|
DEVELOPING CRITICAL THINKING SKILLS |
|
Compilation by Dr. Kenneth B. Hunt |
|
Critical thinking is the ability to be in control of one’s thinking. It includes the ability to consciously examine the elements of one’s reasoning, or that of another, and evaluate that reasoning against universal intellectual standards - clarity, accuracy, precision, relevance, depth, breadth, and logic. It also involves the structured examination of sources of information. The university of Phoenix School of Undergraduate Business and Management has included critical thinking in its curriculum overtly since January of 1995. Since then, it has moved from teaching "about" critical thinking to progressively embedding critical thinking into the learning process throughout the curriculum. The ultimate goal is for a UOP student to become deeply immersed in critical thinking throughout the College curriculum, internalize it as the curriculum proceeds, and to return with that habit of thinking so firmly established that it becomes normal. |
|
A primary task of any educational institution is to develop the students who go there. Development may take many forms, but the main goal of the School of Business and Management is the development of leadership, management, and decision-making skills. We believe that underlying these skills is the ability to exercise consequential/critical thinking. (For the sake of convenience, we hereafter just use "critical thinking."). Including critical thinking in an educational curriculum is not something peculiar to the University of Phoenix. Critical thinking is nominally included in many elementary, secondary, and college curricula. Textbooks are also including it in subjects from elementary school mathematics to high school history. Unfortunately, for all the apparent focus on critical thinking, it is often either not well understood, or it is not presented in a way that encourages people to use it. The article entitled: Pseudo Critical Thinking in the Educational Establishment (Center for Critical Thinking 1996) offers a discussion of the situation in the educational establishment along with an example of a systemic failure from the California Assessment Program in 1993. CRITICAL THINKING DEFINED Critical thinking as a specific area of study goes back at least to 1941 with Edward Glaser’s An Experiment in the Development of Critical Thinking. It may not be a coincidence that the rise of interest in independent critical thinking coincides with the chaos that was unleashed by aggressive, totalitarian governments. Today, a number of definitions of thinking and of critical thinking in particular exist in academia. That multiple definitions exist is not unusual when one considers the field of inquiry. Over time at UOP, we have used definitions from a number of authors; some relating to thinking in general (Rubinstein and Firstenberg 1987) (DeBono 1976) and some who were focused specifically on critical thinking (Brookfield 1987:7-11) (Ennis 1987) (Walters 1990) (Paul 1993). We also draw on Kuhn’s work (1970) for his discussions of paradigms, paradigm shift, and change as it relates to thinking. One of the early difficulties we found in trying to work with the concepts involved in critical thinking at UOP, was that it is very difficult to present multiple definitions to people who are encountering the deliberate examination of their thinking for the first time. Since our goals have always included the development of critical thinking as a lifelong habit, we were willing to forgo the rich variety of perspectives on thinking in exchange for something we could use successfully with our adult students. As a result, by late 1995, we had standardized a limited set of definitions that we subsumed under the umbrella of critical thinking. The definition we currently use in our advance material to the students is: "Critical thinking at UOP may be defined as disciplined, self-directed thinking displaying a mastery of intellectual skills and abilities—thinking about your thinking while you’re thinking to make your thinking better." Academia also developed a series of shorthand labels such as "thinking about thinking" and "quality control of the mind." The shorthand for critical thinking that has become most popular, probably because of an exercise we do, is "thinking outside of the box." In the first few years, we introduced our students to critical thinking by exposing them to the work of Brookfield (1987), Rubinstein and Firstenberg (1987), and Walters (1990). We also included a number of different ways of defining and explaining what critical thinking was and describing the attributes of critical thinking. As our experience grew, we discovered, that it was difficult for students to work through a variety of ways of modeling thinking. We still use the works of these authors to supplement the teaching of thinking, but for the same reasons noted above, and with an understanding that we were not going to include the work of some very gifted scholars, we standardized on the synthesis of critical thinking presented by Richard Paul as the most useful for our purposes. The following is one of Dr. Paul’s definitions of critical thinking that summarizes our approach: · "Critical thinking is the ability to think about one’s thinking in such a way as:
