Dr. Kevin D. Washburn (@kdwashburn) recently posted an article on the Edurati Review that discusses thinking about thinking. Definitely read that article if you haven’t gotten the opportunity to do so. Dr. Washburn hits on a topic that I think is extremely important for us to consider. Here is an excerpt from his article:
“Few conferences fail to include at least one session devoted to the topic, and book vendors at these events hawk the latest tomes dedicated to it. Educators seem to agree on the need for students to learn to think critically, but that seems to be the end of their consensus. Ask three different educators for their definition of critical thinking and you’re likely to get at least four different ideas, and at least half of them will include a nod to Bloom’s Taxonomy. Somewhere in our history, many of us were convinced that if our questioning climbed a ladder and we called on students whose names we wrote on popsicle sticks and pulled randomly from a styrofoam cup, we were teaching students critical thinking.”
Kevin makes a lot of great points in his article as well as a strong argument for a new module for thinking, but I want to focus on a couple of points in the excerpt above. These thoughts are at their infant stages and will make in-depth appearances on this blog as our journey continues.
Critical thinking strategies must be developed collaboratively so that we can understand how to meet the needs of each student. I use an “input/output” method with my students, but as I continue to develop this approach with them I am always building a mental database of modifications to meet the needs of individual student speed bumps. Believe it or not, not every student responds or knows how to react to more questioning. In fact, it can be downright detrimental and frustrating to some learners. If they can’t make sense of the first question then why is there such a guarantee that rephrasing it or giving them another is a “best practice”. It seems as though we discuss differentiation of understanding content, but that same approach needs to become a tool for instructing how to think.
Many teachers also misinterpret their job in facilitation of classes when it comes to teaching students how to think. Let’s assume that a teacher is working diligently to act as the “guide on the side” rather than the “sage on the stage” as the moniker goes. Teachers who are truly working with students on thinking activities can’t be worried about their classes getting from point “A” to point “B” in any given time frame. They need to realize that thinking is not a finite process and certain aspects of the traditional classroom cannot apply. If you are truly working with kids on developing their ability to think then you can’t be concerned with the amount of time it takes to get there or if they wander off task from time to time. Efforts at prompting and prodding students towards the answer become contradictory to the cause if it is continually offered and provided constantly instead of selected times. Part of thinking is realizing that you might have to stop for a while, do something else, and come back to the problem rather than plow through it like a brick wall.
Emphasis on self-regulation and metacognition must move to the forefront of educational objectives if we wish to foster students with the ability to be independent and lifelong learners. I tend to ponder if we will ever truly master teaching kids how to think considering the complexity of such a daunting task. What I can tell you is that education, as a whole, needs to make a stronger effort. Standards that emphasize content rather than cognitive development are preventing districts from placing “thinking” at the forefront of district goals and objectives for creating quality instruction that emphasizes this trait.
Regardless of what the standards say, it should be every educator’s goal to teach kids how to think rather than what to think.
Post Footer automatically generated by Add Post Footer Plugin for wordpress.
Aaron,
I agree.
I almost just left it that…I think of Eleanor Duckworth’s “The Having of Wonderful Ideas,” and her discussion about a group of teachers that have been getting together for a very long time (15 years was it?) and just talking about how do we know which way north is.
This idea of critical thinking links back to my reply to pushing creativity, either someone is doing it (or at least trying to), or they are not. And a dialogue that involves critical thinking is a mess from the perspective of lesson planning. It has a life of its own that can’t be pegged down to start here and end there. And here is where I could get sidetracked on the downfalls of curriculum, class periods, and subject areas. So I will stop.
I like The Institute for Humane Education’s (I may have mentioned them before) approach to these conversations. in Zoe Weil’s “Most Good, Least Harm.” Following her model, a thinker is bound to touch upon very important aspects of a situation, whether that situation is Haiti or a sneaker. Important aspects include how does this affect people, animals and the environment? What system is it a part of? Does it address a need or want? How can the thing or system be changed? What role can I play?
I also like the approach of contemplative thinking. This rests on understanding that there is no consciousness without contrast, so we must become practiced in thinking in such terms. “Understanding the nature of change, changes the nature of understanding,” says Wolf Richards, who wrote “The Way to See (W)hole,” a fantastic little book that provides great practice in contemplative thinking.
And we cannot master teaching kids how to think in these ways, unless we are doing it ourselves. We can hand kids copies of the books I mention above and develop great lessons to go with them, but the most potent lesson is who we are ourselves. How do we think? How do we act upon this thinking? Or do our actions demonstrate that it is all just an act?
This was a very thought-provoking blog post Aaron. I like your point about allowing students time to think and to come back to an idea if necessary versus ‘plowing through’ to the answer. The thought of differentiating with respect to teaching thinking skills is very intriguing. Implementing this into practice becomes challenging as you mention that different educators think of different things when it comes to critical thinking.
In the end, I believe teachers need to understand what it ‘looks like’ to effectively help students develop critical thinking skills while at the same time working through prescribed curricula in a timely fashion. We all know we want students to develop thinking and questioning skills, but do we know what this actually looks like? Does it look the same for all teachers, all subjects, or all age levels? It certainly seems a worthy quest to discuss and discover the answer.
Thanks again for making me think!
@dannymaas