Critical Thinking (2) Learner Development Unit P

Critical Thinking (2) Learner Development Unit “Critical” – “Critically” ‐ Emphasise analytical ‐ Serious ‐ Thorough / ‐ Salient thoroughness ‐ Brainstorming ‐ Rigour / rigorous ‐ In‐dthdepth examiitination ‐ Attention to detail ‐ Detail ‐ Evidence ‐ Analysis / analyse / Thinking …

• Finding things out implications • Noticing connections • Working things out • Analysing • Realising • Deciding • Summarising underpinnings • Solving • Hypothesising • NtiiNoticing • Justifying • Evaluating assumptions • • Remembering • Sequencing Testing • (Adapted from McGuinness, 1999) • Planning • Ordering • McGuinness, C. (1999). From Thinking Skills to Thinking • Arggguing • Sorting Classrooms: A Review and Evaluation of Approaches for • Identifying • Classifying Developing Pupils' Thinking. • Speculating • Grouping Nottingham: DfEE Publications. • Calculating • Predicting • Comparing • Concluding • Deducing • Distinguishing • Realising • Noticing exceptions Thinking (1) … Thinking (2) … Thinking (3) … What kind of Thinker are you? (1)

• “I hate talk shows where pppeople shout their opinions but never give any reasons at all.” • “Figuring out what people really mean is important to me." • “I always do better in jbjobs where I'm expected to thin k things out for myself.” • “I hold off making decisions until I have thought through my options.” • “Rather than relying on someone else's notes, I prefer to read the matilterial myself”lf.” • “I try to see the merit in another’s opinion, even if I reject it later.” • “Even if a problem is tougher than I expected, I will keep working on it.” • “Making intelligent decisions is more important than winning arguments.” • Based on Facione, P. (2010). Critical Thinking: What It Is and Why It Counts. What kind of Think er are you? (2)

• “I prefer jjbobs where the supervisor says exactly what to do and exactly how to do it.” • “No matter how complex the problem, you can btbet there will be a simple solution.” • “I d'tdon't waste time llkiooking things up.” • “I hate when teachers discuss problems instead of just giiiving the answers.” • “If my belief is truly sincere, evidence to the contrary is irrelevant.” • “Selling an idea is like selling cars, you say whatever works.” • Based on Facione, P. (2010). Critical Thinking: What It Is and Why It Counts. We Human Beings are S’times Poor Thinkers Because We …

• jump to conclusions • miss key ideas • filfail to thin k‐throug h iilitimplications • use ilirrelevan t ideas • focus on the trivial • form superficial concepts • fail to notice contradictions • misuse words • accept inaccurate information • ignore relevant viewpoints • ask vague / irrelevant questions • cannot see issues from other points of view • give / accept vague / irrelevant answers • are unaware of our own prejudices • ask loaded questions • think narrowly • answer questions we are not competent to • think imprecisely answer • think illogically • come to conclusions based on inaccurate or • think one‐sidedly irrelevant information • think simplistically • ignore information that does not support • our view think hypocritically • • make unjustified inferences think suppyerficially • • distort data and state it inaccurately think ethnocentrically • • fail to notice the inferences we make think egocentrically • • come to unreasonable conclusions communicate our thinking poorly • • fail to notice our assumptions have little insight into our own ignorance • http://www.criticalthinking.org/articles/becoming‐a‐critic.cfm • often make unjustified assumptions More Reasons for Bad Thinking (1) …

• In what ways are our minds influenced by factors ‘within’ ourselves? –Psychologically (our personality and ego) –Philosophically (our personal philosophy) –Ethicall y (our ethica l chht)aracter) –Biologically (our biology and neurology) • Are these factors static or dynamic? • Are these factors innate or learned? • Are we in control of these factors? To what extent? [Are they really ‘within’ ourselves?!] • Based on http://www.criticalthinking.org/articles/sts‐ct‐teaching‐students‐study‐learn‐p4.cfm More Reasons for Bad Thinking (2) …

