Developing Minds 2018

Response to “Overview of Critical thinking in the BC K 12 Curricular revisions" 

Cher Hill, Assistant Professor of Professional Practice, Field Programs, Faculty of Education, SFU

Fillion and Martelli (2017) report that in light of the new curriculum, there is little guidance for teachers in terms of understandings of critical theory, how to teach it, and how to assess it, and contend that without such resources, “curricular change may … be ornamental, not substantial” (p. 19). Certainly more resources are helpful for teachers in this regard, keeping in mind that the intent of the new curriculum is meant to be less prescriptive than the previous curriculum, enabling students and teachers to engage in core competencies in ways that are authentic, meaningful and contextualized. I appreciate that one of the authors is a teacher, and think it is important to consult with teachers to learn more about their perspectives regarding their needs and how they can best be supported.

The authors, who both have a background in philosophy, identify philosophy, as the “discipline that most actively studies critical thinking in its own right” (p. 13) and focus predominantly on the role of philosophy in supporting critical thinking. It is clearly beneficial to understand how the discipline of philosophy can contribute to supporting the development of core competencies. Since critical thinking however, is not contained within a particular discipline and can be discipline specific (as the authors note), and core competencies must be integrated across the k-12 curriculum, I wonder if endeavouring to make philosophy a teachable subject (recommendation #1), provide teachers with resources to teach philosophy (recommendation #2) and creating an education stream in philosophy in our teacher  (recommendation #7) are indeed the most direct solutions to the problem identified?

Fillion and Martelli (2017) identify a need to integrate “critical thinking training” in in pre-service and in-service teacher development at SFU. As a Faculty member attached to the Field Programs unit (which offers graduate-level programs for practicing teachers), I can speak to the ways in which critical thinking and critical reflection are already core components within our curriculum. We view these qualities as core capacities or dispositions to be developed holistically, rather than a set of skills to be transmitted. They are integral to all of our programs and reflected in our learning goals. Qualities associated with critical and reflective thinking including questioning assumptions, examining beliefs, values, practices, engaging with multiple perspectives, demonstrating open mindedness and flexibility of thinking, are part of the criteria we use to assess applicants applying to our Masters program.

We often draw upon Brookfield’s (1995; 2011) notions of critical thinking and critical reflection to support capacity development and assess qualities associated with critical thinking. He defines critical thinking as involving

“(1) identifying assumptions that frame our thinking and determine our actions, (2) checking out the degree to which these assumptions are valid, (3) looking at our ideas and decisions (intellectual, organizational and personal) from different perspectives, and (4) on the basis of all this, taking informed actions” (p. 1).

Brookfield (1995; 2011) outlines different types of assumptions, which can be helpful in supporting students in developing critical capacities: paradigmatic (theoretical/philosophical assumptions), prescriptive (what we think ought to happen) and causal (predictive statements). Critical dialogue (Brookfield & Preskill, 2005) and reflective writing (Bolton, 2010) are common pedagogical practices we use to identify and interrogate assumptions, and engage in multiple perspectives. Examining issues through the lens of power and ethics (Brookfield, 1995; Greene, 1978) are also key in critically examining ideas and experiences, and these qualities are particularly important if critical thinking is to serve an emancipatory function.

The main goal of this project - examining  “how changes to the new curriculum (particularly as they related to critical thinking) might have an influence on how we teach in post-secondary,” is less predominant in this paper in a general sense. It is a focus that I would like to explore further as examining our own practices is likely a productive starting place and I see the value in Jan Unwin’s (the Superintendent of Graduation and Student Transitions with BC Ministries of Education and Ministry of Advanced Education) vision of a K-16 education system where there is much continuity between high school and university education. I wonder how we, as post-secondary educators, might map on to and extend the Ministry’s vision of critical thinking as an interdisciplinary, inquiry based, self-directed and multifaceted core competency?

References

• Bolton, G. (2010). Reflective practice: Writing & professional development. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
• Brookfield, S. (1995). Becoming a critically reflective teacher. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
• Brookfield, S.D. & Preskill, S. (2005). Discussion as a way of teaching (2nd ed.) San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
• Fillion, N. & Martelli, D. (2017). Overview of critical thinking in the BC K- 12 curricular revisions.
• Greene, M. (1978). Landscapes of learning. New York, N.Y.: Teachers College Press.

