable source but beyond that I can't think anything related that is taught.

There are critical thinking courses at A-Level (16-18) but that's about it to the best of my own knowledge, which is quite possibly wrong.

[Mike Hall]

Oddly enough I've just logged on to plug such a petition:

http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/criticalthinking/

I'd appreciate signatures (of course), or if you disagree with the aims of the petition I'd appreciate reasons why.

Many thanks

[Pebble]

Oddly enough I've just logged on to plug such a petition:

http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/criticalthinking/

I'd appreciate signatures (of course), or if you disagree with the aims of the petition I'd appreciate reasons why.

Many thanks

Signed

[bruce]

Signed too

[Mike Hall]

Thanks.

I fully expect that, even if we get thousands of signatures, the petition will not persuade the government to introduce critical thinking into schools. However, I don't see that as a reason not to give it ago anyway. If we push long enough and hard enough then perhaps we may make some progress.

[Admin]

Signed and I've stuck a small entry here: http://www.ukskeptics.com/cms/critical-thinking-petition/

It should help attract a few more people to it. O0

[dalriada]

Approved and signed!
Excellent idea!

O0

[Mike Hall]

Signed and I've stuck a small entry here: http://www.ukskeptics.com/cms/critical-thinking-petition/

It should help attract a few more people to it. O0

Wow, thanks John. I really appreciate it. I don't think we'll quite manage an "atheist bus" on this, but I hope we can get a decent number of signatures.

[Tony Williams]

Added my signature - an excellent cause.

[dougie]

Signed :smiley:,

[niggle]

It suspect it might be difficult to introduct this kind of teaching into the curriculum.

As it stands, for the better part of a century, mainstream school teaching has been almost exculsively concerned with ensuring and rewarding conformity, not inquiry. Consider the general structure of much school learning: to put it bluntly we are told what to think about a subject then asked what we think in an exam and those who conform most are permitted to proceed to further conformity, with those who do not held back or excluded.

There have been good reasons for this system; it equipped children for life in an increasingly industrialised and mechanical society. But times change, as does society. If like me you went to school in the seventies, you probably learned to perform long division by hand. And like me you may have asked, why should we learn this when a calculator does it so much better? The common answer, that we wouldn't always have access to a calculator, looks almost comical in a world in which telephones, televisions, computers and watches have calculators built into them. Good advice, well meant, profoundly mistaken.

How long before school children ask, why must we learn all this information by rote when my telephone has a web browser with which I can access wikipedia? What value does simply memorising raw facts have in a world where facts are accessible anywhere and everywhere? Perhaps that makes you uncomfortable - it does me. But the question is already being asked in classrooms everywhere.

So in world where facts and mechanical calculations are common and unremarkable, what has value? The answer is that analysis of facts, the ability to question them, to compare them, to see what fits and what doesn't, to see new and exciting ways to combine and apply them, is what has value.

Imagine a world in which school children are told that atoms have a positively-charged middle and a negatively-charged outside and immediately ask, well then why isn't the outside attracted to the inside? And why don't neighbouring atoms repel each other? A world in which chidlren are not told the sky is blue, but are told to read and discuss, led by a teacher, why the sky is as it is. Imagine a world of children taught to enquire skeptically, who have access to all the information they could need or want on the web and in books, and who have been taught to examine it critically, rejecting what is unsupported or weak and accepting only what is convincing and strong?

Imagine where they could go. Imagine where we could all go.

(whew, sorry for the rant!)

O0

[Tony Williams]

It suspect it might be difficult to introduct this kind of teaching into the curriculum.
You are right that it would require something of a culture change for a lot of teachers. However, ideal as your scenario is, it is possible to build in critical thinking in a much less radical way - or perhaps to develop the existing practices.

Science lessons are an obvious example: questioning the validity of evidence, and comparing conflicting claims on the basis of the evidence for them, ought to be a part of the curriculum anyway. The same applies to history; there are lots of examples of conflicting viewpoints, it would not be difficult to put them together and get students to compare them and discuss the meaning of historical "truth". In current affairs and politics we are givven examples every day of politicians from different parties making opposite claims on the basis of the same data - so let's look at those. I think that most teachers would find such exercises rather fun - I know I would.

Of course, the big stumbling block will be the politicians, especially those in government. They would be horrified at the notion of a less gullible public, it would force them to change their whole MO...

[niggle]

They would be horrified at the notion of a less gullible public, it would force them to change their whole MO... Oh yes. And then some. And if you'll excuse me speaking bluntly, there are a few religious institutions who might not be too pleased either.

[Admin]

I think that in this 'information age' we're living in, Critical Thinking skills would be a more useful tool to have than ever.

The Internet is great for many things but it's also full of nonsense and some very bad information, so the ability to discern the good from the bad will become more of a required skill as time goes on.

