Professional Documents
Culture Documents
By
Two Students
KVP 8
Dr. Jerri Shepard
i
ii
iii
Acknowledgments
Words of thanks to those you wish to acknowledge. (optional)
iv
Dedication
to
(also optional)
Abstract
The abstract serves as a brief, comprehensive summary of the contents of your
research project: the purpose of the curriculum, rationale, key ideas from the
literature, and a brief description of the curricular considerations. More
information about writing abstracts is available in the APA manual (6 th Edition)
on pages 25-27. The abstract should not exceed 120 words.
vi
Table of Contents
Chapter I - Introduction
Background
Rationale
Purpose
Developmental Statement
Operational Definitions
Summary
11
20
25
27
27
29
vii
30
Data Analysis
30
Conclusions
31
Target Audience
31
31
33
Summary
33
Chapter IV - Findings/Results
Chapter V- Conclusions
List of Figures
Figure 1. Needs Assessment Survey
30
33
References
Appendixes
Appendix A and B: Gonzaga University Student Responsibility
Forms
Appendix C and D: Gonzaga University IRB Forms
Appendix E and F: Tri-Council Policy Statement Certificates and
National Institutes of Health Certificates
viii
ix
Chapter I
Critical Thinking Teaching Strategies for the Elementary Classroom
Technology has revolutionized our lives and our society. If we want
information on any given topic, we can have access to it nearly instantaneously,
on a myriad of devices. Our elementary-aged children do not know of a world
where information is not readily available to them at their fingertips. This is
why our current model of content-driven education may be failing to adequately
prepare them for their future. Educators today "don't know all the information
that today's students will need or all the answers to the questions they will face."
(Treffinger, 2008, p.1). In other words, how we teach children to think about
what they are learning has become just as important as what (i.e. the content) we
are teaching them.
The reality for the job market today is that by the time our students enter
the work force, they "must be able to find and analyze information, often
coming from multiple sources, and use this information to make decisions and
create new ideas" (Silva, 2009, p.631). Much of the global economy is driven
by information and technology. This economy places demands on adaptable
intellectual skills, the ability to analyze information and integrate various
sources of knowledge in solving problems. Critical thinking in our schools
1
should promote such thinking skills, and is very important in the rapidlychanging workplace.
This makes a strong case for the need to teach our children critical
thinking skills in conjunction with curriculum-based content. The skill of
teaching critical thinking, however, was not a component of many of the
teacher-education programs that our current educators graduated from, nor is it
yet a major focus of current professional development offerings in the field of
education. Additionally, the British Columbia Ministry of Education has
included critical thinking as a "cross-curricular competency" in their BCED Plan
(British Columbia Ministry of Education, 2013), therefore teachers will be
mandated to include it in their daily curriculum instruction. As such, in order
for teachers to successfully deliver lessons that foster critical thinking skills
while covering the required learning outcomes, we need practical strategies and
resources that allow our students opportunities to practice these skills. Without
routine and frequent opportunities to practice critical thinking, students cannot
internalize these skills and become critical thinkers (Paul & Elder, 2008, van
Gelder, 2005).
In order to best support this model of education, elementary educators are
faced with the task of imbedding critical thinking skills into their daily
curriculum in a way which is meaningful for their students. Roland Case and
the Critical Thinking Consortium (TC) have developed a framework for helping
teachers accomplish this goal (The Critical Thinking Consortium, 2011-2014).
Although TC currently has many relevant lesson plans accessible to teachers in
British Columbia, most were developed for middle- or high-school classes, and
the majority of the lessons are targeted towards a specific curricular area, and
require a substantial amount of time. We argue that teaching critical thinking
can be more problematic for elementary school teachers, who are generalists as
opposed to subject specialists.
For elementary teachers who are not yet certain how to incorporate the
teaching of critical thinking in their classrooms, there needs to be a way to
bridge the gap between teaching for learning outcomes only and implementing
critical challenges from TC. This is where practical teaching strategies that
enhance and foster critical thinking skills are required for elementary teachers,
and this need constitutes the rationale behind our project.