Response from Phil Winne, PhD - Professor | Faculty of Education | Simon Fraser University SFU

Hurray, We Have a New Curriculum. Now What?

Fillion and Martelli’s paper is subtitled, Implications for Post-Secondary Teaching and Learning.” This invites examining the validity of that claim. In particular:

1.      Does evidence show interventions can be designed to promote:

a.       skills needed to identify when it is appropriate to apply critical thinking skills?

b.      judgment needed to match particular critical thinking skills to particular instances?

c.       skills comprising critical thinking per se?

d.      disposition to initiate and persevere in critical thinking?

2.      Is the new BC curriculum an intervention that:

a.       contributes to students’ developing critical thinking skills?

b.      motivates students to apply critical thinking skills?

c.       has long-term effects?

3.      Do activities students engage in post-secondary education

a.       invite or at least afford applying critical thinking skills?

b.      in some cases, require applying critical thinking to succeed?

c.       preserve and further cultivate will to use and skills of critical thinking?

Consider these in reverse order. First, do post-secondary students need skills for critical thinking? Proof is scattered. Plenty of course descriptions in university calendars refer to elements of critical thinking. To my knowledge, evidence is sparse. Many observe evaluations of post-secondary students’ achievements mainly concern shallow knowledge and cursorily performed skills. How much and what kinds of evidence show critical thinking is genuinely called for in post-secondary studies? A parallel question arises regarding common rhetoric about needs for critical thinking in workplaces and lifelong learning. Empirically refuting these doubts would increase warrant to teach critical thinking in BC’s schools and might reveal more clearly what critical thinking is, when it is advantageous and what impedes its use.

Second, the new BC curriculum is yet to be implemented. Thus, issues in #2 are moot. I advocate the province and BC educators at all levels partner in research to define and gather data, develop protocols for analyzing those data, and deliver findings as feedback and feed-forward. This should not be a once-and-done event. Sustained, iterative research is key to progressive and adaptive evidenced-based best practices. Sincere commitment is needed beyond actual resources.

Third, the new BC curriculum offers a framework of competencies. Perhaps wisely, it refrains from setting out designs for instruction. Materials and methods are within instructors’ purviews. Does teaching critical thinking (at any level) differ when teaching philosophy, economics, earth science or composition? Fortunately, many primary empirical studies and syntheses of them can be resourced when planning how to teach and how to motivate critical thinking. Who will mine, collate, interpret and distribute this evidence? How will early implementations be documented and critically examined? Where will findings be catalogued? How can post-secondary instructors be supported to infuse into courses opportunities to think critically, motivating activities, and formative evaluations? What new resources needed for the post-secondary sector to expand support for pre- and in-service teachers’ professional development? How are resources justified?

The Province offers an exciting and appealing framework for promoting critical thinking. Fillion and Martelli highlight key issues and sketch further goals. I advocate empirical evidence play key roles in moving forward. Thinking critically about this bold venture should be complemented by rigorous, pervasive, locally relevant and widely shared empirical research. 

Response to “Overview of Critical Thinking in the BC K-12 Curriculum Revisions”

Dr. Paula MacDowell, Lecturer in the Faculty of Education

Fillion and Martelli (2017) document the recent changes in the BC K-12 curriculum redesign and highlight three core competencies (thinking, personal and social, and communication) that all students need to develop. The authors focus on teaching for critical thinking which is “to be understood as complementary to but different from creative thinking” and has three interacting facets: 1) analyze and critique, 2) question and investigate, and 3) develop and design (p. 11). Many challenges and concerns are identified, including: lack of guidelines for assessment and reporting, there is no summative and cumulative critical thinking content specified for teachers, and the redesigned curriculum does not clearly define “what critical thinking is and what critical thinkers do” (p. 14). These concerns bring forth important questions around the kinds of support, training, and resources that teachers need to be able to enhance students’ critical thinking skills and evaluate progress in meaningful ways. Unequivocally, teaching and learning critical thinking is hard work.

