Please read: Critical thinking and education

[Mike....@csiro.au]

Hey all,

 

This might be a good idea to get into why this group was started - to look at how to teach people to think critically.

 

As you might well know, for a number of years now I've been blowing the educational horn when it comes to teaching skepticism and critical thinking. Hell, it's why I got into teaching, and then into science communication. To me, it's never been enough to simply tell people they're wrong, or to provide 'the right' information. Changing an epistemology is a damn hard thing to do, and the more I've looked into it, the more complicated it seems to be. However, I've found a lot of reasons to think it's possible, with the right resources and the right support.

 

TAM has been touted as many as being educational. I guess in some ways, it is - people do learn things there, hence in a rather colloquial way, it can be said to have 'educated'. However, is this enough to feel the 'educational' box with regards to the JREF's goals? Are we, as educators, satisfied that the understanding of education in this capacity is sufficient in teaching people how to think critically? We're all familiar with transmission teaching, where education is essentially the provision of facts, figures and conclusions with the assumption that the student has the thinking tools necessary to process and apply them. We're also aware that although it is still frightfully common, it does little to teach people how to think. Considering that the message events like TAM promote is essentially 'spread the word', I'm concerned that it's something of a wasted effort when simply disseminating information is either just providing pre-formed skeptics with good information (not a bad thing, but is this really the same as creating a new generation of critical thinkers?) or, worse, encouraging detrimental ways of reinforcing the skeptic stereotype.

 

With TAM 7 on the horizon, I'm certain that if we again raise the education issue, we're going to meet these same issues. In your opinion, what would you like to see? Personally, I feel a good start would be some experts in cognitive psych or pedagogy giving a talk or two on how people learn thinking skills would be good. Perhaps even a workshop with some external critical thinking groups. I think discussions on how to effectively evaluate educational goals wouldn't go astray.

 

Thoughts?

 

Mike McRae

Science by Email, CSIRO Education

PO Box 225, Dickson  ACT  2602

Phone: 02 6276 6291     Mobile:  0423 596 774

Email: mike.mcrae@csiro.au | Web: www.csiro.au/education

 

[badrescher]

Mike -

You know that I agree whole-heartedly that:

1 - Teaching HOW to think should be our #1 priority (as teachers);
facts are secondary.

2 - TAM needs work in this area.

But... #1 is, as you said, not a simple task.

What I actually think TAM is missing the most is a step back from
that.

I need to break for an hour to go from work to kids to home, but I'll
post what I'm referring to a little later tonight. Sorry for the
disconnect; I don't want to lose my train of thought!

-Barb

[kil...@gmail.com]

Well, one of the things about Dragon*Con is that we CAN actually have a say on what is wanted. Would people like to propose something more than perhaps the already-done 'memorial to Jeff Medkeff'?

If we get something solid together, it could very well go down at D*C. If TAM cannot/is not willing (which has been the case that Mike and I have noticed in the past) - could we set a precedence in terms of 'this is what should be done' at D*C?

k.

[Mike....@csiro.au]

That might be an interesting idea. I've gone down the path before with suggestions to Jeff and Alison on who to contact and what avenues to take for TAM in this regard, in an effort to open a dialogue on the matter, but it met a dead end very quickly. I have no reason to think the same wouldn't happen again, sadly. But, I remain optimistic.

 

Indeed, finding another avenue - one that reaches beyond the skeptic sub-culture - and building on it might be a good idea.

 

Damn, now I wish I could afford to go to D*C this year. Grrr

 

M.

---

From: critical...@googlegroups.com [mailto:critical...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of kil...@gmail.com
Sent: Friday, 6 February 2009 11:46 AM
To: critical...@googlegroups.com
Subject: [Critical Teaching] Re: Please read: Critical thinking and education

[kil...@gmail.com]

Well, even getting up a template is a start. Since the panels/workshops are recorded both visual and audio, it makes a product.

So, should we propose two different events then? A panel and some sort of workshop?

Even if you're not there, I can take stuff over for you. And even get feedback sheets out after - give out cards and ask people to email comments in? I noticed one person doing that trying to get traffic for their podcast (I think I might have been the only one who did check out the link though, it wasn't a particularly clear card).

If there are people with products (i.e - books, pamphlets) they can be made available on the skeptic table.

