Thinking, including critical thinking, is indispensable to a person so that a person can base his or her decisions on solid reasoning and facts. Even so, to think critically requires more than just being critical; it requires skills and aptitude for applying the skills in practice. In addition, to become an advanced thinker, the skills need to be practiced, and for that classroom offers a natural venue.

Among numerous alternatives, Bloom’s taxonomy and Paul’s model provide two applicable frameworks for thinking. They can be consciously employed to practice critical thinking. The first one is a method for classifying the outcome of a thinking process. In turn, the second framework refers to a model of the elements of a thinking process.

The frameworks for thinking are examples of teachers’ tools to formulate instructional objectives involving critical thinking. With the help of these frameworks, well-designed questions and the ABCD model, a teacher can strive to ensure students engage themselves in critical thinking during lessons

Alatalo, Sari

Theseus

pdfcrowd.comTakaisin ylösePooki 14/2015Critical Thinking: From Theory to TeachingAlatalo Sari2.6.2015 ::MetatiedotNimeke: Critical Thinking: From Theory to TeachingTekijä: Alatalo SariAihe, asiasanat: koulutus, kriittinen ajattelu, oppiminen, opetus, Oulun ammattikorkeakouluAihe, luokitus:Tiivistelmä: Thinking, including critical thinking, is indispensable to a person so that a person can base his or her decisions on solid reasoning andfacts. Even so, to think critically requires more than just being critical; it requires skills and aptitude for applying the skills in practice. In addition, tobecome an advanced thinker, the skills need to be practiced, and for that classroom offers a natural venue.Among numerous alternatives, Bloom’s taxonomy and Paul’s model provide two applicable frameworks for thinking. They can be consciouslyemployed to practice critical thinking. The first one is a method for classifying the outcome of a thinking process. In turn, the second framework refersto a model of the elements of a thinking process.The frameworks for thinking are examples of teachers’ tools to formulate instructional objectives involving critical thinking. With the help of theseframeworks, well-designed questions and the ABCD model, a teacher can strive to ensure students engage themselves in critical thinking duringlessons.Julkaisija: Oulun ammattikorkeakoulu, OamkAikamääre: Julkaistu 2015-06-02Pysyvä osoite: http://urn.fi/urn:nbn:fi-fe201505279357Kieli: englantiSuhde: http://urn.fi/URN:ISSN:1798-2022, ePooki - Oulun ammattikorkeakoulun tutkimus- ja kehitystyön julkaisutOikeudet: Julkaisu on tekijänoikeussäännösten alainen. Teosta voi lukea ja tulostaa henkilökohtaista käyttöä varten. Käyttö kaupallisiin tarkoituksiinon kielletty.Näin viittaat tähän julkaisuunAlatalo, S. 2015. Critical Thinking: From Theory to Teaching. ePooki. Oulun ammattikorkeakoulun tutkimus- ja kehitystyön julkaisut 14. Hakupäivä3.6.2015. http://urn.fi/urn:nbn:fi-fe201505279357 (http://urn.fi/urn:nbn:fi-fe201505279357).We all think. It’s an essential part of us being human beings. But critical thinking – why should we be concerned with it? Don’t we haveenough people happy to criticize just about anything and everything? And how does critical thinking relate to teaching and learning?Relevant questions which will be discussed here. pdfcrowd.comGiven the opportunity to gain a deeper understanding of critical thinking (from now on referred to as CT) by the U.S. Department of State, I was happyto take on the challenge. The E-Teacher Scholarship Program provided me with an opportunity to explore the concept of CT, a couple of frameworksfor thinking, and the application of them to teaching. The process took the best part of my summer but the insights I had during the stifling summerdays – and some nights – next to compensated anything I missed out while contemplating the art of questioning, or the incorporation of CT to lessons.In the course, it became evident that rather than being about criticizing, critical thinking refers to fair-minded thinking which is aimed at reasoning atthe highest level of quality [1] (#cite-text-0-0). This fair-mindedness entails a thinking process in which the strengths and weaknesses of different points areconsidered [2] (#cite-text-0-1). Without this ability, our thinking would be biased or, possibly, downright flawed. Thus, the skill of critical thinking is of greatimportance for everyone. Effectively, there are two components to CT: skills and habit of applying the skills [3] (#cite-text-0-2).Bloom’s Taxonomy and Paul’s Model: Brief OverviewCritical thinking is about skills but the core question is which skills. To this, various scientists offer various solutions. Some of them are offered in aform of a framework for thinking. After a thorough literature research, Mosley et al. [4] (#cite-text-0-3) ended up introducing 41 frameworks of this nature.For practical reasons, it’s appropriate to focus on some of them even if it were highly beneficial to acquire some knowledge of all