CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY, NORTHRIDGE
TEACHING CRITICAL THINKING THROUGH DISCUSSION:
AN INSERVICE PROGRAM
A project submitted in partial satisfaction of the
requirements for the degree of Master of Arts in
Secondary Education
by
Sylvia Luise Christiansen
May 1985
The Project of Sylvia Luise Christiansen is approved:
Dr. Geor
Lorbeer
Dr./Bonnie Ericson, Chair
California State University, Northridge
ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Chapter
1.
2.
INTRODUCTION •
1
Statement of the Problem •
2
Purpose of the Project • • .
2
Importance of the Project
3
Definition of Terms
3
Delimitation of the Project
4
Design of the Program
5
REVIEW OF LITERATURE . •
7
Literature Which Defines Critical Thinking .
7
Literature Which Deals with the Teaching of
Critical Thinking Through Discussion •
3.
15
Literature on Inservice
23
Conclusion to the Review of Literature .
29
THE INSERVICE PROGRAM
31
Program Phases
31
Conclusion and Recommendations .
93
REFERENCES
95
APPENDIX A
VIDEOTAPE
iii
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure
1.
Whatever belongs to a class belongs to any
larger class to which that class belongs
(Venn diagram)
2.
50
Whatever belongs to a class might not belong
to other classes within that class (Venn
diagram)
3.
51
Whatever belongs to a class cannot belong to
any class excluded from that class (Venn
diagram)
4.
51
Items can belong to many classes if the
classes do not exclude one another (Venn
diagram)
51
iv
ABSTRACT
TEACHING CRITICAL THINKING THROUGH DISCUSSION:
AN INSERVICE PROGRAM
by
Sylvia Luise Christiansen
Master of Arts in Secondary Education
The teaching of critical thinking has become a matter of
increasing concern for educators in recent years.
drawn public attention to the issue as well.
Politicians have
However, the term
"critical thinking" has been defined and used in such a variety of
ways that many teachers may feel uncomfortable deciding upon a way
to teach it.
Although inservice programs on the teaching of critical thinking
are available, none of them provides both a clear, concise definition
of critical thinking and an inservice model shown by research to
achieve transfer of teaching skills to the classroom.
This inservice
program, however, provides a method based upon one concise definition
of critical thinking (Ennis, 1964).
In addition, it includes teacher
training phases from Joyce and Showers's (1980) model of inservice.
These phases have been shown to achieve transfer of iriservice skills
to the classroom.
The Joyce and Showers method is marked by its use
v
of peer practice and in-class coaching.
Discussion, because it provides immediate monitoring and feedback
of student thought processes, has been found by research to be effective in teaching critical thinking.
Therefore, the inservice focus is
the teaching of critical thinking through discussion.
If teachers are to be provided with clear choices of methods for
teaching critical thinking, other programs based upon single, concise
definitions should be developed as well.
vi
~}
Chapter 1
INTRODUCTION
Over the past twenty years, the community of classroom educators
has received increasing exposure to the terms "critical thinking" and
"higher order (thinking skills)."
In 1966 "critical thinking" was
added to the list of descriptors for two data bases in the Educational
Resources Information Center (ERIC) and in 1984 is cited one thousand,
one hundred ten times in Current Index to Journals in Education and
five hundred fifty-two times in Resources in Education.
In addition,
federal and educational agencies are mentioning these terms more and
more frequently, often in a context of concern.
In its report A Nation
at Risk: The Imperative for Educational Reform (1983), the National
Commission on Excellence in Education states that " • • • many 17-yearolds do not possess the 'higher order' intellectual skills we should
expect of them.
Nearly 40 percent of them cannot draw inferences from
written material; only one-fifth can write a persuasive essay; and
only one-third can solve a mathematics problem requiring several steps
(p. 9)."
Since the terms "higher order (thinking skills)" and
"critical thinking" are often used interchangeably among educators
(Callahan & Corvo, 1980; Los Angeles County Superintendent of Schools,
1984; National Education Association, 1982), classroom teachers may be
seeking an answer to the problem of teaching these areas of concern
among the wealth of literature on critical thinking.
For this reason,
it is becoming a matter of concern to provide focused, effective, and
well-researched inservice in the teaching of critical thinking for
teachers.
1
'
2
Statement of the Problem
Because of the wide range of definitions of and programs for
critical thinking available in the literature (Winocur, 1983), it may
be difficult for secondary classroom teachers who already carry a full
work load to take the time necessary to evaluate all existing materials.
For that reason, it would seem of value to provide research-based
inservice programs on school sites where they would be accessible to
classroom teachers.
In addition, it would seem of value to provide
the inservice in a framework that would best facilitate transfer to
the classroom.
Joyce and Showers (1980), Berliner in an interview with Brandt
(1982), and the Rand Corporation (Berman & McLaughlin, 1978) state
that the most effective means of facilitating transfer to the classroom
are direct teacher participation and practice.
Both Joyce and Berliner
state that in-class coaching by teacher or administrator partners is
of special importance in achieving transfer of inservice skills.
For
the district in which this project will be implemented, although there
are inservice programs in critical thinking at the county level, no
on-site coaching programs exist for assuring full transfer of inservice
skills.
Therefore, this project will be directed toward meeting that
need.
Purpose of the Project
The immediate purpose of the project is to provide a school-site
inservice program, including a coaching segment, in the area of the
effective teaching of critical thinking.
Discussion, because it
provides immediate monitoring and feedback, has been found to be
particularly effective in encouraging critical thinking (Gallet al.,
3
1978; Lipman, Sharp, & Oscanyon, 1980; Whimbey & Lochhead, 1980).
Therefore, the inservice focus will be the teaching of critical
thinking through discussion.
Importance of the Project
The National Commission on Excellence in Education further states
in its paper A Nation at Risk: The Imperative for Educational Reform
(1983) that " • • • for our country to function, citizens must be able
to reach some common understanding on complex issues, often on short
notice and on the basis of conflicting or incomplete evidence (p. 7)."
They go on to quote Thomas Jefferson on the importance of citizens
using a "wholesome discretion," suggesting a concern for equipping our
nation's students with an ability to evaluate information and thus
reach logical, informed conclusions.
Classroom teachers can begin to
address this justifiable concern by becoming equipped to instruct
their students in critical thinking.
In the Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development's
Handbook of Basic Citizenship Competencies (1980), Remy states that
II
in today's information-rich culture the task facing the citizen
is not to acquire additional information but rather to make sense out
of the use (of) the Niagara of data already pouring forth on complex
topics and problems (p. 19)."
The farther-reaching importance of
this project will lie, then, in its providing an opportunity for
teachers to learn and transfer the skills necessary to help the student
learn to evaluate this flood of information and therefore to foster
appropriate
decision~aking
on a private and civic level.
Definition of Terms
The following definitions are included to ensure clarity:
4
1.
Critical thinking--the evaluation of written and verbal
information (Guilford, 1960) according to certain criteria (Ennis,
1964):
a. Judging whether a statement follows from the premises.
b. Judging whether something is an assumption.
c. Judging whether an observation statement is reliable.
d. Judging whether a simple generalization is warranted.
e. Judging whether an hypothesis is warranted.
f. Judging whether a theory is warranted.
g. Judging whether an argument depends on an ambiguity.
h. Judging whether a statement is overvague or overspecific.
i. Judging whether a statement made by an alleged authority
is acceptable (p. 599-600).
