Taking seriously the teaching of critical thinking
— Roland Case, Executive director, The Critical Thinking Consortium
and Ian Wright, Professor (retired), University of British Columbia
This article, which is reprinted here with the permission
of the publisher, was first published in 1997 in Canadian
Social Studies.
bias
studies remains “more wish than
practice” (1991, p. 354). Research
in the U.S. supports these
observations. For example,
Su’s (1990) study, based bias
The state of affairs in social studies
on interviews with 112
Teaching students to think well has been a goal of educators, found that
social studies since the inception of the subject although teachers
in 1916. At that time, the U.S. National Education stated that they
Association identified promoting “good judgment” valued critical
in making decisions as a central element of social thinking they did
studies (Barr, Barth & Shermis, 1977). This notion of not implement
“good judgment” mirrors contemporary accounts of it in their
bias
critical thinking. In the intervening years, the call to classrooms.
improve students’ thinking in social studies has been Similarly, in her
made countless times. Few educators—teachers and study of a three-year
teacher educators alike—oppose the idea of getting project to foster critical
students to think more critically.
thinking in social studies,
McKee (1988) found
Yet the rhetoric outstrips practice. There is a rather that teachers spent only
depressing irony: thinking critically is much valued four percent of class time on
and yet inadequately addressed in classrooms. This reasoning activities.
dichotomy was recognized in the 1942 Yearbook for the
National Council for the Social Studies which observed This predicament appears to extend
that American social studies teachers had “accepted to Canadian schools. A survey of over
critical thinking in principle without bothering to define 1,700 elementary and secondary teachers of social
the term precisely or to do much by way of direct studies in British Columbia (Case, 1993) found that
instruction to see this goal was achieved” (Anderson, almost 88 percent supported the teaching of
cited in Parker, 1991, p. 345). Fifty-years later, in his critical thinking (79 percent judged it to be a major
introduction to a special issue on higher order thinking, emphasis in their teaching), yet the 1989 provincial
the editor of Theory and Research in Social Education assessment involving social studies teachers of over
remarked that as long as he could remember critical
thinking had been a goal of social studies, yet with a few
notable exceptions it had remained just that—a goal
The Critical Thinking Consortium
critical
thinking
and not a classroom reality (Fraenkel, 1991, p. 323).
www.tc2.ca
Or, as Parker puts it, the teaching of thinking in social
the
consortium
educational objectives, the teaching of knowledge is
separated from the teaching of critical thinking which,
perhaps, explains why many teachers complain that
critical thinking detracts from teaching content. As a
result, when pressured to teach the content—judged
by many teachers to be the core of the curriculum—
critical thinking is overlooked or downplayed, becoming
At the risk of being trite, taking seriously the challenge an add-on or an enhancement if and when the subject
of teaching students to think critically is long overdue. matter of the curriculum or in the textbook has been
Many of the studies cited above identify factors covered. Notice how consistently, despite the rhetoric
responsible for this depressing state of affairs. The about its centrality and importance, critical thinking
explanations often focus on a lack of pre-service activities are attached to the end of a chapter or a unit.
and in-service preparation both in critical thinking
and in the teaching of critical thinking, a paucity of Not only does this positioning relegate critical thinking
suitable teaching methodology and resources and the to a low status, but it reinforces the dangerous
demands of too much curricular content to cover. We impression that critical thinking is a task that is
agree that these factors are crucial to the problem, undertaken from time to time, if teachers have the
but believe there is a more fundamental impediment, time. To make the point in a slightly different way,
namely widespread confusion or, at least, “haziness” consider the lists below. On the left-hand side is a list
about (1) what critical thinking really means and (2) of tasks or operations, on the right-hand side is a list of
what is involved in promoting it (Bognar et al., 1991, qualities or characteristics:
p. 105; Fraenkel, 1991, p. 323; Parker, 1991, p. 345).
Quality/characteristic
Little will be gained by altering training, resources and Task/operation
• superficially or in-depth
curriculum if teacher educators, curriculum developers • interpreting a passage
• discerningly or blindly
and classroom teachers remain unclear about what • writing a report
• rashly or cautiously
this would require. Before we can begin to turn the • predicting a result
• carefully or hurriedly
tide of neglect, educators need a richer, more concrete • preparing a talk
• seriously or frivolously
understanding of critical thinking and of how it is • analysing an issue
promoted.
As we see it, the prevailing view would locate critical
We propose to characterize the prevailing views on thinking in the left-hand column, as a label for a range
the nature and pedagogy of critical thinking, and point of activities or operations that students undertake—if
out their inadequacies. In the process, we lay the students are interpreting, analyzing or evaluating they
foundations for what we regard as a more promising are, by definition, “doing” critical thinking. We believe
understanding of and approach to teaching students this to be a serious mistake—critical thinking is more
appropriately located in the right-hand list, as a quality
to think critically.
or characteristic that may or may not be present in
virtually any task students undertake. Just as students
The nature of critical thinking
may read a passage slowly or quickly, or superficially or
According to the prevailing view—and by “prevailing” in-depth, so too they can read a passage in a critically
we mean what is typically found in professional journals thoughtful way, or not. This point applies equally to
and student textbooks—learning to think critically is analyzing, predicting and evaluating. The mere fact that
widely viewed as mastery of a series of discrete skills someone is analysing an issue does not mean that they
or operations which can be generalized across a variety are doing it critically. In fact, the consequences of our
of contexts. These generic operations often include collective failure to teach critical thinking are student
interpreting, predicting, analyzing, evaluating and so analyses that fail to detect dubious assumptions,
on. This view is frequently predicated on a distinction contain many fallacious and unsupported statements
between knowledge, skills and attitudes. Since and reveal close-minded, prejudicial attitudes.
critical thinking is seen to fall with the skill domain of
100,000 British Columbia students in grades 4, 7 and
10 concluded: “The relative lack of teaching strategies
which support the development of critical thinking,
particularly at the secondary level, suggests that
students are not being supported in the development
of critical thinking” (Bognar & Cassidy, 1991, p. 82).
