Defining Critical Thinking Critical thinking...the awakening of the intellect to the study of itself.

Critical thinking is a rich concept that has been developing throughout the past 2500 years. The term "critical thinking" has its roots in the mid-late 20th century. We offer here overlapping definitions, together which form a substantive, transdisciplinary conception of critical thinking. Critical Thinking as Defined by the National Council for Excellence in Critical Thinking, 1987 A statement by Michael Scriven & Richard Paul for the {presented at the 8th Annual International Conference on Critical Thinking and Education Reform, Summer 1987}. Critical thinking is the intellectually disciplined process of actively and skillfully conceptualizing, applying, analyzing, synthesizing, and/or evaluating information gathered from, or generated by, observation, experience, reflection, reasoning, or communication, as a guide to belief and action. In its exemplary form, it is based on universal intellectual values that transcend subject matter divisions: clarity, accuracy, precision, consistency, relevance, sound evidence, good reasons, depth, breadth, and fairness. It entails the examination of those structures or elements of thought implicit in all reasoning: purpose, problem, or question-at-issue; assumptions; concepts; empirical grounding; reasoning leading to conclusions; implications and consequences; objections from alternative viewpoints; and frame of reference. Critical thinking in being responsive to variable subject matter, issues, and purposes is incorporated in a family of interwoven modes of thinking, among them: scientific thinking, mathematical thinking, historical thinking, anthropological thinking, economic thinking, moral thinking, and philosophical thinking. Critical thinking can be seen as having two components: 1) a set of information and belief generating and processing skills, and 2) the habit, based on intellectual commitment, of using those skills to guide behavior. It is thus to be contrasted with: 1) the mere acquisition and retention of information alone, because it involves a particular way in which information is sought and treated; 2) the mere possession of a set of skills, because it involves the continual use of them; and 3) the mere use of those skills ("as an exercise") without acceptance of their results. Critical thinking varies according to the motivation underlying it. When grounded in selfish motives, it is often manifested in the skillful manipulation of ideas in service of ones own, or one's groups, vested interest. As such it is typically intellectually flawed, however pragmatically successful it might be. When grounded in fairmindedness and intellectual integrity, it is typically of a higher order intellectually, though subject to the charge of "idealism" by those habituated to its selfish use. Critical thinking of any kind is never universal in any individual; everyone is subject to episodes of undisciplined or irrational thought. Its quality is therefore typically a matter of degree and dependent on, among other things, the quality and depth of experience in a given domain of thinking or with respect to a particular class of questions. No one is a critical thinker through-and-through, but only to suchand-such a degree, with such-and-such insights and blind spots, subject to such-and-such tendencies towards self-delusion. For this reason, the development of critical thinking skills and dispositions is a life-long endeavor. Another Brief Conceptualization of Critical Thinking Critical thinking is self-guided, self-disciplined thinking which attempts to reason at the highest level of quality in a fair-minded way. People who think critically consistently attempt to live rationally, reasonably, empathically. They are keenly aware of the inherently flawed nature of human thinking when left unchecked. They strive to diminish the power of their egocentric and sociocentric tendencies. They use the intellectual tools that critical thinking offers concepts and principles that enable them to analyze, assess, and improve thinking. They work diligently to develop the intellectual virtues of intellectual integrity, intellectual humility, intellectual civility, intellectual empathy, intellectual sense of justice and confidence in reason. They realize that no matter how skilled they are as thinkers, they can always improve their reasoning abilities and they will at times fall prey to mistakes in reasoning, human irrationality, prejudices, biases, distortions, uncritically accepted social rules and taboos, self-interest, and vested interest. They strive to improve the world in whatever ways they can and contribute to a more rational, civilized society. At the same time, they recognize the complexities often inherent in doing so. They avoid thinking simplistically about complicated issues and strive to appropriately consider the rights and needs of relevant others. They recognize the complexities in developing as thinkers, and commit themselves to life-long practice toward self-improvement. They embody the Socratic principle: The unexamined life is not worth living, because they realize that many unexamined lives together result in an uncritical, unjust, dangerous world. ~ Linda Elder, September, 2007 Why Critical Thinking? The Problem Everyone thinks; it is our nature to do so. But much of our thinking, left to itself, is biased, distorted, partial, uninformed or down-right prejudiced. Yet the quality of our life and that of what we produce, make, or build depends precisely on the quality of our thought. Shoddy thinking is costly, both in money and in quality of life. Excellence in thought, however, must be systematically cultivated. A Definition Critical thinking is that mode of thinking - about any subject, content, or problem - in which the thinker improves the quality of his or her thinking

by skillfully taking charge of the structures inherent in thinking and imposing intellectual standards upon them. The Result A well cultivated critical thinker: raises vital questions and problems, formulating them clearly and precisely; gathers and assesses relevant information, using abstract ideas to interpret it effectively comes to well-reasoned conclusions and solutions, testing them against relevant criteria and standards; thinks openmindedly within alternative systems of thought, recognizing and assessing, as need be, their assumptions, implications, and practical consequences; and communicates effectively with others in figuring out solutions to complex problems. Critical thinking is, in short, self-directed, self-disciplined, self-monitored, and self-corrective thinking. It presupposes assent to rigorous standards of excellence and mindful command of their use. It entails effective communication and problem solving abilities and a commitment to overcome our native egocentrism and sociocentrism. (Taken from Richard Paul and Linda Elder, The Miniature Guide to Critical Thinking Concepts and Tools, Foundation for Critical Thinking Press, 2008). Critical Thinking Defined by Edward Glaser In a seminal study on critical thinking and education in 1941, Edward Glaser defines critical thinking as follows The ability to think critically, as conceived in this volume, involves three things: ( 1 ) an attitude of being disposed to consider in a thoughtful way the problems and subjects that come within the range of one's experiences, (2) knowledge of the methods of logical inquiry and reasoning, and (3) some skill in applying those methods. Critical thinking calls for a persistent effort to examine any belief or supposed form of knowledge in the light of the evidence that supports it and the further conclusions to which it tends. It also generally requires ability to recognize problems, to find workable means for meeting those problems, to gather and marshal pertinent information, to recognize unstated assumptions and values, to comprehend and use language with accuracy, clarity, and discrimination, to interpret data, to appraise evidence and evaluate arguments, to recognize the existence (or non-existence) of logical relationships between propositions, to draw warranted conclusions and generalizations, to put to test the conclusions and generalizations at which one arrives, to reconstruct one's patterns of beliefs on the basis of wider experience, and to render accurate judgments about specific things and qualities in everyday life. (Edward M. Glaser, An Experiment in the Development of Critical Thinking, Teachers College, Columbia University, 1941). A Brief History of the Idea of Critical Thinking The intellectual roots of critical thinking are as ancient as its etymology, traceable, ultimately, to the teaching practice and vision of Socrates 2,500 years ago who discovered by a method of probing questioning that people could not rationally justify their confident claims to knowledge. Confused meanings, inadequate evidence, or self-contradictory beliefs often lurked beneath smooth but largely empty rhetoric. Socrates established the fact that one cannot depend upon those in "authority" to have sound knowledge and insight. He demonstrated that persons may have power and high position and yet be deeply confused and irrational. He established the importance of asking deep questions that probe profoundly into thinking before we accept ideas as worthy of belief. He established the importance of seeking evidence, closely examining reasoning and assumptions, analyzing basic concepts, and tracing out implications not only of what is said but of what is done as well. His method of questioning is now known as "Socratic Questioning" and is the best known critical thinking teaching strategy. In his mode of questioning, Socrates highlighted the need in thinking for clarity and logical consistency. Socrates set the agenda for the tradition of critical thinking, namely, to reflectively question common beliefs and explanations, carefully distinguishing those beliefs that are reasonable and logical from those which however appealing they may be to our native egocentrism, however much they serve our vested interests, however comfortable or comforting they may be lack adequate evidence or rational foundation to warrant our belief. Socrates practice was followed by the critical thinking of Plato (who recorded Socrates thought), Aristotle, and the Greek skeptics, all of whom emphasized that things are often very different from what they appear to be and that only the trained mind is prepared to see through the way things look to us on the surface (delusive appearances) to the way they really are beneath the surface (the deeper realities of life). From this ancient Greek tradition emerged the need, for anyone who aspired to understand the deeper realities, to think systematically, to trace implications broadly and deeply, for only thinking that is comprehensive, wellreasoned, and responsive to objections can take us beyond the surface. In the Middle Ages, the tradition of systematic critical thinking was embodied in the writings and teachings of such thinkers as Thomas Aquinas (Sumna Theologica) who to ensure his thinking met the test of critical thought, always systematically stated, considered, and answered all criticisms of his ideas as a necessary stage in developing them. Aquinas heightened our awareness not only of the potential power of reasoning but also of the need for reasoning to be systematically cultivated and "crossexamined." Of course, Aquinas thinking also illustrates that those who think critically do not always reject established beliefs, only those beliefs that lack reasonable foundations.

