American Civics and your future.

[Adios]

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

It is being taught.

http://austhink.com/critical/pages/teaching.html

This is the third time I have stated it is being taught.

[Captain Utopia]

I think HaggisFY is saying that teaching critical thinking places an undesirable bias in the bad form of rationality.  And that the good form of rationality only comes from pixies.

[Adios]

All thoughts are welcome in this thread.

See Critical Thinking.

[Requia ☣]

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

It is being taught.

http://austhink.com/critical/pages/teaching.html

This is the third time I have stated it is being taught.

You have stated there are classes which claim to teach critical thinking.  The paper I linked talked about those, one of them sold a whopping 70 thousand teachers guides.  And I cannot find a single study that says a single one of them produces useful results.

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. 

Perhaps.  As I apparently don't understand your proposal I'll refrain from further criticisms.

[Juana]

Debate taught me critical thinking, more than anything else I've ever done. Where is this evidence coming from? What bias exists? What are they hiding (opponents or the source)? Where can I get more research on this? What does it mean and what applications does this have for the real world? - all useful shit. (Plus people reading - learning to read judges is really, really useful)

It's direct way to get kids to think, and pretty much anyone with a brain can pick up the skill through this, or so I've noticed over the eight or so years I've been doing it. And to do it well, you have to learn the Constitution, how the government works on paper, and how it works IRL because most debate topics deal with the US.

I encourage all PD parents to get their kids involved with debate and forensics. It's fun and there's something for everyone, especially the more theatrically inclined. Nigel, I think your oldest would enjoy this. All her political knowledge would be useful and I'm sure she'd love stomping the shit out of her opponents.

[Adios]

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

It is being taught.

http://austhink.com/critical/pages/teaching.html

This is the third time I have stated it is being taught.

You have stated there are classes which claim to teach critical thinking.  The paper I linked talked about those, one of them sold a whopping 70 thousand teachers guides.  And I cannot find a single study that says a single one of them produces useful results.

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. 

Perhaps.  As I apparently don't understand your proposal I'll refrain from further criticisms.

So you provide one link which can't prove it is useful. Wow. I have provided at least three links that show it is being taught, hoe to teach it, class dynamics, etc...never mind. You and I are done with this argument.

[Requia ☣]

I provided one link, if you like I can come out with a dozen more papers, though you won't have access to most of them.

However, nothing you have linked provides even the slightest hint of evidence that those programs are effective.

By your logic NCLB is also effective, as its still being used.

[ñͤͣ̄ͦ̌̑͗͊͛͂͗ ̸̨̨̣̺̼̣̜͙͈͕̮̊̈́̈͂͛̽͊ͭ̓͆ͅé ̰̓̓́ͯ́́͞]

From the article you linked to, Requia:

What do all these studies boil down to? First, critical thinking (as well as scientific thinking and other domain-based thinking) is not a skill. There is not a set of critical thinking skills that can be acquired and deployed regardless of context. Second, there are metacognitive strategies that, once learned, make critical thinking more likely. Third, the ability to think critically (to actually do what the metacognitive strategies call for) depends on domain knowledge and practice. For teachers, the situation is not hopeless, but no one should underestimate the difficulty of teaching students to think critically.

Emphasis is mine. I believe you are overstating your case.

[Golden Applesauce]

Are we arguing about who provided more or less or not enough or the right or wrong kinds of citations?

[Requia ☣]

From the article you linked to, Requia:

What do all these studies boil down to? First, critical thinking (as well as scientific thinking and other domain-based thinking) is not a skill. There is not a set of critical thinking skills that can be acquired and deployed regardless of context. Second, there are metacognitive strategies that, once learned, make critical thinking more likely. Third, the ability to think critically (to actually do what the metacognitive strategies call for) depends on domain knowledge and practice. For teachers, the situation is not hopeless, but no one should underestimate the difficulty of teaching students to think critically.

Emphasis is mine. I believe you are overstating your case.

Emphasis mine.  I've stated from the beginning critical thinking can be taught in a specific context, the problem is critical thinking in other contexts.

[LMNO]

Now, hold on.

If we take for example the scientific method of "Hypothesis, Experiment, Observation, and Modified Hypothesis (repeat as necessary)", that is easily taught, and can be applied to many contexts.

Requia, if your point is that after learning something akin to the scientific method, it is shown that people tend not to appy it to different contexts, then sure.  A lot of people don't make that jump on their own.

HOWEVER, it is a far better thing to give them that skill, so they might have a chance to work it out when a new context is provided.

The way you're arguing this sounds to me like you're saying, "because people don't always use criticial thinking skills in every situation, there's absolutely no point in ever teaching those skills."  Which I simply cannot agree with.

Also, if people tend not to use critical thinking in different contexts, and we know this, why don't the critical thinking classes stress that you need to be aware of different contexts?  To be self aware of potential pitfalls is to put a mental check on yourself.

[Requia ☣]

The way you're arguing this sounds to me like you're saying, "because people don't always use criticial thinking skills in every situation, there's absolutely no point in ever teaching those skills."  Which I simply cannot agree with.

It's not what I mean to imply, what I'm trying to say is you can't just 'teach critical thinking' without a more narrow goal in mind.  A critical thinking class devoid of a specific subject matter is unlikely to be useful outside of the classroom.

On the other hand, it *is* useful to teach critical thinking and history, critical thinking and home ec, critical thinking and civics and so forth, which I support.

Hmm, perhaps we need to rethink the idea of teaching CT, instead of 1 class, it should be intertwined with all the classes.  More difficult, but potentially vastly more useful.

[Captain Utopia]

[LMNO]

The way you're arguing this sounds to me like you're saying, "because people don't always use criticial thinking skills in every situation, there's absolutely no point in ever teaching those skills."  Which I simply cannot agree with.

It's not what I mean to imply, what I'm trying to say is you can't just 'teach critical thinking' without a more narrow goal in mind.  A critical thinking class devoid of a specific subject matter is unlikely to be useful outside of the classroom.

On the other hand, it *is* useful to teach critical thinking and history, critical thinking and home ec, critical thinking and civics and so forth, which I support.

Hmm, perhaps we need to rethink the idea of teaching CT, instead of 1 class, it should be intertwined with all the classes.  More difficult, but potentially vastly more useful.

I'm pretty sure a class in critical thinking wouldn't just be a teacher saying, "think critically, dummies!"

I'm confident that the first few classes would be about the process of critical thinking, and subsequent classes and assignments would be about how to apply and adapt those skills to different specific situations.

It doesn't have to be comprehensive, it can just be a survey to start with -- just the process of showing how CT skills can be applied to different things can open many doors that students can walk through later.

[AFK]

The way you're arguing this sounds to me like you're saying, "because people don't always use criticial thinking skills in every situation, there's absolutely no point in ever teaching those skills."  Which I simply cannot agree with.

It's not what I mean to imply, what I'm trying to say is you can't just 'teach critical thinking' without a more narrow goal in mind.  A critical thinking class devoid of a specific subject matter is unlikely to be useful outside of the classroom.

On the other hand, it *is* useful to teach critical thinking and history, critical thinking and home ec, critical thinking and civics and so forth, which I support.

Hmm, perhaps we need to rethink the idea of teaching CT, instead of 1 class, it should be intertwined with all the classes.  More difficult, but potentially vastly more useful.

Obviously.  It should be woven into the school curriculum.  I don't think anyone was suggesting it should be limited to one broad-based class.  It would need to be a very systemic approach with evaluation metrics established.