• In what ways are our minds influenced by factors beyond ourselves? • Sociologgyically (the social ggproups to which we belong) • Intellectually (the ideas we hold, how we reason) • Anthropologically (our cultural practices, mores, and tab)boos) • Ideologically & politically (the structure of power and its use by interest groups around us) • Economically (the economic conditions under which we live) • Historically (our history and how we recountit) • Theologically (our religious beliefs) • Are we in control of these factors? To what extent? [Are they really ‘beyon d’ oursell?!]ves?!] • Based on http://www.criticalthinking.org/articles/sts‐ct‐teaching‐students‐study‐learn‐p4.cfm What is “Critical Thinking”? • “... a composite of attitudes, knowledge and skills. This composite includes: (1) attitudes of inquiry that involve an ability to recognize the existence of problems and an acceptance of the general need for evidence in support of what is asserted to be true; (2) knowledge of the nature of valid inferences, abstractions, and generalizations in which the weight or accuracy of different kinds of evidence are logically diddetermined; and (3) skills in empllioying and applying the above attitudes and knowledge”. • Watson‐Glaser Critical Thinking Appraisal What is “Critical Thinking”?

• “We understand critical thinking to be purposeful, self‐regulatory judgment which results in interpretation, analysis, evaluation, and inference, as well as explanation of the evidential, conceptual, methodological, criteriological, or contextual considerations upon which that judgment is based. CT is essential as a tool of inquiry. As such, CT is a liberating force in education and a powerful resource in one's personal and civic life. While not synonymous with good thinking, CT is a pervasive and self‐rectifying human phenomenon. The ideal critical thinker is habitually inquisitive, well‐informed, trustful of reason, open‐ minded, flexible, fairminded 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 of criteria, focused in inquiry, and persistent in seeking results which are as precise as the subject and the circumstances of inquiry permit. Thus, educating good critical thinkers means working toward this ideal. It combines developing CT skills with nurturing those dispositions which consistently yield useful insights and which are the basis of a rational and democratic society.”

• Facione, A. (1990) "Critical Thinking: A Statement of Expert Consensus for Purposes of Educational Assessment and Instruction”. A Report for the American Philosophical Association. What is “Critical Thinking”?

• “Critical thinking is the intellectually disciplined process of actively and skilfully conceptualizing, applying, analyzing, synthesizing, and/or evaluating information gathered from, or generated by, observation, experience, reflection, reasoning, or communication, as a guide to belief and action. In its exemplary form, it is based on universal intellectual values that transcend subject matter divisions: clarity, accuracy, precision, consistency, relevance, sound evidence, good reasons, depth, breadth, and fairness. It entails the examination of those structures or elements of thought implicit in all reasoning: purpose, problem, or question‐at‐issue, assumptions, concepts, empirical grounding; reasoning leading to conclusions, implications and consequences, objections from alternative viewpoints, and frame of reff”erence”.

• Michael Scriven and Richard Paul, National Council for Excellence in Critical Thinking. What is “Critical Thinking”?

• “Critical thinking is a desire to seek, patience to doubt, fondness to meditate, slowness to assert, readiness to consider, careflfulness to dispose and set in order; and hatred for every kind of imposture”.

• Francis Bacon (1605) “Critical Thinking” as an Ethical Philosophy • Intellectual Humility • Intellectual Courage • IlllIntellectual EhEmpathy • Intellectual Integrity • Intellectual Perseverance • Faith In Reason • Fairmindedness

• Valuable Intellectual Virtues (June 1996). Foundation For Critical Thinking.