2.
Discussion--an interaction bet\veen students containing
sequences of one student's comment followed by another student's related response and remaining relatively free of teacher intervention
(Gall & Cillett, 1980).
3.
Inservice--a method of imparting instructionally related
information to teachers which consists of certain steps (Joyce &
Showers, 1980):
a. Presentation of theory.
b. Modeling of the skill.
c. Guided practice in a nonthreatening setting.
d. Structured feedback.
e. Coaching to transfer (p. 381).
Delimitation of the Project
The inservice will be aimed at English teachers for grades seven
5
through nine.
It will be possible for social studies teachers or
teachers of other grade levels to adapt the program to their needs.
Design of the Program
The inservice program will be built upon Joyce and Shower's (1980)
model of inservice.
It will include (a) a presentation of research
and theory used in the composition of the instructional program,
including research in critical thinking and discussion; (b) presentation, description, and modeling of the instructional program itself,
using videotape; (c) nonthreatening, guided practice of the instructional skill with peers as subjects; (d) feedback on performance using
checklist measures based upon the goals and objectives of the
instructional program; and (e) in-class coaching by peers using the
program checklists.
The instructional program itself will include the following
segments:
1. Goals and objectives.
2. A discussion model entitled "Be the Focus" (Gold & Yellin,
1982), a small-group discussion technique which involves timed student
presentations.
The method allows all students to speak briefly in a
private setting and to be immediately rephrased by another speaker.
All speakers' presentations are mentioned to the class at large by a
group leader after small-group interaction.
This method assures
exposure to evaluation and feedback and the opportunity to evaluate
others for each and every student.
3. A program of discussion topics and issues based upon Ennis's
(1964) nine elements of critical thinking, which were included in the
section "Definition of Terms."
6
4. Means to evaluate student achievement of the nine elements.
Materials to be used with the discussion program will include
dramatic presentations, newspaper sources, and sources from literature.
Chapter 2
REVIEW OF LITERATURE
Literature Which Defines Critical Thinking
Many contributors to the field of critical thinking agree that
evaluation of written and verbal material is a key component of
critical thinking.
Basic Definitions
Robert Ennis (1962), a member of the Cornell Critical Thinking
Project, states that critical thinking is " • • • the correct assessing
of statements (p. 83)."
of critical thinking:
He proposes three dimensions of the concept
(a) a logical dimension, which involves judging
relationships between the meanings of words and statements;
(b) a
criteria! dimension, which involves having knowledge of the criteria
for judging statements;
and (c) a pragmatic dimension, which involves
the ability to determine when evidence or level of significance is
sufficient for the purpose at hand.
Ennis (1964) lists nine specific
aspects of critical thinking, each with its own dimensional makeup.
These aspects are drawn from standards of formal logic.
J. P. Guilford (1960, 1967) suggests a framework of components of
intellect, discovered by factor analysis, called the Structure of
Intellect.
This framework, which Guilford states is neither a hier-
archy nor a taxonomy (1967), contains four distinct levels:
(a) cog-
nition, or awareness of information; (b) convergence, or the generation
of a unique solution based upon information; (c) divergence, or the
generation of alternatives; and (d) evaluation, which calls for the
checking and testing of facts according to criteria.
Guilford calls
his evaluation level "critical thinking" (1960, p. 182) and states that
7
8
most evaluative, or critical, thinking abilities are semantic in nature.
Semantic evaluation, according to Guilford, includes the evalu-
ation of relationships, systems, transformations, and implications in
material which has meaning.
This evaluation often requires applying
the standards of logical consistency.
Bloom (1956), although he does not offer a specific definition of
critical thinking, is often cited by contributors to the field as
having offered a definition (Ross, 1976).
Bloom states in his Taxonomy
of Educational Objectives (1956) that some use the term "critical
thinking" in place of his term "intellectual abilities and skills (p.
38)."
These abilities and skills utilize all levels of his taxonomy
except knowledge.
The levels involved would include comprehension,
application, analysis, synthesis, and evaluation.
Bloom goes on to
state that the term "critical thinking" is too broad a term to be
useful.
Weinstein and Laufman (1981) define critical thinking as involving
the abilities to "evaluate possible alternatives and deduce potential
relationships, apply deductive reasoning to sets of data that are
hypothetical, and verify observations and experiments logically,
comprehensively, and consistently (p. 20)."
Weinstein and Laufman, as
well as Ennis and Guilford, appear to believe that the application of
logic is an important component of critical thinking.
Hartoonian (1979, p. 5) states that his "Skill Network for
Curriculum" " • • • provide(s) the material substance for critical
thinking."
The network includes three levels:
(b) processes, and (c) operations.
(a) enabling skills,
Enabling skills include observa-
tion, classification, and seriation; processes include inferring,
9
predicting, formulating, and testing; and operations include inductive
and deductive logic, judgment, and decision-making.
Hartoonian's work
is different from Guilford's (1960) and Ennis's (1964) in that it does
not propose clearly that critical thinking is solely evaluation.
It is
similar to Weinstein and Laufman's (1981) in that it suggests observation as a component of critical thinking.
His work is similar to all
three in that it proposes logic as being central to critical thinking.
Informal Definitions Derived from Basic Definitions
A number of informal definitions of critical thinking seem to
arise as by-products when contributors to the field design instructional programs or measures for critical thinking.
These definitions tend
to fall into several categories: (a) those based generally upon
Guilford, (b) those based upon Bloom's Taxonomy (1956), and (c) those
pulled from more than one source.
One reason that informal definitions of critical thinking arise
from Guilford and Bloom may be that there is not a large number of
first-hand sources linking either Guilford or Bloom with critical
thinking.
One program based upon Ennis (Smith, 1983) seems not to
generate informal definitions, perhaps because Ennis's definition is so
clearly delineated in numerous sources (1962, 1963, 1964; Ennis &
Millman, 1971; Ennis & Paulus, 1965).
Guilford, however mentions the
term "critical thinking" in only one article and for the space of only
one page (1960, p. 182), although this one mention does yield a
concise definition of critical thinking as evaluation.
Similarly,
Bloom mentions critical thinking only twice, both times in his original
Taxonomy of Educational Objectives (1956), but neither time to offer a
narrow or concise definition.
One time is to state that critical
10
thinking is used by some in place of his term "intellectual abilities
and skills (p. 38)," which are problem-solving skills that utilize all
levels of the taxonomy except knowledge; the second time is to state
that "critical and constructive thinking" could be included under all
of the taxonomy categories except knowledge, but that the term is
II
such (a) broad objective(s) that the kinds of learning expe-
riences which might be appropriate are far from clear," and that when
objectives or terms are stated so broadly, "
• little can be done
with them for curricular or evaluation purposes until they have been
more adequately defined (p. 46)."
Since Guilford mentions critical
thinking briefly and only once, and since Bloom mentions it only twice
and in a tone of relative disfavor, it may be possible for a wide
variety of informal interpretations to arise among those attempting to
develop programs or measures for critical thinking based upon Guilford
or Bloom.
More than one informal definition of critical thinking based upon
Guilford and Bloom could be construed from Barnes (1979) in her work
with questioning to achieve critical thinking.
