Blog - by Linda Elder with Richard Paul Archives

{"ops":[{"insert":"A review of "},{"attributes":{"italic":true},"insert":"Critical Thinking and Education"},{"insert":" by John E. McPeck. Martin Robinson, Oxford, 1981.\n"},{"attributes":{"italic":true,"bold":true},"insert":" "},{"insert":"\n"},{"attributes":{"italic":true,"bold":true},"insert":"Abstract"},{"insert":"\nIn this paper, Richard Paul rejects John McPeck's claim in "},{"attributes":{"italic":true},"insert":"Critical Thinking and Education"},{"insert":" that, since no one can think without thinking about something, critical thinking is nothing more than a conglomeration of subject-specific skills and insights. Paul rejects, in other words, McPeck's view that there are no general critical thinking skills. Paul's argument rests on the fact that most significant and problematic issues require dialectical thought which crosses and goes beyond any one discipline; that many interpretations and uses of discipline-specific information and procedures in exploring real-life issues are inevitably multi-logical.\n \n"},{"attributes":{"italic":true,"bold":true},"insert":"Review"},{"insert":"\nMost educational commentators and the general public seem to agree on at least one thing: the schools are in "},{"attributes":{"italic":true},"insert":"deep "},{"insert":"trouble. Many graduates, at all levels, lack the abilities to read, write, and think with a minimal level of clarity, coherence, and critical or analytic exactitude. Most commentators also agree that a significant part of the problem is a pedagogical diet excessively rich in memorization and superficial rote performance, and insufficiently rich in, if not devoid of, autonomous critical thought. This complaint is not entirely new in North American education, but the degree of concern and the quiet but growing revolution represented by those attempting to address that concern is worthy of note. (A recent ERIC computer search identified 1,849 articles in the last seven years with "},{"attributes":{"italic":true},"insert":"critical thinking "},{"insert":"as a major descriptor.[i])\n \nThe roots of this multi-faceted movement can be traced back in a number of directions, but one of the deepest and most important goes back as far as Ed Glaser's "},{"attributes":{"italic":true},"insert":"An Experiment in the Development of Critical Thinking "},{"insert":"(1941) (and his establishing with Watson the Watson-Glaser Critical Thinking Appraisal) and Max Black's "},{"attributes":{"italic":true},"insert":"Critical Thinking "},{"insert":"(1946). The manner in which this root of the movement has, after a halting start, progressively built up a head of steam, has been partially chronicled by Johnson and Blair.[ii] It is now firmly established at the college and university level affecting there an increasing number of courses that focus on \"Critical Thinking\" or \"Informal Logic,\" courses designed to provide the kind of shot-in-the-arm for critical thinking that general composition courses are expected to provide for writing.[iii] The influence of this current in the movement is being increasingly felt at lower levels of education but in a more variable, if somewhat less effective way.\n \nEnter John McPeck with his book "},{"attributes":{"italic":true},"insert":"Critical Thinking and Education "},{"insert":"which promises us (on its dust jacket) \"a timely critique of the major work in the field,\" \"rigorous ideas on the proper place of critical thinking in the philosophy of education,\" \"a thorough analysis of what the concept is,\" as well as \"a sound basis on which the role of critical thinking in the schools can be evaluated.\" The book is important not only because it is the first to attempt a characterization of the recent critical thinking movement, but more so because the foundational mistakes it makes are uniquely instructive, mistakes so eminently reflective of \"the spirit of the age\" they are likely to show up in many more places than this book alone. Unfortunately, because of serious flaws in its theoretical underpinnings, the book doubtless will lead some of McPeck's readers down a variety of blind alleys, create unnecessary obstacles to some important programs being developed, and encourage some – not many, I hope – to dismiss the work of some central figures in the field (Scriven, D'Angelo, and Ennis most obviously). At the root of the problem is McPeck's (unwitting?) commitment to a rarefied form of logical (epistemological) atomism, a commitment which is essential if he is to rule out, as he passionately wants to, "},{"attributes":{"italic":true},"insert":"all general skills of thought "},{"insert":"and so to give himself "},{"attributes":{"italic":true},"insert":"a priori"},{"insert":" grounds to oppose all programs that try to develop or enhance such skills.\n\n[i] In addition, there is a growing number of national and international conferences on the subject, for example, the "},{"attributes":{"italic":true},"insert":"First "},{"insert":"and "},{"attributes":{"italic":true},"insert":"Second International Symposium on Informal"},{"insert":" "},{"attributes":{"italic":true},"insert":"logic, "},{"insert":"the "},{"attributes":{"italic":true},"insert":"First "},{"insert":"and "},{"attributes":{"italic":true},"insert":"Second National Conference on Critical Thinking, Moral Education,"},{"insert":" "},{"attributes":{"italic":true},"insert":"and Rationality, "},{"insert":"and the "},{"attributes":{"italic":true},"insert":"First International Conference on Critical Thinking,"},{"insert":" "},{"attributes":{"italic":true},"insert":"Education, and the Rational Person."},{"insert":"\n\n[ii] Blair and Johnson, eds., "},{"attributes":{"italic":true},"insert":"Informal Logic, The Proceedings of the First International"},{"insert":"\n"},{"attributes":{"italic":true},"insert":"Conference on lnformal logic, "},{"insert":"Pt. Reyes, CA: Edgepress, 1980.\n\n[iii] Such a course is now a graduation requirement for all California State College and\nUniversity system students, as well as for the California Community College system.\n"}]}