[Mike....@csiro.au]

I think that'd be the way to go intially. A workshop on how to communicate might be a drawcard at a convention like D*C. Liz (my wife) has done similar 'communication' workshops based on imprompt' theatre with gamers, which have been fantastic. Something similar on how to be an efficient communicator would be good, if you can find the right resource group to bring in.

 

As for evaluation, survey materials work well if they are worded well. In house evaluations are also good for workshops - you simply do a plenary exercise and assess it as you go.

 

M. 

 

Mike McRae

Science by Email, CSIRO Education

PO Box 225, Dickson  ACT  2602

Phone: 02 6276 6291     Mobile:  0423 596 774

Email: mike.mcrae@csiro.au | Web: www.csiro.au/education

 

From: critical...@googlegroups.com [mailto:critical...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of kil...@gmail.com

Sent: Friday, 6 February 2009 11:54 AM

To: critical...@googlegroups.com
Subject: [Critical Teaching] Re: Please read: Critical thinking and education

[cste...@yahoo.com]

On Feb 5, 5:34 pm, <Mike.Mc...@csiro.au> wrote:

>Considering that the message events like TAM promote is essentially 'spread the word', I'm concerned that it's something of a wasted effort when simply disseminating information is either just providing pre-formed skeptics with good information (not a bad thing, but is this really the same as creating a new generation of critical thinkers?)

Who is going to create the next generation of critical thinkers? Some
will be born that way and they won't understand why the rest of the
world doesn't think like they do. Who will teach the others? Current
critical thinkers. They are likely to need good tools and info. Part
of our plan of action is to get resources into the hands of people who
will use them.

>or, worse, encouraging detrimental ways of reinforcing the skeptic stereotype.

I definitely saw some of this at TAM last year. However the small
groups of skeptics that I ate with understood how counterproductive
this approach is. You can't teach someone to think critically while
you are telling them they are wrong about everything. We have to get
skeptics, critical thinkers, to realize how important it is to do
outreach in critical thinking education and that it doesn't have to be
done in a classroom.

>Personally, I feel a good start would be some experts in cognitive psych or pedagogy giving a talk or two on how people learn thinking skills would be good.

I like this idea.

cstein

[kil...@gmail.com]

We have Martin Bridgstock attending D*C:

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,20916747-12332,00.html
http://www.abc.net.au/rn/philosopherszone/stories/2006/1814893.htm
http://www.skeptics.com.au/prizes/2006ctprizea.htm

Skepticism, Science and the Paranormal - An original course prompting students to think critically about the paranormal 

Maybe I should contact him for help? He'd be a natural starter for it...

[badrescher]

Okay, sorry for the gap.

To preface, my view may be far away from what you guys are thinking,
but I'm putting it out there nonetheless. If you go a different way,
I'll probably go with you since I like your ideas, too, but here's my
input:

I strongly believe that to teach critical thinking, teachers at all
levels need:

1 - to BE critical thinkers

2 - to understand what is and is not a part of that process

3 - to understand what the average person uses to solve problems,
acquire knowledge, and evaluate claims

4 - resources such as demonstrations and classroom exercises


We HOPE that our audience (teachers) meets #1, especially at TAM, but
there are no guarantees. We (at critical-teaching) try to provide #4
for each other and others.

But #s 2 & 3 are a crap shoot.


I have probably brought this up before, and I am sure that most of you
have had similar experiences at TAM. It was also mentioned in some of
the talks at TAM6, but was somewhat "swept under the rug". So I am
unsure about how it might be received by those at JREF. It also
addresses something that cstein said - not everyone understands
critical thinking, even many of those with natural critical thinking
ability.

A growing portion of the audience are wannabe skeptics or
pseudoskeptics who fall prey to the same fallacies & biases as
everyone else when discussing matters that are not related to
conspiracy theorists or psychics. We've all met them and suspect where
many of them come from and why they are there. It's a great
opportunity to teach people what REAL critical thinking is about.

Although the teachers I have met do not fall into this category, some
may. And teaching critical thinking is the job of anyone who wants to
do some good in the world or even win an argument, not just those of
us in the profession. Most of what I'm proposing is for everybody;
teachers can use it, but others can, too.

Wanting to think critically and thinking critically are different
things; being a critical thinker and being able to explain critical
thinking are different things, too.