In the Renaissance (15th and 16th Centuries), a flood of scholars in Europe began to think critically about religion, art, society, human nature, law, and freedom. They proceeded with the assumption that most of the domains of human life were in need of searching analysis and critique. Among these scholars were Colet, Erasmus, and Moore in England. They followed up on the insight of the ancients. Francis Bacon, in England, was explicitly concerned with the way we misuse our minds in seeking knowledge. He recognized explicitly that the mind cannot safely be left to its natural tendencies. In his bookThe Advancement of Learning, he argued for the importance of studying the world empirically. He laid the foundation for modern science with his emphasis on the informationgathering processes. He also called attention to the fact that most people, if left to their own devices, develop bad habits of thought (which he called "idols") that lead them to believe what is false or misleading. He called attention to "Idols of the tribe" (the ways our mind naturally tends to trick itself), "Idols of the market-place" (the ways we misuse words), "Idols of the theater" (our tendency to become trapped in conventional systems of thought), and "Idols of the schools" (the problems in thinking when based on blind rules and poor instruction). His book could be considered one of the earliest texts in critical thinking, for his agenda was very much the traditional agenda of critical thinking. Some fifty years later in France, Descartes wrote what might be called the second text in critical thinking,Rules For the Direction of the Mind. In it, Descartes argued for the need for a special systematic disciplining of the mind to guide it in thinking. He articulated and defended the need in thinking for clarity and precision. He developed a method of critical thought based on the principle of systematic doubt. He emphasized the need to base thinking on well-thought through foundational assumptions. Every part of thinking, he argued, should be questioned, doubted, and tested. In the same time period, Sir Thomas Moore developed a model of a new social order, Utopia, in which every domain of the present world was subject to critique. His implicit thesis was that established social systems are in need of radical analysis and critique. The critical thinking of these Renaissance and post-Renaissance scholars opened the way for the emergence of science and for the development of democracy, human rights, and freedom for thought. In the Italian Renaissance, Machiavellis The Prince critically assessed the politics of the day, and laid the foundation for modern critical political thought. He refused to assume that government functioned as those in power said it did. Rather, he critically analyzed how it did function and laid the foundation for political thinking that exposes both, on the one hand, the real agendas of politicians and, on the other hand, the many contradictions and inconsistencies of the hard, cruel, world of the politics of his day Hobbes and Locke (in 16th and 17th Century England) displayed the same confidence in the critical mind of the thinker that we find in Machiavelli. Neither accepted the traditional picture of things dominant in the thinking of their day. Neither accepted as necessarily rational that which was considered "normal" in their culture. Both looked to the critical mind to open up new vistas of learning. Hobbes adopted a naturalistic view of the world in which everything was to be explained by evidence and reasoning. Locke defended a common sense analysis of everyday life and thought. He laid the theoretical foundation for critical thinking about basic human rights and the responsibilities of all governments to submit to the reasoned criticism of thoughtful citizens. It was in this spirit of intellectual freedom and critical thought that people such as Robert Boyle (in the 17th Century) and Sir Isaac Newton (in the 17th and 18th Century) did their work. In his Sceptical Chymist, Boyle severely criticized the chemical theory that had preceded him. Newton, in turn, developed a far-reaching framework of thought which roundly criticized the traditionally accepted world view. He extended the critical thought of such minds as Copernicus, Galileo, and Kepler. After Boyle and Newton, it was recognized by those who reflected seriously on the natural world that egocentric views of world must be abandoned in favor of views based entirely on carefully gathered evidence and sound reasoning. Another significant contribution to critical thinking was made by the thinkers of the French Enlightenment: Bayle, Montesquieu, Voltaire, and Diderot. They all began with the premise that the human mind, when disciplined by reason, is better able to figure out the nature of the social and political world. What is more, for these thinkers, reason must turn inward upon itself, in order to determine weaknesses and strengths of thought. They valued disciplined intellectual exchange, in which all views had to be submitted to serious analysis and critique. They believed that all authority must submit in one way or another to the scrutiny of reasonable critical questioning. Eighteenth Century thinkers extended our conception of critical thought even further, developing our sense of the power of critical thought and of its tools. Applied to the problem of economics, it produced Adam Smiths Wealth of Nations. In the same year, applied to the traditional concept of loyalty to the king, it produced the Declaration of Independence. Applied to reason itself, it produced Kants Critique of Pure Reason. In the 19th Century, critical thought was extended even further into the domain of human social life by Comte and Spencer. Applied to the problems of capitalism, it produced the searching social and economic critique of Karl Marx. Applied to the history of human culture and the basis of biological life, it led to DarwinsDescent of Man. Applied to the unconscious mind, it is reflected in the works of Sigmund Freud. Applied to cultures, it led to the establishment of the field of Anthropological studies. Applied to language, it led to the field of Linguistics and to many deep probings of the functions of symbols and language in human life. In the 20th Century, our understanding of the power and nature of critical thinking has emerged in increasingly more explicit formulations. In 1906, William Graham Sumner published a land-breaking study of the foundations of sociology and anthropology, Folkways, in which he documented the tendency of the human mind to think sociocentrically and the parallel tendency for schools to serve the (uncritical) function of social indoctrination : "Schools make persons all on one pattern, orthodoxy. School education, unless it is regulated by the best knowledge and good

sense, will produce men and women who are all of one pattern, as if turned in a lathe. An orthodoxy is produced in regard to all the great doctrines of life. It consists of the most worn and commonplace opinions which are common in the masses. The popular opinions always contain broad fallacies, half-truths, and glib generalizations (p. 630). At the same time, Sumner recognized the deep need for critical thinking in life and in education: "Criticism is the examination and test of propositions of any kind which are offered for acceptance, in order to find out whether they correspond to reality or not. The critical faculty is a product of education and training. It is a mental habit and power. It is a prime condition of human welfare that men and women should be trained in it. It is our only guarantee against delusion, deception, superstition, and misapprehension of ourselves and our earthly circumstances. Education is good just so far as it produces well-developed critical faculty. A teacher of any subject who insists on accuracy and a rational control of all processes and methods, and who holds everything open to unlimited verification and revision, is cultivating that method as a habit in the pupils. Men educated in it cannot be stampeded. They are slow to believe. They can hold things as possible or probable in all degrees, without certainty and without pain. They can wait for evidence and weigh evidence. They can resist appeals to their dearest prejudices. Education in the critical faculty is the only education of which it can be truly said that it makes good citizens (pp. 632, 633). John Dewey agreed. From his work, we have increased our sense of the pragmatic basis of human thought (its instrumental nature), and especially its grounding in actual human purposes, goals, and objectives. From the work of Ludwig Wittgenstein we have increased our awareness not only of the importance of concepts in human thought, but also of the need to analyze concepts and assess their power and limitations. From the work of Piaget, we have increased our awareness of the egocentric and sociocentric tendencies of human thought and of the special need to develop critical thought which is able to reason within multiple standpoints, and to be raised to the level of "conscious realization." From the massive contribution of all the "hard" sciences, we have learned the power of information and the importance of gathering information with great care and precision, and with sensitivity to its potential inaccuracy, distortion, or misuse. From the contribution of depth-psychology, we have learned how easily the human mind is self-deceived, how easily it unconsciously constructs illusions and delusions, how easily it rationalizes and stereotypes, projects and scapegoats. To sum up, the tools and resources of the critical thinker have been vastly increased in virtue of the history of critical thought. Hundreds of thinkers have contributed to its development. Each major discipline has made some contribution to critical thought. Yet for most educational purposes, it is the summing up of base-line common denominators for critical thinking that is most important. Let us consider now that summation. The Common Denominators of Critical Thinking Are the Most Important By-products of the History of Critical Thinking We now recognize that critical thinking, by its very nature, requires, for example, the systematic monitoring of thought; that thinking, to be critical, must not be accepted at face value but must be analyzed and assessed for its clarity, accuracy, relevance, depth, breadth, and logicalness. We now recognize that critical thinking, by its very nature, requires, for example, the recognition that all reasoning occurs within points of view and frames of reference; that all reasoning proceeds from some goals and objectives, has an informational base; that all data when used in reasoning must be interpreted, that interpretation involves concepts; that concepts entail assumptions, and that all basic inferences in thought have implications. We now recognize that each of these dimensions of thinking need to be monitored and that problems of thinking can occur in any of them. The result of the collective contribution of the history of critical thought is that the basic questions of Socrates can now be much more powerfully and focally framed and used. In every domain of human thought, and within every use of reasoning within any domain, it is now possible to question: ends and objectives, the status and wording of questions, the sources of information and fact, the method and quality of information collection, the mode of judgment and reasoning used, the concepts that make that reasoning possible, the assumptions that underlie concepts in use, the implications that follow from their use, and the point of view or frame of reference within which reasoning takes place. In other words, questioning that focuses on these fundamentals of thought and reasoning are now baseline in critical thinking. It is beyond question that intellectual errors or mistakes can occur in any of these dimensions, and that students need to be fluent in talking about these structures and standards. Independent of the subject studied, students need to be able to articulate thinking about thinking that reflects basic command of the intellectual dimensions of thought: "Lets see, what is the most fundamental issue here? From what point of view should I approach this problem? Does it make sense for me to assume this? From these data may I infer this? What is implied in this graph? What is the fundamental concept here? Is this consistent with that? What makes this question complex? How could I check the accuracy of these data? If this is so, what else is implied? Is this a credible source of information? Etc." (For more information on the basic elements of thought and basic intellectual criteria and standards, see Appendices C and D). With intellectual language such as this in the foreground, students can now be taught at least minimal critical thinking moves