{"ops":[{"insert":"It is not enough to recognize abstractly that your mind has predictable pathologies. You must take concrete steps to correct them. This requires you to develop the habit of identifying these tendencies in action, which occurs only over time and with deliberate practice. Described below are several frequent manifestations of egocentricity as well as methods to help uncover and address them.\n \n"},{"attributes":{"bold":true},"insert":"Correcting egocentric memory. "},{"insert":"You can correct your natural tendency to “forget” evidence and information that do not support your thinking and to “remember” evidence and information that do, by overtly seeking opposing evidence and information and directing explicit attention to them. What information about yourself would you rather not know? What such information are hiding from yourself?\n \n"},{"attributes":{"bold":true},"insert":"Correcting egocentric myopia. "},{"insert":"You can correct your natural tendency to think in an overly-narrow point of view by routinely thinking within points of view that conflict with your own. Are you reading, in good faith, works of significant writers who offer studied and important views in opposition to yours? Are you able and willing to place yourself within the thinking and feelings of others and imagine how their perceptions may differ from yours?\n \n"},{"attributes":{"bold":true},"insert":"Correcting egocentric righteousness. "},{"insert":"You can correct your natural tendency to feel superior in light of your confidence that you possess “the truth” by regularly reminding yourself of how little you actually know. For example, you can explicitly state the unanswered questions that surround whatever knowledge you may have in a given area. Do you frequently act and feel as if you know the answer to nearly everything? Do you often make assertions when you lack the facts to support your views, and when you haven’t done the necessary reasoning to hold those views with confidence? Do you routinely overgeneralize?\n \n"},{"attributes":{"bold":true},"insert":"Correcting egocentric hypocrisy. "},{"insert":"You can correct your natural tendency to ignore flagrant inconsistencies between what you profess to believe and the actual beliefs implied by your behavior, and to ignore inconsistencies between the standards to which you hold yourself and those to which you hold others. You can do this by regularly comparing the criteria and standards by which you judge others with those by which you judge yourself. Do you often say one thing and do its opposite? Do you tell your children to act in one way while you act in a contrary manner? Do you expect more from others than you do from yourself?\n \n"},{"attributes":{"bold":true},"insert":"Internalize the Idea: Challenging Your Egocentric Dispositions"},{"insert":"\n \nRead through the aforementioned pathological dispositions and ways to correct them, then complete these statements:\n \nAfter reading these dispositions, I see that the following are especially a problem for me… "},{"attributes":{"list":"ordered"},"insert":"\n"},{"insert":"I intend to correct these pathologies in the following ways…"},{"attributes":{"list":"ordered"},"insert":"\n"},{"insert":" \n--------------------------\nThis blog is adapted from pages 133-135 in Linda Elder’s "},{"attributes":{"italic":true},"insert":"Critical Thinking Therapy: For Happiness & Self-Actualization"},{"insert":" (2025), available through the Foundation for Critical Thinking Press at "},{"attributes":{"bold":true,"link":"https://www.fctpress.org/"},"insert":"FCTPress.org"},{"insert":".\n"}]}

{"ops":[{"attributes":{"bold":true},"insert":"[Missed Part 17? "},{"attributes":{"bold":true,"link":"https://community.criticalthinking.org/blogPost.php?param=270"},"insert":"Read It Here"},{"attributes":{"bold":true},"insert":"]"},{"insert":"\n \n"},{"attributes":{"italic":true,"bold":true},"insert":"Summary and Conclusion [2 of 2]"},{"insert":"\n"},{"attributes":{"italic":true,"bold":true},"insert":" "},{"insert":"\nWhat stands in the way of successful teaching for thinking in most classrooms is not as much the absence of technical, empirical information about mental skills and processes, as a lack of experience of and commitment to teaching philosophically. As"},{"attributes":{"italic":true},"insert":" "},{"insert":"students, most teachers, after all, were not themselves routinely encouraged to think for themselves. They were not exposed to teachers who stimulated them to inquire into the roots of their own ideas or to engage in extended dialogical and dialectical exchange. They have had little experience in Socratic questioning, in taking an idea to its roots, in pursuing its ramifications across domains and subject areas, in relating it critically to their own experience, or in honestly assessing it from other perspectives.