Education, Faculty of
Curriculum and Pedagogy (EDCP), Department of
DSpace
UBCV
Ashton, Melanie Lee
Master of Arts - MA
University of British Columbia
The thesis begins with an investigation o f the lineage and diverse interpretations of the term "critical thinking." It also discusses some of the more contentious issues surrounding critical thinking such as: Is critical thinking generalizable? What is the place of moral values in critical thinking? Is critical thinking biased? How is critical thinking assessed? What has to be in place before critical thinking can flourish in a classroom? The thesis culminates in a six week, qualitative study that describes, interprets, and evaluates the emerging critical thinking (Ennis, 1987, p. 10) competence of a heterogeneous group of 6 to 7 year old students. The research investigates how the students utilize the "tools" o f critical thinking, as described by Ronald Case and LeRoi Daniels (1996, p. xiv-xv), to find solutions to challenging questions based on 3 pieces o f literature: The True Story o f the Three Little Pigs by Jon Scieszka, It's So Nice to Have a Wolf Around the House by Harry Allard, and A Handful of Seeds by Monica Hughes. The study indicates that the young children were able to successfully make use of the critical thinking tools (Case & Daniels, 1996) in a classroom setting. It was evident that the students had a knowledge system in place that allowed them to evaluate and use evidence as a justification of causality. It was also evident that the students were in the process of developing critical thinking dispositions. The recorded data demonstrate how children make sense of their world.
5857146 bytes
application/pdf
Critical Thinking For Children: A Dialogue of Hope by Melanie Lee Ashton BGS, Simon Fraser University, 1980 A T H E S I S S U B M I T T E D I N P A R T I A L F U F I L M E N T OF T H E R E Q U I R E M E N T S F O R T H E D E G R E E OF MASTER OF ARTS in FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES (Centre for the Study o f Curriculum and Instruction, Faculty of Education) We accept this thesis as conforming to the required standard THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA August 2000 © Melanie Lee Ashton, 2000 In presenting this thesis in partial fulfilment of the requirements for an advanced degree at the University of British Columbia, I agree that the Library shall make it freely available for reference and study. I further agree that permission for extensive copying of this thesis for scholarly purposes may be granted by the head of my department or by his or her representatives. It is understood that copying or publication of this thesis for financial gain shall not be allowed without my written permission. DE-6 (2/88) Abstract The thesis begins with an investigation o f the lineage and diverse interpretations o f the term "critical thinking." It also discusses some o f the more contentious issues surrounding critical thinking such as: Is critical thinking generalizable? What is the place o f moral values in critical thinking? Is critical thinking biased? H o w is critical thinking assessed? What has to be in place before critical thinking can flourish in a classroom? The thesis culminates in a six week, qualitative study that describes, interprets, and evaluates the emerging critical thinking (Ennis, 1987, p. 10) competence of a heterogeneous group o f 6 to 7 year old students. The research investigates how the students utilize the "tools" o f critical thinking, as described by Ronald Case and L e R o i Daniels (1996, p. xiv-xv), to find solutions to challenging questions based on 3 pieces o f literature: The True Story o f the Three Little Pigs by Jon Scieszka, It's So Nice to Have a Wol f Around the House by Harry Allard, and A Handful o f Seeds by Monica Hughes. The study indicates that the young children were able to successfully make use o f the critical thinking tools (Case & Daniels, 1996) in a classroom setting. It was evident that the students had a knowledge system in place that allowed them to evaluate and use evidence as a justification o f causality. It was also evident that the students were in the process o f developing critical thinking dispositions. The recorded data demonstrate how children make sense o f their world: i i T A B L E O F C O N T E N T S Abstract i i Acknowledgements iv Chapter 1 , 1.1 Introduction 1 1.2 Research Problem 8 1.3 Research Question 10 1.4 The Context o f the Study 11 Chapter 2 2.1 The Roots o f Critical Thinking 14 2.2 The Definitions 33 2.3 The Philosophy/Critical Thinking/Classroom Connection 38 2.4 Is Critical Thinking Generalizable? 41 2.5 Is Critical Thinking Biased? 45 2.6 The Assessment of Critical Thinking 48 2.7 The Teacher's Role in a Critical Thinking Classroom 49 2.8 The Pedagogy o f Critical Thinking 57 Chapter 3 3.1 Methodology 61 3.2 Research Question 62 3.3 Participants o f the Study 63 3.4 The Classroom Environment 66 3.5 Rationale For Using Qualitative Research 66 3.6 Research Design 69 3.7 Limitations o f the Research Design 71 Chapter 4 4.1 Data Collection 73 4.2 Study #1 77 4.3 Study #2 85 4.4 Study #3 94 Chapter 5 5.1 Critical Thinking and Intellectual Development 106 5.2 Children's Voices in Research 107 5.3 Final Reflections 108 5.4 So What Do Y o u Do N o w 114 References 117 ii i JLcf&owtedgements JL very speciat thank-you to Joy for sharing her -wisdom. JL heartfeCt thank-you to my famity, <Bo6, Meghan and James, for their support and encouragement. JL very special thank-you to 'Whiteout and Cassie who kept me company white I worked. JL grateful thank-you to Gaby, Linda, and Joe whose questions and comments pushed my thinhjng to new heights. iv C R I T I C A L THINKING F O R C H I L D R E N : A D I A L O G U E O F H O P E A N E X P L O R A T I O N O F T H E E M E R G I N G C R I T I C A L THINKING C O M P E T E N C E IN 6 T O 7 Y E A R O L D STUDENTS We explore by clarifying meanings, analyzing concepts and positions, uncovering assumptions, investigating the implications o f our ideas, views, or beliefs, attempting to find reasons for our views (by offering examples, evidence, counter examples, and considering criticisms), comparing different views, attempting some kind o f resolution or conclusion which . . . leads to some kind o f action. Portelli & Church, 1995, p. 99 The ideal critical thinker is habitually inquisitive, well-informed, trustful o f reason, open-minded, flexible, fair-minded in evaluation, honest in facing personal biases, prudent in making judgments, willing to reconsider, clear about issues, orderly in complex matters, diligent in seeking relevant information, reasonable in the selection o f criteria, focused in inquiry, and persistent in seeking results which are as precise as the subject and the circumstances o f the inquiry permit. Facione, 1990, p. 12 Critical thinking is about how you approach problems, questions and issues (Facione, 1990). For as long as I can remember, I have been engaged in searches for answers. M y natural childhood curiosity was constantly stimulated by my surroundings: the challenge o f creating a boat that could float; the investigation o f a path that wandered up the mountain; the problem o f how to tame a wild cat; the philosophical questions posed by Uncle M a x who never seemed to give answers, only more questions; the help offered by a father who challenged one to think rather than to look for easy solutions. 1 The majority of my undergraduate education took place in an era in which everything that society represented was subject to a probing inquisitiveness, an intense questioning. There was an aura o f eagerness for reliable information that would often precipitate reasons for change. The time was 1965 to 1969. The place was Simon Fraser University, British Columbia, reputed home o f rebellious students. A t S F U , students were actively engaged in using critical thinking in their search for a way to overcome what they felt was the oppression o f people's rights. Many o f the instructors taught "thinking" as a skill and debating as a way to investigate issues and problems. When I became a teacher in 1968,1 simply carried on in a similar philosophical manner. I encouraged my students to critically approach the evidence relevant to a problem or issue before coming to a justified conclusion. I challenged my students to arrive at reasonable rational judgments as part of their understanding. Even though I was handed a textbook and a content-based curriculum guide, I still managed to promote "thinking" in between the cracks o f the authorized curriculum. Now, years later, I am on a new quest. M y journey began when I read an excerpt from Paulo Freire's (1968) Pedagogy o f the Oppressed that was included in a group of readings that I was doing for a Master's course. Suddenly, questions that I had wondered about began to have explanations. I became so excited about my findings that everyone, who was even remotely interested in the subject, became a participant in discussions about Freire's ideas. Previous to reading the excerpt from Freire's (1968) Pedagogy o f the Oppressed. I had wondered how it was possible for a person to be educated and still not be able to better the conditions one encountered on a daily basis. For instance, how could a people, such as the indigenous people o f North America, Africa, and South America, receive an education (by North American standards) and still not become intellectuals capable o f arriving at a more 2 productive way o f life without socio-cultural restraints and prejudices. In the past, I had assumed that the education system would give the "oppressed" people the tools they needed to become an active part o f a thriving nation. Yet, strangely enough, this phenomenon didn't always occur. I was puzzled. The absence o f the phenomenon was explained by Freire's (1993) discussion o f the difference between a "banking" form of education, where teachers treat the students as "receptacles" to be filled in order to preserve the world as it exists, and a "liberating" form o f education, where students are encouraged to become "critical co-investigators in dialogue with the teacher" (p. 62) so that they can reflect upon their world in order to transform it. I was amazed to learn that a teacher could be used to oppress rather than liberate people. This notion flew against everything that I believed in as a teacher. I realized that living in my classroom world, I had been isolated from what was actually happening in other parts of the world or even other parts o f my school. Consequently, the fields o f critical thinking and critical pedagogy acted like a magnet pulling me into their world. I began by reading books and articles by Paulo Freire (1993, 1994), Henri Giroux (1988, 1992, 1997), John Dewey (1902), Miles Horton (1990), Peter McLaren (1989), Joel Spring (1994), and Alfred North Whitehead (1929). The ideas o f the critical theorists were both challenging and fascinating. I tried to make sense o f the roles of thinking, knowledge and power. Giroux's (1997) ideas about the relationships between power and knowledge became a strong influence. Giroux (1997) comments that knowledge and power come together not merely to reaffirm difference but also to interrogate it, to open up broader theoretical considerations, to tease out its limitations, and to engage in a vision o f community in which student voices define themselves in terms o f their distinct social formations and their broader collective hopes, (p. 160) 3 The concept o f relinquishing total power and becoming a part o f a classroom community that is engaged in an inquiry o f dialogue was an enticing prospect - one that was to have interesting results at a later date. Giroux & McLaren (1992) discuss critical pedagogy in terms o f understanding how the socially constructed and often contradictory experience and needs of students might be made problematic so as to provide the basis for exploring the interface between their own lives and the constraints and possibilities within the wider social order, (p. 23) Understanding critical pedagogy became another challenge. I was gaining an insight into the "role that schools actually play within a race, class, and gender-divided society" (McLaren, 1989, p. 163). As I progressed through my learning, I came to understand the extent to which knowledge is concerned with both meaning and affect and how it is strongly influenced by one's culture or worldview (Giroux & McLaren, 1992, p. 23). Central to this ideology is the concept that knowledge is an entity that is gained through reading, writing, dialogue, reflection and struggle rather than that which is produced in the head o f the educator (p. 23). (Many of the teachers with whom I had come into contact were quite convinced that the bulk o f the knowledge that was required was produced in their heads as a result of another expert filling up the void therein.) I came to understand that "critical literacy," a form o f critical pedagogy, attempts to interrogate sources o f information, such as textbooks that often represented the dominant social ideology, for what they don't say as well as for what they do say (p. 24). I was amazed to discover that much o f our knowledge, which has been passed on by the "masters" in the form o f books, was written by "dead, white men." I revisited the concept that knowledge is 4 examined "for the way it misrepresents or marginalizes particular views o f the world" (McLaren, 1989, p. 183). Knowing the context from which the literature is derived provides valuable information in judging the worth o f the source in its present context. A s well, it provides a platform for critical social critique. A t this point, I was beginning to understand how it was possible to be educated and still remain oppressed. Reflection on these concepts provided the incentive to go on and learn more about critical thinking and critical pedagogy. It also provided the impetus to critically examine my own teaching practices and to search my materials for the hidden lessons about power and justice. However, I soon realized that although I was becoming conversant in the area o f critical theory, I really had no clear way o f defining what was entailed in the "critical thinking" aspect o f critical theory. McPeck (1980) sums up my situation when he makes the following point about critical thinking not being generally understood: The problem has not been a dearth o f literature on critical thinking: on the contrary, journal discussions and prepackaged discussions are legion. The problem is that there is no precise way o f assessing this material in the absence o f an understanding of what the concept entails and what it precludes. At the moment, the persistent vagueness o f the concept supports curriculum proposals ranging from courses in Latin to logic and clever game puzzles. A l l such proposals have claimed to promote critical thinking, (p. 2) I certainly agreed with McPeck's comments for at this present time, "critical thinking" functions as a slogan system in education. When asked what "critical thinking" entailed, I was at a loss for words. There was a jumble o f ideas roaring about my head and I had no way o f organizing 5 them into coherent speech. I was at a loss for words that could promote understanding. The need for further research and study is what prompted the next aspect o f my journey. What is defined by the words "critical thinking?" Twenty years after McPeck's (1980) comment was written, it is obvious that there is still no common definition or common understanding of the term "critical thinking." The more diversely I read the more confused I became. Each person's definition o f critical thinking was unique. Unwittingly, I had stumbled upon a topic that was embroiled in a great, and sometimes heated, academic discussion. Looking for common threads o f agreement or dissention amongst the ideas o f the academic community I became much more involved than I ever could have anticipated. Previous to this investigation, I had the notion that definitions were something quite straightforward such as those bits of knowledge that are commonly found in dictionaries. Such was not the case for "critical thinking"! Understanding critical thinking was like squeezing a ball o f mercury: it looks solid on the surface but when you squeeze it to test it, it fragments into hundreds o f tiny balls which shoot off into an infinite number o f directions. This was a time fraught with frustration and the need for patience. I termed it my "wandering through the dark forest and getting stuck in the occasional swamp time". There certainly weren't any paths or signposts. Investigating the academic conversations surrounding critical thinking was like stepping into a river and getting churned through the rapids. Sometimes it was difficult not to give up and become swept along by the strongest current and thus simply accept the ideas offered as the ultimate explanation, but I stubbornly clung to the idea that I needed to hear more o f the river's sounds before I could come to a reasonable conclusion. I intensely dislike being indoctrinated. I wanted to make up my own mind. Tenaciously, I fought against the current in an effort to make my way through to a quiet back eddy where I could stop and reflect on what I had experienced. 6 Thus fortified, I would plunge back into the mainstream and try valiantly to keep from drowning in confusion. Finally, the rapids became familiar, the whirlpools a little less intimidating and it was time to climb out onto the riverbank. The river still raged on fueled by the conversations and discussions o f the academics but at this point, my course changed. I had come to terms with a general understanding o f what critical thinking might entail and I wanted to investigate the possibilities o f using critical thinking strategies and promoting critical tWnking dispositions when working with 6 and 7 year olds. Simplicity and practicality became my guidelines for choosing a definition o f critical thinking. In reply to the casual inquiry, critical thinking became "reasonable reflective thinking that is focused on deciding what to believe and do" (Ennis, 1987 p. 10). Ennis' definition, in combination with content specific criteria, also gave me a simple, generalizable, practical framework for the classroom. His definition was easy to remember and it provided the flexibility that I required in order to adapt it to the needs o f my research.. Facione's (1990) defines critical thinking as "purposeful, self-regulatory judgment which results in interpretation, analysis, evaluation, and inference, as well as explanation o f the evidential, conceptual, methodological, criteriological, or contextual considerations upon which that judgment is based" (p. 12). Facione's definition is primarily based on skills or operations that can be generalized across a wide variety o f contexts. Although it provides useful boundaries in that specific context, missing from Facione's definition are the attitudinal factors or qualities of thinking which can also be generalizable (Case & Wright, 1997). Some o f these attitudes include being: open-minded, fair-minded, independent-minded (McDiarmid, Manzo, & Musselle, 1996, p. xv), and critically-spirited (Siegel, 1996, p. 108). This list is by no means exhaustive. Although Facione's (1990) definition provides more specific guidelines, it is, by its 7 very nature, more limiting. I f one wants to know more specifically what critical thinking could be defined as, then i f one combines Facione's "ski l l" definition with the previous attitude characteristics then one has a more complete understanding o f critical thinking. Having derived a partial understanding o f critical thinking, my intellectual curiosity was further piqued. N e w challenges lay ahead. What personal and professional attributes would a critical thinking teacher display? What factors have to be in place before critical thinking wil l flourish? M y journey led me to explore how young children, age 6 to 7, use critical thinking for thoughtful analysis o f issues or problems that are o f interest to them. Research Problem Critical thinking is recognized in the curriculum as a worthwhile set o f skills and attitudes but this emphasis is seldom reflected in the assessment o f the students' learning. According to Bognar, Cassidy & Clark (1997), the results o f the British Columbia Social Studies Provincial Learning Assessment indicated that "on the one open-ended form which was also presented to students in 1989 (Grade 4), students showed a decline in performance in areas which measured decision-making and problem solving processes" (p. 134). The Research Team (Bognar et al., 1997) believed that there could be a substantial number o f students leaving the British Columbia school system with "only marginal abilities in such important contemporary citizenship skills as detecting bias, distinguishing between fact and opinion, and developing a reasoned argument" (p. 136). The deficiencies suggested by Bognar et al. (1997) are actually deficiencies in the ability to use critical thinking. The frustration felt by the current social studies Research Team is similar to that experienced by the Research Team for Communication Skills Assessment in 1993. Piecemeal 8 recommendations such as: teachers need to" focus more on problem solving and decision-making" (Bognar et a l , 1997, p. 137) have had very little effect on the teaching o f critical thinking in social studies. Thus, part o f my research included an investigation into the specific role o f the critical thinking teacher in order to come up with concrete recommendations for classroom teachers. The qualitative research study deepened my understanding o f the critical thinking potential o f young children, and the factors that constrain or encourage critical thinking. Significance of the Problem The underlying assumption is that the world is not better left alone and there are areas in our world that could be improved. There are many global, national, and local problems that could conceivably be rectified by an involved and informed citizenry. Samples o f these types o f problems include the following: - "individual beliefs / majority rule - obey the law / the right to dissent - cultural variety / cultural assimilation - individual rights / public safety - national security / individual freedom - worker security / employer rights" (National Council for the Social Studies, 1994, p. 10) - the environment / the economy - concern for the common good / concern for the individual. 9 The solutions to these types o f problems wil l probably be found in the area of compromise and to make fair and just decisions under these circumstances requires reasonable, reflective thinking that is focused on what to believe or do (Ennis, 1987, p. 10). A t this point in time, the general public, itself a product o f our past educational system, is unable or unwilling to solve many conflicts or long-standing problems. The Research Question This research study further extends and deepens our understanding o f how six and seven year old students use critical thinking as an opportunity for thoughtful analysis o f issues or problems that are o f interest to them by investigating fourteen to twenty one students enrolled in grade 1 in a public elementary school in Kamloops, British Columbia. The research wil l also deepen our understanding of what has to be in place in a classroom before critical thinking can flourish. The research focused on investigating how six and seven year olds work within the following areas o f concern: 1. - looking at a problem or concern from multiple points o f view - including understanding the circumstances surrounding each point o f view and displaying empathy for the those who are involved. 2. - an understanding o f the role o f evidence. Are children willing and able to change their mind in light o f new evidence? 3. - an awareness o f how the outcome of a decision would affect others. Are children capable o f consequential reasoning or do they live only for the moment? 10 The Context of the Study According to the United States National Council for the Social Studies (1994-1995), "the primary purpose o f the social studies [that strongly emphasize critical thinking] is to help young people develop the ability to make informed and reasoned decisions for the public good as citizens o f a culturally diverse, democratic society in an interdependent world" (p. 157). Closer to home, Bognar et al. (1991) have noted that critical thinking contributes significantly to the citizenship mandate of social studies in the British Columbia public school curriculum (p.45-46). Critical thinking, in this scenario, is generally defined as "reasonable reflective thinking that is focused on deciding what to believe and do" (Ennis, 1987, p. 10). According to Bognar et al. (1997), in primary age children, the following components o f critical thinking have been identified as an area o f increasing weakness: The Research Team finds student performance on the open-ended problem solving forms disappointing, since there is still a large percentage o f students showing weaknesses in various stages o f the decision making model, and particularly at the final stage o f actually reaching a decision and providing reasoned justification for the decision. In fact, the proportion o f students doing well in these exercises has declined since 1989. Students demonstrate weaknesses in formulating questions and in identifying appropriate sources o f information . . . students also show a need for an increased emphasis on inferential and divergent thinking, and in identifying, accessing and assessing sources o f information, (p. 46) The justification for proceeding with studies in critical thinking for primary age children lies in the need for further information regarding the following question: Given that the material used 11 is age-appropriate and the teacher is adequately able to create a classroom environment which is conducive to inquiry, to what extent are 6 and 7 year old children capable o f learning to think critically? Kennedy, Fisher and Ennis (1991) state that when teaching methods are suitable for the developmental level o f the student even young children can benefit from critical thinking training (p. 18). The child cognitive development theories o f Jean Piaget indicate that young children have structures that differ from older children. However, Gelman (1985) disagrees with Piaget. According to Gelman (1985) "young children's competencies are more like older children's than once assumed . . . cast[ing] serious doubt on the hypothesis that age differences in performance reflect fundamental characteristics" (p. 538). Perhaps what is reflected by age differences is the ability to use formal terminology to describe one's actions or statements. So, at what age should critical thinking be introduced as part o f a classroom curriculum? Since there is a notable lack o f information, knowledge, and available research on the topic o f primary age children and critical thinking, and since the topic is deemed to be valuable as part o f British Columbian's public school curriculum, then further research on the topic is justified. Cochran-Smith and Lytle (1993) claim that research by teachers represents a distinctive way o f knowing about teaching and learning that wil l alter - not just add to - what we know in the field. Furthermore, we have argued that as it accumulates and is more widely disseminated, research by teachers wi l l represent a radical challenge to our current assumptions about the relationship o f theory and practice, schools and universities, and inquiry and reform, (p. 85) 12 It remains to be seen whether such teacher action research wil l add to the knowledge base for others to directly apply to their teaching practice or whether the results o f the research wil l be cause for further reflection, theorizing and subsequent action. 