Critical Thinking Skills
mmsagawa
I'm a Japanese grad students studying TESOL in the United States.
Since I started the course of study here, I've heard lots of "Critical
Thinking talks" not only in the educational domain but also others like
medicine, lab research, business, and more, but almost none so far from
Japanese sources of information. How is Critical Thinking valued in UK? If
so, which area of study is it most valued / studied? I appreciate any kind
of information that you have.
Thanx a bunch!
Bev
news:na.e76584491f...@argo60SECSnet.co.uk...
> In article <ebPH0#qy#GA.325@cpmsnbbsa03>, "mmsagawa"> Most people get very offended if you do it out loud.
>
ROFL. You're spreading the funnies this morning Gertie - I luv the jokes in
the staffroom!
Cheers,
Bev.
mmsagawa
Someone <som...@argo60SECSnet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:na.e76584491f...@argo60SECSnet.co.uk...
> In article <ebPH0#qy#GA.325@cpmsnbbsa03>, "mmsagawa"
> <mmsa...@email.msn.com> wrote:
> > How is Critical Thinking valued in UK?
>
> Most people get very offended if you do it out loud.
>
I'm sincerely sorry that I used an expression that offended people reading
my posting. I apologize. I do not have much background knowledge about CT
except for some from books, and I honestly do not know why this is so
offensive. Is it the way I put it? Or my ignorance about CT and its history?
Please, please reply back to me on this... I just wanted to know the
situation in educational scenes in your country. Nothing bad, I meant.
Robert Chrismas
> Someone <som...@argo60SECSnet.co.uk> wrote
> > "mmsagawa" <mmsa...@email.msn.com> wrote:
> > > How is Critical Thinking valued in UK?
> >
> > Most people get very offended if you do it out loud.
> >
>
> I'm sincerely sorry that I used an expression that offended people reading
> my posting. I apologize. I do not have much background knowledge about CT
> except for some from books, and I honestly do not know why this is so
> offensive. Is it the way I put it? Or my ignorance about CT and its
> history?
> Please, please reply back to me on this... I just wanted to know the
> situation in educational scenes in your country. Nothing bad, I meant.
>
No-one was offended.
I think the reply was just a joke.
Most people are offended if you criticise them out loud -
and that is a sort of "critical thinking".
I spend most of my time trying to think clearly,
rather than critically, but I suspect that's not
how you are using the word "Critical".
Actually I'm not sure what "Critical Thinking Skills" are.
It sounds like the sort of thing they do in English Literature
lessons where they call it "Literary Criticism".
If you are thinking of critical thinking as an alternative
to accepting things on some other person's authority then
in education we say we value that sort of thinking very highly.
However our educational practice suggests that we don't always
do so.
--
Robert Chrismas e-mail : chrismas at argonet.co.uk
Roger :o
<chri...@argonet.co.uk> wrote:
> "mmsagawa" <mmsa...@email.msn.com> wrote:
>
meant.
>>
>
>No-one was offended.
>
>I think the reply was just a joke.
>Most people are offended if you criticise them out loud -
>Robert Chrismas e-mail : chrismas at argonet.co.uk
Snap! but sent it to him e-mail as he may not pass this way again.
Roger :o)
®®®®®®®®®®®®®®®®®®®®®®®®®®®®®®®®®®®®®®®®®®®®®®®®®®®®®®®®®®®®®
Ro...@wats0n.freeserve.co.uk
Want a free reading scheme? ...............The Tea Race
Join The staffroom web ring......http://www.wats0n.freeserve.co.uk
®®®®®®®®®®®®®®®®®®®®®®®®®®®®®®®®®®®®®®®®®®®®®®®®®®®®®®®®®®®®®
SLieber24
>did my master's degree we were told it would be useful to have a critical
>friend - to criticise your work - but in an unthreatening way.
Critical thinking is this decade's buzzword for reasoning and inferential
skills - analyzing, predicting, synthesizing and evaluating material.
