American Civics and your future.

[Adios]

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. 

RWHN wins an internet.

[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.  

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.

This.

[Captain Utopia]

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. 

In Britain you're born into a class too.  You could say that at least America has added a lottery to its class-system, but playing it is still for chumps.  It's one thing I love about Canada, or at least my city -- I've never felt like I had to be or act a certain way just because of my background.  After all this time the feeling is still unbelievably liberating.

[Requia ☣]

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.

It doesn't work that way.   If you present problems that have an identical in depth structure, but different surface structure, people will do better on one and worse on the other.

[Adios]

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.

It doesn't work that way.   If you present problems that have an identical in depth structure, but different surface structure, people will do better on one and worse on the other.

[Requia ☣]

I already gave one.  Your turn.

[Adios]

I already gave one.  Your turn.

I gave you several, which you ignored.

[Requia ☣]

You linked to various critical thinking programs, that they attempt to teach critical thinking is not new information, I want evidence that any of these programs actually work.

[Adios]

You linked to various critical thinking programs, that they attempt to teach critical thinking is not new information, I want evidence that any of these programs actually work.

You posited that they don't. Prove it.

[Requia ☣]

One cannot prove a negative.  The burden of proof, of any evidence at all really, falls on you.

[Cain]

I've heard studies that suggest what Requia says is at least partially true, though I don't have the journal access to read the studies myself.

Anecdotally though, it seems to have some validity.  Atheists who are skeptical about religion, for example, but not economic fundamentalism.

Of course, that just suggests the need for lessons which show how to apply the methods to all these different facets.

[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.  

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.

Did you actually read my post?  Nowhere in my post did I indicate my idea was limited to a particular domain.  Try again. 

[Requia ☣]

What?

I'm not implying that you said that, I'm saying your idea will not work, the critical thinking skills learned in a specific domain will not apply themselves to a new domain just because they learn about the new domain.

But lets say I missed something and it might actually work.  Lets try something brand new, and instead of proposing nationwide programs, we get 2 or 3 classrooms full of kids and teach *just them*, and see if it actually works.  You know, the whole science thing, instead of proposals that might be the next NCLB or Headstart.

[AFK]

You seem to be only focusing on the second prong.  There was a first prong as well.  And obviously you have to pilot any new initiative before it goes nationwide.  But I would challenge that while you may not technically be able to teach a universal critical thinking skill, you can teach an approach to critical thinking.  And that approach would include knowing when you need to consult a person or entity that holds the knowledge you yourself do not have in a particular domain.  But if you can impart the idea in the first prong, a person will be in better shape and better able to recognize their limits and what they can do to get around that barrier and still contribute to the issue at hand. 

[HaggisFY]

Critical thinking cannot be taught; it's a point of awareness that an individual must reach himself.

Because, as long as there is a teacher, there will always be a certain conclusion that the teacher hopes his pupils will reach. The pupils who pulls of the "right " critical thinking (thinks within the norms) will get the better grade.

To think critical is not hard, when it's done on demand, after a pattern. This kind of critical thinking will then become just what the old uncritical thinking was.
It's a contradiction.

In a system in which we teachers do the grading, few students are going to criticize or even question the ideas we offer; and if we try to induce criticism by grading for it, we generate false criticism.

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/freedom-learn/200909/seven-sins-our-system-forced-education?page=2