13 Chapter 2 The Roots of Crit ical Thinking He who cannot draw upon three thousand years is living from hand to mouth. Goethe Wisest is he who knows he does not know. Socrates Like a river destined to join an ocean, knowledge is ever expanding. Where did the idea o f critical thinking originate? The deepest roots o f critical thinking lie intertwined in the fields o f philosophy and science. Early documentation o f the controversy between science and reason occurred when an Eleatic, named Heraclitis (540-480 B C ) , publicly chose to value perception above reason stating that change was the most consistent part o f nature. A t the same time, another Eleatic, named Parmenides (540-480BC), chose to value reason above perception when discussing the problem o f change. A s a Rationalist, Parmenides believed that human reason was the primary source o f knowledge. The tension between science and philosophy had begun. However, since both men were looking for evidence to back their claims, the age of critical thinking had also begun. Throughout the years more seeds o f critical thinking were planted through the influence o f science and philosophy. Then, in the early 1950's, science and philosophy were joined in the discussion by a relatively new discipline, psychology. The psychological model o f critical thinking emphasized thinking skills and the processes involved with thinking. "Higher order thinking skills" became synonymous with critical thinking. The tension between content and process in curriculum was fueled by the advent o f the "inquiry method o f teaching" which was also synonymous with critical thinking. The inquiry methods valued process: didactic methods 14 valued content. In later years critical thinking has been a factor in curricula involving problem-solving, reflective thinking, and decision-making (Hullfish & Smith, 1961; Massialas & Cox, 1966). Fueled by the repercussions o f the data regarding the weak higher intellectual skills of 17 year old Americans as documented in A Nation at Risk (United States Commission on Excellence in Education, 1983, p.4), critical thinking was revitalized with renewed vigor by the academic community (Ennis, 1987; Lipman, 1991; McPeck, 1990; Paul, 1990; Siegel, 1988) and the Ministry o f Education in British Columbia in the 1980's and 1990's. Throughout this time, critical thinking took on new meanings and connotations, depending upon who was using the term and why they were using it. Each definition of critical thinking has led to different implications for curriculum and instruction (Wright, 1995, p. 26) To the teachers, the concept o f critical thinking was like a weather forecast: cloudy with a chance o f rain, fog in some low lying areas, high winds in the mountain passes, thunder storms in the valleys, and periods o f sun throughout the day. Critical thinking was a bit o f everything and not much o f anything. Part o f the problem was there was no universally definitive answer to the question, "What is critical thinking?" The Foundations of Present Day Critical Thinking To appreciate the beauty o f the tree one must investigate how the roots caused it to grow so diversely. Ashton The purpose o f the historical survey is to investigate how and why "critical thinking" came into being. The survey wi l l show how "critical thinking," as we presently understand the term, has firmly established roots in the views and philosophies o f both past and present philosophers, scientists and psychologists. Before undertaking the actual research project, 15 which was centered on the use o f critical thinking, I wanted to know what critical thinking was. Due to slippery nature o f trying to define critical thinking, I thought it best to search for the roots of the various aspects o f critical thinking so that I could better comprehend what was meant by the term. The journey was long, but fascinating. The Myths In our Western civilization, the philosophical roots o f critical thinking extend far back to around 700 B C , when much of the Greek mythology, which had a great influence on what people were led to believe and do, was finally recorded in written form by Hestoid and Homer. For the first time the written myths were available to the few literate common people and scholars in a form that was considered more reliable than "story telling." The myths came under critical public scrutiny. Skepticism began infiltrating the mythological belief systems. People, like Xenophanes (570 B C ) , began to notice that the egotistical and treacherous gods in the myths resembled mortals far too much for them to be superior to mortals. Consequently, people began to ask philosophical questions without recourse to the ancient myths or religions. The transition was being made from supernatural explanations o f occurrences to scientific explanations based on natural experience and reason. The central root o f critical thinking had started to grow: claims and arguments were being evaluated (Ennis, 1987; Lipman, 1988b; McPeck, 1990; Paul, 1990). The Sophists About a hundred years later, the Sophists laid down another critical thinking root. They allowed that the answers to philosophical questions may exist but mere mortals cannot know the riddles about nature and the universe. Thus the Sophists were skeptical just as critical thinkers o f today are skeptical o f something when they do not have sufficient evidence to back a 16 statement. The Sophists also made another contribution to critical thinking when they questioned what was natural and what was socially induced. This paved the way for social criticism o f city-states like Athens. The critical theorists o f today have carried on with a similar tradition (Freire, 1993, 1994; Giroux, 1988, 1992, 1997; Horton, 1990; McLaren, 1989. Socrates A major root o f critical thinking began to flourish with the arrival o f Socrates (470-399 B C ) . Socrates loved to converse with the people o f Athens. He questioned everyone about everything in his search for knowledge. Throughout his life he attempted to convince the Athenians that they should remain open-minded and thus rationally consider all evidence, including questioning both their own views and other points of view, before arriving at a rational conclusion. Like Socrates' followers in Athens, when present day students are willing to consider view-points other than those that were previously familiar, and when they can recognize insights and strengths in views with which they have previously disagreed, then the students increasingly value the need to question as they search through material in order to understand what to believe or do (Cranson, 1995, p. 175). Questioning is still a method o f honoring other points o f view. However, to this day, some people have remained very close-minded while other people have become open-minded. What makes the difference? In Trycycle, a journal o f Buddhist thought, Pema Chodran made the following comment in relation to teachers who have influenced his state o f mind and spirit: " M y models were the people who stepped outside o f the conventional mind and who could actually stop my mind and completely open it up and free it, even for a moment from a conventional, habitual way o f looking at 17 things" (in hooks, 1994, p. 207). Chodran would probably have enjoyed conversing with Socrates. Socrates is perhaps best known for his method o f asking "deep questions that probe profoundly into thinking before we accept ideas as worthy of belief (Paul, 1999, p. 1). Even today, his questioning techniques remain valid. Paul (1990) published the following ideas based on the Socratic questioning and discussion methods: The discussion, the thinking, is structured to take student thought from the unreasoned to the reasoned, from the implicit to the explicit, from the unexamined to the examined, from the inconsistent to the consistent, from the unarticulated to the articulated. To learn how to participate in it, one has to learn how to listen carefully to what others say, to look for reasons and evidence, to recognize and reflect upon assumptions, to discover implications, and consequences, to seek examples, analogies, and objections, to seek to discover, in short, what is known and to distinguish it from what is merely believed, (p. 41) Socrates' questioning and discussion models provide ways to arrive at a rational decision. His spirit o f inquiry is relived today in a person's sense o f curiosity and wonder. Another Socratic "root" o f critical thinking is for a person to be able to take time to reflect. In Charmindes, Socrates says to Critias: Y o u come to me as though I professed to know about the questions which I ask. Whereas the fact is that I am inquiring with you into the truth o f that which is advanced from time to time, just because I do not know; and when I have inquired, I wi l l say whether I agree with you or not. Please then allow me time to reflect. 18 Not only is Socrates commenting on the need to reflect before replying to a question or assertion, by using the words " . . .1 am inquiring . . ." he is also demonstrating that the teacher is also a learner not just a conveyer o f knowledge. Socrates' pupil, Plato (428-354 B C ) , puts forth a similar idea when he comments that thinking is inner speech, and judgment is when you cease to doubt and your inner voices affirm the same thing. Having a conversation with your inner voices could probably be likened to critical reflective thinking. Reflection, or praxis, is still a key component o f critical thinking (Dewey, 1993; Freire, 1968). One o f the possible outcomes o f reflecting on an issue or problem is that, as well as justifying your reasoning, you are looking towards the probable future consequences o f your decision. A Socratic foundational "root" o f critical thinking is the concept o f the need to critically examine one's own ideas in order to understand the influences o f one's biases and points o f view. From a psychological perspective, human thought tends to be egocentric and sociocentric (Piaget, 1972, 1926). However, recognizing our own personal worldviews and biases, as well as those o f others, is an important aspect o f critical thinking (Case et al. 1996). Socrates represents the detached, objective inquiry that is an educational outlook, bereft o f personal purposes and local requirements (John Anderson, 1943, p. 178). Siegel's (1993) "critical spirit" reiterates the call to be aware o f your own biases as well as those o f others. Dialogue is often used as a means to investigate one's thoughts. Socrates, as portrayed in the dialogues o f Plato, provides us with an excellent model o f how discovery, understanding, and critical self-examination are enhanced through dialogue (Johnson, 1983). Similarly, Freire (1968) and Paul (1982) consider students to be critical co-investigators in dialogue with the teacher when they are involved in a problem-posing situation. 19 In accordance with Socrates' views, Descarte (1596-1650) questioned everything that he had been taught - a fact which prompted him to develop a method o f critical thought based on the principle o f systematic doubt (Paul, 1999, p. 2). B y the same token, David Hume (1711-1776) embraced the concept o f systematic doubt by later suggesting, "past experience is no guarantee of future experience" (Weate, 1998, p. 58). This concept o f critical self-examination enjoys great popularity with our present day critical thinkers: Lipman (1988b) redefines Descarte's term "systematic doubt" as thinking that is "self-correcting;" Freire (1968) believes that all theory should be interrogated; Facione (1990) also recognizes that judgments arrived at through a critical thinking process should be subject to cross examination and should thus be self-correcting. Ellsworth's (1989) comment illustrates one o f the tensions involved in the present situation involving the self-examination o f thought: The desire o f mostly white middle-class men who write the literature on critical pedagogy to elicit 'full expression' o f student voices . . . becomes voyeuristic when the voice o f the pedagogue himself goes unexamined, (p. 321) Ellsworth's point could not be stated more eloquently! The Socratic call, for those who express their ideas to be responsible for critical self-examination o f both their biases and ideas, still remains firm. The ability to be open-minded when considering new evidence and to be able to change your mind based on new evidence, are fundamental attributes o f present day critical thinkers (Case et al., 1996, p. xv). These same fundamental "roots" o f critical thinking also form part o f the basis for my research. A s one o f the great figures in the critical thinking movement, Socrates is "perhaps the clearest example o f a philosopher who urged that education and society strive to imbue in all 20 students and persons, to the greatest extent possible, the skills, dispositions, and character traits constitutive o f critical thinking" (Siegel, 1996, p. 120). Socrates lived for only 31 years but his philosophy o f learning has had a tremendously strong influence on people for over 2400 years. The Renaissance The Renaissance ushered in the age of reason in conjunction with the age o f science. During this period, Sir Francis Bacon (1561-1626) argued for the importance o f studying the world empirically and thus he laid the foundations for modern science. Bacon's book, The Advancement o f Learning, could be considered one o f the earliest texts in critical thinking (Paul, 1999, p. 2). A s a thinking being, Bacon concluded that it was "mind or reason that told him the truth about the world" (Weate, 1998, p. 55). This further enhanced the position taken earlier by Rationalists such as Parmenides (540-480 B C ) , Socrates (470-399), and like-minded men such as Rene Decarte (1561-1626) and Baruch Spinoza (1632-1677). The Empiricists Following the tradition o f the Sophists (450 B C ) , who helped to smooth the way for social criticism in Athens, John Locke (1632-1704) laid the theoretical foundations for critical thinking in relation to basic human rights and the responsibilities o f all governments to submit to the reasoned criticism o f thoughtful citizens (Paul, 1999, p. 2). There is a strong relationship between the reasoning factor o f critical tliinking and a democratic form o f government. Lipman (1998) clearly echoes the previous point o f view: Reasoning and judgment, these are ideally what the educational institutions o f our ideal democracy should cultivate, for reasoning and judgment together add up to reasonableness; to be able to reason and to be open to reason; to be able to make sound judgments and be respectful o f the judgments others have made. (p. 279-280) 21 In Demystifying Thinking, Cranson (1995) shows a similar concern about the relevance o f critical thinking in a democracy society. People must understand the importance of gathering and weighing information, considering the impact o f various decisions, and re-evaluating decisions after they are made in preparation for accepting the responsibilities o f living in a democracy, (p. 80) In our North American society, it is important that we encourage our students to use critical thinking because in a "socially interactive world almost every decision has a ripple effect on individuals other than the decision-maker" (Cranson, 1995, p. 180). Even more so than today, in the future, compromises rather than black and white solutions to problems wi l l be prevalent (McPeck, 1990). Frequently, in our present political system, he who presents the strongest, most persuasive, politically powerful, emotionally appealing case wil l suffer the least compromise to their position. Consequently, being able to think critically wi l l be a valuable asset when considering arguments, solving problems or making changes in order to improve the world. In the interest o f human rights and change, the critical theorists formulate theory from lived experience that then reduces the gap between theory and practice (hooks, 1994, p. 75). Critical theorists tend to look at the connections that are made throughout the "whole picture" so that a problem is not studied in isolation. A s indicated by Henri Giroux (1988), Giroux & Kaplan (cited in Walters, 1994), Callan & Portelli (cited in Portelli & Bailin, 1993), Paulo Freire (1993), Miles Horton (1990), and Peter McLaren (1989), critical theorists are still very /active in the field o f social criticism, bell hooks (1994) makes the following powerful comment in relation to this movement: 22 I am grateful to the many women and men who dare to create theory from the location o f pain and struggle, who courageously expose wounds to give us their experience to teach and guide as a means to chart new theoretical journeys. Their work is libratory. It not only enables us to remember and recover ourselves, it charges and challenges us to renew our commitment to an active . . . struggle, (p. 74) In our classrooms, Freire's legacy has been the inclusion o f problem posing education. The Idealists Empathy was reunited with critical thinking by Hume (1711-1776) who comments "judgment comes from within, by reflecting on our own feelings and empathizing" (Weate, 1998, p. 58). This concept is closely related to the following the areas o f my research: Are young children aware o f how the outcome o f a decision would affect others? D o children look at the circumstances surrounding the evidence from an empathetic viewpoint? Similar to Hume, Hegel noted that uncertainty, ambiguity, unpredictability, and open-endedness would encourage us to think. In his explanation o f reality, Hegel (1770-1831) maintained that the universe and everything in it is interconnected. Hegel also pointed out the dialectical nature o f discussion as a means o f critical investigation. According to Weate (1998), Hegel's concept o f how to arrive at a reasoned conclusion is threefold: First an argument or "thesis," is put forward. Then an opposing argument, or "antithesis," is introduced. After much struggle a compromise is reached, which is known as the "synthesis." This compromise then becomes the new "thesis" and the process starts again, ad infinitum (p. 52). 23 Science research often follows Hegel's thesis pattern. In the non-academic realm, critically negotiated settlements also tend to follow Hegel's thesis pattern. Thus, once more, science, philosophy, and critical thinking became interwoven. The Nineteenth Century In the nineteenth century, critical thought was promoted in the domain o f social life. In his Communist Manifesto. Kar l Marx (1818-1883) argues for a better society in which money would not rule and everything would be shared. Towards this end Marx was instrumental in bringing about a political revolution. Critical theorists such as Paulo Freire (1993), Henri Giroux (1988), Miles Horton (1990), and Peter McLaren (1989), were influenced by Marx and shared his wish for a better society and so critical pedagogy became a means to create social change. During the nineteenth century, Charles Darwin applied critical thinking to investigate the origins o f life that he documented in The Descent o f Man. People, who were critical thinkers, reflected with interest upon Darwin's theories. People who used emotions to express their ideas were outraged at Darwin's theory o f evolution. The battle lines were drawn between rationalism and religious doctrine. The common people were, once again, heavily involved in public displays of rationality or irrationality. The Twentieth Century Without some heat, there can be no light Wittgenstein venerated rationality and put it forth as an educational aim. From the work o f Ludwig Wittgenstein "we have increased our awareness not only o f the importance o f concepts in human thought, but also o f the need to analyze concepts and assess their power and limitations" (Paul, 1999, p. 3). 24 In the early part o f the century, Bertrand Russell (1916, p. 163) believed that the passive acceptance o f knowledge would be disastrous in later life and that it would serve to encourage a blind unthinking respect for the teacher and other authorities. Consequently, Russell "emphasized individuality, and the virtues o f independence and critical judgment" (Hare, 1995, p. 2). Unfortunately, Russell's philosophy o f learning was misinterpreted by the students and teachers o f the time to infer that the teachers' knowledge could be negatively challenged by the students. Those teachers who functioned as knowledge transmitters were very uncomfortable in this situation. The concept o f critical thinking took on a negative connotation implying "negative criticism o f others' tliinking." Dewey realized that possessing basic knowledge was rudimentary to being able to think in a critical fashion. After all, you cannot "think in a vacuum." In accordance with Dewey, Case et al. (1996, p. xiv) locate "background knowledge" as the first o f five intellectual tools for thinking critically. Unfortunately for the critical thinking movement, one o f the prevalent notions o f teachers and school boards, who are primarily concerned with test results, is that the purpose o f education is not to understand concepts but simply to acquire a shared body o f information. This "passive education" stance is challenged by those who claim that the school's task is, to foster critical thought, autonomy, and open-mindedness, rather than to promote the transmission o f existing knowledge. Perhaps the purpose o f basic knowledge is not a goal unto itself, but instead, its purpose is to become one o f the cornerstones in the "tools" (Case & Daniels, 1996) required in support o f critical thinking. There is a connection between interest, learning and critical thinking. Dewey (1902, p. 99-100) believed that learning must start by knowing and as such, learning is facilitated when it is based on the interests o f the child. A child's interest is naturally stimulated when they 25 experience a new idea that is so intriguing that questions come easily. Such questions may even involve domains "where the answers are not already known and in fact may never be truly defined" (Giroux, 1997, p. 49). In any case, being able to create patterns and connect ideas, experiences, feelings and information to interesting new ideas is also one o f the keys to critical thinking. Louis Rath adopted much o f Dewey's problem-solving algorithm in his model for "teaching for thinking" which was helpful in distinguishing better values from worse. Unfortunately, his ideas were transformed by his followers into a model for "values clarification" in which no value was considered any better or worse than any other. What had begun as a model for critical thinking became a model o f uncritical tWnking (Lipman, 1991, p. 107). After World War 11 ended, there was a movement to reform the educational curriculum. In order to accomplish this, many of the cognitive psychologists who had previously worked with the armed forces, were engaged to design and evaluate educational material (Encarta 97, Piaget). The psychologists' position was that thinking and learning could be broken into discrete pieces which could be studied in isolation and then reunited like building blocks to form a whole which was not greater than the sum o f its parts. Bloom's Taxonomy provides a model o f the thinking processes according to the psychological point o f view. B loom et al. (1956) postulated that the process o f application, analysis, synthesis, and evaluation were a hierarchical, integral part o f critical thinking. Education philosophers, such as Paul (1993), state that: "in thinking . . . the whole is greater than the sum o f its parts, and cannot be understood merely by examining its psychological leaves, branches, or trunk. We must also dig up its philosophical roots and study its seed ideas" (p. 443). So our journey continues on, but now the 26 newcomer, psychology, is adamant about making its presence felt in the critical thinking aspect o f education. During the 1950's, Bloom et al.'s (1956) Taxonomy o f Educational Objectives, vol. 1: Cognitive Domain became a landmark move towards critical thinking because knowledge had been downgraded and evaluative thinking had been upgraded. The way seemed much clearer to establishing critical thinking as a major objective o f the educational system (Lipman, 1991, p. 109). Unfortunately, Bloom's ideas were parachuted into an unprepared education system at a time when Piaget's ideas o f developmental stages were still a dominant force. A s an educational psychologist, Piaget was writing about his research in the early part o f the century but it was not until the 1960's, that Piaget's ideas came into popularity. Piaget (1926) strongly influenced the learning environment o f young children as a result o f his theory o f the stages o f intellectual development. He commented that children under the age 7 should be primarily engaged in the accumulation o f knowledge. Piaget (1926) also postulated that a child, before the age of 7, can not present arguments because it does not use a knowledge system in which justifications of causality become a necessity. Furthermore, according to Piaget (1926), before the child can become concerned with causal justification it must be capable o f recognizing that "its own interpretation o f a sensory input is a private, not-necessarily-shared interpretation" (Mancuso & Hunter, 2000. p. 3). Generally, this phenomenon was thought to occur at about 7 years o f age. Subsequently, Piaget's theory o f intellectual development influenced the age level at which critical thinking was introduced and consequently a debate regarding the appropriate age to begin critical thinking was fueled. It was expected that it would be "late secondary school or maybe even college before students could be expected to handle ideas (Lipman, 1991; McPeck, 1990). According to Lipman (1991), the prevailing thought was that "given the 27 longitudinal, developmental interpretation, young children were not capable of monitoring their own thought, o f giving reasons for their opinions, or o f putting logical operations into practice" (p. 110). In the early 1970's, educators began to suspect that children were capable o f reasoning and philosophy. Soon, critical thinking was being considered appropriate for all ages (Beyer, 1995, Case & Daniels, 1996). Case &Daniels (1996) developed "Critical Challenges Across the Curriculum," which consisted o f a series of critical thinking exercises for students o f all ages. In 1999, The National Council for Excellence in Critical Thinking, stated that "the earlier that children develop sensitivity to the standards o f sound thought and reasoning, the more likely they wil l develop desirable intellectual habits and become open-minded persons responsive to reasonable persuasion" (1999, p. 2). However, it appears the there has been very little research on critical thinking and very young children. H o w would young children use critical thinking as an opportunity for thoughtful analysis o f issues or problems that are o f interest to them? The question became the thesis for my own research. In the late 1970's, Michael Scriven became the founding father o f the informal logic movement (Lipman, 1991, p. 110). Like critical thinking with its roots in Socrates and the Sophists, informal logic had its roots in the philosophic traditions o f Aristotle. Because it emphasized the persuasive force o f argument, informal logic was more attuned to natural language than formal logic, which emphasized the logical force o f argument. The informal logic movement allowed more people to become involved with the critical thinking movement because it dealt with real life situations and issues in common terms that people could generally understand. However, the rules o f logic were still in force, thus informal logic was not to be treated lightly. 