Image: Ellen Weinstein
A democracy relies on an electorate of critical thinkers. Yet formal education, which is driven by test taking, is increasingly failing to require students to ask the kind of questions that lead to informed decisions.
More than a decade ago cognitive scientists John D. Bransford and Daniel L. Schwartz, both then at Vanderbilt University, found that what distinguished young adults from children was not the ability to retain facts or apply prior knowledge to a new situation but a quality they called “preparation for future learning.” The researchers asked fifth graders and college students to create a recovery plan to protect bald eagles from extinction. Shockingly, the two groups came up with plans of similar quality (although the college students had better spelling skills). From the standpoint of a traditional educator, this outcome indicated that schooling had failed to help students think about ecosystems and extinction, major scientific ideas.
The researchers decided to delve deeper, however. They asked both groups to generate questions about important issues needed to create recovery plans. On this task, they found large differences. College students focused on critical issues of interdependence between eagles and their habitats (“What type of eco-system supports eagles?” and “What different kinds of specialists are needed for different recovery areas?”). Fifth graders tended to focus on features of individual eagles (“How big are they?” and “What do they eat?”). The college students had cultivated the ability to ask questions, the cornerstone of critical thinking. They had learned how to learn.
Museums and other institutions of informal learning may be better suited to teach this skill than elementary and secondary schools. At the Exploratorium in San Francisco, we recently studied how learning to ask good questions can affect the quality of people's scientific inquiry. We found that when we taught participants to ask “What if?” and “How can?” questions that nobody present would know the answer to and that would spark exploration, they engaged in better inquiry at the next exhibit—asking more questions, performing more experiments and making better interpretations of their results. Specifically, their questions became more comprehensive at the new exhibit. Rather than merely asking about something they wanted to try (“What happens when you block out a magnet?”), they tended to include both cause and effect in their question (“What if we pull this one magnet out and see if the other ones move by the same amount?”). Asking juicy questions appears to be a transferable skill for deepening collaborative inquiry into the science content found in exhibits.
This type of learning is not confined to museums or institutional settings. One of the best examples is The Daily Show with Jon Stewart, in which the eponymous host expertly shreds political, commercial and scientific-sounding claims in the press by using numbers, logic and old video. The Maker Faire, which conducts techie do-it-yourself projects, has reintroduced the idea that our learning is richer for our mistakes: D.I.Y. experimentalists get stuck, reframe the question and figure things out.
Informal learning environments tolerate failure better than schools. Perhaps many teachers have too little time to allow students to form and pursue their own questions and too much ground to cover in the curriculum and for standardized tests. But people must acquire this skill somewhere. Our society depends on them being able to make critical decisions, about their own medical treatment, say, or what we must do about global energy needs and demands. For that, we have a robust informal learning system that eschews grades, takes all comers, and is available even on holidays and weekends.
This article was originally published with the title What Is Your Question?.
Already a Digital subscriber? Sign-in Now
If your institution has site license access, enter here.
Rights & Permissions
See what we're tweeting about
18 Comments
Add CommentThere is research indicating that the use of inquiry-based teaching approaches has real benefits. However, this article seems to suggest that inquiry-based approaches are fundamentally inconsistent with formal learning in schools and will necessarily have to take place outside the classroom. This is not true. It certainly is true, and that is a shame, that there is an emphasis on focusing too much on memorization and teaching to the test. Nonetheless, inquiry-based approaches work well in formal education and are used increasingly in STEM courses. I can even point to our own research providing data suggesting that the use of inquiry-based approaches has positive effects onto broadening participation (e.g., in computer science education): http://scalablegamedesign.cs.colorado.edu/gamewiki/images/f/fd/SIGSCE2012_Final_Submit.pdf
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI am a fifth grade teacher in a public school located where I like to refer to as "north-south-central" Los Angeles. This puts us walking distance to the California Science Center.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI understand your sub-title, "Critical thinking is a teachable skill best taught outside the K-12 classroom", however I disagree. There are plenty of opportunities to teach critical thinking inside the classroom as well as outside. My son, currently in middle school, just informed me that the winner of the science fair answered the question of which toilet paper is the strongest. He thought that was silly, but I explained to him that asking the correct question, developing tests for it, conducting the experiments, and coming to a conclusion based on results is exactly what science fairs are about.