It would be good to see critical thinking taught at some level from the age of 11 onwards (the age at which children can engage in 'scientific thinking').

[Mojo]

There's been some previous discussion of attitudes towards qualifications in critical thinking:

http://www.ukskeptics.com/forum/showthread.php?p=6486#post6486

[niggle]

The Internet is great for many things but it's also full of nonsense and some very bad information

Dead right. And what exacerbates this problem is that in terms of presentation it gives equal weight to all opinions: anyone can look credible with a bit of design. So the ability to critically separate the style from the substance and to critically analyse that substance becomes more important than ever.

[Trinoc]

Dead right. And what exacerbates this problem is that in terms of presentation it gives equal weight to all opinions: anyone can look credible with a bit of design. So the ability to critically separate the style from the substance and to critically analyse that substance becomes more important than ever.
That makes it excellent practice for the sorts of bullshit the kids will be told in the real world. Anyone who knows how to separate the wheat from the chaff in a page of Google results, or how to follow up the references from a Wikipedia page, is half way towards being able to hold his/her own when assailed with nonsense.

[newatheist]

I think that in this 'information age' we're living in, Critical Thinking skills would be a more useful tool to have than ever.

The Internet is great for many things but it's also full of nonsense and some very bad information, so the ability to discern the good from the bad will become more of a required skill as time goes on.

It would be good to see critical thinking taught at some level from the age of 11 onwards (the age at which children can engage in 'scientific thinking').
Very true.
I suggest that anyone interested in examining a source trys WHOIS.

http://www.whois.net/

[docsquee]

Imagine a world in which school children are told that atoms have a positively-charged middle and a negatively-charged outside and immediately ask, well then why isn't the outside attracted to the inside? And why don't neighbouring atoms repel each other? A world in which chidlren are not told the sky is blue, but are told to read and discuss, led by a teacher, why the sky is as it is. Imagine a world of children taught to enquire skeptically, who have access to all the information they could need or want on the web and in books, and who have been taught to examine it critically, rejecting what is unsupported or weak and accepting only what is convincing and strong?

Imagine where they could go. Imagine where we could all go.

(whew, sorry for the rant!)

O0

Erm, no need to imagine, we're already there, well, in my school at least.

I teach in a state secondary including sixth-form. There is a critical thinking GCE available at A-Level open to any pupils in or above year 9 (14) so long as you have a good humanities department to run it, which luckly we do (web.aqa.org.uk/qual/gce/critical_thinking_new.php). Although CT isn't woven into the curriculum in a pure form it is slowly working its way in under guise of reasoning and reflective learning.

I agree that CT should form a discrete and distinct part of the national curriculum not just because it allows you to pick apart Derren Brown or make no friends at sunday school but because it has massive potential in terms of allowing pupils to understand how they learn, not just what they learn.

(I understand the point, this isn't aimed at you) Wikipedia? Not a chance, most pupils know how information changes on a daily basis and know they can't trust it implicitly. Web browser? Some of the time, but we encourage pupils not to rely on single sources, to question everything and know that what they find is influenced by where they found it. Most teachers love being put on the spot and I'd sooner shred a lesson plan than let a good skeptical question pass a class by. Examples of pupils doing this on a daily basis come not only from formal lessons but from pastoral time (e.g. pupils questioning vaccination; don't worry, they got them done) and school council meetings.

I admit, I had no exposure to critical thinking skills when I was at school in the 90s, or at least I didn't recognise them, but in most schools pupils won't be taught it a rote fashion, investigation forms a part of most subject's lessons.

I would question Lost Thought's use of the term cynic, I hope that pupils are not taught to be cynical, instead they should be encouraged to be skeptical and know the best ways in which to communicate their skepticism to others. ;)

[Mulder]

Web browser? Some of the time, but we encourage pupils not to rely on single sources, to question everything and know that what they find is influenced by where they found it.

Multiple sources wouldn't help if they were looking up information on the paranormal. Almost all the sources are nonsense.

[Tony Williams]

Another problem with multiple sources is that they tend to copy from each other. I have an interest in military technology, and there is one incorrect description of the armament of a WW2 fighter which was first made in 1960 (at least) by a well-regarded author, and has been perpetuated ever since.

[Mulder]

And the answer to identifying poor multiple sources - critical thinking!

[Nicky]

I've come into this thread late, but I don't think it's a skill which you can be sat down and taught, rather something which should be embedded across subject and discipline ... I think I must have been very fortunate as when I was at school we had critical thinking skills embedded and we were always encouraged to question, challenge, further research, debate and turn things on their head ..

Admittedly, it's not something which every teacher excelled at, but maybe this is something to be tackled in teacher training to allow critical thinking to be subtly encompassed across the curriculum ..