within any subject field. What is more, there is no reason in principle that students cannot take the basic tools of critical thought which they learn in one domain of study and extend it (with appropriate adjustments) to all the other domains and subjects which they study. For example, having questioned the wording of a problem in math, I am more likely to question the wording of a problem in the other subjects I study. As a result of the fact that students can learn these generalizable critical thinking moves, they need not be taught history simply as a body of facts to memorize; they can now be taught history as historical reasoning. Classes can be designed so that students learn to think historically and develop skills and abilities essential to historical thought. Math can be taught so that the emphasis is on mathematical reasoning. Students can learn to think geographically, economically, biologically, chemically, in courses within these disciplines. In principle, then, all students can be taught so that they learn how to bring the basic tools of disciplined reasoning into every subject they study. Unfortunately, it is apparent, given the results of this study, that we are very far from this ideal state of affairs. We now turn to the fundamental concepts and principles tested in standardized critical thinking tests. { Taken from the California Teacher Preparation for Instruction in Critical Thinking: Research Findings and Policy Recommendations: State of California, California Commission on Teacher Credentialing, Sacramento, CA, March 1997. Principal authors: Richard Paul, Linda Elder, and Ted Bartell } Critical Thinking: Basic Questions & Answers Abstract In this interview for Think magazine (April 92), Richard Paul provides a quick overview of critical thinking and the issues surrounding it: defining it, common mistakes in assessing it, its relation to communication skills, self-esteem, collaborative learning, motivation, curiosity, job skills for the future, national standards, and assessment strategies. Question: Critical thinking is essential to effective learning and productive living. Would you share your definition of critical thinking? Paul: First, since critical thinking can be defined in a number of different ways consistent with each other, we should not put a lot of weight on any one definition. Definitions are at best scaffolding for the mind. With this qualification in mind, here is a bit of scaffolding: critical thinking is thinking about your thinking while youre thinking in order to make your thinking better. Two things are crucial: 1) critical thinking is not just thinking, but thinking which entails self-improvement 2) this improvement comes from skill in using standards by which one appropriately assesses thinking. To put it briefly, it is selfimprovement (in thinking) through standards (that assess thinking). To think well is to impose discipline and restraint on our thinking-by means of intellectual standards in order to raise our thinking to a level of "perfection" or quality that is not natural or likely in undisciplined, spontaneous thought. The dimension of critical thinking least understood is that of "intellectual standards." Most teachers were not taught how to assess thinking through standards; indeed, often the thinking of teachers themselves is very "undisciplined" and reflects a lack of internalized intellectual standards. Question: Could you give me an example? Paul: Certainly, one of the most important distinctions that teachers need to routinely make, and which takes disciplined thinking to make, is that between reasoning and subjective reaction. If we are trying to foster quality thinking, we don't want students simply to assert things; we want them to try to reason things out on the basis of evidence and good reasons. Often, teachers are unclear about this basic difference. Many teachers are apt to take student writing or speech which is fluent and witty or glib and amusing as good thinking. They are often unclear about the constituents of good reasoning. Hence, even though a student may just be asserting things, not reasoning things out at all, if she is doing so with vivacity and flamboyance, teachers are apt to take this to be equivalent to good reasoning. This was made clear in a recent California state-wide writing assessment in which teachers and testers applauded a student essay, which they said illustrated "exceptional achievement" in reasoned evaluation, an essay that contained no reasoning at all, that was nothing more than one subjective reaction after another. (See "Why Students-and Teachers-Don't Reason Well") The assessing teachers and testers did not notice that the student failed to respond to the directions, did not support his judgment with reasons and evidence, did not consider possible criteria on which to base his judgment, did not analyze the subject in the light of the criteria, and did not select evidence that clearly supported his judgment. Instead the student: described an emotional exchange asserted-without evidence-some questionable claims expressed a variety of subjective preferences The assessing teachers were apparently not clear enough about the nature of evaluative reasoning or the basic notions of criteria, evidence, reasons, and well-supported judgment to notice the discrepancy. The result was, by the way, that a flagrantly mis-graded student essay was showcased nationally (in ASCD'sDeveloping Minds), systematically misleading the 150,000 or so teachers who read the publication. Question: Could this possibly be a rare mistake, not representative of teacher knowledge?

Paul: I don't think so. Let me suggest a way in which you could begin to test my contention. If you are familiar with any thinking skills programs, ask someone knowledgeable about it the "Where's the beef?" question. Namely, "What intellectual standards does the program articulate and teach?" I think you will first find that the person is puzzled about what you mean. And then when you explain what you mean, I think you will find that the person is not able to articulate any such standards. Thinking skills programs without intellectual standards are tailor-made for mis-instruction. For example, one of the major programs asks teachers to encourage students to make inferences and use analogies, but is silent about how to teach students to assess the inferences they make and the strengths and weaknesses of the analogies they use. This misses the point. The idea is not to help students to make more inferences but to make sound ones, not to help students to come up with more analogies but with more useful and insightful ones. Question: What is the solution to this problem? How, as a practical matter, can we solve it? Paul: Well, not with more gimmicks or quick fixes. Not with more fluff for teachers. Only with quality long-term staff development that helps the teachers, over an extended period of time, over years not months, to work on their own thinking and come to terms with what intellectual standards are, why they are essential, and how to teach for them. The State Department in Hawaii has just such a long-term, quality, critical thinking program (see "mentor program"). So that's one model your readers might look at. In addition, the National Council for Excellence in Critical Thinking Instruction is focused precisely on the articulation of standards for thinking. I am hopeful that eventually, through efforts such as these, we can move from the superficial to the substantial in fostering quality student thinking. The present level of instruction for thinking is very low indeed. Question: But there are many areas of concern in instruction, not just one, not just critical thinking, but communication skills, problem solving, creative thinking, collaborative learning, self-esteem, and so forth. How are districts to deal with the full array of needs? How are they to do all of these rather than simply one, no matter how important that one may be? Paul: This is the key. Everything essential to education supports everything else essential to education. It is only when good things in education are viewed superficially and wrongly that they seem disconnected, a bunch of separate goals, a conglomeration of separate problems, like so many bee-bees in a bag. In fact, any well-conceived program in critical thinking requires the integration of all of the skills and abilities you mentioned above. Hence, critical thinking is not a set of skills separable from excellence in communication, problem solving, creative thinking, or collaborative learning, nor is it indifferent to one's sense of self-worth. Question: Could you explain briefly why this is so? Paul: Consider critical thinking first. We think critically when we have at least one problem to solve. One is not doing good critical thinking, therefore, if one is not solving any problems. If there is no problem there is no point in thinking critically. The "opposite" is also true. Uncritical problem solving is unintelligible. There is no way to solve problems effectively unless one thinks critically about the nature of the problems and of how to go about solving them. Thinking our way through a problem to a solution, then, is critical thinking, not something else. Furthermore, critical thinking, because it involves our working out afresh our own thinking on a subject, and because our own thinking is always a unique product of our self-structured experience, ideas, and reasoning, is intrinsically a new "creation", a new "making", a new set of cognitive and affective structures of some kind. All thinking, in short, is a creation of the mind's work, and when it is disciplined so as to be well-integrated into our experience, it is a new creation precisely because of the inevitable novelty of that integration. And when it helps us to solve problems that we could not solve before, it is surely properly called "creative". The "making" and the "testing of that making" are intimately interconnected. In critical thinking we make and shape ideas and experiences so that they may be used to structure and solve problems, frame decisions, and, as the case may be, effectively communicate with others. The making, shaping, testing, structuring, solving, and communicating are not different activities of a fragmented mind but the same seamless whole viewed from different perspectives. Question: How do communication skills fit in? Paul: Some communication is surface communication, trivial communication--surface and trivial communication don't really require education. All of us can engage in small talk, can share gossip. And we don't require any intricate skills to do that fairly well. Where communication becomes part of our educational goal is in reading, writing, speaking and listening. These are the four modalities of communication which are essential to education and each of them is a mode of reasoning. Each of them involves problems. Each of them is shot through with critical thinking needs. Take the apparently simple matter of reading a book worth reading. The author has developed her thinking in the book, has taken some ideas and in some way represented those ideas in extended form. Our job as a reader is to translate the meaning of the author into meanings that we can understand. This is a complicated process requiring critical thinking every step along the way. What is the purpose for the book? What is the author trying to accomplish? What issues or problems are raised? What data, what experiences, what evidence are given? What concepts are used to organize this data, these experiences? How is the author thinking about the world? Is her thinking justified as far as we can see from our perspective? And how does she justify it from her perspective? How can we enter her perspective to appreciate what she has to say? All of these are the kinds of questions that a critical reader raises. And a critical reader in this sense is simply someone trying to come