\n \nTo appreciate the power and usefulness of a philosophy-based approach, one must understand not only the general case that can be made for it but also how it translates into specific classroom practices. One will achieve this understanding only if one learns how to step outside the framework of assumptions of cognitive psychology and consider thinking, thinking about thinking, and teaching for thinking from a different and fresh perspective. If we look at thinking only from the perspective of cognitive psychology, we will likely fall into the trap which Gerald W. Bracey (1987) recently characterized as,\n \n. . . the long and unhappy tendency of American psychology to break learning into discrete pieces and then treat the pieces in isolation. From James Mill's \"mental mechanics,\" through Edward Titchener's structuralism, to behavioral objectives and some \"componential analysis\" in current psychology, U.S. educators have acted as if the whole were never more than the sum of its parts, as if a house were no more than the nails and lumber and glass that went into it, as if education were no more than the average number of discrete objectives mastered. We readily see that this is ridiculous in the case of a house, but we seem less able to recognize its absurdity in the case of education. (p. 684)"},{"attributes":{"indent":1},"insert":"\n"},{"insert":" \nIn thinking, if nowhere else, the whole is greater than the sum of its parts, and cannot be understood merely by examining its psychological leaves, branches, or trunk. We must also dig up its philosophical roots and study its seed ideas as ideas: the \"stuff\" that determines the very nature of thought itself.\n \n"},{"attributes":{"italic":true,"bold":true},"insert":"References"},{"insert":"\n"},{"attributes":{"italic":true,"bold":true},"insert":" "},{"insert":"\nBracey, Gerald W. \"Measurement-Driven Instruction: Catchy Phrase, Dangerous Practice.\"\n"},{"attributes":{"italic":true},"insert":"Phi Delta Kappan. "},{"insert":"May, 1987. pp. 683-688.\n \nPaul, Richard W., Binker, A. J. A., & Charbonneau, Marla. "},{"attributes":{"italic":true},"insert":"Critical Thinking Handbook:"},{"insert":"\n"},{"attributes":{"italic":true},"insert":"K-3, A Guide for Remodelling Lesson Plans in Language Arts, Social Studies, and Science."},{"insert":"\nRohnert Park, California: Center for Critical Thinking and Moral Critique. 1987.\n \nPaul, Richard W., Binker, A. J. A., Jensen, Karen, & Kreklau, Hiedi. "},{"attributes":{"italic":true},"insert":"Critical Thinking"},{"insert":"\n"},{"attributes":{"italic":true},"insert":"Handbook: 4th-6th Grades, a Guide for Remodelling Lesson Plans in Language Arts, Social Studies, and Science"},{"insert":". Rohnert Park, California: Center for Critical Thinking\nand Moral Critique. 1987.\n"},{"attributes":{"italic":true},"insert":" "},{"insert":"\nPerkins, David. \"Reasoning as it Is and Could Be: An Empirical Perspective.\" Paper\ngiven at"},{"attributes":{"italic":true},"insert":" American Educational Research Association "},{"insert":"Conference, San Francisco.\nApril,"},{"attributes":{"bold":true},"insert":" "},{"insert":"1986.\n"}]}

{"ops":[{"insert":"Be consistent in your application of intellectual standards, whether you are considering others’ thinking or your own. Hold yourself to the same standards of evidence and rationality as you hold others – especially those with whom you disagree. Acknowledge inconsistencies and other shortcomings in your own reasoning and behaviors.\n \nAct towards others in the ways that you want them to act towards you. Respect others in the same ways that you want to be respected; do not expect others to act better than you are willing to act. Consider the wellbeing of others in the same way you want your own wellbeing considered.\n"},{"attributes":{"italic":true,"bold":true},"insert":" "},{"insert":"\n"},{"attributes":{"italic":true,"bold":true},"insert":"Intellectual integrity "},{"insert":"consists in holding yourself to the same standards you expect others to honor. It entails the avoidance of double standards. Questions that foster intellectual integrity (and help ward off its opposite, intellectual hypocrisy) include:\n \nDo I behave in accordance with what I say I believe, or do I tend to say one thing and do another?"},{"attributes":{"list":"bullet"},"insert":"\n"},{"insert":"To what extent do I expect the same of myself as I expect of others?"},{"attributes":{"list":"bullet"},"insert":"\n"},{"insert":"To what extent are there contradictions or inconsistencies in my life?"},{"attributes":{"list":"bullet"},"insert":"\n"},{"insert":"To what extent do I strive to recognize and eliminate self-deception in my life?"},{"attributes":{"list":"bullet"},"insert":"\n"},{"insert":" \n"},{"attributes":{"bold":true},"insert":"Internalize the Idea: Intellectual Integrity"},{"insert":"\n \nWrite about a dimension of your life that you suspect holds some inconsistencies or contradictions, where you probably are not holding yourself to the same standards to which you hold others. Think of a situation where your behavior contradicts what you say you believe. This might be in your relationship with a colleague or spouse, for example. Explain what inconsistencies may be present in your thinking and behavior; for instance, you may criticize (outwardly or in the privacy of your mind) your coworker for doing something that you yourself sometimes do, while also creating justifications for your engagement in such behavior that you do not extend to your colleague’s.\n \n--------------------------\nThis blog is adapted from pages 166, 167, and 172 in Linda Elder’s "},{"attributes":{"italic":true},"insert":"Critical Thinking Therapy: For Happiness & Self-Actualization"},{"insert":" (2025), available through the Foundation for Critical Thinking Press at "},{"attributes":{"bold":true,"link":"https://www.fctpress.org/"},"insert":"FCTPress.org"},{"insert":".\n"}]}