Bloom's Taxonomy is a good place to check for specific definitions.
----------------------------------------------------
Sandi
Remove NoSpam to reply.
paul
<slie...@aol.comNoSpam> writes
>>I don't really know what critical thinking is the way you are asking? When I
>>did my master's degree we were told it would be useful to have a critical
>>friend - to criticise your work - but in an unthreatening way.
>
>Critical thinking is this decade's buzzword for reasoning and inferential
>skills - analyzing, predicting, synthesizing and evaluating material.
>
>Bloom's Taxonomy is a good place to check for specific definitions.
>
one!
Cheers, Sandi :-)
--
paul
Ian Lynch
>skills - analyzing, predicting, synthesizing and evaluating material.
So just teach science.
--
Ian Lynch
SLieber24
>>skills - analyzing, predicting, synthesizing and evaluating material.
>
>So just teach science.
>
>--
>Ian Lynch
>
critical thinking.
Much of critical thinking is taught via literacy. For all of its failings, the
Literacy "Strategy's" one strength is its emphasis on critical thinking...
Ian Lynch
<slie...@aol.comNoSpam> writes
>Even science can be taught by rote, darling. And rote memorization is not
>critical thinking.
No, the science knowledge base can be taught by rote, deary. That's like
saying you can teach Shakespeare by simply reciting the books. To teach
science properly you need to reach the scientific method that is used to
establish and test the facts. If you don't understand that you don't
understand science. This is the method which has also been adopted in
many other contexts because it has been particularly successful.
>
>Much of critical thinking is taught via literacy. For all of its failings, the
>Literacy "Strategy's" one strength is its emphasis on critical thinking...
That might well be so, but the list of attributes you gave
- analyzing, predicting, synthesizing and evaluating material -
can all be covered in science as a subset of the scientific method. (You
need to include observing, setting hypotheses and testing them too among
other things) So you could cover them all by just teaching science.
Arguably the same applies to literature, mathematics and a whole host of
other subjects.
--
Ian Lynch
SLieber24
><slie...@aol.comNoSpam> writes
>>Even science can be taught by rote, darling. And rote memorization is not
>>critical thinking.
>
>No, the science knowledge base can be taught by rote, deary. That's like
>saying you can teach Shakespeare by simply reciting the books. To teach
>science properly you need to reach the scientific method that is used to
>establish and test the facts. If you don't understand that you don't
>understand science. This is the method which has also been adopted in
>many other contexts because it has been particularly successful.
Unfortunately, there are some teachers who don't believe the way you do, and
teach it by rote.
>>Much of critical thinking is taught via literacy. For all of its failings,
>the
>>Literacy "Strategy's" one strength is its emphasis on critical thinking...
>
>That might well be so, but the list of attributes you gave
>
>- analyzing, predicting, synthesizing and evaluating material -
>
>can all be covered in science as a subset of the scientific method. (You
>need to include observing, setting hypotheses and testing them too among
>other things) So you could cover them all by just teaching science.
>Arguably the same applies to literature, mathematics and a whole host of
>other subjects.
It can be covered in every subject, in fact. But the poster asked the question:
What is critical thinking? I answered that.
Is that a problem?
>--
>Ian Lynch
Ian Lynch
<slie...@aol.comNoSpam> writes
>Unfortunately, there are some teachers who don't believe the way you do, and
>teach it by rote.
That's because they aren't science teachers. Just because they don't
teach science and don't understand science doesn't mean science is
something it isn't.
I know teachers who would also teach literature without much in the way
of genuine analysis or credit for original thinking. That's more a
problem for the teacher than it is a deficiency in literature.
>>- analyzing, predicting, synthesizing and evaluating material -
>>
>>can all be covered in science as a subset of the scientific method. (You
>>need to include observing, setting hypotheses and testing them too among
>>other things) So you could cover them all by just teaching science.
>>Arguably the same applies to literature, mathematics and a whole host of
>>other subjects.
