It wasn't wine that I had too much of
It was a double shot of my baby's love
-Written By Don Smith & Cyril Vetter
Recorded by the Swingin' Medallions
Originally recorded by Dick Holler and the Holidays
As I mentioned last time, this
semester Word Works is taking its cue from classic-rock
radio stations and featuring some "classic cuts," past selections
of WW that don't receive much online airplay (or would that
be Jefferson Airplane?). In September the focus was on paragraphs;
this month we'll move from indenting to inducting (and deducting)
as the theme is critical thinking. So often, when asked what we
hope students learn in the classroom, we say "to think critically."
But how best to prompt such thinking?
To answer that question, we
have not one but two articles. Again, borrowing from the radio
stations, it's a "double shot" of the topic--just like hearing
Three Dog Night's "Shambala" and "Never Been to Spain" back to
back. This month’s first article is from September 1990 and was
written by Roy Fox. In it he asks and answers nine questions that
he feels are important ones for teachers who want their students to
be thoughtful about and engaged with the work they do. The second
article is from October of 2002, and is online (the link is at the
bottom of this page). In it, Rick Leahy explores various types of
critical thinking, working from the thoughts of several faculty
members who attended a summer writing seminar.
Taken together, the articles
offer both a reminder for us to consider how we approach our
students and our assignments, and suggestions for how we can best do
so. As usual,
none of the material in Word Works is copyrighted, so if you
find something you would like to use, feel free to print or
download, or to create a link to us.
mm
Word Works #37:
September 1990
“Cultivating
Critical Thinking”
Roy Fox
Whether we teach physics,
music, or anthropology, all of us are interested in making our
students "thoughtful" or "reflective" or "critical-minded." We want
them to think critically about our discipline and within our
discipline. We also want our students to graduate and become
discriminating and critical citizens of the world.
The fact is, though, that we often complain, especially to each
other, that our students don't or can't think. Of course this is an
exaggeration; thinking is much like breathing. Sometimes it's
shallow, sometimes it's deep and measured, but it can never be shut
off.
"Critical thinking" in a college setting, though, goes beyond just
thinking about anything, in any way. Critical thinking means we
want our students to analyze and synthesize so that they can make
judgments or evaluations of the material. For example, we not only
want students to identify the economic theory, but we want them to
judge or evaluate its worth, explaining why the theory is a bad one
because it favors the upper 2% of wage earners, and so forth.
The points that follow apply to critical thinking, in whatever way
it is used and observed in the classroom: student writing or
student projects, discussion groups, conferences between student
and professor, etc. Before you expect your students to exercise
critical thinking, ask yourself the following questions. They will
help you determine whether or not you have first created the
conditions in which critical thinking can grow.
1. Do I assume that students will think critically with no help
from me? If you answer "yes" to this question, you're likely
setting yourself up for frustration. Most students will seldom or
ever think critically without your intervention. Critical thinking
about our disciplines doesn't happen automatically. Instead of
merely telling students to be critical thinkers about the lecture
they heard on nematodes, or about the chapter they read on Gandhi,
we need instead to structure an environment so that critical
thinking can develop. Merely expecting thinking to happen or simply
telling students to do it is never enough. If we don't plant seeds,
water them, aerate the soil, and keep weeds down - just generally
cultivate - then we'll produce no critical thinkers.
Also, the ways that you define critical thinking, and (or) the ways
it is usually defined within your discipline, are not apparent to
students. Through discussion of specific examples, students need to
be shown exactly what a critical thinker in biology or history
does. In working through this material, you'll need to engage in
language about thinking itself, by choosing the most accurate verbs
to describe what the thinker actually did in arriving at some
product or conclusion. For example, before arriving at a new
interpretation of the causes of the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis, the
historian skimmed
many sources, reviewed 16 of these sources, closely re-read nine of
the sources, interviewed twelve participants, evaluated the notes
and conducted eight follow-up interviews, synthesized all of her
notes, sorted out and identified three major ideas she found in
this material, and so on to the end of the process.
As you can tell from this example, a few key terms will need to be
further defined and
illustrated. Labels such as "evaluate" and "synthesize" often mean
different things to different people, and in different disciplines.
You and your students need to have the same understanding about how
such terms are defined, how they are applied, and how they operate
within your discipline.
2. Have I given students concrete evidence that I really want
them to think independently? Probably all of us have taken
classes where the scenario went like this: the instructor said he
expected independent, critical thinking, but when term paper and
exam time came, what he really wanted us to do was parrot back what
we'd memorized from the textbook and lecture notes. You give
evidence that you really want critical thinking by requiring
students to work out problems by themselves, and encouraging them
to be inventive even if they sometimes come up with wrong answers.
Much of critical thinking is risk-taking. If you encourage students
to take risks - and then they do and fail - your not accepting
their failure in some way will send their critical thinking into
retreat, if not retirement.
3. Have students been immersed in the topic I am asking them to
think critically about? This "immersion principle" is so basic,
it's often overlooked. Simply put, it goes like this: the more
movies (or butterflies or experiments or sonatas) you're exposed
to, the sharper your critical abilities become. Critical thinking
seldom occurs in a vacuum; if we carefully steep our students in
their topic first, they are much more likely to be more effective
critical thinkers. The mind is a natural classifier of things, but
you simply have to feed it enough data before the sorting can begin
and criteria suggest themselves. Especially for students, reviewing
only five instances of any phenomenon may not be enough to get them
going.