28 Critical thinking and philosophy were again heavily intertwined in the 1980's. Matthews (1980) suggested critical thinking may be motivated by puzzlement and puzzlement usually "rests on an unease about not having enough evidence, or maybe not enough evidence o f the right sort, to draw a common sense conclusion" (p. 2). Philosophical whimsy came into play. Can critical thinking be play and reflect playful possibilities? Can you be big and little at the same time? On a more serious note, the 1980's signaled the start o f teaching philosophy to school age children. Lipman's (1991) concept o f philosophy and thinking for children gained popularity and young children were being applauded for their capacity to think and reason. With this rise in the popularity of philosophy came a warning that refers back to Plato (428-354 B C ) . In Theaetetus, Plato describes Socrates as engaging young minds in philosophic discussions but with the warning that "such an inquiry must be conducted fairly" (Turner & Matthews, 1998, p. 4). In other words, philosophy is not to be treated as a game o f contradiction (e.g. sophistry) for to do so would discredit the perpetrator in the eyes o f others. It was recognized that philosophy is a serious matter and thus must be guided by trained adults (Turner & Matthews, 1998, p. 4). Lipman also holds with this belief, and thus his Philosophy For Children program is backed by extensive training sessions for teachers. In 1983,the United States National Commission on Excellence in Education published a report, A Nation at Risk, which was to have great repercussions in the American education system. Among the concerns o f the Commission was the fact that many 17 year-old students did not have the higher-order intellectual skills that were expected o f them (National Commission, 1983, p. 4). This concern led to a flurry o f interest in higher order thinking skills and critical thinking skills. A t about the same time, the influence o f applied philosophy was felt in education. The goal was to produce students with "improved proficiency in reasoning and 29 judgment" (Lipman, 1991, p. 112). Critical thinking had become the topic o f great intellectual debate. In North America, the following theorists were prominent figures in critical thinking discussions o f this era: Adler, 1985; Beyer, 1985; deBono, 1984; Ennis, 1987, 1980; Giroux, 1988; Johnson, 1983; Lipman, 1988, McLaren, 1989; McPeck, 1981; and Siegel, 1988. During the 1980's and 1990's, the philosophical approach to critical thinking advocated using an open-ended or inquiry approach to learning for all school aged children. The young students were successfully questioning former knowledge and heading out in new directions to support their learning, but they needed some way to judge the worth o f the evidence and arguments, etc. that they presented to justify their decisions. Critical thinking provided the tools and dispositions that supported their inquiry-based learning. At this point, the "roots" o f the community aspect o f critical thinking were being formed. The classic picture o f the isolated thinker was being transformed into a picture o f a community o f learners. It was recognized that thinking through a problem by our selves could be an unnecessarily difficult task. Instead, testing our ideas in conjunction with others meant we could benefit from "collaborative reflection" (Case & Wright, 1997, p. 18). The difficulty with this approach was that the classroom environment had to be conducive to open-ended discussion and risk-taking in a "safe" atmosphere and not all teachers were receptive to encouraging a climate that would be appropriate for critical thinking. Nurturing the appropriate classroom climate was an orientation that pervaded critical thinking situations (Case et a l , 1997, p. 19). During this period, prominent philosophers, such as Giroux (1988), hooks (1994), and McLaren (1989) were encouraging teachers to use transaction and transformation philosophies to guide their teaching. They were actively promoting using critical thinking in problem-solving, decision-making, and reflective thinking. 30 The reaction, to the inquiry, problem-solving, decision-making, reflective thinking, curriculum movements was a "back to the basics," transmission movement where critical thinking was at the low end o f curriculum priorities and content, studying (and even memorizing) prior knowledge, was at the forefront. There is an explanation for this movement: when you feel threatened, return to your "safe place." Most "educational" systems, from tribal societies to technological societies, "fall imperceptibly into a role devoted exclusively to the conservation o f old ideas, concepts, attitudes, skills, and perceptions . . . because o f the unconsciously held beliefs that these old ways o f thinking and doing are necessary to the survival o f the group" (Postman & Weingartner, 1969, p. 207). This is a relevant position i f the group inhabits an environment that is changing very slowly (p. 208). Postman & Weingartner (1969) make the following relevant comment: A paradoxical situation develops when change becomes the primary characteristic o f the environment. . . survival in a rapidly changing environment depends almost entirely upon being able to identify which o f the old concepts are relevant to the demands imposed by the new threats to survival, and which are not. (p. 208) Postman & Weingartner (1969) suggest that for a group to survive, "selective forgetting" o f irrelevant concepts must occur for i f it does not take place then the "concepts themselves become threats to the group's survival" (p.208). In order to cope with rapid change and in addition to the selective forgetting o f irrelevant concepts, people require a way o f thinking which wil l allow them to make decisions about what to believe and do. I f the concept o f critical thinking includes the following definition o f critical thinking as purposeful, self-regulatory judgment which results in interpretation, analysis, 31 evaluation, and inference, as well as explanation o f the evidential, conceptual, methodological, criteriological, or contextual considerations upon which that judgment is based. (Facione, 1990, p. 12) and i f Facione's definition is supplemented by the following additional characteristics, caring (Wheary & Ennis, 1998); critical spirit (Facione, 1997; Siegel, 1989); emotion (Gallo, cited in Haroutunian-Gordon, 1998; Siegel, 1989); fair-mindedness (Ennis cited in Beyer, 1995; Marzano, cited in Beyer, 1995; Paul 1982); imagination (Gallo, cited in Haroutunian-Gordon, 1998; Paul, 1990); and intuition (Paul, 1990); Walters, cited in Haroutunian-Gordon, 1998), then, unlike the "back-to-the-basics" movement, critical thinking wil l allow people to thrive in a rapidly changing world. In Critical Thinking: What Every Person Needs to Survive in a Rapidly Changing World. Paul (1990) concludes that in order for the United States to increase productivity and thus be able to compete successfully on the world market, the education system wil l need to produce people who can "rationally examine situations and make intelligent, judicial decisions . . . the kind o f skills fostered by critical thinking" (Stevens, 1995, p. 355. During the past 20 years, the education system has gone through a fair amount o f turmoil and critical thinking has been in the midst o f the confusion, sprinkling itself here and there in a way that simply added to the melee. The Present The critical thinking movement is still visible and still very confused. Perhaps this concept is best illustrated by McPeck 's explanation o f the problem. The problem has not been a dearth o f literature on critical thinking: on the contrary, journal discussions and pre-packaged curricula are legion. The problem is that there is no precise way o f assessing this material in the absence o f an 32 understanding o f what the concept entails and what it precludes. At the moment, the persistent vagueness of the concept supports curriculum proposals ranging from courses in Latin to logic and clever puzzle games, (p. 2) McPeck's point is still valid today. According to Lipman (1991) many factors influence critical thinking. Informal logic features the persuasive force of argument. Rhetoricians accent critical thinking's logical force. Philosophers stress the reasoning component. Non-philosophers emphasize the problem solving approach. What is consistent is the general agreement that critical thinking is an important and worthwhile endeavor. However, there is still no common definition of critical thinking. Consequently, there is no common agreement about whether it should be taught, encouraged or left to be a natural outcome o f a good education. The Definitions Contradictions are valued as part o f the learning process, part o f what one struggles to change - and that struggle is often protracted, bell hooks, Teaching to Transgress: Education as the Practice o f Freedom, 1994 "Critical" comes from the Greek work kriterion which means a benchmark forjudging. In its broadest sense, critical thinking is judging the quality o f anything according to some predetermined criteria. When evaluating a researcher's conclusion, the flavor o f a new culinary dish, or the accuracy o f a television report, we are engaged in critical thinking or thinking according to a previously established set o f criteria. Amidst our socially induced biases and pressures, we are weighing the evidence for a claim and accepting it or rejecting it on the basis o f the evidence (Salmon, 1995, p. 1). 33 Beyond this broad sense o f critical thinking, there seem to be as many definitions of critical thinking as there are philosophers who are involved in the subject. The most widely used definition o f critical thinking is attributed to John Ennis (1987) who describes critical thinking as "reasonable reflective thinking that is focused on deciding what to believe and do" (p. 10). Another common definition belongs to Richard Paul who defines critical tWnking as "the extent to which a conclusion is plausible or warranted by the evidence" (Beyer, 1995, p. 9). Some people interpret critical thinking to imply pointing out errors. This negative point o f view may lead to a foolish attitude: i f there are no errors, then the thinking must be right (deBono, 1984, p. 16). In general, critical thinking is thought to have a positive purpose such as deciding what to believe and do in order to prove a point, solve a problem, interpret data etc. Walters' (1994) concept o f "first wave" and "second wave" critical thinkers provides a way to categorize some o f the currently used definitions. According to Walters (1994), the first wave o f critical thinkers reduced critical thinking to understanding and using the skills o f logic. Originally, Ennis (1962) was convinced that critical thinking simply required the ability to manipulate the rules and procedures o f logic. Characteristic o f the first group, Lipman (1988b) defines critical thinking as "skillful, responsible thinking that facilitates good judgment because it: 1. relies upon criteria, 2. is self-correcting, and 3. is sensitive to context" (p. 39). Scriven (cited in McPeck, 1990) states "reasoning ability is, operationally and pedagogically, a finite set o f skills using a finite box o f tools" (p. xi). In support o f critical thinking as a rational activity, Walters (1994) quotes Siegel (1988) as saying that "critical involves bringing to bear all matters relevant to the rationality o f belief and action" (p. 32). Missimer (1990) remains convinced that critical thinking is 34 accomplished by skill alone. Also typical o f the "first wave" group is Facione's (1990) description o f critical thinking as having the following characteristics: purposeful, self-regulatory judgment which results in interpretation, analysis, evaluation, and inference, as well as explanation o f the evidential, conceptual, methodological, criteriological, or contextual considerations upon which that judgment is based, (p. 12) But all is not black and white in this battlefield. Even Facione (1990) more or less bridges the gap between the this first wave and the next wave because although "critical spirit" is not part o f his definition, he refers to it in the same article as a personal trait o f one who would be apt to use their critical thinking skills. After 1988, Siegel (1991, 1993) also appeared to join the second wave with his references to "critical spirit," a subject not usually found in logical writing. The "second wave" used a "contextual approach that focuses . . . on normative assumptions and world view presuppositions" (Haroutunian-Gordon, 1998, p. 412). The "second wave's" definition o f critical thinking also included character traits such as fairmindedness, creativity, intuition, and emotion. However, Missimer (in Haroutunian-Gordon, 1998), a "first wave" philosopher suggests that context is a factor in critical thinking when she claims that the "most impartial and able critical thinker could not assess the force o f reasons o f an argument torn from its social fabric" (p. 417). The concept o f studying an incident without reference to the historical or social context from which it was derived is unreasonable according to Missimer (1988). The concept o f worldview as a force in critical thinking was made known by people such as Walters (1994) who believes that the "thinker is always present in the act o f thinking" (cited in Haroutunian-35 Gordon, 1998, p. 417), thereby resisting subject-neutral cognition. Siegel (1993) challenges Missimer's point o f view (1993) and proposes a "character" point of view for critical thinking thereby locating himself in the "second wave" by changing his original "first wave" (1988) point of view which relied on the skill o f logic as the cornerstones o f critical thinking. In this instance, one can picture the thinker "asking questions to make sure he or she has understood the proffered evidence, systematically reviewing apparent counter evidence . . . acting in accordance with the conclusions reached" (Haroutunian-Gordon, 1998, p. 415). Knowledge leaps into action! Features such as imagination, intuition and fair-mindedness are added to the definitions or intent o f critical thinking. Clinchy (cited in Haroutunian-Gordon, 1998, p.420) proposes a form o f "uncritical thinking" in which the observer uses imaginative attachment to get behind the eyes o f the observer, to look at events from their point o f view. Gallo proposes that "imagination and emotion are necessary for effective critical thinking" (cited in Haroutunian-Gordon, 1998, p.420). Assuming that it is possible, Siegel (1989, p. 1) allows that it may be rational to allow oneself to be moved into action by emotions or to act as the circumstances may justify. Siegel (1991) also refers to "critical spirit" (a phrase which was first coined by John Passmore in the 1970's) as does Facione (1997), who defines critical spirit as "a probing inquisitiveness, a keenness of mind, a zealous dedication to reason, and a hunger or eagerness for reliable information" (p. 6). Paul (1990, p. 36) argues that i f one means by intuition the process by which one "translates the abstract into concrete, based on insight into the principles upon the basis o f which one is thinking, then not only are critical thinking and intuitive thinking compatible, they are necessarily conjoined" (p. 36). In addition, Paul (1990) states that: "solid critical thinking always requires fundamental insights and fundamental intuitions to guide it" (p. 36). Walters argues in favor o f incorporating not only intuition, but 36 also imagination in critical thinking (Haroutunian-Gordon, 1998 p. 421). The concept o f fair-mindedness was brought to the forefront by Ennis (in Beyer, 1995), Paul (1982), and Marzano (cited in Beyer, 1995). In conjunction with Wheary, Ennis (1995) modified his view o f critical tliinking by suggesting that caring about making sound arguments and caring about the ideas o f others, "which would seem to involve imagination and perhaps intuition" (p. 414) were important features o f critical thinking. In relation to critical thinking, Case and Daniels (1996) also use the designation "habits of mind" which include being open-minded, fair-minded, independent-minded and having an inquiring or "criticaF'attitude. Is it any wonder that teachers are unclear what is involved in critical thinking (Wright, 1995, p. 67)? Critical thinking can be defined in many ways but the importance o f any definition is that one gain a fundamental understanding o f the concept involved. Basically, critical thinking involves the "formulation and use o f criteria to make warranted judgments about knowledge claims, normative statements, methods o f inquiry, policy decisions, alternative positions on public issues, or any other object of concern" (Patrick, 1985, p. 1). Critical thinking is an "essential element o f general cognitive processes such as problem solving or decision making, but is not synonymous with them" (Patrick, 1985, p. 1). Critical thinking implies: curiosity, skepticism, reflection and rationalism. Dependent on the definition used, critical thinking may also imply imagination, intuition, fair-mindedness, emotion, caring, and critical spirit. Ironically enough, a person who strives to make use o f critical thinking would first have to use critical thinking in order to define the term before using it. 37 The Philosophy/ Critical Thinking/Classroom Connection And must not an animal be a lover o f learning who determines what is or is not friendly to him by the test o f knowledge and ignorance? Most assuredly. And is not the love of learning the love o f wisdom, which is philosophy? They are the same, he replied. And may we not say confidently o f man also, that he who is likely to be gentle to his friends and acquaintances, must by nature be a lover o f wisdom and knowledge? That we may safely affirm. Then he who is to be a really good and noble guardian o f the State wi l l require to unite in himself philosophy and spirit and strength? Undoubtedly. Then we have found the desired natures; and now that we have found them, how are they to be reared and educated? Plato: The Republic It is not uncommon for young children to enjoy philosophizing because, stripped o f all else, philosophizing is an attempt to make sense o f their world. Children naturally express wonder and curiosity, especially when confronted with new and puzzling information. H o w often have you heard a child ask, " H o w come . . . ? " Children naturally seek explanations for that which they do not understand. When children arrive in school they are already equipped with an "if-then" logical reasoning form. For instance, if you listen politely then, you wil l have a turn to talk too. Children also understand how to make inferences. For example, i f mom is cranky, don't ask her to help you clean up a mess. Children's natural ability to seek understanding and truth needs to be acknowledged and strengthened i f they are to become critical thinkers. What are the links between philosophy, critical thinking, and the classroom? The Greek term, philosophy, means "the love o f wisdom." Both philosophers and critical thinkers share a desire to gain understanding and wisdom and they are both committed to "following reason wherever it may lead" (Johnson, 1987, p. 61). This notion provides the underpinnings to an 38 inquiry-based style o f learning. Both philosophy and critical thinking are disciplines in which issues can be debated from many points o f view through dialogical and dialectical exchanges. In a classroom situation, i f one contends that critical thinking must follow the formal rules o f logic (Siegel, 1988), then philosophy tends to be the theoretical vehicle for making ideas and concepts problematic. This approach may contain its own set o f problems for the classroom teacher. According to McPeck, (1990), the standard formal logical approach to critical thinking would be as follows: 1. Take an existing argument and examine it for any fallacies, formal or informal that might attest its validity. 2. When the fallacies are not found suggest looking for unstated assumptions and or question the truth o f given premises. 3. I f fault can be found in any o f these facets o f the argument, then one has objective grounds for rejecting the argument, (p. 7) Even i f a fallacy is discovered, it doesn't necessarily mean that the general point o f view is untrue. Thus, detecting fallacies is not all that practical because one still hasn't concluded what is right, true or correct. What's valid is not necessarily what's true. Therefore, when deciding complex questions its usefulness is limited. Since there is no method for detennining what the author had in mind, it is difficult to see what unstated assumptions the argument is based on -bias, etc. False presuppositions are far more important because they can destroy the validity o f the argument. After working through McPeck's method for engaging critical thinking, it is easy to understand why he concludes that what he understands as "critical thinking" is inappropriate for 6 to 8 year olds. A formal logic approach contains rules that are well beyond the thought processing capabilities o f young children. I f one suggests that informal logic would be useful in 39 the classroom then this would be in keeping with using concrete instances o f reasoning, argument and debate which are taken from newspapers, television and mass media. Although informal logic makes possible the analysis of ordinary reasoning using natural language, emphasis continues to be placed on using both a general theory o f argument and a procedure for applying it (Groarke, 1998, p. 5). For those teachers not well versed in logic, using informal logic may not be in keeping with their goal to teach students to reason well in a social, political, or work related context. Teaching through the use o f logic in an informal format may prove to be too challenging for those teachers not well versed in philosophy. In an elementary classroom, in keeping with an emphasis on using concrete examples o f reasoning, critical tliinking can be regarded as a practical vehicle for taking an idea to its roots by "probing its sources and foundations, pursuing its ramifications across domain and subject areas, relating it critically to a personal experience, and honestly assessing it from other points o f view" (Paul, 1993, p. 472). Typical o f this practical, schoolroom form o f critical thinking is the encouragement o f the competent use o f five types o f tools for thinking (Case & Daniels, 1996): Background knowledge - the information about a topic required for thoughtful Reflection. Criteria for judgment - the criteria or grounds for deciding which o f the alternatives is the most sensible or appropriate. Critical thinking vocabulary - the range o f concepts and distinctions that are helpful when thinking critically. Thinking strategies - the repertoire o f strategies, heuristics, organizing devices, and algorithms that may be useful when thinking through a critical thinking problem. 40 Habits of mind - the values and attitudes o f a careful and conscientious thinker. (p. xiv) With its roots in both formal and informal logic, the aforementioned critical thinking approach provides a practical format for working with students o f any age. Thus, the main differences between critical thinking and philosophy lie not in the ultimate goal, o f attaining greater wisdom, but simply in the methods that are used in the pursuit and the client that is involved in the challenge. While philosophy is usually relegated to the theoretical arena o f scholars, critical thinking, which involves both practical skills and humanistic attitudes, is available to the person in the street. M y research wil l investigate how young children can work within the practical notion o f critical thinking. Is Critical Thinking Generalizable The debate circles around whether it is better to teach thinking skills in conjunction with context or whether it is more beneficial to teach some general principles o f critical thinking, as a separate curriculum. Critical to this discussion is the question o f whether or not thinking skills taught in one context can be generalized or transferred to another discipline or subject. Case & Daniels (1996) do not support the view o f critical thinking as a "set o f generic skills or processes that can be developed independent o f content and context" (p. vii). McPeck (1990) also maintains "specific subject content determines the required ingredients for thinking critically in each case" (p. xvi). Reasoning is viewed as a "crucial clarification process" about some specific thing (Scriven, cited in McPeck, 1990). McPeck (1990) suggests that since one cannot know everything about everything, the standard approach used by many other people, such as Lipman, is to teach students the general skills they need to apply informal logic rather 41 than teach students using a knowledge and information based approach. According to McPeck (1990) there are two main reasons for using a general skills approach: 1."knowledge and information lack the transfer potential o f general skills; 2. one cannot predict what knowledge and information an individual may need for the future" (p. 13). The objective o f the general skills approach is to provide maximum transfer to multiple problem domains. However, there is a weakness in this method. I f you maximize something, you minimize something else. In this case, the general skills approach maximizes the number o f problem areas to which it can be applied while sacrificing the effectiveness o f all o f them. The more general a strategy is, the less effective it is when solving any particular problem. Consequently, according to McPeck (1990) the notion o f teaching general critical thinking skills in isolation is largely meaningless. Among others, Missimer (1988) and Newman (1988) also hold with the notion that critical thinking should be taught in relation to context. Lipman seems to suggest that critical thinking may be either generalizable or course specific. In an attempt to avoid redundant instruction, Lipman (1991, pp. 263-264) suggests that philosophy, which is the basis for critical thinking, should be taught as a specific course focused on teaching the generic logic and scientific method skills that wi l l be found in academic disciplines. But Lipman (1988b) contends "just as critical thinking is sensitive to uniformities and regularities that are generic or intercontextual, it [critical thinking] is sensitive to situational characteristics that are holistic or content-specific" (1988, p. 42). Thus, Lipman suggests that critical thinking skills are both generalizable and content specific. In general, even though the skills and dispositions o f critical thinking may be seen as specific to the course content, many o f the skills and dispositions thus taught are common to many areas o f the curriculum. Adler (1991, p. 61) claims that when teaching critical thinking as 42 a generalizable skill, significant improvements in learning in other areas remain once the content and areas o f study have been discounted. Touting a view of thinking skills and attitudes as being generalizable, Seymour Sarason (1971) contends that thinking is not something that happens only in class. So, according to Sarason's position, one might assume that the skills and attitudes o f critical thinking are generalizable even beyond the wall o f the classroom to the real world. I f one assumes that all students, regardless o f age, ambition, or ability, have some degree o f potential to think critically, then infusing critical thinking throughout the curriculum is effective in terms o f learning and efficient in terms o f time. A s such, there would be more opportunities for "academic achievement, socioeconomic advancement, and effective citizenship" for the student population (Patrick, 1986, p. 2). I f critical thinking is relegated to an elective course, then many students would not have the opportunity to take it. Unfortunately, when infusing critical thinking into the curriculum, there