American Civics and your future.

[Adios]

How about a parenting class that teaches parents how to teach their kids critical thinking skills? 

Yeah, I know, would anyone show up? 

For an hour.

Then they'd leave, once they realized that critical thinking would include examining their own beliefs as well as those of others.

I can surely see the religious right throwing a shit fit over it.

And the hippies.
And the libertarians.
And the soccer moms.
And the uber patriots.
And the Obama fans.
And the Obama haters.
And the conspiracy freaks.
And the teabaggers (Redundant, I know).
And the utopians.
And the people who think they already think critically.

All the more reasons to get it instituted. Why not fight to break the stranglehold they want to hold over independent thought? No war that is worthwhile is easily won.

[Doktor Howl]

How about a parenting class that teaches parents how to teach their kids critical thinking skills? 

Yeah, I know, would anyone show up? 

For an hour.

Then they'd leave, once they realized that critical thinking would include examining their own beliefs as well as those of others.

I can surely see the religious right throwing a shit fit over it.

And the hippies.
And the libertarians.
And the soccer moms.
And the uber patriots.
And the Obama fans.
And the Obama haters.
And the conspiracy freaks.
And the teabaggers (Redundant, I know).
And the utopians.
And the people who think they already think critically.

All the more reasons to get it instituted. Why not fight to break the stranglehold they want to hold over independent thought? No war that is worthwhile is easily won.

Let me know how that works out.

By the way, they'll kill you if you try this in Kansas.  Just saying.

[Requia ☣]

Probably better to teach them critical thinking skills and them let the run amok

Gordian Knot, meet Alexander.

I would support the implementation of an ongoing critical thinking class from kindergarten to 12th grade 100%.

As I have pointed out before, no methods to teach cross domain critical thinking skills exist.  At best you can teach critical thinking in a narrow focus.

'critical thinking in politics' might be doable.

No snark, could you please link to that proof?

http://acad-en.ncku.edu.tw/ezfiles/33/1033/attach/56/pta_839_9679008_08061.pdf

This is the only one of the papers on the subject in my notes I can find online.

[Adios]

How about a parenting class that teaches parents how to teach their kids critical thinking skills? 

Yeah, I know, would anyone show up? 

For an hour.

Then they'd leave, once they realized that critical thinking would include examining their own beliefs as well as those of others.

I can surely see the religious right throwing a shit fit over it.

And the hippies.
And the libertarians.
And the soccer moms.
And the uber patriots.
And the Obama fans.
And the Obama haters.
And the conspiracy freaks.
And the teabaggers (Redundant, I know).
And the utopians.
And the people who think they already think critically.

All the more reasons to get it instituted. Why not fight to break the stranglehold they want to hold over independent thought? No war that is worthwhile is easily won.

Let me know how that works out.

By the way, they'll kill you if you try this in Kansas.  Just saying.

Well, I haven't tilted at any windmills recently. Guess I'm about due.

[AFK]

Maybe critical thinking isn't the proper technical label for what we are talking about.  Maybe it isn't critical thinking, maybe it is critical awareness.  The paper you linked to seems to say that because not everyone can understand the basics of every domain, critical thinking doesn't work because of that lack of understanding.  So critical thinking is great if you are a math wiz or a science wiz.  Because you understand math and science.  But when faced with a problem involving public policy, well, I don't understand those basics so I don't have enough input to do critical thinking.  

But of course, a person can learn about those basics.  They can learn about what they don't understand.  So I think maybe what we are talking about is a two-pronged approach.  The first part of what we want to teach or impart is the drive to keep learning.  The idea that seeking knowledge when you don't understand something is a good and noble pursuit.  It broadens your horizons and deepens your understanding of your world.  Then, you can engage in critical thinking on the particular topic.  