Barnes bases her
questioning model upon Aschner and Gallagher's (1970) Guilford-based
model, which was originally designed to classify and study student
responses in classroom discussion.
Barnes states that, according to
Taba (1966), questions must be sequenced hierarchically from low level
to higher level in each interaction to achieve maximum time and quality
on high thought levels.
For that reason, she employs a model which
sequences questions from Guilford's cognitive memory level through
convergence to divergence and, finally, to evaluation.
Guilford,
however, states that his thought levels are discrete and not
11
hierarchical, and that the functions which they employ can occur in any
order (1967).
It is interesting to note that he states this in a
separate publication from the one in which he mentions critical thinking; this could have led to a lack of clarity which could be the reason
for Barnes's conclusion.
In addition, Barnes does not refer to
Guilford's definition of critical thinking in her paper, nor does she
state that critical thinking is evaluation.
She does, however, refer
to "higher level" thought processes throughout her paper, making it
possible to construe that critical thinking could include more than one
level of Guilford's model, or both divergent and evaluative thinking.
Barnes also refers to questioning research on Bloom's Taxonomy (1956),
first mentioning the analysis and evaluation levels, then mentioning
"higher order" thinking again.
This, again, makes it possible to
construe that critical thinking could be anything between the analysis
and evaluation levels of Bloom's Taxonomy, although Bloom states that
it could involve any levels from comprehension to Pvaluation in his
limited mention of the term.
Barnes's combination of research, then,
could lead the reader to surmise a variety of informal definitions of
critical thinking.
Brown's (1982) "Creative Prescriptions" is also Guilford-based.
The program suggests that each grade level has specific Structure of
Intellect skills which are appropriate to it.
For example, activities
suggested for sixth graders are in the area of cognition, for seventh
graders in the area of divergent thinking, and for eighth graders in
the areas of memory review and evaluation.
Activities apparently
progress from area to area on the Structure of Intellect model as the
child grows older.
Since "Creative Prescriptions" is designed to
12
teach critical thinking, one could surmise that Brown believes it is
necessary to pass through a hierarchy of skills over an extended period
of time in order to achieve the ability to evaluate, or think critically.
This would represent a new, informal concept of Guilford-based
critical thinking since it is contrary to what Guilford states (1967)
and does not use the entire "hierarchy" in one interaction, as Barnes
does (1979).
One measure of critical thinking, the "Ross Test of Higher Cognitive Processes" (1976), is based on the analysis, synthesis, and evaluation levels of Bloom's Taxonomy and was tested for factorial validity
by Callahan and Corvo (1980).
Its manual states that it can be used
to "evaluate critical thinking objectives," even though the title of
the test does not mention critical thinking.
It would be possible,
then, to surmise an informal definition of critical thinking as the
analysis, synthesis, and evaluation levels of Bloom's Taxonomy from
this measure.
It is interesting to recall here that in Bloom's few
mentions of "critical thinking" (1956), he states that it could include
all levels from comprehension to evaluation on his taxonomy.
A program designed to teach critical thinking entitled Project
IMPACT: Improving Minimal Proficiencies by Activating Critical Thinking
draws from more than one source to define critical thinking (Winocur,
1983).
The volume contains articles by Ennis (1962); S.B. Skinner,
based on Bloom's taxonomy (1983); and Winocur, based on Hartoonian
(1983).
Each lesson plan in the program indicates both the level of
Hartoonian's Skill Network and the level of Bloom's Taxonomy being
addressed.
Overlaid onto the questioning model included in the pack-
age, in addition to Hartoonian's Skill Network and Bloom's Taxonomy, is
13
Costa's model (1983), based on Smith and Tyler (1942), of data input,
data processing, and data output.
Such a complex program structure
could seem unwieldy to an overburdened teacher and could therefore
be likely to yield informal definitions of critical thinking derived
in the classroom.
One program based upon Ennis by Smith (1983) is clearly structured
from Ennis's twelve original components of critical thinking, which
were trimmed to nine by Ennis in 1964, and does not generate new
concepts of the term foreign to Ennis.
Although the paper introducing
the program mentions other theory (Feely, 1976; Hartoonian, 1979), it
is mentioned in context of Ennis's work and does not create room for
surmise concerning what Smith's concept of critical thinking might be.
Again, this could be due to the fact that Ennis's definition is clearly
delineated in several sources (1962, 1963, 1964; Ennis & Millman, 1971;
Ennis & Paulus, 1965).
Summary and Conclusions
Ennis and Millman (1971) found a positive correlation between
scores on the Cornell Critical Thinking Test (Ennis & Millman, 1971)
and scores on tests of language and quantitative reasoning.
Winocur
(1983) found positive correlations between scores on district proficiencies and standardized tests and scores on the Cornell measure,
showing improvement in the academic test scores as the critical thinking
scores improved.
However, no literature can be found by this review
nor by Landis and Michael (1981) that reveals a correlation between
scores on the Cornell measure and scores on any other measure of critical thinking, although correlations are found between other measures.
14
Since Ennis's test is based so closely upon his definition of
critical thinking, it is possible to conclude that a lack of correlation between student scores on his test and on other measures of critical thinking could indicate a significant difference in theoretical
base between his definition and others.
The evidence also suggests
that Ennis's definition and his measure could be more closely tied to
academic success in the verbal area and/or traditional reasoning
ability than any others.
This project will operate on these assump-
tions and adopt Ennis's definition of critical thinking as being the
one preferable for building lessons which lead to transfer of critical
thinking skills into academic areas.
Needed in the area of critical thinking is a clarification of and
agreement upon a range of definitions.
The failure of some contribu-
tors to the field to respond clearly and critically to major
contribu~
tors' work has created a wide range of individual definitions, both
formal and informal, which are similar in substance yet vary enough to
cause a disturbing lack of clarity, as in the work of Barnes (1979) and
Bro\vn (1982).
Even though most contributors agree that evaluation is
a key component of critical thinking, the term "evaluation" is applied
in a variety of ways, as in definitions derived from Bloom (1956),
Guilford (1960), and Ennis (1964).
Other contributors who design
classroom programs or measures for critical thinking add to this lack
of clarity by attempting to incorporate an array of individual definitions under the umbrella of one program (Winocur, 1983).
Further
adding to the difficulty is the lack of clear terminology resulting
from this varied theoretical base.
The interchangeable use of "criti-
cal thinking" and "higher cognitive objectives" with its many variants
Q •
15
can only serve to perpetuate the lack of clarity and further confound
the issue.
Until more contributors to the area of critical thinking respond
in an informed and selective way to their predecessors, thereby
clarifying definitions and terms, the work of program planning in this
area will likely remain a monumental task for many teachers.
Literature Which Deals with the Teaching of
Critical Thinking Through Discussion
Research
Some literature concludes that discussion is particularly effective in teaching critical thinking or "higher order cognitive processes" and in teaching problem solving.
Carpenter (1959) and Davage (1958) in their work with college
students found that small group discussion leads to scientific
thinking and resourcefulness in problem solving.
The experimental
groups were called "Pyramid Groups" and contained nine students.
Patton (1955) found that college students in experimental groups,
when left to solve problems in discussion, make significant gains in
knowledge and ability to apply the subject matter.
McKeachie (1951)
and Bovard (1951) both found that experimental college classes which
operate on the group-centered discussion plan make gains in insight
and understanding of problems.
