Critical Thinking in Schools

[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/show...=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!)

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

[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.