• http://www.criticalthinking.org/articles/valuable‐intellectual‐traits.cfm “Critical Thinking” as an Ethical Philosophy • As you read the ideas beneath, consider what the various definitions and understandings imply. » Human nature » Human capacities » Rationality • What underlying ideologies, assumptions etc does the author himself hold / make? • To what extent do you dis/agree with the ideas? In what respects? Why? “Critical Thinking” as an Ethical Philosophy

• Intellectual Humility: Having a consciousness of the limits of one's knowledge, including a sensitivity to circumstances in which one's native egocentrism is likely to function self‐deceptively; sensitivity to bias, prejudice and limitations of one's viewpoint. • Intellectual Courage: Having a consciousness of the need to face and fairly address ideas, beliefs or viewpoints toward which we have strong negative emotions and to which we have not given a serious hearing. This courage is connected with the recognition that ideas considered dangerous or absurd are sometimes rationally justified (in whole or in part) and that conclusions and beliefs inculcated in us are sometimes false or misleading. • Intellectual Empathy: Having a consciousness of the need to imaginatively put oneself in the place of others in order to genuinely understand them, which requires the consciousness of our egocentric tendency to identify truth with our immediate ppperceptions of long‐standing thought or belief.

• Valuable Intellectual Virtues (June 1996). Foundation For Critical Thinking. • http://www. criticalthinking. org/articles/valuable‐intellectual‐traits. cfm “Critical Thinking” as an Ethical Philosophy

• Intellectual Integrity: Recognition of the need to be true to one's own thinking; to be consistent in the intellectual standards one applies; and to honestly admit discrepancies and inconsistencies in one's own thought and action. • Intellectual Perseverance: Having a consciousness of the need to use intellectual insights and truths in spite of difficulties, obstacles, and frustrations; firm adherence to rational principles despite the irrational opposition of others;. • FihFaith In Reason: CfidConfidence that, inthe long run, one'sownhig her interests and those of humankind at large will be best served by giving the freest play to reason, by encouraging people to come to their own conclusions by developing their own rational faculties. • Fairmindedness: Having a consciousness of the need to treat all viewpoints alike, without reference to one's own feelings or vested interests, or the feelings or vested interests of one' s friends, community or nation.

• Valuable Intellectual Virtues (June 1996). Foundation For Critical Thinking. • http: //www.cr itica lthin king.org /ar tic les /va lua ble‐itlltintellectua l‐titftraits.cfm “Critical Thinking” as an Ethical Philosophy

• Valuable Intellectual Virtues (June 1996). Foundation For Critical Thinking • http://www.criticalthinking.org/articles/valuable‐intellectual‐traits.cfm “Critical Thinking” as an Ethical Philosophy

• Intellectual Courage: Having a consciousness of the need to face and fairly address ideas, beliefs or viewpoints toward which we have strong negative emotions and to which we have not given a serious hhiearing. This courage is connected wiihth the recogniiition that ideas considered dangerous or absurd are sometimes rationally justified (in whole or in part) and that conclusions and beliefs inculcated in us are sometimes false or misleading. To determine for ourselves which is which, we must not passively and uuctcayncritically "accept" what we haaeve "learned ." Intellectua l cour age comes into play here, because inevitably we will come to see some truth in some ideas considered dangerous and absurd, and distortion or falsity in some ideas strongly held in our social group. We need courage to be true to our own thinking in such circumstances. The penalties for non‐conformity can be severe.

• Intellectual Empathy: Having a consciousness of the need to imaginatively put oneself in the place of others in order to genuinely understand them, which requires the consciousness of our egocentric tendency to identify truth with our immediate perceptions of long‐standing thought or belief. This trait correlates with the ability to reconstruct accurately the viewpoints and reasoning of others and to reason from premises, assumptions, and ideas other than our own. This trait also correlates with the willingness to remember occasions when we were wrong in the past despite an intense conviction that we were right, and with the ability to imagine our being similarly deceived in a case‐at‐hand.

• Intellectual Integrity: Recognition of the need to be true to one's own thinking; to be consistent in the itlltintellectua l sttddandards one applies; to hhldold one's self to the same rigorous standards of evidence and proof to whic h one hhldolds one's antagonists; to practice what one advocates for others; and to honestly admit discrepancies and inconsistencies in one's own thought and action.

• Intellectual Perseverance: Having a consciousness of the need to use intellectual insights and truths in spite of difficulties, obstacles, and frustrations; firm adherence to rational principles despite the irrational opposition of others; a sense of the need to struggle with confusion and unsettled questions over an extended period of time to achieve deeper understanding or insight.