TAM gives its audience fish, and they like the fish, but it does not
show them where the fish come from, why they are necessary, or how to
get some for themselves.

We may frame it as "teaching critical thinking", but I really think
that anything like that needs to start by teaching critical thinking.

The first step in teaching critical thinking is to demonstrate
"normal" thinking. Even those who "get it" may not understand how/why
others do not, so it's important for them, too.

I would like to see talks and/or workshops that demonstrate and
discuss HOW people think, rather than just pointing out how silly
their beliefs are. And I'd like to see at least some of the audience
open their eyes and have to face their own silliness.


Things that I would like to see (all of which I can actually do or
provide materials for) include:

- A talk or workshop on fundamentals of logical reasoning - this could
have a snappy title that would interest everyone, like "How to Debate
a Creationist, Truther, Denier, or Chiropracter"

- A workshop (half-day, full-day, whatever is feasible) which covers
what is known about human reasoning & decision-making

- A talk about multiple-choice assessments, familiarity, and the
propaganda effect - there are many pedagogical issues with the way we
test that have direct effects on the strategies students use to learn.
By the time they get to me, every strategy they use involves
memorizing and copying structure rather than attempting to understand.
It's VERY difficult to undo this and it is ensures that no thinking -
critical or otherwise - takes place.

- A talk or symposium about the powers of expectation (could include
demos similar to those I posted recently http://icbseverywhere.com/blog/2009/02/04/naughty-elmo/)

- A talk about the effects of shows like CSI, Numb3rs, & Lie to Me on
the layperson's understanding of scientific principles - a great idea
for this: part of the talk could show a man-on-the-street style video
of people giving stupid answers

Those are pretty broad, so I'm tapped for now. Sorry so long and
repetitive...

- Barb

[cste...@yahoo.com]

Barb's post is spot on for me. I especially like the emphasis on
teaching critical thinking and understanding critical thinking being
important for everyone, not just for professional teachers.

cstein

> demos similar to those I posted recentlyhttp://icbseverywhere.com/blog/2009/02/04/naughty-elmo/)

[badrescher]

Thank you for the kudos, C!

I thought of another topic just now that is of interest to teachers,
but not a whole lot of others. It's only a small thing, though, so I
think it would be a better idea to wrap it up with one of the others
on the list and add to that.

Debunking the myth of "learning styles", which many studies have
clearly shown is somewhat non-existent.
Much like other "fads", Learning Styles (and "multiple intelligences")
is an unproven (actually, the research pretty much debunks it) theory
that many are using as a basis for policy-making. And teachers are
wasting time and effort developing course material for it.

Instead of just "A talk about multiple-choice assessments,
familiarity, and the
propaganda effect", a Friday or Sunday workshop which covers several
"potholes" of teaching might be the way to go. These are concepts with
SOLID empirical research.

Other areas: seductive distracters, too many mode of presentation
(audio with animation with text) in multi-media, the now-common use of
graphic organizers. ALL of these have been shown to HINDER learning
rather than help it, despite what seems intuitively to be true.

These are not exactly about teaching critical thinking, but they ARE
about using critical thinking to make choices about pedagogical
strategies rather than what "sounds right".

Any other feedback? I know this isn't exactly what you want to do,
Mike. However, I think still think that the key to teaching it is less
content and more approach, which involves changing the way the TEACHER
thinks. This has more of an impact on learning outcomes than post
people know.

Yet another idea popped into my head - last year we discussed putting
together CDs or DVDs of demos & exercises. What if we added a workshop
(this one I'm not qualified to do, but I am sure we could find someone
- maybe people you were thinking about for a communications workshop)
about how to recruit colleagues...?

BTW, If the group would like me to work on a CD/DVD, I'd be happy to
do that. Just email attachments or links to me for things that are not
here on our pages. (Most of mine will not be; I don't want them
floating around in cyberspace!)

To spark some ideas, following are things I would include from my own
materials:
- At least a chapter on reasoning & decision-making
- Reverse audio demos
- My pareidolia collection (which includes Phil's shower-curtain
Lenin! http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/misc/lenin.html and my own
discovery: the Jesus Bruise - not published yet)
- My visual illusions collection - which includes explanations for the
illusions
- the best of my classroom demonstrations on sampling, perception,
etc.
- and MUCH, MUCH MORE! ACT NOW! ;p**

We could recoup on the materials cost (or a portion of it) by putting
out a donation box rather than asking for a workshop fee, which might
deter walk-ins. I doubt it would be expensive, anyway, just to
reproduce a DVD. I could even do it myself if we only need a few
dozen. Perhaps I could recruit some students to help; I think I've
convinced some to attend TAM and I'll encourage them to apply for the
travel scholarships. I also would not mind absorbing some of the cost.