is a potential for a possible "hit and miss" situation. Wi l l all teachers actually use critical thinking in their courses? Several areas o f potential difficulty come to mind: 1. not all teachers understand what is meant by critical thinking; 2. not all teachers have the prerequisite knowledge required to be able to pick and choose which critical thinking skills and attitudes are appropriate for their subject and age level; 3. not all teachers are able to provide a "classroom climate" conducive to critical thinking. Nevertheless, since critical thinking provides rich opportunities for linking school life and real life, then working to overcome the aforementioned pitfalls may be worth the effort. In conclusion, student's capacities to use critical thinking wil l most likely increase i f they practice the skills and attitudes systematically over a wide range o f issues and 43 circumstances. Subject-specific teaching o f critical thinking may provide the most effective means to develop their ability to transfer the skills and dispositions to similar subjects in school and real-life situations outside school (Patrick, 1986, p. 2). On the other hand, courses specifically on critical thinking "seem to be a rather weak means o f developing cognitive strategies and skills" (p. 2). In my classroom, my goal is to use the skills and dispositions of critical thinking to provide "continuing opportunities for thoughtful analysis of issues or problems that are central to the subject matter" (Case & Daniels, 1996, p. vii). M y hope is that through encouraging critical thinking skills and dispositions in the classroom, I wi l l be providing the students with some o f the tools necessary to help them make decisions elsewhere in their lives. The role o f an education is to provide all students with the tools they wi l l need in order to cope with the realities o f the real world. Since one cannot possibly predict the future, one can only prepare for problem solving and change. What is the Place of Moral Values in Critical Thinking? Should schools teach moral values? This issue has undergone serious debate. In terms o f a fundamental educational ideal, according to Siegel (1996 p. 115), there is a powerful moral justification for including critical thinking. His reasoning includes the following argument: "critical thinking is the relevant agent o f empowerment, which as such has important moral dimensions" (p. 115). The question remains: Whose morals wil l be the dominant feature o f the moral dimensions? Insofar as "treating students with respect involves respecting their independent judgment and autonomy," (p. 115), then perhaps from Siegel's view point, the morals o f the individual student rather than the society wil l be paramount. From Adler's (1985) point of view, "there are no objectively valid and universally tenable moral standards or norms" 44 (p.xviii). I f one takes the position that there are universal moral standards, then this "undermines the whole doctrine o f natural, human rights, and, even worse, lends support to the dogmatic declaration that might makes right" (p.xviii). This gets back to the notion of education as a potential liberation tool. The myth that "we all agree on some fundamental aims o f society can no longer hold up (Kol i , 92, p. 33). Thus according to these arguments, it is untenable to consider teaching moral values in schools. On the other hand, i f schools are viewed in more instrumental terms as places to explore the values, social practices and skills needed for the dominant corporate order (Giroux, 1997), then teaching moral values would be in order. Is Critical Thinking Biased? The goal o f critical thinking is thinking from which all bias, egocentricity and self-deception have eliminated (Lipman, 1991, p. 56). Although this may have been Lipman's goal, he fully realizes the limits o f what is possible because all thinking takes place from someone's point o f view, regardless o f that person's intention o f eliminating all personal biases. This notion brings up the question of whether a judgment can be rendered objective despite the influence or bias o f the individual thinker. Bias is produced on the basis o f social history emphasizing some facts and miriirnizing others. Hostetler (in Haroutunian-Gordon, 1998, p. 418), like Missimer (1988) and Siegel (1989, 1988), acknowledges the role o f objective standards that would apply to situations where the truth o f statements occurs. Context deeply affects the understanding acknowledged by critical thinking. For instance, Hostetler maintains that there are nonneutral standards, which may pertain only to a specific community, which are in question. In this case the rules o f logic are o f no use. For Hostetler, judgments depend on the events and the social values at a given time and place. In both cases logic may not be sufficient 45 to render an unbiased ethical judgment. Paul (in Haroutunian-Gordon, 1998) suggests that to engage in critical thinking is to gain a perspective o f the perspective that one is presently immersed in (p. 419). Balin comments that the "exercise o f bias in critical thinking is conditioned on charges that 'normative' views o f epistemology are not only not natural but exclusionary and therefore discriminatory toward alternative views o f thinking and knowing" (in Alston, 1995, p. 228). I f one views bias as being an inclination to value certain kinds o f activities, ideas, etc. above others, then critical thinking can be viewed as biased. However, i f one limits or qualifies one's critical tliinking according to historic, geographic, and social contexts then one has made an honest attempt to qualify one's position by stating one's existing biases. If one views bias in a negative sense as sexist, racist, and elitist, then this would undermine the spirit o f critical thinking because it would exclude the practices o f some groups. For instance, the claim that "critical thinking is aggressive and confrontational" could be construed as a charge o f bias because since some people, such as women or members o f certain cultures, prefer to work in a collaborative non-aggressive manner thus they would be excluded from using critical thinking because o f its aggressive, confrontational nature. Norris (1995) brings up an interesting point regarding cultural differences and bias: The Inuit consider intellectual faculties [ihuma] to be the sine qua non o f socialization and o f adult competence. However, the key is that ihuma must be present and used in moderation: most inappropriate behavior is thought to be due either to the absence o f ihuma or to too much ihuma. According to the Inuit, too much intellectual facility leads to too much concentration on one idea or thought, which can lead to a lack o f consideration o f people and, worse, to anger and brooding, (p. 202) 46 According to Norris (1995), cultural bias may strongly influence critical thinking. I f the purpose o f a charge o f bias on the basis o f being exclusionary is to encourage a softening o f a previously held definition o f critical tWnking, then the inclusion o f the factor under question such as collaboration, inclusion, care, compassion or concern into the critical thinking domain would be effective (Alston, 1995, p. 231). Critical thinking would thus reflect a humanistic attitude. According to this line o f thinking, "critical thinking is biased as currently conceived o f or practiced but could be otherwise" (Balin, 1995, p. 194). Some o f the main claims o f bias in critical thinking fall under the foregoing category. Claims that critical thinking neglects or down plays emotions, deals in abstractions, down plays lived experience, does not recognize one's situatedness and so on have been answered in part by the changed definitions of critical thinking by the members o f the "second-wave" o f critical thinkers (Case, 1996; Missimer, 1998; Paul, 1982, 1999; Siegel, 1989; Walters, 1994). According to the "second wave" the characteristics o f a critical thinker may include empathy, imagination, intuitiveness, fair-mindedness, and open-mindedness. It must be recognized that at this time there are no universal standards o f judgment, which is why critical thinking is based on content-specific criteria. Critical thinking is an attempt to avoid the uneven application o f the existing standards or criteria, but the people who are implementing critical thinking are themselves biased, thus making it almost impossible to achieve a truly unbiased situation. Again, this brings up the question o f whether a judgment can be rendered objective despite the influence or bias o f the individual thinker. In conclusion, in critical thinking, the self-correcting aspect, that allows for the possibility o f correcting biases, provides an argument for attempting to answer the charge o f bias (Balin, 1995, p. 196). 47 The Assessment of Critical Thinking The majority o f the formal testing o f critical thinking has been done in conjunction with high school and college students using instruments such as the Cornell Critical Thinking Tests, Levels x and Z (Ennis and Millman, 1985), and the Watson-Glaser Critical Thinking Appraisal, Forms A and B (Watson and Glaser, 1980). The Cornell Tests are based on a foundational knowledge o f Ennis' definition o f critical thinking as "reasonable reflective thinking that is focused on deciding what to believe and do" (1987, p. 10). The test items are designed to indicate whether examinees have knowledge o f certain principles o f thinking (Ennis, 1980) and their basic application. The Watson-Glaser Tests are designed to measure "the ability to n recognize assumptions, to evaluate arguments and to appraise inferences" (Norris, 1985, p. 41). A s Norris (1985, p. 44) notes, in the United States, on both of the tests (the Watson-Glasser and the Cornel tests) the students' level o f critical thinking was not extremely high. L o w - test results, that reflected a decline in performance in areas that measured the decision-making and problem solving processes, were also noted by the Canadians, Bogner, Cassidy, & Clark (1997, p. 134). However, it is interesting to note that Bognar et al. (1997) were testing students from grades 4 to 10 rather than just high school students. However, in general, Norris (1985) comments that, "critical thinking ability is not widespread" (p. 44). From a psychological point o f view, critical thinking is not tested per se. Rather, the focus has been on errors in thinking or examining how the quality o f thinking bears upon social relations such as obedience to others and authority over others (Norris, 1985, p. 41). Stanley Milgram's Behavioral Study of Obedience is an example o f assessing the affects o f quality o f reasoning on social relations. Milgram's study assessed the degree to which people wil l allow their commitment to obey someone in authority to override other competing moral principles. 48 Against all predictions, "obedience to authority led to frightening and telling results" (Norris, 1985, p. 41). Because the subjects knowingly acted immorally, regardless o f the absence o f the threat o f enforcement and punishment, the results o f the experiment point to a breakdown in the link between critical thought and action. In a classroom, critical thinking is evaluated in accordance with predetermined criteria and the context in which it occurs. Explicit indications o f the students' reasons for their conclusions are usually required in order to "differentiate between deficiencies in thinking and deficiencies in background beliefs and assumptions between the examineer and the examinee" (Norris, 1985, p. 42). According to Case & Daniels. (1996, p. 5) a critical task might be to "take a photograph within the school grounds (or in the neighborhood community) that captures the particular quality o f the community that you have been assigned." The assessment would entail evaluating the following: "how well each photograph fits the identified criteria for a good picture [and] are students able to give [appropriate] reasons for choosing a picture to go with a particular caption?" (p. 6). The focus o f the evaluation does not imply that there is a correct answer, but simply a reasonable or justified response according to predetermined criteria. Making a Difference: The Teacher's Role in a Critical Thinking Classroom Critical thinking has a solid reputation amongst philosophers who have a deep understanding o f its history and powers. However, it has not enjoyed such success amongst teachers. In Social Studies in British Columbia: Results of the 1996 Provincial Learning , Assessment, Sodolsky, (cited in Bogner et al., 1997) makes the following suggestion: The particular decline on Higher Order and Critical Thinking items suggest a lack o f teacher preparedness, and a need for increased in-service. It is not easy to teach critical thinking, and there are not many satisfactory resources available. Satisfactory 49 resources would be issue-focused, and based on controversial and challenging data. Given the various pressures on classroom teachers, it is not surprising that they rely extensively on social studies texts, but text-based methods are not the most effective methods for stimulating critical thinking, (p. 46) Critical thinking is not a skill or disposition that can be learned in one in-service day as a "quick-fix." Critical thinking is not a piece o f curriculum that can be successfully picked up and scanned the night before it is implemented because it involves both the philosophy in the actual discipline o f critical thinking (content) and the philosophy involved in teaching it (practice). Critical thinking is more than a piece o f curriculum, it is "somewhat like a way o f life" (Taba, 1950, p. 45). What is a solution to this training dilemma? Paul (1992) suggests the following answer: Only with quality long-term staff development that helps the teachers, over an extended period o f time, over years, not months, to work on their own thinking and come to terms with what intellectual standards are, why they are essential, and how to teach for them. (P-2) Another practical solution is put foreword by Case & Daniels (1996) who suggest that i f critical thinking is to "take a central place in the classroom then critical thinking must be seen as a way o f teaching the content o f the curriculum" (p. vii). Why don't teachers make use o f critical thinking in their classrooms? Perhaps teachers have failed to ground their practice on sound philosophical ideals but have instead chosen to react to a crisis by instituting a new fad. When using critical thinking, perhaps some teachers are not comfortable feeling vulnerable when their role is not that o f an expert but a mentor. Perhaps the beliefs implied in critical thinking run counter to the existing beliefs o f the teacher. 50 Perhaps some teachers lack the disposition required to trust someone and in turn be trusted. Whatever the reason for not including critical thinking in the curriculum, the result is that education has failed to "foster rationality, independent judgment, and critical thinking" (Siegel, 1996, p. 121). Education has also failed to foster the ideals such as treating students with respect, and being knowledgeable about what is involved in so treating them (p. 121). In fact, education has even failed to recognize the foregoing traits as basic to education for critical thinking (p. 121). Would any amount o f training give the teachers a critical thinking disposition? I f this new critical thinking is successful then perhaps more teachers wil l feel more comfortable copying the way that their critical thinking colleagues have been teaching for years. Success breeds success. Change occurs when one becomes dissatisfied with one's practice. Maybe change wil l occur when teachers note the successes that their critical thinking colleagues are experiencing and thus more teachers wil l take the chance to see what philosophers o f education have been saying about critical thinking for years. What Has to Be in Place Before Critical Thinking Can Flourish To take a stranger's vantage point on the classroom is to look inquiringly and wonderingly at the world in which one teaches. Teachers have been vested with the responsibility o f wielding enormously powerful influence. Everyone in the community has experienced the influence o f teachers at some time during their lives. Some of the teachers are remembered with fondness and gratitude, others are remembered with hatred and fear. The teaching community has the potential to have a positive, or negative, transformative impact on their students, their families, and the community which surrounds them. H o w is it possible to have a positive effect in preparing students to meet the challenges of the world around them? What encourages students to "seize the moment," to 51 strive for understanding, or put their ideas into practice? What gives the students the courage to "raise and explore questions about beliefs, claims, evidence, definitions, conclusions, and actions" (Patrick, 1986, p. 1). What wi l l encourage students to have a "desire, a willingness, and a preparedness to learn [for] without this . . . nothing o f consequence wil l be learned" (van Manen, 1991, p. 77)? The answer to some o f these questions may involve creating an atmosphere o f trust, humility, and respect in the classroom. A Philosophy of Trust What kind o f trust transpires between students and teachers? Trust that you wil l be there for them when they need you. Trust that you wil l be with them as a fair and reasonable guide, advisor, and instructor throughout their journey. Trust that you wil l help them acquire the personal and academic skills needed to succeed to the best o f their ability. Trust that you have their best interests at heart. In a moral society, trust is a way o f affirming each other's moral worth. Our morals reflect our core beliefs. Our core beliefs are reflected in our worldview. In critical thinking, our worldview colors our perception o f the evidence o f critical thinking. I f our worldview does not correspond in some way to that o f the society in which we find ourselves, the conflict we experience "rattles" our core beliefs and causes us to feel great discomfort or rebellion: we experience a definite lack o f trust in those around us. Trust is built when people share common moral "core beliefs" to which they repeatedly and publicly adhere. The critical exploration o f ethical and moral questions is part o f the fabric o f classroom dialogue. Thus the profound effect o f trust or lack thereof on a learning community is indisputable. Without trust, communication, inquiry, and critical thinking are limited. Lecturing usually prevails. According to Applebaum (1995), trust promotes trust; trust is contagious; trust is an integral part o f the 52 social and moral fabric o f life regardless o f the ethnic and religious heritage o f the people. Trust is what keeps a moral community together. Because trust makes one vulnerable and open to injury, trust is not to be given or taken lightly. Teachers can choose whether or not they wish to be vulnerable (as a human being possessing passions, imperfections, and emotions) as opposed to students who, by the very nature o f being a student in a position o f less power, are already in a vulnerable position. Since the students are more vulnerable than teachers, it is the teacher who must initiate trust. What do teachers have to lose by displaying trust through humility and compassion in combination with fairness and authority? Do teachers gain or lose power, prestige, respect or control? What is the price o f trust? A Philosophy of Humility Humility is the most difficult o f all virtues to achieve; nothing dies harder than the desire to think well o f oneself. T. S. Eliot, Shakespeare and the Stoicism o f Seneca (1927) N o w and then one reenters the classroom because one cannot remain a stranger forever. Very early in my teaching career, about the time that my advisor commented that i f I was going to teach children, I might as well learn how to spell "children," I realized that I might as well be a little bit humble because I certainly wasn't perfect. I've never regretted being humble about the fact that I could be wrong or that I didn't know everything. It is actually a stress-free, sometimes humorous, way to increase your knowledge. M y students do not seem to mind that I am not perfect because they know they are not perfect either. A s a matter o f fact, being able to laugh at our mistakes often strengthens our connections o f trust and respect for one another. We are all 53 human beings capable o f having an infinite number of imperfections as well as our "solid gold" attributes. When engaged in critical thinking, humility is one o f the "solid gold" attributes that encourage students to venture going beyond their store o f "safe knowledge" to explore areas o f learning that are new and thus somewhat risky and challenging. A s part o f humility we learn to treat each other with dignity and respect. Part o f the "spirit" o f critical thinking involves showing kindness, compassion and understanding for other points o f view. These dispositions are also part of the circle o f humility, trust, and respect. Humility can be a challenging disposition for some teachers. Some teachers may expect "uncritical deference" from their students as a sign o f respect for their superior knowledge. However, i f a teacher's self-esteem is based on being an expert then what kind o f psychological damage occurs to that teacher when he or she is mistaken? Part o f critical thinking is the ability to be open to the possibility o f new knowledge. After all, knowledge is ever changing and thus, interpretations, claims, and arguments may be advanced or rejected as we advance our understanding (Hare, 1993, p. 39). H o w do teachers manage to balance between knowing and not knowing? Hare (1993) offers the following encouragement and advice: Teachers who embrace fallibalism recognize the possibility o f improving their present knowledge and understanding. Their humility takes the form, not o f despair with respect to knowledge, but o f difference to reason and evidence. It is not the view that they have nothing to offer their students, but the Deweyan view that the learned can still learn, (p. 39) Thus the classroom becomes a community o f learners. Hopefully, the humility teachers and students display is near Aristotle's "golden mean"- somewhere in the center between arrogance 54 and self-depreciation. When faced with the dilemma of my own humility and critical thinking, I have enjoyed reflecting on the words o f T. S. Eliot: We can at least try to understand our own motives, passions, and prejudices, so as to be conscious o f what we are doing when we appeal to those o f others. This is very difficult, because our own prejudices and emotional biases always seem to us so rational. Trust, Humility and Respect for Students and Their Ideas Do teachers care about what their students think or feel (Aoki , 1991, p. 3)? Put yourself in this hypothetical situation. Jane has come up with a theory that is different from anything you have ever heard of: should you shut her down or should you encourage her to think critically by inviting her ideas to become part o f the class discussions? Do you want to encourage the reiteration of present knowledge or do you want to be adventuresome and allow the discussion to flow into unknown possibilities? Is your comfort zone more important than a student's struggle for understanding? H o w do you build trust with your students so that they wil l share their ideas with you? Do you care? Is curriculum lived experience as well as planned experience? (Aoki , 1991, p. 7) Many questions and concerns flood through a teacher's mind on a continual basis. Trust is a key element in encouraging student participation in learning. Palincsar et al. (1998) make the following comment about the role o f trust: Interaction among diverse community members is likely to be high only i f there is trust that what is shared wil l be valued by others . . . trust can be established i f the community assumes that responsibility for the understanding is shared, and authority for knowing is internal and collective, (p. 9) 55 Working together to learn and understand is a very powerful tool. The risks that the students wi l l take are directly proportional to the amount o f trust that they have in the learning community. This point is particularly important for "students who have been traditionally silenced by the school system" (Applebaum, 1995, p. 449). Are students capable o f bringing new perspectives or knowledge to a discussion? H o w often have you heard the comment: out o f the mouths o f babes come truths? I f we, as teachers, make the effort to listen, we can constantly learn from our students regardless o f their age. Under these circumstances, teachers may experience "an unaccountable humility - a humility not easily defensible on any rational ground, and yet somehow nearer to wisdom than the easy self-confidence o f many parents and teachers" (Russell, 1916, p. 147). For instance, when we were discussing geology and plate tectonics and related topics, Lenny, aged 7, asked me i f lava was like the rocks in his sweat lodge. Not only did I learn how children make sense o f new concepts but I also learned how a sweat lodge is built and the reasons why one might make use o f it. B y building a reputation for being a "somewhat humble," caring person who is interested in learning and understanding, I have also built strong bonds of trust and respect with my students. The problem with people not taking advantage o f the students' multiple sources of knowledge may be a question o f ego rather than rational thought. In conclusion, the world o f a critical thinking classroom is based on trust, humility, and respect. It is not based on power. Teacher modeling of the skills and dispositions o f critical thinking is an effective way for students to develop a positive attitude towards critical thinking. Accordingly, there is a strong relationship between an "open, supportive, and structured classroom climate, where opinions on issues may be explored and expressed in a free and disciplined manner, and the development o f critical thinking and attitudes supportive o f it" 56 (Patrick, 1985, p. 3). Discipline in this case refers to orderly classroom discourse. Mutual trust, humility, and respect are paramount to establishing the climate for such a learning community. The Pedagogy of Critical Thinking The common view o f promoting critical thinking is to provide students with opportunities to practice thinking (Case et a l , 1997, p. 14). The assumption is that practicing thinking wil l improve students' critical thinking competence. However, unless instruction is given in the use o f intellectual resources, then the practice may only serve to reinforce bad habits such as overgeneralizations and close-mindedness. For example, assignments like "take a position on . . .," may only serve to give credence to a student's existing prejudices. A s such, practice may be counter-productive to the original goal o f promoting critical thinking. Many o f the "critical thinking" assignments may only invite "vague challenges" rather than critical thinking. Case et al., (1997) provide an explicit example o f the foregoing problem: Social studies teachers are frequently urged to provide two or more competing accounts o f a historical event and invite students to write their own history. Yet the tools for critically addressing this task are profoundly contextual. A t least, three underlying issues may be at stake, each requiring different tools. Perhaps the problematic issue is the credibility o f the authors o f the documents. In this case students need to employ criteria forjudging appeals to authority (i.e. the author has studied the topic, is a recognized expert in the field, is not in a position o f bias). Alternatively, the