McKeachie (1969), in a review of
literature on discussion at the college level, concludes that studentcentered discussion methods are more effective overall for achieving
higher cognitive outcomes than is instructor-centered teaching.
A study by Gall et al. (1978) with sixth graders reveals that a
teacher-centered discussion method which makes use of recitation is
16
effective in improving response to "higher cognitive questions" (p.
191) as measured by an essay test.
used in one of the experiments.
Small groups of six students were
Aschner (1963) found in a study with
11 through 14-year-old students that the discussion method is successful for evaluating the level of students' thought processes and
assuring that "high-level thought processes" (p. 54) take place.
Guilford's Structure of Intellect was used to classify responses.
Groups of 25 were used.
Winocur (1983) found that an instructional
program in critical thinking for 7th through 12th graders which
incorporates both small and large group discussion with direct
instruction leads to gains in critical thinking as measured by the
Cornell Critical Thinking Test (Ennis & Millman, 1971).
Other literature concludes that discussion groups are more
effective at working with certain types of problems than are individuals, specifically "problems which require students to draw on the
diverse talents of their peers, (and) which have multiple solutions"
(Gall & Gall, 1976, p. 297) as opposed to problems which have one
correct answer.
Maier (1967), although finding that group discussion has a number
of drawbacks for problem-solving efficiency, concludes that groups are
more likely to accept a solution to a complex problem and implement it
if the group agrees on a solution than if an individual provides it.
Drawbacks to group problem-solving which Maier found are that majority
opinions tend to be accepted regardless of soundness; that once consensus is reached, higher-quality solutions broached later tend to be
rejected; that capable individuals may be dominated by less capable
individuals; and that as the discussion progresses, the goal may
17
become subverted from that of solving the problem to that of converting
individuals to the initial solution.
Taylor, Berry, and Block (1958) found that individuals who are
formed into groups of four after having an opportunity to generate
multiple solutions individually are very effective at solving problems.
Certain literature also concludes that discussion participants are
more effective when in small groups and able to face one another.
Although it does not deal directly with critical thinking, this
literature supports the use of the four-student discussion group format
chosen for the program design.
Schellenberg (1959) and Hare (1962) found that group discussions
are more affective for achieving a variety of instructional goals when
the groups are kept small, five being an ideal number.
Stephan and
Mischler (1952) found that if group size enlarges beyond five, the percentage of participating members and the average number of remarks per
participant decreases significantly.
Steinzor (1950) found that group members are more likely to
interact with other individuals in the group if they can both see and
hear each other.
In an opinion paper, Gold and Yellin (1982) recommend a smallgroup discussion technique of their own design based on research by
Martorella (1972), Herber (1970), and Atkinson (1978).
They state
that this technique, called "Be the Focus," enhances student selfesteem by assuring each student equal opportunity to speak.
Purkey
(1970) found that school achievement and learning increase proportionately with students' concept of self.
18
Classroom Programs for Teaching
Critical Thinking Through Discussion
Other contributors have developed programs specifically to teach
critical thinking by using discussion.
Lipman, Sharp, and Oscanyon
(1980) designed and recommend a program called "Philosophy for Children" which employs dialogue to monitor and internalize logical thought
processes.
Lipman, Sharp, and Oscanyon say the following:
When we internalize dialogue, we reproduce not only the thoughts
that we have just heard the other participants express, but we
also respond in our own minds to those expressions.
Further, we
pick up from the audible dialogue the ways in which people draw
inferences, identify assumptions, challenge one another for
reasons, and engage in critical intellectual interactions with
one another • • • These critical attitudes are then turned upon
one's own reflections. (p. 23)
The program makes use of student-to-student and student-to-teacher
dialogue on issues found in novels written expressly for the program.
Some skills addressed include discovering part-whole relationships,
discovering the feasibility of giving reasons for beliefs, discovering
consistency, discovering impartiality, and discovering comprehensiveness of a set of beliefs.
The program showed significant gains for
students in critical thinking and logical reasoning on a standardized
test of mental maturity (CTMM).
Lipman, Sharp, and Oscanyon do not
specifically mention the term "critical thinking" in their program.
Whimbey and Lochhead (1980) designed a program based on their own
research in the area of analytical reasoning or problem solving.
program, designed for high school and college students who have
The
19
difficulty with problem solving and verbal tasks, makes use of a partner system in which one member thinks aloud and the other analyzes the
speaker's steps to solution afterwards.
Problems resemble those on
standardized tests such as the Scholastic Aptitude Test.
Whimbey and
Lochhead state that the most common breakdowns in logic include a
failure to observe and use all the relevant facts of a problem; a
failure to approach the problem in a systematic way and to control
leaps in logic; a failure to spell out relationships fully; and a
tendency to be sloppy and inaccurate in collecting information and in
performing mental tasks.
They suggest four steps to effective problem
solving, which include maintaining a positive attitude; being concerned
for accuracy; breaking the problem into parts; avoiding guessing; and
remaining active, which involves a variety of physical activities such
as diagramming and finger counting.
They argue that their oral
approach is a good means to monitor the accomplishment of these steps.
The program provides its own measure called the Whimbey Analytical
Skills Inventory (1980).
It is used as a pretest and is designed to be
the first contact with careful analysis of solutions.
After it has
been taken the students are to go over the test in detail with the
teacher in order to verbally analyze their steps and the steps of
expert problem solvers to solution.
According to Whimbey and Lochhead, students participating in this
program can expect to show gains on selection test scores such as the
Scholastic Aptitude Test and the Graduate Record Examination and to
show improved school grades.
In an opinion paper, Cunningham (1980) proposed a two-phase program to teach critical reading based upon Stauffer's Directed Reading-
20
Thinking Activity (1969).
The program makes use of a large group dis-
cussion technique which is teacher centered.
Students begin phase one
by reading the title of a selection silently.
They then offer predic-
tions as to what the selection will be about.
Next, they complete the
section and later discuss the validity of their predictions.
Phase
two involves critical thinking or reading, which Cunningham describes
as being Guilford's evaluation.
Students discuss whether or not they
enjoyed the book and then systematically examine aloud their criteria
for evaluation.
Cunningham states that the specific criteria chosen
by students do not matter, as long as students are aware of them.
He
states that this system encourages divergent thinking.
Cunningham does not present a specific argument in favor of oral
over entirely written approaches.
However, it is clear that this
technique permits class members to see all or most students' criteria
for evaluation and to privately choose new criteria if they find them
to be more effective.
More extensive testing in types of problems not specifically
taught in a thinking program needs to be conducted for some of these
models.
Participant testing for success in other testable skills
would help to measure transfer of critical thinking ability.
One
program, Winocur's Project IMPACT (1983), attempted this type of
testing with some success.
Improvement in scores on the Cornell
Critical Thinking Test, designed by Ennis and Millman (1971), correlated strongly with improvement in district proficiency test scores
and CTBS scores.
Of interest, however, is the fact that scores on the
Cornell often correlate with scores on tests of language and quantitative reasoning, yet no recent literature can be found that shows a
21
correlation between scores on other measures of critical thinking and
the Cornell (Landis & Michael, 1981).
This certainly points up
another area of concern which could be of interest to investigate.
