Dear Sevendy, I believe it's both a thinking problem and a language problem.  My students are not good at all at thinking, but they are quite good at memorizing and regurgitating the info.  And they think that it's fine, as long as they can pass exams.

They have a language problem, because they love to speak in the national language and do not feel the need to be good and versatile with English although at college, science students are taught and tested in English. (I attach papers that may be helpful.)

"From this study, Cooperative Learning (CL) was effective to improve student performance in Biology significantly. CL was effective to stimulate the development of higher order thinking or critical thinking through its very nature of discussing as a group that is enriched by the abilities, talents and experiences contributed by each member. Ideas are voiced out, clarified, defended, and evaluated objectively."

(And see section 4.1 of the second paper.)

Article Facilitating Cooperative Learning Among Matriculation Biology Students

Article An Experience of a Three-Year Study on the Development of Cr...

I have not published in this subject, but I have reached the conclusion that we often think about critical thinking in a wrong way.

We refer to critical thinking as an ability, but it is better to think of it as a process.  The PROCESS is to analyse a situation in terms of how it is similar to, and different from, other situations, and to reach conclusions.  

I see many academic papers that do not show much critical thinking.  I think that this is because people have never learned and practiced the process.  

I tend to agree with Michael that we do not practice CT enough. I have found that debating as a teaching strategy has helped to develop students' critical thinking and communication skills, not to mention confidence. Here's a conference paper on how it was used and a glance of the results:

Best regards,

Debra

Conference Paper Debating: A Dynamic Teaching Strategy for Motivating Student...

I think it is a thinking problem, which also affects the language problem, and reinforces the problem!

But also, as I answered in other RG threads motivation is key.

The school systems do also (in general) not reward critical thinking.

So, if there is no reward, no motivation, you enter a vicious circle and critical thinking is over...

Hello! Have a look at this book. It might be useful for you.Regards, Begoña

Critical thinking skills : developing effective analysis and argument

Cottrell, Stella.

Basingstoke, Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan, 2011.

It appears mainly as a thinking problem. But behind the question stands the old and complex problem of the relationship between language and thinking. Have a look into the work of Lev Vygotsky.

Hi Miranda, many thanks for your views and the recommended papers. Yes, I do agree that some students are generally strategic learners, for their ultimate aim is to just pass the exams, therefore memorisation and regurgitation are part of the process involved to achieve this desired goal in academic context. However, in real work environment we need those who could use their knowledge (content) to support their thinking (criterial thinking) to resolve work-based problems (problem solving).Hence, I believe, classroom practice need to employ more explicit teaching of critical thinking skills for the students to acquire the skills for their practical use.

Dear Patchamuthu,

Neuroscience is yet at the dawn of all the discoveries it has to offer.

In our brains we have several networks dedicated to different functions. Among several (15) of the stimuli reactive networks (PTN-Positive Task Network) there are 3 of them which are major. The first and biggest of all is dedicated to rational thinking (system analysing). The second one in size is dedicated to language and the third in  size to empathy or ToM (Theory of Mind), or to put it simply, the time we spend thinking about other people or what other people may be thinking about us.

Schools have thought us how to think rationally and logically and by all means that is a very good thing. As well, schools teach us how to speak. We have yet to see a school that will teach us empathy as a discipline... we know very little about empathy in the brain, and there is yet a lot to discover on how TPN are interconnected (the other 12 networks).

So, to shed some light on your question, thinking, language and empathy may be all involved in the processes of critical thinking... how they fluctuate is a complex question. However, preliminary research seems to indicate the empathic individuals tend to have better language skills, that rational individuals tend to be better at analysing and building systems and have weaker language skills.

I’m joining a toolkit that includes a panoply of activities that will promote empathy in the classroom.

And here a link to a very interesting article on critical thinking... empathy could actually be the predecessor of critical thinking.

http://www.hannaharendtcenter.org/?p=10002

I hope you can find some inspiration that will help you with your initial question.

All the best,

Pedro

It is a language, thinking and feeling problem. They are all reciprocal, interconnected, interdependent and cannot be separated.