Rationale
From working through problems in class assignments to confronting real
world situations, critical thinking is hailed as an imperative goal of Education by
many educators and educational philosophers (Siegel, 2010). Teaching critical
thinking in elementary school elevates student learning beyond rote
memorization into the domain of analysis and logic. Critical thinking is the
ability to analyze the way one thinks and present evidence for their ideas, rather
than simply accepting personal reasoning as sufficient proof. Children can gain
numerous benefits from mastering critical thinking skills. To begin, as students
learn to think critically they become more self-sufficient. Rather than rely on
their teachers and textbooks for the delivery of their curriculum, they begin to
take ownership of their learning and become more independent and autonomous
(Ndofirepi, 2014, Paul & Elder, 2008). Students who know how to analyze and
critique ideas are able to make cross-curricular connections, to see knowledge as
useful and applicable to daily life and understand content on a deeper, more
lasting level. Furthermore, by incorporating reflective practices, critical
thinking allows students to assess their learning styles, strengths and weaknesses
from a more objective perspective.
3
A third benefit for students who are taught critical thinking is that it has
the potential to increase their emotional self-awareness. Students who are taught
to examine and evaluate beliefs on the basis of reason and evidence learn the
very difficult process of separating bias and opinions from fact. For example, a
student who writes a persuasive essay about the perils of drunk driving may use
a personal story to appeal to her reader's emotions, and then back up her
arguments with solid supporting evidence and statistics from credible sources.
Another benefit of teaching children to know the difference between a
rational judgment based on careful consideration and an emotional response
based on personal bias is learning about different perspectives. In the process of
becoming critical thinkers, children are taught to examine issues from various
perspectives and to base their ultimate decision on facts and reasons. As they
develop better control of their own learning, they also develop empathy for other
points of view, which enhances their ability to relate to others and work with
different people. Learning about various points of view when making reasoned
judgments helps children develop the capacity to understand that any given
problem can have multiple solutions.
The educational system in British Columbia is changing in response to the
needs of our technologically immersed students and the changing skills of the
work force. On the journey to creating a society of critical thinkers, elementary
school teachers are poised to play a crucial role in fostering the fundamental
skills and habits of thinking that are necessary before older students can transfer
these same skills into all areas of the curriculum. These teachers, however, are
burdened by the current demands of their positions which have them teaching
specific sets of learning outcomes and responsible for assessing and reporting on
their students' progress in relation to these outcomes. In order to both perform
their professional duties for the Ministry of Education as well as to address the
4
reality of the changes in the needs of our students, elementary school teachers
can bring critical thinking into their daily classroom routines in small ways, and
our project will help them achieve that goal.
By providing intermediate teachers with a set of practical, ready-to-use
strategies that can be incorporated in the Language Arts curriculum, our goal
with this project is to reduce anxiety that our colleagues may have surrounding
critical thinking. Our hope is that any teacher would be able to enhance the
critical thinking competencies of their students while themselves becoming
more comfortable and adept at using these strategies. It is our belief that even
those teachers hesitant about critical thinking, or who believe it to be another
educational "fad", will change their minds once they experience how engaged
their students become during these lessons, and how much more they are able to
learn over and above the content.
Purpose
The purpose of this project is to develop a document to help elementary
school teachers incorporate critical thinking into the Grade Six language arts
curriculum.
Developmental Statement
In order to accomplish our purpose, we will review the literature related to
critical thinking, examine the TC model of instruction for concepts and
methodologies relevant to elementary students, and rely on our own experience
teaching students in this grade. Having evaluated these components, we will
then develop a document containing practical teaching strategies that
incorporate critical thinking into the Grade 6 curriculum in areas of reading and
writing.
Operational Definitions
Background Knowledge: One of the five categories of critical thinking tools
identified by
TC. Students cannot think deeply about a topic if they know
little about it. Background knowledge is essentially the
required information one needs to know about a subject
before thoughtfully thinking about it (Case & Daniels, 2002).