issue may hinge on the reliability o f individual observations described in the documents. I f so, students need to employ criteria for assessing observational accounts (e.g. the observer is not in conflict o f interest, is functioning at a moderate level o f emotional arousal, has a reputation for being honest and correct, 57 has no preconceived notions o f how the observation wi l l turn out, made the report close to the time o f observing). Or, the underlying issue may be a matter o f deciding upon the most plausible inferences based on the body o f accepted facts. This requires that the students be able to distinguish inferences from direct observations, and learn to assess inferences for their consistency with the body of evidence, (p. 14) In general, the course materials commonly found in classrooms do not address the prerequisite "tools" needed to confront problems (Case et al., 1997, p. 14). Thus, the teachers, themselves must be knowledgeable about how critical thinking could be infused into the classroom curriculum. Neither the hand nor the mind alone would amount to much without aids and tools to perfect them Francis Bacon, Novum Organum 1859 In response to the current pedagogy o f critical thinking, Case et al. (1997) recommend that teachers work on three fronts: 1. directly and systematically teaching, in context, the range o f intellectual tools, that include background knowledge, criteria for judgment, critical thinking vocabulary, thinking strategies, and habits o f mind; 2. scrutinizing the questions and tasks asked of students to ensure that students frequently engage with bona fide critical challenges e.g. rich invitations to think critically; 3. developing communities o f thinkers where critical reflection is valued and reinforced by infusing expectations and routines to think critically in every aspect o f student' school lives, (p. 14) 58 I f critical thinking is conceptualized as a quality, not as an activity, then it wi l l guide any task that a person under takes. Under these circumstances, critical thinking could well be viewed as "a way of life" (Sears and Parsons, 1991; Taba, 1950). Crucial to this point of view, is the development o f the dispositions o f a "careful and conscientious thinker [for] no amount o f skill wi l l overcome the limitations o f close-minded, prejudicial thinking"" (Case & Wright, 1997, p. 14). While many teachers appear to support critical thinking as an educational goal, there is some evidence that their practice does not reflect this support (Wright, 1995, p. 66). What can be done about the lack o f critical thinking in classrooms? Perhaps the solution is to build on what already exists. Perhaps the solution is to encourage those teachers who are already engaged in good critical practices to work with their colleagues toward building a community o f critical thinkers whose successful ventures may encourage others to join them. Perhaps the solution is to decrease the tension between curriculum as planned and curriculum as "lived experience." Again, more questions surface. W i l l teachers accept their roles as teachers capable of teaching and not just technicians capable o f implementation? W i l l teachers recognize that "one's way of knowing, thinking and doing flow from who one is" (Aoki , 1991, p. 21), and thus wi l l teachers have the "intellectual courage, humility, integrity and perseverance" (Paul, 1990) to become critical thinkers themselves? In a perfect North American school, each teacher's classroom wil l be a "unique and precious place, a hopeful place, a trustful place, a careful place, essentially a human place dedicated to ventures devoted to leading o u t . . . from the 'is' to new possibilities yet unknown" (Aoki , 1991 p. 9). In a classroom, or anywhere else for that matter, critical thinking provides a way to venture into the unknown and decide what to reasonably believe and do in the face o f enormous change and challenge. Sometimes in life, it is the simplest terms that remain in one's mind as being the most common-sensical explanations 59 for things that are complicated. Thus, I wi l l conclude with Postman & Weingartner's (1996) words in reference to the "new education" which is heavily based on critical thinking concepts: "The purpose [of the new education] is to help all students develop built-in, shockproof crap detectors as basic equipment in their survival kits" (p. 218). In Chapter 2,1 have examined both the historical background o f critical thinking and what the academic community is currently saying about critical thinking. Although there is a great deal of discussion concerning teaching philosophy to primary aged children (Johnson, 1987; Matthews, 1995; Palermo, 1995), there is very little research which concerns teaching critical thinking per se to primary aged children and so I became interested in finding out just how young children view the concerns, issues, and problems o f their world. In Chapter 3,1 provide a description o f the following components o f the research study: the design; the rationale behind the selection o f the participants; and the method o f collecting, organizing, and analyzing the data. 60 Chapter 3 Methodology We do not need theories as, much as the experience that is the source o f the theory. R. D . Laing, The Politics o f Experience. 1927 What is missing from the knowledge base o f teaching, therefore, are the voices o f the teachers themselves, the questions teachers ask, the ways teachers use writing and intentional talk in their work lives, and the interpretive frames teachers use to understand and improve their own classroom practices. Cochran-Smith & Lytle, Research on Teaching and Teacher Research, 1990 A s a graduate student in the fall o f 1999,1 was writing a proposal for a bid to evaluate the B C social studies curriculum when I read the document: Social Studies in British Columbia: Results o f the 1996 Provincial Learning Assessment (Bognar et al.,1997). Bognar et al.'s (1997) work contained the following information in relation to grade 4 students (grade 4 was as low as they tested): The Research Team finds student performance on the open-ended problem solving forms disappointing, since there is still a large percentage of students showing weaknesses in various stages o f the decision making model, and particularly at the final stage o f actually reaching a decision and providing reasoned justification for the decision. In fact, the proportion o f students doing well on these exercises has declined since 1989. (p. 46) Bognar et al.'s (1997) statements piqued my interest. Why were the test results low? I began to wonder if, in fact, children as young as 6 to 7 years of age, were capable o f using critical thinking skills and critical thinking dispositions. I wondered i f critical thinking was a matter o f 61 natural ability, opportunity, and environment or i f critical thinking had to be taught via specific lessons. I wondered i f critical thinking was more suited to being a "way o f life" or ethic (Sears & Parsons, 1991; Taba, 1950). Perhaps critical thinking was something that was embedded throughout the curriculum rather than the focus o f a few lessons. Foremost in my thoughts, I wondered how young children, age 6 to 7, could be involved with critical thinking. Research Question The purpose of my research was to enhance my understanding o f whether or not young children, age 6 to 7, use critical thinking as an opportunity for thoughtful analysis o f issues or problems that are o f interest to them. I support the view that critical thinking is a way o f helping students work within the content o f the curriculum and as such, there is a set o f intellectual tools that wi l l aid in developing the student's reflective competence (Case et a l , 1996. p. xiv). Approximately 13 to 15 students from a class other than my own, (in this case, Mrs . Joy Antonia's grade 1 students), were introduced to a problem or question requiring investigation through literature in Language Arts. To help students think through the problem or question and to assist them in understanding and developing as a critical thinker, I discussed the following areas with them: the background knowledge required to reflect upon the problem; new vocabulary; the criteria or grounds for deciding which o f the alternatives is most reasonable or appropriate; the concepts o f being open-minded, fair-minded, and independent-minded; and the different ways o f thinking about the problem or question. The study, which involved approximately 9 hours o f student time, was conducted during the months o f M a y and June 2000. This research project is the culminating feature o f my Master of Arts degree from the University o f British Columbia. 62 The Participants of the Study The participants o f the study were chosen according to practical factors. Being a full time teacher in a medium sized elementary school; it was practical, in terms of time and location, to select students from my school. This particular school, Dallas Elementary, is located in the outskirts o f Kamloops, British Columbia, in a predominately Caucasian, middle-income neighborhood. Most o f the families are interested in becoming involved in some aspect o f their child's education, especially during the first 3 years o f their schooling. Those students who are struggling with learning to read receive consistent support from an internal school team and discipline problems in the school are handled with firm, consistent, sensitivity so the student moral is generally positive, helpful, and cheerful. The participants for the study were selected from a class other than my own in order to satisfy the concerns expressed by the Research Ethics Review Committee at the University o f British Columbia. The committee's concerns were based on the fact that i f I used my own students in the study, it might be construed as jeopardizing the student's later classroom situation in terms o f different report card comments based on my deepening knowledge of their performance or differential treatment or feelings o f alienation for the non-participants. Rather than set out to prove that these concerns had no basis in my particular instance, I chose to avoid the problem by selecting someone else's class. This proved to a wise decision for I was then able to observe the students from an researcher's objective viewpoint rather than from the viewpoint of someone who knew these particular students well. I chose the students from Joy Antonia's grade 1 class for several reasons. First, their age was consistent with the age group that I was curious about. Second, Joy and I had been successfully working together in the field o f critical thinking for almost two years and thus her 63 interest, input, and advice would serve as a "sounding board" for my ideas and findings. We were both interested in doing research concerning how young children use critical thinking as an opportunity for thoughtful analysis o f issues or problems that are of interest to them. Third, I was aware that since September o f 1999, both Joy and I had been simultaneously teaching the basics of the critical thinking tools and dispositions that we would be using for our research studies which were scheduled to take place from Apr i l to M a y of2000. Thus, when we exchanged classes to do our research, both groups o f students had some prior experience in thinking critically. In general, we had similar educational and behavioral goals and expectations for our students. Fourth, Joy's class contained an almost equal number o f boys and girls, so gender was not an issue. Her class also contained a full range o f students from those who found academic and social skills to be a challenge to those who were academically above average according to the normal expectations for this age group. Fifth, I was familiar with the members o f her class and they were comfortable working with me because Joy and I team taught them in Gym period and Joy and I exchanged classes so that I taught them during Computers and Story Time. Thus, the naturalness o f the research situation could be preserved. The number o f participants in the study varied from 13 to 16 due to absenteeism, commitments to other programs such as Learning Assistance, and a lack o f parental consent to participate in the study. The students, who did not wish to participate in the study or whose parents did not sign the consent forms, took part in the instruction and activities and although their data was originally recorded on the blackboard etc., their particular data was not later documented for the purposes of the study. In actual fact, none o f the grade l ' s realized that the activities etc. that they were doing were part of my research so no one felt any discrimination. It appeared that the students just thought that it was fun to stay longer than usual and do some 64 interesting things in my classroom. I never gave them any indication that they were being observed for research purposes. After beginning the first of the three studies, I quickly realized that the written responses o f the grade l ' s would be limited by their ability to express their thoughts in writing. I had two choices: one was to tape record their thoughts on an individual basis and the other was to find a way to help them write their thoughts and ideas. The tape recording option would give me depth but was limited to a few case studies and was constrained by time commitments. The second option was to get people to scribe for the young students. This way I would have a broader cross section o f answers with which to work. Consequently, I enlisted my own class of grade 2's to work as scribes for the younger children. M y students were already familiar with the concept of "helping" meaning "rendering assistance" not "giving out answers" so, in order to work within the guidelines o f my study where the data collected was specific to Joy's class, I taught my class simple questioning techniques such as asking: What makes you think t h a t . . . ? or Is there any other reason that you believe that . . . ? M y class took their scribing task very seriously. There was a huge surge in enthusiasm and interest on the part o f both the grade l ' s and the grade 2's. The grade l ' s were delighted to have someone honoring their ideas by actually taking time to write them down and read them back to confirm that what was written reflected the original intent o f the speaker. The grade 2's were aware that I was relying on them to be responsible, trustworthy, members o f the project and they rose to the occasion with flying colors. The added unexpected benefit to using the grade 2's was that they were able to keep the grade 1 's focused on the tasks until they felt they had met the specific criteria. The overall result was a lot of happy people and some great data. 65 The Classroom Environment The study took place in>my bright and cheery classroom. The physical environment consists o f the following: one teacher desk and chair, the teacher's stool, 22 student desks and chairs which are constantly rearranged, at the discretion o f the students, into groups ranging from 2 to 8 members; a 6 foot, low, round table with chairs; 4 recovered motor home cushions which wil l seat 12 to 15 people in a friendly fashion; a large number o f shelves, cupboards, and counters; a long windowsill with 6 colorful pots o f plants in various stages of experimentation; and in one corner, resided a 16 foot by 16 foot section o f gray carpet which is used for sitting during discussions.. Previous to beginning the study, my goal was to provide an environment in which students would have the opportunity to communicate with each other and thus gain new understandings using the skills and dispositions prevalent in critical thinking. I met this goal by establishing a situation o f trust and rapport with the participating students. A l l o f the students knew me well and were comfortable working with me. Rationale For Using Qualitative Research In the context o f my research, I used Lawrence Stenhouse's (1975) definition o f action research as a "self-reflective process that is systematic, critical inquiry made public" (in Feldman, 1998, p. 28). M y goals were to improve my practice and to improve my understanding (meaning making) o f the educational situation in which the practice is located. Qualitative research, in the form of teacher research, provides an opportunity to question, experiment with and assess the "lived world" o f the classroom. Huberman (1996) suggests the classic criteria for all interpretive research generally include the "provision o f evidence, consistency, freedom from obvious bias, and perceptions o f the people involved" 66 (p. 128). M y research reflects these criteria. The constructivist paradigm, which influences my work, is based on the following Huberman's (1996) argument: Our values and biases dictate many o f our methods and findings; our knowledge is purely situation specific and socially constructed, and so there are many plausible "truths," corresponding to many a priori assumptions and methods o f investigations. (p.127) The Dallas Elementary School accreditation goal year for the "school year" 2000/2001 is to encourage both staff and students to increase everyone's ability to think critically. Consequently, I chose teacher action research as a qualitative method o f study because I wanted to focus on the practical inquiry nature o f the investigation as a way to generate or enhance practical knowledge (Anderson et al., 1994; Clandinin & Connelly, 1995). M y hope was that by understanding more about the relationship between young children and critical thinking, then I would be able to facilitate more critical thinking opportunities within my classroom and school. Carson (1990) supports this ambition by commenting that "despite the different forms it takes, all action research has a common intention: the belief the we may develop our understandings while at the same time bringing about change in concrete situations" (p. 167). Teacher action research allowed me to explore the "lived world o f teachers and students" (Aoki , 1991, p. 18). B y using an inductive approach, I attempted to make sense o f the situation without imposing preexisting expectations on the phenomena under study (Mertens, 1998, p. 160). I found it difficult to be able to let go o f the "understandings that claim correctness and to approach with bowed humility, with an attitude o f surrender, the sound o f the voice that calls" (Aoki , 1991, p. 22). The influence o f my earlier scientific training kept prompting me towards forming a hypothesis that I would attempt to prove or disprove. However, I knew that a 67 scientific method would limit both the scope o f my investigation and the breadth and depth of my understanding. So, I began with an idea, something that piqued my interest and caused me to wonder. Rather than proving or disproving a particular hypothesis I wanted to see what was already happening or what would happen in an "if-then" situation. Consequently, I either found or provided the situations in which the idea could be studied. It was like dropping a stone into the water and watching what would happen. After reflecting on the outcome o f a study I would come up with a new idea or question as a result o f what I had learned or observed. M y purpose was to learn and be guided by my inquiry. Qualitative research supported my study because it is generally naturalistic, realistic, and concerned with understanding phenomena from a participants' perspective with the assumption that "multiple realities are socially constructed through individual and collective definitions o f the situation" (Shumacher & McMi l l an , 1993, p.14). Field study was included as part o f my method because, according to Huberman, (1996) "theory is generated from a continuous interaction between field work and emerging explanations for what is happening there" (p. 137). Thus, using a qualitative teacher action research model in combination with field studies was appropriate for the purposes o f my research. Preference for using a teacher action research approach reflects my belief that this study of critical thinking is best served by this type o f data collection and analysis. In my research, the participants are not representative o f society or o f all human beings. The descriptions of events, writings and discussions are researched and reported by me - with my biases and assumptions. The descriptions thereof can be studied meaningfully, given that they 68 take place within real-life situations. For this reason, they can be used as a basis for further research. My Research Design In a technical sense, there were three aspects to the study. The first aspect included observing all the students as they engaged in small/large group discussions involving specific critical flunking activities as a result o f listening to literature that was based on a current topic or theme. The critical thinking activities were based on questions, tasks or problematic situations which invoked critical reflection in order to "assess the reasonableness o f plausible options or alternative conclusions - in short, the task[s] . . . require [d] more than retrieval o f information, rote application o f a strategy or mere assertion o f a preference" (Case et al., 1996 p. xiii). For example, one o f the activities involved the concept that "things are not always what they seem." The critical question was: Is the W o l f in The True Story o f the Three Little Pigs, by Jon Scieszka, good or bad? In order to make a decision, small groups o f students initially identified all the evidence from the story that told them about the wolfs character. Next, the class reconvened on the carpet where they shared, and at times, defended, their ideas concerning the moral character o f the wolf. Alter sharing all the information the students re-thought their original conclusions and decided whether or not they wanted to change their original decisions about whether the wol f was a good or bad character. In the end, the students each produced their own critically justified opinion about the wo l f s moral character. A s a facilitator, I kept the flow of conversation "on task" in the large group situations, but this role was redundant in the small group situations as the students seemed to have very little difficulty keeping the conversation appropriately focused on the issues. It helped to have 69 specific types of required outcomes and time lines in place. The times were adjusted, as needed, much like a fisherman paying attention to the habits o f his "catch" before landing it. In general, I watched, listened, wrote notes, made reference charts o f their ideas and asked for clarification when the meaning or intent o f their reasoning was unclear. I did not use any intervention beyond prompting or probing during the observation tasks. Care was taken to ensure that each student had input into the discussions through various strategies such as passing around a "talking stick," taking turns in a circle format, checking off the names o f those who had spoken, or simply asking, "Who hasn't had a turn?" The option to "pass" and remain silent was available but not generally discussed in the hope that this "bypass" option would not be needed. A s it turned out, everyone spoke freely. The second aspect o f the study involved asking all the students to express their justified conclusions or reflections through writing or drawing about one area o f the problem or challenge. The criteria for writing was specific to the task involved. The students were asked to explain their work i f the spelling, meaning, or intent was unclear. At this time, the students could choose whether to work in a group or by themselves. When involved with critical thinking tasks, Bailin, Case, Coombs and Daniels (1993) maintain that group work is useful when clarifying meaning, talking through a problem, or sorting out a confusing issue. Furthermore, as Lipman (1991) notes there could be some limitations to one's field o f thinking i f one was to remain by oneself because "our deductions are derived from premises we already know" (p. 4). On the other hand, there is value in being in a quiet place and thinking things through on your own in order to make sense o f all that you have heard or thought. Thus, in the study, the choice to be alone or with others was usually given as an option. Most o f the students chose to work with at least one "buddy." 70 At no time during my work with Joy's grade 1 students did I make any comments that would be interpreted as value judgments. For the most part, my contributions to discussions consisted o f probing or prompting questions in search of more information in order to ensure that everyone understood the point that was put forth. The third aspect o f the study was based on an oral inquiry process (Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 1993; Feldman, 1999) that included collaborative conversations (Feldman, 1999, p. 125) and dialogical reflections (Huberman, 1996, p. 128). Two doors down the hall from my classroom, I was fortunate to have a "critical friend" and colleague, Joy Antonia, who actively listened, questioned, problem-solved, and generally extended my thinking in a positive environment. Joy is also an experienced teacher who is completing her Master o f Education degree with a focus on critical thinking. Consequently, our frequent conversations were rich in knowledge and insight. Since Joy was also involved in a similar research project, I, in turn, acted as her critical friend thus I could look at the issues through both points o f view. These collaborative discussions extended our thinking immeasurably. The Limitations of the Research Design One o f the limitations o f this research design is that the outcome o f the research is limited to the context in which it was derived. Huberman (1996, p. 137) suggests that "the more contexts explanations fit, the more 'law like' we can consider them, while remaining fully aware that they are neither value free o f paradigm independent" (p. 137). Perhaps this study could be extended into other contexts as part o f another research project. Some people may view the fact that this research does not assume that "knowledge" in the traditional, formal sense wil l be gained from this study could be construed as a limiting 71 feature. However first and foremost, this particular research is intended to generate a "qualitatively distinctive body o f understanding, skills, and dispositions" (Huberman, 1996, p. 124) in regard to critical tWnking. Another limitation is the ability o f the teacher to also assume the role o f the researcher. A s Huberman (1996) points out, it is very difficult to look at events as a researcher when one is participating as a teacher. However, with practice and self-discipline, I have found it not only possible, but highly interesting and challenging to change roles at wi l l . In preparation for this study, I engaged in several "practice studies" with my own class in order to successfully learn how to disengage myself as a teacher and assume the role o f a researcher. Even using a class other than my own for research purposes did not completely eradicate the teacher/researcher dilemma, because as a teacher, I was still involved in presenting the "lessons" even though as a researcher, I was taking "field notes." Possibly the grade 2 scribes (even though they took their work seriously) may have shaped the "data-gathering" too, in a way that could be construed as a "limitation." A n additional limitation o f the research is the strong influence o f the disposition o f the teacher (see Chapter 2) and the influence o f the learning environment thus provided. Consequently, the results o f this research are severely tied to the particular context in which it was studied. 