{"ops":[{"attributes":{"bold":true},"insert":"[Missed Part 16? "},{"attributes":{"bold":true,"link":"https://community.criticalthinking.org/blogPost.php?param=268"},"insert":"Read It Here"},{"attributes":{"bold":true},"insert":"]"},{"insert":"\n \n"},{"attributes":{"italic":true,"bold":true},"insert":"Summary and Conclusion [1 of 2]"},{"insert":"\n"},{"attributes":{"italic":true,"bold":true},"insert":" "},{"insert":"\nA strong case can be made for a philosophically-based approach to thinking and teaching for thinking. Such an approach differs fundamentally from most cognitive psychology-based approaches. Philosophy-based approaches reflect the historic emphases of philosophy as a field, as a mode of thinking, and as a framework for thinking. The field is historically committed to specific intellectual and moral ideals, and presupposes people's capacity to live reflective lives and achieve an understanding of and command over the most basic ideas that rule their lives. To achieve this command, people must critically examine the ideas on which they act and replace those ideas when, in their own best judgment, they can no longer rationally assent to them. Such an ideal of freedom of thought and action requires that individuals have a range of intellectual standards by which they can assess thought. These standards, implicit in the critical-analytic terms that exist in every natural language, must be applied in a certain spirit – a spirit of intellectual humility, empathy, and fairmindedness. To develop insight into proper intellectual judgment, one must engage in and become comfortable with dialogical and dialectical thinking. Such thinking is naturally stimulated when one asks basic questions, inquires into root ideas, and invites and honestly considers a variety of responses. It is further stimulated when one self-reflects. The reflective mind naturally moves back and forth between a variety of considerations and sources. The reflective mind eventually learns how to inwardly generate alternative points of view and lines of reasoning, even when others are not present to express them.\n \nA teacher who teaches philosophically brings these ideals and practices into the classroom whatever the subject matter, for all subject matter is grounded in ideas which must be understood and related to ideas pre-existing in the students' minds. The philosophically-oriented teacher wants all content to be critically and analytically processed by all students in such a way that they can integrate it into their own thinking, rejecting, accepting, or qualifying it in keeping with their honest assessment. All content provides grist for the philosophical mill, an opportunity for students to think further, to build upon their previous thought. The philosophically oriented teacher is careful not to require the students to take in more than they can intellectually digest. The philosophically oriented teacher is keenly sensitive to the ease with which minds become passive and submissive. The philosophically oriented teacher is more concerned with the global state of students' minds (are they developing their own thinking, points of view, intellectual standards and traits, etc.) than with the state of the students' minds within a narrowly defined subject competence. Hence it is much more important to such a teacher that students learn how to think historically (how to look at their own lives and experience and the lives and experiences of others from a historical vantage point) than that they learn how to recite information from a history text. History books are read as aids to historical thought, not as ends-in-themselves.\n \nThe philosophically oriented teacher continually looks for deeply rooted understanding and encourages the impulse to look more deeply into things. Hence, the philosophically oriented teacher is much more impressed with how little we as humans know than with how much information we have collected. They are much more apt to encourage students to believe that they, as a result of their own thinking, may design better answers to life's problems than have yet been devised, than they are to encourage students to submissively accept established answers.\n"}]}