• Faith In Reason: Confidence that, in the long run, one' s own higher interests and those of humankind at large will be best served by giving the freest play to reason, by encouraging people to come to their own conclusions by developing their own rational faculties; faith that, with proper encouragement and cultivation, people can learn to think for themselves, to form rational viewpoints, draw reasonable conclusions, think coherently and logically, persuade each other by reason and become reasonable persons, despite the deep‐seated obstacles in the native character of the human mind and in society as we know it.

• FiFairmi iddndedness: HiHaving a consciousness of the need to treat all viewpoints alike, without reference to one's own feelings or vested interests, or the feelings or vested interests of one's friends, community or nation; implies adherence to intellectual standards without reference to one' s own advantage or the advantage of one's group.

• Valuable Intellectual Virtues (June 1996). Foundation For Critical Thinking • http://www.criticalthinking.org/articles/valuable‐intellectual‐traits.cfm Critical Thinking Requires …

• LOGIC • DEPTH • EMPATHY • BREADTH • SELF‐AWARENESS • RIGOUR

• ACCURACY • Based on Elder, L. & Paul, R. (1996). Universal Intellectual Standards. Available at http://www.criticalthinking.org/articles/universal‐intellectual‐ standards.cfm • PRECISION

• CLARITY

• RELEVANCE Becoming a Critical Thinker – Questioning …

• RELEVANCE: • Is this connected to the issue / question? Why / not? In what ways? To what extent? • How does this bear on the issue / question? Why? Becoming a Critical Thinker – Questioning … • CLARITY: • Could / should I / you elaborate further on that point? If so, how? • Could / should I / you express that point in another way? If so, how? • Could / should I / you give [me] an illus tra tion ? • Could / should I / you give [me] an example? Becoming a Critical Thinker – Questioning …

ACCURACY: • Is that really true? • To what extents is that [not] really true? • In what ways is that [[]not] really true? • How could we check that? • How could I find out if that is true? What ifinformat ion / source do I need? • Is that information / source sound? Can I trust it? Why / not? In what ways? To what extent? Becoming a Critical Thinker – Questioning …

PRECISION: • Could I / you give more details? • Could I / you be more specific? • What exactly am I / are you saying? • What exactly might I / you be [inadvertently] suggesting / implying? Is that intended / justified? Why / not? Becoming a Critical Thinker – Questioning …

DEPTH: • Does my / your statement / answer truly address the complexities in the question? Why / not? • Am I / are you taking into account the problems in the issue / question? In what ways? To what extents? • Am I / are you dealing with the most significant factors? Why / not? In what ways? Becoming a Critical Thinker – Questioning …

BREADTH: • What might this look like from a different viewpoint? • Do I need to consider another point of view? Why / not? Whose point of view? Why? To what extents? • Are there other way/s to look at this issue / question? What? Why? Are they valid? Why / not? To what extents are they [not] valid? What evidence is there to support me / them? Becoming a Critical Thinker – Questioning …

LOGIC: • Does this really make sense? Why / not? To who? In what ways? • Does this really follow from what I / you said / wrote before? Why / not? To what extents? How? • Have I / you said / written other ideas which contradict this? What? Where? Can both be true? Why / not? To what extents? In what ways? • Is there sufficient evidence to support this? Why / not? Is evidence possible here? Why / not? Does a lack of evidence invalidate the argument? Why /not? • Is the logic only subjjyectively logical or is it objyjectively logical? Why? In what ways? Is this a problem? Why / not? Becoming a Critical Thinker – Questioning …

RIGOUR • Is there sufficient evidence to support this? Why / not? Is evidence possible here? Why / not? Does a lack of evidence invalidate the argument? Why /not? • Is the logic only subjectively logical or is it objectively logical? Why? In what ways? Is this a problem? Why / not? • Has my / your ideology influenced my / your logic? To what extent? Is this a problem? Why / not? • Are there any caveats to my / your argument / point of view? What? Do they invalidate anything? Why / not? Becoming a Critical Thinker – Questioning …

