Our third reading was "Critical Thinking Development: A Stage Theory With Implications for Instruction", by Linda Elder with Richard Paul, which can be found at http://www.criticalthinking.org/articles/ct-development-a-stage-theory.cfm
In this article, six stages of thinking are described, from the most basic “Unreflective Thinker” to the “Master Thinker”, and we started our discussion by asking whether it is necessary for a student to pass through all these stages. It was suggested that students often take the path of least resistance, and use “satisficing” behaviour, whereby they stop when they have achieved their goal. If the goal is a particular grade, the student might only do what is required to earn that grade, such as having the right number of quotes per paragraph. Furthermore, although we might warn against this, some students might only work under pressure, doing their work at the last minute, and therefore rob themselves of much time for thinking.
It was asked whether, if students are working towards a particular grade, this can be thought of as critical thinking, and it was suggested that this is more strategic thinking, rather than a student being truly critical in his or her approach, as time is needed for the development of concepts, and also for the assessment of thinking, or metacognition.
In terms of metacognition, we decided that Peer Review, when used well, is a great system for metacognition, as it allows students to be reflective, and to evaluate. It was also suggested that teachers who ask their students to do a Mid-Semester Reflection on the semester so far, are also asking students to do metacognition.
It was stated that students generally do not learn how to think in high school; they mostly only know how to regurgitate. This is the beauty of the Writing courses, and a much needed skill. But how do we teach students to think about thinking? The article does not give recommendations for this, apart from saying that the Master Thinker is intuitive, which would imply that thinking should not be mechanical, and also innovative, implying that thinking should be creative and open-ended. Thus we thought that the optimal way to teach students about the importance of knowing how to think is to have open ended questions, and free form discussions, which allow students the room to explore and discover their thoughts. This is also why the best assignment questions in Expository Writing will ask ‘Why?’ questions, in which students will learn to discover their position. Indeed new students in Expository Writing might not be able immediately to reach this level, but the sequence of assignments should build through the six stages of thinking outlined in this paper.
The article also did point to the possibility that regression is possible, and that students might forget to think critically, but certainly it seems that our goal in these Writing Courses is for there to be sustained learning, meaning not just being able to write well, but also to be able to read and think critically, and to keep and carry these skills with them as they progress through the university and beyond. It was suggested that the process used in the Writing Program, in which students move from a Rough to a Final Draft, is a definite area in which students are encouraged to actively think and are therefore amenable to making changes.
However, it was asked whether there is the possibility that thinking could become habitual, and therefore might impede progress. But it was suggested that the fourth stage of thinking, namely the “Practicing Thinker”, has now reached the understanding of personal commitment. This seems critical, so that if we, as teachers, can encourage students to reach this level of personal commitment, thereafter students might then realize the benefits of commitment, and stick with it. Indeed, students who can’t think well often feel frustrated, so it would be advantageous to show students that thinking well can actually contribute to an improved quality of life in all areas. In other words, it is not domain specific, but students who can think critically at an advanced level, are able to make all sorts of connections between seemingly disparate disciplines.
We then moved to a discussion as to how society (beyond the university) often might not encourage critical thinking. After all, we are consumers, so advertisers want us to succumb to their product, and within many organizations, people are taught to think as part of the team rather than as individuals. It was even suggested that the grading system used within the Writing Program, might look for conformity rather than individuality. But to this point, we discussed how there are many implicit assumptions about critical thinking within the Grading Criteria, such as how a coherent paper implies logical thinking, and complexity of ideas implies that the student is able to move towards challenge and thus more advanced thinking. We mentioned how in our classes, we often tell students to face the complexity, as they might have exciting new realizations based on thinking critically and making connections, rather than staying in the safe, comfortable zone which probably will result in a more mundane paper with less profound ideas or originality.
But, apart from the incentive of a better grade, what would motivate a student to move beyond the comfort zone of shallow thinking? After all, thinking takes effort and has uncertainty. We agreed that the ultimate incentive is the pleasure and excitement derived from thinking at an inspired level. Seen this way, the greatest reward from high level thinking, then, is that it has intrinsic and internal value, and this is more meaningful than recognition or an external reward.
Students, as similar to the rest of us, need to have vision to appreciate that it is worth moving to stage 6, the Master Thinker level. We want students to find meaning and understand the purpose of thinking critically, so that knowledge will be sustained, their notes and papers retained, and their books and readings cherished for years to come. As was said in the article, once the purpose is understood, students need to realize that thinking is driven by a search to answer questions; that information is needed in answering these questions; that interpretation is needed to use information; and that our interpretation is affected by our assumptions, values and point of view. We also need to help students to move from egocentric to sociocentric thinking. This we can hopefully do through our discussions of the readings, and also through the assignments that we set for our students. And if some students are not good thinkers, and they make the same pattern of errors because of trying to compensate for any deficiencies, hopefully we, as teachers, can see their thinking as it becomes more visible, and we can try to help them to seek other more profound modes of thinking.