In Section 2, Fillion and Martelli (2017) analyze critical thinking in Social Studies and Philosophy

12. As critical thinking manifests uniquely in each discipline, I think it would be helpful to add subsections that map the core critical thinking competency on the curricular competencies in other required and elective areas of study. For example:

2.6 Critical Thinking in Language Arts

2.7 Critical Thinking in Mathematics

2.8 Critical Thinking in Science

2.9 Critical Thinking in Electives (e.g., Digital Media Development, Computer Studies, Computer Programming, Entrepreneurship, Media Design, etc.)

Additionally, it is important to address the problem of curriculum transfer: critical thinking skills developed in one class are situated and do not necessarily transfer to other classes or learning contexts. As the goal of the new BC curriculum is developing minds with “deeper, higher-order, transferable, and personalized learning” (p. 9), students need opportunities to practice transferring their knowledge and critical thinking skills across the curriculum. How do we best support teachers with critical thinking education that is transferable and enduring across domains  (e.g.,  in  different  classes,  grades,  and  post-secondary  education  contexts)?  What expertise do faculty members need to integrate critical thinking education into curricula?

This paper positions critical thinking as a central goal of the BC curriculum and one of its most valued outcomes, or as Murphy et al. (2009) put it “one of the most important aims of formal education is to equip students with the ability to think critically and analytically about complex topics” (p. 561). Unequivocally, critical thinking is a valued component of 21st century learning “as both an important life skill and an asset to the future workforce” (Huber & Kuncel, 2016). What remains unclear is how do teachers value critical thinking? Do teachers of critical thinking believe their efforts are worthwhile and making a difference? How do students value critical thinking? Do students personally value critical thinking or view it as a requirement of school? To what extent do students need to be motivated and engaged in order to think critically? I ask these questions because if we teach critical thinking in ways that are boring or irrelevant, then disengaged students will not put much effort into developing their critical thinking skills. We don’t want to create an education system that undermines (rather than fosters) critical thinking. We’ve certainly managed to do similar things in the past as Ken Robinson argues in his thought- provoking TED Talk (2006), “Do schools kill creativity?”

Recommendation 3 should not be taken lightly: “To form a working group studying how new classroom technologies can be used to enhance learning of critical thinking” (Fillion & Martelli, 2017, p. 18). Teaching for critical thinking using educational technology can create powerful learning experiences that motivate youth to engage with and care about critical thinking in contexts and environments they enjoy. For example, there are numerous iPad apps designed for teaching critical thinking, encouraging children to ask questions, and promoting responsible digital citizenship. Additionally, social media can be utilized for students to debate complex real- world problems with others from different classrooms, schools, or communities across the globe.

Finally, in a post-truth era of fake news, fake profiles, amateurish content, and alternative facts, teaching for critical thinking must confront the challenges of identifying credible sources of information and understanding how social media spreads content online at an unprecedented speed and scale (Fillion & Martelli, 2017, p. 18). A study by Wineburg et al. (2016) finds that students (middle school, high school, and college) have difficulty judging the trustworthiness of online information. They report that more than 80% of the 7,804 students failed some of the test cases: “Overall, young people’s ability to reason about the information of the Internet can be summed up in one word: bleak” (p. 4). Patricia Brosseau-Liard, a leading researcher on children’s understanding of knowledge, recently wrote an article that explores the origins and development of critical thinking in childhood. She reviews research that explores children’s trust of information conveyed by people as well as media (e.g., TV, tablets, smartphones, and computers) and argues “we cannot inoculate children (or anyone) against misinformation, but we can certainly give children the tools to sort out good from dubious information and well-meaning from ill- intentioned informants, and therefore help them become more savvy learners” (2017, p. 268). A salient issue that we, as post-secondary educators, must continue to address is: How do we educate and support teachers to teach critical thinking skills that will help students better understand the effect and power of the online content they consume, create, remix, and share?

References

Brosseau-Liard, P. É. (2017). The roots of critical thinking: Selective learning strategies in childhood and their implications. Canadian Psychology/Psychologie canadienne, 58(3), 263-270.