2
The Critical Thinking Consortium
We believe that critical thinking refers to the thinking
through of any “problematic” situation where the
thinker seeks to make a judgment about what it would
be sensible or reasonable to believe or do. The need to
reach reasoned judgments—to think critically—arises
in countless kinds of situations from problem solving,
decision making, issue analysis, inquiry and other socalled “processes,” to reading, writing, speaking and
listening. All of these are occasions for critical thinking,
since there is limited value in undertaking these
tasks in an uncritical manner. Thus critical thinking is
not usefully viewed as a unique type of operation or
“process,” but as a particular set of qualities of thinking
regardless of the task or operation. This emphasis on
the quality of thinking focusses teachers’ attention on
the crucial dimension in promoting critical thinking.
Students develop as critical thinkers as their judgments
come to embody the qualities of good thinking. Thus,
in deciding whether or not students’ cooperative
planning of a field trip was critically thoughtful we
would consider, among other qualities, the accuracy
and adequacy of their ideas, the extent to which
they seriously considered the ideas of others and the
degree of respect they showed for the ideas of those
with whom they disagree.
independence” (Beers, 1983, p. 1). To complete the
task, students first identify those words which suggest
a pro-American bias in the statement (e.g., “heroic,”
“inspired”), then students recast the sentence in a
blatantly pro-British bent and finally they rewrite the
account from a more fair-minded perspective. In the
process, content (in the textbook) is made problematic,
as opposed to being transmitted as non controversial
facts to be accepted unquestioningly. To do otherwise
is to discourage a “critical” disposition in students.
The implications of conceptualizing critical thinking as
a quality, not an activity, are profound. Critical thinking
need not be treated as an “add-on” activity, but as an
orientation that guides any task students undertake,
including such “rote” tasks as taking notes and reading
the textbook. Students can be encouraged to think
critically as they learn to take notes by making the
task problematic. Consider the following scenario:
“Suppose the premier has asked for concise notes on
the day’s front page news. Your notes must be less than
one-half page in length, focus on the important issues
and clearly summarize the main points.” In responding
in a critical thoughtful manner to this task, students
must judge what to report on the basis of importance,
coverage of main points and conciseness. So too, the
learning of content can and should be approached
in a critically thoughtful manner. For example, in a
teaching resource building on our model (Case, Daniels
& Schwartz, 1996), students are invited to critique
the opening page of a popular grade nine textbook
which offers the following account of the Battle of
Bunker Hill: “The heroic stand of American patriots in
this battle inspired the colonists in their struggle for
Let us now look more closely at the prevailing view of
how critical thinking is to be developed.
This last point raises a final major deficiency in the
prevailing view of critical thinking. By identifying
critical thinking as a skill, distinct not only from
knowledge but from also attitudes, we overlook the
crucial role of attitudes in the formation of critical
thinkers. Developing the dispositions of a careful
and conscientious thinker are crucial—no amount of
“skill” will overcome the limitations of closed-minded,
prejudicial thinking. This omission is particularly
alarming since the desired attitudes are unlikely to
develop through occasional exercises—they typically
require more sustained and concerted attention. All of
this highlights the inadequacy of the add-on, discrete
activity view of critical thinking.
The pedagogy of critical thinking
In effect, the prevailing view of the way to promote
thinking is to provide students with opportunities
to practise thinking. This assumption, that the mere
practising of thinking will improve students’ critical
competence, is replete in social studies textbooks.
Rarely do we find textbooks that do more in their socalled critical thinking sections than pose questions or
present items (e.g., a picture or a passage) for students
to consider. Of course, students need opportunities
to think, but the mere practice may do very little to
help them get better at what they do. Of what value
towards becoming a better thinker is there in asking
students to assess the pro and con arguments on an
issue if they are profoundly unaware of the standards
they should use in critiquing competing pieces of
evidence? Ironically, it may be counter productive
to present such tasks without instruction since they
may reinforce bad habits, such as closed-mindedness,
The Critical Thinking Consortium
3
pose unhelpfully vague challenges. For example, social
studies teachers are frequently urged to provide two
or more competing accounts of a historical event
and invite students to write their own history. Yet the
tools for critically addressing this task are profoundly
contextual. At least, three underlying issues may be
at stake, each requiring different tools. Perhaps, the
“problematic” issue is the credibility of the authors
of the documents. In this case students need to
employ criteria for judging appeals to authority (e.g.,
the author has studied the topic, is a recognized
expert in the field, is not in a position of bias).
Alternatively, the issue may hinge on the reliability of
individual observations described in the documents.
If so, students need to employ criteria for assessing
observational accounts (e.g., the observer is not in
conflict of interest, is functioning at a moderate level
of emotional arousal, has a reputation for being honest
and correct, has no preconceived notions of how the
Even when some “tools” of critical thought are observation will turn out, made the report close to the
introduced in curriculum materials, they are typically time of observing). Or, the underlying issue may be a
inadequate and crudely done. Standards of good matter of deciding upon the most plausible inferences
thinking, if mentioned at all, are often described in based on the body of accepted facts. This requires that
the vaguest of terms, for example, “Decide if this students be able to distinguish inferences from direct
interpretation is reasonable? or “Judge whether or not observations, and learn to assess inferences for their
the argument is logical?” Terms such as “reasonable” consistency with the body of evidence. Our experience
and “logical” offer little direction to someone who does is that many professional resources—especially those
not already have a clear grasp of sound thinking. Dull recommending generic problem solving or decision
tools make for dull distinctions. Providing the requisite making models—neglect the significant differences in
tools demands a more careful unpacking of the implied requisite tools that vary with the type of problem or
standards of good reasoning. For example, students decision that students confront.