>
>It can be covered in every subject, in fact. But the poster asked the question:
>What is critical thinking? I answered that.
>
> Is that a problem?
Not for me.
I just said that you can do it all by just teaching science. Try looking
up the CASE project, there is a fair body of research on thinking skills
in the context of science education from that source. I am not aware of
an equivalent for literature but there is for maths and they were
working on other subjects so that might have changed.
--
Ian Lynch
SLieber24
>up the CASE project, there is a fair body of research on thinking skills
>in the context of science education from that source. I am not aware of
>an equivalent for literature but there is for maths and they were
>working on other subjects so that might have changed.
You can do it all by just teaching any subject. It doesn't take much to stretch
the mind...
There's an amazing amount for literature - much more so than for any other
topic - even math - even science.
Ian Lynch
<slie...@aol.comNoSpam> writes
>There's an amazing amount for literature - much more so than for any other
>topic - even math - even science.
Can you give me the references then I would be interested to read the
research evidence.
--
Ian Lynch
SLieber24
>research evidence.
>
My filing cabinet is in Florida. But here are some journals you can start with
- or you can look in the ERIC database under the topic heading of "reading" or
"reading comprehension."
Journal of Remedial and Special Education
Reading Research Quarterly
Phi Delta Kappan
Journal of Educational Psychology
Journal of Remedial Reading
That's all I can think of off the top of my head. I'm in England, my
filled-to-the-brim-with-research-articles filing cabinet is in Florida. I'll
gladly email you more references when I get home in a few weeks...
I completed 3 years of reading research in May, as part of my masters program,
including data on reading in the content areas (like your science and math). I
know what I'm talking about...
Kim Flintoff
studied, do not tell me which books, nor how many you have read, do not
tell me how many papers you have written, rather tell me...
....WHAT HAVE YOU LEARNED??
I think that pretty much answers the question on critical thinking and
the method of teaching it... if only you let yourself see it.
cya
Kim
--
||||||||
| ^ ^ |
(| @ @ |)
_________oOOo___(__)___oOOo__________
|___|___|___|___|___|___|___|___|___|_|
|_|___|___|___|___|___|___|___|___|___|
|__ |_|
| Kim Flintoff - Perth, Australia |
| mailto:ki...@networx.net.au |
Fax: +61 (08) 9264 8515
mmsagawa
First I appreciate all replies, including the opening joke... Gosh, I gotta
work harder on my English comprehension, I understand the joke now. Sorry
about the mess. I'm especially interested in the new curriculum commencing
in the year 2000 in UK, because Japanese government is making a similar move
to yours, which means they are launching this "Interdisciplinary /
Integrated Study" curriculum in 2002 in Japan at all public grade schools.
I'll inquire on yours, too, and it's gonna be interesting comparing those
two. Thank you very much.
SLieber24 <slie...@aol.comNoSpam> wrote in message
news:19990711144101...@ng-bd1.aol.com...
> >I just said that you can do it all by just teaching science. Try looking
> >up the CASE project, there is a fair body of research on thinking skills
> >in the context of science education from that source. I am not aware of
> >an equivalent for literature but there is for maths and they were
> >working on other subjects so that might have changed.
>
> You can do it all by just teaching any subject. It doesn't take much to
stretch
> the mind...
>
> There's an amazing amount for literature - much more so than for any other
> topic - even math - even science.
I think CT is important in ALL the content area teaching, if math, science,
sociaal studies, or literature. CT cognitive skills are highly important in
scientific inquiries and math problem solving questions, as well as in
literacy, but the affective dispositions are overlooked oftentimes ( or
simply not required when you don't see many human activities behind the
problem you're working on). Literature is often a manifestation of human
thinking (of course, so is math and science, but it's more detailed, I
think), and it tells us a lot about the pitfalls we're unlikely to notice
and very likely to be IN. To be a balanced Critical Thinker, in both
cognitive and affective abilities, I guess you can't really tell which
subject most requires CT.
