TEACHING CRITICAL THINKING IN A FACULTY OF EDUCATION

Introduction

Critical thinking appears in many different kinds of university courses. Typically, in Australia it is taught as an introduction to informal logic by Philosophy departments and it is then sometimes seen by other university departments to have the function of a service course which will equip their students with skills in reasoning and argument. This perception of critical thinking is evident in Australia particularly in schools of nursing, which have embraced critical thinking as a way of inculcating in their students an attitude sometimes described by them as that of "the reflective practitioner" who has "problem solving skills".

At Edith Cowan University, Perth, Western Australia there are at present three units which offer an introduction to critical thinking. They are PHI 1100, which is a unit in the Faculty of Arts taught to philosophy students and as a service unit to psychology, nursing and commerce students; FDN 1103 which is a combined critical thinking and ethics unit taught externally to students entering the university who are unsure of their academic destinations; and EDP 1101 which is a combined critical thinking and educational theory unit taught to first year students in the Faculty of Education.

This paper discusses some aspects of EDP 1101 which introduces future teachers to critical thinking.

What is critical thinking? The conceptual issues

There are two main schools of thought within the critical thinking movement. One view, exemplified in the work of John McPeck (1) and Robin Barrow (2) is that critical thinking is subject specific. On this view there is no general kind of skill which can be labelled critical thinking. Critical thinking skills differ, that is, depending upon the subject area in question. Therefore there can be no transfer of critical thinking skills from one subject area to another and being an excellent critical thinker in, for example, Mathematics is no guarantee that one can display the same degree of excellence at critical thinking in, say, the sciences or in literature. This view tends to be held by British writers on critical thinking although there has been at least one recent British writer who has opposed the accepted view in that country and has argued the case for teaching critical thinking as a separate subject identified as informal logic (3).

This view, that critical thinking is a subject in its own right which can be taught quite separately from other subjects is the alternative

school of thought. The teaching of critical thinking as a set of general skills has been strongly supported by many North American philosophers, most notably Robert Ennis (4) and Harvey Siegel (5).

However, the debate is not quite as clear cut as this account of the distinction suggests because, as Paul Hager has pointed out (6) there is a degree of asymmetry between the views which each side holds on the nature of the questions which inform the debate. McPeck and his followers see these questions to be conceptual, Ennis and others of his persuasion see them to be empirical as well. As Hager notes (p.157).

Ennis ... carefully distinguishes three versions of the subject - specific view, two of which are quite compatible with critical thinking

being a largely general ability. In both of these versions of subject - specificity combined with generic critical thinking, there are significant empirical questions.

What this means is that Ennis et al. consider that we need research evidence to show whether abilities are transferred from one subject area to another - ie. this matter is one for empirical investigation - whereas McPeck sees claims about critical thinking to be purely concerned with establishing truth through processes of reasoning, in particular through conceptual clarification and through knowledge specific to a particular domain.

Why teach critical thinking? A philosophical issue

I do not intend in this paper to pursue the issues raised by these two competing schools of thought. This is not because I do not consider the conceptual issues to be important. On the contrary, I believe that conceptual clarification is crucial to the teaching of critical thinking for if we do not know what we mean by critical thinking then we are not going to make good pedagogical decisions about teaching it to others. But I also accept that the point of conceptual analysis is to enable us to deal more effectively with some philosophical issue - it is, as has been noted "a necessary preliminary to answering some other philosophical questions" (7). My first purpose therefore is to move beyond the conceptual question by taking the teaching of critical thinking as a subject in its own right as a given. Whether this is conceptually correct I am not yet sure. Empirically, it occurs.

So while I have considered it important to describe the contexts in which teaching critical thinking can be set I have done so only as a background for discussion of the introductory course in critical thinking which is the subject of my paper. It is a philosophical question which the existence of the unit EDP 1101 raises that I wish to

explore. This question is all too familiar to those who have been concerned with the design of initial teacher education courses in Australia and elsewhere. The question is whether there is any justification for including critical thinking as a compulsory part of a course for prospective teachers and what form that justification might take. I shall argue that there are two kinds of justification, an ethical one and an epistemological one, which can both be used to support the teaching of critical thinking in a Faculty of Education.

The content of EDP 1101

EDP 1101 is a first year unit taught in the Faculty of Education at Edith Cowan University, Perth Western Australia. It is the first of four equally weighted modules which comprise the forty-five hour unit and it occupies a block of three consecutive hours for three consecutive weeks. The total instruction time is nine hours, made up of three one-hour lectures followed by three (nominal) two-hour tutorial sessions. In practice these usually conclude after an hour and a half since the mandated instruction time is forty-five minutes of each hour and the students tend to reach satiation point as far as absorption of the material is concerned.