{"ops":[{"insert":"Our best chance to create a just and reasonable world comes by way of our strongest possible reasoning. We need to resolve disagreements by looking at the facts available, and by following them out to the most defensible conclusions that we can reach. To do this, we must use universal intellectual standards. For example, we should use information that is accurate and relevant to the problem or question at hand; look for the complexities in deep issues, then discuss them with sufficient breadth and precision; avoid superficial answers to complicated problems, which almost never work well; ponder important questions and problems from different points of view; examine the implications of our conclusions for fairness; and distrust blind faith and empty appeals to emotion.\n \n"},{"attributes":{"italic":true,"bold":true},"insert":"Confidence in reason "},{"insert":"is based on the belief that one’s own higher interests and those of other sentient creatures (human and otherwise) are best served by giving the freest play to quality reasoning. It means using standards of reasonability as the fundamental criteria by which to judge whether to accept or reject any belief or position. Questions that foster confidence in reason include:\n\nAm I willing to change my position when the evidence leads to a more reasonable one?"},{"attributes":{"list":"bullet"},"insert":"\n"},{"insert":"Do I adhere to principles of sound reasoning when persuading others, or do I distort matters to support my position?"},{"attributes":{"list":"bullet"},"insert":"\n"},{"insert":"Do I deem it more important to “win” an argument, or do I instead see the issue from the most reasonable perspective?"},{"attributes":{"list":"bullet"},"insert":"\n"},{"insert":"Do I encourage others to come to their own conclusions, or do I try to force my views on them?"},{"attributes":{"list":"bullet"},"insert":"\n"},{"insert":"\n\n"},{"attributes":{"bold":true},"insert":"Internalize the Idea: Confidence in Reason"},{"insert":"\n \nThink of a recent situation in which you felt yourself being defensive and were unable to listen to an argument you disagreed with, even though the argument had merit. At the time, you apparently could not be moved by good reasons. (Realize that this happens to everyone, and perhaps often.) Briefly write what happened in the situation. Then, write the reasonable arguments against your position that you were unwilling to listen to. Why weren’t you able to credit the other person’s argument? Complete these statements:\n \nThe situation was as follows…"},{"attributes":{"list":"ordered"},"insert":"\n"},{"insert":"The argument I did not want to hear was as follows…"},{"attributes":{"list":"ordered"},"insert":"\n"},{"insert":"I did not want to hear this argument because…"},{"attributes":{"list":"ordered"},"insert":"\n"},{"insert":"In future similar situations, to be more open to good reasoning as a guiding force in my life, I intend to…"},{"attributes":{"list":"ordered"},"insert":"\n"},{"insert":" \n--------------------------\nThis blog is adapted from pages 169-170 and 173 in Linda Elder’s "},{"attributes":{"italic":true},"insert":"Critical Thinking Therapy: For Happiness & Self-Actualization"},{"insert":" (2025), available through the Foundation for Critical Thinking Press at "},{"attributes":{"bold":true,"link":"https://www.fctpress.org/"},"insert":"FCTPress.org"},{"insert":".\n"}]}

{"ops":[{"attributes":{"bold":true},"insert":"[Missed Part 15? "},{"attributes":{"bold":true,"link":"https://community.criticalthinking.org/blogPost.php?param=266"},"insert":"Read It Here"},{"attributes":{"bold":true},"insert":"]"},{"insert":"\n"},{"attributes":{"bold":true},"insert":" "},{"insert":"\nWe provide a “before” and “after” (the lesson plan before remodelling and after remodelling); a critique of the unremodelled lesson plan to clarify how the remodel was achieved; a list of specific objectives; and the particular strategies used in the remodel. Here is one such example:\n \n"},{"attributes":{"italic":true,"size":"large","bold":true},"insert":"Two Ways to Win"},{"attributes":{"align":"center"},"insert":"\n"},{"insert":" "},{"attributes":{"align":"center"},"insert":"\n"},{"insert":"(Language Arts - 2nd Grade)\n \n"},{"attributes":{"italic":true,"bold":true},"insert":"Objectives of the Remodelled Lesson"},{"insert":"\n"},{"attributes":{"italic":true},"insert":" "},{"insert":"\nThe student will:\nuse analytic terms such as assume, infer, and imply to analyze and assess story characters' reasoning"},{"attributes":{"list":"bullet"},"insert":"\n"},{"insert":"make inferences from story details"},{"attributes":{"list":"bullet"},"insert":"\n"},{"insert":"clarify “good sport” by contrasting it with its opposite, “bad sport,” and exploring its implications"},{"attributes":{"list":"bullet"},"insert":"\n"},{"insert":" \n"},{"attributes":{"italic":true,"bold":true},"insert":"Original Lesson Plan"},{"insert":"\n \n"},{"attributes":{"italic":true},"insert":"Abstract"},{"insert":"\nStudents read a story about a brother and sister named Cleo and Toby. Cleo and Toby are new in town and worried about making new friends. They ice skate at the park every day after school, believing that winning an upcoming race can help them make new friends (and that they won't make friends if they don't win). Neither of them wins; Cleo, because she falls, Toby, because he forfeits his chance to win by stopping to help a boy who falls. Some children come over after the race to compliment Toby on his good sportsmanship and Cleo on her skating.\n \nMost of the questions about the story probe the factual components. Some require students to infer. Questions ask what “good sport” means and if Cleo's belief about meeting people is correct.\n \nfrom "},{"attributes":{"italic":true},"insert":"Mustard Seed Magic,"},{"attributes":{"align":"right"},"insert":"\n"},{"insert":"Theodore L. Harris et al."},{"attributes":{"align":"right"},"insert":"\n"},{"insert":"Economy Company. © 1972. pp. 42~46"},{"attributes":{"align":"right"},"insert":"\n"},{"insert":" \n"},{"attributes":{"italic":true,"bold":true},"insert":"Critique"},{"insert":"\n"},{"attributes":{"italic":true,"bold":true},"insert":" "},{"insert":"\nThe original lesson has several good questions which require students to make inferences, for example, \"Have Toby and Cleo lived on the block all their lives?