to terms with the text. So if one is an uncritical reader, writer, speaker, or listener, one is not a good reader, writer, speaker, or listener at all. To do any of these well is to think critically while doing so and, at one and the same time, to solve specific problems of communication, hence to effectively communicate. Communication, in short, is always a transaction between at least two logics. In reading, as I have said, there is the logic of the thinking of the author and the logic of the thinking of the reader. The critical reader reconstructs (and so translates) the logic of the writer into the logic of the reader's thinking and experience. This entails disciplined intellectual work. The end result is a new creation; the writer's thinking for the first time now exists within the reader's mind. No mean feat! Question: And self esteem? How does it fit in? Paul: Healthy self-esteem emerges from a justified sense of self-worth, just as self-worth emerges from competence, ability, and genuine success. If one simply feels good about oneself for no good reason, then one is either arrogant (which is surely not desirable) or, alternatively, has a dangerous sense of misplaced confidence. Teenagers, for example, sometimes think so well of themselves that they operate under the illusion that they can safely drive while drunk or safely take drugs. They often feel much too highly of their own competence and powers and are much too unaware of their limitations. To accurately sort out genuine self-worth from a false sense of self-esteem requires, yes you guessed it, critical thinking. Question: And finally, what about collaborative learning? How does it fit in? Paul: Collaborative learning is desirable only if grounded in disciplined critical thinking. Without critical thinking, collaborative learning is likely to become collaborative mis-learning. It is collective bad thinking in which the bad thinking being shared becomes validated. Remember, gossip is a form of collaborative learning; peer group indoctrination is a form of collaborative learning; mass hysteria is a form of speed collaborative learning (mass learning of a most undesirable kind). We learn prejudices collaboratively, social hates and fears collaboratively, stereotypes and narrowness of mind, collaboratively. If we dont put disciplined critical thinking into the heart and soul of the collaboration, we get the mode of collaboration which is antithetical to education, knowledge, and insight. So there are a lot of important educational goals deeply tied into critical thinking just as critical thinking is deeply tied into them. Basically the problem in the schools is that we separate things, treat them in isolation and mistreat them as a result. We end up with a superficial representation, then, of each of the individual things that is essential to education, rather than seeing how each important good thing helps inform all the others Question: One important aim of schooling should be to create a climate that evokes childrens sense of wonder and inspires their imagination to soar. What can teachers do to "kindle" this spark and keep it alive in education? Paul: First of all, we kill the child's curiosity, her desire to question deeply, by superficial didactic instruction. Young children continually ask why. Why this and why that? And why this other thing? But we soon shut that curiosity down with glib answers, answers to fend off rather than to respond to the logic of the question. In every field of knowledge, every answer generates more questions, so that the more we know the more we recognize we don't know. It is only people who have little knowledge who take their knowledge to be complete and entire. If we thought deeply about almost any of the answers which we glibly give to children, we would recognize that we don't really have a satisfactory answer to most of their questions. Many of our answers are no more than a repetition of what we as children heard from adults. We pass on the misconceptions of our parents and those of their parents. We say what we heard, not what we know. We rarely join the quest with our children. We rarely admit our ignorance, even to ourselves. Why does rain fall from the sky? Why is snow cold? What is electricity and how does it go through the wire? Why are people bad? Why does evil exist? Why is there war? Why did my dog have to die? Why do flowers bloom? Do we really have good answers to these questions? Question: How does curiosity fit in with critical thinking? Paul: To flourish, curiosity must evolve into disciplined inquiry and reflection. Left to itself it will soar like a kite without a tail, that is, right into the ground! Intellectual curiosity is an important trait of mind, but it requires a family of other traits to fulfill it. It requires intellectual humility, intellectual courage, intellectual integrity, intellectual perseverance, and faith in reason. After all, intellectual curiosity is not a thing in itself valuable in itself and for itself. It is valuable because it can lead to knowledge, understanding, and insight; because it can help broaden, deepen, sharpen our minds, making us better, more humane, more richly endowed persons. To reach these ends, the mind must be more than curious, it must be willing to work, willing to suffer through confusion and frustration, willing to face limitations and overcome obstacles, open to the views of others, and willing to entertain ideas that many people find threatening. That is, there is no point in our trying to model and encourage curiosity, if we are not willing to foster an environment in which the minds of our students can learn the value and pain of hard intellectual work. We do our students a disservice if we imply that all we need is unbridled curiosity, that with it alone knowledge comes to us with blissful ease in an atmosphere of fun, fun, fun. What good is curiosity if we don't know what to do next or how to satisfy it? We can create the environment necessary to the discipline, power, joy, and work of critical thinking only by modeling it before and with our students. They must see our minds at work. Our minds must stimulate theirs with questions and yet further question; questions that probe information and experience; questions that call for reasons and evidence; questions that lead students to examine interpretations and conclusions, pursuing their basis in fact and experience; questions that help students to discover their assumptions, questions that stimulate students to follow out the implications of their thought, to test their ideas, to take their ideas apart, to challenge their ideas, to take their ideas

seriously. It is in the totality of this intellectually rigorous atmosphere that natural curiosity thrives. Question: It is important for our students to be productive members of the work-force. How can schools better prepare students to meet these challenges? Paul: The fundamental characteristic of the world students now enter is ever-accelerating change; a world in which information is multiplying even as it is swiftly becoming obsolete and out of date; a world in which ideas are continually restructured, retested, and rethought; where one cannot survive with simply one way of thinking; where one must continually adapt one's thinking to the thinking of others; where one must respect the need for accuracy and precision and meticulousness; a world in which job skills must continually be upgraded and perfected even transformed. We have never had to face such a world before. Education has never before had to prepare students for such dynamic flux, unpredictability, and complexity for such ferment, tumult, and disarray. We as educators are now on the firing line. Are we willing to fundamentally rethink our methods of teaching? Are we ready for the 21st Century? Are we willing to learn new concepts and ideas? Are we willing to learn a new sense of discipline as we teach it to our students? Are we willing to bring new rigor to our own thinking in order to help our students bring that same rigor to theirs? Are we willing, in short, to become critical thinkers so that we might be an example of what our students must internalize and become? These are profound challenges to the profession. They call upon us to do what no previous generation of teachers was ever called upon to do. Those of us willing to pay the price will yet have to teach side by side with teachers unwilling to pay the price. This will make our job even more difficult, but not less exciting, not less important, not less rewarding. Critical thinking is the heart of wellconceived educational reform and restructuring, because it is at the heart of the changes of the 21st Century. Let us hope that enough of us will have the fortitude and vision to grasp this reality and transform our lives and our schools accordingly. Question: National standards will result in national accountability. What is your vision for the future? Paul: Most of the national assessment we have done thus far is based on lower-order learning and thinking. It has focused on what might be called surface knowledge. It has rewarded the kind of thinking that lends itself to multiple choice machine-graded assessment. We now recognize that the assessment of the future must focus on higher not lower order thinking; that it must assess more reasoning than recall; that it must assess authentic performances, students engaged in bona fide intellectual work. Our problem is in designing and implementing such assessment. In November of this last year, Gerald Nosich and I developed and presented, at the request of the U.S. Department of Education, a model for the national assessment of higher order thinking. At a follow-up meeting of critical thinking's problem-solving, communication, and testing scholars and practitioners, it was almost unanimously agreed that it is possible to assess higher-order thinking on a national scale. It was clear from the commitments of the departments of Education, Labor, and Commerce that such an assessment is in the cards. The fact is, we must have standards and assessment strategies for higher-order thinking for a number of reasons. First, assessment and accountability are here to stay. The public will not accept less. Second, what is not assessed is not, on the whole, taught. Third, what is mis-assessed is mis-taught. Fourth, higher-order thinking, critical thinking abilities, are increasingly crucial to success in every domain of personal and professional life. Fifth, critical thinking research is making the cultivation and assessment of higher-order thinking do-able. The road will not be easy, but if we take the knowledge, understanding, and insights we have gained about critical thinking over the last twelve years, there is much that we could do in assessment that we haven't yet done at the level of the individual classroom teacher, at the level of the school system, at the level of the state, and at the national level. Of course, we want to do this in such a way as not to commit the "Harvard Fallacy;" the mistaken notion that because graduates from Harvard are very successful, that the teaching at Harvard necessarily had something to do with it. It may be that the best prepared and well-connected students coming out of high school are going to end up as the best who graduate from college, no matter what college they attend. We need to focus our assessment, in other words, on how much value has been added by an institution. We need to know where students stood at the beginning, to assess the instruction they received on their way from the beginning to the end. We need pre-and post-testing and assessment in order to see which schools, which institutions, which districts are really adding value, and significant value, to the quality of thinking and learning of their students. Finally, we have to realize that we already have instruments available for assessing what might be called the fine-textured micro-skills of critical thinking. We already know how to design prompts that test students' ability to identify a plausible statement of a writer's purpose; distinguish clearly between purposes; inferences, assumptions, and consequences; discuss reasonably the merits of different versions of a problem or question; decide the most reasonable statement of an author's point of view; recognize bias, narrowness, and contradictions in the point of view of an excerpt; distinguish evidence from conclusions based on that evidence; give evidence to back up their positions in an essay; recognize conclusions that go beyond the evidence; distinguish central from peripheral concepts; identify crucial implications of a passage; evaluate an author's inferences; draw reasonable inferences from positions stated . . . and so on. With respect to intellectual standards, we are quite able to design prompts that require students to recognize clarity in contrast to