need to learn that reasonable may be judged in terms
of consistency with the body of relevant and credible In response to the prevailing pedagogy of critical
evidence. In mastering these concepts, students will thinking we recommend that teachers work on three
need help in learning to distinguish relevant from fronts:
irrelevant reasons and to recognize and apply the more • directly and systematically teaching, in context, the
range of intellectual tools, that include background
specific criteria for assessing credibility.
knowledge, criteria for judgment, critical thinking
A final common impediment to promoting critical vocabulary, thinking strategies and habits of mind
thinking stems from the tasks or questions put to • scrutinizing the questions and tasks asked of
students. Many “thinking” assignments may not students to ensure that students frequently engage
actually invite critical judgment. Requests such as with bona fide critical challenges—rich invitations to
“Which option do you like the most?” and “Take a think critically
position for or against this issue” may simply illicit • developing communities of thinkers where critical
students’ ruminations about their tastes or prejudices, reflection is valued and reinforced by infusing
but not require that students critically assess these expectations and routines to think critically in every
matters. In addition, many “higher-order” questions aspect of students’ school lives.
ethnocentrism and hasty generalizations. Thinking
critically is, in effect, responding thoughtfully to a
particular challenge by making appropriate use of
intellectual resources—or what we call “intellectual
tools.” In this respect, arriving at a thoughtful answer
is akin to constructing a house. Repeated attempts at
either endeavour are unlikely to be fruitful unless the
“builder” possesses the requisite tools—in one case,
the appropriate cutting and mending tools (e.g., sawand hammer-like devices) and, in the other case, the
relevant critical concepts, standards of good reasoning,
and dispositions of thoughtful reflection. Proponents
of a “pedagogy of practice” have been deaf to the calls
of notable writers (e.g., Paul, n.d.; Lipman, 1992) to
provide students with the standards of reasoning and
other requisite intellectual resources. Only as students
acquire these tools do they learn to competently think
through the tasks that teachers put before them.
4
The Critical Thinking Consortium
them emotionally—these are the criteria for their
assessment of movies. Although we will not always
Neither the hand nor the mind alone would amount to share identical criteria when judging something,
students need help in thinking more carefully about the
much without aids and tools to perfect them.
criteria to use when judging various alternatives and
— Francis Bacon, Novum Organum (1623)
when judging the adequacy of their own reasoning.
In this second part we describe five types of intellectual As was suggested earlier, when interpreting historical
documents, students may need to apply the criteria
resources or “tools” for thinking:
• possession of relevant background knowledge—the for judging the reliability of an observation statement.
information about a topic that is required for thoughtful A reasoned judgment cannot competently be made
without these criteria. Some of the criteria that are
reflection
• understanding of appropriate criteria for judgment— particularly relevant are general criteria of good
the criteria or grounds for deciding which of the reasoning. These include accuracy, reliability, logical
coherence, weight of evidence, clarity, precision and
alternatives is the most sensible or appropriate
• possession of key critical thinking vocabulary—the relevancy. It is not essential that critical thinkers be
range of concepts and distinctions that are helpful able to name these standards, but they must be able to
apply them appropriately in judging the reasoning and
when thinking critically
• fluency with relevant thinking strategies—the actions of others and in monitoring their own thinking
repertoire of strategies, heuristics, organizing devices, and acting.
models and “tricks” that may be useful when thinking
Critical thinking vocabulary
through a critical thinking problem
• possession of essential habits of mind—the values
Critical thinking is possible only if we have a vocabulary
and habits of a careful and conscientious thinker.
or set of concepts that permits us to make important
distinctions among the different kinds of issues and
Background knowledge
thinking tasks facing us. When interpreting historical
The most obvious and basic “tool” for critical thinking documents, for example, students need to be able
is background knowledge. Students cannot think to distinguish the concepts of “direct observation”
critically about a topic if they know nothing about it. In and “inference.” Possession of these concepts is not
fact, expecting students to speculate on matters about essentially a matter of acquiring “correct” terminology,
which they know very little may have the undesirable but a matter of understanding key distinctions
consequence of encouraging ill-informed conclusions. that facilitate thinking critically about, in this case,
Because the requisite background knowledge will interpretive matters. Other key critical thinking
depend on the particular problem under consideration, vocabulary includes:
there is no set body of information in a subject area • cause and effect
that students must acquire. Rather background • factual, value and conceptual (definitional)
knowledge is best understood in the context of statements
particular questions or tasks—by identifying what • premise and conclusion
students would need to know about in order to make a • points of view (e.g., moral, aesthetic, environmental)
• necessary and sufficient conditions
well-informed judgment.
• deduction and induction.
Criteria for judgment
Thinking strategies
Critical thinking is essentially a matter of judging
the reasonableness of alternatives. Necessarily, all Although critical thinking is never simply a matter
judgments are based on criteria of some sort or of following certain procedures or steps, there are
another. For example, people will judge a movie as strategies or heuristics that are useful for guiding
“good” because it was funny or because it moved performance of thinking tasks. The most useful
Teaching the intellectual tools
The Critical Thinking Consortium
5
strategies tend to be those designed to guide thinking
in particular areas or domains of knowledge. For
example, making lists of the reasons for and against
a value position may help many in deciding which
side of an issue to support. Because of differences
among students, some strategies will be more or less
helpful to individual students. Examples of simple, but
nevertheless potentially helpful, strategies include:
• when struggling or blocked, stand back from a
situation to get the total picture
• talk through a problem or confusing issue with
another person
• double check responses before deciding that the task
is completed
• use models, metaphors, drawings and symbols to
simplify problems
• use various graphic organizers (e.g., webbing
diagrams, Euler circles, “T” charts) to represent
information
• before deciding on a course of action that affects
others, put oneself in their position and imagine how
they might feel about the situation.