The Cunningham program (1980), although it states that Guilford's
evaluation provides the substance for its definition of critical
thinking/reading, appears to depart from Guilford when it states that
choice of criteria for evaluation is of little consequence.
According
to Guilford (1960), evaluation consists of specific components,
including the search for relationships, systems, transformations, and
implications.
It would seem that Guilford himself might structure a
lesson in the setting of criteria upon such a framework, even if
loosely and only as a consideration.
This difference in philosophy
could be construed as a theoretical weakness in Cunningham's program if
it is not more fully researched and argued by him.
Summary and Conclusions
Lipman et al. (1980), Winocur (1983), and Gallet al. (1978) found
that programs which employ forms of discussion lead to gains in
critical thinking or "higher cognitive" objectives.
Schellenberg (1959)
and Hare (1962) found that discussion groups are most effective when
kept small, specifically to five or less.
Taylor, Berry, and Block
(1958) found that individuals formed into groups of four after having
an opportunity to work alone solved problems effectively.
Gall et al.
(1978) found that a discussion method which makes use of recitation is
effective in achieving "higher cognitive" outcomes.
Whimbey and
Lochhead (1980) found that reflecting a student's problem solving
processes back to him orally leads to gains in standardized test scores.
Q .
22
These studies support the choice of "Be the Focus" (Gold & Yellin,
1982), a discussion method which, as adapted by this project, employs
groups of four students who recite in a specified order on a problematic topic for which they have prepared alone in writing beforehand.
Each successive student rephrases the previous student before stating
and possibly revising his own views.
An intermediate silent reading
time is left for reflection and revision, after which the groups gather
again and repeat the process.
Group leaders then present to the class
and are later rephrased by members of the large group.
More current research in discussion is needed for the elementary
and secondary levels, particularly in the areas of critical thinking/
higher cognitive objectives and problem solving.
Much of the litera-
ture now available is dated and for the college level.
The area of critical thinking/higher cognitive objectives is one
which experiences difficulties with clarity of terminology and definition.
Further research on discussion in this area will likely have
corresponding difficulties until these problems are resolved.
For
example, it may be difficult for studies to support or refute one
another if basic definitions are not common to both studies.
Spe-
cifically, Gall et al. (1978) tests for "higher cognitive" responses,
drawn from Bloom's Taxonomy, as measured by an essay test, while
Winocur (1983) tests for "critical thinking" using a standardized
test for critical thinking based upon and written by Ennis and Millman
(1971).
Although it is likely that both studies seek to bring about
the same types of cognitive functions, the studies have basic theoretical differences that make them difficult to compare.
23
In a review of literature, Gall and Gall (1976) conclude that a
weakness in research on problem-solving and discussion is that most
studies use problems which have single solutions and are easily solved
by an individual.
In the area of problem solving, further research could be directed
toward determining if discussion groups are more effective at solving
problems with multiple solutions than are individuals.
The bulk of
research currently available seems to deal with discussion groups and
problems with simple solutions.
Literature on Inservice
A review of literature in the area of teacher inservice reveals
a bulk of opinion that inservice should be aimed at specific classroom
skills rather than at general understanding of theory; that it should
address needs perceived by teachers; that it should emphasize practice
and feedback; that it should be ongoing; and that it should involve
both administrators and teachers in decision making.
Addressing Specific Skills
Mohlman, Coladarci, and Gage (1982) found in an examination of
five teacher effectiveness experiments that more highly implemented
inservice practices tend to be perceived as specific, congruent with
teacher philosophy, and/or worth the effort.
In a study sponsored by
the Rand Corporation, Berman and McLaughlin (1978) found by testing a
variety of inservice designs that those designs which result in
transfer of skills address concrete classroom techniques that are
easily identified.
In addition, successful programs make certain that
the individual perceived needs of teachers are met, and they assure an
opportunity for hands-on practice in the classroom and for local, on-
24
call advice.
Teacher participation in decision making is also provided
for in successful inservice designs.
Teachers' Perceived Needs
Johnston and Yeakey (1977), in a study to determine how to achieve
teacher participation in inservice, found that administrators differ
from teachers in preferred workshop content and methods.
clude
They con-
that joint teacher and administrator planning is necessary to
assure participation, and that teachers should define their own
problems and needs.
Practical Phases of Inservice
A bulk of research also shows that inservice should partially
consist of certain practical phases.
In a study to determine how to
facilitate transfer of skills and attitude change, Lawrence (1974) found
that demonstration, trials, and feedback are more effective than simple
presentation of theory.
Interestingly, he also found that school-based
programs in which teachers and supervisors participate as planners are
more effective in influencing attitude change than are programs run by
outside personnel.
McKinnan, in a study to classify adult learning patterns according
to Piaget's model; found that a higher proportion of adults than formerly thought may be operating at Piaget's concrete operational stage
rather than at the formal operations stage (1976).
This finding
suggests that direct and concrete experiences may be more valuable for
many adult learners than is simple presentation of theory.
Stachowski (1978), under the auspices of the Professional Development and Program Improvement Center of the Long Beach Unified School
District in California, evaluated an ongoing inservice program which
25
consists of four major components:
teaching objectives; diagnostic and
prescriptive instructional skills; clinical supervision, or on-site
supervision with structured feedback; and follow-up, maintenance, and
refinement.
A cycle of overview, modeling, practice in mini-classes,
and feedback with analysis is repeated for all classroom skills components.
Stachowski found that this program demonstrates a significant
impact on student achievement.
A number of studies show that combinations of presentation of
theory, modeling, practice, and feedback are effective for achieving
skill acquisition and transfer.
Orme (1966) studied modeling, prac-
tice, and feedback; Borg, Langer, and Kelly (1971) studied presentation, modeling, practice, and feedback; and Friebel and Kallenback
(1969) studied presentation, modeling, and feedback.
Borg, Langer,
and Kelly's study, which included the greatest number of preferred components, showed, in addition to the initial acquisition and transfer,
permanence of inservice skills in a delayed postteot.
Feedback
Tuckman (1969) and Saloman and McDonald (1966) showed that
structured, coded feedback is more effective for achieving transfer
than is open-ended feedback and self-observation in programs which
employ a feedback component.
Berliner (1982) found that, in five out of six classrooms,
teachers observed by graduate students with coded measures who later
counseled the teachers on an individual basis increased on-task
behavior for students from 40 to 50 percent to 70 or 80 percent,
further indicating that in-class monitoring, or a form of coaching,
and feedback may be effective.
26
Coaching
Showers (1983) showed in an experimental study that inservice
programs which make use of in-class coaching with teacher teams are
more effective for facilitating the transition from skill development
to transfer than are programs which do not.
In a series of papers based on a two-year review of literature,
Joyce and Showers (1980, 1981, 1982) propose an inservice model which
consists of the following steps: (a) study of the theoretical basis or
rationale of the instructional method; (b) observation of demonstrations by persons who are expert in the method; (c) practice and feedback in a nonthreatening setting; and (d) coaching to transfer and
executive control.
Executive control is the ability to decide when
and how it is appropriate to use a particular new instructional model.
In the Showers study (1983), participating teachers, particularly
those in the noncoaching groups, saw executive control of a new model
as a particular difficulty after training.
Joyce and Showers (1980)
state, however, that for the simple fine tuning of existing skills,
presentation and modeling are adequate for some teachers.