[trystan]

Children need to be caught at primary age. My experience is that science tends to be viewed by children as 'doing experiments' and is not pressed hard enough as a means of finding information based upon observation.

[fajrc]

HI all
I'm new to this forum and have just picked up on this thread.

I am a Religious Education teacher AND a critical thinking teacher at a secondary school. I teach AS and A2 OCR CT to students ranging from 14-18.

Whilst I teach it in a discrete manner, I would argue that 'most' teachers teach CT through their own subject, and just because you may not follow an exact curriculum for it, it doesn't mean it isn't being done!

Schools (in England) should be teaching PLTS (Personal Learning and Thinking Skills) across the curriculum which include CT skills. However, I think that having it as a discrete subject does allow them to 'think' about their thinking more and then enables them to apply it elsewhere. I teach them specific terminology for our specification. What would need to happen would be for us to agree a 'language' of CT to really embed it.

As for my CT students, they love the subject because for some reason there seems to be a culture that questioning things is 'naughty' and therefore think it's cool to question as much as possible.

And at parents evenings of course I get parents telling me how the students regularly apply their skills when having an argument at home ;D

[Pebble]

Intriguing combination. Success in CT would lead to a clear understanding that that probability argues strongly against any individual religion being the right one, and that the evidence base does not support any belief in higher powers. So combining the two requires a very openminded attitude to religious belief.

[fajrc]

Intriguing combination. Success in CT would lead to a clear understanding that that probability argues strongly against any individual religion being the right one, and that the evidence base does not support any belief in higher powers. So combining the two requires a very openminded attitude to religious belief.

However, of course, very little religious belief is due to logical thinking, the existence of evidence and high probabilty. It is faith. It is belief.

I'm currently doing 'plausibility' with students in CT. I discussed with them what someone say 200 years ago would've said about

man being on the moon
talking to someone across the world throught a piece of plastic
travelling in a tin can in the sky
they would've said it was not plausible, however, just with religion, things can always turn out to be plausible! A critical thinker never says never!

[Pebble]

However, of course, very little religious belief is due to logical thinking, the existence of evidence and high probabilty. It is faith. It is belief.

I'm currently doing 'plausibility' with students in CT. I discussed with them what someone say 200 years ago would've said about

man being on the moon
talking to someone across the world throught a piece of plastic
travelling in a tin can in the sky
they would've said it was not plausible, however, just with religion, things can always turn out to be plausible! A critical thinker never says never!

A critical thinker would definitely say that 2 + 2 never equals 3. The concept of flight would certainly not have been unthinkable 200 years ago, though they probably would not have forseen what has actually transpired.

While it is easy to agree that one could never disprove the existence of 'higher beings', it is equally illogical to suggest that our concept now would have any probability of reflecting reality should said beings be discovered.

So perhaps there are substantially more advanced life forms elsewhere in the universe, perhaps with powers we can only dream of etc - but as with the notions of what manned flight would consist of, as envisaged 200 years ago, our muzings of what 'higher lifeforms' or as we call them gods will be just as inaccurate.

But the point is that belief in anything unfalsifiable is the anthesis of critical thinking.

[afd]

I also have 2 young children, 1 in a catholic primary school.

I have been disappointed with the materials available to parents (and I suppose teachers too) to encourage critical thinking.

I bought a couple of Dan Barkers' books (Maybe Right, Maybe Wrong and Maybe Yes, Maybe No) which start to go in the right direction, but I didn't think they would "engage" with my children enough to draw them to critical thinking.

I think there is a gap in the market for good material, be it books, TV or film.

Does anyone else agree?

What resources have people found that they have actually used with young (primary school) children and found them engaged and enthused about?

Obviously the best direction for my children comes directly from me, but resources are helpful ......

Andrew

[Pebble]

It is some years ago now, so I do not know if they are still available, but my kids engaged very well with the 'Horrible science & Horrible History' books. This trained them in the value of having information that though surprising could be backed by evidence, also had debunking sections introducing them to the notion that myths can be disproven - sometimes.

[kitemark]

I also have 2 young children, 1 in a catholic primary school.

I have been disappointed with the materials available to parents (and I suppose teachers too) to encourage critical thinking.

I bought a couple of Dan Barkers' books (Maybe Right, Maybe Wrong and Maybe Yes, Maybe No) which start to go in the right direction, but I didn't think they would "engage" with my children enough to draw them to critical thinking.

I think there is a gap in the market for good material, be it books, TV or film.

Does anyone else agree?

What resources have people found that they have actually used with young (primary school) children and found them engaged and enthused about?

Obviously the best direction for my children comes directly from me, but resources are helpful ......

Andrew

I used two good books for my kids, books by Edward De Bono on critical thinking and some great home experiment stuff like making vinegar and baking powder cannons to demonstrate recoil. Look at his website it's really interesting.