Huber, C., & Kuncel, N. (2016). Does college teach critical thinking? A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 86(2), 431-468.

Murphy, P. K., Rowe, M. L., Ramani, G., & Silverman, R. (2014). Promoting critical-analytic thinking in children and adolescents at home and in school. Educational Psychology Review, 26, 561-578.

Wineburg, S., McGrew, S. Breakstone, J., & Ortega, T. (2016). Evaluating information: The cornerstone of civic online reasoning. Stanford Digital Repository. Available at http://purl.stanford.edu/fv751yt5934

Engida Gebre, PhD, Assistant Professor in the Faculty of Education, Simon Fraser University
Comments on Fillion and Martelli’s paper on critical thinking

In their paper entitled “ Overview of Critical Thinking in the BC K-12 Curriculum Revisions: Implications for Post-Secondary Teaching and Learning", Fillion and Martelli described “Critical Thinking” (CT) as one of the major competencies in the new BC curriculum and outlined its implications for SFU. I have some questions and comments related to a) what we know about SFU’s current practices in dealing with CT, b) strategies suggested by the white paper, and c) the relevance of “context” in designing and implementing critical thinking education.

First, “What do we know about how programs, departments and faculty members at SFU are currently addressing the issue of critical thinking for their students?” Will it not be logical to assume that critical thinking is part of teaching and the curricula at various programs at SFU already. Understanding existing mechanisms of how various programs and faculty members address critical thinking can be a resource that we can build on and make a connection to what is required in the new BC curriculum. What has been described in the paper focuses on the rationale for the new BC curriculum, not much is said about what is being done at SFU already. 

Second, there is plethora of research related to domain-specific versus domain general nature of critical thinking education. Is it not important to determine which approach is the “position paper” based on?  This choice influences, if not determines, organization of resources and preparation of (pre-service and in-service) teachers to teach critical thinking in the k-12 system. For example, is the introduction of Philosophy 12 based on the idea that critical thinking skill is domain general? If so, how do we address critical thinking in various courses and disciplinary areas? Studies (e.g. Abrami et al., 2008) show the need for clear statements of CT objectives in various courses and the intentional preparation of in-service and pre-service teachers.

Third, the importance of critical thinking skills is stated as it relates to the new BC curriculum and not much is said in terms of articulating the contexts students will use these skills in real life. Will it not be helpful to articulate the importance of developing critical thinking skills as part of a holistic development of the person and their professional future? For example, arguably one of the expectations for students (and graduates) is being able to learn from resource-rich environments such as online sources, databases, organizational knowledge bases and the group/community they are working with. How does critical thinking help them in this regard and how do they develop it? I believe the notion of “context” for learning and application is missing. The paper approached the issue from policy and “administrative” perspective, not from the students’ perspective.

Finally, it is good that the position paper suggested collaboration between SFU and the MoE. It seems important to consider this issue as a design and implementation process that learns from practices and refines over time. I believe some aspects of critical thinking are being addressed at SFU and understanding this practice could be a good starting point. Programs and departments could follow that with devising strategies on how they plan to learn from and build on the new BC curriculum.

Reference

Abrami, P. C., Bernard, R. M, Borokhovski, E., Wade, A., Surkes, M. A., Tamim, R., & Zhang, D. (2008). Instructional interventions affecting critical thinking skills and dispositions: A stage 1 meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 78(4), 1102–1134

Carolyn Mamchur, Professor in the Faculty of Education, Simon Fraser University
Comments on Fillion and Martelli’s paper on critical thinking

My overall response is that the present paper is too closed in nature and not in keeping with the intention of the new curriculum being proposed by the government. I have selected to house my response by incorporating it into the responses provided so far.

I applaud Cher Hill’s response to the position paper and share her perspectives on each point. As she has covered the points in such a specific and helpful manner, I would like to respond in a more holistic manner.