Habits of mind
Being able to apply relevant criteria and strategies is of
little significance in promoting critical thinking unless
students also have certain habits of mind. Without,
for instance, the disposition to be careful and critical
in approaching particular tasks, students are unlikely
to be successful. Developing each student’s resolve
to think critically is vital if schools are to foster critical
thinking. These habits, commitments and sensitivities
6
include such things as:
• open-mindedness—willingness to withhold judgment
and seek new evidence or points of view when existing
evidence is inadequate or contentious, and willingness
to consider evidence against one’s view and to revise
one’s view should the evidence warrant it
• fair-mindedness—willingness to give fair consideration
to alternative points of view and commitment to open,
critical discussion of theories, practices and policies
where all views are given a fair hearing)
• independent-mindedness—the willingness and
personal strength to stand up for one’s firmly held
beliefs
• an inquiring or “critical” attitude—an inclination to
question the clarity and support for claims or actions
• respect for high quality products and performances—
appreciation of good design and effective performance
• an intellectual work ethic—a commitment to carrying
out relevant thinking tasks in a competent manner.
Although these tools are not generic—different kinds of
each of the five types of tools will typically be required
when thinking through any given critical challenge—
over time students can develop a repertoire of tools
which will empower them to critically address a wide
range of problematic situations.
To illustrate this point, the charts on the following
pages list the specific tools (of all five types) that
secondary students might be expected to develop
in order to address in a critically thoughtful manner
three common social studies tasks: interpreting data,
analysing issues and presenting information.
The Critical Thinking Consortium
Tools for interpreting data
Background knowledge
Criteria for judgment
Vocabulary
understands that
documents can be read
beyond their surface
meaning
is familiar with the
following criteria:
• justifies
interpretations in
light of consistency of
evidence in text with
other known beliefs and
theories
• recognizes ambiguity
and vagueness
• recognizes bias
understands the
following concepts:
• inference and direct
observation
• cause and effect
• point of view
• bias
• stereotype
• hypothesis
• primary and
secondary source
• degrees, minutes,
seconds
• types of scale (i.e., rf,
stated, linear)
• global position index—
six-figure coordinates
• propoganda
• deconstruction
• cause versus
correlation
• impartial versus
neutral.
has knowledge of the
range of symbols used
in maps and other
graphic representations
understands that
interpretations may
be from different
perspectives or lenses
(e.g., from feminist
perspective, employer/
employee perspective)
understands that the
past is often different
from the present
in many subtle and
undetected ways
judges the reliability of
observations in light of
the following criteria:
• first-hand and not
hearsay
• good access to event
• no conflict of interest
• corroborated
• representative
coverage of situation/
population
judges the credibility of
an authority in light of
the following criteria:
• no conflict of interest
• has solid reputation
• is well-informed about
the topic
• there is general
agreement among
experts
• used proper methods
to research topic
Strategies
looks to identify
author’s purpose or
hidden intentions.
summarizes ideas in
one’s own words.
sequences or translates
information into various
forms to assist in
interpretation
Habits of mind
does not take
everything at face
value—is inclined
to question when
warranted
is willing to consider
alternative points of
view/interpretations
is willing to evaluate
information when it is
important to do so
withholds reaching a
conclusion when the
evidence is inconclusive
has historical
empathy—the capacity
to place oneself in the
minds and times of
historical persons
can distinguish the
following forms of bias:
• eurocentricism
• egocentricism
• national chauvinism
• cultural chauvinism
• presentism
• anthrocentricism
The Critical Thinking Consortium
7
Tools for presenting information
Background knowledge
has a basic
understanding of the
following forms of
presentation:
• various types of
graphic displays (e.g,
collages, murals,
overheads)
• small and large
group presentation
approaches (e.g.,
debates, lectures)
• the mechanics
of formal written
presentations (e.g.,
titles and headings,
report structure)
•the principles
and techniques in
making short video
presentations
understands that
presentations serve
different purposes
(e.g., create awareness,
inform, persuade)
has some knowledge
of audience needs and
how to respond to
different audiences
can present on same
topic from significantly
different perspectives
(e.g., victim/advocate)
and for different
purposes (to promote,
to critique, to inform)
knows the elements and
principles of a formal
debate
8
Criteria for judgment
is familiar with the
following criteria:
• presentation is
interesting and
appropriate to the
audience
• oral and visual
comunication is clear
and accurate—does not
distort the information
• presentation is
thoughtfully sequenced;
• topic is focussed and
keeps to the point
• medium is suitable for
the message
• integrates various
media within a
presentation
Vocabulary
understands the
following concept:
• media as
“representation”
• media as
“construction
Strategies
Habits of mind
generates titles and
considers needs of the
sub-headings to classify/ audience
organize information
is flexible in adjusting
uses rehearsal
presentation as needed
techniques and
mock-ups to prepare
takes pride in preparing
presentations
quality work
develops appropriate
outlines to sequence
presentations
is willing to engage
respectfully in group
discussion
prepares speaking
notes and other aides
to support familiar
presentation.