May
Rin Thal
Here's a more sensible answer for our Japanese grad student about critical
thinking skills in UK education: its place is being reviewed by experts in
the field to boost its place in the timetable. The most relevant subjects on
the curriculum are Personal & Social Education and the new related subject
of Citizenship Education, which must be taught here from the year 2000
onwards. PSE is rather like the USA's life skills education. For the latest
ideas on the role of thinking skills in UK schools, see the following web
site :- http://www.standards.dfee.gov.uk/guidance/thinking
- it contains excellent items by Carol McGuinness and Michael Barber.
For information on the future of Citizenship see the Qualification and
Curriculum Authority's own site - http://www.qca.org.uk/ncr - which has a
summary of the way the UK should tackle this subject.
All the best
Rin Thal
(author of 'Lifescaping' - a Personal & Social Education course-book
which is on http://www.yippee.co.uk/lifescaping )
SLieber24
>studied, do not tell me which books, nor how many you have read, do not
>tell me how many papers you have written, rather tell me...
>
>....WHAT HAVE YOU LEARNED??
>
>I think that pretty much answers the question on critical thinking and
>the method of teaching it... if only you let yourself see it.
No, it really doesn't. Until you actually DO attempt to teach it, you have no
idea what research is useful and what is pure shit.
One also cannot tell what one has LEARNED until one actually goes to use it.
THAT pretty much sums up critical thinking...if only you let yourself see it.
Platitudes and glib replies will not teach children critical thinking.
Ian Lynch
<slie...@aol.comNoSpam> writes
>I completed 3 years of reading research in May, as part of my masters program,
>including data on reading in the content areas (like your science and math). I
>know what I'm talking about...
I didn't say you didn't.
I was specifically interested in the evidence that critical thinking
through the use of literature as a context increases cognitive
development. Things like improved results from groups on critical
thinking regimes compared to control groups of similar groups in normal
study. If there is such research evidence it should be brought to the
notice of those planning the literacy hour amongst other things. I know
this work exists in science but I am unaware of it in literature and I
have seen no implementation of any specific courses based on the
research in literature programmes specifically targeted on generic
thinking skills in this country. It seems a far better idea to link
areas about which there is convincing empirical research to the
curriculum if standards are to rise as quickly as possible.
--
Ian Lynch
Ian Lynch
<ki...@networx.net.au> writes
>A wise man once said to his student - do not tell me how long you have
>studied, do not tell me which books, nor how many you have read, do not
>tell me how many papers you have written, rather tell me...
>
>....WHAT HAVE YOU LEARNED??
>
>I think that pretty much answers the question on critical thinking and
>the method of teaching it... if only you let yourself see it.
An even wiser man checked all his students and found one that had learnt
10 times as much as the others in half the time. He decided to write a
book about it...
--
Ian Lynch
Ian Lynch
<mmsa...@email.msn.com> writes
>I
>think), and it tells us a lot about the pitfalls we're unlikely to notice
>and very likely to be IN. To be a balanced Critical Thinker, in both
>cognitive and affective abilities, I guess you can't really tell which
>subject most requires CT.
If you look up the CASE project on Kings College web site, you will
probably find evidence that teaching thinking skills in science in a
particularly rigorous way improves exam performance in just about all
other subjects. It is most effective in the middle attaining groups. The
theory is that the most able already reach the required level of formal
thinking by exam time at 15/16, the least able don't even with the
thinking skills course, but the shift in the middle range is
significant.
Its not an easy method to implement, particularly if therer is a NC
specifing a lot of "important" knowledge which is an opportunity cost in
developing thinking.
--
Ian Lynch
SLieber24
>program,
>>including data on reading in the content areas (like your science and math).
>I
>>know what I'm talking about...
>
>I didn't say you didn't.