unclarity; distinguish accurate from inaccurate accounts; decide when a statement is relevant or irrelevant to a given point; identify inconsistent positions as well as consistent ones; discriminate deep, complete, and significant accounts from those that are superficial, fragmentary, and trivial; evaluate responses with respect to their fairness; distinguish well-evidenced accounts from those unsupported by reasons and evidence; and tell good reasons from bad. With respect to large scale essay assessment, we know enough now about random sampling to be able to require extended reasoning and writing without having to pay for the individual assessment of millions of essays. What remains is to put what we know into action: at the school and district level to facilitate long-term teacher development around higher-order thinking, at the state and national level to provide for long-term assessment of district, state, and national performance. The project will take generations and perhaps in some sense will never end. After all, when will we have developed our thinking far enough, when will we have enough intellectual integrity, enough intellectual courage, enough intellectual perseverance, enough intellectual skill and ability, enough fairmindedness, enough reasonability? One thing is painfully clear. We already have more than enough rote memorization and uninspired didactic teaching; more than enough passivity and indifference, cynicism and defeatism, complacency and ineptness. The ball is in our court. Let's take up the challenge together and make, with our students, a new and better world. {This is taken from the book: How to Prepare Students for a rapidly Changing World by Richard Paul.} Our Concept and Definition of Critical Thinking Why Critical Thinking? The Problem Everyone thinks. It is our nature to do so. But much of our thinking, left to itself, is biased, distorted, partial, uninformed, or downright prejudiced. Yet, the quality of our life and that of what we produce, make, or build depends precisely on the quality of our thought. Shoddy thinking is costly, both in money and in quality of life. Excellence in thought, however, must be systematically cultivated. A Definition Critical thinking is that mode of thinking about any subject, content, or problem in which the thinker improves the quality of his or her thinking by skillfully analyzing, assessing, and reconstructing it. Critical thinking is self-directed, self-disciplined, selfmonitored, and self-corrective thinking. It presupposes assent to rigorous standards of excellence and mindful command of their use. It entails effective communication and problem-solving abilities, as well as a commitment to overcome our native egocentrism and sociocentrism. To Analyze Thinking Identify its purpose, and question at issue, as well as its information, inferences(s), assumptions, implications, main concept(s), and point of view. To Assess Thinking Check it for clarity, accuracy, precision, relevance, depth, breadth, significance, logic, and fairness. The Result A well-cultivated critical thinker: Raises vital questions and problems, formulating them clearly and precisely Gathers and assesses relevant information, using abstract ideas to interpret it effectively Comes to well-reasoned conclusions and solutions, testing them against relevant criteria and standards Thinks openmindedly within alternative systems of thought, recognizing and assessing, as needs be, their assumptions, implications, and practical consequences Communicates effectively with others in figuring out solutions to complex problems The Etymology & Dictionary Definition of "Critical Thinking" The concept of critical thinking we adhere to reflects a concept embedded not only in a core body of research over the last 30 to 50 years but also derived from roots in ancient Greek. The word critical derives etymologically from two Greek roots: "kriticos" (meaning discerning judgment) and "kriterion" (meaning standards). Etymologically, then, the word implies the development of "discerning judgment based on standards." In Websters New World Dictionary, the relevant entry reads "characterized by careful analysis and judgment" and is followed by the gloss, "critical in its strictest sense implies an attempt at objective judgment so as to determine both merits and faults." Applied to thinking, then, we might provisionally define critical thinking as thinking that explicitly aims at well-founded judgment and hence utilizes appropriate evaluative standards in the attempt to determine the true worth, merit, or value of something. The tradition of research into critical thinking reflects the common perception that human thinking left to itself often gravitates toward prejudice, over-generalization, common fallacies, self-deception, rigidity, and narrowness. 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. It assumes that the capacity of humans for good reasoning can be nurtured and developed by an educational process aimed directly at that end. The history of critical thinking documents the development of this insight in a variety of subject matter domains and in a variety of social situations. Each major dimension of critical thinking has been carved out in intellectual debate and dispute through 2400 years of intellectual history. That history allows us to distinguish two contradictory intellectual tendencies: a tendency on the part of the large majority to uncritically accept whatever was presently believed as more or less eternal truth and a conflicting tendency on the part of a small minority those who thought critically to systematically question what was commonly accepted and seek, as a result, to establish sounder, more reflective criteria and standards for judging what it does and does not make sense to accept as true. Our basic concept of critical thinking is, at root, simple. We could define it as the art of taking charge of your own mind. Its value is also at root simple: if we can take charge of our own minds, we can take charge of our lives; we can improve them, bringing them under our self command and direction. Of course, this requires that we learn self-discipline and the art of self-examination. This involves becoming interested in how our minds work, how we can monitor, fine tune, and modify their operations for the better. It involves getting into the habit of reflectively examining our impulsive and accustomed ways of thinking and acting in every dimension of our lives. All that we do, we do on the basis of some motivations or reasons. But we rarely examine our motivations to see if they make sense. We rarely scrutinize our reasons critically to see if they are rationally justified. As consumers we sometimes buy things impulsively and uncritically, without stopping to determine whether we really need what we are inclined to buy or whether we can afford it or whether its good for our health or whether the price is competitive. As parents we often respond to our children impulsively and uncritically, without stopping to determine whether our actions are consistent with how we want to act as parents or whether we are contributing to their self esteem or whether we are discouraging them from thinking or from taking responsibility for their own behavior. As citizens, too often we vote impulsively and uncritically, without taking the time to familiarize ourselves with the relevant issues and positions, without thinking about the long-run implications of what is being proposed, without paying attention to how politicians manipulate us by flattery or vague and empty promises. As friends, too often we become the victims of our own infantile needs, "getting involved" with people who bring out the worst in us or who stimulate us to act in ways that we have been trying to change. As husbands or wives, too often we think only of our own desires and points of view, uncritically ignoring the needs and perspectives of our mates, assuming that what we want and what we think is clearly justified and true, and that when they disagree with us they are being unreasonable and unfair. As patients, too often we allow ourselves to become passive and uncritical in our health care, not establishing good habits of eating and exercise, not questioning what our doctor says, not designing or following good plans for our own wellness. As teachers, too often we allow ourselves to uncritically teach as we have been taught, giving assignments that students can mindlessly do, inadvertently discouraging their initiative and independence, missing opportunities to cultivate their self-discipline and thoughtfulness. It is quite possible and, unfortunately, quite "natural" to live an unexamined life; to live in a more or less automated, uncritical way. It is possible to live, in other words, without really taking charge of the persons we are becoming; without developing or acting upon the skills and insights we are capable of. However, if we allow ourselves to become unreflective persons or rather, to the extent that we do we are likely to do injury to ourselves and others, and to miss many opportunities to make our own lives, and the lives of others, fuller, happier, and more productive. On this view, as you can see, critical thinking is an eminently practical goal and value. It is focused on an ancient Greek ideal of "living an examined life". It is based on the skills, the insights, and the values essential to that end. It is a way of going about living and learning that empowers us and our students in quite practical ways. When taken seriously, it can transform every dimension of school life: how we formulate and promulgate rules; how we relate to our students; how we encourage them to relate to each other; how we cultivate their reading, writing, speaking, and listening; what we model for them in and outside the classroom, and how we do each of these things. Of course, we are likely to make critical thinking a basic value in school only insofar as we make it a basic value in our own lives. Therefore, to become adept at teaching so as to foster critical thinking, we must become committed to thinking critically and reflectively about our own lives and the lives of those around us. We must become active, daily, practitioners of critical thought. We must regularly model for our students what it is to reflectively examine, critically assess, and effectively improve the way we live. Critical thinking is that mode of thinking about any subject, content, or problem in which the thinker improves the quality of his or her thinking by skillfully analyzing, assessing, and reconstructing it. Critical thinking is self-directed, self-disciplined, selfmonitored, and self-corrective thinking. It presupposes assent to rigorous standards of excellence and mindful command of their use. It entails effective communication and problem-solving abilities, as well as a commitment to overcome our native egocentrism and sociocentrism. Thinking Skills Robert Fisher