Tony Buzan and his mind mapping ways to remember stuff is great for cramming for exams and lots of good thinking stories too.

[DrS]

Mind mapping is brilliant, and not just for cramming. There is something about the approach that seems to work for long term memory. More importantly, though, it seems to work to help evaluation and connection making. I have no idea why, but I'm a huge fan.

[Stompy]

I'd like to point out that there is an A-Level in Critical Thinking, and I taught the version from the OCR board. My experience of it was not altogether positive, in that unless you overload the course to make it useful, the core of it does not address CT usefully. It has been described as a "pseudo-qualification" (http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2009/jun/17/a-levels-on-satnav), and one commentator has written (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2007/aug/17/betyoucouldntdoit):

But what I found most disheartening when reviewing the figures for A-levels was the increase in subjects such as "critical thinking" - especially as there were fewer than 1,000 students taking Latin or ancient Greek this year. Why is critical thinking even a subject? I can understand why A-levels come under flak when you need to be given a certificate telling you that you have the capacity to think.
My preferred approach would be for critical thinking to be split into various domains, with the government working with clever people like whats we can finds on this here forumboard. Then we weave these into specifications for all courses appropriately. All this is backed up by regularly focus on critical thinking issues that arise in news, media, politics, advertising etc. However, this would lead to an education system that educated people, and that's not exactly the point of it at the moment.


As an aside: I don't trust De Bono. His bullcrap, like 'thinking hats', is too often used by "blue sky thinkers" to provide a sheen of scientific legitimacy. Also his lateral thinking exercises, I have read, has not shown any effect on cognitive skills in empirical tests. Sorry I can't provide a reference for this, though.
I also don't trust Buzan. He somehow makes money teaching people how to mind-map... surely one book and you're done? He also claims to have invented it when really such techniques go back to the Ancient Greeks. The Ancient Greeks rocked and I'll have anyone that prefers the Romans!
In short, I am 'ornery and like to complain.

[DrS]

He also claims to have invented it when really such techniques go back to the Ancient Greeks. The Ancient Greeks rocked and I'll have anyone that prefers the Romans!They did indeed rock, though I'm not aware of any evidence for their invention of mind-mapping ... :huh:

[grammarking]

I went through the AS Critical Thinking course a few years ago and my experiences were terrible. We studied it for one 40 minute session every week in a class of 40ish, taken by a history teacher. We were given a textbook at the start of the year, and in class he'd mention what a non-sequitor was. That's literally the only thing I was taught in a whole year, and since everyone took the piss out of the class (after all it was treated like a joke by the school, I don't see how they expected a bunch of teen boys to take it seriously), I didn't read the textbook and neither did anyone else. Unable to name fallacies or anything, I came out with a C and IIRC that was the best mark in my class.

I do think it could be genuinely useful. The criticism by the commenter that people should take Latin and Greek instead of Critical Thinking is absurd (sorry for going OT a bit). I study Spanish and Portuguese at university and I've studied various languages in the past to some degree or other, including 5 years of Latin from 11 up until 16. Although the common argument is that it's good for learning other languages, particularly romance languages like the ones I study, that's not exactly true. The grammar has been simplified considerably since then, getting rid of declensions, of two whole genders, and really the most useful thing about Latin is the vocabulary. That's also kind of outdated, there's no Latin for 'Internet' or 'climate change', and really I could have picked up the same kind of vocabulary by studying another modern romance language like Italian. Studying Latin as far as A Level is largely useless unless you intend to study ancient history.

Back on topic, critical thinking is not so much about learning how to think as the commenter seems to think, but more about making a good argument and identifying bad ones. This is crucial to learning about all kinds of things right across the humanities and into science, particularly as students go onto university. I think it would also lower considerably the readership of the Daily Mail, which can only be a good thing.

[Stompy]

Back on topic, critical thinking is not so much about learning how to think as the commenter seems to think, but more about making a good argument and identifying bad ones.

If a course on Critical Thinking addresses only argumentation, not stretching deeper into changing the way you think, then it is in danger of becoming a course on sophistry and persuasion.

It's called Critical Thinking, and as a teacher, I was desperate to address how to think critically when I taught it.

[Harryprice]

As an aside: I don't trust De Bono. His bullcrap, like 'thinking hats', is too often used by "blue sky thinkers" to provide a sheen of scientific legitimacy. Also his lateral thinking exercises, I have read, has not shown any effect on cognitive skills in empirical tests. Sorry I can't provide a reference for this, though.

It is fashionable to think that everyone can do anything, given sufficient high quality education. In my experience, some people think in creative ways naturally and others simply don't. Teaching can develop such abilities, if they are already there, but some will just never get it (the kind of people who ask authors 'where do you get your ideas from') no matter how much they are taught.