I think it is a social norms problem. In other words there is little in the lives of most of us that requires analytical thinking or the ability to make unusual connections when examining an unusual issue; critical thinking is a combination of the two I believe.  People are rewarded for deductive processes "He/she always seems to solve problems so logically" but seldom does the same praise for looking at situations in non-deductive ways.  The latter, of course, is essential in true critical thinking processes.

I agree with some of the other responses you've gotten so far: critical thinking is something we do when we feel we need to, to meet some goal of ours. We (researchers) often fault students' critical thinking simply because they don't do what we want them to. Plenty of research suggests people can think quite well for themselves when they want to. 

Thank you, Pedro. You've simplified a complex topic, 'neuroscience' with such clarity and precision using simple language; one of the fundamental skills of critical thinking (:

Hi, Sevendy.

I'm working with a similar matter.

I'm researching how the student's level of literacy influences the learning of these students. I've written a paper about this issue and you can find it here in RG. Search in my contribution papers the one called "Observação do letramento no ensino superior". It's in Portuguese, but I think you can translate it with Google Translator.

Cheers!

Tarcisio.

Hi Samuel, I do agree some school systems do not give preference to critical thinking skills due to various reasons; politics, religion/beliefs, culture and others. However, when comes to assessments, we do award the extra marks to critical thinkers. The upper-band of most marking criteria awards marks based on candidates ability to critically analyse the topic/issue given, rather than merely reporting or just focusing on the content?

Thanks Jose.

Critical Thinking can be  interpreted from three different points of view

a) As the integration of one or more skills

b) As a mental process

c) As set of processes

I am referring to the classical papers:

Bailin, S., Case, R., Coombs, J. R., & Daniels, L. B. (1999a). Common misconceptions of critical thinking. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 31(3), 269-283.

Bailin, S., Case, R., Coombs, J. R., & Daniels, L. B. (1999b). Conceptualizing critical thinking. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 31(3), 285-302.

Brookfield, S. D. (1995). What it means to think critically. JT Wren, The leader’s companion, 379-388.

An also:

Gerras, S. J. (2007). Thinking Critically about Critical Thinking: A Fundamental Guide for Strategic Leaders. USAWC, June.

Kurfiss, J. G. (1988). Critical Thinking: Theory, Research, Practice, and Possibilities. ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report No. 2, 1988: ERIC.

This leads to consider that thinking critically is to be efficient in practicing certain mental processes. In this line the consideration of critical thinking as a holistic process is also important (Cassum et al., 2013). In my  judgment  the concept of critical thinking is vague regarding the judgments involved, the nature of the activities to be developed to reach these and how difficult it is to formulate standards that must be met (Bailin, Case, Coombs & Daniels, 1999b)

Cassum, S. H., Profetto-McGrath, J., Gul, R. B., Dilshad, A., & Syeda, K. (2013). Multidimensionality of critical thinking: A holistic perspective from multidisciplinary educators in Karachi, Pakistan. Journal of Nursing Education and Practice, 3(7), p9.

If you have not have read; I will also recommend checking out the papers of Paul and Paul & Elder

Paul, R. W. (1984). Critical Thinking: Fundamental to Education for a Free Society. Educational Leadership, 42(1), 4-14.

Paul, R., & Elder, L. (2001). The miniature guide to critical thinking: Concepts & tools (Vol. 2). Foundation Critical Thinking.

I hope I've been able to provide some assistance in this difficult subject

Thanks Sevendy,

I am not an expert in the field, and you were asking for supported references which I cannot provide.

But in my personal opinion, I can answer your comments:

I think not some but most school systems do not give preference to critical thinking skills.

Also in my opinion, extra marks to critical thinkers is not a true motivating reward, but rather a frustrating argument for the "non critical thinkers".

Notice, that as others mentioned in this thread, I think that almost everyone is capable of critical thinking in the proper contextual environment.

By rewarding extra marks to "naturally critical thinkers", we just widen the gap between them both.

I thought (form the posed question) that the idea was not merely finding the cause and reason, but finding a way to bring all students to practice critical thinking.

For me the key, again, is to provide the proper contextual environment (which may be different for different students).

