Evans Pedagogy of Critical Thinking

Evans Pedagogy of Critical Thinking

Ryan Evans

Professor Douglass Merrell

CHID 497 Pedagogy of Critical Thinking

The goal of this project is to develop and refine my own style of pedagogy for teaching history and critical thinking. The areas in which I want to focus on in creating a teaching method are the following: leading and facilitating discussion sections, lecture, and evaluating and commenting on student work. I have formed my teaching philosophy for critical thinking on the basis of a variety of sources and from first hand experience as a peer facilitator and guest lecturer for CHID 110. Some of the major sources that I used include Neil Postman, Stephen D. Brookfield, and Howard Gardner. I want to build my own philosophy of pedagogy in the area of critical thinking in the three main aspects of teaching: lecture, discussion section, and evaluation.

The lecture is the backbone and structure of a college course in which the discussion sections augments the lecture. According to Stephen Brookfield, (Brookfield p102) the lecture has three characteristics. It makes use of a variety of teaching and communication processes; it is clearly organized so that students can follow the thread of thought, and it models the learning behaviors expected in the course. I have found that delivering a lecture is a vastly different task than facilitating a discussion for a number of reasons. Most important is that the power distribution in a lecture is completely shifted from the students to being weighted on my shoulders. I hold power not only in what information I am conveying but the manner and style in which I deliver it and place emphasis on it. Voice, inflection, and tone are important ways to convey to the students which parts of the information being delivered has the emphasis. I tried to slow down my speech and add emphasis and clarity when dictating the information about which they are to take notes. When I am giving filler and background information, or a connecting narrative I can speed up and dramatize it to make it sound engaging and exciting. Stephen Brookfield has a lot of great advice about delivering interesting lectures. In the process of preparing my lecture, I found that it was similarly structured to an exaggerated form of a formal essay; it has an introduction, several body paragraphs each with different main points that tie to the theme or thesis, and a conclusion that recaps all the points and ends with a final thought. Professor Merrell’s advice of how to structure a lecture is “Tell them what you’re going to cover. Cover each point and show the significance. Tell them why you told them and recap what they learned and what you told them.” I’ve found this organized structure very valuable because it is packaged in such a way that the students are told what they are going to learn both at the beginning and end of the lecture. This prepares their minds to be open and ready to what they are going to learn, and in the end it is all tied together into a recap the cements the knowledge in for them. Ending with a summery of the crucial points and what makes them important let the students know what they should take away from the lecture. This is especially important when teaching critical thinking where the ability to follow my path and train of thought is vital for the students to understand the perspectives being presented on the topic. This is achieved by the structured format of the lecture itself.

There are different methods available for giving lectures such as the medium of PowerPoint. Postman stated how technology may be seen as a blessing, but he also recognizes that it also has negative aspects as well. Lectures should be driven by personality and charisma not by graphics and text on a screen. One of my main goals is to harness my abundance of energy and enthusiasm and channel it into my delivery. “Like all important technologies of the past, they are Faustin bargains, giving and taking away, sometimes in equal measure, sometimes more in one way than the other” (Postman p.41). This can apply to the use of computers in the classroom where PowerPoint has been used sometimes as a crux to drive lectures and to substantiate on visual representation. I can see how PowerPoint is great for certain circumstances and can be great for visual learners, however, the abundance of visuals can take student’s attention away from the material and direct it to the visual slides. As a student, I have missed a lot of learning by being too busy copying down verbatim what was on the PowerPoint slides instead of listening and comprehending the lecture that was being delivered. Lecturing with a simple outline is more effective because it keeps students on track without taking the attention away from the material. I was shocked to find that it took three hours of intense preparation to deliver a one hour lecture. A good lecture should provide an entry point for the students to expand and explore further in their assignments and discussion, and it should raise new questions and ideas about the topic. The lecture should inform the students in a way that allows them to understand the viewpoint and perspective presented with enough clarity to apply it to the themes of the course. Ken Wilber introduces the idea of the process in which students grow in learning critical thinking culminates at a fulcrum which he defines as: “…the momentous process of differentiation and integration as it occurs in human growth and development” (Wilber p.131). This process should be run by the background and structure of the lecture which should give the students the topic from different vantage points. I believe that raising intriguing questions can also be a successful way to push the students to think critically on their own rather than being handed out that information. These questions can spark a starting point for their critical reflection journals, which then carries on to be discussed in section to be analyzed and compared with others. The lectures should be able to bring about these pivotal points of student consciousness and awareness of the material being taught that they develop their conception of the topic. Brookfield has his own approach on how to gauge how the students are learning from the lectures by having the students fill out a quick reflection which he calls the Critical Incident Questionnaire in which they write down what part or concept of the lecture was most clear to them and what they struggled with. (Brookfield p.41) I agree that self reflection is important but too much can be overstraining busywork. Reflection on what they learned or had trouble with can be addressed in sections. While lectures are one of the primary teaching methods, knowing how to engage the students in discussion can usually be even more valuable to the students learning.