uses graphics (e.g.,
timelines, charts,
graphs) to present
information
carefully edits written
reports
makes use of relevant
and illustrative
examples in oral and
written communication
uses accepted
bibliographic style to
reference sources of
ideas
uses recognized
techniques of
persuasion (e.g., focus
on the positive, appeal
to authoritative figures)
The Critical Thinking Consortium
Tools for analysing issues
Background knowledge
has substantive
knowledge about the
issue at hand
has some knowledge
of the types of
concerns that should
be considered when
defending a position on
a social/ethical issue
Criteria for judgment
Vocabulary
Strategies
is familiar with the
following criteria:
• avoids ambiguous
language
• supports arguments
with reasons
• uses evidence
and examples to
substantiate reasons
• fairly considers all
reasonable alternatives/
perspectives
• judges whether
an explanation is
oversimplified
• judges whether the
evidence is sufficent to
establish the claim
understands the
following concepts:
• assumption
• justification and
evidence
• argument, premise
and conclusion
• factual and value
claims
• generalization
• pro and con
• justice/fairness
• eyewitness
• fallacy
• generalization and
over-generalization
• unstated assumptions
• truth, validity and
soundness
• deductive and
inductive reasoning
can follow a five-step
issue analysis model:
• define the issue
and explain why it is
important
• research and explain
several pro and con
arguments
• evaluate reasons from
all sides of a debate
• formulate a defensible
position
• offer counterarguments to defend
position
avoids most basic
informal fallacies
• ad hominen
• false appeal to
tradition
• false appeal to
popularity
• false dichotomy
• slippery slope
• straw person
• begging the question
• false appeal to
authority
• vagueness
thinks of counterarguments
creates pro and con
charts
uses role taking to
understand other
perspectives
can follow a complex
issue analysis model:
• define the issue
and explain why it is
important
• research and explain
all major pro and con
arguments
• evaluate the
comparative strength of
competing reasons
• formulate a defensible
position that consider
the interests of all who
are affected
• offer counterarguments in defence of
position
Habits of mind
is willing to tackle an
issue
is open to points of view
other than one’s own—
especially those that are
counter to one’s own
position
is fair-minded—will
judge ideas on their
merits and not simply
enforce personal
interests and biases
is independent
minded—resists the
pressures to adopt
and espouse opinions
merely because they are
popular
has an intellectual work
ethic—is committed to
thinking in a thorough
and careful manner
is tentative in one’s
belief until there is
sufficent evidence
to warrant a more
definitive position
uses diagrams to trace
structure of arguments
The Critical Thinking Consortium
9
Infusing critical challenges
Critical challenges are the tasks or questions that
provide the impetus and context for critical thinking.
If students are to improve in their ability to think
critically they require numerous opportunities to think
through problematic situations. Critical challenges
may be extended assignments (e.g., undertaking case
studies or class debates, producing elaborate displays
or reports on controversial issues, and designing,
administering and analyzing the results of surveys).
They may also be very focussed tasks that take a few
minutes only to work through (e.g., generating a few
criteria to use in deciding which picture in the textbook
is more representative of the historical period, or
which of several possible titles of a student essay is
the best). The use of critical challenges does not imply
a particular pedagogical style, what is sometimes
called an issue- or problem-centred approach. Critical
challenges can be used with any approach to teaching:
activity centres, textbook-based programs, cooperative
groupings, self-directed study and so on, provided
students are encouraged and assisted in assessing
the reasonableness of what they are hearing, seeing,
or doing. The teacher’s job, regardless of the form of
question or task, is to ensure that these approaches
represent rich invitations to think critically.
Earlier we discussed weaknesses in many so-called
thinking assignments put to students. In this part,
we explore four criteria for judging a good critical
challenge:
• Does the question or task require judgment?
• Will the challenge be meaningful to students?
• Is the challenge embedded in the core of the
curriculum?
• Is the challenge focussed so as to limit the requisite
tools?
must require more than retrieval of information,
rote application of a strategy or mere assertion of a
preference.
One impediment to promoting critical thinking is the
difficulty in distinguishing when a question or task
explicitly invites critical thinking and when it does not.
Critical challenges can be distinguished from two other
types of questions—what we refer to as “Where’s
Waldo?” and “All answers are valid” questions.
• “Where’s Waldo?” questions. This type of question
requires the identification or retrieval of information.
The label for these questions is based on a series of
children’s picture books called Where’s Waldo? The
books consist of sets of pictures containing hundreds
of figures only one of whom is Waldo. Children are
challenged to locate Waldo among the maze of other
individuals in each picture. Although the correct
answer can be very difficult, it is not a critical challenge
because the task involves locating a pre-established,
non-contentious answer. Often questions such as
“What were the major causes of World War II?” and
“How does electricity work?” may simply be Where’s
Waldo questions if students are expected to retrieve
the answers from their class notes, their textbooks, the
library, or from memory.
• “All answers are valid” questions. This type of
question invites students to offer their opinions on
matter where their answers are essentially personal
preferences or mere guesses. Questions such as “Who
is your favourite character in this period?”, “What do
you like best about Canada?” and “What will the world
be like in two hundred years from now?” are not likely
to be critical challenges because almost no answer
could be said to be unacceptable. Who is to say that a
student should like the heroine more than the villain in
a historical episode? Or that someone can be faulted
for liking Canada best for its cold or rainy weather?
Both “Where’s Waldo?” and “All answers are valid”
questions are valuable questions to ask of students.
Does the question or task require judgment?
Our sole point in drawing attention to them is to make
Critical thinking occurs only in the context of a it clear that they are not critical challenges—these
problematic situation. If an answer is simply there, two types of questions do not explicitly invite critical
waiting to be found, or if any and all answers are reflection.
acceptable then there is no invitation to think critically.
A question or task is a critical challenge only if it invites There is a further feature of posing critical challenges
students to assess the reasonableness of plausible that deserves explanation. The point can be made by
options or alternative conclusions—the assignment distinguishing reasoned judgments from what may be
10
The Critical Thinking Consortium
called rationalized judgments:
• A rationalized judgment is a position that is supported
after the fact with reasons why it could be justifiable.
These reasons may simply be excuses—attempts to
justify a position that has not been arrived at through
careful, open-minded scrutiny. A rationalized judgment
occurs when students leap to conclusions or reiterate
positions that they have heard others put forward and
then after making the judgment think of reasons to
support it.