When I write reward, I mean a reward motivating all students.

For instance, those ones interested in sport may get a reward of free sport activity time, when they go beyond reporting the exact content and apply critical thinking to their e.g. chemistry works.

Or in general, offer them a free wish (a limited free wish, you are not the genie of the lamp).

On the other hand, some/many tutors and profs or teachers truly would not appreciate critical thinking in their pupils, since this would require their own critical thinking to valuate and validate their pupils' arguments beyond the content.  Those teachers would consider critical thinking as "unnecessary digressions".

But again, mine is a limited experience personal opinion, without the authority of the expertise.

This may be a twisted perspective... but here it goes: critical thinking is a process that requires (involves) imagination doesn’t it? Curiously, so does empathy and creativity... the problem with critical thinking may be in the lack of empathy or creativity...could I be wrong?

Many thanks for our view and all the suggested materials, Jorge; much appreciated! I'll definitely look at them, and for Paul & Elder's work, yes, I've looked at them. One of my research aims is to define what are academic critical thinking skills in general and in specific to engineering studies (: 

Students lack basic analytical skills. These skills can be taught, but are not, it seems.  If students do not read, they will not be able to think critically. A general lack of interest in reading is a major problem. 

@ Angela: good point linking critical thinking and reading, I would even go farther, be more explicit  and make the link with neofreirean critical literacy, referring e. g. to the work of Allan Luke.

Yes, Charles, Paulo Friere is a great place to start.

Interpretation is articulated response based on wonder and reflection. Works of art (and scientific research as well) are mere things until we begin to carefully perceive and interpret them. – Then, they come alive and enliven us as we reflect on, wonder about, and respect them.

Interpretation leads to knowledge. Often, knowledge leads to valid beliefs. Beliefs don’t always lead to valid knowledge, and very often beliefs without knowledge become stereotypes.

In other words, this leads me to the belief that stereotypes are at the base of the problem with critical thinking rather than thinking or language skills.

Perhaps you should explore the connection between cultural differences, critical thinking and language

Lun, V. M.-C., Fischer, R., & Ward, C. (2010). Exploring cultural differences in critical thinking: Is it about my thinking style or the language I speak? Learning and Individual Differences, 20(6), 604-616. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2010.07.001

And also developing critical thinking should be also different, as example, teaching a foreign language for a non-native student:

Minakova, L. Y. (2014). Critical Thinking Development in Foreign Language Teaching for Non-language-majoring Students. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 154, 324-328. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.10.157

And the connection of cultural factors with critical thinking.

Manalo, E., Kusumi, T., Koyasu, M., Michita, Y., & Tanaka, Y. (2013). To what extent do culture-related factors influence university students’ critical thinking use? Thinking Skills and Creativity, 10, 121-132. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2013.08.003

Yes Jorge, I do agree. My research also seeks to find out if students previous learning experiences (which could be cultural) affect students' perceptions on critical thinking skills. Thank you very much for the recommended literature!

In 1943, following the destruction of the old Chamber of Commons by German bombs during the Second World War, the Commons debated the question of how to rebuild the chamber. With Winston Churchill's approval, they decided to retain its "adversarial" rectangular pattern rather than change it to a more congenial semi-circular (or horse-shoe) design. Churchill argued that the rectangular shape of the old Chamber was responsible for the two-party system, which he deemed of the essence of British parliamentary democracy: "We shape our buildings and afterwards our buildings shape us." Marshall McLuhan is alleged to have said something similar: "We become what we behold. We shape our tools and then our tools shape us." So, the perceived problem with critical thinking skills in academia may well be both a thinking problem and a language problem. Critical Thinking, available at http://www.adb.org/publications/critical-thinking, may be of interest.

Thanks Oliver, for the recommended article; much appreciated!

Hi Pedro, empathy involves emotions where else critical thinking shouldn't be influence by emotions and imaginations, but evidence i.e. to observe fairness in decision making - imagine if a judge observe empathy? Dewey, J. (1910) How We Think, might interest you....