Maybe it is more of a value we are talking about.  The value of thinking beyond the books.  The understanding that you are being taught certain information in each of your classes, from these textbooks and materials, but that there is a beyond, this whole other layer, that is huge, where more knowledge on the subject can be found.  You want to go up there and explore.  We are giving you what you need to get your diploma, but you don't have to be satisfied with that.  Nor should you be because the world is a lot bigger than what is contained in the few dozen textbooks you will read in the course of your K-12 education.  

[Adios]

Probably better to teach them critical thinking skills and them let the run amok

Gordian Knot, meet Alexander.

I would support the implementation of an ongoing critical thinking class from kindergarten to 12th grade 100%.

As I have pointed out before, no methods to teach cross domain critical thinking skills exist.  At best you can teach critical thinking in a narrow focus.

'critical thinking in politics' might be doable.

No snark, could you please link to that proof?

http://acad-en.ncku.edu.tw/ezfiles/33/1033/attach/56/pta_839_9679008_08061.pdf

This is the only one of the papers on the subject in my notes I can find online.

And you ignored the links I posted where it can be taught and how to teach it?

[Adios]

Maybe critical thinking isn't the proper technical label for what we are talking about.  Maybe it isn't critical thinking, maybe it is critical awareness.  The paper you linked to seems to say that because not everyone can understand the basics of every domain, critical thinking doesn't work because of that lack of understanding.  So critical thinking is great if you are a math wiz or a science wiz.  Because you understand math and science.  But when faced with a problem involving public policy, well, I don't understand those basics so I don't have enough input to do critical thinking.  

But of course, a person can learn about those basics.  They can learn about what they don't understand.  So I think maybe what we are talking about is a two-pronged approach.  The first part of what we want to teach or impart is the drive to keep learning.  The idea that seeking knowledge when you don't understand something is a good and noble pursuit.  It broadens your horizons and deepens your understanding of your world.  Then, you can engage in critical thinking on the particular topic.  

Maybe it is more of a value we are talking about.  The value of thinking beyond the books.  The understanding that you are being taught certain information in each of your classes, from these textbooks and materials, but that there is a beyond, this whole other layer, that is huge, where more knowledge on the subject can be found.  You want to go up there and explore.  We are giving you what you need to get your diploma, but you don't have to be satisfied with that.  Nor should you be because the world is a lot bigger than what is contained in the few dozen textbooks you will read in the course of your K-12 education.  

Also this is where the difference between lecturing or memorization teaching has to be removed and interactive teaching brought into play.

[AFK]

Yep.  And another piece is just really being systematic with how you introduce kids to realities that are different then their particular world.  What I mean by that is a kid who lives in a home where they don't really travel much, they are pretty comfortable with money, they go to church every Sunday....they are likely not to see the world of a family who is living in poverty who don't even have transportation to get to the grocery store.  And vice versa.  Sure, kids learn about different cultures in different countries, but they don't really get a good taste for the different cultures in their own country or their own neighborhood.  The cultures of socioeconomics and class.  So kids should have some kind of public service credit where they get to volunteer in a homeless shelter, a soup kitchen, a nursing home, get to see how other people and families live.  Broaden their world-view even if it is just at the local level. 

And for hell's sake we need to get rid of this American Dream mantra.  It limits the imagination of the rich and poor alike.  The rich kid thinks it's owed to them, the poor kid thinks they don't have a shot in hell of achieving it, and then their lot is cast.  Kids need to see more paths. 

[Hoser McRhizzy]

Probably better to teach them critical thinking skills and them let the run amok

Gordian Knot, meet Alexander.

I would support the implementation of an ongoing critical thinking class from kindergarten to 12th grade 100%.

Someone mentioned media literacy earlier in this thread [ETA: it was RHWN], and that's one place where sliding critical thinking skills into curriculum has a long history.  Outside of the U.S., Canada and Australia, it's usually referred to as media education.  

This might be tl;dr, but this is a pet area of mine.  Just skip it if it's an interruption.

