Yes, a nutshell presentation would be good -- would give us the chance for comparison and comment Janet Dr. Janet Nepkie Professor of Music and Music Industry State University College Oneonta, NY 13820 ph: (607) 436 3425 fax: 607 436 2718 > ---------- > From: Koeddermann, Achim ([log in to unmask]) > Reply To: Teaching Breakfast List > Sent: Monday, September 22, 2003 7:42 PM > To: [log in to unmask] > Subject: Re: RETHINKING CRITICAL THINKING - VALUES AND ATTITUDES > > Maybe we could get a "in a anutshell" presentation from those who teach it as a topic (comp 100 and critical thinking in philosophy come to mind: Roda, Patrone, Green and Koch are our philosophical experts....) > Neat Idea > Achim > > -----Original Message----- > From: Greenberg, James ([log in to unmask]) > Sent: Mon 9/22/2003 1:33 PM > To: [log in to unmask] > Cc: > Subject: RETHINKING CRITICAL THINKING - VALUES AND ATTITUDES > > > > I have often heard it said that one of our missions here at SUNY Oneonta is > to get students to think critically. As a topic for discussion at our next > Teaching Breakfast I would like to know what tips and techniques you think > work toward this goal. > > Below is a recent posting about this to get your brains working on the > topic. Please join us on Oct. 2 at 8AM for the next Teaching Breakfast > where we will discuss this important topic. > > Jim Greenberg > > RETHINKING CRITICAL THINKING - VALUES AND ATTITUDES > > by Richard A. Lynch > > Posted here with permission... > > "What is the mark of a liberally educated person?" Many of the > answers to this question converge upon a common theme: critical > thinking. One 1981 study, for example, notes that "Critical thinking > is perhaps the most general term for the intellectual abilities that > are supposed to be characteristic of the liberally educated person." > The problem, however, is that-like the term "liberal education" > itself-"critical thinking" is understood to mean a wide variety of > more or less closely related things. Winter, McClelland and Stewart, > analyzing the different senses of the term in higher education > literature, identify seven distinct qualities that are characterized > as "critical thinking" (including "differentiation and discrimination > within a broad range of particular phenomena" and "articulation and > communication of abstract concepts"), that cluster around what they > describe as "the skill of advanced concept formation" (pp. 12, 27). > Another (undated, but post-1995) study employs a "mimimalist" concept > of critical thinking: "The critical thinking tradition seeks ways of > understanding the mind and then training the intellect so that such > 'errors', 'blunders', and 'distortions' of thought are minimized.S > [T]hose who think critically characteristically strive, for such > intellectual ends as clarity, precision, accuracy, relevance, depth, > breadth, and logicalness." > > Something is lost when "critical thinking"-which we so often claim is > one of the most important things students should learn-becomes > reduced to these kinds of cognitive, often more precisely logical, > functions. (Most university courses on "critical thinking," for > example, are typically courses in informal logic.) This is > unfortunate because, despite this tendency to reduce critical > thinking to such a least common denominator, the term remains-and the > activity is-both rich and provocative. Critical thinking is, to put > it bluntly, much more than the ability to recognize a fallacy when > you see one. But the hard part is to move beyond this and spell out > what that "something more" is. I want to suggest two important > aspects of a fuller understanding of critical thinking, which may > inform how we approach our teaching: Good critical thinking is not> > value-neutral, nor is it merely instrumental; it is intimately > connected with both values and attitudes. > > How is critical thinking connected with values? In at least two > ways. First of all, critical thinking presupposes values at the > heart of its activity. How can one make a good judgment or > assessment of virtually any of the problems and dilemmas that call > for critical thinking, without an evaluative basis for that decision? > But by itself, that is not enough: good critical thinking does not > just accept a set of values "uncritically." So the second important > way in which critical thinking is connected to values-without which, > the first connection becomes a sham-is in challenging and > reevaluating the very values that it takes as its basis for judgment. > One important component of critical thinking, then, is some > understanding of one's starting points-who one is, what one believes, > and why. Critical thinking is thus both reflective and > evaluative-and raises the possibility that both the critical thinker > and her milieu will be challenged, unsettled, and perhaps changed. > > This reflexive-and potentially disruptive-feature reveals how > critical thinking is intimately connected with attitudes. For > Immanuel Kant, "Enlightenment," or "emergence from a self-incurred > immaturity," meant the willingness to think for oneself, to think > critically. This willingness is an attitude that opens things up to > challenge. Perhaps most fundamentally, good critical thinking > entails what we might describe as an attitude of "reflective openness > and challenge." What I mean here is a willingness to genuinely > consider new perspectives-to try to understand them from the > inside-and, at least for a little while, to step outside of one's own > views and acknowledge that one's perspectives, assumptions, and > outlook are vulnerable, perhaps even mistaken or incomplete. A > critical thinker is willing to turn that criticism upon both these > new approaches and herself, and sometimes even to change what she's > doing or what she believes in light of these critical insights. This > core attitude may in fact be what makes critical thinking > "critical"-without it, critical thinking becomes a hollow shell, a > mere analytic tool applied to externally determined ends. > > Warren Nord offers a compelling redefinition of critical thinking, > that moves it, I think, closer to these deepening relationships with > values and attitudes: " Critical thinking is not just a matter of > applying the rules of logic (much less scientific method). It is a > matter of thinking and feeling empathetically with others, of > engaging one's imagination, of having access to a wealth of facts > about the possible effects of alternative actions, of discerning > patterns of meaning in experience, of looking at the world from > different perspectives." Scientific method and logical reasoning > can be good examples of critical thinking, and are important aspects > of it, but are not adequate in themselves-both can be done in rote, > unreflective ways, ways that aren't really open. For students to > develop as critical thinkers, they must be willing to reflect upon > and articulate their own starting beliefs and assumptions (whether > these are scientific, moral, cultural, etc.), genuinely open > themselves to other approaches or worldviews, to new ways of > understanding what they took for granted, and then carefully consider > the consequences of this reflection. > > Critical thinking, then, is not a merely logical exercise, but is a > practice richly imbued with a set of values and attitudes. Nord > notes that, "Of course, all of this makes critical moral thinking > difficult and controversial." It also underscores the need to begin > rethinking, and deepening, the ways in which we teach "critical> > thinking." We should not be content to teach logical reasoning > skills but must also work to encourage self-reflective, challenging, > yet open attitudes on the part of our students. Helping students to > develop these attitudes ought not be the province of "critical > thinking" courses, but should be an aim of just about any course in > the undergraduate curriculum. "Teaching attitudes" like this must > not be confused with "indoctrination." For we will not be telling > our students that they must subscribe to any particular outcome or > belief; rather we will help them to develop a full set of tools for > drawing their own conclusions, for what Kant called "Enlightenment." > The task may be difficult and controversial, but in a diverse and > complex society, it seems essential. > > (1) D. Winter, D. McClelland, and A. Stewart, A New Case for the > Liberal Arts (Jossey-Bass, 1981), p. 27 > (2) R. Paul, L. Elder, T. Bartell, " Study of 38 Public Universities > and 28 Private Universities To Determine Faculty Emphasis on > Critical Thinking In Instruction: Executive Summary" > http://www.criticalthinking.org/schoolstudy.htm > (3) I. Kant, "What is Enlightenment?" (1784) > (4) W. Nord, Religion & American Education (University of North > Carolina Press, 1995), p. 346. > > >