Thanks Samuel, ideally we want all students to be critical thinkers, but unfortunately this is not the case, for critical thinking is a rigorous process which needs both knowledge (reading/observations) and selective thinking skills (practice) to respond to the argument/ issue at hand. Besides that, students also need to have the confidence to accept or challenge the issue. Therefore, to achieve this ss need to be internally and externally motivated and the willingness to stretch their ability which could be very demanding and frustrating, especially for non-critical thinkers as you've argued. On the basis of this, it's only sensible and fair to award the extra mark to the critical thinkers above the nons for their extra effort?

With regards to some tutors/teachers do not welcome critical thinking among students, I truly hope this is not the case, for if this happens it would be obvious that these teachers lack the critical skills, because being open (welcoming new ideas) is one of the element of critical thinking skills? Of course this group of teachers may exist and again, this might be an isolated case which could not be representative enough...

But the question is, why this disparity exist? What is stopping the students from acquiring critical thinking skills as one of the highly regarded academic skills?

Well, for me is still the issue between students/teachers, the key is not to teach, nor to study, the aim is to learn...

Most of our scholar systems (quasi up to University levels) still have legacies from the Prussian model of education (things may change with efforts and approaches like the Khan Academy, MOOCs, and the like).

Remember that the idea was that universal education would unite the national consciousness, while retaining the differences and privileges in favor of the monarchy and social hierarchy.

While the idea of literacy and the belief that all young people should receive an education was a paradigm change, the fact that it was a scholar system basically developed for the serfs is a proof of privilege preservation (e.g. the fact that there was little interaction, but a clear authority (the teacher), and a clear populace (the pupils)).

Pupils were educated to listen and do whatever teachers asked for, as a preparation for a submissive serfs based society.

The educational models shall be seriously revisited and deeply reformed in order to educate citizens for the opportunities posed by today's world.

The skills, aptitudes, and attitudes that were necessary to industrialize the Earth are not the same as those that are needed now to heal the Earth, or to build durable economies and good communities.

The goals and purposes of education shall be adapted to the times, to the postindustrial global society, the increasing social complexity and disparity.

Many aspects of the Prussian model are controversial, or lead to debates like this one, and IMHO, critical thinking was not an aim of the Prussian model of education.

Several hints may support my opinion (also shared by others):

Little to no cross-over (cross talk) among subjects and topics, definitely making difficult the link between topics and the critical thinking as an understanding beyond the matter of subject.

Split of the lectures in short times, avoiding digressions and dissertations

Some references which may be useful:

Hardtwig, W. (2004). The Prussian Academy of Sciences and Humanities During the Weimar Republic.  Minerva: A Review Of Science, Learning & Policy, 42(4), 333-357

McGee Banks, C. A. & Banks, J. A. (2014).   Equity pedagogy: An essential component of multicultural education.  Theory Into Practice, 34(3)

Olson, L. (1999). The Foundation of Universal Education. Education Week, 18(20), 29

Orr, D. (1999, May). Rethinking education. The Ecologist, 29, 232-234

Again, it is not my expertise domain, only a cultural interest, so I may be easily wrong, and would like to be corrected by higher authorities (no sarcasm here).

Dear Samuel, I completely disagree with your hopeful statement that "Khan Academy, MOOCs, and the like" would increase critical thinking amongst students. I participated in quite a few MOOC courses myself and find them the grave of not only critical thinking but creative reasoning and problem solving. If we leave the development of academic skills to MOOC-mediated forms of learning we will bury all critical thinking because these systems are based on the idea that the right answer is the answer that is system-conform. There is no alternative answer with the MOOC courses I went through and you never reach an academic authority instead talk to algorithmic question and answer machines.

Thanks Mathias,

Well hope or not (and Khan academy is different form MOOCs), my Statement was only on the differences between new approaches for an educational model no longer based upon the Prussian principles.

Yet, you are right that my comment can be understood as a big hope for MOOCs to solve the Problem.

But to be clear, I agree with you simple MOOCs based on machine answers will definitely not.

To stimulate critical thinking and thinking out of the box (creative reasoning and problem solving) the personal involvement between learners and teachers is more relevant than ever before.

Thank you for making this Point clear.