Such thinking about one’s thinking involves the ability to identify the basic elements of thought (purpose, question, information, assumption, interpretation, concepts, implications, point of view) and assess those elements using universal intellectual criteria and standards (clarity, accuracy, precision, relevance, depth, breadth, and logicalness)." MY PHILOSOPHY ON CRITICAL THINKING Critical thinking can’t just be switched on. It may be asking too much of people who have been nurtured and rewarded in an environment where, as one former student put it, "the lines are your friends . . . it’s safe within the lines . . . stay within the lines." To suddenly change their thinking habits, therefore, we have to provide students an environment where thinking skills can be learned, and then practiced in realistic situations that are otherwise safe and supportive. In many ways, UOP’s intent is to train students in critical thinking in realistic situations just as the rest of the modern workforce "trains as it works" To achieve that, we believe that critical thinking must be embedded in the entire curriculum. Although this was not available to us when we were developing our strategy for developing critical thinkers, the following model from Swartz and Parks (1994) helps to illustrate stages we went through in evolving both our philosophy and our methodology. Our overall philosophy has evolved to the point that we believe that people have to understand what thinking is and that they are responsible for their own thinking. In order to develop thinking you have to teach about thinking, teach for thinking, and infuse thinking skills into the content. Critical thinking must then be modeled and facilitated throughout the educational process.
COMPONENTS OF CRITICAL THINKING AT UOP As mentioned above, we use Dr. Richard Paul’s model of critical thinking as our standard. Two of the major pieces we use are the Elements of Reasoning, and his explanation of the Universal Intellectual Standards. The Elements of Reasoning can be represented by the following model:
Using Dr. Paul’s construct, the criteria sheet below was developed to help students in evaluating their own work and the work of others for the inclusion of the Elements of Reasoning. The standards are the Universal Intellectual Standards described below.
Reader/evaluators will ask these questions.
This review of the elements of reasoning helps students focus on the basic parts of an argument. The next step is to evaluate the argument to a standard. We use the Universal Intellectual Standards from Linda Elder and Richard Paul (1996). They describe the standards as: Universal intellectual standards are standards, which must be applied to thinking whenever one is interested in checking the quality of reasoning about a problem, issue, or situation. To think critically entails having command of these standards. To help students learn them, teachers should pose questions which probe student thinking, questions which hold students accountable for their thinking, questions which, through consistent use by the teacher in the classroom, become internalized by students as questions they need to ask themselves. The ultimate goal, then, is for these questions to become infused in the thinking of students, forming part of their inner voice, which then guides them to better and better reasoning. While there are a number of universal standards, the following are the most significant: CLARITY: Could you elaborate further on that point? Could you express that point in another way? Could you give me an illustration? Could you give me an example? Clarity is the gateway standard. If a statement is unclear, we cannot determine whether it is accurate or relevant. In fact, we cannot tell anything about it because we don't yet know what it is saying. For example, the question, "What can be done about the education system in America?" is unclear. In order to address the question adequately, we would need to have a clearer understanding of what the person asking the question is considering the "problem" to be. A clearer question might be "What can educators do to ensure that students learn the skills and abilities which help them function successfully on the job and in their daily decision-making?" ACCURACY: Is that really true? How could we check that? How could we find out if that is true? A statement can be clear but not accurate, as in "Most dogs are over 300 pounds in weight." PRECISION: Could you give more details? Could you be more specific? A statement can be both clear and accurate, but not precise, as in "Jack is overweight." (We don't know how overweight Jack is, one pound or 500 pounds.) RELEVANCE: How is that connected to the question? How does that bear on the issue? A statement can be clear, accurate, and precise, but not relevant to the question at issue. For example, students often think that the amount of effort they put into a course should be