October 26, 2007 - Critical Thinking Workshop - with Don Kerr
"Critical Thinking is the making of reasoned judgments, where good reasoned judgments reflect the use of 5 intellectual resources or tools."
The following material was adapted from: Bailin, Sharon; Roland Case, Jerrold Coombs and LeRoi Daniels. 1999. Conceptualizing critical thinking. Journal of Curriculum Studies 31; 285-302.
The 5 Tools
1] Background Knowledge -
i.e., big intro classes where a lot of information is put out and expected to be absorbed the purpose is to fill in the gaps of knowledge.
2] Criteria for Judgment -
Methodical. Different fields mean different specificity.
3] Reasoning Vocabulary -
Strong argument. The tools with which one can successfully produce an argument/ article.
4] Thinking Strategies -
Pause. Play devils advocate. Consider the outcomes. Consider the source...
5] Habits of mind -
(Non context specific) Rethink. Evaluate Beliefs. Look for bias. Re-examine.
WHAT we need to promote Critical Thinking -
1] Create situations that call for judgments. Create critical challenges.
2] Evaluate for demonstration of judgment. Meaning - ask, open ended questions.
3] Our aim is to reflect epistemological beliefs. No static certainty. Trying to get the students inside of the questions. Disciplines are made up 'of people arguing.'
__________________________________________________________________________________
Basically this workshop with Don, was a blast. Since Don has a background in teaching and pedagogy, especially in terms of ethics and philosophy - the nature of the workshop reflected his background. It was interesting to note that while we were discussing the topic of critical thinking and marking - the issue of grading an argument or a paper on the basis of 'good argument/ logical argument' came up.
The issue: that a person from another discipline would not be able to effectively grade a paper by a student from a different discipline. Don stated that the marker may not be entirely effective because the matter (the topic) would not be fully understood from the perspective of the discipline. However, our discussion, posed the question that: regardless of specificity regarding discipline - the marker would still be able to discern a strong argument from a poor one. As the debate went on - it seemed that a consensus would not be reached.
in my own view I agree with Don, because I feel that, certainly, being a student of Sociology, I would not be an effective, or fair, or knowledgeable marker if the paper was dealing with math or sciences. However I also agree with the other side of the argument, should the paper I am marking is from a student writing within the arts or humanities. I guess, the difference is that, within sociology and say, English, or comparative literature, I would stand a better chance to offer a critical commentary and thus a grade, than if I was to venture too far afield. The point being that, interdisciplinary studies, such as sociology may afford certain malleability regarding discussion and critical commentary. Whereas - with science I may find myself lost in a wash of theories and concepts that I don't have the proper background info on. And, therein lays the point of critical thinking - that one 'must' have a base of knowledge from which to draw on to be considered a critical thinker.
This workshop was rather short - well it seemed short - and the majority of the time spent was in critical discussion and argument. Meaning, to me, that critical thinking is rooted in the 5 basic elements of critical thinking as outlined above.
Although I feel that it is safe to say that being a critical thinker also means, that a topic that is out of a range of knowledge may require - an adaptation to the primary 5 elements - as well as being patient with one self should they hope to add, effectively to a discussion that 'at the moment' is unfamiliar.
The possibility of the 'everyman/woman/being' is increasingly impossible in our world where specificity seems to be on track towards hyper-specialization. There is a chance to be broad, but there is also the dignity and self respect to know when one should simply back away - until, such a time when the first 5 elements are met, at least on a base level.