72 Chapter 4 Data Collection The Setting Before getting started on a challenge, the students were seated on the carpeted section of the floor in random fashion or in a semi-circle facing the reader or speaker in order to facilitate discussions. When working in small groups of 2 or 3, the students would gather to discuss their topic at any and all areas of my classroom. Large group discussions took place back on the carpeted area. Individual work was accomplished anywhere and everywhere in the room. Although the assignments were produced on an individual basis, the students tended to group themselves for social and discussion purposes. Because there were often as many as 40 students working at the same time, it was not uncommon to see them sprawled out on their tummies while writing or drawing. The general atmosphere was comfortable, relaxed yet charged with an intensity that was highly interesting. There was a general buzzing sound much like you hear in a flower garden with lively bees. I have heard this sound before, mainly when I have managed to come up with a perfect situation where the students are happily, independently and thoroughly engaged in their activity. Throughout the small group work, the chatter was friendly, focused and lively: the large group discussions were thoughtful, enthusiastic, and respectful. As we worked our way through the critical challenges, I discussed the following critical thinking features where appropriate: new vocabulary; the criteria for deciding what would constitute being reasonable or justified answers; the concepts of being open-minded, independent-minded, and fair-minded; the influence of new ideas or evidence; and the concept that decisions may also have consequences. 73 Knowledge Base Before beginning on the actual study questions, I ensured that the students already possessed sufficient background knowledge so that the knowledge aspect o f the task was not an issue. In this case, knowing is assessing the "kind, quality, and quantity o f information based on a given topic, subject or issue" (McLaren, 1988, p. 22). A typical query might include the following: What have you heard about this question (problem, name o f subject) before? Tell me something you already know about it (the subject). According to McLaren (1988): Many adults assume (wrongly) that primary children are 'empty' o f knowledge or what they have learned to date is either trivial or wrong . . . young children may not have sophisticated language, and they may not have assembled facts into concepts, but they do often have knowledge about a topic, (p. 22) Many adults tend to view young children as "empty vessels" waiting to be filled with knowledge. It has been my experience that this attitude towards children does each party a disfavor. The children lose out because the ensuing discussion may or may not be at a level suited to their needs or ability and the adults lose out because they do not have the opportunity to view the issue or problem from the child's point o f view based on their existing knowledge base. The "Scribes" During large group discussions, I recorded the student's ideas on charts fastened to the black board or on note- paper that was kept in a folder. When the activity required keeping notes in a small group situation, the students did their own writing on sheets of paper that were 74 collected when they were finished. I listened to their conversations and probed or prompted for further iirforrnation or clarification when necessary. After one written activity, I changed strategies and instead o f each person writing their own idea, I had the older students (who had been "trained" how to probe for information and were not actual participants in the study) sit with the younger students in order to scribe their answers for them on an individual basis. Both parties took their job very seriously and thoroughly enjoyed the task. The data collected via my "helpers" generally contained a more detailed description o f the participants' reasoning than I was able to collect via group discussions or written work. A s well, the flow o f the student's ideas was not frustrated by the student's weak writing skills. The Preservation of "Naturalness" In order to preserve the naturalness o f the research situation, the targeted group was included as part o f a larger group and everyone participated in all the activities. A s I mentioned previously in Chapter 3, no one was aware o f who was, or was not, part o f the targeted group. A s a matter o f fact, I believe that the younger students were totally unaware that what they were doing was actually part o f my research study. They seemed to think the activities were just a natural part o f their regular school day. Again this was to preserve the naturalness o f the situation. However, my grade 2 students were aware that this was research because o f the training they received in order to scribe for the younger students. In order to preserve everyone's sense o f community, all the students' responses were initially recorded. Later, I privately deleted the responses o f those students who were not officially participating in the study. When recording information, I focused on selecting only the data that was pertinent to 75 the topic and not reporting anything and everything so that the reader would not be overwhelmed by a "vacuum cleaner approach" (Wolcott, 1990, p. 35). Time The time slot for the research study was the same period that I normally met with the students for "story time." This timetable and the fact that I was reading books, was used to continue to preserve the naturalness o f the situation. The observations required about 9 hours o f class time over a period o f 6 weeks. The class time ranged from 40 minutes to 80 minutes, depending on the task and the degree o f student interest and involvement. Data Analysis The data consists o f observations recorded in "field studies," students' writing/drawing and records o f my "collaborative" conversations with my "critical friend," Joy Antonia. The data was triangulated according to the corroboration o f evidence as shown by the three data sources. The stories and critical thinking activities in Critical Challenges for Primary Students by MacDirmid et al. (1996) provided the inspiration for the three challenges that were undertaken by the students. Throughout the study, I edited the students' work for spelling and punctuation. Additional comments were added in square brackets when I felt that the intent o f the comment or evidence was not clear. 76 Critical Challenge - Study #1 I Wondered I wondered i f the students would be able to justify their opinions with evidence. I wondered i f the students believed everything that they saw or heard at face value. With this in mind, I began the first study. Overview First, the students considered the traditional story o f The Three Little Pigs, which describes the wolf in terms o f being a bad character and the pigs as lacking in common sense. The moral o f the story is generally: use your common sense and things wil l turn out fine. Then they heard The True Story o f the Three Little Pigs by Jon Scieszka, which contains the same basic story line but it is told from the wolfs point o f view. The story is reminiscent o f someone coming up with a great story in order to extricate them selves from a tough situation and, as such, the wolf gives substantial evidence to make his points. The story supplies plenty o f "food for thought." Using the evidence found in the story, on an individual basis the students decided 1. i f the wolf is o f good moral character and 2. i f the evidence presented by the wol f is believable. Study 1.1 Method: After coming together and sitting on the carpeted floor as a large group, I began the period by having many students take part in the retelling o f the original story o f The Three Little Pigs. Next, I reviewed the concept o f evidence or proof. While the students brainstormed for evidence o f the wolfs character (character as being "distinguishing features" rather than a "moral trait"), I quickly jotted down the students' points: 77 Data for Character Traits and the Evidence Thereof The wol f was: Stupid: - He forgot to see i f there was anything at the bottom o f the chimney; - He didn't even know i f the brick were strong or not; he thought he could blow them down; - He asked i f he could come in [to the pig's house]; he should o f just got a disguise; - He climbed down the chimney; I would climb up the chimney i f I felt something hot. Grumpy: - Maybe people were starving him; maybe he woke up early. - He wanted the pigs but they just ran away. Mean:. - He didn't have any breakfast he only had one tiny toast [being hungry makes him feel mean]. - He wanted to eat the pigs up. Hungry [Driven]: - He was so hungry; he had to do it. Tricky: - He fooled the pigs by going down the chimney. Fierce: - He tried to eat the pig. Envious: - Instead o f him having the food; the pigs had the food. Bad: - The pigs made their houses and did all that work and he just blew them down. 78 Analysis The students certainly had no difficulty giving relevant evidence to justify their conclusions about the wo l f s character. N o one was hesitant about speaking; the students were adamant about their points. Reflection What I found fascinating was that no two students' answers were the same; the students all enthusiastically expressed their own unique points o f view. The students were definitely "independent minded" (Case et a l , 1996). N o one asked, " A m I right?" They apparently didn't feel any need to view themselves as right or wrong. The students seemed pleased that I was taking the time to write down their answers in my book. They were tremendously patient when waiting for their turn to speak. When they realized that I was really honoring their points o f view, they seemed to put extra effort into the task. A n unobtrusive tape recorder may have speeded the process up, but I was reluctant to use one as when I tried a similar activity with my own students, the novelty o f the recording aspect completely threw them off their original focus, thus forced them into an unnatural situation. Their speech became stilted and many o f them just plain acted "goofy." Rather than risk repeating this situation, I simply wrote the answers by hand. The other area that I found fascinating was the students' natural ability to display some of the "character" aspects o f critical thinking. For instance, they showed: imagination; caring/empathy; intuition; and fair-mindedness. It was interesting to see that only one student judged the wolf on a moral basis by labeling him "bad" although it could be argued that there was lots o f implicit moral content in the judgments o f "mean, envious" and even "stupid." 79 Study 1.2 Method Next, we discussed the issue o f how people could have a shared experience and yet get different interpretations o f the events according to their personal points of view. The students related their experiences in similar types o f situations. I was confident that they understood the concept. After asking the students to keep the previous concept in mind, I read aloud The True Story o f the Three Little Pigs by Jon Scieszka. At this point they were listening to the story for details, evidence o f the wolfs character, and enjoyment. In the True Story o f the Three Little Pigs, the evidence thaf the wolf gives could be construed as plausible or even reasonable on one hand or completely false on the other. It depends on what you are willing to believe according to how you view his moral character. After a brief group discussion, I asked the students to give me all the evidence from the text that they could remember which indicated the wolfs character could be considered "good" or "bad". Some o f each trait was not an option. Working in groups of 3, they again had to support their decisions by giving evidence. The following results were collected: Data Concerned with Being Able to Arrive at a Morally Justified Conclusion The wolf was: Bad: - Because he blew the house down. (It was just an oops!); - Because he eats the pigs; - Because he tried to eat the pigs; - Because it said in the real story, "I wil l try to blow your house down." 80 Good: - Because he had to eat or he wil l die. - Because he wanted to eat the pigs. They were dead anyways. - He made a cake for his grandma to be nice. - Because he needed a cup o f sugar: he was going to make a cake for his grandma. -1 think he was not lying because he just wanted a cup o f sugar for his grandma. - Because he was just a little hungry. - Because he covered his mouth when he sneezed; it's ok to eat the pigs when they are dead. [The wo l f s sneeze knocked down the house which killed the pigs.] - Because maybe he was hungry. It's good to eat when you are hungry; it makes you grow. Analysis Again the students had no difficulty making a decision and supporting it with evidence. They are very aware o f what they consider to be right or wrong. Reflection What interested me was again, the use o f the "character point o f view" in their display o f critical thinking. For instance, the following traits were again displayed: empathy (this was not to say that all the students agreed whether the wol f was good or bad, but simply that they empathized with the circumstances in which the wol f found himself); fair-mindedness; open-mindedness; and emotion. Only 3 students judged the wol f on a completely moral basis, i.e., i f you do something considered wrong by someone's moral rules, then you are bad regardless o f the circumstances. I was amazed that even when the students were asked to judge the wol f on a moral basis, they complied, but in a way that still reflected a natural form o f critical thinking. They were willing to look at extenuating circumstances. 81 Study 1.3 Method Two days later, the students and I met again as a group on the carpet in my room. After rereading The True Story o f the Three Little Pigs to the students and discussing the appropriate critical thinking vocabulary for the next activity, I asked the students to see i f they could find any inconsistency between the wolfs statements and his behavior. Because they were only grade l's, some o f whom were not too comfortable printing much on paper, I gave the grade 1 students each a grade 2 "scribe" for the duration o f the writing activity in hopes o f getting a clear picture of their thoughts. This next activity involved writing down something that the wol f said or did and giving evidence that supports the wolfs position or giving evidence that questions the wolfs version o f what happened. The grade 2's were advised not to give the grade 1 students any hints, suggestions, or possible answers. However, i f their "grade 1 friend" was stuck or i f what their "friend" said was unclear then the grade 2 "scribes" were allowed to prompt or probe for further information. It was delightful to see the serious dedication that both sets o f students brought to the task. The grade l's were thoroughly pleased to have someone write down their thoughts. They seemed to swell with pride at the importance o f the occasion. The results are as follows (my editing regarding spelling and punctuation): Data Concerning the Inconsistency Between the Wolfs Position and His Statements 1. The wol f said he was making a cake for his granny. Supporting Evidence: - He had no more sugar; he went to get some. - The wolf said he needed a cup o f sugar for his granny's cake. - He would need a cup o f sugar i f he ran out. 82 Questionable Evidence: - That he would make a birthday cake for a wolf. - The cheeseburger [in the illustration] -It had bunny ears and a mouse mouth; he doesn't make cakes. - Wolves don't eat cake because they eat cute little animals like bunnies, sheep and pigs. - The bunnies and stuff are already in the cake [illustration]. - Does the wol f have a grandmother? I don't think the wol f has a granny. - He blew the house down when he went to his neighbor's house [to get the sugar]. 2. The wol f said. "Hey M r . Pig, are you in?" [He wanted a cup o f sugar.] Supporting Evidence:: - It's true because it said [in the story]. Questionable Evidence: -1 think the wol f was lying because he had rabbit ears in his lunch; he wanted to eat the pigs. - Wolves can't talk. 3. The wolf blew the house down [but not on purpose]. Supporting Evidence: - He had a great sneeze and blew the house over. I think it was an accident. - He said it was because he sneezed a lot. [The wo l f s sneeze blew down the house.] - Straw is light and fluffy. Questionable Evidence: -1 think the wol f blew the house down because he wanted to eat the pig. He liked eating pigs. 83 - He didn't have a cold. Analysis The activity was very difficult for them to understand at first. Throughout the time that we worked together, I went over the criteria twice and they seemed to get the idea. When it came time to decide whether the evidence was supporting or questionable the students put their reasons in what seemed like the wrong boxes-but after further individual clarification o f their intent, I could see that their point o f view was reasonable under the circumstances. A n activity of this degree o f difficulty is probably better suited to discussions on an individual interview basis at this age. This is not to say that the students did not understand the concept but simply to comment that it was difficult for the students to put their thoughts in words. Reflection Originally, I considered giving the students the pieces o f evidence and then having the students judge the pieces accordingly. However, I opted out for letting the students do both aspects o f the task - both the choosing o f the incident and the judgment o f the evidence. That way I felt the students would choose what was meaningful to them personally. I was very pleased when they managed to work with this challenge. Although I am fairly certain that the grade 2's did not give the grade l's any answers (the content and style o f the answers is definitely indicative o f grade 1 work), I am sure that having the grade 2's act as scribes has allowed the grade l's to give me written work that more accurately reflected their thoughts. Using the older scribes had the added bonus o f keeping everyone focused long enough to complete the task in one sitting. It was kind o f a "working" social occasion. On the whole, the grade l's are not easily fooled. They do not believe everything they see and hear i f the evidence is not there to back the statements. Thus, they are quite capable o f 84 judging evidence as being reliable or not in the foregoing context. Because the students were familiar with the wol f in The Three Little Pigs, the wol f did not have a whole lot of "prima facie credibility." Collaborative Critical Reflection of Challenge #1 Joy Antonia, who was acting as my critical friend, and I were amazed at the length o f time that the students were willing and able to sustain their focus on the challenge. Both periods were an hour and twenty minutes long. Under most circumstances, 30-40 minutes o f almost anything would be the maximum length o f their attention span. We agreed on the positive value o f using scribes to help record the grade 1 students' thoughts. Because o f the sincere, convincing nature o f the wolf in the story, The True Story o f the Three Little Pigs, we thought many more o f the students would function on a superficial level and now see him as the good guy. It was interesting to note that they realized that the wol f probably did eat the pigs but the students were very "fair-minded" in the final aspect o f their character judgments. Critical Challenges - Study #2 I Wondered I wondered how the students could use critical thinking in a situation where an action is morally wrong but the reasons for it are understandable. Overview The book, It's So Nice To Have a W o l f Around the House, by Henry Allard, evokes a huge range o f emotions from empathy to outrage. The wolf, Cuthbert Q. Devine, answers a newspaper ad requesting a housekeeper and thus comes to live with a sad old man and his 85 somewhat lethargic pets. Through a series o f kind and thoughtful acts, the wolf manages to liven up the household. After a conscience attack, the wolf, who had previously robbed a bank, turns himself into the police to ask for forgiveness. The story ends with the wolf becoming very il l and the man and the pets deciding to forgive the wol f for his past actions. Study 2.1 Method After coming together and sitting on the carpeted floor as a large group, I began the period by introducing the book, It's So Nice to Have a W o l f Around the House, by James Marshall, with the emphasis on paying particular attention to the character o f Cuthbert Q. Devine. After reading the book, we discussed what a "conclusion" involved (an answer after all the evidence has been considered) and the difference between being a hero and a scoundrel. In groups o f 3, the students brainstormed evidence from the story to support both the following conclusions - Cuthbert as a hero and Cuthbert as a scoundrel. The grade 2's continued to act as scribes. The results are as follows: Data Showing Whether Cuthbert Is a Hero or a Scoundrel 1. Cuthbert is a hero because: - He helped the old man and the family. - He paid the bills. - He cooked for the old man. - He helped the man to bed. - He looked after the animals. -He massaged his [the old man's] toes. - He taught them [the old man and his pets] a lesson. 86 - He made the fish's tank nicer. - He helped the fish move his bones. - He gave the cat [some] catnip. - He took the cat for walks. - He had good manners. - He helped make breakfast and he paid the bills. - He made good desserts; he baked stuff. - He let them have special days on Sunday. - He helped them not to die. - He helped them feel strong again. - He told them he was a robber. - He said he was sorry for robbing the bank. - He told the judge he would never do it again. - He didn't eat them. - He told the truth [when he was asked about the paper]. 2. Cuthbert was a scoundrel because: - He lied [he was a liar by error of omission - he never told anyone he was a bank robber}. - He robbed the bank. - He pretended he was good. - He didn't tell the old man he was a wolf. - He tricked the old man. 87 Analysis Out o f the 13 groups that presented evidence for Cuthbert being both a hero and a scoundrel, only 1 group came to the conclusion that Cuthbert was a scoundrel. One group felt that Cuthbert was both a hero and a scoundrel and 11 groups felt that Cuthbert was a hero. The students were unquestionably able to decide whether Cuthbert is a hero or a scoundrel. After coming up with evidence showing both sides o f a question the students were able to give more credence to one side than the other and thus come to a justified conclusion. The group that decided that Cuthbert was both a hero and a scoundrel was able to present evidence for both points o f view and gave each side equal weight. Only one group did not give evidence for both aspects o f the wolfs character. The cause was probably not due to a lack o f thought but more likely it was the result o f a scribe being notoriously lazy about "putting pencil to paper." Reflection From a "lived world" perspective, it was interesting to note that the majority (11.5 out o f 13) of the groups thought that Cuthbert was a hero. This finding could be interpreted as showing that the students understood the concept o f "forgiveness for past actions" and the benefit to being given a "second chance," the acceptance o f "worth based on present actions," or it could be that the students just want to think the best o f everyone. According to their past record, I would tend to believe that the students opted to forgive a reformed wolf. Neither o f the concepts o f forgiveness, reformation, and the acceptance o f worth based on present performance had been previously discussed in my presence. I wonder where these ideas originated. Could it be that these ideas are an intrinsic part o f the acceptance process in a community o f learners. Forgiveness and acceptance are certainly part o f building a sense o f 88 family and trust in a classroom. Like the concept o f trust promoting trust (Applebaum, 1995), maybe the concepts o f forgiveness, reformation and worth or acceptance based on present actions are part o f a hidden curriculum. Study 2.2 Method Seated on the carpet, in a large group, the students shared all their evidence from their small group experience. Simultaneously, I recorded everybody's evidence on large paper T-charts under the headings H E R O and S C O U N D R E L . Fastened by magnets to the wall, the charts were in plain view everyone to read. A s each piece o f evidence was given, we discussed the point so that the intent o f the speaker was plain to everyone concerned. Analysis There were no additional suggestions or pieces o f evidence for either category. The group suggested 14 different reasons why Cuthbert was a hero and 5 different reasons why Cuthbert was a scoundrel. Reflection Since no individual group had previously listed all the possible evidence, it was interesting for the students to see the different points o f view that were expressed. The students were very focused during the discussion. This could have been because the students were adamant about having all o f their group's particular evidence included on the chart. They had strong feelings about the importance or worth o f their contributions. Trust was not an issue. The students seemed to trust that I would honor and respect what they had to say and thus they were very open and honest in their discussions. While someone was talking, the rest o f the group was very polite and showed good listening skills. Some o f the students who were thoughtfully 89 considering each point made helpful categorization suggestions like: "Well, being good to them is the same as helping them so it could be included in that area." Before moving data around, I always asked for and received permission from the person who put forth the evidence. I wanted to make it clear to them that this was really their project and all I was doing was facilitating their work. Study 2.3 Method The last activity in Challenge # 2 was to see i f students would be willing to change their minds based on the implications of new evidence. This task was accomplished on an individual basis rather than group basis so that all people would have their private opinion registered. On a completely separate sheet o f paper, the grade 1 participants answered the questions by themselves without reference to the sheet that their group had originally used. There was no outside help except for one person. He found it extremely difficult to put his thoughts on paper so I scribed for him. Analysis Out o f the 16 students 12 held fast to their original positions citing the same sorts o f answers that their original group o f 3 came up with. Four students changed their opinion o f Cuthbert from a "hero" status to that o f a "scoundrel." The reasons given for the change reflected the fact the Cuthbert lied and robbed a bank. Thus, Cuthbert was bad. At this point the judgment was based on morals without reference to extenuating circumstances. None o f the students who originally thought Cuthbert was bad changed their mind to say that he was good. 90 Reflection It was interesting to see that 12 o f the students stayed with their original decisions which either indicates that they were satisfied by their original decision or that they were stubbornly refusing to change due to egocentrical considerations. This refers back to Piaget's (1926) ideas on cognitive development. Piaget (1926) suggested that a child, before the age o f 7, couldn't present arguments because it does not use a knowledge system in which justifications o f causality become a necessity. Furthermore, according to Piaget (1926), before the child can become concerned with causal justification it must be capable o f recognizing that "its own interpretation o f a sensory input is a private, not-necessarily-shared interpretation" (Mancuso & Hunter, 2000. p. 3). In this particular piece o f research, I would tend to go with the first option that indicates that the students were satisfied with the quality o f their original evidence. Thus, their decision to remain with their original conclusion was based on quality factors and not egocentric considerations. Since the students did not have access to their original lists o f reasons and since they did not have a grade 2 student scribing for them, the grade l's must have felt secure and determined in their convictions because they took the trouble to find their personal evidence contribution on the posted chart and thus fairly accurately copy the words themselves. I know that they did not just randomly copy down reasons because I crosschecked back to their original group evidence and their answers correlated. The students exhibited powerful convictions. The results o f the past exercise could be interpreted as showing the majority o f the students overriding their sense o f moral sense o f right and wrong with a more humane, forgiving, compassionate attitude. On the other hand, what I was seeing could be the result o f a basic form o f arithmetic: I f you do more "rights" than "wrongs" then you are considered 91 "good." Nevertheless, the previous "math" theory doesn't explain why some o f the students stayed with the "bad" person designation regardless o f how many rights were on the page. I wondered i f the student's attitude was just a matter o f coincidence, my interpretation o f their action, or i f their reaction was even typical o f this particular group o f students. Collaborative Critical Reflection of Challenge #2 I asked Joy Antonia, their regular teacher, what she thought about the reactions o f her students. She explained that, as a class, they can be really mean or unkind to each other and it was this sort o f attitude that prompted her to consider splitting them up into different classes when we have our placement meeting for next year. On the other hand, she mentioned that there were times when her students could be really nice to each other. This situation brought up more questions than answers and so it was not particularly helpful to my analysis o f this study. However, it did raise some interesting questions about the relationship between behavior and circumstances surrounding the behavior. I decided to leave the discussion at this point and return to critical thinking. The important feature for this study is that through the glasses o f their emerging worldview, the students are able to make decisions based on substantial evidence o f their own choosing. The process o f beginning to express values was reflected in their affirmed decisions (McLaren, 1988, p. 23). 