While a lot of media literacy developed in the states hasn't gone much beyond "teaching kids to beware the mass media" and tech skills-training, its 30-40 year history in England, Canada, Russia, Latin America and Australia is a little different.  To over-simplify, a main focus is on the ability to take apart media messages critically and learn to craft your own, but what's come out of it is pretty diverse.  The results often start out as political parody (ex. lambasting high school movies/culture), but critical thinking is the focus, which people argue for as a "transferable skill."

Two drawbacks off the bat: where it's been disciplined into a subject (like Language/English in Ontario) and become a mandated part of the curriculum, it's subject to the same shit that everything else is – standardization and rote skills for testing, lack of resources and little to no teacher training available, streaming students into either critical thinking (for kids deemed advanced, or thinkers) or skills (for kids who are deemed basic, or doers), and so on.  It's subject to a de-fanging in those cases, or what Allen Luke described as the domestication of media literacy.  But interested teachers are finding ways to teach each other and keep it going.

The pressure from parents, principals and the state to Teach for the Test is enormous, and cain mentioned part of the reason why earlier in the thread.  Teachers who find ways to do that and get some actual critical education in there as well are fucking superheroes right now.

When it's a favourite method of an interested teacher or group, or when it slides crabwise into subjects (English, social studies, etc), it's often entirely awesome.

A good case I like thinking about is a teacher named Orlowski who uses media ed to teach his social studies classes about political media bias: Who owns the news outlet?  How many actual journalists do they have on staff?  Was the piece researched or not and how can you tell?  How does language choice and topic focus indicate slant and priorities?  Who's missing from the story?  What version of history is adhered to?  And the kicker: pick a history/bias/interest combination and write a news piece yourself.  He's lovely.  And topic aside, kids learn to read critically against the text and question research resources - something they're otherwise (and often) punished for before University/College.

As an example, this exercise that Cory Doctorow came up with for getting students, teachers and parents to think about censorware in their schools is nifty.  It's basically the same kind of testing done by the OpenNet Initiative, but with your own access.

But some of the most exciting work is coming out of community initiatives (where authority issues aren't as tricky - an authority figure telling you to question authority and TFYS, students teaching classes about software programs when they know more than the teacher - it can get messy for some) and where there's a reason for doing it in the first place.  Pirate radio out of Italy is one example.

Apologies if this was off-topic.

[Adios]

Probably better to teach them critical thinking skills and them let the run amok

Gordian Knot, meet Alexander.

I would support the implementation of an ongoing critical thinking class from kindergarten to 12th grade 100%.

Someone mentioned media literacy earlier in this thread, and that's one place where sliding critical thinking skills into curriculum has a long history.  Outside of the U.S., Canada and Australia, it's usually referred to as media education.  

This might be tl;dr, but this is a pet area of mine.  Just skip it if it's an interruption.

While a lot of media literacy developed in the states hasn't gone much beyond "teaching kids to beware the mass media" and tech skills-training, its 30-40 year history in England, Canada, Russia, Latin America and Australia is a little different.  To over-simplify, a main focus is on the ability to take apart media messages critically and learn to craft your own, but what's come out of it is pretty diverse.  The results often start out as political parody (ex. lambasting high school movies/culture), but critical thinking is the focus, which people argue for as a "transferable skill."

Two drawbacks off the bat: where it's been disciplined into a subject (like Language/English in Ontario) and become a mandated part of the curriculum, it's subject to the same shit that everything else is – standardization and rote skills for testing, lack of resources and little to no teacher training available, streaming students into either critical thinking (for kids deemed advanced, or thinkers) or skills (for kids who are deemed basic, or doers), and so on.  It's subject to a de-fanging in those cases, or what Allen Luke described as the domestication of media literacy.  But interested teachers are finding ways to teach each other and keep it going.

The pressure from parents, principals and the state to Teach for the Test is enormous, and cain mentioned part of the reason why earlier in the thread.  Teachers who find ways to do that and get some actual critical education in there as well are fucking superheroes right now.

