How to develop students' critical thinking skills?

How should we teach critical thinking to students?

Janpha Thadphoothon

There are those who believe that CT is directly teachable. This approach would like the teacher to teach critical thinking separately and explicitly. In his book, Critical Thinking, Alec Fisher (2001) aimed to teach directly an important range of thinking skills. For him, CT is a set of skills, and they are the things that every student should know in order to be a good spectator or a person who can assess the text properly. He would like students to use 'thinking maps' which can help improve thinking by asking key questions when encountered different types of problems. Fisher also explains the language of reasoning, how to understand different kinds of arguments and how to ask the right question. Critical Thinking entails many examples and exercises which give extensive practice in developing what he refers to as ‘critico-creative thinking skills’. Edward de Bono’s popular thinking methods, e.g. Six Thinking Hats and the like fall into this approach. In many parts of the world, e.g. Singapore, Thailand, Japan, or Australia, accreditation courses for de Bono’s thinking methods are offered to the public. There are courses for students as well as working executives. There seem to be courses for everyone, every age level, across culture, in every continent. Lateral thinking, according to Frank, Rinvolucri, and Berer (1982), can be developed through a series of exercises that would enable the learners to develop strong relationships within the group or class, based on the sharing of problems, ideas and experience. Similarly, Sofo (2004) recommended six ways for teachers to encourage their students to think deeply in their learning in order to become independent learners and thinkers.

This direct approach regards critical thinking as skills and dispositions that should be explicitly taught and can be tested with specific instruments (Black, 1952; Ennis, R. et al., 1985; Ennis, R. H., 1962; 1987; Fisher, 2001). One of the most talked-about approaches to critical thinking is the introduction of philosophy to children (Lipman, 2003). Children need to be instructed to develop thinking skills and dispositions.

In ELT, those who belief in the benefit of learning strategies will try to make the students become reflective in their language learning (Rubin, 1975; O'Malley & Chamot, 1990;Oxford, 1990; Chamot, 1995). In the classroom level, teachers should create a community of thinkers (Chamot, 1995). Most will agree that directly training of the students on learning strategies is desirable and effective approach. Chamot (1995) suggested three things teachers should do to promote thinking in the classroom by (1) tapping on the students’ prior knowledge, (2) asking the students to be reflective about their learning strategies, and (3) providing them the opportunity to reflect on their learning experience.

Davidson (1997) and Gieve (1997) argue that CT is teachable and is a desirable thing to do. Their concept of CT is based on the philosophical approach. They prefer direct: and explicit instruction. For Davidson (1997), critical thinking is a thing that can be directly assessed. Another strand of CT in ELT is the old notion of CT in linguistics. For Aarts (1997; 2002), argumentation in linguistics and argumentation in syntax can be enhanced through the process of habit forming. The teachers, in the classroom, need to motivate the answers they give to particular problems they are faced with. In practical classroom context, Day (2004) suggests that there are many levels of critical thinking, ranging from basic to complex levels. For Day, activities should be prepared in ways which the students have opportunities to identify facts, opinion from the given statements or passages. Likewise, Tan, Gallo, Jacobs, and Lee (1999) said that CT is a set of thinking skills. It can be integrated into normal classroom instructions. They prefer activities that focus on contents and cooperative learning.

However, there are those who doubt the effectiveness of direct teaching. There are those who prefer an indirect approach.

Many critics argue that there is little empirical evidence to show that students are able to transfer such thinking abilities to their real life situations. There are scholars who still argue that critical thinking is subject-specific. This research heeds the wisdom of Professor Gilbert Ryle (1900-1976). If critical thinking is so important, an aim in education, why not make every course or subject a critical thinking course? Some academics maintain that they have been doing this all along, albeit not explicitly mention the name. Critical thinking can be a slippery term. Most people have some ideas of what a kitchen looks like, but they can’t precisely pinpoint its exact object, e.g. a knife, a chopping board, and so on. There are teachers who argue that they have been teaching their student critical thinking. The advocates of this approach will teach critical thinking indirectly, as part of everything else. Another version of this belief is that CT should be approached indirectly.

On reflection, invoking the term critical thinking is like saying I love you. Some people like to say it; others don’t. Mathematicians or physicists rarely mention ‘critical thinking’ as being their focus. Very few people, however, question their ability to think critically.

This indirect approach’s basic tenet is that critical thinking should best be approached as part of traditional school subjects. Elements of CT are already there, staring at your face trying to get your attention. If an education aim is to create a person who can think critically, it should follow that the most important thing to teach is critical thinking. However, there are subject matters to be mastered and tested. Every subject of study requires that the learner be able to deal with some ‘problems’ effectively. To do so, the person may need to apply mathematical principles, for example. In this regard, CT can be compared to mathematics or formal logics. It has its place and role in most areas of education and life learning. The main argument is that elements of critical thinking are already there.

Critical thinking in any particular contexts may be a term appropriate for this method. However, skeptics of the direct method, as their label suggests, have pointed out that there has been very little empirical evidence to suggest that students have been able to transfer such thinking abilities to real life situations. Slower students may not think as effectively as faster ones. Many students may be too focused on content and details and may fail to be reflective about themselves and their learning. Nonetheless, McPeck (1981) has maintained that critical thinking is subject-specific. If that is the case, it has to logically follow that critical thinking should best be taught indirectly, embedded in an existing epistemology. You do not have to use words to say ‘I love you.’ Another classic example is the teaching of Latin as a means to enable learners to develop their thinking. The direct approach to CT has indeed been a predominant one.

In ELT, CT needs to be introduced with care and indirectly. From the L2 writing scholars, CT is perceived as a social practice which is bound by specific culture. In other words, critical thinking is cultural thinking (Atkinson, 1997; Hawkins, 1997). Consequently, these scholars do not believe in the benefit of direct training, but prefer an indirect approach such as cognitive apprenticeship. For Maley (2001), CT is perceived as cognitive properties embedded in language with cultural appropriateness. With some doubt about its success, he suggests that CT should be gradually introduced. Maley prefers linguistic and cognitive activities. In Australia, CT is perceived as being important skills for university students. Thomson (2002), for example, suggests the 5-step activities (content-based), including group discussion, as an approach to this complex issue.

Most teachers wouldn’t mind citing CT as one of the educational aims. The real issue comes down to the question: How to do it successfully? This study offers an ecological approach to CT in language learning.