4 o f the 16 students expressed a need to change their original decision based on new evidence while the remaining students felt the new information was not substantial enough to cause them to change their original decision. During another conversation with Joy Antonia, we both expressed amazement that the grade 1 's could sustain their focus for 1 hour and 20 minutes with no breaks other than to move between different thinking activities. This was especially interesting when we considered that 92 all the activities were dependent on a high level o f thinking and concentration. This phenomenon was probably not due to the novelty o f the situation because this was the third occasion in which this particular phenomena occurred. We were at a bit o f a loss to explain their sustained interest beyond the fact that the content, method and environment must have been right on target with this age group. What was also interesting was that the students were beginning to show "critical spirit" in that they persisted with the activity until they were satisfied that their written work satisfactorily made their points. When given the opportunity to choose between stopping now and carrying on at a later date or finishing now, they insisted on getting finished before leaving the classroom. Joy and I discussed the fact that it was intriguing to note how some children/people cannot find it in themselves to forgive what someone had done. After all was said and done in this particular study, 11 o f the students believed Cuthbert was a hero and 5 o f them believed Cuthbert was a scoundrel. The 5 students who believed Cuthbert was a scoundrel equated doing something wrong with being a bad person. The ones who thought Cuthbert was a hero acknowledged that Cuthbert had made some bad decisions, but he had certainly redeemed himself by doing good things so in their eyes he was a hero. Somewhere in their lives they had learned that even though you make a mistake, it is possible for people to love you i f you are sorry for what you have done and you now are doing good things. Thus, according to their way o f thinking, love and acceptance are conditional on behavior. Is this indicative o f how society thinks as a whole or is it a matter o f maturity to be able to recognize that such a thing as "unconditional love" may exist in your environment? I f the students do "bad" things at home, are they considered "bad" people and vice versa i f they do something "good"? Can the same phenomena hold true in some classroom situations? I wonder i f their parents or teachers know 93 or care that this is the message that they may be receiving. I wonder what effect this message has on their self-esteem? These queries would provide the kindling for another research project about our society, as it exists today. Cr i t i ca l Challenges - Study #3. I wondered: I wondered i f the students could display "connected thinking" (McLaren, 1988, p. 24) which would involve "cause and effect" and some governing criteria. In practical terms, I wondered i f the students realized that their actions or decisions would have an effect on others and I wondered i f they knew i f their actions or decisions would have a long-term effect or a short-term effect on people or situations. I also wondered i f the students could come up with some criteria from which to judge an action. Overview The piece o f literature, that was used to inspire reflective thinking, was a picture book by Monica Hughes called A Handful o f Seeds. It tells the story o f a young Latin American girl, Concepcion, who through very unfortunate circumstances, loses the security o f living in a home with her grandmother and finally ends up alone in the outskirts o f a big city. There she learns to make a better life for herself and her street friends in the city's dump. The handful o f seeds that she brought with her from her former home held the key to her survival. It is a very powerful story. 94 Study 3.1 Method In preparation for the challenge o f coming up with criteria and judging an action according to the criteria, I first wanted to know i f the students would be comfortable corning up with evidence which indicated that they could compare and contrast two things. Mil t McLaren (1988), comments that "taking stock of what individuals or the class as a whole knows honors the thoughts o f young children" (p. 22). So, in conjunction with checking their background knowledge o f what it is like to be poor, I checked out their level o f knowledge and understand o f the vocabulary to be used in the study. The concepts o f criteria, compare, and contrast were somewhat familiar and easily enhanced with a short review. Similar to the other challenges, I used the same story throughout all the parts o f Challenge # 3. After coming together and sitting on the carpeted floor as a large group, I began the period by investigating the degree to which the students understood the concept o f being "poor." The students had a good idea what it was to "need" something as opposed to "want" something but no one had really experienced being poor. Most o f the students had no recollection o f needing something beyond situations like the times when they needed food when the cupboard stock was low or new shoes or clothes when they had outgrown the old ones. A l l o f the students come from homes where the basic survival needs such as food, clothes, and shelter are adequately taken care o f by an agency or family member. After discussing the background to A Handful o f Seeds. I read the story aloud to the students. We discussed what Concepcion's life was like, what their own life was like_and what features they had in common. The focus was to see i f the grade l's could use the concepts o f comparing and contrasting so that they would start to look at things in relation to themselves 95 beyond a superficial level. The students were introduced to using a Venn diagram as a way o f representing their life, Concepcion's life and the areas that they had in common. The grade 2's again acted as scribes and paired up with the Grade l's to fill in the diagrams. The data contains individual responses rather than group responses even though the grade 2's acted as scribes. For the purposes o f this document, I simply listed the data rather than draw all the diagrams. " M y life" refers to the student's life. Data Comparing Concepcion's Life to the Student's Life Concepcion's Life: - She has seeds. - She knew how to grow plants. - She gets it [food] from the garbage. - She has no food, no bathroom, no houses, no toys, no electricity, no cow[products], no money to get dairy, no skates, no gym, no school. - She has not enough food for her friends. - Her friends got hurt. - Her friends helped her. - Her grandma died. - She doesn't have a mom and dad. - She has no warm bed. - She had to leave the house. - She had to live in a dump, she has a junkyard. - She has dirt floors. - She doesn't have much shelter. 96 - She's poor. - She is pretty. - She has no bikini. - She has no shoes. - She doesn't have a lot o f dresses. She has no nice clothes. - She doesn't get warm. - She isn't safe. Mv Life fStudents' Life): -1 have parents. - M y [new] dad yells at me. - M y friends leave me. -1 get hit. -1 get hurt. -We have mom and dad. -1 play with my brothers and sister. - We watch T V . - We have pets. - We have video games, bikes, and toys. - We have almost everything. - We have instruments. - We read lots o f books. - We know how to write. 97 - We don't live in a box. - We have pencils and paint. - We have umbrellas to keep the rain away. -1 have clean clothes. -1 go camping with grandma and grand-pa. In Common: - We both have friends and birthday parties. - We have someone to love. - We have lots o f fun. - We both have gardens. - We know how to plant stuff. - Sharing. - We have beans, onions, and corn. - We both have a sand box. - We can sing. - We have a house. - We have pets. Analysis On the average, the students presented strong evidence to show that they knew how to compare and contrast something. Out o f 15 students 3 experienced difficulty "sorting" the evidence into the appropriate section o f the diagram. Further practice would probably clear this problem up quickly since the students had never used a Venn diagram before. The only other problem with the evidence was in the case o f one set of data. The data represents the thoughts 98 of both a grade 2 and a grade 1 student because the two girls worked as a team, not as a scribe and an orator. Since the grade 2 student was 7 years old and thus within the age range o f the study, I let the data stand. Reflection The first focus o f Challenge #3 was to see i f the grade l's could use the concepts of comparing and contrasting so that they would start to look at things in relation to themselves beyond a superficial level. The students were able to accomplish this task and from their point o f view, the answers were not superficial but reflected what they felt were some o f the most important features in their lives. The concept o f superficiality is value laden and dependent o f viewpoint so what may appear superficial to the reader may, in fact, be o f paramount importance in the life o f the student. It was obvious that the students realized how lucky they were to be living in their present situations. However, it was interesting to note that all was not completely wonderful in their lives either. Some o f them made comments about being hurt or hit. Nevertheless, most o f the students focused on the things that were near and dear to their lives like family, food, pets, friends, clothes and special items like their bicycle, or toys. The students commented on Concepcion's life in a way that reflected empathy for her because they had a lot more than she did but the students also realized they both (including Concepcion) had some very important things in their lives like food, friends, someone to love, pets, and some sort o f place to live. Again, the students were able to come up with evidence to support their positions and they showed empathy for someone in a difficult situation. The students demonstrated an understanding o f the words "compare and contrast." 99 Study 3.2 Method The next phase o f the challenge involved considering the critical question: What could you do to make a lasting contribution to someone? The students, with some assistance from me, came up with the following criteria against which to judge their answers: 1. The contribution should be long lasting- anything more than a temporary influence (only for the present time) was considered to be long lasting. 2. The contribution should respect the dignity o f people - their feelings should not be hurt by someone's actions. 3. The contribution should be meaningful (important) to both people involved. In preparation for the final task, the group remained on the carpeted area and brainstormed for ideas or circumstances where people might need help. The students were then asked to select up to 7 o f the suggestions and analyze them according to the criteria. The data was recorded on the sheets by the grade 1 's with the help o f the grade 2's where written information or reading was required. The sheets had 4 columns consisting of: the action; whether or not the action would have a long term or short-term effect; whether or not they would respect the dignity o f the people involved; and whether or not the action would be meaningful to the people involved. The sheet had boxes under each o f the last 3 categories that the student could tick to indicate i f their answer was "yes" or "no." There was space on the sheet for 7 actions to be listed and considered according to the criteria. The concepts and methods were reviewed several times during the period o f time that the students worked on the task. 100 Data Concerning Who Might Benefit From Some Help Some People Who Might Need Help: - Blind people. - Keeping people out o f danger. - People who need help walking. - People in wheel chairs. - Kids who are in the hospital. - People with injuries. - People crossing streets. - Grandma and grandpa with chores. - Helping your brother or sister put their stuff away. - Help clean up your playroom. - People who need to help cleaning pools. - Helping clean a rabbit's cage. - Someone with a sick dog. - Helping pets in danger, feeding pets. - People who lose things like glasses, balls, toys, car keys, and money. - People who need to be taller [too short to reach things]. - People who need help building. - Santa (and elves) needs help with presents. - The Easter bunny with egg painting. - Helping people to learn to read. - Helping people learn to spell. 101 - Helping people with math. - Helping people learn to tie shoes. - Helping people learn handwriting. - People who don't have food. - Help people on the street who need money, food, toys, warm clothes, homes, and friends. - Finding water for people. Analysis In all, 16 students filled out sheets o f data which indicated that they understood whether or not the action would have a long term or short-term effect; whether or not the action would respect the dignity o f the people involved; and whether or not the action would be meaningful to the people involved. Reflection The students were, by and large, able to judge which actions met each o f the criteria and which did not. The 1 exception was the student who listed mainly short-term actions such as "helping people find their glasses" as having long-term consequences. To help this student be more successful would probably entail teaching this concept from a slightly different angle. I was quite surprised and pleased to note that the students could analyze something this complicated according to a set o f data. However, I realize that the concepts o f dignity and meaningful actions are heavily value-laden as was my own marking. What I was looking for was not solid "indisputable" data, but simply an indication o f whether or not the students were developmental^ able and ready to attempt such a task given that the other factors such as the 102 possession o f a firm knowledge base, some rudimentary critical thinking skills and dispositions, and an environment conducive to thinking were in place. Collaborative Critical Reflection of Challenge # 3 Joy Antonia concurred with my reflections on the data. She suggested that having the grade 2's, who were generally only a few months older than the grade l ' s but who had more experience with reading and writing, were a great asset in gathering data. What we both found interesting was that young students, age 6 to 7, do not necessarily have to be primarily engaged in the accumulation o f knowledge. Not only can they be engaged in activities that involve thinking, they appear to enjoy the challenge o f doing the activities. I am aware that part o f their motivation could have been derived from the novelty o f working in an academic situation with me in conjunction with my class, but I am discounting that fact as their primary motivator because by the end o f the first session the novelty would have worn off because a lot o f what we did was just plain hard work. What I am surmising is that the students enjoyed the challenge o f thinking both on their own and as part o f a group. They also enjoyed the fact that someone was listening to their ideas and thus they felt they were making an important contribution. We worked very hard but it was fun and satisfying for all concerned. In Summary The purpose o f this study was to enhance my understanding o f how young children use critical thinking as an opportunity for thoughtful analysis or problems that are of interest to them. I supported the view that critical thinking is a way o f helping the students understand the content o f the curriculum and as such, there is a set o f intellectual tools that wi l l aid in the development o f the students' reflective competence. 103 The objective of this study was to collect and analyze data that would indicate the emerging competence o f 6 to 7 year old students. The inquiry focused on 3 specific critical thinking skills and 2 specific critical thinking dispositions. The following skills were included: 1. being able to set criteria to judge i f there is sufficient, reliable data available to make decisions; 2. being able to make decisions which are supported by reasons based on evidence, 1 not opinions or emotions; and 3. being able to discuss the effect o f the decisions on people and things other than themselves. The following dispositions were included: 1. being able to respect other points o f view; and 2. being willing to change their decisions based on new evidence. There were 3 parts to the study. The first part involved the observation o f all the students as they engaged in small and large group discussions involving specific critical thinking activities that required them to make a decision or reach a conclusion. Field observation techniques were employed. The second part o f the study required students to express their ideas through writing about one aspect of the problem that involved critical thinking. The students were asked to explain their writing i f the spelling or intent was unclear. The third part o f the study involved conversing with a "critical friend" in joint reflections about the successes or difficulties encountered during the study. M y overall conclusion is that in the environment in which the study took place, the young children, ranging in age from 6 to 7, who participated in the study were able to competently use the critical thinking skills and dispositions which were involved in the study. Having older children act as "scribes" facilitated the recording o f the younger children's thoughts in a way that allowed the researcher to better understand what was intended by the young children's conclusions or solutions. 104 It was apparent to the researcher that the classroom environment and teacher's disposition played an important role in inviting critical tMnking to occur. The environment would include the creation of an atmosphere in which inquiry was not only accepted but applauded and guided, facilitated critical thinking. A s well, teacher modeling o f the skills and attitudes o f critical thinking was essential to the success o f the study. Although I suspect that critical thinking could be facilitated, as a set o f skills, by anyone who chose to accomplish this task, it is my opinion that to encourage both the critical thinking skills and the critical thinking dispositions, the teacher would have to be a critical thinker who valued and demonstrated these qualities themselves. The question remains: I f the children are indeed capable o f using critical thinking skills and dispositions, then why are the results of the social studies assessments (Bognar et a l , 1997) consistently showing lower than acceptable scores? Since the appropriate skills are included as a part of the social studies curriculum in British Columbia, then it may be suggested that a study concerning the delivery o f the curriculum may contain some answers to this dilemma. 105 Chapter 5 The Last Links and Final Reflections The more I know the more I know I do not know. Ashton The Link Between Critical Thinking and Intellectual Development When researching the use o f critical thinking in young students what becomes obvious is the fact that there are two different aspects of their intellectual development working in concert with one another. The psychosocial aspect o f intellectual development involves the educative transmission of knowledge such as you would find in the didactic teaching of a lesson in some subject. Like the teacher instructing the violinist to replicate the music according to how it is written, so too, there are critical thinking skills that must be taught and practiced in order to be mastered. The psychological development o f intelligence, or the "spontaneous aspect of intelligence" (Piaget, 1972, p. 2), is what children learn by themselves, what none can teach them and they must discover alone. Like a virtuoso violinist who gives life to the music through an intuitive understanding born of years o f experience, so too the critical thinkers with critical thinking dispositions give a humanistic interpretation o f the problem or concern which they are studying. The critical thinker looks through eyes laden with caring, emotion, empathy, imagination, and intuition. Although the critical thinking dispositions are part o f the psychological spontaneous aspects o f intelligence that take time to develop (Piaget, 1972, p. 2), there is evidence o f their existence in the words o f the 6 and 7 year old children. Thus, it is essential to recognize that both the psychosocial and the psychological concepts o f intelligence are intertwined in critical tWnking. 106 A Comment about the Role of Children's Voices in Research Why would I want to seek out and listen to student voices? What kind o f contributions would students' voices make? The answers to the first question are bound up with the answers to the second question. Attention to the voice o f children is not uncommon. For instance, attention is paid to their voices in a social/legal context, such as choosing which parent to live with in a custody suit, or reporting an abusive or neglectful situation through children's H E L P lines or counselors. The social context in which we place children is changing from viewing them as chattel property to viewing them as the inheritors o f the future (Lincoln, 1995, p. 89). Children, even in infancy, are also recognized in the scientific context as "active participants in learning about and constructing views of, the social world they encounter" (Lincoln, 1995. p. 89). Since school can be one o f the student's major influences in shaping and acquiring a world-view, the power o f learning to reason via critical thinking skills (which are teachable) and dispositions (which teachers can model but not teach) is undeniable. The value o f listening to the students' dialogue, which reflects their worldview, is immeasurable. In a political context, Canadian students are legally able to take part in the democratic voting process at 19 years o f age. Normally, this is about the age that most o f them finish their public schooling. Thus, the role of the school is to provide an environment in which the students are encouraged to use the skills and dispositions o f critical thinking in preparation for exercising their democratic voting rights. Since in adult life, much o f the debate involved in politics involves dialogue, therefore, the consideration o f student dialogue becomes an important tool in preparation for this process. If I didn't listen to a student's dialogue, then the scope and depth o f my understanding would be severely hampered by their undeveloped printing and writing skills. The students can 107 express their thoughts orally more effectively than through any other medium. Conversing with students is like having a pipeline to their brain. Therefore, the actual voices of the students are invaluable because they give rise to reflecting on the complexities o f the world that surround us. M y interpretation o f the intent or meaning o f their dialogue is based on my interest in people and my love o f reason and thinking regardless o f the age or aptitude o f the person. Each person reading the student's words wil l form different conclusions according to their personal values and biases. Such is the construction o f social knowledge. Although, this paradigm may shift, or I may change paradigms, for the time being, the constructivist paradigm constitutes the glasses through which I view the world. Final Reflections Several questions surfaced in Chapter 2 during my search for understanding the meaning and ramifications o f critical thinking. The first question was: Are the skills and dispositions o f critical thinking generalizable? Based on my research experience, I would answer "yes." The universal nature o f critical thinking is obvious when one is using the following skills and dispositions over a wide range o f issues and circumstances: - Being able to set criteria to judge i f there is sufficient, reliable data available to make decisions. - Being able to make decisions that are based on evidence, not emotions. - Being able to discuss the present (and possible future) effect o f the decisions on people and things other than themselves. - Being able to respect other points of view. 108 - Being able to change a decision based on new evidence. The tools used in critical thinking are based on general skills and dispositions rather than knowledge and inforrnation and thus are not subject specific. The next question, related to Chapter 2, involves contemplating the place o f moral values in critical thinking. Based on my research, it is all but impossible for the students to remain morally unbiased when judging evidence or arriving at a conclusion. Even though the students do not know that they look at everything that they meet in terms o f their past experience, it is evident that the way they create meaning out o f their world is to look at things through their world view glasses. Their moral values are evident throughout their evidence. This also brings up the question o f bias in critical thinking. The application o f the rules o f logic can render an unbiased decision. However, the rules of logic, as they apply to critical thinking, plus the critical thinking dispositions, such as fair-mindedness, creativity, intuition, and caring, create a situation in which the probability o f arriving at an unbiased decision is highly unlikely, i f not impossible. In this particular piece o f research, I chose to soften the effects o f bias by having the students attempt to look at the various situations through the participants' point o f view. Is the student's critical thinking biased? Yes. Although the students were able to look at situations through the eyes o f the participants, the interpretation o f the events was viewed through their personal "world view glasses." The self- correcting aspect of critical thinking came into effect when the students held their evidence and conclusions up for all to inspect and discuss. This was done as an attempt to negate or reconsider evidence and conclusions that were blatantly biased. 