From: lee@wang.com (Lee Story)
Newsgroups: sci.psychology
Subject: Re: Critical Thinking and Education
Date: 27 Jul 92 15:35:43 GMT
Followup-To: sci.psychology
Distribution: usa
Organization: Wang Laboratories, Inc.


   (Malcolm Bauer) writes: 

   >I've been asked
   >to forward this to the net for a friend. Please respond to the
   >e-mail address below and to the list (if a discussion breaks out,
   >I can forward the posts to her).  -------------------------

   >I've become involved in a project to develop a curriculum for high
   >school students that will help them "think critically."  I was
   >wondering what researh exists on this subject, especially
   >prescriptive models of the steps students need to follow, with
   >supporting empirical evidence of effectivenss? Of course, other
   >references, ideas, and suggestions will be greatly appreciated as
   >well.

(Herman Rubin) writes:

   I suspect that an attempt to algorithmize it is more likely to destroy
   the capacity for critical thinking than to help at all.  Critical
   thinking involves questioning "authority," applying subject A to
   subject B without being told how to do it in the specific type of
   situation, inventing methods and reasoning to fit the problem (and
   there is generally no single correct answer.)

   To teach critical thinking, the student must be continually asked to
   handle situations which have not been encountered before, and to 
   question teachers and textbooks.

Mr.Bauer and his friend must be disappointed by the negative responses
so far.  On the one hand, almost everyone agrees that "critical thinking"
is "the goal of a liberal education".  On the other, most of the same
people claim it cannot be taught.  Something peculiar is going on here;
I suspect the problem is mostly definitional.

I would deny that "critical thinking" is really the goal.  Rather, it
is one necessary component in the approach to the more general goal of
intellectual problem solving, the largest part of which is heuristic,
and therefore unsuited to being reduced to an algorithm.  I'm in total
agreement with Prof.Rubin there.  And as for the establishment of
metrics to determine one's success in imparting critical thinking,
well...that's easy: wait a few decades, and look at the student's
life's work to see what difficult problems (s)he has solved.  Short-term
tests must rely too much on subject-matter knowledge...a test problem
which requires a synthesis of disciplines, "applying subject A to
subject B" (acoustic theory to underwater 'vision', for example),
is as much a test of knowledge in the specific subjects as a test
of problem-solving ability.

There's also the problem that the manner of being appropriately
"critical" is likely to differ between intellectual areas:  Popper's
falsifiability criterion may be very suitable for the natural sciences,
yet bears little relevance to the criticism of literature.

As far as problem solving being "teachable", it seems to depend on
whether you view "teaching" and "guiding" or "tutoring" or (ugh)
"mentoring" as different processes, with "teaching" being the
presentation of received knowledge for rote learning (e.g., the
multiplication tables).  I would consider knowledgeable but subjective
commentary on philosophy, art, literature, etc. to be "teaching".

Surely the student is much more often "asked to handle situations
which have not been encountered before" in the arts.  Herman's
situation may be particularly frustrating, as I suspect that most of
his students wish to use statistics as a collection of pure tools, the
"box end wrenches" of science.  There is very little imaginative use
of box end wrenches; a 10mm wrench fits a 10mm nut; sure, it can be
used to prop open a door, but so can a bag of kitty litter.  Guiding
the students to imaginative use of statistics may not be as important
(except to advanced statistical researchers and their applied
counterparts the sophisticated experiment designers) as knowing the
"received wisdom" and its range of applicability.
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Lee Story (lee@wang.com) Wang Laboratories, Inc.
              (Merrimack Valley Paddlers)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: sci.psychology