The critical thinking module has been devised on the assumption that critical thinking is a technical tool which provides students with the ability both to analyse the arguments of others and to construct their own sound arguments. Learning to use this tool effectively requires them to interpret meaning, to understand logical structure and to

detect fallacious argument. It is therefore presented as a brief introduction to the study of informal logic (although some elements of formal logic are also included).

Because of time constraints fallacious forms of modus ponens and modus tollens are the only two fallacies taught. It would, however, be desirable to include other common forms of fallacious argument such as ad hominem, straw man, petitio principii and so on.

Again, because of time constraints, there is no opportunity to teach the application of techniques of critical thinking to the analysis of educational reports. Some use of their application to the analysis of research is required, possibly unfairly, in the critique of a research article which is the major assignment for the unit. The critique includes the diagramming of a specified paragraph in the article and the evaluation of its contribution to the conclusion drawn by the writer.

Another important aspect of critical thinking that is missing from the unit, again because of lack of time is the constructive as opposed to the analytic side of thinking critically. The use of critical thinking

in assignment writing is not discussed but would be readily justified on the grounds that writing essays that contain sound reasoning is a significant skill which confers life long benefits in terms of its applicability to a wide variety of situations, far removed from the requirements of writing academic assignments.

The rationale underlying the critical thinking module is that it fulfils three functions.

it introduces the student to an awareness of the structure of argumentit provides the student with techniques for analysing and evaluating argumentit encourages an attitude of mind which enables the student to consider spoken and written discourse from a logical point of view

Clearly, in three weeks students cannot be expected to achieve more than the rudiments. However, the module assumes that critical thinking is embedded in all other courses of study which the student will encounter and that it will be taught in context by others as well.

To return to the content that is included in the unit. The first task which the students are required to master is the analysis of short passages of prose in natural language to show the structural relationship of reason, or reasons and conclusion or conclusions. A typical test item requires recognition that the first sentence contains the conclusion in the following passage.

The exuberant, egotistical nationalism of a generation ago was the sign, not that Australians had become a nation, but that they wished to become one. For nationality exists not merely in political unity, but in spiritual achievement.

The second task which is given to students is to learn how to construct a diagram which displays the logical structure of a passage of reasoning with the steps of inference represented by arrows. For the following passage

If one country backs out of the negotiations, others will follow suit. And if they do withdraw, the talks will break down. It follows that every country must persist with the negotiations.

the correct diagrammatic representation should appear as

((If one country backs out of the negotiations, others will follow suit(. ((And if they do withdraw, the talks will break down(. It follows that ((every country must persist with the negotiations(.

(+(

(

In order to show that the conjunction of the first two reasons leads to the conclusion, neither reason being adequate on its own to do so.

Students are also taught to evaluate the strength of a step of inference on a scale ranging from nil, to weak, to moderate, to strong, to deductively valid. Thus, for example, they need to be able to identify that the relationship between reason and conclusion in the following example is one of deductive validity.

Hang-gliding is less dangerous than parachuting but more dangerous than bungee jumping

Parachuting is more dangerous than bungee jumping

Students find these skills difficult to master, as test results show, not only for future teachers enrolled in EDP 1101 but also for nursing students and commerce students enrolled inPHI 1100 and students enrolled in FDN 1103. Data gathered from test results from students in all three units revealed the same trends. Contrary to what one might expect, many students do not have a natural propensity for informal logic. It is a skill which has to be acquired.

What does this sort of information mean, first for the teaching of critical thinking and second for the functioning of the professional who is required to engage in practical decision-making, particularly in relation to the well-being of others for whom he or she has specific responsibility?

I shall return to a specific consideration of EDP 1101 and discuss two arguments which can be put forward to justify teaching critical thinking to future members of the teaching profession.

Why teach Critical Thinking in a Faculty of Education? An ethical justification

In developing this justification I want to borrow from the recent work of Victor Quinn and his defence of teaching critical thinking as a subject in its own right. Quinn sets part of his defence in the context of teaching critical thinking to junior school children aged nine to eleven. He claims:

The outcome of CT as I represent it is a more modest thing than determining the truth of issues. It is providing children with a multi-disciplinary facility in withstanding unfair manipulative pressure; it is learning the use of logical operators and the detection of their misuse so that they can be used fairly and constructively in

one's argumentative engagement. CT education is therefore deeply political education. It is the nurture and explication of the logical intuitions which exist in extreme variation in different individuals. Some logical intuitions are embedded in general or specialist language;

some are bewitched by language. In most cases the untutored intuition is not adequate to the demands made of it. (8).