Of course, if we distribute it to everyone, we'd probably need 900+.
Even with a bad economy, the reduced cost this year might keep TAM at
its current size. I would certainly have to send that out for
reproduction...


Thoughts?

- Barb

[kil...@gmail.com]

I would suggest against trying to get donations on the day... really awkward to get change, facilitate...? Instead get people to collect a card or flyer so they can write in to get a DVD? If they pay ahead of time, easier to get sorted. Maybe have a little competition where one lucky person wins one! :D Incentive for others to go 'ooooh, I want one too!!!'

Richard Saunders did something similar with his products at D*C, where he promoted a link? Then people went to the site and brought from there.

There is also the Skeptic.com table, who are happy to sell things on our behalf, if people have a product? Last year I was manning the table (woman-ing?) and I suddenly had the SGU take over half the table for their products and also had some other people use it to promote their wares. I don't know if I'll be doing that this year, but it's a thought. No one had an issue with them using the space to make money.

DVDs don't cost much to produce - at the TAM5 where I spoke, I ran of twenty in my hotel room before the conference and handed them out as freebies and posted my addy on the slides so people could contact me for more.

Other panel ideas/ workshop ideas:

I've been involved in a few things over the year - the Dore fiasco and the BrainGym 'educational materials'. A wonderful colleague named Margaret Kitson of Queensland did a presentation after I told her to get in touch with Ben Dr Goldacre, on her experiences of Brain Gym at her school.

We could do something on 'pseduoscience in the classroom'? Or pseudoscience that targets kids/parents? As teachers, we can have a lot to say about it. There's even been a great example of radio-talk-back in the UK that was violently anti-MMR vaccines.

• Why Can't A Teacher Be More LIke A Scientist - http://podblack.com/?p=559 (good run-down in a paper about what challenges schools face)
• Translucent Science - http://podblack.com/?p=567 (the group I'm a member of)
• BTW - more recently chipped in to help with the transcript of the Jeni Barnett Anti-Vax talkshow that was on Dr Goldacre's site - check out:

  The Full Transcript:
  Part 1 - Science Punk
  Part 2 - The Lay Scientist
  Part 3 - PodBlack Cat
  Part 4 - The Skeptic's Book
  Part 5 - Science Punk
  Part 6 - Holford Watch

We can always talk about teachers online and a history of our efforts! By the time Dragon*Con comes around, we could show case our blogs at the very least! :)

K.

[badrescher]

On Feb 6, 1:04 pm, "kil...@gmail.com" <kil...@gmail.com> wrote:

>I've been involved in a few things over the year - the Dore fiasco and the
>BrainGym 'educational materials'. A wonderful colleague named Margaret
>Kitson of Queensland did a presentation after I told her to get in touch
>with Ben Dr Goldacre, on her experiences of Brain Gym at her school.

>We could do something on 'pseduoscience in the classroom'? Or pseudoscience
>that targets kids/parents? As teachers, we can have a lot to say about it.
>There's even been a great example of radio-talk-back in the UK that was
>violently anti-MMR vaccines.

AWESOME ideas. "Dave the Math Dog" is easily accessed on YouTube.
I bookmark sites that sell this crap all the time & collect info from
the companies that sell them.

Last year, I went to the APA convention (I really hate it, but some
students want to go & it was an excuse to take the kids to Boston :> )
and stopped by every commercial booth to pick up pamphlets. You would
not believe the stuff that gets attention at a convention that is
supposed to take a scientific perspective. It's so bad that a group
splintered off about 20 years ago (now APS) and has a MUCH better
convention & journal.

-Barb

[Michael McRae]

Wow, there's a lot to process here. Thanks Barb, Cathy and Kiless for the feedback. Given a mailing list of 60+, and that this group was initially formed out of this issue, I'd love to hear from more of you.