>
>I was specifically interested in the evidence that critical thinking
>through the use of literature as a context increases cognitive
>development. Things like improved results from groups on critical
>thinking regimes compared to control groups of similar groups in normal
>study. If there is such research evidence it should be brought to the
>notice of those planning the literacy hour amongst other things.
It already has been, which is why I say that, for all its failings, it is very
strong on critical thinking skills work.
> I know
>this work exists in science but I am unaware of it in literature and I
>have seen no implementation of any specific courses based on the
>research in literature programmes specifically targeted on generic
>thinking skills in this country. It seems a far better idea to link
>areas about which there is convincing empirical research to the
>curriculum if standards are to rise as quickly as possible.
Look up under SRA - Science Research Association. They may have some real
research - empirical data - you can use.
I can say I have used SRA Thinking Skills Basics A for a few years. I don't see
any real transfer effects, though. I don't use it as a main program, but as a
listening skills training and vocabulary development component. It uses almost
all areas - English, science, social studies (including history, careers,
etc.) - to teach things like analogies, inductive and deductive reasoning,
memory training, etc. The program directly segues into a structured English
grammar program.
I also use SRA Corrective Reading programs and the SRA Expressive Writing
program with my kids. I see more transfer effect from these two than from the
thinking skills program.
On standardized assessments, in the secondary school, my SRA Thinking Skills
kids did have a slight edge over my decoding and standard comprehension kids,
but not significant enough to warrant buying the program wholesale.
Hope that helps, somewhat... The program is listed under "comprehension" on
the SRA site (and, I'm sorry, I've lost the link since last year...changing
computers!!).
Don't know if there's a link to research, but you could try. I'm sure they did
empirical research on it. They did 7 years of real piloting and research on the
corrective reading programs before putting them up for market. And the programs
have proven out time and again (even now, in my current class of "used-to-be"
nonreaders).
SLieber24
>specifing a lot of "important" knowledge which is an opportunity cost in
>developing thinking.
Funny, I read the NC and got from it the idea that one should be teaching the
process of science, rather than the actual content. Content comes from process,
doesn't it?
I was amazed when I saw the Year 6 SATs tests!! It was 90% content, 10%
process. So, guess where I've started to concentrate my efforts for my current
Year 5s... *sigh*
paul
<slie...@aol.comNoSpam> writes
>>I just said that you can do it all by just teaching science. Try looking
>>up the CASE project, there is a fair body of research on thinking skills
>>in the context of science education from that source. I am not aware of
>>an equivalent for literature but there is for maths and they were
>>working on other subjects so that might have changed.
>
>You can do it all by just teaching any subject. It doesn't take much to stretch
>the mind...
>
>There's an amazing amount for literature - much more so than for any other
>topic - even math - even science.
>
modernism, discourse analysis, formalism etc etc (Don't count
Leavisites any more).
I'm out of date now, strewth knows how many more -isms there are in
lit/lang these days.
And they all hate each others' throats. Make Dawkins and the other one
look like embryos in a swimming pool when it comes to intra-discipline
squabbling :-)
--
paul
Ian Lynch
<slie...@aol.comNoSpam> writes
>Funny, I read the NC and got from it the idea that one should be teaching the
>process of science, rather than the actual content. Content comes from process,
>doesn't it?
Goes both ways. Its easier to test content cheaply. The process in NC is
not how to teach thinking in a way that forces cognitive development
optimally. You can present processes, go through the motions etc but you
won't necessarily get the gains you could do. Bit like running. Jogging
produces reasonable background fitness, to optimally develop requires
pain and struggle sprints to exhaustion, recovery then more of the same.
Its very taxing for the learner and teacher.
>
>I was amazed when I saw the Year 6 SATs tests!! It was 90% content, 10%
>process. So, guess where I've started to concentrate my efforts for my current
>Year 5s... *sigh*
Well the CASE materials which concentrated only on cognitive development
showed improvements across the board in all subjects so it seems that
there might be alternatives but it requires faith and a real
understanding of how the system works to generate that faith.
--
Ian Lynch