Quinn, as I say, is referring to junior school children. His comments, however, can be applied with the same force to the undergraduate in the Faculty of Education where the test results revealed that the "logical intuitions" which students bring to the course are indeed inadequate when the demand for their application is brought directly to bear upon the students by engaging them in the analysis of reasoning.

This inadequacy has the same effect for the undergraduate as for the junior school child. If Quinn is right then all those who do not possess critical thinking skills are open to unfair manipulation because they have only their "untutored intuition" to use in "argumentative engagement". So the justification for teaching critical thinking is that it equips students with the skill to protect themselves from the effect of specious reasoning in whatever context that reasoning might be set.

If we accept Quinn's claims then critical thinking is crucial for effectively resisting pressure to accept what is not defensible and for developing the autonomous non gullible intellect necessary to do so. It is the means of defence against what Quinn calls "the market place of persuasion" by which he means:

the range of situations in which argumentative pressure is brought to bear upon individuals who are not autonomous. I mean advertisers, politicians clerics, leader-writers, partisan journalists and broadcasters, parents, teachers, peers etc., as well as more learned sources, textbooks and the disciplines of meaning. (9).

I wish, however, to extend Quinn's argument in the case of the undergraduate in the Faculty of Education. The would be teacher will become a professional charged with the responsibility for professional judgment relating to the well-being of the students in his or her care. The capacity for rational judgment is central to the effective functioning of the professional. Teachers, no less than doctors, lawyers, accountants or engineers have to make decisions in the course of practising their profession. Their decisions will relate to those for whom they have professional responsibility. These decisions need to be justified on the basis of both their professional knowledge and their ability to make judgments using such knowledge. Justification for these judgments should take the form of sound argument based on good evidence. This ability, no less than the ability to withstand the

blandishments of those who inhabit the "market-place of persuasion" is an outcome of learning to think critically.

An ethical justification for teaching critical thinking in a Faculty of Education then is that it will provide future teachers with skills of reasoning and hence independence of intellect that will allow them to fulfil the obligations laid upon the professional teacher in relation to the proper care of those for whom they have educational responsibility.

I turn now to an epistemological justification.

Why teach critical thinking in a Faculty of Education? An epistemological justification

Education is a hybrid discipline. It draws extensively on work from other disciplines such as anthropology, psychology, philosophy,

sociology, history, economics, linguistics and mathematics and its research and publication output is vast. Books and journals, conference papers, educational reports, government white papers and government department policy papers abound. The quality of what is written on matters educational also exhibits an immense degree of diversity, ranging from the ludicrously bad to the superlatively good. What is the student in a Faculty of Education to do in the face of this plethora of theory which potentially influences educational practice?

The informed critical thinker learns that there are two criteria to consider in relation to judging the worth of an argument : the truth of the statements which it contains and the validity of the inferences which it draws. Clearly, to check the truth of the statements in an argument which is at all of a technical nature can be an arduous and time-consuming task requiring the search for evidence, the consideration of counter-claims, establishing consistency with other known facts and so on. Therefore, rather than beginning where much checking begins, by considering the truth of the statements, the student experienced in critical thinking should turn first to examine the validity of the inferences. To illustrate this point I propose to draw on the following argument decision tree developed by Bruce Haynes, which I have modified slightly for this purpose.

ARGUMENT DECISION TREE

1.Bracket and number the passage

2.Circle inference indicators

3.Identify conclusion/s

4.Identify stated grounds/warrants/backings (reasons)

5.Diagram obvious inferences

6.Identify problematic inferences

7.Identify significant suppressed premises

8.Recast diagram to accommodate problematic inferences

9.Check inferences for deductions

if ALL validORif ONE invalidREJECT

10.Check informal inferences

if weak/moderate/strongORif ONE nilREJECT

11.Assess strength of argument against strength of inference indicator used for final conclusion.

if equalORif unequalREJECT

12.Identify rebuttal

if no significant rebuttalORif significant rebuttalREJECT

13.Check truth of grounds, etc. (reasons)

if ALL trueORif ONE falseREJECT

ACCEPT ARGUMENT

This summary has been included with some modification with the permission of its author, Dr. B.T. Haynes.

Steps one to eight draw on the diagramming technique taught in critical thinking courses. They necessitate search for meaning, but they do not necessitate search for truth. If the flow of meaning is not immediately obvious, steps six, seven and eight, identifying

problematic inferences, inserting suppressed premises which are implied but not actually stated and then setting out the passage to include these does not involve the critical thinker in any way in testing the

truth of the statements made.