\" The text also asks students if they know who won the race. Since they do not, this question encourages students to suspend judgment. Although “good sportsmanship” is a good concept for students to discuss and clarify, the text fails to have students practice techniques for clarifying it in sufficient depth. Instead, students merely list the characteristics of a good sport (a central idea in the story) with no discussion of what it means to be a bad sport or sufficient assessment of specific examples. The use of opposite cases to clarify concepts helps students develop fuller and more accurate concepts. With such practice a student can begin to recognize borderline cases as well where someone was a good sport in some respects, bad in others, or not clearly either. This puts students in a position to develop criteria for judging behavior.\n \n"},{"attributes":{"italic":true},"insert":"Strategies used to remodel"},{"insert":"\n"},{"attributes":{"italic":true,"bold":true},"insert":"S-10 "},{"insert":"clarifying the meanings of words or phrases\n"},{"attributes":{"italic":true,"bold":true},"insert":"S-28 "},{"insert":"supplying evidence for a conclusion\n"},{"attributes":{"italic":true,"bold":true},"insert":"S-23 "},{"insert":"using critical vocabulary\n"},{"attributes":{"italic":true,"bold":true},"insert":"S-25 "},{"insert":"examining assumptions\n \n"},{"attributes":{"italic":true,"bold":true},"insert":"Remodelled Lesson Plan"},{"insert":"\n"},{"attributes":{"italic":true,"bold":true},"insert":" "},{"insert":"\nWhere the original lesson asks, \"What does 'a good sport' mean?\" we suggest an extension. "},{"attributes":{"italic":true,"bold":true},"insert":"S-10 "},{"insert":"The teacher should make two lists on the board of the students' responses to the question \"How do good sports and bad sports behave?\" Students could go back over the story and apply the ideas on the list to the characters in the story, giving reasons to support any claims they make regarding the characters' sportsmanship. "},{"attributes":{"italic":true,"bold":true},"insert":"S-28 "},{"insert":"In some cases there might not be enough information to determine whether a particular character is a good or bad sport. Or they might find a character who is borderline, having some characteristics of both good and bad sports. Again, students should cite evidence from the story to support their claims.\n \nThe students could also change details of the story to make further points about the nature of good and bad sportsmanship. (If the girl had pushed Cleo down to win the race, that would have been very bad sportsmanship.) To further probe the concept of good sportsmanship, ask questions like the following: How did Toby impress the other children? Why did they think he did a good thing? If you had seen the race, what would you have thought of Toby? Why do we value the kind of behavior we call “good sportsmanship”? Why don't we like bad sportsmanship? Why are people ever bad sports? "},{"attributes":{"italic":true,"bold":true},"insert":"S-10"},{"insert":"\n \nThere are a number of places in the lesson where the teacher could introduce or give students further practice using critical thinking vocabulary. Here are a few examples: \"What can you "},{"attributes":{"italic":true},"insert":"infer "},{"insert":"from the story title and picture? What parts of the story "},{"attributes":{"italic":true},"insert":"imply "},{"insert":"that Toby and Cleo will have some competition in the race? What do Toby and Cleo "},{"attributes":{"italic":true},"insert":"assume "},{"insert":"about meeting new people and making new friends? Is this a good or a bad "},{"attributes":{"italic":true},"insert":"assumption? "},{"insert":"Why? Why do you think they made this assumption? Have you ever made similar assumptions? Why? "},{"attributes":{"italic":true,"bold":true},"insert":"S-25"},{"insert":" What can you infer that Cleo felt at the end of the story? How can you tell?\" "},{"attributes":{"italic":true,"bold":true},"insert":"S-23"},{"insert":"\n"},{"attributes":{"italic":true,"bold":true},"insert":" "},{"insert":"\nOnly after close examination of specific classroom materials and teaching strategies, can teachers begin to understand how to translate philosophically-based approaches into classroom practice. This requires long-term staff development with ample provision for peer collaboration and demonstration teaching. Only then can one reasonably assess the value and power of a philosophical approach.\n"}]}