I strongly believe that to teach critical thinking, teachers at all
levels need:

1 - to BE critical thinkers

2 - to understand what is and is not a part of that process

3 - to understand what the average person uses to solve problems,
acquire knowledge, and evaluate claims

4 - resources such as demonstrations and classroom exercises


We HOPE that our audience (teachers) meets #1, especially at TAM, but
there are no guarantees. We (at critical-teaching) try to provide #4
for each other and others.

But #s 2 & 3 are a crap shoot.

You'll get no argument here. I fully agree that critical thinking is poorly covered in teaching education, at least in the systems I'm most familiar with (US, UK and Australia).

I've recently had discussions with the academic who is working on the science component of the new Australian national curriculum. Essentially, for us at least (I'd imagine it little different in the US and UK), the future of education is looking to involve more and more funded third parties for resources.  Basically, governments will create the curriculum, universities will give the community the basic standard teaching unit, and it's up to others to fill in the rest of the gaps. If we think teachers should have critical thinking skills, we can't just promote it and hope for the best. We need to get out and show them how it's done.

Now, that's great in principle, but no easy task. My thought has always been that events like TAM can inspire this, giving educators something to take away with them.

Wanting to think critically and thinking critically are different
things; being a critical thinker and being able to explain critical
thinking are different things, too.

You are so correct here. My own recent frustrations with certain skeptics show me that for all of their ideal philosophy, often it's out of desire to embrace a conclusion more than understand where the balance of evidence lies. Some may resort to calling such people 'pseudoskeptics'. I think they're just people who also need to learn what critical thinking actually looks like in practice.

- A talk or workshop on fundamentals of logical reasoning - this could
have a snappy title that would interest everyone, like "How to Debate
a Creationist, Truther, Denier, or Chiropracter"

- A workshop (half-day, full-day, whatever is feasible) which covers
what is known about human reasoning & decision-making

- A talk about multiple-choice assessments, familiarity, and the

propaganda effect - there are many pedagogical issues with the way we
test that have direct effects on the strategies students use to learn.
By the time they get to me, every strategy they use involves
memorizing and copying structure rather than attempting to understand.
It's VERY difficult to undo this and it is ensures that no thinking -
critical or otherwise - takes place.

- A talk or symposium about the powers of expectation (could include

demos similar to those I posted recently http://icbseverywhere.com/blog/2009/02/04/naughty-elmo/)

- A talk about the effects of shows like CSI, Numb3rs, & Lie to Me on
the layperson's understanding of scientific principles - a great idea
for this: part of the talk could show a man-on-the-street style video
of people giving stupid answers

I think they all have merit. It's important that whatever happens, we need a) to hear from somebody who actually understands what it takes to change an epistemology in individuals and a community, b) a way of addressing not just teachers, but anybody who has the capacity to influence another person's way of thinking, and c) a goal that can be evaluated after.

Debunking the myth of "learning styles", which many studies have
clearly shown is somewhat non-existent.
Much like other "fads", Learning Styles (and "multiple intelligences")
is an unproven (actually, the research pretty much debunks it) theory
that many are using as a basis for policy-making. And teachers are
wasting time and effort developing course material for it.

While I agree it's essentially another topic, it would make for an excellent field to explore. We're rather quick to jump on pseudoscience to do with medicine or physics or the paranormal, but education is rife with it. It might be something to keep in the back of the mind.

The CD idea might be good if we can't get any more traction with the JREF in terms of getting ourselves taken seriously. In fact, it might then serve as a launching pad for a web site (which I will get onto one of these days). I agree with Kiless that donations for a CD wouldn't work well. We could even just forget the CD and go straight to the web site, uploading ideas and links etc. and promoting the link wherever possible.

Ok, brain's lagging in this heat. I'll think more on this later.

Good work folks!