Ongoing Inservice
Research by Berman and McLaughlin (1976) shows that the concept of
"mutual adaptation," or gradual change of the learned teaching model
and the classroom environment to the specifications of the teacher, is
most successfully implemented when it takes place over time rather than
in a one-shot style.
Berman and McLaughlin confirmed in a later study
(1978) for the Rand Corporation that staff developments which have an
impact on teacher behavior are spaced out over time.
27
The concept of long-term inservice is further supported by the
Concerns Based Adoption Model, or CBAM (Hall & Loucks, 1978).
The
model, based on Fuller's study of undergraduate teachers as they moved
through teacher preparation (1969), assumes that change takes place
over time, is highly personal, and that staff developers need to
diagnose teachers' locations in the change process and adapt strategies
to the stage of the change.
The model proposes seven stages of concern
about innovation and suggests ways to adapt inservice to individuals
as they progress through the levels of concern.
Joint Involvement by Teachers and Administration
Partially supporting the Rand study's (1978) and Johnston and
Yeakey's (1977) findings that effective inservice is characterized by
administrator and teacher participation in decision making is the
Readiness, Planning, Training, Implementation, and Maintenance model,
or RPTIM (Wood, Thompson, & Russell, 1981), which is a model for
designing inservice.
A survey shows that a significantly high number
of practitioners support the use of RPTIM, indicating that the model
could increase participation.
The model is based on ten assumptions,
which include the beliefs that educators are motivated to learn when
they have control over their learning and that school climate is a
key element in the success of inservice.
Also interesting to note is
that the program assumes that significant improvement resulting from
inservice must take place over time.
Staff Development for School Improvement (SDSI) (Hough & Urick,
1981; Titsworth & Bonner, 1983) also operates on the assumption that
awareness, readiness, and commitment among staff are essential for
effective inservice.
An evaluation of 19 schools in Detroit concludes
28
that participants in the project improve in knowledge, skills, and
communication.
Program strengths cited by participants include the
opportunity to have responsibility for staff development.
Summary and Conclusions
Research appears to show, then, that certain characteristics
improve inservice: (a) that it be aimed at specific skills rather than
at general theoretical principles; (b) that it address needs perceived
by teachers; (c) that it emphasize particular program phases, specifically practice oriented phases; (d) that it should be ongoing; and (e)
that it should involve both administrators and teachers.
Needed in the
area of inservice is research to determine whether the innovation in
staff development apparent in some literature of the 1980s has been
translated into practice at the school site.
Research from the 1970s
(Wagstaff & McCullough, 1973) suggests that at that time inservice was
largely ineffective because it stressed information dissemination
rather than application and practice.
With the advent of legislation
to fund staff development and school improvement programs (Assembly
Bill 551, 1982), it would be of interest to study the degree of transfer of inservice research from theory into general practice.
Lawrence (1974); Borg, Langer, and Kelly (1971); and Showers
(1983) found that inservice programs which employ elements of theory
presentation, modeling, practice, feedback, and coaching lead to
transfer of inservice skills to the classroom.
This literature
supports the choice of the Joyce and Showers program (1980), which
contains all of these elements.
Mohlman, Coladarci, and Gage (1982) found that highly implemented
inservice practices are perceived as specific.
This research supports
0
29
the choice of an inservice program which teaches a single, clear program method based on a single, clearly delineated definition of
critical thinking.
Lawrence (1974) found that school-based programs run by on-site
personnel are more effective than programs run by outside sources.
This research supports the use of a program "package" which can be
studied and presented by on-site personnel.
Conclusion to the Review of Literature
In a society in which we are bombarded with a flow of information
and which constantly demands us to make decisions about that information, we need to be equipped with critical thinking skills so that we
can evaluate what we see and hear with confidence.
Responsibility
falls increasingly upon the schools to meet this need for thinking
skills.
Teachers, however, are equally bombarded with a flow of information on critical thinking.
How can it be sifted a11d evaluated?
Classroom programs in critical thinking which are specific, both
theoretically and practically, can make that evaluation and choice
process easier for teachers.
The following inservice program, which is designed to be studied
and presented by school-site personnel, presents critical thinking
instruction based on clear, specific research (Hare, 1962; Ennis, 1964;
Ennis & Paulus, 1965).
The inservice model contains components shown
by research to be effective (Joyce & Showers, 1982).
Research also shows that when teachers, after having made their
evaluations, have chosen to learn a specific teaching skill, certain
patterns of training work best in assuring that the skill transfers to
•
30
the classroom.
Modeling of the skill, practice, and coaching performed
by and with peers have been shown to be most effective (Joyce &
Showers, 1982; Showers, 1983).
Chapter III
THE INSERVICE PROGRAM
Program Phases
Information found in this program can best be used by teachers
of students at the seventh through ninth grade levels and in the subject
area of English.
Lessons can be adapted for the social studies
classroom or for other grade levels.
Following is a condensation of an actual inservice presentation.
The timeline for executing the entire program from the presentation
of theory phase to the coaching phase could range from one month
to one year.
Before presenting the program, make an outline of the
presentation of theory, program objectives, and design sections;
and duplicate the instructional program.
list from the reference list.
Compile a selected reading
Distribute these materials at the
presentation of theory session.
Presentation of Theory/Rationale
Critical thinking is a term we have often used and heard
used in a context of concern over the past few years.
We as teachers
know that our students are not always as "sharp" as we would like
to see them.
We like to see them in control of an idea, aware
of contradictions or fallacies, aware of applications.
Sometimes
we wonder how it would be best to help our students to achieve
this awareness, or to achieve critical thinking.
The public, including politicians and parents, is concerned
about critical thinking as well.
In its report A Nation at Risk,
which gained national attention, the National Commission on
Excellence in Education said that " • • • many 17-year-olds do not
31
32
possess the 'higher order' intellectual skills we should expect
of them.
Nearly 40 percent of them cannot draw inferences from
written material; only one-fifth can write a persuasive essay;
and only one-third can solve a mathematics problem requiring
several steps (p. 9)."
Yet we as classroom educators know that
teaching "higher order intellectual skills," or critical thinking
skills as we shall call them for the remainder of this workshop,
is a great deal more involved than teaching inferences, persuasive
writing, and math problem solving.
It is also more involved
than simply setting our highest standards and increasing graduation
requirements.
We know that we need more information about what
critical thinking is before we will feel comfortable teaching it,
and we need suggestions about how to teach it once we know what
it is.
Let us then work on a definition of critical thinking for this
workshop.
We are going to use the definition of Dr. Robert Ennis
(1964), who is a professor of education at Cornell University and
has been studying critical thinking for over twenty years.
He
has also designed a measure with which you may be familiar, the
Cornell Critical Thinking Test (1971).
If you are interested in
studying other definitions of critical thinking so that you may
come to your own conclusions about or revisions of this instructional
program, there is a reading list included in your workshop package.
According to Ennis, critical thinking, or the evaluation of
statements, has three dimensions: a logical dimension, a criteria!
dimension, and a pragmatic dimension.
The logical dimension
involves judging the relationships between the meanings of words
33
and statements.
For example, a student must know how to use words
which are key logical operators, such as "all," "some," "none," "not,"
"and," "if • • • then," "or," or "unless."
The next, or criterial,
dimension involves being aware of the criteria for judging statements.