• A reasoned judgment is a criteria-based (or reasondriven) position. It is a position that is defended
because it meets the perceived requirements of a
thoughtful answer.
Although we cannot guarantee which type of judgment
students will make, there are ways of posing critical
challenges that are more explicitly invitations for
reasoned judgment:
• specify (some or all of) the criteria for judgment
that students are to use in defending their answer
(e.g., Provide an interpretation of this cartoon that is
plausible, comprehensive and insightful)
• expect student to demonstrate that they have
considered alternative positions (e.g., Argue with
conviction both sides of the issue: Should Quebec
separate from the rest of Canada?).
Will the challenge be meaningful to students?
Thinking critically is not an amusing mental game to be
played, but an important feature of daily life. If students
view a challenge as irrelevant and unimportant they
are unlike to engage seriously in the activity and, over
time, are likely to regard critical thinking as a boring or
trivial exercise. Consequently critical challenges should
arise within meaningful contexts. Often these contexts
are real-life, but they need not be. It is sufficient
that the thinker see the challenge to be interesting
or stimulating (to some extent at least) and that the
context provide an adequate grounding for deciding
what would be reasonable. Critical challenges are likely
to engage students to the extent that the challenges:
• create dissonance with students’ pre-existing beliefs
• involve real (or, at least, realistic) problems
• have an obvious connection with a contemporary
event, the local community or a personal concern of
students
• provide a sufficiently rich context so that students
can get fully into the situation
• when feasible, are chosen or suggested by students
themselves.
Is the challenge embedded in the core of the curriculum?
As we have emphasized, critical thinking should not
be an add-on, nor should it interrupt the pursuit of
other curricular goals. Rather, we should encourage
students to think critically about matters that are at
the very core of the curriculum. The key to infusing
critical thinking into the curriculum is to recast the
core elements of the subject matter in the form of
critical challenges. In this way students confront the
material in the context of thinking critically about it,
and not merely as a matter of retrieving information.
For example, instead of asking students to learn “the
five causes” of World War II invite them to judge which
of a list of influences is the most significant factor in
the outbreak of the war.
Critical challenges can be embedded into ongoing
activities by connecting or infusing a challenge into the
topic under consideration, for example, by focussing
on a statement or picture in a textbook, on an event
in a story or one that happened in the community,
or on students’ questions. Critical challenges need
not be large scale undertakings, since these kinds of
challenges may take considerable time. Although
in-depth challenges are valuable, there are many
opportunities to pose challenges “in passing.”
Is the challenge focussed so as to limit the requisite
tools?
We have stressed the role of “tools” in dealing
competently with critical challenges. If students
lack crucial background knowledge or are unaware
of relevant criteria, and if they do not acquire these
tools as they address the challenge, then the value of
posing challenges may be lost. Students are less likely
to develop their ability to think critically if they are
fumbling in the dark. For this reason, it is important
to anticipate the tools required by a challenge and
to compensate for those tools that are not already in
students’ repertoires:
• provide instruction (e.g., teach any new concepts,
introduce thinking strategies that students might use)
• provide support materials (e.g., supplement
The Critical Thinking Consortium
11
background knowledge by including a data sheet or
referring to pages in the textbook)
• offer reminders (e.g., encourage students to attend
to specific habits of mind).
do a competent job. For example, instead of asking
“Assess the legacy of the Enlightenment thinkers”—a
task that could fill volumes—it may be better to pose
a more focussed challenge: “Based on the following
two documents and your own knowledge, which
One way to increase the likelihood that students will Enlightenment philosopher—Hobbes or Locke—offers
already possess, or will be able to acquire, all the the more realistic theory of government for modern
requisite tools is to narrow the focus of the challenge society?”
or “make it compact.” Critical challenges must be
sufficiently delimited so that students do not require The following chart offers sample prompts for critical
encyclopedic background knowledge in order to questions and tasks, with accompanying examples.
Critical question prompts
Who is more “x”?
Judge the character
Defend an interpretation
Settle the dispute
Is this really an “x ?”
“The best of” award
What’s wrong with this?
Critical task prompts
Rewrite from point of view
Make a memo
Realistic application
Create a masterpiece
12
Critical challenges in social studies
Example of question
• Whose suggestion for solving the problem is more realistic?
• Who was the greater explorer—Vancouver or Cook?
• Is Simon Fraser a hero or a rogue?
• What is the cartoonist really saying in this drawing?
• Should this recreational site be developed?
• Is the term “Quiet Revolution” an oxymoron?
• Which of the civilizations studied this semester has made the most significant
political contribution to our society?
• Has the author provided a fair and full account of what actually happened?
Example of task
• After reading a pro-European version of Simon Fraser’s descent down the
Fraser River, write a fair-minded account of what happened on this trip.
• In 1876, The Yorkshire Post referred to the charge of the Light Brigade during
the Battle of Balaclava as “That glorious blunder of which all Englishmen are
justifiably proud.” Write two editorials—one that supports this statement, and
another that refutes it.
• Write a letter of reference on behalf of Thomas More to Henry VIII.
• The premier has asked for concise notes on the day’s front page news. Your
notes must be less than one-half page in length, focus on the important issues
and clearly summarize the main points.
• Your mother has been informed that she is being transferred to either Weyburn, Saskatchewan, or Prince George, British Columbia. She asks you to gather
information and offer her your advice in deciding which would be a better
place to live for your family.
• Create a poster-size advertisement to discourage fellow students from smoking, effectively employing the techniques of persuasion without distorting the
evidence.
The Critical Thinking Consortium
Building a community of thinkers
in the discussion students are encouraged to move
physically along the “U” as their intellectual position on
A community of thinkers is a collection of individuals the issue changes. In this way, less dogmatic attitudes
interacting in mutually supportive ways to nurture are reinforced
critical reflection.