Criteria for Judgment: One of the five categories of critical thinking tools
identified by
TC. Critical thinking is essentially a matter of judging which
alternative is sensible or reasonable. Criteria for judgment
are the
standards, considerations or grounds for deciding which of
the
alternatives is the most sensible or appropriate (Case &
Daniels, 2002).
Critical Thinking:
"The thoughtful examination of a question for the
purpose of discerning what is reasonable to believe or do in a
given situation" (British Columbia Ministry of Education,
2013).
Critical Thinking Vocabulary: One of the five categories of critical thinking
tools identified by TC. This is the terminology used to
describe the knowledge of the concepts and vocabulary
needed by students to make important distinctions among the
various issues and thinking tasks facing them (Case &
Daniels, 2002).
Habits of Mind: One of the five categories of critical thinking tools identified
by TC. These are 20 intellectual virtues or ideals that orient
and motivate thinkers in habitual ways that are conducive to
careful and conscientious thinking (Case & Daniels, 2002).
Thinking Strategies:
One of the five categories of critical thinking tools
identified by TC. Refers to the numerous strategies that are
useful in working through a problem. Refers to the
repertoire of heuristics, graphic organizers, models and
algorithms that may be useful when thinking through a
problem (Case & Daniels, 2002).
Tools for Thought:
A term used by TC to outline five areas which work
in concert to develop students' capacity for critical thinking.
These are Background Knowledge, Criteria for Judgment,
Critical Thinking Vocabulary, Thinking Strategies, and
Habits of Mind (Case & Daniels, 2002).
Summary
Today's students require a different skill set than our current, contentbased education model can provide them. This is especially true for our
intermediate and secondary-aged students, for whom technology is integrated
into their everyday lives. Given the irrefutable argument that technology has
given students access to an enormous volume of content at their fingertips, it
follows that teachers need to shift their teaching methodology from what they
want their students to know (content-driven) towards how their students are
thinking about what they are learning as well as the application of their
knowledge to create solutions for real-world problems. In order to best meet the
needs of our students and our technologically-enhanced society, educators must
place more emphasis on teaching students to think critically about the content
they are exposed to. This major shift in teaching can be overwhelming for many
educators, therefore it is important that they be given readily accessible,
practical strategies which will allow them to incorporate critical thinking into
their lesson plans, in all subject areas.
Although our project is designed around the Language Arts curriculum,
the critical thinking strategies taught are easily adaptable to multiple grade
7
levels, and the skills that the children will learn are transferable across subject
areas. As the children develop their critical thinking skills, they become more
autonomous learners, increase their ability to differentiate between opinion and
fact, become more aware of bias, and more practiced in considering different
points of view before arriving at a judgment based on evidence and criteria.
Our goal is that our project will help teachers by providing practical ways
to incorporate critical thinking into their existing lessons without having to
possess training or deep understanding of the concept. It is our hope that such
strategies will be transferred into other curricular areas as the teachers using
them come to see their value. As with any other teaching methodology, the
more practice one has using it, the more it becomes part of their instinctual
teaching repertoire.
Chapter II
Review of the Literature
Introduction
Children today are digital natives. They have never experienced a world
without the internet and near-instantaneous access to a plethora of information
on any given topic. "No human can handle or analyze the volumes of data we
now have and need" (Prensky, 2013, p. 24). Yet these same children do not
have the skills to sort through the incredible amount of data to discern what is
relevant, trustworthy and to recognize bias (Dede, 2005). As such, there is an
increasing impetus on educators to develop the essential skills that will enable
our children to succeed in the twenty-first century. But the current contentdriven model of education, in which teachers focus on the acquisition of facts
over problem-solving abilities, remains prevalent in most schools today
(OECD, 2009 as cited in Saavedra & Opfer, 2012). However to best meet the
needs of our students, however, our teaching methodology needs to shift
towards "what students can do with knowledge, rather than what units of
knowledge they have" (Silva, 2009, p. 630).