At step nine the first decision is made about the worth of the argument. Step nine requires the recognition of fallacious forms of argument. These are not subject specific and the truth or otherwise of the assertion is again not in question. Circular argument or argument ad hominem, for example, know no subject boundaries and need no content verification to be identifiable. If a fallacy is identified the reasoning is flawed and the argument can be rejected.

At step ten the second decision is made about the argument. This involves evaluating all steps of inference designated by inference arrows in the diagrammatic representation of the argument. Again, the relationship is between meaning, and not concerned with the truth of the statements. If one reason provides nil support for the conclusion it purports to sustain the whole argument can be rejected.

At step eleven the third decision is made. The degrees of strength assigned to the inference arrows are set against the strength of the inference indicator word assigned to the final conclusion. If there is any dissonance, for example few or no strong inferences and the conclusion introduced with the word 'proves' the whole argument can be rejected. Truth is still not a concern.

At step twelve the fourth decision is made. The content of the argument has to be considered, as opposed to its structure which has been the concern at the previous points of decision. A rebuttal, if found, will signify that, while the argument offers support to the conclusion there is a more significant or compelling argument which will diminish the degree of support offered by the original argument to the conclusion. Hence the argument in its original form should be rejected on account of the strength of the evaluation accorded to the inference. However, there is still no need for the truth or otherwise of the claims to be established in order for the rebuttal to be considered.

It is not until step thirteen, when the final decision is made, that the truth of the reasons needs to be established. If it can then be shown that all reasons provided are true then the argument can be accepted.

It is important to note that for the student who is well versed in critical thinking there are four decisions points to use as a test for an argument which can be applied before there is the need to turn to checking the truth of its claims.

An epistemological justification for teaching critical thinking in a Faculty of Education is that it offers a way of looking at a piece of educational writing in order to determine its acceptability or otherwise without having to engage in the often arduous and complex

task of checking the truth of its premises unless it meets the validity criterion for sound reasoning. Critical thinking offers a way of knowing the worth of an educational discourse. Seeing it as a methodological procedure for acquiring such knowledge provides an epistemological justification for its inclusion in a course for future teachers.

Conclusion

In this paper I have described the content of a new introductory course in critical thinking at Edith Cowan University for first year students in the Faculty of Education. I have attempted to justify its inclusion by indicating two arguments, an ethical argument and an epistemological argument which support its presence in a course for future teachers. I have also made the point that critical thinking is embedded in all other subjects which students encounter and that the teaching of it in context is therefore a task for others as well. In arguing my case I have not provided a defence for teaching critical thinking as a subject in its own right. I have accepted this as a given. Whether my acceptance is defensible leads back to the question of what critical thinking is and what kind of issues are involved in answering that question. I believe that the answers to these questions are of crucial importance for the successful teaching of critical thinking. I am not convinced that it is possible to frame questions and provide answers which are purely conceptual. It seems to me that it is in the teaching of critical thinking that the questions and answers emerge as to its nature and the pedagogical implications which follow.

References

(1)J E McPeck, Critical Thinking and Education, Oxford : Martin Robertson, 1981; J E McPeck, Teaching Critical Thinking, London : Routledge, 1990.

(2)Robin Barrow, Understanding Skills : Thinking, Feeling and Caring, London, Ontario: The Althouse Press, 1990.

(3)Victor Quinn, "In Defence of Critical Thinking as a Subject: if McPeck is wrong he is wrong" Journal of Philosophy of Education, Vol. 28, No.1, 1994 pp. 101-111.

(4)Robert H Ennis, "Critical thinking and subject specificity : clarification and needed research", Educational Researcher, Vol. 18, No. 3, 1989 pp. 4-10; Robert H Ennis, "The extent to which critical thinking is subject specific : Further clarification", Educational Researcher, Vol. 19, No. 4, 1990 pp. 13-16.

(5)Harvey Siegel, "The Generalisability of Critical Thinking" Educational Philosophy and Theory, Vol. 23, No. 1, 1991, pp. 18-19.

(6)Paul Hager, "Recent Arguments about the Generalisability of Critical Thinking" in P.D. Jewell (ed.). On the Same Premises. Proceedings of the second national conference on Reasoning, Flinders, South Australia, 1991 pp.157-173.

(7)R.S. Peters, The Logic of Education, London : Routledge, 1970, p.9.

(8)Quinn, V. ibid, p.109.

(9)Ibid.

HMJ194/MBS/NOV, 1996.

TEACHING CRITICAL THINKING IN A FACULTY OF EDUCATION13