A version of this paper is to be published in Arthur J, Grainger T & Wray D (eds) (in press) Learning to teach in primary school, Routledge Falmer We need to think better if we are to become better people. Paul, aged 10 Introduction In recent years there has been growing interest across the world in ways of developing childrens thinking and learning skills (Fisher 2005). This interest has been fed by new knowledge about how the brain works and how people learn, and evidence that specific interventions can improve childrens thinking and intelligence. The particular ways in which people apply their minds to solving problems are called thinking skills. Many researchers suggest that thinking skills are essential to effective learning, though not all agree on the definition of this term. If thinking is how children make sense of learning then developing their thinking skills will help them get more out of learning and life. This chapter looks at the implications of research into ways to develop thinking children, thinking classrooms and thinking schools. Objectives The aims of this chapter are to enable you to: inform your understanding of thinking skills and their role in learning understand some key principles that emerge from research into teaching thinking know the main approaches to developing childrens thinking see how you might integrate a thinking skills approach into classroom teaching What are thinking skills? Thinking skills are not mysterious entities existing somewhere in the mind. Nor are they like mental muscles that have a physical presence in the brain. What the term refers to is the human capacity to think in conscious ways to achieve certain purposes. Such processes include remembering, questioning, forming concepts, planning, reasoning, imagining, solving problems, making decisions and judgements, translating thoughts into words and so on. Thinking skills are ways in which humans exercise the sapiens part of being homo sapiens. A skill is commonly defined as a practical ability in doing something or succeeding in a task. Usually we refer to skills in particular contexts, such as being good at cooking but they can also refer to general areas of performance, such as having a logical mind, good memory, being creative and so on. A thinking skill is a practical ability to think in ways that are judged to be more or less effective or skilled. They are the habits of intelligent behaviour learned through practice, for example children can become better at giving reasons or asking questions the more they practice doing so. If thinking skills are the mental capacities we use to investigate the world, to solve problems and make judgements then to identify every such skill would be to enumerate all the capacities of the human mind and the list would be endless. Many researchers have attempted to identify the key skills in human thinking, and the most famous of these is Blooms Taxonomy (see Fig 1). Bloom's taxonomy of thinking skills (what he called the cognitive goals of education) has been widely used by teachers in planning their teaching. He identifies a number of basic or lower order cognitive skills - knowledge, comprehension and application, and a number of higher order skills analysis, synthesis and evaluation. The following are the various categories identified by Bloom and processes involved in the various thinking levels. Blooms Taxonomy (Source: Bloom & Krathwohl 1956) Cognitive goal ------------------------- Thinking cues 1 Knowledge -----------------------------Say what you know, or remember, describe, (knowing and remembering) repeat, define, identify, tell who, when, which, where, what 2 Comprehension ---------------------- Describe in your own words, tell how you feel (interpreting and understanding) about it, what it means, explain, compare, relate 3 Application ----------------------------How can you use it, where does it lead, apply (applying, making use of) what you know, use it to solve problems, demonstrate 4 Analysis -------------------------------- What are the parts, the order, the reasons why, (taking apart, being critical) the causes/problems/solutions/consequences 5 Synthesis ----------------------------- How might it be different, how else, what if, (connecting, being creative) suppose, put together, develop, improve, create your own 6 Evaluation ---------------------------- How would you judge it, does it succeed, will it (judging and assessing) work, what would you prefer, why you think so You could plan or analyse many learning activities in terms of the above categories. For example when telling a story, a teacher might ask the following kinds of questions, 1 Knowledge What happened in the story? 2 Comprehension Why did it happen that way?

3 Application What would you have done? 4 Analysis Which part did you like best? 5 Synthesis Can you think of a different ending? 6 Evaluation What did you think of the story? Why? Blooms taxonomy built on earlier research by Piaget and Vygotsky that suggested that thinking skills and capacities are developed by cognitive challenge. Teachers need to challenge children to think more deeply and more widely and in more systematic and sustained ways. Or as Tom, aged 10 put it: A good teacher makes you think ... even when you dont want to. One way inwhich you, as a good teacher, can do this is by asking questions that challenge childrens thinking. TASK 1: Questions for thinking Choose a story, poem, text or topic that you would like to use with children as a stimulus for their thinking. Using Blooms Taxonomy create a series of questions to think about and discuss after you have shared the stimulus with them. List your questions under Blooms six categories: knowledge, comprehension and application, analysis, synthesis and evaluation. Why are thinking skills important? Thinking skills are important because mastery of the basics in education (literacy, maths, science etc.), however well taught, are not sufficient to fulfil human potential, or to meet the demands of the labour market or of active citizenship. Countries across the world are recognising that a broad range of competencies are needed to prepare children for an unpredictable future. These higher order thinking skills are required, in addition to basic skills, because individuals cannot store sufficient knowledge in their memories for future use. Information is expanding at such a rate that individuals require transferable skills to enable them to address different problems in different contexts at different times throughout their lives. The complexity of modern jobs requires people who can comprehend, judge and participate in generating new knowledge and processes. Modern democratic societies require its citizens to assimilate information from multiple sources, determine its truth and use it to make sound judgements. The challenge is to develop educational programmes that enable all individuals, not just an elite, to become effective thinkers because these competencies are now required of everyone. A thinking skills approach suggests that learners must develop awareness of themselves as thinkers and learners, practise strategies for effective thinking and to develop the habits of intelligent behaviour that are needed for lifelong learning. As Paul, aged 10, put it: We need to think better if we are going to become better people. What does research tell us about thinking? Research in cognitive science and psychology is providing a clearer picture of the brain and the processes associated with thinking (Smith 2002). This brain research has some important implications for teachers. For example we now know that most of the growth in the human brain occurs in early childhood: by the age of six, the brain in most children is approximately 90% of its adult size. This implies that intervention, while the brain is still growing, may be more effective than waiting until the brain is fully developed. Cognitive challenge is important at all stages, but especially in the early years of education. Psychologists and philosophers have helped to extend our understanding of the term thinking, including the importance of dispositions, such as attention and motivation, commonly associated with thinking (Claxton 2002). This has prompted a move away from a simple model of thinking skills as isolated cognitive capacities to a view of thinking as inextricably connected to emotions and dispositions, including emotional intelligence, which is our ability to understand our own emotions and the emotions of others (Goleman 1995). There is also a growing realisation that we need to teach not only cognitive skills and strategies but also develop the higher metacognitive functions involved in metacognition. This involves making learners aware of themselves as thinkers and how they process/create knowledge by learning how to learn (see sections on Self Awareness in the Primary National Strategy, DfES 2004). Metacognition involves thinking about ones own thinking. Metacognition includes knowledge of oneself, for example of what one knows, what one has learnt, what one can and cannot do and ways to improve ones learning or achievement. Metacognition also involves skills of recognising problems, representing features of problems, planning what to do in trying to solve problems, monitoring progress and evaluating the outcomes of ones own thinking or problem-solving activity. Metacognition is promoted by helping pupils to reflect on their thinking and decision-making processes. Metacognition is developed when pupils are helped to be strategic in organising their activities and are encouraged to reflect before, during and after problemsolving processes. The implication is that you need to plan time for debriefing and review in lessons to encourage children to think about their learning and how to improve it. This can be done through discussion in a plenary session, or by finding time for reflective writing in their own thinking or learning logs. The human mind is made up of many faculties or capacities that enable learning to take place. Our general capacity for understanding or intelligence was once thought to be innate and unmodifiable. As a child once put it: Either youve got or you havent. The notion of inborn intelligence which dominated educational practice until the mid-20 th century was challenged by Vygotsky, Piaget and others who developed a constructivist psychology based on a view of learners as active creators of their own knowledge. Some researchers argue that intelligence is not one generic capacity but is made up of multiple intelligences (Gardner 1993). Howard Gardners theory of multiple intelligence has had a growing influence in recent years on educational theory and practice, although not all are convinced of its claims. Whether intelligence is viewed as one general capacity or many, what researchers are agreed upon is that it is modifiable and can be developed. Key principles that emerge from this research include the need for teachers and carers to provide:

cognitive challenge , challenging childrens thinking from the earliest years collaborative learning , extending thinking through working with others metacognitive discussion , reviewing what they think and how they learn This research and the pioneering work of Feuerstein, who created of a programme called Instrumental Enrichment, Matthew Lipman, who founded Philosophy for Children, and other leading figures such as Edward de Bono, creator of lateral thinking, have inspired a wide range of curriculum and programme developments (Fisher 1995). These include a range of teaching approaches that you could use, including cognitive acceleration, brain-based approaches (such as accelerated learning) and philosophical approaches that aim at developing the moral and emotional as well as intellectual aspects of thinking - caring and collaborative as well as critical and creative thinking. These are discussed below. By the end of the twentieth century there was a widespread realisation that key or core skills of thinking, creativity and problemsolving lay at the heart of successful learning and should be embedded in primary and secondary school curricula. When the DfEE in England commissioned Carol McGuinness to review and evaluate research into thinking skills and related areas, key points that emerged from her study were that: pupils benefitted from being coached in thinking not one model, but many approaches proved effective success was due to pedagogy (teaching strategies) not specific materials strategies were needed to enable pupils to transfer thinking to other contexts teachers needed professional support and coaching to sustain success McGuinness (1999) points out that the most successful interventions are associated with a strong theoretical underpinning, welldesigned and contextualised materials, explicit pedagogy, teacher support and programme evaluation (p13). In England the revised National Curriculum (DfES 1999) included thinking skills in its rationale, stating that thinking skills are essential in learning how to learn . The list of thinking skills identified in the English National Curriculum is similar to many such lists: information processing, reasoning, enquiry, creative thinking and evaluation. Any good lesson or learning conversation will show evidence of some or all of these elements. They focus on knowing how as well as knowing what, not only on curriculum content but on learning how to learn. They can be related to Blooms taxonomy in the following ways: Thinking skills in the National Curriculum in England (1999) Information-processing Enquiry Reasoning Creative thinking Evaluation The National Curriculum in England, as elsewhere, is no longer to be seen simply as subject knowledge but as being underpinned by the skills of lifelong learning. Good teaching is not just about the achieving particular curriculum objectives but also about developing general thinking skills and learning behaviours. Since the McGuiness review and the explicit inclusion of thinking skills in the National Curriculum, interest in the teaching of thinking has burgeoned in the UK. Research has shown that interventions work if they have a strong theoretical base and if teachers are enthusiastic and well trained in the use of a programme or strategy. Teachers are developing teaching for thinking approaches in new directions, integrating them into everyday teaching to create thinking classrooms, and developing whole school policies to create thinking schools. TASK 2: Identifying thinking skills Identify in a lesson plan, or observation of a classroom lesson, the thinking skills that are being developed as general learning objectives. Look for evidence that the children are engaged in information processing, reasoning, enquiry, creative thinking and evaluation. A proforma could be used for recording the evidence, such as the one below. Identifying thinking skills What thinking skills are being used or developed in this lesson? Identify examples of: Information processing Finding relevant information Organising information Representing or communicating information ___________________________________________________________ Reasoning Giving reasons Making inferences or deductions Arguing or explaining a point of view ___________________________________________________________ Enquiry Asking questions Planning research or study Engaging in enquiry or process of finding out ___________________________________________________________

Creative thinking Generating ideas Imagining or hypothesising Designing innovative solutions ___________________________________________________________ Evaluation Developing evaluation criteria Applying evaluation criteria Judging the value of information and ideas __________________________________________________________ How do we teaching thinking in the classroom? Researchers have identified a number of teaching strategies you can use to help stimulate childrens thinking in the classroom. These approaches to teaching thinking can be summarised as: Cognitive acceleration approaches Brain-based approaches Philosophical approaches Teaching strategies across the curriculum 1. Cognitive acceleration approaches CASE Philip Adey and Michael Shayer developed the original Cognitive Acceleration Through Science Education (CASE) project in the 1980s and early 1990s for Key Stage 3 Science. Their work now extends into other subjects and age groups and has perhaps the best research and most robust evidence of the impact of thinking skills in the UK (for a summary see Shayer and Adey, 2002). The following is a typical format of a CASE lesson for thinking format that builds in time for cognitive and metacognitive discussion: 1. Concrete preparation stimulus to thinking, introducing the terms of the problem 2. Cognitive conflict creates a challenge for the mind 3. Social construction dialogue with others, discussion that extends thinking 4. Metacognition reflection on how we tackled the problem 5. Bridging reviewing where else we can use this thinking and learning CASE lessons have also been developed for young children, called Lets Think! which aims to raise achievement by developing Year 1 pupils' general thinking patterns and teachers understanding of childrens thinking. During Lets Think lessons young children work with a teacher in groups of six and each activity takes about 30 minutes. The session is completely oral, with discussion based on a range of objects. At the beginning of the session the teacher helps agree a common language to describe the objects being used. Having established the vocabulary and the concepts involved, the teacher sets the challenge of the activity. One popular activity in this schema is called the hoop game when children are required to put orange toy dinosaurs in one hoop and T-Rex dinosaurs in another hoop. The challenge is that one of the dinosaurs is an orange T-Rex. This is very perplexing for our preoperational children because they have to utilize two pieces of information about the dinosaur and find a solution to the problem. The children work together as a group to come to a solution or a number of possible solutions to solve the task. They discuss their ideas and make suggestions. The teacher guides them, without being obvious, towards the idea of overlapping the hoops and putting the wayward dinosaur in the intersection. As in other discussion-based approaches children are encouraged to state whether they agree or disagree with each other by giving a reason. For example, they are taught to say, I think because or I disagree with you because The activities are designed as problems to be solved thus creating a context for developing thinking . Children are given a challenge, are required to work collaboratively ; to plan and evaluate their own and others thinking strategies, and the teacher then gets the children to think about their thinking (metacognition) through asking such questions as What do you think we are going to have to think about? and How did you get your answer? rather than Is your answer correct? Of course you do not need the Lets Think materials to apply this teaching strategy to any area of the curriculum. What the Lets Think! approach aims to do is to accelerate cognitive development between two types of thinking. The first type of thought is what Piaget (1953) called pre-operational, when children still find it difficult to engage in what adults perceive as rational thought. The next stage, which Piaget described as concrete operational, involves manipulating at least two ideas in order to produce a third, new idea, which is what the sessions encourage the children to do. Lets Think aims to accelerate the transition between the two types of thought in order to help pupils make better sense of their learning and improve general achievement. They do this, as you might, by ensuring their teaching includes cognitive challenge, collaborative activity and children thinking about how they think and learn. Thinking maths lessons for primary children are part of a related project called CAME ( Cognitive Acceleration of Mathematics Education ). These lessons involve discussion-based tasks in maths that aim to develop childrens conceptual thinking rather than the mechanics of doing the maths. They differ from open-ended investigations in that each lesson has a specific concept to develop. The activities are planned to generate group and whole class discussion rather than written work with an emphasis on how did you get your answer rather than what is the answer. As the CAME approach suggests if your emphasis in teaching is: How did you get your answer? rather than Is your answer correct? it is a far more productive way of generating childrens thinking and learning.