The conundrum facing educators is that we don't know the exact skills
and knowledge students will need to have ten, twenty, or thirty years from now.
What we do know is that children need to be explicitly taught to think critically;
they will not learn this skill on their own. Evidence supports the idea that the
twenty-first century work force will require a new skill set, including
communication, critical thinking and collaboration (Levy & Murnane, 2006).
This presents a considerable shift in Education, but a necessary one. Daniel
Pink, in his book A Whole New Mind (2005) argues that today's global economy
requires our students to synthesize knowledge, think critically about that
knowledge, and develop creative, inventive solutions to problems facing the
modern workplace.
Critical thinking can be traced back thousands of years to Socrates and
Plato (Siegel, 2010). John Dewey discussed the importance and relevance of
critical thinking in his 1910 book How We Think. The backing of critical
thinking as an important goal for education has achieved nearly undisputed
approval over the last forty years (Lipman, 2003). Critical thinking, despite
mainstream acknowledgement, is not being employed in our classrooms any
10
more than it was when it was first acknowledged as an objective for North
American instructors twenty-five years ago (Lipman, 2003).
The discrepancy between the need for critical thinking skills and the lack
of implementation in the classroom may have several root causes. As Sternberg
notes in his article The Challenge of Implementation (2009), new teachers
coming out of universities are still being taught to deliver the curriculum using
traditional, content-based practices. Teaching thinking skills rather than content
is unfamiliar territory. Elementary teachers in British Columbia, faced with the
daunting task of delivering curriculum in all subject areas, with little preparation
time allotted to them each week, struggle to find time to learn how to implement
critical thinking into their current lessons. They are also instructing an agegroup that is less developmentally ready to apply critical thinking skills to broad
concepts or global issues (Armstrong, 2007). Also, teachers may not be
incorporating critical thinking skills in their classrooms because it can be an
intimidating process for them and changing the way teachers think about
teaching children takes time and practice. Elementary teachers need practical
strategies that they can use without feeling intimidated by lack of knowledge or
practice. Therefore, elementary teachers today are faced with the problem of
needing to accommodate their teaching practices for the evolving skill set of
11
their learners and the needs of the future economy, yet may not have developed
the capacity to teach thinking skills and content together.
21st Century Learners
The children in our elementary schools today have never known a world
without the internet. These are the 21st century learners, also known as digital
natives (Prensky, 2001). These children have access to an unimaginable amount
of information on any given topic, on a variety of devices, and they learn to
operate these devices before they can read or write. The internet has empowered
our students by making a wealth of information available to them on demand
while making them incredibly vulnerable at the same time (Merlis, 2005).
Youth today confront a host of issues as they negotiate their way through the
mass of digital data and connect socially with others. Although there are
numerous exciting benefits to children having full access to the internet, there
are also many social and health challenges, and children need informed adults to
help them navigate their way through these unchartered waters (O'Keeffe,
Clarke-Pearson & Council on Communications and Media, 2011). In the
aforementioned article from the American Academy of Pediatrics, the authors
stipulate that children connecting with others through social media sites are
learning important communication skills, gaining awareness of global issues,
and are experiencing how sharing ideas on public spaces can enhance and
12
designed that allow us to target the critical thinking skills necessary for our
emerging economy (Bevins, Carter, Jones, Moye & Ritz, 2012; Goodwin &
Miller, 2013; Saavedra & Opfer, 2012; Schleicher, 2012; Silva, 2009).
Educators, economists and policy makers have speculated about the
competencies that our school-aged children will need to successfully enter the
work force in North America. As noted by van Eyk, many of our children will
most likely be employed in careers that have not yet been conceived (2012).
The job of educators is to prepare our students to become productive, fairminded members of society who can think critically about complex global and
social issues (Gainer, 2012; Levy & Murnane, 2006; Saavedra & Opfer, 2012).