Building a community of thinkers is vital for, at least,
If we are serious about critical thinking we must two reasons. First, critical thinking is not a set of
establish the conditions that are likely to nurture the abilities that one uses from time to time, such as
required attributes. This involves infusing expectations learning how to cook or how to play basketball. Critical
and opportunities to think critically in all our students’ thinking is a way of approaching almost everything
school lives. If classroom and school routines do not that one encounters. This mindset will not develop if
consistently reinforce thoughtful reflection, then little classroom routines transmit inconsistent messages or
or no lasting gains can be expected from occasional fail to reinforce this expectation. Second, the classic
lessons on critical thinking. This point was affirmed image of the isolated thinker is a misleading one; we
by studies of the effects of educational programs on should not expect to be able to think through all of our
developing respect for others. Various researchers “problems” by ourselves. Rather we should actively
have found that the specifics of the curriculum have develop, supplement and test our ideas in conjunction
a marginal impact on this key attitude—the classroom with others—to put our heads together. But many
climate is the determining factor (cf., Daniels & Case, students may be unwilling or unable to contribute to
1992, pp. 19-23). If teachers solicit and value student and benefit from collaborative reflection. Perhaps,
opinions, and provide a healthy forum for student they do not listen very well, or they cannot accept any
dialogue, then students are more likely to come to form of criticism, or they do not know how to monitor
what they say, or they have no confidence in their
respect other’s opinions.
ability to add to the discussion. Students will acquire
Generally speaking, in promoting critical thinking the these tools only through participation as a member in
influence of the hidden curriculum—the latent norms a community of thinkers.
and subtle messages that powerfully affect what
students actually learn—has been underestimated or Nurturing the appropriate climate is an orientation
overlooked. Consider, for example, the tendency of that pervades all of our actions. We can transform our
many people to cast issues in dichotomous terms— classrooms into communities of thinkers by working in
as black or white, and right or wrong. This attitude is the following ways:
reinforced by the traditional classroom debate that • setting appropriate classroom expectations
has been the paradigm format for engaging students • implementing appropriate classroom routines and
in issue discussion. In a two-sided debate the objective activities
is to prove that the opposing side is without merit by • personally modeling the attributes of a good critical
refuting, belittling or ignoring opposing arguments. thinker
There is a tacit prohibition against changing one’s mind • employing effective group questioning techniques
part way through the debate. Crossing to the other side • developing the tools for student participation in a
is like crossing the floor of the House of Commons— reflective community.
both are seen as betrayals. Increasingly teachers are
replacing this adversarial, closed-minded format with Classroom expectations
more open-ended discussions where students are
encouraged to see the merits of all sides and to recast Teachers’ expectations of their students are often
binary options as extreme positions along a continuum. self-fulfilling. Specific expectations that support a
To facilitate this approach, class discussions may be community of thinkers are:
configured in a “U” shape—students with polar views • students are expected to make up their own minds—
(either strongly agreeing or strongly disagreeing) locate not simply take someone’s word for things
themselves at either end, and students with mixed • students and teacher are expected as a matter of
opinions sit along the rounded part. At varying stages course to provide reasons or examples in support of
The Critical Thinking Consortium
13
their observations, conclusions and behaviour
• students and teacher are expected to seriously
consider other perspectives on a issue and alternative
approaches to a problem before reaching a firm
conclusion
• all persons are to be treated respectfully by everyone,
even if their ideas are wrong or silly
• disputes about ideas are encouraged, but they must
never be directed personally or be mean-spirited
• it is not acceptable merely to criticize and complain—
the pros of a position should always be examined as
should possible solutions to problems
• the insincere use of critical techniques to show off or
to be contrary is not tolerated (this does not mean that
there is no place for well-intentioned devil’s advocacy).
reflect and provided with the tools to address their
tasks critically (e.g., students should not be expected
merely to guess).
Teacher modelling
It has been said “Example is not the best way to
influence people, it’s the only way” (reported in
Norman, 1989, p. 27). This principle applies to critical
thinking. If we want our students to be good critical
thinkers we must model these attributes ourselves. We
may want to consider being a role model in the ways
suggested below:
• not being dogmatic and not always having the
answer—living with ambiguity—being satisfied with
tentative conclusions until full review of complex issues
can be carried out
Classroom routines and activities
• sincerely attempting to base all comments and
A community of thinkers can be supported by building decisions on careful and fair-minded consideration of
into the daily classroom operation various routines and all sides
activities that habituate students to particular frames • be willing (if asked) to provide “good” reasons for our
of mind. Some of the routines that support a critical decisions and actions (This does not mean that every
time any student asks for a justification that the lesson
community are:
• the vocabulary of critical thinking is used as a matter must be interrupted)
of course in classroom discussion (e.g., Asking “What • being careful to avoid making gross generalizations
can you infer from this picture about the individual’s and stereotypical comments about individuals and
state of mind?” “What assumptions are you making?”) groups and seeking to expose stereotypes in books,
• assignments, including those that are for marks, pictures, films and other learning resources
consistently contain a non-trivial commitment to • being willing to change our mind or alter our plans
when good reasons are presented
thinking critically
• students regularly scrutinize textbooks, news • always acknowledging the existence of different
articles and reports and other “reputable” sources of positions on an issue (e.g., looking at events from
information for bias, stereotyping, overgeneralization different cultural, gender and class perspectives)
• not being cynical—adopting, instead, a realistic but
and inaccuracy
• student ideas and suggestions are regularly questioning attitude toward the world.
considered and (when appropriate) accepted in setting
assignments, establishing rules for the class and Questioning techniques
establishing criteria for evaluation
• thoughtfully supported, insightful or empathic We can support a community of thinkers by being
responses (even if flawed) are to be valued more than effective questioners. We must pose questions that
go beyond recall or retrieval of information by inviting
merely correctly recalled responses
• students regularly explore and defend positions from students to make reasoned judgments. We can further
particular points of view, especially from perspectives support critical thinking by consistently responding
to student comments using non-threatening probing
that are not personally held by them
• students regularly identify and defend criteria to techniques such as those listed below (Saskatchewan
evaluate their classroom behaviour and work, and Education, 1988, p. 34):
then apply these criteria to themselves and their peers
• the conditions for thoughtful reflection are Seeking greater clarity
respected—students are given adequate time to • Could you give me an example?