• EMPATHY & SELF‐AWARENESS • How will my / your point of view seem to other people? • Has my / your ideo logy iflinfluence d my / your logic? To what extent? Is this a problem? Why / not? Life is complex …

A statement may be clear, accurate, precise, and relevant, but superficial (i.e. lack depth). – For example, the ant‐drugs statement, "Just say No!“. This is clear, accurate, precise, and relevant. But does it satisfy the criterion of depth? Does it truly deal with the complexities of the issue? • Any argument may be clear accurate, precise, relevant, and deep, but lack breadth – For example, an argument from a politically conservative or liberal standpoint may satisfy various of these criteria, but is it likely to satisfy the criterion of breadth? These ideas put another way (1) …

• A. Affect ive SiStrategies • S‐1 thinking independently • S‐2 developing insight into egocentricity or sociocentricity • S‐3 exercising fairmindedness • S‐4 exploring thoughts underlying feelings and feelings underlying thoughts • S‐5 developing intellectual humility and suspending judgment • S‐6 developing intellectual courage • S‐7 developing intellectual good faith or integrity • S‐8 developing intellectual perseverance • S‐9 developing confidence in reason

• Available at http://www.criticalthinking.org/resources/TRK12‐strategy‐list.cfm#s1 These ideas put another way (2) …

• B. Cognitive Strategies ‐ Macro‐Abilities • S‐10 refining generalizations and avoiding oversimplifications • S‐11 comparing analogous situations: transferring insights to new contexts • S‐12 developing one’s perspective: creating or exploring beliefs, arguments, or theories • S‐13 clarifying issues, conclusions, or beliefs • S‐14 clarifying and analyzing the meanings of words or phrases • S‐15 developing criteria for evaluation: clarifying values and standards • S‐16 evaluating the credibility of sources of information • S‐17 questioning deeply: raising and pursuing root or significant questions • S‐18 analyzing or evaluating arguments, interpretations, beliefs, or theories • S‐19 generating or assessing solutions • S‐20 analyzing or evaluating actions or policies • S‐21 reading critically: clarifying or critiquing texts • S‐22 listening critically: the art of silent dialogue • S‐23 making itinter diilidisciplinary connections • S‐24 practicing Socratic discussion: clarifying and questioning beliefs, theories, or perspectives • S‐25 reasoning dialogically: comparing perspectives, interpretations, or theories • S‐26 reasoning dialectically: evaluating perspectives, interpretations, or theories

• Available at http://www.criticalthinking.org/resources/TRK12‐strategy‐list.cfm#s1 These ideas put another way (3) …

• C. Cognitive Strategies ‐ Micro‐Skills • S‐27 comparing and contrasting ideals with actual practice • S‐28 thinking precisely about thinking: using critical vocabulary • S‐29 noting significant similarities and differences • S‐30 examining or evaluating assumptions • S‐31 distinguishing relevant from irrelevant facts • S‐32 making plausible inferences, predictions, or interpretations • S‐33 giving reasons and evaluating evidence and alleged facts • S‐34 recognizing contradictions • S‐35 expllioring iiliimplications and consequences

• Available at httpp//://www.criticalthinkin g.or g/resources /TRK12‐strategy‐list.cfm#s1 Bloom’s Taxonomy

Instructional Strategy Cognitive Domain Affective Domain Psychomotor (Bloom, 1956) (Krathwohl, Bloom, & Domain Masia, 1973) (Simpson, 1972)

Lecture, reading, audio/visual, demonstration, or guided 1. Knowledge 1. Receiving 1. Perception 2. observations , qqestionuestion and answ er period phenomena Set