Although there is uncertainty about the types of jobs that our students need to be
prepared for, there is relative consensus in the research about the skills required
for rewarding careers. Strong communication skills, the ability to collaborate
with others and critical thinking emerge as the competencies that employers are
seeking in a global economy (Silva, 2009). Voogt, Erstad, Dede & Mishra
(2013), having researched various frameworks of 21st century competencies,
created the following list of commonly agreed upon skills: collaboration,
communication, digital literacy, citizenship, problem-solving, critical thinking,
creativity, and productivity. The government of British Columbia recognizes
that these are cross-curricular skills; that is, we do not need to design curriculum
14
that teaches new subject content as much as we need to explicitly teach students
how to think (BC Ministry of Education, 2012). The rapidly changing
globalized economy demands that our education system reflects the needs of the
21st century learners.
Critical Thinking in Education
Lipman (1998) and Wright (1992) consider critical thinking to be an
essential element in the growth of an progressive democracy because a culture
of critical thinkers embraces representative government, due process, protection
of human rights and civil liberties, and the cultivation of rational social
institutions, while a society deprived of critical thinking is founded upon elitism,
wealth, power or intelligence. Educators know that the creation of a society of
critical thinkers starts with educating the young, and recognize that the 21 st
century skills.
Cognitive skills such as critical thinking and problem solving have a long
empirical history closely connected with academic achievement. These
skills, rather than being novel to the 21st century and necessary for success
in the 21st century, are skills that are required for successful learning and
achievement at any time, including but not limited to the 21 st century.
Additionally, interpersonal competencies such as communication,
collaboration and responsible behavior have been integral to successful
interpersonal relationships for centuries, although all of these take on new
dimensions in 21st century virtual interaction. (Voogt, Erstad, Dede &
Mishra, 2013).
15
When arguing for the relevance of teaching critical thinking in our schools, it is
important to acknowledge the historical contributions of preeminent educational
philosophers. Out of the numerous individuals who have developed
philosophies regarding critical thinking in education, we will explore the
approaches of the following: Benjamin Bloom, Robert Ennis, Richard Paul and
Linda Elder, John McPeck, Daniel T. Willingham, Harvey Siegel, Matthew
Lipman and Roland Case. Although each of these educational philosophers
differ in their definitions and approaches to critical thinking, they all believe
strongly in the importance of bringing critical thinking into the forefront of
education.
Working with collaborators Max Englehart, Edward Furst, Walter Hill,
and David Krathwohl, Benjamin Bloom created a framework for classifying
educational goals. In 1956 they published the Taxonomy of Educational
Objectives, which every K-12 teacher in British Columbia learns about in their
philosophy of education course during university. Blooms taxonomy is a tiered
structure classifying six levels of thinking and learning skills: Knowledge,
Comprehension, Application, Analysis, Synthesis, and Evaluation. According
to the creators, knowledge, or content, is the basic building block upon which all
of the higher-order thinking skills such as synthesis, evaluation, and creativity,
are formed. This hierarchical structure presupposes that learners must master
16
provides a clear list of skills and dispositions necessary for critical thinking, he
does not address how to incorporate critical thinking in the classroom.
Richard Paul, working with Linda Elder is another prominent figure in
research about critical thinking in education. Similar to Ennis, Paul and Elder
believe that there are a set of definable skills necessary for teaching students
how to think critically. Paul and Elder categorize thinking skills into three
different ability levels, ranging from "lowest" to "highest order thinking" (2008).