The discussion section gives students the chance to tackle issues from both the readings and the lecture so they can analyze them critically. The power in discourse is carried by the students; this is an inverse of power from a lecture. In an ideal situation the power is dispersed among all the students where each one, in an ideal sense, participates equally. Brookfield brought up a concept from Michael Foucault about the unequal power distribution in discussion. “In modern society people learn to internalize norms that serve to keep existing structures inherent”(Brookfield p.16). The problem here is that there is unequal participation in discussion groups. There will always be a few shy students that will always stay silent and there will be a couple of dominant students that overpower over others monopolizing the discussion. The key is to come up with ways to equally engage as much of the class as possible. I have tried various methods ranging from breaking the class up into small or medium sized groups, systematically revolving the focus on each student. Both approaches have different effects. Problems can occur where a majority of students fail to speak up for a number of reasons such as shyness or not knowing what to say or how to contribute. One method I have used to solve this problem is to have everyone write down a discussion question and put them all into a hat. I would select people to draw a question out of the hat. One student would read it and provide insight on it, this would lead to a mini open discussion with the class. I would typically target quiet people to start the discussion, but by the end of the class everyone would get the opportunity to speak. It is important to encourage speaking and to let people who are enthusiastic to say what they want to say, but at the same time must be balanced so the rest of the class gets an opportunity to speak. Brookfield has similar methods which he calls circular voice and circular response on page 144; there is a question posed for the class and they respond around the room, each getting a minute to speak. Postman provides a binary model of role of teachers is perceived. The two pedagogy methods used by teachers are truth revealers versus error detectors with the emphasis on the latter where reducing mistakes of the students is more beneficial to them. This model has several negative connotations, however: If the bar is set too high, (as Postman states it that there is no tolerance for error) this can be the cause for student reluctance to speak in class for fear of making a mistake. Instead, the environment must be a place where students realize there is no wrong answer and that they will not be judged by their views. Views that people don’t agree with will be discussed and analyzed for validity by the group; it actually benefits the group to have a false perception to work out with examples and reasoning to disprove the notion. This process enhances the group’s ability to work through issues using methods of critical thinking. The author makes the point of the importance of critical thinking and questioning the source. “The sin is in our unwillingness to examine our own beliefs, and in believing that our authorities cannot be wrong.” (Postman p.128) It is important to develop individual independence to analyze and interpret information and to filter it through ones own reactions and beliefs to the information. Without a firm understanding in one’s own beliefs, it makes it difficult to share and compare those beliefs with others in discussion. It is necessary to have an initial stance or belief so that during the course of the discussion, it is possible to either change and modify your previous beliefs, or strengthen them by what you learned from the discussion, comparison and discourse of the belief, and rationale of your peers.

Students often struggle with looking past the dry facts and dates of history in order to see the flesh and humanity of the people who lived it. “The people (of history) are viewed as generic and remote rather than as particular persons who, like themselves, exhibit an amalgam of sometimes conflicting goals and feelings”. (p.174) Discussion of ideas and themes can be enriched by looking at them through the lenses of Wilber’s three areas of critical thinking: consciousness, morals, and science. (Wilber p.248)

Looking at an issue from the points of view of how it applies or affects truth in different ways. Wilber categorizes truth as subjective, intersubjective, and objective truth generates different ways of looking at it this provides a deeper understanding. Issues such as cloning humans can be seen as morally wrong or right; It can also be seen objectively on what it would mean scientifically, as well as how it can also be seen by what that would mean for our society and how a cloned person would be seen and viewed subjectively. Would they be seen as a person with equal rights or would they be viewed as an imperfect copy? The two major points on the approach to history according to the author are for students to relate history to their own lies and to get past their own assumptions and preconceived attitudes. “Students prove unable to distance texts from their own often-idiosyncratic assumptions about human nature”(p.174).

This presents the question of whether our assumptions and stereotypes are good enough to function in society. I would say no, because uneducated assumptions can lead to intolerance and conflict; if everyone followed their own assumptions it would be hard to have people communicate with each other without some base basis of shared truth.