Discussions, multimedia CBT, Socratic didactic method, 2. Comprehension 2. Responding to 3. Guided reflection. Activities such as surveyy,s, role pyg,playing, case 3. Application phenomena response 4. studies, fishbowls, etc. Mechanism On‐the‐Job‐Training (OJT), practice by doing (some 4. Analysis 3. Valuing 5. Complex direction or coaching is required), simulated job settings response (to iildnclude CBT silti)imulations) Use in real situations. Also may be trained by using 5. Synthesis 4. Organize values into 6. Adaptation several high level activities coupled with OJT. priorities Normally developed on own (informal learning) through 6. Evaluation 5. Internalizing values 7. Origination self‐study or learning through mistakes, but mentoring and coaching can speed the process. Table taken from http://www.nwlink.com/~donclark/hrd/strategy.html ‐ Bloom B. S. ()(1956). Taxonomy of Edlducational Objectives, Handboo k I: The Cognitive Domain. New York: David McKay Co Inc. ‐ Krathwohl, D. R., Bloom, B. S., & Masia, B. B. (1973). Taxonomy of Educational Objectives, the Classification of Educational Goals. Handbook II: Affective Domain. New York: David McKay Co., Inc. ‐ Simpson E. J. (1972). The Classification of Educational Objectives in the Psychomotor Domain. Washington, DC: Gryphon House. TypesKey Ability of Thinking [again!] Types … of Thinking judge, appraise, choose, rate, assess, estimate, Evaluating value, measure, criticise fltformulate, thteach, ddiesign, dldevelop, re‐dfidefine, Synthesising propose, create

distinguish, differentiate, calculate, debate, Analysing relate, compare, experiment, contrast, examine

demonstrate, schedule, operate, sketch, employ, Applying use, practice Compre‐ restate, identify, discuss, locate, recognise, hending review, explain, tell, clarify recall, define, state, list, repeat, name, recount, Knowing present, find Becoming a Critical Thinker Yourself …

• Find the information you need • Digest it –grasp the key points, arguments & evidence • Analyse these – establish how ideas fit together and relate to each other; assess similarities & differences between the ideas; assess contradictions etc • Try to “take ownership” of the ideas, arguments etc for yourself –move from what someone says to what someone is sayyging • Develop & establish your perspectives based on these ideas • Develop your thinking & arguments, and bring together sources of information to support yourself • Synthesise your sources –bring together different sources of information to give authority to your arguments & ideas you are developing • Evaluate – always evaluate your ideas and other people’ s ideas (e.g . relevance, credibility, worth). Evaluate conclusions you are starting to draw • Apply – demonstrate your thinking, ideas and arguments (in exams, essays, dissertations etc) Is this a fair summary? Why / not?

1. Is open‐minded and mindful of alternatives 2. Tries to be well‐informed 3. Judges well the credibility of sources 4. Identifies conclusions, reasons, and assumptions 5. Judges well the quality of an argument, including its reasons, assumptions, and evidence 6. Can well develop & defend a reasonable position 7. AkAsks appropritiate clifilarifying questions 8. Formulates plausible hypotheses; plans experiments well 9. Defines terms in a way appropriate to the context 10. Draws conclusions when warranted – cautiously! 11. Integrates all items in this list

• http://www.criticalthinking.net/SSConcCTApr3.html What is “Analysis” Being “Analytical”? ‐ In‐depth, close examination of the literature ‐ Evidence & its interpretation? ‐ AtArguments & the ir solidity ? ‐ The why, the what & the how of research ‐ Connections & links between ideas / theories? [Likewise, … Similarly, …] ‐ Differences & dissimilarities between ideas / theories? [In contrast, … Conversely, …] ‐ Thorough / thoroughness ‐ Rigorous / rigour ‐ Critical attitude Being Critical – Thinking Critically ...

• What is the basis of the author’ s views – does it draw on original research or is it developing the work of others (and if so, who; how; why)? • What is the background and experience of the author – practis ing accountttant, manager, jlitjournalist, acaddiemic, etc. – from which their ideas derive? • If the work is research‐based, what enquiry methods are being used and how was the data collected? • How recent is the reference – when was it published, when was the research carried out, and is it still relevant? Being Critical – Thinking Critically ...

Logic of the reasoning behind the argument / claim? Quality of Who is the evidence to Critical author/s? support the Literature What is their argument / Review background? claim?

Appropriacy & rigour of methodology?