When it's a favourite method of an interested teacher or group, or when it slides crabwise into subjects (English, social studies, etc), it's often entirely awesome.

A good case I like thinking about is a teacher named Orlowski who uses media ed to teach his social studies classes about political media bias: Who owns the news outlet?  How many actual journalists do they have on staff?  Was the piece researched or not and how can you tell?  How does language choice and topic focus indicate slant and priorities?  Who's missing from the story?  What version of history is adhered to?  And the kicker: pick a history/bias/interest combination and write a news piece yourself.  He's lovely.  And topic aside, kids learn to read critically against the text and question research resources - something they're otherwise (and often) punished for before University/College.

As an example, this exercise that Cory Doctorow came up with for getting students, teachers and parents to think about censorware in their schools is nifty.  It's basically the same kind of testing done by the OpenNet Initiative, but with your own access.

But some of the most exciting work is coming out of community initiatives (where authority issues aren't as tricky - an authority figure telling you to question authority and TFYS, students teaching classes about software programs when they know more than the teacher - it can get messy for some) and where there's a reason for doing it in the first place.  Pirate radio out of Italy is one example.

Apologies if this was off-topic.

This was an excellent post and very much on topic. I would like to hear more from you as you seem to have a grasp on what I would like to see implemented.

[Hoser McRhizzy]

This was an excellent post and very much on topic. I would like to hear more from you as you seem to have a grasp on what I would like to see implemented.

Cool.  Glad to hear I wasn't derailing. 

I'll try to say a bit more, but I ramble.  Forewarned.

While a lot of media literacy developed in the states hasn't gone much beyond "teaching kids to beware the mass media" and tech skills-training, its 30-40 year history in England, Canada, Russia, Latin America and Australia is a little different.

I should've been clearer about this.  What I meant is the history of media lit/ed as a discipline sorta thing is different in different countries.  US history has stayed more protectionist/hysterical-oriented than most (tv is sexing your child, video games make babies kill each other, etc.), but many started out that way and some still carry those overtones. 

What teachers and groups are doing with it (wherever it is) is often something totally different from what people trying to set down a canon decide for a definition of media lit/ed.  Which is more often, like with any line of thought getting disciplined and institutionalized, a long list of what it's not allowed to be about. 

For example, I and a lot of people who are into this have a broader definition of media that's more in line with Marshall McLuhan's sound byte than most media lit definitions: it's anything that carries/is a message.  Which can make it pretty much any media, including what are often thought of as tools.

At it's worst, outside the protectionist model, it's Deconstruction 101.  And that's not a terrible thing - it's incredibly useful.  At it's best (when I've seen it) it's interrogative and kids get really passionate and creative with it.

If you've got any questions or ideas (or if this just got really navel-gazey and I need to define something), let me know.  I love thinking about this stuff.

[BabylonHoruv]

Critical Thinking and (Imma gonna beat this one into the ground) Media Literacy (TV, print, social media, etc.)

Both are skills and concepts both sides of the spectrum would embrace if you pitch it correctly.  And I agree critical thinking should be there from K to 12. 

I agree strongly on media literacy.  Critical reading is rare enough, critical TV viewing and internet surfing even rarer as far as I can tell.

[Requia ☣]

Maybe critical thinking isn't the proper technical label for what we are talking about.  Maybe it isn't critical thinking, maybe it is critical awareness.  The paper you linked to seems to say that because not everyone can understand the basics of every domain, critical thinking doesn't work because of that lack of understanding.  So critical thinking is great if you are a math wiz or a science wiz.  Because you understand math and science.  But when faced with a problem involving public policy, well, I don't understand those basics so I don't have enough input to do critical thinking.  

But of course, a person can learn about those basics.  They can learn about what they don't understand.  So I think maybe what we are talking about is a two-pronged approach.  The first part of what we want to teach or impart is the drive to keep learning.  The idea that seeking knowledge when you don't understand something is a good and noble pursuit.  It broadens your horizons and deepens your understanding of your world.  Then, you can engage in critical thinking on the particular topic.  