There are nine major criteria, which we will soon discuss.
Finally,
the pragmatic dimension involves the ability to determine when evidence
is sufficient for the purpose at hand.
Ennis proposes nine major criteria for judging statements.
Being able to use these nine criteria effectively constitutes
being able to think critically.
These nine criteria each contain
aspects of some or all of the three major dimensions.
The nine
criteria include the following:
1. Judging whether a statement follows from the premises-logical dimension.
2. Judging whether something is an assumption--logical.
3. Judging whether an observation statement is reliable-logical, criterial, pragmatic.
4. Judging whether a simple generalization is warranted-logical, pragmatic.
5. Judging whether an hypothesis is warranted--logical,
pragmatic.
6. Judging whether a theory is warranted--logical, pragmatic.
7. Judging whether an argument depends on an ambiguity-logical, criterial, pragmatic.
8. Judging whether a statement is overvague or overspecific-logical, pragamtic.
34
9. Judging whether a statement made by an alleged authority
is acceptable--logical, criterial, pragmatic.
Later, when we reach the instructional program, we will discuss
clear examples of what each criterion means.
Now, however, let us
talk about why this program will use discussion as a method for
teaching critical thinking.
Research in teaching methods shows
that discussion has been especially effective in the past for
increasing critical thinking ability.
Lipman, Sharp, and Oscanyon
(1980) found, while using their program "Philosophy for Children,"
that when students between fifth and twelth grades use dialogue
with each other and with their teachers about logical thought
processes, their ability to be logical increases and their critical
thinking scores increase significantly.
Whimbey and Lochhead (1980),
who designed a program to teach analytical reasoning and problem
solving to high school students, also found that the use of listenerpartners during problem solving helps students to see their own
thought processes more clearly.
Finally, Gall et al. (1978)
found that sixth graders who participate in a discussion method
which uses recitation are able to give better answers to "higher
cognitive," or critical thinking, questions.
So you see that various
forms of discussion have been found successful in the past for
teaching critical thinking.
If we are going to use discussion to teach critical thinking,
then we need to know a little more about what teaching techniques
make it most effective.
Research shows that discussion groups are more effective when
they are kept small, particularly to five members or less, and when
35
participants can see each other (Hare, 1962; Stephan & Mischler, 1952;
Steinzor, 1950).
This program, then, will make use of a small
group discussion technique which limits group size to four.
Further research shows that small groups are better at
solving problems when the individuals have had an opportunity
to think about solutions beforehand (Taylor, Berry, & Block,
1958).
In this program, therefore, students will be assigned
to think about and outline the discussion topic before meeting
in groups.
Writing assignments will vary with the specific lesson.
Many of us may have concerns about using discussion or about
using a critical thinking skills program.
Some of us may feel
uncomfortable using discussion with junior high age students
because we fear our classes may become uncontrolled.
It is important
to realize, however, that many people believe that, in the long
run, classes actually become more controlled than they were before
if they are carefully trained in the rules of a specific discussion
technique.
In addition, some of us may feel that discussion cannot best
accomplish learning objectives because not all students can
participate.
The discussion method which will be used with
this program, however, assures that every student participates.
Since some critical thinking programs which you may have seen
in the past work only with critical thinking skills, not with
traditional subject matter, you may be concerned that your academic
teaching goals will not be best served if you take time to use
a thinking skills program.
However, you may find after looking
at the program that the lessons, based on Ennis's nine criteria,
i1
36
can easily be adapted to receive any academic content in the areas
of English or social studies.
A discussion method entitled "Be the Focus," designed by
Gold and Yellin (1982), has been adapted and chosen as the basic
discussion technique to be used when carrying out the critical
thinking lessons.
This method involves breaking the class into
groups of four students with one of the students being the
leader.
If necessary, one or two groups may be composed of three
students.
Each participant in each group is assigned a number one
through four by the teacher with the leader being the last to speak.
A series of teacher-timed, thirty second presentations take place
during which group members speak in turn, stopping when their
timed interval is called.
During interval number one, all number
ones in all groups should be speaking at the same time; this
pattern continues until every student has spoken.
No speaker may
be interrupted at any time unless he feels unable to speak.
In
that event the group leader may use a list of teacher designed
yes-or-no questions to interview the quiet student.
After all
students one through three have presented for thirty seconds to
the small group and the leader has made a one minute summation,
the leaders review briefly the ideas of each student to the class.
In this way even the very shyest class members who may have had to
be interviewed have their names mentioned and hear their ideas
rephrased.
Discussion takes place on a lesson topic which should have
been presented at least one day earlier in most cases; this leaves
•
37
time to carry out all pre-discussion lesson activities.
The
discussion interaction itself has four stages: pre-activity
discussion, activity, post-activity discussion, and follow-up.
The
activity portion may consist of reading, writing, or viewing and/or
participating in a dramatic presentation.
Pre-activity discussion makes use of the timed intervals
and is on the students' views concerning the lesson topic.
Each
student speaks for his timed interval in a specified pattern:
student one simply states his ideas and the reasons for them;
students two and three rephrase the one student who spoke directly
prior to them, then find
points of agreement or disagreement,
finally stating their own views; and last, the leader summarizes
quickly everyone's views, then states his own views.
The activity portion comes next, during which students read
a specified article, write on a directly related topic which stimulates
further thinking, or view and/or participate in a dramatization of a
topic-related situation.
Activities are designed to simulate new
ideas for the post-activity discussion phase.
Post-activity
discussion also makes use of the timed intervals, and the same
speaking patterns are followed as the ones used in pre-activity
discussion.
In this segment, however, the first speaker should be
sure to adapt his ideas to include information gathered from the
activity.
The follow-up phase involves the leaders presenting
the participants' views from the post-activity discussion, being
sure to highlight any idea changes which may have occurred.
Leaders should summarize the views of persons one through three
in that order, concluding with themselves.
After each leader
38
presents, comments from the class at large may follow.
It is important that the class and the teacher be fully practiced
in this method before attempting it to assure success.
I suggest
that you introduce the method to the class as a "fishbowl"
discussion, with only a single, practiced group going through the
timed intervals while the group at large watches and participates
in the activity.
I also suggest that you give students a thirty
second silent mental "warm-up" in order to provide an opportunity
to clarify thoughts before each discussion interaction.
Before we look over the lessons in the workshop package
together, you will see a sample discussion on videotape.
After we
discuss the lessons, you will try the method yourselves.
At a
later practice, you will learn to use specially designed selfevaluation checklists to monitor your own progress as a participant
and as the teacher-moderator.
Modifications to "Be the Focus" as per program needs are
recommended by Gold and Yellin and have been made for this program.
Videotape
At this juncture in the presentation, introduce and play a
videotape which you have made of a class at your own school after
the teacher has studied and practiced the program discussion
method in her classroom.
The model teacher may use the videotape
included with this program in Appendix I for study.
Read the
"Modeling of Program Skills" section on page 85 for reference.
Program Objectives
This program was designed with certain classroom objectives
in mind.
Self-evaluation checklists, with which you will be working
39
later, were also designed with these objectives in mind.
Our objectives will be as follows:
1. For teachers to implement critical thinking instruction
using discussion so that immediate feedback and revision of student
thought processes is possible.
2. For teachers to involve all students equally in the
instructional process.