Together they created The Foundation for Critical Thinking based around a set
of nine intellectual standards and eight intellectual traits. Paul and Elder theorize
that the highest quality of critical thinking cannot be achieved by explicitly
teaching intellectual skills alone, but that students also must possess a set of
habits of mind (intellectual traits) necessary for unbiased or empathetic
reasoning (Elder & Paul, 2010). They define the relevant elements of thought
as: Point of View, Purpose, Question at Issue, Information, Interpretation and
Inference, Concepts, Assumptions, and Implications and Consequences, while
the intellectual standards associated with critical thinking are: Clarity, Accuracy,
Precision, Relevance, Depth, Breadth, Logic and Fairness. Finally, the
intellectual virtues central to critical thinking are: Intellectual Humility,
Intellectual Courage, Intellectual Empathy, Intellectual Autonomy, Intellectual
Integrity, Intellectual Perseverance, Condence in Reason, and Fairmindedness
18
(Paul & Elder, 2008). Mulnix disagrees with the prominent role that the
intellectual virtues play in Paul and Elder's view of critical thinking. Mulnix
argues that such habits of mind are morally based therefore interfere with the
process of thinking critically by imposing ethics on the thinker: "Critical
thinking, as an intellectual virtue, is not directed at any specic moral ends. That
is, it does not intrinsically contain a set of beliefs that are the natural outcomes
of applying its method. For instance, two critical thinkers can come to hold
contrary beliefs despite each applying the skills associated with critical thinking
well and honestly" (2010, p. 3).
Whereas Ennis, Paul and Elder argue for a set of generalized thinking
skills that can be applied across all subject areas, John McPeck disagrees.
McPeck asserts that critical thinking skills are subject-specific (as cited by
Mason, 2007). He argues that when a generalized set of critical thinking skills
are taught across the curriculum, students do not necessarily have the reasoning
ability to apply them in different settings (McPeck, 1990). McPeck proposes
instead that critical thinking skills vary from discipline to discipline; that the
thinking skills students need in mathematics are vastly different from those they
apply in the arts. Furthermore, McPeck emphasizes that rather than explicitly
teaching critical thinking skills, learning is a much richer experience when these
skills are immersed within the subject-specific curriculum. In his review of
19
these character traits "critical spirit" (Siegel, 1998). Siegel suggests the idea of
the critical spirit to encapsulate this dispositional aspect, which he sees as being
of equal importance with the reason assessment/ critical thinking component.
The critical spirit specifies that a critical thinker values good reasoning and is
disposed to reason/ think critically. In his 2009 article Open-mindedness,
Critical Thinking, and Indoctrination: Homage to William Hare, Siegel explores
the relationship between open-mindedness and critical thinking. Here, he
explains that open-mindedness is one component of critical spirit and that
although open-mindedness is necessary for critical thinking, one can be openminded without necessarily being a critical thinker. Furthermore, whereas
McPeck argues for subject-specific critical thinking skills, Siegel espouses that
both subject-specific skills and dispositions, and "subject-neutral" critical
thinking skills and dispositions are required for reasoning (Mason, 2007). The
subject specific category refers to the skills of assessment of reasons within a
certain context, subject or discipline, while subject-neutral describes general
skills that apply across a wide variety of contexts (Siegel, 2013).
Matthew Lipman is another education philosopher who has written much
on the topic of critical thinking. Lipman argues that all reasonable decisions are
based on criteria and evidence. His view of critical thinking supports the
development of dispositions of a critical thinker, and it proposes the idea that
22
Wright, LeRoi Daniels and Sharon Bailin, began publishing documents about
Critical Thinking in the 1970s. The Critical Thinking Consortium (TC) was
created in 1993 by LeRoi Daniels and Jerrold Coombs from the University of
British Columbia, and Sharon Bailin and Roland Case from Simon Fraser
University. TC is a non-profit organization that co-creates curriculum and
facilitates professional development of elementary and secondary school
teachers across Canada. Case and associates are unique in their field due to the
fact that they do not fully engage in the philosophical debate about how best to
bring critical thinking into the classroom. Their approach appears to be a hybrid
of both explicitly teaching the tools and habits of mind necessary for thinking in
the process of close examination of curricular challenges. When interviewed by
Catherine Edwards, who asked him how the TC model was different from other
approaches, Case answered as follows.
We do not support the view that critical thinking is a generic set of skills
or processes that can be developed independent of content and context.
Nor do we believe that critical thinking can adequately be addressed as an
add-on to the curriculum. Instead, critical thinking must be seen as a way
to teach the content of the curriculum. Teachers can help students
understand the subject matter, rather than merely recalling it, by providing
continuing opportunities for thoughtful analysis of issues that are central
to the subject matter (2005, para. 15).