The biggest challenge to spending the time to develop critical thinking is, as you allude to at the end of your essay, state and federal government mandated curriculum and standardized multiple choice testing. I always say that if I could get the politicians out of my classroom I could really teach.
Teaching students "test taking skills" has become a large part of the curriculum of most public schools. It is a skill that is very helpful as an adult only if you plan on seeking a government job, which is the only employer that requires similar tests to gain employment. I find this grotesquely interesting since the people pushing testing are the same that want a smaller government.
Until we back off tying increased test scores to federal and state dollars and teacher effectiveness, you are correct, Dr. Bartels, in your assessment. If voters could convince our politicians to reverse this trend then we could increase the general intellect of the electorate. That would be an upward cycle, to the demise of the Tea Party at least, and lead to a more stable government that might take global warming and government default seriously.
In the meantime, I spend as much time with my class as possible, out of the eyes of the politicians and administrators, teaching about toilet paper as well as taking them to the California Science Center or similar arenas.
I think it's important to note that the article was originally submitted with the title, "What Is Your Question?" The Exploratorium houses several educators whose focus is teacher professional development. They certainly do believe that inquiry can happen in the classroom and see the Exploratorium as a great resource for formal education everywhere. I think they would be the first to argue against the belief that critical thinking is not a classroom skill. It seems to me that like in so many forums, the editors are trying to hype a non-existent battle between informal and formal education. At many, many places of learning, these two fields work very hard to complement each other every day. Critical thinking, after all, is a life skill that serves the student in the classroom as well as the life-long learner.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisRe: Comment #3 melicig's. Update. The title of the article in the print edition of ScA is "What is Your Question." Re: premise "A democracy relies on an electorate of critical thinkers." Hardly. Two good examples: Athens, fifth century BC; the United States, twenty-first century AD. Re: thesis "Critical thinking is a teachable skill best taught outside the classroom." No. Teaching is the problem, not the solution. In reality, critical thinking must be learned. A learning oriented education in the public school system can provide a multitude of appropriate educational opportunities - much more so than a day at the museum, which is an argument for making schools more like Dr. Bartels' museum. As a child, the Franklin Institute in Philadelphia was always my favorite. Re: What should children learn to be happy and healthy and learn to take care of themselves? See http://garrettahughes.com/EducationFolder/education.htm
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWe need to have schools scuttle their top-heavy subject-oriented curricula in favor of providing more opportunities for students to focus on process – learning to make smart decisions, learning to get along with themselves and others, learning to solve problems, learning to communicate their needs to others, and learning to take care of themselves both physically and emotionally. If kids discover how to do these things early in their educations, subject matter will be learned much more quickly and easily: especially if students are allowed to choose the subjects they study.
In addition to museums and institutions of informal learning, Mr. Bartels should add "the reading of magazines" as a catalyst for critical thinking.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWonderful critical questions like the following can be developed from such an activity. Question like:
"How can Mr. Bartels support his assertion that museums 'may be better suited' to teach critical thinking?"
"What if he had to provide evidence to support his conjecture that informal learning environments really 'tolerate failure' better than schools?"
"How can Mr. Bartle so casually speculate that 'perhaps teachers have too little time to allow students to form and pursue their own questions'?"
"What if he based his comments on reliable critical inquiry rather than sloppy thinking based on myopic prejudices?"
Critical thinking is a necessary skill not only for participating in a democracy, but also to be successful in modern life in general. Since the point of a public school system is to ensure that every child learns what is needed, then if this skill is not being taught, then the system is, by definition, failing. I cannot help but wonder why the standardized testing does not check for this skill. Is it because it is difficult to test for, or do the people creating the tests have other motivation(s) for not ensuring that everyone acquires this skill? One motivation could be that the more people have this skill, the more competition there would be for the jobs that most require it, which are probably the most desirable jobs. Fewer people with these skills means that the children of the most highly involved parents, the ones who manage to take the time to get their children out to the "informal learning" sites, will be the ones most likely to get the best jobs. Since these are also the people most likely to get involved enough to make life difficult for the local school and political leaders, it makes sense to keep these people satisfied. Just another way the insider class keeps invasion from outsiders to a minimum.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou'd never have imagined this connection between mathematics and toilet paper. But, it's true.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_Penrose
http://docs.law.gwu.edu/facweb/claw/penrose.htm
Let's face it, the Powers That Be don't want the up and coming generation to be able to think as individuals - what has been going on in our public educational system is "The Dumbing-Down of America." And, it's working. You can analyze it till you're blue in the face - but the fact of the matter is that it is unfolding just as they designed it.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI refer you to several passages from George Orwell's book "1984" ... he wrote it in 1949, and it was how he envisioned the society and the government in the future:
"In a way, the world−view of the government imposed itself most successfully on people incapable of understanding it. They could be made to accept the
most flagrant violations of reality, because they never fully grasped the enormity of what was demanded of them, and were not sufficiently interested in public events to even notice what was happening. By lack of understanding, they simply swallowed everything. Until they become conscious, they will never rebel."