Evaluating student work of assignments involving critical thinking can be challenging. The focus of the evaluation is the ideas and analysis presented by the student rather than the medium and mechanics of the writing. I found that the things to look for are places where the students make arguments that are biased or written in generalizations. It is also helpful to find places in which they could expand; one can give prompts to nudge them to think critically to expand their thoughts and dig into the issue even deeper. The feedback should be a discourse like a two-way communication where the feedback prompts the students to respond to it, think of the matter even further, and respond to the questions with more specific or expanded thoughts. In Lee’s article, he presents variety of ways to evaluate student work in a constructive way. He thinks it is important to evaluate it by: correcting, emoting, describing, suggesting, and questioning. (Lee p.264) Correcting false generalizations and pointing out biased statements are important to show the student that they could do a better job in those instances of looking critically at the issue and to explore both sides. It is also important to point out any false claims such as wrong dates or false facts that they may have represented in their paper. For example, Bell Hooks is not a man, and the Spanish did not experience first hand the natives being cannibals; that label was created by the rumors and stereotyping by the conquistadors. Praise is also important to include by highlighting and pointing out great points and examples made by the students so that they can feel confident about their work and know their strengths. It is important to also show what emotions you experienced from reading, such as impressions or how certain statements the students made you feel as a reader. This feedback is helpful because it shows the students how their writing comes across. It can be beneficial to suggest examples and ideas that relate to the topics they bring up. You can also help be suggesting how their ideas are related and can be tied together. For example, you could say, “Based on the ideas brought up in the paper, they all seem to describe ways in which religion was tainted. What does this say about religion and why do you think these ideas share this in common. Do you see any other similarities in these ideas that may cause this conclusion?”. Questioning is a very important tool because it can be used to push the students to analyze things further. You can ask questions such as “Why do you feel that way about this?” or “What were the motives behind the conquistadores’ actions?” and “Do you think it would have played out differently if they would have had different motives and background culture, such as being driven by science rather than religious doctrine?”. These questions push the student to think even harder about other possibilities of the events and allow them to dive into the material differently looking at it from other perspectives. Brookfield talks about how important clarity is when responding to student work. “Be clear and transparent as possible in your evaluative judgments. Describe specific actions you find favorable or unfavorable and those which you want students to concentrate” (Brookfield p.183). Learning how to look at material and think critically is an independent process that each student develops in their own unique way. This process can be advanced by specific comments that apply to the individual that push them to expand and look at things openly exploring and acknowledging the multiple perspectives of issues. Postman makes it apparent that the pedagogy model of learning by doing doesn’t work as well as remedial learning. “We learn far more by failing-by the trail and error, by making mistakes, correcting them, making more mistakes, correcting them, and so on. We are all in the need of remedial work well the time.” (p.119) I partially agree with him because we do learn a lot from our mistakes, but the only way that we can learn from our mistakes is if we have the openness and will to learn from them; it also depends on the method in which those mistakes are corrected. It doesn’t work to circle in red saying this is wrong. Teaching critical thinking and providing corrections requires much more, such as providing questions that open up possibilities of other viewpoints and lead the student to pursue other options and see a point in a different way. Teacher’s mistake of looking at something in a judgmental or biased way provides an opportunity to have it pointed out and for their attitude to change by providing questions or comments that lead to another belief.

From the exploration of these three areas of teaching critical thinking I have developed my own way of implementation. For the lecture, I have developed the need to have the ideas structured in such a way as to have the ideas organized to optimize the maximum impact of clarity. This means introducing the outline of the lecture followed by the main points and finishing it with a recap of the material. Covering material from multiple viewpoints and sources shows the multiple paths for that topic. For the discussion section, it is important to come up with ways to ensure the active participation and engagement of all the students. I now notice through my research that the structure of the class CHID 110 The Qustion of Human Nature, its lecture, response paper, and discussion question really live in a symbiotic relationship where they feed on each other develop the students critical thinking. Its effect of destabilizing the student’s current views allows them to see the world from multiple points of view along with knowing that the ideas are complex and change with self reflection tied to those ideas. Wilber wrote about this when he described the role of myth which ties to the myths or ideas brought by the course when he wrote the following two conflicting views on myths. “Myths cause symptoms, expose the myths to evidence, and the symptoms go away. The Idea is think differently, and you will start to feel differently” (Wilber p.168). This idea here is that our teaching exposes students to knowledge and that it is supposed to change their emotional impact or assumptions of that idea. If the right questions are raised the course should set the student beyond this fulcrum where they are thinking about the questions themselves rather than just the dry facts.

“Where concrete operational awareness can operate on the concrete world, formal operational awareness can operate on thought itself. Its not just thinking about the world, it’s thinking about thinking” (Wilber p.169).

Wilber means that sometimes the questions and the process are just as important if not even more so than the ideas; students should not take ideas at face value. Using a mix of approaches such as circular response and breaking the class into smaller groups are good ways to alleviate the problem of participation. Providing an environment for people to share opposing viewpoints and where peers can learn from each other is important, as well as evaluating the students’ work. The emphasis is not just to show what is wrong, but instead to indicate areas in which the students can think about things differently and to provide prompts that allow them to expand on the issue. The comments made are supposed to spur them into a mode where they can dive deeper into critical thought and explore their ideas further. From this they should begin a process they can apply to future papers by giving them the tools to look at things from multiple perspectives, analyze the motives or effects of issues, and to relate the issue with relevant examples. Teaching critically is a method of allowing the students to ask questions about the world and to analyze and realize the multiple points of views and their effects for each idea or history. It is an individual process which through the combination of lecture, discussion, and evaluations each student can grow in this area of critical thinking.

Works Cited

Brookfield Stephen D. The Skillful Teacher on the Technique, Trust, and Responsiveness in the Classroom. John Wiely and Sons Inc. Sanfransico, CA 2006.

Gardner, Howard. The Unschooled Mind How Children Think and How Schools Should Teach. Basic Books New York: 2004.

Postman, Neil. The End of Education Redefining the Value of School. Vintage Books. New York: 1995.

Wilber, Ken. A Brief History of Everything. Shambhala Boston Mass: 2000.

Lee Elaine. Evaluating Student Writing.