Rather than immerse himself in this intellectual deliberation, he seems to have
synthesized the common core beliefs that are espoused by all the eminent
theorists into the TC model, and has focused on bringing the philosophy into
24
Daniels (1999) stipulate that children are already involved in making judgments
by the time they enter Kindergarten, but point out that their arguments will not
be very strong, and will be made without considering other points of view. The
authors insist that it is an educator's duty to guide young children through the
process of becoming critical thinkers with a developmentally appropriate
approach, being mindful of their continuing intellectual maturation.
Teaching Critical Thinking in Elementary Classrooms
Many teachers believe they know the meaning of what critical thinking is
a term that most educators believe they know the meaning of, yet few people
can either define it or agree on a true definition. Richard Paul conducted a study
in 1997 on the pervasiveness of critical thinking in university and college
courses. Paul's study found that 89% of the 140 university and college
professors interviewed believed critical thinking was a crucial objective of their
teaching. However, only 19% of these professors were able to provide a simple
and clear description of what critical thinking was (Paul, Elder & Bartell, 1998).
This same issue can also be found in British Columbia schools. A 1989 survey
revealed that 88% of 1 700 social studies teachers in British Columbia supported
the teaching of critical thinking in their classrooms. Of these same teachers, 79%
judged critical thinking to be a major emphasis in their teaching (Bognar,
Cassidy, Manley-Casimir & Lewis, 1991). Roland Case (1992) evaluated this
27
period of years definite erosion is noted" (p. 205). Like dripping water that
slowly erodes a stone, critical thinking will not begin to make an impact on
students unless it is practiced mindfully throughout their entire school years. As
espoused by many philosophers, critical thinking is a very hard task that requires
intentional, mindful practice. Roberts and Billings (2008) note that their
"experience with teaching thinking has taught [them] that learning to think
requires frequent, deliberate practice." Tim van Gelder (2005) compares
critically thinking to ballet, in its complexity and in its requirement for years of
structured practice and preparation. He also theorizes that mastery of critical
thinking is a life-long pursuit that is not natural to humans, nor can we learn this
skill simply being exposed to it. Moreover, many educational experts have
recognized that although teaching critical thinking skills occurs over years of
practice and hard work, it is a very important and worthwhile pursuit. To this
end, Peterson and Taylor (2012) have noticed improvements in the academic
success of students who are engaged in thinking activities. They documented
significant increases in the reading ability of second and third graders when
these students were taught to think critically about the texts they read, rather
than practicing reading skills in isolation:
We have found that engaging students in high-level talk and writing about
texts takes time, but it is worth it! In second and third grades, students'
reading scores consistently grew more, compared with other students,
29
32
teaching critical skills and habits, very few teachers do this in practice. To
promote and foster confidence teaching their students how to think critically, it
is essential that teachers be offered opportunities to learn and grow as critical
thinkers themselves. As critical thinking is fundamental to long-term success it
is crucial that curriculum is developed that explicitly teaches educators and
children how to develop and grow critical thinking skills (Case, n.d.).
Teaching elementary-aged children in British Columbia can be a daunting
task. Faced with an overwhelming amount of learning outcomes in several
subject areas leaves teachers with little time to learn and grow professionally.
Many professional development programs fail to make it into classrooms
because teachers lack time in their schedules to add more curriculum on top of
what they are currently mandated to teach. Realistically, in order to implement
critical thinking in their classrooms, elementary teachers need access to
practical, ready-to-use materials that can help both them and their students
become more comfortable and confident thinking critically. TC, although
providing teacher tested lesson plans, caters more to those professionals who are
either subject specialists, or who are already comfortable with the TC critical
thinking model. If we truly believe in the importance of critical thinking, our
elementary teachers need a program that indoctrinates them into the world of
TC and its critical challenges in an introductory manner. If we set the goal of
34
References
American Association of School Librarians (2008). Standards for the 21st
century learner.
Retrieved February 10, 2014 from http://www.ala.org/aasl/standardsguidelines/learning-standards
Armstrong, T. (2007). The curriculum superhighway. Educational Leadership,
64(8), 16-20.