{"ops":[{"insert":"Strive to understand the reasoning of others, what desires most likely drive this reasoning, and what emotions most likely accompany it. During disagreements, try to see things from the other person’s point of view – it is common for people to declare disagreement without actually understanding the thinking that they are positioning themselves against. When considering things from other people’s viewpoints, you will often find accuracies and inaccuracies on the part of every involved party (yourself included), as well as instances of better and worse reasoning. Being able and willing to reconstruct, as accurately as possible, how others think and feel is very important, both for functional interpersonal relationships and for your own development and wellbeing.\n"},{"attributes":{"italic":true,"bold":true},"insert":" "},{"insert":"\n"},{"attributes":{"italic":true,"bold":true},"insert":"Intellectual empathy "},{"insert":"is awareness of the need to actively entertain views that differ from your own, especially those you strongly disagree with. It is to accurately reconstruct the viewpoints and reasoning of your opponents and to reason from premises, assumptions, and ideas other than your own. Questions that foster intellectual empathy include:\n\nTo what extent do I accurately represent viewpoints I disagree with?"},{"attributes":{"list":"bullet"},"insert":"\n"},{"insert":"Can I summarize the views of my opponents to their satisfaction? Can I see insights in the views of others and prejudices in my own?"},{"attributes":{"list":"bullet"},"insert":"\n"},{"insert":"Do I sympathize with the feelings of others in light of their thinking differently than me?"},{"attributes":{"list":"bullet"},"insert":"\n"},{"insert":"\n"},{"attributes":{"bold":true},"insert":"Internalize the Idea: Intellectual Empathy"},{"insert":"\n \nTry to reconstruct the last argument you had with someone (a supervisor, colleague, friend, romantic partner, etc.) Reconstruct the argument from your perspective and that of the other person. Complete the statements below. As you do, watch that you do not distort the other’s viewpoint; try to enter it in good faith, even if it means you must admit you were wrong. (Remember that healthy thinkers want to see the truth in the situation.) After you have completed this activity, show it to the person you argued with to see if you have accurately represented that person’s view.\n\nMy perspective was as follows (state and elaborate your view): "},{"attributes":{"list":"ordered"},"insert":"\n"},{"insert":"The other person’s view was as follows (state and elaborate the other person’s view):"},{"attributes":{"list":"ordered"},"insert":"\n"},{"insert":" \n--------------------------\nThis blog is adapted from pages 168 and 172 in Linda Elder’s "},{"attributes":{"italic":true},"insert":"Critical Thinking Therapy: For Happiness & Self-Actualization"},{"insert":" (2025), available through Foundation for Critical Thinking Press at "},{"attributes":{"bold":true,"link":"https://www.fctpress.org/"},"insert":"FCTPress.org"},{"insert":".\n"}]}

{"ops":[{"attributes":{"bold":true},"insert":"[Missed Part 14? "},{"attributes":{"bold":true,"link":"https://community.criticalthinking.org/blogPost.php?param=264"},"insert":"Read It Here"},{"attributes":{"bold":true},"insert":"]"},{"insert":"\n"},{"attributes":{"bold":true},"insert":" "},{"insert":"\nTeachers need to move progressively from a didactic to a critical model of teaching. In this process, many old assumptions will have to be abandoned and new ones taken to heart as the basis for teaching and learning. This shift can be spelled out systematically as follows.\n\n"},{"attributes":{"link":"https://community.criticalthinking.org/viewDocument.php?doc=../content/library_for_everyone/119/Chapter35-TheContributionofPhilosophytoThinking.pdf&page=25"},"insert":"Evolution of Assumptions from Didactic to Critical Theory, Page 1"},{"insert":" "},{"attributes":{"list":"ordered"},"insert":"\n"},{"attributes":{"link":"https://community.criticalthinking.org/viewDocument.php?doc=../content/library_for_everyone/119/Chapter35-TheContributionofPhilosophytoThinking.pdf&page=26"},"insert":"Evolution of Assumptions from Didactic to Critical Theory, Page 2"},{"insert":" "},{"attributes":{"list":"ordered"},"insert":"\n"},{"attributes":{"link":"https://community.criticalthinking.org/viewDocument.php?doc=../content/library_for_everyone/119/Chapter35-TheContributionofPhilosophytoThinking.pdf&page=27"},"insert":"Evolution of Assumptions from Didactic to Critical Theory, Page 3"},{"insert":" "},{"attributes":{"list":"ordered"},"insert":"\n"},{"attributes":{"link":"https://community.criticalthinking.org/viewDocument.php?doc=../content/library_for_everyone/119/Chapter35-TheContributionofPhilosophytoThinking.pdf&page=28"},"insert":"Evolution of Assumptions from Didactic to Critical Theory, Page 4"},{"attributes":{"list":"ordered"},"insert":"\n"},{"insert":" \n"},{"attributes":{"italic":true,"bold":true},"insert":"Bringing a Philosophical Approach into the Classroom"},{"insert":"\n \nUnfortunately, a general case for the contribution of philosophy to thinking and to teaching for thinking, such as this one, must of necessity lack a good deal of the concrete detail regarding how one would, as a practical matter, translate the generalities discussed here into action in the classroom or in everyday thinking. There are two basic needs. The first is an ample supply of concrete models that bridge the gap between theory and practice. These models should come in a variety of forms: video tapes, curriculum materials, handbooks, etc. Second, most teachers need opportunities to work on their own philosophical thinking skills and insights. These two needs are best met in conjunction with each other. It is important for the reader to review particular philosophy-based strategies in detail.