used in raising their grade in a course. Often, however, the "effort" does not measure the quality of student learning, and when this is so, effort is irrelevant to their appropriate grade. DEPTH: How does your answer address the complexities in the question? How are you taking into account the problems in the question? Is that dealing with the most significant factors? A statement can be clear, accurate, precise, and relevant, but superficial (that is, lack depth). For example, the statement "Just say No" which is often used to discourage children and teens from using drugs is clear, accurate, precise, and relevant. Nevertheless, it lacks depth because it treats an extremely complex issue, the pervasive problem of drug use among young people, superficially. It fails to deal with the complexities of the issue. BREADTH: Do we need to consider another point of view? Is there another way to look at this question? What would this look like from a conservative standpoint? What would this look like from the point of view of...? A line of reasoning may be clear accurate, precise, relevant, and deep, but lack breadth (as in an argument from either the conservative or liberal standpoint which gets deeply into an issue, but only recognizes the insights of one side of the question.) LOGIC: Does this really make sense? Does that follow from what you said? How does that follow? But before you implied this and now you are saying that; how can both be true? When we think, we bring a variety of thoughts together into some order. When the combination of thoughts is mutually supporting and makes sense in combination, the thinking is "logical." When the combination is not mutually supporting, is contradictory in some sense, or does not "make sense," the combination is not logical. HOW WE TEACH CRITICAL THINKING Based on our experience, we teach critical thinking in two major phases. The first phase is teaching students what critical thinking is and what the major components are. The second phase includes modeling critical thinking, fostering it, evaluating the student’s thinking, and coaching them. Of the two sets of activities, the latter is infinitely more difficult. In teaching critical thinking, we present the model above and discuss and review the intellectual standards. We also do some simple exercises that tend to reinforce for the students that we are all bound by the paradigms we operate within. EXPLANATION OF GENERAL WRITING ASSESSMENT ORGANIZATION: (Discernible, balanced plan of presentation) Introduction. Does the writer identify and limit the thesis in the beginning of the paper? Does it plainly indicate the method of approach the writer will take, or does the writer simply jump into the topic without properly preparing the reader? If a memo, does the writer provide a succinct summary in one or two sentences? Body. Does the body proceed in an orderly fashion, moving smoothly from point to point, or is the flow of information merely haphazard and merely a random listing? Is all information pertinent to the subject being discussed? Does the writer use paragraphs effectively, beginning a new one with each new idea? Does the writer use transitional devices--words, phrases, and sentences--to show the relationships among ideas, or is the reader forced to provide these connections? Do enclosures, if any, provide additional details? Are enclosures needed but not used? Conclusion. Does the paper have a final paragraph that summarizes the material considered, draws conclusions from the discussion presented, and, perhaps, makes recommendations based on those conclusions? ANALYSIS: (Clear development of issues; justification for judgments and assertions) Thesis/Focus. Is the thesis clear and unambiguous? Is it identified up front? Is the topic manageable? Is it developed in sufficient detail without pointless departures from the subject? Logic. Are the writer's arguments unfailingly consistent, or do they contradict the stated positions? Do the writer's conclusions reasonably follow from the available evidence? Does the writer avoid emotional language? Depth. Did the writer address the complexities of the issue, or treat it superficially? Breadth. Did the writer consider other points of view when addressing the issue? Was the information presented in an unbiased manner? Support. Are the opinions, findings, recommendations, and assertions supported with pertinent, concrete evidence, or left with generalizations unconfirmed? Is source material clearly acknowledged and is it smoothly integrated into the writer's own discourse? CLARITY: (UOP standard for clarity and brevity) Readability/Style. Is the writing clear and easy to follow? Does it use mainly short conversational words expressed in short, active sentences? Does the writer avoid excessive jargon? Precision. Did the writer give enough details or examples to make the message clear to the reader? Correctness. Is the paper generally free of errors in grammar, spelling, format, and punctuation? Is it the correct length? EFFECTIVENESS: Does this piece of writing transmit a clear message in a single, rapid reading, and is