Bailin, S., Case, R., Coombs, J. R., & Daniels, L. B. (1999). Common
misconceptions of
critical thinking. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 31(3), 269.
Bailin, S., Case, R., Coombs, J. R., & Daniels, L. B. (1999). Conceptualizing
critical thinking.
35
36
37
38
39
Levy, F., & Murnane, R. J. (2006). Why the changing American economy calls
for twentyfirst century learning: Answers to educators' questions. New Directions
For Youth
Development, 2006(110), 53-62.
Lipman, M. (1973). Philosophy for children.
Lipman, M. (1984). The cultivation of reasoning through philosophy.
Educational
Leadership, 42(1), 51-56.
Lipman, M. (1988). Critical thinking--what can it be? Educational Leadership,
46(1), 38.
Lipman, M. (1998). Teaching students to think reasonably: Some findings of the
philosophy
for children program. The Clearing House, 71(5), 277-280.
Livingstone, S., & Brake, D. R. (2010). On the rapid rise of social networking
sites: New
findings and policy implications. Children & Society, 24(1), 75-83.
339-349.
McCall, A. L. (2011). Promoting critical thinking and inquiry through maps in
elementary
classrooms. Social Studies, 102(3), 132-138.
McPeck, J. E. (1990). Critical thinking and subject specificity: A reply to Ennis.
Educational
Researcher, 19(4), 10-12.
Merlis, S.E. (2005). Preserving internet expression while protecting our
children: solutions
following Ashcroft v. ACLU. Northwestern Journal of Technology and
Intellectual
Property, 4(1), 117-132.
Ministry of Education, Province of British Columbia (2013). Defining crosscurricular
from
https://www.bced.gov.bc.ca/irp/docs/def_xcurr_comps.pdf
Ministry of Education, Province of British Columbia. (n.d.). Transforming BC's
curriculum Retrieved June 14, 2014 from
https://www.bced.gov.bc.ca/irp/transforming_
41
curriculum.php
Paul, R. W. (2005). The state of critical thinking today. New Directions for
Community
Colleges, 2005(130), 27-38.
Paul, R. W., & Elder, L. (2008). The miniature guide to critical thinking:
Concepts and tools.
Paul, R. W., & Elder, L. (2010). Critical thinking development: A stage theory.
Retrieved
June 2, 2014 from www.criticalthinking.org
Paul, R., & Elder, L. (2011). Critical thinking: Competency standards essential
for the
cultivation of intellectual skills, part 3. Journal of Developmental
Education, 35(2),
34-35.
Paul, R. W., Elder, L., & Bartell, T. (1998). Study of 38 public universities and
28
private universities to determine faculty emphasis on critical thinking
instruction.
Retrieved February 2, 2014 from The Critical Thinking Community
Website: http://www.criticalthinking.org/aboutCT/Research.shtml#study
43
44
Voogt, J., Erstad, O., Dede, C., & Mishra, P. (2013). Challenges to learning and
schooling in
the digital networked world of the 21st century. Journal of Computer
Assisted
Learning, 29(5), 403-413.
van Eyk, J. (2012, September 4). Artful teaching is key to creativity, critical
thinking. Toronto
Star.
van Gelder, T. (2005). Teaching critical thinking: Some lessons from cognitive
science.
College Teaching, 53(1), 41-46.
Vansieleghem, N. (2005). Philosophy for children as the wind of thinking.
Journal of
Philosophy of Education, 39(1), 19-35.
Willingham, D. T. (2008). Critical thinking: Why is it so hard to teach? Arts
Education Policy
Review, 109(4), 21-29.
Willingham, D.T. (2009). Why dont students like school?: A cognitive scientist
answers
questions about how the mind works and what it means for the classroom.
San
Francisco: Jossey Bass.
Wright, I. (1992). Critical thinking: Curriculum and instructional policy
implications.
Journal of Education Policy, 7(1), 37-43
46
47
48