Maybe it is more of a value we are talking about.  The value of thinking beyond the books.  The understanding that you are being taught certain information in each of your classes, from these textbooks and materials, but that there is a beyond, this whole other layer, that is huge, where more knowledge on the subject can be found.  You want to go up there and explore.  We are giving you what you need to get your diploma, but you don't have to be satisfied with that.  Nor should you be because the world is a lot bigger than what is contained in the few dozen textbooks you will read in the course of your K-12 education.  

Learning those basics is domain specific though, you can teach critical thinking in politics just fine, but those skills won't apply to say, picking a car to buy.  People don't apply existing skills to new problems very well.

[Golden Applesauce]

Maybe critical thinking isn't the proper technical label for what we are talking about.  Maybe it isn't critical thinking, maybe it is critical awareness.  The paper you linked to seems to say that because not everyone can understand the basics of every domain, critical thinking doesn't work because of that lack of understanding.  So critical thinking is great if you are a math wiz or a science wiz.  Because you understand math and science.  But when faced with a problem involving public policy, well, I don't understand those basics so I don't have enough input to do critical thinking.  

But of course, a person can learn about those basics.  They can learn about what they don't understand.  So I think maybe what we are talking about is a two-pronged approach.  The first part of what we want to teach or impart is the drive to keep learning.  The idea that seeking knowledge when you don't understand something is a good and noble pursuit.  It broadens your horizons and deepens your understanding of your world.  Then, you can engage in critical thinking on the particular topic.  

Maybe it is more of a value we are talking about.  The value of thinking beyond the books.  The understanding that you are being taught certain information in each of your classes, from these textbooks and materials, but that there is a beyond, this whole other layer, that is huge, where more knowledge on the subject can be found.  You want to go up there and explore.  We are giving you what you need to get your diploma, but you don't have to be satisfied with that.  Nor should you be because the world is a lot bigger than what is contained in the few dozen textbooks you will read in the course of your K-12 education.  

Learning those basics is domain specific though, you can teach critical thinking in politics just fine, but those skills won't apply to say, picking a car to buy.  People don't apply existing skills to new problems very well.

I find this hard to believe.  The basic pattern of "What is the salesman/author/columnist/blogger trying to sell me?  How is he selling it to me?" is pretty domain-independent.

[Adios]

This was an excellent post and very much on topic. I would like to hear more from you as you seem to have a grasp on what I would like to see implemented.

Cool.  Glad to hear I wasn't derailing. 

I'll try to say a bit more, but I ramble.  Forewarned.

While a lot of media literacy developed in the states hasn't gone much beyond "teaching kids to beware the mass media" and tech skills-training, its 30-40 year history in England, Canada, Russia, Latin America and Australia is a little different.

I should've been clearer about this.  What I meant is the history of media lit/ed as a discipline sorta thing is different in different countries.  US history has stayed more protectionist/hysterical-oriented than most (tv is sexing your child, video games make babies kill each other, etc.), but many started out that way and some still carry those overtones. 

What teachers and groups are doing with it (wherever it is) is often something totally different from what people trying to set down a canon decide for a definition of media lit/ed.  Which is more often, like with any line of thought getting disciplined and institutionalized, a long list of what it's not allowed to be about. 

For example, I and a lot of people who are into this have a broader definition of media that's more in line with Marshall McLuhan's sound byte than most media lit definitions: it's anything that carries/is a message.  Which can make it pretty much any media, including what are often thought of as tools.

At it's worst, outside the protectionist model, it's Deconstruction 101.  And that's not a terrible thing - it's incredibly useful.  At it's best (when I've seen it) it's interrogative and kids get really passionate and creative with it.

If you've got any questions or ideas (or if this just got really navel-gazey and I need to define something), let me know.  I love thinking about this stuff.

Please continue.