Immersion in many examples of a subject helps the thinker arrive at
"external criteria." For example, if I wanted my students to
evaluate or critique Edward Hopper's painting, "Nighthawks," I
would first want them to experience many early 20th-century
American painters and many other Hopper paintings as well. This
does not mean much, if any, extra work for me. It simply means that
I would somehow structure the course so that I received proof that
students did it. I could, for example, require them to examine 50
different paintings and make quick informal notes about each one,
asking them to address whatever specific questions I desired, as
well as ask them to draw their own conclusions along the way,
throughout their series of notes. I would collect these informal
writings and spot-read them only. I would grade the entries in some
way (on completeness, degree of engagement with the assignment,
etc.), but the payoff should come when students write their formal
critiques of "Nighthawks." Their immersion in many examples will
help them write more informed, meaningful responses.
This approach of critiquing a single instance or one thing, based
upon an immersion in many similar instances of things, can be
thought of as using "external criteria." That is, in reviewing
other like subjects, you abstract various qualities that set some
apart from the others, that make some paintings "bad." others
"mediocre," and others "outstanding." The criteria could apply to
many other paintings, not just "Nighthawks."The criteria are called
"external" because they are not unique just to Hopper's painting.
Immersion in a single instance or thing, leading to "internal
criteria," is also possible. People can form concepts or make
critical evaluations based upon different elements of the single
instance or thing. For example, an astute thinker could closely
observe only one painting, such as Hopper's "Nighthawks," and
critique it solely on the basis of what is found within this one
painting (e.g., the flat surfaces created by flat brush strokes,
the isolation of the people in the cafe. etc.). An astute observer
can examine only one cat and draw conclusions about all cats. But
most of our students do not operate at this level, simply because
they are still in the process of gaining experience - not
exercising the fruits of it.
4. Do I help students understand part/whole relationships within
the material that they are critically evaluating? In order to
criticize something, one has to understand the whole -how the whole
thing works. This means understanding how each component or part
affects each of the others, and how they all work to create the
whole. Whether students are employing internal criteria, or more
likely, external criteria, they must thoroughly understand that a
judgment or an evaluation means nothing unless it is anchored to a
specific reason and examples. If a student critiques "Nighthawks"
by saying that it "portrays urban isolation in an effective manner"
and stops there, little is accomplished. One way of making sure
that students really criticize by taking a stand, as well as tie
their critical judgments to specific reasons, is to require them to
turn in a written summary statement about their critical
conclusions. This statement should contain (1) their overall
critical evalution — a statement which takes a definite stand, and
(2) three or more supporting reasons for their stand. These can all
occur in a single long "because" sentence. Here's an example:
Edward Hopper's "Nighthawks" portrays a haunting urban isolation
because it contrasts only a few brightly lit café customers adrift
in a dark cityscape, it shows these people physically apart from
each other, and its flat brushstrokes and colors emphasize space
and distance.
5. Do students have a formalized or built-in support system for
trying out their judgments or evaluations? This means that they
try out their evaluations with someone, who responds and gives
advice for improvement, but who does not grade the attempt. This
can involve your talking informally in the hallway with students,
but let's face it, most students avoid this kind of contact.
Students need a safe sounding-board built into your course, which
can take the form of students working in assigned pairs, journal
entries, and meeting in peer support groups outside of class.
6. Do I provide students with some choice in what they are to
think critically about?
Generally, upper-division students need greater freedom in
completing assignments than lower- division students.
Lower-division students need the right to choose, too, especially
if they are to become increasingly autonomous and independent
thinkers and learners. But lower-division students will probably
benefit most from limited choice, where, for example, they are
given three to five options within an assignment, and asked to
complete one of them.
7. Do I encourage students to evaluate material in terms of
criteria connected to their lives, not just to the discipline
itself? There should be room somewhere for the writer or
student to evaluate the material according to his or her own
criteria, not just the conventional ones dictated by the
discipline. This allows the writer to square or to reconcile
himself with the discipline—probably the most important way for
students to “enter” or “align” themselves with your discipline, as
opposed to rejecting it outright because the feel it does not
connect at all with their lives. The more that students can “own”
their own investments in your discipline, the stronger the bond
will become between them and your discipline.
8. Do I give students a chance to discover and clarify what they
don’t know or understand about the topic they are to critically
evaluate? If students have gaps in their knowledge of what they
are supposed to critique, then it is helpful to provide an open,
general question-answer period, or an informal writing assignment
in which students articulate their gaps in the material.
9. Do I give students the actual assignment in writing, as well
as the standards I will use to grade their critical evaluation?
Because we agree that getting students to exercise critical
thinking is probably the most important thing we do in our courses,
then the assignments should be carefully laid out in writing and
distributed to students. The handout should define what we mean by
“critical thinking,” outline a suggested procedure for students,
and tell them, as exactly as possible, what we expect. The
assignment sheet should also direct students to examples, by both
professionals and students. This sheet should also list the
standards or criteria that you will use to judge their
demonstration of critical thinking. Putting the grading standards
on paper, and then sticking to them, will help you as much as it
helps your students.
"Critical
Thinking"
Word Works 117:
October 2002