"For if leisure and security were enjoyed by all alike, the great mass of human beings who are normally stupefied by poverty would become literate and would learn to think for themselves; and when once they had done this, they
would sooner or later realize that the privileged minority had no function, and they would sweep it away. In the long run, a hierarchical society was only possible on a basis of poverty and ignorance.”
"So long as they continued to work and breed, their other activities were without importance. Left to themselves; like cattle turned loose upon the
plains of Argentina; they had reverted to a style of life that appeared to be natural to them - a sort of ancestral pattern: Heavy physical work, the
care of Home & Children, Petty Quarrels with Neighbors, Films, Football, Beer - and above all - Gambling, filled up the horizon of their minds. To keep them in control was not difficult at all. ”
(Source - Quoted paragraphs: George Orwell, "1984")
The best schools, generally private boys schools, DO teach critical thinking. These boys are taught to be the leaders of their nations.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI suggest that a course in basic logic and reasoning as well as a course in basic argumentation should be required for all high school students to graduate. The minds and intellect of these young students, if this proposal was adopted, would be molded to most efficaciously address all of the economic, social, cultural, political, and psychological stressors of life.
Is there a difference between to teach and to tame?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisP.JD. (#5) seems to me to highlight the sorts of questions most students don't learn. I admittedly draw my opinion from a small sample of students, and it is my personal assessment based on observation of that sample. (The sample comes from over 30 years of teaching logic and critical thinking primarily to college freshmen and sophomores - roughly 120 students each year.) People need many kinds of thinking skills. Questioning whether something you are told or that you read is true is as important as thinking leading to new discoveries. Asking whether something is true leads to the quest for evidence or reasons to believe the claim. How far to pursue this quest is itself an important question, but the difficulty for most people is not that they pursue the quest too far, but that they rarely start it. When children's desires conflict with their parent's desires, the related "Why-question" quite naturally arises often to be met by something equivalent to: "Because I said so" or Because I'm the Mommy." Even when teachers are able to provide good reasons for the truth of what they are teaching, they like busy parents will often not welcome the "How do you know that?" or Why should we believe that?" question if some student has the temerity to ask it. So, it is hardly surprising that critical thinking of this kind is not highly reinforced in classroom setting or in day to day home life. I've heard it said that we should teach critical thinking everywhere and all the time. I disagree, but that hardly matters since it will not happen. If this sort of thinking is going to be taught, I think we will have to devote some resources to specifically teaching it. That would be more effective if such thinking were not quashed as soon as it is practiced in another setting. So part of the problem is getting those who educate our students to welcome this type of thinking when it occurs. This will not be easy, but it doesn't seem impossible.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSo, we need to change the schools. However, do you think the Federal Government in the form of the President and Congress, really want people who are critical thinkers? Of course not. They want sheep.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat is better individual thought or collective agreement? When it comes to education the issue is boiled down to, should we teach children rote facts or should we teach children how to question the world in order to find their own facts?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe answer is we should teach both, and that is problem.
The collective versus individual problem is the epitome of America’s polarity. America has two main groups. The first group is the group that worships matter. I call this group: The World of Matter people. These people love to observe matter, catalog matter, measure matter, reflect on what was observed, and draw conclusions slowly. The second group is The World of Mind people. These people love to engage in the landscape of the subconscious through story, they like having heroes in their lives, regard those who use intuition and instinct to save the day as amazing people, believe in the unknown, and believe in miracles. Basically, the problem is we have a culture of people who for centuries used story to build a sense of shared self, and a new culture of science that says that all those stories are just myths.