of them. In the E-Teacher Scholarship Program, two were selected to be more closely reviewed, namely Bloom’s revised taxonomy of educational objectives [5] (#cite-text-0-4), and Paul’s model of critical thinking. For many teachers Bloom’s revised taxonomy with its six cognitive levels from simple to more complex (see Figure 1) is somewhat well-known as ithas provided them with a tool for measuring thinking. There is also an older model of the taxonomy presented in figure 1. The taxonomy is a model ofclassifying thinking according to six cognitive levels of complexity. This taxonomy can be helpful for a teacher attempting to move students through alearning process. After all, it has been employed in the design of lesson plans to make them effective in terms of learning. [6] (#cite-text-0-5)pdfcrowd.comFIGURE 1. Six major categories in Bloom’s Taxonomy: old and revised versions [1] (#cite-text-0-0)As for Paul’s model of critical thinking, it’s possibly not as renowned as Bloom’s taxonomy but it could offer just as functional a tool as Bloom’staxonomy (see Figure 1). These two frameworks seem to take two differing approaches to thinking. Bloom’s taxonomy is about classifying the level ofthinking behavior, for example thinking can be classified as being about remembering facts or about applying these facts into practice. On the otherhand, Paul’s model illustrates the process of thinking behavior. Bloom’s taxonomy can be portrayed as a hierarchical system whereas Paul’s model can be depicted as a wheel. In this wheel the eight elements ofthought, which are present in all thinking, are placed as in Figure 2. The idea is that a thinker can move back and forth between the elements [7] (#cite-text-0-6). This is a model of a process that can be consciously employed in decision making to guide one’s thinking into a direction of CT.FIGURE 2. Elements of thought as presented by Paul & Elder [2] (#cite-text-0-1)Even though Bloom’s taxonomy and Paul’s model appear to represent different approaches to thinking, they have some features in common as bothinclude cognitive and affective aspects. The cognitive aspect is related to knowledge, and the affective aspect is concerned with attitudes, emotionsand feelings (see Table 1).TABLE 1. Cognitive and affective aspects in Bloom’s Taxonomy and Paul’s ModelAspect /Framework Bloom's Taxonomy Paul's ModelCognitivelevels of thinking [6] (#cite-text-0-5) 24 cognitive strategies (e.g. evaluating the credibility of sources ofinformation) [2] (#cite-text-0-1)Affectivefive categories: receiving, responding, valuing, organizing andcharacterizing [8] (#cite-text-0-9)nine affective strategies (e.g. developing intellectual humility andsuspending judgement) [2] (#cite-text-0-1)pdfcrowd.comIn Bloom’s taxonomy, the levels of thinking are related to the cognitive aspect. When it comes to Paul’s model, the concept of critical thinking isbroken down into a list of 24 cognitive and nine affective strategies [2] (#cite-text-0-1). These strategies seem to address the elements of thinking (seeFigure 2) from the viewpoint of action, i.e. what is to be learned or practiced, for example strategy 16 states: evaluating the credibility of source ofinformation.As for Bloom’s taxonomy [8] (#cite-text-0-9), there is an affective domain with pertinent levels of behavior, and these levels depict the way people relatethemselves to the phenomena they encounter. The levels encompass five categories starting with the simplest (receiving) and gradually movingtowards more complex (responding, valuing, organizing and characterizing) behavior. In effect, the constant effort to improve critical thinking refers toan advancement to a higher level in Bloom’s taxonomy and to a refinement of the thinking process depicted for example by Paul’s model.Some Implications of Critical Thinking for Lessons Bloom’s taxonomy and Paul’s elements of thought might suggest the frameworks being rather theoretical. The challenge here is to translate thesesomewhat academic thoughts into instructional practice. In addition to the frameworks, there are some tools to do this, though. In his book Chuska [9] (#cite-text-0-13) claims that well-designed questions will initiate higher-level thinking. He favors, for example, the idea of teachersposing students fewer, yet higher-quality questions with more than one viable answer. The aim would be to solicit higher-level thinking in forms ofstudents applying, reacting to, or reflecting on the content, or the topic of the lesson.Still another applicable tool to form instructional objectives with at least some critical thinking is the ABCD model. This model can be helpful informing well-structured objectives in classrooms. The letters in this abbreviation stand for the following elements [10] (#cite-text-0-14): A for the intended audience, i.e. students, of this particular objective, B for the new behavior or capability the audience will possess after the task, C for the conditions under which the audience is going to carry out the task, and D for the degree, i.e. the criteria against which the success of the task