14
The Critical Thinking Consortium
• Is your point “this” or “this”?
be clear to everyone?
Probing for assumptions
• You seem to be assuming that . . .
• Is this always the case?
Critical thinking vocabulary
• unanimous, consensus, minority positions
Probing for reasons and evidence
• Is there reason to doubt this evidence?
• How could we find out if this is true?
Exploring alternative perspectives
• How might other groups respond?
• What would people who disagree with your position
say?
Probing consequences or implications
• What effect would this have?
• If this were the case, what else must also be true?
Tools for community participation
Thinking strategies
• group management strategies such as taking turns,
assigning cooperative roles, active listening, and
keeping a speaker’s list
• strategies for critiquing in a non-threatening
manner including putting the comment in the form
of a question, preceding comment with a caveat, or
preceding comment with positive remarks
• strategies for presenting information in group settings
including limiting comments to a few points, speaking
from notes, and connecting remarks to previous
speaker’s comments.
Habits of mind
• independent-minded—willingness to stand up for
firmly held beliefs
• sensitivity to others—attention to the feelings of
others
• self-monitoring—attention to how one’s actions are
affecting the group.
Just as students are taught to be good citizens, so
too students need to be taught how to be effective
contributors to and beneficiaries of a community of
thinkers. Many of the tools employed in individual
reflection apply here, however other tools are uniquely
employed in collaborative deliberation. Some of these Concluding remarks
tools are suggested below.
We are optimistic that the current state of affairs can be
improved. As we have tried to illustrate, the prevailing
Background knowledge
• knowledge that individuals may see things in view does little in the way of teaching for thinking. In
this article we hope to combat the prevailing view by
significantly different ways
• knowledge of how individuals are likely to react in clarifying the nature of critical thinking and how to
effectively promote critical thinking in social studies.
various situations
Of course, greater clarity is not enough—extensive
training, resources, and curriculum revision are
Criteria for judgment
• Are one’s comments relevant to the discussion (on required—but it represents a necessary and promising
first step in taking seriously a challenge raised
topic)?
• Are one’s comments expressed in a manner that will consistently since the very beginning of social studies.
The Critical Thinking Consortium
15
References
Allen, R. (1975).Values education series.. Evanston, IL: McDougal, Little.
Bailin, S., Case, R., Coombs, J. & Daniels, L. (1993, September). A conception of critical thinking for curriculum,
instruction and assessment. Unpublished report to Examinations Branch, Ministry of Education, Victoria, BC.
Bailin, S., Case, R., Coombs, J. & Daniels, L. (1994). A conception of critical thinking for curriculum, instruction
and assessment. Horizon., 32(1), 5-16.
Barr, D., Barth, J. & Shermis, S. (1977). Defining the social studies.. Arlington, VA: National Council for the Social
Studies.
Beer, B.F. (1983). Patterns of civilization (Volume 2). Scarborough, ON: Prentice-Hall.
Bognar, C., Cassidy, C., Lewis, W. & Manley-Casimir, M. (1991). Social studies in British Columbia: Technical report
of the 1989 social studies assessment. Victoria, BC: Ministry of Education.
Case, R. (1993). Summary of the 1992 social studies needs assessment.. Victoria, BC: Queen’s Printer.
Case, R., Daniels, L. & Schwartz P. (Eds.). (1996). Critical challenges in Social Studies for Junior High students.
Burnaby, BC: Field Relations, Faculty of Education, Simon Fraser University.
Daniels, L. & Case, R. (1992, June). Charter literacy and the administration of justice. Final report for the
Department of Justice Canada, Ottawa, Ontario
Engle, S. (1960). Decision-making: The heart of Social Studies. Social Education, 24(7), 301-309.
Evans, W. and Applegate, J. (1982). Making rational decisions.. Salt Lake City, UT: Prodec.
Fraenkel, J. (1991). Editorial. Theory and Research in Social Education., 19(4), 323-325.
Hullfish, G. & Smith, P. (1961). Reflective thinking: The method of education.. New York: Dodd, Mead.
Lipman, M. (1992). Criteria and judgment in critical thinking. Inquiry, 9(2), 3-4.
Massialas, B. & Cox, C. (1966). Inquiry in social studies. San Francisco: McGraw-Hill.
McKee. S. (1988, October). Impediments to implementing critical thinking. Social Education., 444-446.
McPeck, J. (1981). Critical thinking and education. New York: St. Martins.
Norman, P. (1989).The self-directed learning contract: A guide for learners and teachers. Burnaby, BC: Faculty of
Education, Simon Fraser University.
Parker, W. (1991). Achieving thinking and decision-making objectives in social studies. In J. Shaver (Ed.), Handbook
of research on social studies teaching and learning (pp. 345-356). Toronto: Collier Macmillan.
Paul, R. (no date).Using intellectual standards in the elements of thought. Unpublished paper, Center Critical
Thinking and Moral Critique, Sonoma State University, California.
Saskatchewan Education. (1988). Understanding the common essential learning’s: A handbook for teachers.
Regina, SK: Author.
Shaver, J. & Larkins, A. (1973). The Analysis of Public Issues Program. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Su, Zhixin. (1990). Exploring the moral socialization of teacher candidates. Oxford Review of Education, 16(3),
367-391.
16
The Critical Thinking Consortium