2. Brain-based approaches Many educationalists are influenced by recent research into how the human brain works and draw on some of the implications of this research for teachers and schools. Accelerated Learning and Multiple Intelligence approaches all draw on these broad ideas together with research into learning styles. The common feature is the reliance on brain research to inspire teaching techniques in the classroom. There are many theories of learning styles. They are rooted in a classification of psychological types and the fact that individuals tend to process information differently. Different researchers propose different sets of learning style characteristics, but many remain unconvinced by their claims children learn best through using one preferred style (Coffield 2004). Accelerated learning Accelerated learning approaches include applying VAK - visual, auditory and kinaesthetic learning styles to teaching . VAK stands for: visual learning best through pictures, charts, diagrams, video, ICT etc. auditory learning best through listening kinaesthetic learning best through being physically engaged in a task For example in teaching her class to spell a word a teacher might show them how to chunk the word into three pieces, and emphasise this by using different colours for each section of the word and to visualise it in their heads. She might also ask them to write the word in the air with their fingers. Accelerated learning emphasises the importance of including a range of learning experiences, visual, verbal and physical, in your teaching, so that children are challenged to think in different ways. These and other brain-based teaching strategies such as BrainGym (which usesimple but challenging aerobic exercises to focus the mind and stimulate the brain) offer much scope for your own research in the classroom. De Bono According to Edward de Bono we tend to think in restricted and predictable ways. To become better thinkers we need to learn new habits. His teaching strategy known as thinking hats helps learners try different approaches to thinking. Each thinking hat represents a different way to think about a problem or issue. Children are encouraged to try on the different hats or approaches to a problem to go beyond their usual thinking habits (de Bono 1999). The hatsor thinking approaches, together with questions you might ask, are as follows: White hat = information What do we know? Red hat = feelings What do we feel? Purple hat = problems What are the drawbacks? Yellow hat = positives What are the benefits? Green hat = creativity What ideas have we got? Blue hat = control What are our aims? De Bono claims the technique is widely used in management but little research has been published on its use in education. Some teachers have found it a useful technique for encouraging children to look at a problem or topic from a variety of perspectives. It encourages us, and our children, to think creatively about any topic and to ask: Is there another way of thinking about this? 3. Philosophical approaches A pioneer of the critical thinking movement in America is the philosopher Matthew Lipman. Originally a university philosophy professor, Lipman was unhappy at what he saw as poor thinking in his students. They seemed to have been encouraged to learn facts and to accept authoritative opinions, but not to think for themselves. He became convinced that something was wrong with the way they had been taught in school when they were younger. He therefore founded the Institute for the Advancement of Philosophy for Children (IAPC) and developed with colleagues a programme is called Philosophy for Children, used in more than 40 countries around the world. Lipman believes that children are natural philosophers because they view the world with curiosity and wonder (Lipman 2003). Childrens own questions form the starting-point for an enquiry or discussion, which can be termed philosophical. The IAPC has produced a number of novels, into every page of which, strange and anomalous points are woven. As a class reads a page, with the teacher, the text encourages them to raise queries. These questions form the basis of guided discussions. The novels provide a model of philosophical enquiry, in that they involve fictional children engaging in argument, debate, discussion and exploratory thinking. Stories for Thinking Many resources have been developed in recent years to adapt Matthew Lipmans approach to Philosophy for Children to the needs of children and teachers in the UK, Stories for thinking is one such approach (Fisher 1996). The aim, through using stories and other kinds of stimulus for philosophical discussion, is to create acommunity of enquiry in the classroom (see www.sapere.org.uk). In a typical Stories for Thinking lesson the teacher shares a thinking story with the class. They have 'thinking time' when they are asked to think about anything in the story that they thought was strange, interesting or puzzling about the story. After some quiet thinking time the teacher asked for their comments or questions, and writes each child's questions on the board, adding their name after their question. The children then chose from the list of questions which one they would like to discuss. The teacher then invites the children to comment, and who agreed or disagreed with particular comments made. If children do not give reasons or evidence from the story for their opinions the teacher asked 'Why do you think that?' or 'Have you got a reason for that?'

When asked the value of a 'Stories for Thinking' lesson one child said: 'You have to ask questions and think hard about the answers.' Another said: 'Sometimes you change your mind and sometimes you don't. A third reply was: 'It is better than just doing reading or writing because you have to say what you really think.' Teachers note that in 'Stories for Thinking' lessons, in which they may also uses poems, pictures, objects or other texts for thinking, the children have become more thoughtful, better at speaking and listening to each other, at asking questioning and using the language of reasoning, more confident in posing creative ideas and in judging what they and others think and do and are more confident about applying their thinking to fresh challenges in learning and in life (Fisher 1999). What stories or other forms of stimulus could you use to really engage your children in thinking? How could you create an enquiring classroom? Task 3: Creating a thinking classroom What would a thinking classroom look like? Collect words to describe what a thinking classroom might look like. These might include some reference to the teachers behaviour, childrens behaviour, classroom environment or kinds of activity that help children to think and learn well. Sort your ideas into small groups and give each group a heading that you think appropriate. Choose one idea from each group and consider how you could develop this in your classroom. 4. Teaching strategies across the curriculum A growing number of programmes and strategies aim to help teachers develop childrens thinking and learning across the curriculum, such as the TASC (Thinking Actively in a Social Context) and ACTS (Activating Childrens Thinking Skills). It is difficult to evaluate the success of these and other interventions because of the many variables involved in the teaching situation. There is much scope here for your own research into teaching strategies in the classroom and for developing new strategies. A number of specific teaching strategies have been identified to help stimulate childrens thinking in different subject areas and many of these are included in the Primary National Strategy guidance for teachers (DfES 2004). For example 'Odd One Out' is a teaching technique to identify pupils' understanding of key concepts in different subjects. A teacher might in a numeracy lesson put three numbers on the board, such as 9, 5 and 10; or in science three materials; or in English three characters to compare and contrast - then ask the children to choose the 'odd one out' and to give a reason. Teachers who use this strategy claim it can reveal gaps in the knowledge that she has taught and the knowledge and vocabulary that the children are then able to use. The children think of it as a game and are used to thinking up examples and ideas which show their thinking in different curriculum subjects. This approach encourages creative thinking and reasoning (Higgins et al 2001). Can you think of three things and give reasons why one, two or each of them might be the odd one out? Concept mapping Many approaches include the use of thinking diagrams or graphic organisers or concept maps as an aid to making thinking visual and explicit. Concept mapping is an information-processing technique with a long history. Tony Buzan developed this technique into a version he calls Mind Mapping (Buzan 1993). Concept maps are tools that help make thinking visible - and involves writing down, or more commonly drawing, a central idea and thinking up new and related ideas which radiate out from the centre. By focussing on key ideas written down in childrens own words, and then looking for branches out and connections between the ideas, they are mapping knowledge in a manner which can help them understand and remember new information. A simple concept map might be used to map out the connections between characters in a story. Children might also draw maps from memory to test what they remember or know. Teachers have found concept maps helpful in finding out or revising what children know and the technique is especially popular when used in pairs or groups. Children can learn from the technique from an early age and many find it motivating. As one young child put it: Concept mapping gets you to think and try more. Concept mapping is a useful teaching and revision technique for extending thinking and making it visually memorable (Caviglioni & Harris 2000). When you are planning your next topic or activity with children think of ways of making your own or your childrens thinking visible, for example by creating a mindmap of a story, a process or collection of ideas. Computers and thinking Research shows that there are several ways in which ICT could particularly enhance the teaching and learning of thinking skills. There is evidence that the use of computers can lead to improved information-processing skills. ICT enables multiple and complex representations of information, allowing learners for example to think with a richer knowledge base. As James aged 8 said: I didnt know there was so much to know! E ducational software can act like a teacher to prompt and direct enquiry through asking questions, giving clues and suggesting avenues of investigation. It can also act as a resource while learners discuss and explore ideas, prompting reflection around a simulation for example. N etworks via the internet and including video-conferencing, can allow children to engage directly in collaborative learning and knowledge sharing with others who are not physically present. The main criticism of the computer as a tutor model is that directed computer teaching does not allow children to be creative learners, able to think and make connections for themselves, and so is unlikely to support the development of higher order thinking. This can be transformed however by collaboration around ICT activities, which has been shown to have the potential to enhance the learning of transferable thinking skills.

Effective collaborative learning still needs to be structured. Learners should be taught how to reason and learn together before they are asked to work collaboratively with ICT, because having to articulate and explain strategies to others is more likely to lead to transfer than just doing things without thinking or talking them through. For example working with LOGO, is not just manipulating a screen turtle. It is about reasoning and developing effective problem solving strategies that can be achieved much better with a learning partner or small group through discussion. In the lesson plenary, by reflecting on this process of collaborative problem solving, the teacher can help children to bridge their thinking from their experience with Logo or computer program to different areas of the curriculum. Computers can help develop childrens thinking skills when used as part of a larger dialogue about thinking and learning (Wegerif 2002) . The challenge for you as a teacher is to find ways to use the computer to encourage thinking with and discussion between children. Recent test results show that standards in schools are rising but slowly. Could the teaching of thinking provide a key to raising achievement? The experience of many teachers suggests that when pupils are taught the habits of effective thinking they grow in confidence, their learning is enriched and they are better prepared to face the challenges of the future. Children think so too as Arran, aged 9, put it: When you get out in the real world you have to think for yourself, thats why we need to practise it in school. Good teaching is about helping children to think for themselves, which is why it is both a challenge and an adventure. TASK 4: Planning for teaching thinking Choose a teaching strategy or approach from published materials which aims to develop childrens thinking skills. Think how you might use this strategy or approach in a chosen area of the curriculum. Plan a lesson which incorporates this strategy, identifying a specific thinking or learning skill in your lesson objectives. Share your plan or teaching ideas with others. Teach and evaluate your lesson for thinking! Summary In recent years there has been much research into ways of developing childrens thinking and learning skills. This has been informed by growing knowledge about how the brain works, how people learn and how teaching approaches can help improve childrens ability to think and learn. Thinking skills is a term often used to refer to the many capacities involved in thinking and learning. These skills are seen as fundamental to lifelong learning, active citizenship and emotional intelligence. Research shows that thinking is developed through cognitive challenge, and opportunities for collaborative work and metacognitive discussion. Successful approaches to teaching thinking include cognitive acceleration, brain-based and philosophical approaches. These and other teaching strategies can help raise standards of achievement and create thinking children, thinking classrooms and thinking schools.