\n \nThe most extensive program available is "},{"attributes":{"italic":true},"insert":"Philosophy for Children"},{"insert":", developed by Matthew Lipman in association with the "},{"attributes":{"italic":true},"insert":"Institute for the Advancement of Philosophy for Children"},{"insert":". It is based on the notion that philosophy ought to be brought into schools as a separate subject, and philosophical reflection and ideas used directly as an occasion for teaching thinking skills. The program introduces philosophy in the form of children's novels. Extensive teachers' handbooks are provided and a thorough inservice required to ensure that teachers develop the necessary skills and insights to encourage classroom discussion of root ideas in such a way that students achieve philosophical insights and reasoning skills. In a year-long experiment conducted by the "},{"attributes":{"italic":true},"insert":"Educational Testing Service"},{"insert":", significant improvements were recorded in reading, mathematics, and reasoning. "},{"attributes":{"italic":true},"insert":"Philosophy for Children"},{"insert":" achieves transfer of reasoning skills into the standard curriculum but is not designed to directly infuse philosophical reflection into it.\n \nIn contrast, the Center for Critical Thinking and Moral Critique at Sonoma State University in California is developing a philosophy-based approach focused on directly infusing philosophical thinking across the curriculum. Handbooks of lesson plans K-12 have been remodelled by the Center staff to demonstrate that, with redesign, philosophically-based critical thinking skills and processes can be integrated into the lessons presently in use, if teachers learn to remodel the lessons they presently use with critical thinking in mind.\n"}]}

{"ops":[{"attributes":{"bold":true},"insert":"Develop Intellectual Courage "},{"insert":"\n"},{"attributes":{"italic":true,"bold":true},"insert":" "},{"insert":"\nWhen you have used your best reasoning to determine what is sensible and ethical, be willing to advocate for it, especially when it is unpopular among your peers or within your society. Of course, supporting what is right and rational can be dangerous, so consider carefully when it makes sense to speak up and when you should keep your thoughts to yourself. When you do speak up, show respect for others, but never be afraid to disagree in the privacy of your own mind. \n \nIntellectual courage also applies to examining one’s own reasoning. Don’t be afraid to question your beliefs to figure out what makes the best sense. Develop the courage to look inside your mind and figure out how it is truly functioning. Even if you have held a belief for a long time, be willing to question it, to use the tools of critical thinking to recheck it. \n"},{"attributes":{"italic":true,"bold":true},"insert":" "},{"insert":"\n"},{"attributes":{"italic":true,"bold":true},"insert":"Intellectual courage "},{"insert":"is the disposition to question beliefs you or your peers feel strongly about. It includes questioning the beliefs of your culture and the groups to which you belong, and a willingness to express your views even when they are unpopular (assuming it is safe to do so).\n \nQuestions that foster intellectual courage include:\n \nHow do the beliefs I have uncritically accepted keep me from seeing things as they are?"},{"attributes":{"list":"bullet"},"insert":"\n"},{"insert":"To what extent have I analyzed and assessed the beliefs I hold? With what level of thoroughness and skill did I do this? "},{"attributes":{"list":"bullet"},"insert":"\n"},{"insert":"To what extent have I questioned my beliefs, many of which I learned in childhood? Have I since learned new tools of reasoning that I should now use to reexamine those beliefs?"},{"attributes":{"list":"bullet"},"insert":"\n"},{"insert":"To what extent have I demonstrated a willingness to give up my beliefs when sufficient evidence is presented against them?"},{"attributes":{"list":"bullet"},"insert":"\n"},{"insert":"To what extent am I willing to stand up against the majority, even though people might ridicule me?"},{"attributes":{"list":"bullet"},"insert":"\n"},{"insert":" \n\n"},{"attributes":{"bold":true},"insert":"Internalize the Idea: Intellectual Courage"},{"insert":"\n \n1. Recall a circumstance in which you defended a view that was unpopular in a group to which you belonged, such as your family or department at work. Describe the circumstances and especially how the group responded. "},{"attributes":{"indent":1},"insert":"\n"},{"insert":" "},{"attributes":{"indent":1},"insert":"\n"},{"insert":"2. Recall a circumstance when you disagreed with those around you but chose not to speak out, even though dire consequences were highly unlikely. "},{"attributes":{"indent":1},"insert":"\n"},{"insert":" "},{"attributes":{"indent":1},"insert":"\n"},{"insert":"What serious consequences, such as being fully expelled from the group, did you fear unreasonably and why? "},{"attributes":{"indent":1},"insert":"\n"},{"insert":" "},{"attributes":{"indent":1},"insert":"\n"},{"insert":"What unserious consequences, such as transitory mockery, did you fear and why? Would these minor outcomes have been worse than hiding your reasoning from others, especially if you or someone else was affected as a result?"},{"attributes":{"indent":1},"insert":"\n"},{"insert":" \n--------------------------\nThis blog is adapted from pages 169 and 172 in Linda Elder’s "},{"attributes":{"italic":true},"insert":"Critical Thinking Therapy: For Happiness & Self-Actualization"},{"insert":" (2025), available through Foundation for Critical Thinking Press at "},{"attributes":{"bold":true,"link":"https://www.fctpress.org/"},"insert":"FCTPress.org"},{"insert":".\n"}]}