Although I appreciated the careful preparation and validation of ideas presented in the position paper shared on Nov. 15th, I harbored a nagging feeling that it presented a contradictory model to the overall intention of the new curriculum. If the big idea behind the new curriculum is to be less descriptive and more enabling of skills and attitudes that are authentic and meaningful, I felt the paper tended, overall, to be too concerned with precise definition, labelling of THE set of core competences that define critical thinking. Also there were signs of mistrust of student ability to be capable of making decisions, in particular around self - assessment.

The other aspect of the paper that had me feeling uncomfortable was the discussion of the development of the more emotional/feeling aspects of critical thinking. Somehow, this part of the curriculum appeared as being “less important” partly because it was student evaluated and much more difficult to pin down and measure. It was constituted as a separate aspect of critical thinking.

In general, I felt the paper was too focused on learning about, rather than doing, too administrative and not in keeping with the impulse behind the new curriculum.

Let me offer a practical example. Instead of our coming up with the competencies of critical thinking, why not have students work through problems, situations, that require critical thinking and let them discover what competences are needed. Different cultures, different backgrounds will reveal the awareness that who we are and where we come from affects our notion of what competencies are valued. “What is a capable person?” as defined by elders in the North-West Territories a dissertation written by our EdD. Student Angela James would provide interesting precise skills and more important, the attitudes indigenous leaders value. I recommend including someone like Angela James who has so much experience in working on these issues. Such a process would enable classes to move into the beliefs, the “emotional” aspects more naturally in an integrated manner. It would demonstrate how unnatural it is to separate them. Allowing many perspectives to emerge would allow different competencies to be recognized and valued. It would be an organic process, developmental in nature, growing in sophistication and clarity throughout the year. Students would develop thinking skills by dialoguing and practicing thinking skills, by struggling with what’s important and why and for whom.

It is my experience that one doesn’t develop critical thinking skills, independence and personally authentic and meaningfully learning by studying terms, and evaluating a specific predetermined set of competencies. etc. One learns by doing. Struggling. Failing. I see the process as having more chaos. Less precision than suggested in the position paper. Cher has given many good examples of ways of thinking about the topic which encourage what I am suggesting.

Having students engage in both writing and dialogue seem natural methodologies to be included in a curriculum dedicated to teaching critical thinking skills. These are part of the government plans and provide excellent ways to integrate the entire new curricular focus.

Some of the research on self - regulation speaks to this topic in interesting ways and demonstrates how complex and sensitive such changes are, involving parents and teachers and students. “Documenting a School’s Journey in How to Learn about Self-regulation and Integration”, the dissertation by one of our EdD graduates, Andrea McComb, is an interesting description of these relationships and how they can be achieved. I would recommend this educator be included in our discussions as she has so much experience with actualizing the kind of curriculum being proposed.

Engida Gebre points out the importance of critical thinking skills as it relates to the new BC curriculum and recognizes not much is said in terms of articulating the contexts students will use these skills in real life. Will it not be helpful to articulate the importance of developing critical thinking skills as part of a holistic development of the person and their professional future? This is an approach I feel to be imperative.

Paula MacDowel brings up some important issues that could be part of a practical thinking opportunity for students to work through. For example, the ability to discern trustworthy knowledge in social media. Engida echoes this concern: “ arguably one of the expectations for students (and graduates) is being able to learn from resource-rich environments such as online sources, databases, organizational knowledge bases and the group/community they are working with. How does critical thinking help them in this regard and how do they develop it? I believe the notion of “context” for learning and application is missing. The paper approached the issue from policy and “administrative” perspective, not from the students’ perspective. This is my overall feeling and worry as well.

Paula also presents a big issue… transference. Transference has been surprisingly poor in our historic methods of teaching and learning. It would be most interesting to see if a more organic method of developing critical skill, such a I am advocating, would have transference.

Phil Winnie’s request for research would be most illuminating in a case like this. Phil’s articulation of questions which challenge some of the beliefs behind the new curriculum are very important. My worry always, when talking about research needed to validate the value of what we are doing and scientifically prove we are correct in both initial assumptions of what is needed, then in evaluating if this is the best method of doing it and finally ascertaining “does it really matter in the long run for students and for society?”

Huge questions necessitating long term studies that resist the temptation to make complex things simple in order to fine measurable answers. I am very interested in how Phil thinks we might go about with this research.