Mike

[cste...@yahoo.com]

>
> The CD idea might be good if we can't get any more traction with the JREF in
> terms of getting ourselves taken seriously. In fact, it might then serve as
> a launching pad for a web site (which I will get onto one of these days). I
> agree with Kiless that donations for a CD wouldn't work well. We could even
> just forget the CD and go straight to the web site, uploading ideas and
> links etc. and promoting the link wherever possible.
>

If you have the time to put together a website and maintain it great.
If not, everyone please remember that our pages section functions as a
small website for us, even for non-members. The link that we should be
promoting to let people know about us is
http://groups.google.com/group/critical-teaching/web/cteg-mission-statement-plan-of-action.
This is the link to our welcome page. It has an imbedded link to our
library of resources. Even if you are not signed into google groups
that link takes you directly to our welcome page. We have quite a
selection of resources currently in our library and as our members
identify or discuss more, I try to add them in some kind of organized
fashion.

cstein

[badrescher]

On Feb 6, 4:06 pm, cstein...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> If you have the time to put together a website and maintain it great.
> If not, everyone please remember that our pages section functions as a
> small website for us, even for non-members. The link that we should be

> promoting to let people know about us ishttp://groups.google.com/group/critical-teaching/web/cteg-mission-sta....

A website is essential if we continue the traffic, even in "spurts" as
it has been. Google groups is great in that we have places for pages &
forum-like interaction, but the functionality leaves a lot to be
desired.

You've done an awesome job keeping the resources organized (and
emailing to remind some of us to upload them!). There is always the
possibility of putting up a multiple-author website that can be
managed by a few rather than one.

The downside is that most of the members of the group would just be
members - limited to comments in a forum or on blog-style pages.

I will keep the idea in the back of my mind, too, Mike. If it seems
reasonable, a website might be a good start for a "legitimate" non-
profit organization and if I ever filed that dreaded dissertation,
something like that is high on my list.

-Barb

[cste...@yahoo.com]

> > If you have the time to put together a website and maintain it great.
> > If not, everyone please remember that our pages section functions as a
> > small website for us, even for non-members. The link that we should be
> > promoting to let people know about us ishttp://groups.google.com/group/critical-teaching/web/cteg-mission-sta....
>
> A website is essential if we continue the traffic, even in "spurts" as
> it has been. Google groups is great in that we have places for pages &
> forum-like interaction, but the functionality leaves a lot to be
> desired.
>

My intention was not to discourage anyone from developing a website
but rather to remind the group that until such time as someone can put
one together, we have something that functions as a small website and
can be accessed without someone having to be a member. This way we are
able to promote our group and disseminate information that will
hopefully help others that want to help elevate the number of critical
thinkers out there. To that end, when I get a chance, I will add some
other URL's to our flyer to give people more ways to access what they
need. I agree that there are limitations, but it is much more
functional and professional than having nothing.

As to having a permanent website, CTEG.org and CTEG .info are taken.
CTEG.name, CTEG.pro, and CTEG.edu seem to still be available if you
consider any of those appropriate or if we could somehow manage to
qualify for the .edu. If we are planning to have a website, I would
recommend that we tie down a domain name NOW before our prospects
narrow further. CTEG.info and .org went away less than one year and
about two years ago. It would be very helpful IMO to be able to have
our acronym as a first level domain name if at all possible.

cstein

[victori...@uconn.edu]

*Debunking the myth of "learning styles", which many studies have

clearly shown is somewhat non-existent.
Much like other "fads", Learning Styles (and "multiple intelligences")
is an unproven (actually, the research pretty much debunks it) theory
that many are using as a basis for policy-making. And teachers are

wasting time and effort developing course material for it.*

This caught my attention because, having gone through educational
psychology only a few years ago, this was still being taught as fact
(I need to go look up research as to why it is false now). I think
this illustrates the problem with formal education very well - it is
cyclic: beginning with teacher education, down into elementary school
and on through the years. Because educational myths are so pervasive I
think a workshop on this would be extremely helpful. Also, a workshop
on doing inquiry with students might be useful for teachers of
elementary through high school (teaches critical thinking and problem
solving in the classroom).

[badrescher]

On Feb 7, 7:53 am, victoria.ey...@uconn.edu wrote:
>
> This caught my attention because, having gone through educational
> psychology only a few years ago, this was still being taught as fact
> (I need to go look up research as to why it is false now). I

Interesting that this was EVER taught as fact rather than what it was
- someone's theory (in the loose sense of the word). When tested, it
doesn't pass. There's still work to be done, though. I often have
students design tests of it for term projects.

To get you started, Richard Mayer has published the best tests of it.
If you don't still have access to journals, email me & I'll send you
pdf versions of a few.

-Barb

[Matt Lowry]

If we're looking to do some kind of workshop on lessons & demos that
emphasize critical thinking, I already have a number of things I do in
my physics classes that I can throw into the mix.

Cheers - Matt