will be assessed. All of the elements above should be embodied in a concise description of an instructional objective for a specific lesson.In order for an objective to be a CT objective, all of the elements above should be included in a concise description of an instructional objective for aspecific lesson.The following example of an instructional objective relates to a lesson topic of work motivation and constitutes only a part of the 90-minute lesson.Albeit important, the cognitive objective is set aside for now and the focus is on the affective objective. Employing the ABCD model, an instructionalobjective could be formulated in the following way: AffectiveCondition          Audience          Behavior          DegreeDiscussing in pairs, students will be able to co-operate in order to determine the distinct features and viewpoints behind them fairly incorporating therelevant and justified ideas of participants into a joint analysis.In the example of an affective objective, the audience is the students in the class. The behavior in this case refers to the capabilities the students willpossess after the exercise, i.e. they will be able to co-operate with another person and incorporate differing ideas into one. This they will do in pairswhich is the way they work and thus constitutes the condition. Students’ success will be assessed based on whether in their analysis theydemonstrate any distinct features and viewpoints of the theories as well as both participants’ ideas to make it truly a joint analysis.To be able to analyze an objective in this way makes it a critical thinking objective. An objective of this kind can also be analyzed in terms of Bloom’staxonomy and Paul’s model. In this example, the objective targets some of Paul’s critical thinking strategies and some of the levels in Bloom’staxonomy. In this case the affective strategies targeted in this objective were S-3 Exercising Fairmindedness and S-5 Developing Intellectual Humilityand Suspending Judgement. In Bloom’s taxonomy, the affective levels targeted in this objective were responding to others’ thoughts and organizingideas.There is obviously a lot more to designing this kind of teaching.  Firstly, to relate this to the frameworks for thinking, the following factors need to bedetermined: levels of Bloom’s taxonomy and CT strategies the activity aims to target. And secondly, assessment of the activity is yet anotherdimension to be thought out prior to the lesson. References1. ^Elder, L. 2007. Our Concept of Critical Thinking (Side Bar), Foundation for Critical Thinking. Retrieved October 3, 2014. http://www.criticalthinking.org/pages/our-concept-of-critical-thinking/411 http://www.criticalthinking.org/pages/defining-critical-thinking/7662.  ^abcdPaul, R., Binker, A. J. A., Jensen, K. & Kreklau, H. 1990. Critical Thinking Handbook: 4th- 6th Grades. A Guide for Remodelling LessonPlans in Language Arts, Social Studies & Science. Rohnert Park, CA Foundation for Critical Thinking.3. ^Scriven, M. & Paul, R. 1987. Our Concept of Critical Thinking (Side Bar), Foundation for Critical Thinking. Retrieved October 3, 2014. http://www.criticalthinking.org/pages/our-concept-of-critical-thinking/411 http://www.criticalthinking.org/pages/defining-critical-thinking/766.4. ^Moseley, D., Baumfield, V., Elliot, J., Gregson, M., Higgins, S., Miller, J. & Newton, D. 2005. Frameworks for thinking: a handbook for teachingand learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.5. ^Krathwohl, D. 2002. A Revision of Bloom’s Taxonomy: An Overview. Theory into Practice 41 (4), 212–218.6.  ^abForehand, M. 2014. Bloom’s Taxonomy. Retrieved October 5, 2014. http://epltt.coe.uga.edu/index.php?title=Bloom%27s_Taxonomy7. ^The Critical Thinking Community. Elements and Standards Learning Tool. Our Concept of Critical Thinking (Side Bar), Foundation for CriticalThinking. Retrieved October 5, 2014. pdfcrowd.comhttp://www.criticalthinking.org/pages/our-concept-of-critical-thinking/411 http://www.criticalthinking.org/pages/analyzing-and-assessing-thinking-/7838.  ^abKrathwohl, D., Bloom, B. & Masia, B. 1964. Taxonomy of Educational Objectives. The Classification of Educational Goals. Handbook II:Affective Domain. New York: David McKay Company, Inc.9. ^Chuska, K. 2003. Improving Classroom Questions: A Teacher's Guide to Increasing Student Motivation, Participation, and Higher-levelThinking. Indiana: Bloomington.10. ^Smaldino, S., Russell, J., Heinich, R. & Molenda, M. 2005. Instructional Technology and Media for Learning. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey:Pearson Education Inc.Kuvalähteet1. ^Forehand, M. 2014. Bloom’s Taxonomy. Retrieved October 5, 2014. http://epltt.coe.uga.edu/index.php?title=Bloom%27s_Taxonomy2. ^Paul, R. & Elder, L. 2012. Critical Thinking. Tools for taking charge of your learning and your life. Boston, MA: Pearson Education Inc.

Critical Thinking: From Theory to Teaching

http://www.theseus.fi/bitstream/10024/95385/1/www_oamk_fi_epooki_14_2015.pdf

Critical Thinking: From Theory to Teaching

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Theseus