109 H o w does one assess to what extent critical thinking is actually occurring? After reflecting on the results o f the research, I have come to the conclusion that the assessment o f critical thinking is best served by an informal procedure. Y o u set the criteria for the activity and then you simply assess the results according to the predetermined criteria. I f the criteria is met, then the participant is successful, i f the criteria is not met then further instruction or clarification o f the task is required. What has to be in effect in order for critical thinking to flourish in a classroom? A s evident in my research, the needs o f a critical thinking classroom situation are best served by being a community of learners. This community would be one that prizes inquiry as a form o f learning in an atmosphere o f trust, humility, and respect for all concerned. Such a community o f learners, which includes the teacher, would value critical reflection in every aspect o f their school lives. The excitement and interest generated by the students involved in this particular piece o f research can attest to the value o f such a classroom. The last question, which comes out o f my research in Chapter 2, is: What can be done about the lack o f critical thinking in a classroom? In my experience, the lasting effects o f in-service education are very limited unless there are follow-up expectations and activities. Forming a group or teachers who share a common interest in the subject is like preaching to those who are already converted thus it is an inefficient way to reach those teachers who are not already involved in the subject. Therefore, the critical thinking message does not reach the targeted clientele. One o f the best methods for reaching teachers may be to provide teachers with sample lessons which target the outcomes o f the Integrated Resource Plans as put forth by the Education Department o f 110 the province o f British Columbia. These lesson plans would be infused with the strategies and attitudes prevalent in critical thinking. Thus, teachers would have a practical resource that would demonstrate how critical thinking could be readily infused into their particular curriculum. Perhaps one o f the best ways to encourage critical thinking is to build on what presently exists, and encourage teachers who are already involved in the field to support, or act as mentors for others who show an interest in critical thinking. In this particular piece o f research, having the encouragement and support o f a "critical friend" was invaluable. Throughout my research, it becomes obvious that the students, between the ages o f 6 and 7, have a knowledge system already in place that allows them to use evidence as a justification o f causality. The students are also most willing to recognize that their own sensory input was not necessarily shared by the rest o f the group, a situation which Mancuso et al. (2000, p. 3) imply is the precursor to being ready to use justifications o f causality. M y findings support the concept that students, age 6 to 7, are quite capable o f using the following tools (Case et al., 1996, p. xiv-xv) o f critical thinking such as: possessing background knowledge or "the information about a topic required for thoughtful reflection" (p.xiv); using evidence to substantiate a claim; using criteria for judgment or "the criteria or grounds for deciding which o f the alternatives is the most sensible or appropriate" (p. xiv); critical thinking vocabulary (p.xiv); using thinking strategies (p.xv) - although the students were not asked to come up with thinking strategies on their own, they were able to make use o f the ones that I suggested; habits of mind or "the values and attitudes o f a careful and conscientious thinker" 111 (p. xv), i.e. being open-minded, fair-minded, independent-minded, and inquiry-minded. The students were enthusiastic and thoroughly engaged in the work that we completed. This was a case o f "critical spirit" in action! M y findings support the idea that even though young children are unable to develop elaborate moral arguments or use the technical terms o f logic to support an argument, young children have definite ideas about what is good or bad and they are capable o f judging something according to a set o f criteria. Young children are also able to consider all ideas and multiple points o f view when making a decision. This ability to consider all evidence and ideas in a fair and just manner opens the path to considering all options and thus being able to reflect on the possible consequences o f their decisions. During this study it has been clear that the students enjoyed being critical thinkers! In Parting Part o f the ultimate challenge o f teacher researchers is to attain "conceptual mastery over the visible and unseen processes that account for pupil's learning" (Huberman, 1996, p. 138). This is a lifelong process and after 31 years o f teaching and learning, I feel like I have only just begun to make the connections. I have arrived at a place aptly described by Dr. Seuss (1993) in a book entitled Oh the Places You ' l l Go: Y o u wil l come to a place where the streets are not marked. Some windows are lighted. But mostly they're darkened. A place you could sprain both your elbow and chin! Do you dare to stay out? Do you dare to go in? H o w much can you lose? H o w much can you win? (p. 20) 112 This particular piece o f the research is finished. One window is lighted, but there are still a lot of dark windows! There are more questions than answers. Probably, for the moment, the biggest question is: What wi l l I do next? Final Reflections on Critical Thinking For Young Children In The Significance of Theory, Terry Eagleton (cited in hooks, 1994) makes the following comment: Children make the best theorists since they have not yet been educated into accepting our routine, social practices as "natural" and so insist on posing to those practices the most embarrassing general and fundamental questions regarding them with wondering estrangement which we adults have long forgotten. Since they do not yet grasp our social practices as inevitable, they do not see why we might not do things differently, (p. 59) Children often see with clarity that adults' lack. When sailing, it is the quality o f the journey, not the destination that becomes important. In critical thinking, the quality of the journey or the "process which leads to the belief is more important than the belief itself' (Norris, 1987, p. 35). In my thesis, I did not set out to prove or disprove anyone's theory. Instead, I wondered what a particular group o f young students, who had volunteered to become participants in my research, were capable of doing in the circumstances in which they found themselves. As I observed the young students working their way through the critical challenges, I felt a deep sense o f shared pride and enthusiasm. The quality o f their journey surpassed my hopes. The students are indeed capable of thinking critically. A n education, which involves critical thinking, has as its purpose the development o f a new kind of person. A s a result of internalizing a different series of concepts, this person is an 113 "actively inquiring, flexible, creative, innovative, tolerant, liberal [in the sense o f liberating] personality who can face uncertainty and ambiguity without distortion, who can formulate new meanings to meet challenges in the environment which threaten individual and mutual survival" (Postman & Weingartner, 1969, p. 219). This "liberal" form o f education culminates in principled, reflective judgment about what to believe and do (Ennis, 1987; Facione, 1997). Critical thinking involves both the intellect and the heart. Critical tWnking is a questing-questioning, meaning-making process that culminates in the creation o f life-long learners. The original roots o f critical thinking were laid down more than 2500 years ago. Over the ensuing years, additional firm roots have been established in philosophy, science, psychology, and education. Critical thinking is not an end unto itself but a pathway. It is. a way o f thinking — a way o f life. Through critical thinking, a dialogue o f hope can develop — a hope that there wil l be a way to make the changes required to make this world a better place for all to live. So What Do You Do Now Y o u are a teacher in an ordinary school, and the ideas in this paper make sense to you . . . what can you do about it, say tomorrow? Postman & Weingartner, (1969, p. 193) have some suggestions that they applied to teaching as a "subversive activity" in 1969, but then-suggestions are equally applicable to teaching as a critical thinking endeavor in the year 2000.The following suggestions are loosely based on Postman & Weingartner's suggestions: 1 .Your first step might be to write these questions on a scrap o f paper and post them in a handy place: - What am I going to have my students do today? 114 - What's it good for? - H o w do I know? At best, the questions wi l l make you uneasy and drive you to reconsider almost anything you are doing. 2. Your second step wi l l be to try to avoid telling your students any answers, but instead rephrase their questions in such a way as to extend their thinking. Don't expect answers immediately; give the students time to think or reflect. Shift the intellectual activity back onto the students. Be prepared for resentment; thinking may not be comfortable for those who are not used to it. Start with one lesson: then see what happens. However much you do is well worth the effort. 3. Try listening to your students not as a teacher who is there to instruct or judge but as someone who is interested in understanding or clarifying what someone perceives as relevant. Ask questions like: What makes you think that is true? The only way to know where a student is "at" is to listen to what he or she is thinking. Y o u can't do this i f you are talking. 4. Learning to ask questions is a major emphasis o f critical thinking and most likely your students wi l l need to learn how to do it. I f you feel this is important, try this: For a specific time period, i.e. one class or one day, do not permit the students to make any utterances that are not in the form o f questions. Then present the class with a problem and have them compile a list o f questions whose answers might be helpful in solving the problem. A t this point, the focus is quality. The person who produces the most questions wins! Next, have the students examine their questions to determine i f there are certain criteria by which the quality o f the question can be measured. For example does the question contain unwarranted assumptions. Does it leave important terms undefined? Does it suggest some procedure for . 115 obtaining an answer? The activity wi l l lead naturally into seeking the answer to the original problem and analyzing the solutions according to some predetermined criteria. Carl Rogers' book, On Becoming a Person, is a source o f information about what happens when a teacher refrains from giving answers. That's it! You're on your way! 116 References Adler, J. E . (1991). Critical thinking, a deflated defense: A critical study o f John E . McPeck's Teaching critical minking: Dialogue and dialect. Informal Logic . 7 (2), 61-78. Adler, M . (1985). Ten philosophical mistakes. New York: McMi l l an . American Philosophical Association (1990). In P. A . Facione (Ed.), Critical thinking: a statement o f expert consensus for purposes o f educational assessment and instruction (6). Millbrae, C A : The California Academic Press (ERIC E d 315 423). Anderson, G . , Herr, K . , & Nihlem, A . (1994). Studying your own school: A n educator's guide to qualitative practitioners research. Thousand Oaks, C A : Corwin Press. A o k i , T. (1991). Inspiriting curriculum and pedagogy: Talks to teachers. University o f Alberta: University o f Alberta Publication Services. Allard, H . (1977). It's so nice to have a wolf around the house. Garden City, N e w York: Bantam Doubleday Del l Books. Bacon, F. (1859). Novum organum. London: Bel l& Daldy. Balin, S. (1995). Is critical thinking biased? Clarifications and implications. Educational Theory. 45 (2). 191-197. Bailin, S., Case. R., Coombs, J., & Daniels, L . (1993). A conception o f critical thinking for curriculum, instruction, and assessment. British Columbia Ministry o f Education and Ministry Responsible for Multiculturalism and Human Rights. Unpublished. Beyer, B . K . (1985). Critical thinking. What is it? Social Education. 49 (4), 270-276. Beyer, B . K . (1995). Critical thinking. Fastback. 385. Bloomington, Indiana: Phi Delta Kappa Educational Foundation. Bloom, B . S., Krathwohl, D . & Masia, B . B . (1956). Taxonomy o f educational objectives. N e w York : David McKay . Bognar, C. J., Cassidy, W. , & Clark, P. (1997). Social studies in British Columbia: Results o f the 1996 provincial learning assessment. Victoria, B C : Ministry o f Education, Skills, and Training. Carson, T. (1990). What kind o f knowing is critical action research? Theory Into Practice. 29 (3). 167-173. Case, R. & Daniels, L . (1996). Critical challenges across the curriculum. Vancouver: The Critical Thinking Cooperative. 117 Case, R. & Wright, I. (Eds.). (1997). Taking seriously the teaching o f critical thinking. Canadian Social Studies. 32 (I). 12-19. Clandinin, D . & Connelly, F. (1995). Teacher's professional knowledge landscapes: Secret, sacred, and cover stories. In F . Connelly & D . Clandinin (Eds.), Teachers' professional knowledge landscapes (1-15). N e w York , N Y : Teachers College Press. Cochran-Smith, M . & Lytle, S. L . (1990). Research on teaching and teacher research: The issues that divide. Educational Researcher, 19 (2), 2-11. Cochran-Smith, M . & Lytle, S. L . (1993). Inside/outside: Teacher research and knowledge. N e w York: Teacher College Press. Cranson, 1. (1995) (Project Coordinator). Demystifying thinking: A practical handbook. Scarborough, O N T : Prentice Hal l Canada. deBono, E . (1984). Critical thinking is not enough. Educational Leadership. 42, 16-17. Dewey, J. (1902). The school and society. Chicago: University o f Chicago Press. Eliot, T.S. (1927). Shakespeare and the stoicism o f Seneca: A n address read before the Shakespeare Association March 18, 1927. London: Published for the Shakespeare Association by Oxford University Press. Ellsworth, E . (1989). Why doesn't this feel empowering? Working through the repressive myths o f critical pedagogy. Harvard Educational Review. 59, 297-324. Ennis, R. H . (1962). A concept o f critical thinking. Harvard Educational Review, 32 (1), 81-111. Ennis, R. H . (1980). A conception o f rational thinking. In R. J. Coombs (Ed.), Philosophy o f Education. Normal, 111: Philosophy o f Education Society. Ennis, R. H . (1987). A taxonomy o f critical thinking dispositions and abilities. In J. B . Baron (Ed.), Teaching thinking skills: Theory and practice. New York: W . H . Freeman & Company. Ennis, R. H . & Millman, J. (1985). Cornel critical thinking tests: Levels x and z. Pacific Grove California: Midwest Publications. Facione, P. A . (1990). Critical thinking: a statement o f expert consensus for purposes o f educational assessment and instruction. Millbrae, C A : The California Academic Press (ERIC E d 315 423). Feldman, A . (1998). Implementing and assessing the power o f conversation in the teaching o f action research. Teacher Education Quarterly, 25 (2), 27-42. 118 Feldman, A . (1999). The role o f conversation in collaborative action research. Educational Action Research, 7 (1), 125-144. Freire, P. (1968). Pedagogy o f the oppressed. N e w York : Seabury. Freire, P. (1993). Pedagogy o f the oppressed: N e w revised 20th anniversary edition. N e w York: Continuim Publishing Company. Freire, P. (1994). Pedagogy o f hope: Reliving pedagogy o f the oppressed. N e w York: Continuim Publishing Company. Gelman, R. (1985). The developmental perspective on the problem of knowledge aquisition: A discussion. In S. F. Chipman, J. W. Segal, & R. Glaser (Eds.), Thinking and learning skills: Research and open questions (pp. 537-544). Hillsdale, N e w Jersey: Erlbaum Associates. Giroux, H . (1988). Teachers as intellectuals: Towards a critical pedagogy o f learning. Massachusetts: Bergin & Garvey. Giroux, H . (1997). Pedagogy and the politics o f hope: Theory, culture and schooling. Colorado: Westview Press. Giroux, H . & McLaren, P. (1992). Writing from the margins: Geographies o f identity, pedagogy, and power. Journal o f Education, 174 (1), 2-30. Grimmett, P. & McKinnon, A . (1992). Craft knowledge and education o f teachers. In G . Grant (Ed.), Review o f research in education, 18, 385-456. Washington D C : American Educational Research Association. Groarke, L . (1998). Informal Logic. Stanford Encyclopedia o f Philosophy (1-7). Retrieved July 26, 2000 from the World Wide Web:http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-informal/ Haroutunian-Gordon, S. (1998). Some issues in the critical thinking debate; dead horses and red herrings, anyone? Educational Theory, 48, 411-425. Hooks, B . (1994) Teaching to transgress: Education as the practice o f freedom. New York: Routledge. Huberman, M (1996). Focus on research moving mainstream: Taking a closer look at teacher research. Language Arts, 73 (2), 124-140. Hughes, M . (1993). A handful o f seeds. Toronto: Lister Publishers. Horton, M . & Freire, P. (1990). We make the road by walking: Conversations on education and social change. Philadelphia: Temple University Press. 119 Janesick, V . J. (1991). Ethnographic inquiry: Understanding culture and experience. In E . C. Short (Ed.), Forms o f curriculum inquiry. Albany: State University of N e w York Press. Johnson, T. W. (1987). Philosophy for children and its critics: Going beyond the information given. Educational Theory, 37 (1), 61-68. Johnson, T. W. (1983). Philosophy for children: A n approach to critical thinking. Southern Connecticut State University: Phi Delta Kappa Educational Foundation. Kennedy, M . , Fisher, M . B . & Ennis, R. H . (1991). Critical thinking: Literature review and needed research. In L . Idol & B . F. Jones (Eds.), Educational values and cognitive instruction: Implication for reform (pp. 11-40). Hillsdale, N e w Jersey: Hove & London. K o l i , W. R. (1991). To what ends our reform? Reclaiming the Ethical in education. Educational Researcher. 21 (4), 32-34. Laing, R. D . (1927). The politics o f experience. Harmondsworth: Penguin. 1967. Lincoln, Y . S. (1995). In search o f student'voices. Theory Into Practice. 34 (2), 88-93. Lipman, M . (1988a). Teaching students to think reasonably: Some findings o f the philosophy for children program. The Clearing House, 71 (5). Lipman, M . (1988b). Critical thinking: What can it be? Educational Leadership. 46 (1), 38-43. Lipman, M . (1991). Thinking in education. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. McDiarmid, T., Manzo, R. , & Musselle, T. (1996). In R. Case & L . Daniels, Critical challenges across the curriculum. Vancouver B C : Simon Fraser University: Critical Thinking Cooperative. McLaren, M . (1988). Some thoughts on primary problem solving with primary children. Prime Areas, 30 (2), 22-25. McLaren, P. (1989). Life in schools: A n introduction to critical pedagogy in the foundations o f education. N e w York : Longman. McLaren, P. & Routledge, L . (1993) Paulo Freire: A critical encounter. London: Routledge. McPeck, J. (1981). Critical thinking and education. Toronto: Oxford Press. McPeck, J. (1990). Teaching critical thinking. N e w York: Routledge. 120 Mancuso, J. C. & Hunter, K . V . (2000). Constructivist assumptions in the person theories of George A . Kelly and Jean Piaget. Albany: N e w York . Retrieved July 11, 2000 from the World Wide Web: http://www.capital.net/~mancusoj/piagkely.html Matthews, G . B . (1995). In J. P. Portelli & R. Reed (Eds.). Children, philosophy and democracy (pp. 249-262). Calgary, Canada: Detselig Enterprises. Mertens, D . M . (1989). Research methods in education and psychology: Integrating diversity with quantitative & qualitative approaches. Thousand Oaks, C A : Sage Publications. Microsoft(R) Encarta(R) 97 Encyclopedia. (1993-1996). Piaget. Jean. Microsoft Corporation. Missimer, C. (1988). Why two heads are better than one: Philosophical and pedagogical implications o f a social view o f critical thinking. Proceedings o f the philosophy o f education society (pp. 388-402). Missimer, C. (1998). In S. Haroutunian-Gordon, Some issues in the critical tWnking debate; dead horses and red herrings, anyone? Educational Theory, 48. 411-425. National Council for Excellence in Critical thinking. Statement o f policy and principles, (pp. 1-2). Retrieved January 26, 1999 from the World Wide Web: http://www.sonoma.edu/cthink/ncect.nelk National Council for the Social Studies, (1994-1995). Schneider, D . (Chair). Expectations of excellence: Curriculum standards for social studies. Washington, D C : National Council for the Social Studies. Naylor, C. (1999). Teacher inquiry: Fraser Cascade teacher research. Vancouver, B C : British Columbia Teacher's Federation. Newman, F. M . (1988, May). Higher order thinking in the high school curriculum. N A S S P Bulletin. Norris, S. (1985). Synthesis o f research on critical thinking. Educational Leadership, 42 (8), 40-45. Norris, S. (1987). Evaluating critical thinking ability. In I. Wright & C . L a Bar (Eds.), Critical thinking and social studies. Toronto: Grolier. North, S. (1987). The making o f knowledge in composition: Participant emerging field. Upper Montclair, N J : Boynton/Cook. Palermo, S. G . (1995). Yes teacher, first graders can do philosophy. In J. P. Portelli & R. Reed (Eds.), Children, philosophy, and democracy (pp. 249-262). Calgary, Canada: Detselig Enterprises. 121 Palincsar, A . S., Magnusson, S. J., Marano, N . , Ford, D . , & Brown, N . (1998). Designing a Community o f Practice: Principles and practices of the G I s M L Community. Teaching and Teacher Education, 14 (1), 5-19. Patrick, J. J. (1986). Critical thinking in the social studies. E R I C Digest. 30. 1-4. Paul, R. W. (1982). Teaching critical thinking in the strong sense: a focus on self-deception, world-views and a dialectical mode o f analysis. Informal Logic Newsletter, 592, 2-7. Paul, R. W . (1990). Critical thinking handbook: K - 3 r d grades. Rohnert Park, C A : Center For Thinking and Mora l Critique, Sonoma State University. Paul, R. W. (1992). Critical thinking: Basic questions and answers. Think. Apr i l , 22. Retrieved February 5, 1999, from the World Wide Web: http ://www. sonoma. edu/cthink/12 library/questions, nclk Paul, R. W. (1993). The contribution o f philosophy to thinking. In J. A . Binker, Critical thinking: H o w to prepare students for a rapidly changing world (pp. 435-472). Santa Rosa, C A : Foundation For Critical Thinking. Paul, R. W . (1999). A brief history o f the idea o f critical thinking. Retrieved January 1, 1999 from the World Wide Web: http//www.Sonorrm.edu/cthirik/university/univUbrary/Wstory/cWst Piaget, J. (1926). The language and thought o f the child. ( M . Gabair, Trans.). N e w York : Harcourt Brace. Piaget, J. (1972). The child and reality: Problems o f genetic psychology. English translation, 1974. London: Frederick Muller Ltd . Portelli, J. P. & Church, S. (1995). Whole language and philosophy for children: A dialogue o f hope. In J. P. Portelli & R. F. Reed (Eds.). Children philosophy and democracy (pp. 75-117). Calgary, Alta. : Detselig Enterprises. Postman, N . & Weingartner, C . (1996). Teaching as a subversive activity. N e w York : Decorte Press. Rogers, K . (1972). On Becoming a person. Boston Mass.: Houten Mifflin. Salmon, M . H . (1995). Analyzing conversational reasoning. Informal Logic, 17 (1), 123. Sarason, S. B . (1971). The culture o f the school and the problems o f change. Boston: Al lyn and Brown. 122 Scieszka, J. (1989). The true story o f the three little pigs. N e w York: Viking. Schumacher, S. & McMi l l an , J. H . (1993). Research in Education: A conceptual introduction. (3rd edition). New York: Harper Collins College Publishers. Sears, A . & Parsons, J. (1991). Towards critical thinking as an ethic. Theory and Research in Social Education, 19 (1), 45-68. Seuss, Dr . (1990). Oh. the places you'll go. Toronto: Random House. Siegel, H . (1988). Educating reason: Rationality, critical thinking, and education. London: Routledge. Siegel, H . (1989). Why be rational? Thinking critically about critical thinking. Upper Montclair, N J : Institute for Critical Thinking Resource Publication, 2(1) . Siegel, H . (1991). The generalizability o f critical tliinking. Educational Philosophy and Theory. 23 (1). 18-30. Siegel, H . (1993). Not by skill alone: The centrality o f character to critical thinking. Informal Logic . 14(3). 163-177. Siegel, H . (1996) The role o f reasons in (science) education. In W. Hare & J. P. Portelli, Philosophy o f education (pp.107-123). Calgary, Alta. : Detselig Enterprises. Siegel, H . (1997). Rationality redeemed. N e w York: Routledge. Spring, J. (1994). Wheels in the head: Educational philosophies o f authority, freedom, and culture from Socrates to Paulo Freire. N e w York : M c G r a w H i l l . Stenhouse, L . (1975). A n introduction to curriculum research and development. London: Heinemann. Taba, H . (1950). The problems in developing critical thinking. Progressive Education, 27-28. Turner, S. M . & Matthews, G . B . (Eds.), (1998). The philosopher's child: Critical perspectives on the western tradition. Rochester, N Y : University o f Rochester Press. van Manen, M . (1991). The tack o f teaching: The meaning o f pedagogical thoughtfulness. Albany: State University of N e w York Press. Walker, M . (1993). Developing the theory and practice o f action research: A South African case. Educational Action Research, 1 (1), 95-109. 123 Walters, K . S. (1994). Rethinking reason: N e w perspectives in critical thinking. Albany: State University o f N e w York Press. Watson, G . & Glasser, E . M . (1980). Watson-Glasser critical thinking appraisal: Forms A and B . Cleveland, Ohio: The Psychological Corporation. Weate, J. (1998). A young person's guide to philosophy: I think therefore I am. Vancouver: N e w Millennium Books. Wheary, J. & Ennis, R. (1995). Gender bias in critical thinking: Continuing the dialogue. Educational Theory. 45 (2), 221-222. Whitehead, A . N . (1929). The aims o f education. N e w York: MacMil lan Company. Wolcott, H . F. (1990). Writing up qualitative research. Newbury Park: Sage Publications. Wright, I. (1995). Critical tliinking in social studies: Beliefs, commitments, and implementation. Canadian Social Studies, 29 (2), 66-68. 124
Thesis/Dissertation
eng
Curriculum Studies
Vancouver : University of British Columbia Library
For non-commercial purposes only, such as research, private study and education. Additional conditions apply, see Terms of Use https://open.library.ubc.ca/terms_of_use.
Graduate
Critical thinking for children : a dialogue of hope
Text