it generally free of errors? EXPLANATION OF ORAL PRESENTATION ASSESSMENT ORGANIZATION: (Discernible, balanced plan of presentation) Introduction. Did the speaker use professional courtesy in addressing the person(s) being briefed? Did the speaker identify himself/herself? Was the significance of the subject established, and the direction and purpose identified? Body. Were the main ideas presented in a logical order? Were transitions used to provide continuity and coherence? Were they smooth and varied? Were the facts bearing on the problem and any assumptions clearly stated? Were advantages and disadvantages of each option presented? Did the presentation reflect a careful analysis of the subject and audience? Conclusion/Summary. Did the summary tie together the main points in a meaningful way? Was an appropriate concluding statement made? Did the speaker ask for questions? ANALYSIS: (Clear development of the issues; justification for judgments and assertions) Thesis/Focus. Is the thesis clear and unambiguous? Is it identified up front? Is the topic manageable? Is it developed in sufficient detail without pointless departures from the subject? Logic. Are the speaker's arguments unfailingly consistent, or do they contradict the stated positions? Do the speaker’s conclusions reasonably follow from the available evidence? Does the speaker avoid emotional language? Depth. Did the speaker address the complexities of the issue, or treat it superficially? Breadth. Did the speaker consider other points of view when addressing the issue? Was the information presented in an unbiased manner? Support. Was the presentation of facts clear and objective? Were the facts presented accurate and credible? Did they support the argument presented? Did the speaker avoid presenting information already known by the audience? DELIVERY: (How the speaker communicated) Appearance, Movement. Did the speaker maintain a professional demeanor? Was the speaker well groomed? Were gestures well timed and natural? Did movement enhance the presentation? Were there any distracting mannerisms? Sincerity/Enthusiasm. Was the speaker openly enthusiastic and positive? Was a genuine concern for the subject and audience demonstrated? Eye Contact. Was eye contact established with the audience? Did it continue throughout the presentation? Voice Quality. Was the rate of speech too fast or too slow? Was the tone and pitch natural and varied, or monotonous, too loud or too soft? Visual Aids. Were aids supportive and well integrated? Did they strengthen communication, or cause distractions? Were the aids simple, concise, easily visible, and neat? Were all words spelled correctly? Questions. Did the speaker remain poised and handle questions in a credible manner or did the speaker become easily flustered and demonstrate limited knowledge and unsupported guessing? Adherence to Time. Was the presentation completed within the stated time limits? Developing thinking along with the other topics we want the students to know means that we have had to step out of our own educational box. The traditional lecture, in large or small groups, conveys important information, but does comparatively little to develop thinking skills. In order to develop skill at critical thinking the students must have things to practice on. One solution, is to provide the students what Dr. Gerald Nosich refers to as "authentic problems." Authentic problems are problems taken from or modeled on real life. Ideally, they are problems that don’t have simple yes/no answers, nor should they be problems that allow one and only one "right" answer. We have been using authentic problems at UOP since we started teaching critical thinking and we have continued to expand their number and scope. To teach students to work through typical management problems we have several sick leave abuse scenarios where former students have provided real data. We get a look at economic analysis by asking the students to assess "how the Community recycling program is doing." Students learn the concept of planning and not just a template or format, through the textbook. If there is one negative aspect to all this, it is that it is much harder to get students to build new taxonomies and to think for themselves than it is to give them an answer to regurgitate. It is even harder to evaluate whether they are thinking critically and consequentially than it is to have them spit back an answer to a straightforward knowledge-based question. A further difficulty is hat when we are done, we return the student to a place where everyone else is thinking the same way they were before the student left. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION To summarize, it is clear that critical thinking is not going away. As time goes on, more and more UOP students will have been exposed to it in some fashion before they even get to the University of Phoenix. Critical thinking is challenging to teach and model. It puts greater demands on faculty and students than traditional education. The Workforce needs it, and UOP will continue to develop leaders who can provide it.
REFERENCES
|