Mind and Matter are having a Cultural war. This war is seen everywhere. Basically, all the ways, us modern folks, disagree is an example of Mind at war with Matter. For example, this cultural war can be seen in the question of how we should teach our children. Should we teach our collective story and all that we learned, or should we teach that there is no story and we must continue to find it? Also, who gets to say what truth is. Does science get to have a monopoly on truth, or does religion get the monopoly?
The problem is whoever is seen as truthful, gets backing from culture in the form of money and prestige. Thus, I don’t see this cultural war ever ending, which is too bad because neither side is the whole truth.
In the end, our attitudes to our stories we create whether they are scientific or based in the imagination comprise culture. Culture is comprised of myths turned truths. Those truths guide us on our collective journeys. My hope is our entanglement in the atomic world will help us finally realize that observing matter and using our imaginations are the exact same things.
But much work in critical thinking can be done at school. Between the ages of 7 and 17 I was taught by the Jesuit Fathers.They had a nasty habit of asking 'why?' whenever I made a statement.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf, 60 years later, I have any ability to think critically I put it down to the habit of providing evidence which they inculcated.
Must say I totally disagree with the idea that critical thinking is best taught outside of the classroom. I was in a belgian public high school in the early eighties and frankly .... the place were I learned critical thinking was the classroom ... all kinds of teachers ... I did what is called now a masters in chemistry afterwards; though I must say it were not always science teachers; the atmosphere was stimulating critical thought there. And believe me; at home they were not happy with me questioning religuous beliefs ... in fact the only teacher I had problem with was the teacher of religion ....
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI think part of the analysis is flawed. The conclusion:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"The college students had cultivated the ability to ask questions, the cornerstone of critical thinking."
was based on the difference between college students asking:
“What type of eco-system supports eagles?”
and fifth graders asking:
“What do they eat?”
Honestly, I see little difference between these two questions. Within their limited vocabulary, the fifth graders were looking at the same issue. I'd say a critical thinking question on this issue might be something like:
What are the economic costs and benefits of maintaining an eagle ecosystem?
or
What will be the cultural impact of losing the bald eagle species?
So the rest of this discussion may be based on a flawed premise.
Just my impression.
reply to 4. garrettahughes
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisRe: premise "A democracy relies on an electorate of critical thinkers." Hardly. Two good examples: Athens, fifth century BC; the United States, twenty-first century AD.
---
I had to read this several times over two days , because you seem so unclear throughout your comment.
I'm still not sure. Are you saying a democracy does not rely on critical thinkers? Athens 5BC certainly did not lack for critical thinkers so that doesn't support a non-reliance premise. 21st century USA does not appear to have an abundance of critical thinkers having elected republican then democrats, who argue over side issues and but are the same on bigger issues (e.g. arrest and detention of US citizens without due process as "terrorists").
So I don't get it. Do you agree with the premise that democracy needs critical thinkers or not?
Critical thinking is part of any science discipline for it is the foundation of experimentation, including the selection of the focus of the experiment, the design of the experiment, the execution of the experiment and the analysis of the results. It is silly, then, to believe that critical thinking cannot be taught in the classroom, for it has been effectively taught there for years. And most importantly, unlike trips to the museum, the training is rigorous and systematic.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIndeed, critical thinking is taught in almost every discipline, from English, philosophy and sociology to biology and physics. It is the kernel of what people do in those disciplines. And if people are not effective at critical thinking by the time they finish an undergraduate degree, then they have not been paying attention.
Clearly, this is for adults, but then how effective can a child be at critical thinking when the abstracting abilities that underlie them don't even kick in until the late teens? When they have problems assessing basic concepts about material volume and are stuck in a mindset that ties truth to authority?
And these are not things that you can 'fix' with a carefully planned intervention for they are rooted in development.
If you want to teach children the foundation of critical thinking teach them things that are immediately relevant to them and that they can understand. Teach them to value truth, teach them that every act has consequences, teach them that they have obligations to society and to their fellows, and that they deserve respect in return. Then when they look out the window and see that society doesn't live up to those standards, they will ask why. And *that* is the start of critical thinking.