3. For students to demonstrate knowledge of Ennis's criteria
for critical thinking.
4. For students to apply the criteria associated with critical
thinking to their own ideas and to the ideas of others.
5. For students to demonstrate that they can evaluate the
views of others in a nonaggressive way.
Design
Certain lessons in this program find their prerequisites
in lessons which teach skills later on Ennis's list.
Since
Ennis does not specify an order for teaching these nine skills,
I have taken the liberty of adjusting the items on his list.
Lessons begin with focus activities upon very narrow skills
or skill groups.
Lessons broaden to include application first
to academic content and then to life situations.
Certain earlier
lessons involve more intensive narrow skill practice.
Program Le·s·s·ons
Lesson 1: Judging Whether an Observation Statement is Reliable
Rationale.
Before a student can evaluate evidence from sources
other than his own observation, whether for use in research or in
40
order to make citizenship decisions, he must be aware of how to
determine whether that source's observations were made under
appropriate circumstances for credibility.
Rarely do citizens
have an opportunity to make civic decisions based on first-hand
observation; the skill of evaluating observation statements, therefore,
becomes important.
Content analysis.
In order to evaluate the credibility of
an observation statement, it is necessary to be able to answer
the following questions about the source:
1. Was the observer unemotional and alert, and did he have
anything to gain or lose?
2. Was the observer skilled at observing the type of thing
observed, if any skill was required?
3. Did the observer have all of his senses in working order?
4. Did the observer have a reputation for telling the truth?
5. Did the observer have any previous ideas about how the
situation would turn out?
6. Did the observer have good access to what was being observed?
7. Could the observer see and hear everything taking place,
or touch and smell it if required?
8. Was the observation ·a direct one?
9. Was the observation corroborated by other individuals1
Objectives:
1. Students will demonstrate awareness of the criteria for
evaluating observation statements.
2. Students will apply these criteria to observations.
41
Prerequisite knowledge:
1. Difference between fact and opinion.
Students will
need to distinguish between what is observation and what is
opinion about the observation.
Focus.
This lesson should be carried out in conjunction with
the reading and other activities for Tom Sawyer (Twain, 1981).
You will need six volunteers to participate in a skit.
They
should arrange for a rubber knife, two spades, three or four
cardboard gravestones, and a flashlight.
for a practice time.
They should also arrange
They will be acting out the chapter "Tragedy
in the Graveyard" from Tom Sawyer, beginning with the line,
"It was a graveyard of the old-fashioned western kind (p. 62),"
and proceeding to the end of the chapter (p. 67).
The six volunteers will play the narrator, Tom, Huck, Injun
Joe, Dr. Robinson, and Muff Potter.
They should pantomime
pushing the wheelbarrow and digging up the body.
will be acted out with props.
Everything else
Designate some desks to be the
"trees" among which Tom and Huck hide.
Keep the room in half light
during the portions of the story when the moon is out, using the
flashlight as the lantern.
Shut out all lights when the moon
is behind the clouds.
Central lesson.
reread the chapter.
statement.
After the skit, assign the students to
Pass out the criteria for judging an observation
Assign students to write two paragraphs, one telling
what made Tom and Huck good observers and one telling their drawbacks
as observers.
They should explain finally how their assets
outweigh their drawbacks.
42
The next day, break into "Be the Focus" discussion groups and
present the information from the paragraphs.
Outlined notes only
should be used for this phase, so you may wish to collect paragraphs
ahead of time and assign a separate speaking outline.
The presentation
to the class may be dispensed with for this phase since most
papers will be similar.
The purpose of the discussion is so that
all students can hear some well thought-out papers and rethink
their own if needed.
For the activity phase, assign students to
list all other witnesses present, whether good or bad witnesses.
Under each witness's name, they should tell a reason why each one
was desirable or undesirable.
Next, they should list what
conditions, if changed, would have made Tom and Huck poor witnesses.
For the post-activity discussion, students should present
information from the list of conditions that would have made Tom
and Huck poor observers.
Presentations to the class by leaders
should stress which unique condition changes each student added.
Follow-up.
Assign students to rewrite the scene, making
the condition changes which they mentioned in discussion.
Instruct
them to duplicate some situations, but not dialogue or narration.
Means of evaluation:
1. Paragraphs from central lesson.
Look for knowledge of
criteria for judging observations.
2. Lists from activity phase.
3. Stories from follow-up.
Look for knowledge of criteria.
Look for sensitivity to situations
which would make observation difficult.
Lesson II:
Judging Vbether an Alleged Authority is Reliable
Rationale.
When doing research, some students often blindly
43
accept the validity of expert opinions and other second-hand
sources.
In order to write effective research papers and to
become citizens who can evaluate the multitude of "authorities"
who abound in the media and society, students must become aware
of the criteria necessary to evaluate authoritative sources.
Content analysis.
In order to evaluate a source's credibility,
it is necessary to be able to answer questions such as the following:
1. Who is the authority?
a. Is it an agency or an individual with a bias?
2. What is the authority's background?
a. What education, training, or experience qualified
the authority to speak as a specialist?
b. What is the authority's reputation among other
acknowledged experts in the field?
3. What is the basis for claimed credibility?
a. Is the authority an expert on the particular topic
involved?
b. Is the statement within the authority's field of
expertise?
c. Has the authority investigated the specific details
of the particular issue?
4. What is the authority's purpose in speaking or writing?
a. Is the authority "disinterested"?
b. Is the authority speaking individually, or is he
representing a group or an agency with a bias?
c. Could the authority's reputation be affected by his
statements, and is he aware of this when speaking?
44
d. Does the authority have anything to gain?
5. Are there any reasons to question the authority's credibility?
a. Are the authority's statements consistent, or are
contradictions present?
b. Is there corroboration from other independent authorities?
c. Is the authority's statement objective, or is it
propagandistic in tone?
d. Did the statement appear in an objective source or
a biased one?
(Smith, 1983, p. 211)
Prerequisite knowledge:
1. Criteria for whether an observation statement is reliable.
Students will need to evaluate observation statements made by
authorities.
Objectives:
1. Students will identify when authoritative evidence is being
used.
2. Students will demonstrate familiarity with criteria for
judging authorities.
3. Students will apply criteria to situations involving
authoritative evidence.
Focus.
Select three volunteer students from a different
class from the one receiving the lesson.
Have them dress in hooded
robes, perhaps made from sheets, with their feet and faces concealed.
They should carry laser-like weapons.
students in your class.
Have them "kidnap" five
While these students are kidnaped,
the five should be given papers explaining that one of them
represents a minister who has worked in twenty-three countries
45
and speaks seven languages; one a writer of non-fiction books,
the accuracy of which are officially in question and one of which was
about UFO's; one a member of a club which includes members who
who claim to have seen UFO's; one a grocery checker; and one a
member of a team of scientists who study aeronautics.
be handed the following testimony to read.
They should
When they return
to class, it should be without the hooded figures.
They should
each explain their backgrounds before reading the testimony.
Minister:
The creatures who kidnaped us did not seem to be
human because they spoke a language which did not sound like
any human language I had ever heard, and they had a strange,
floating way of moving.
They never removed their robes.
They had a ship of sorts which was football-shaped and made
of something resembling steel.
It had no windows.
Only
the writer, the scientist, and the grocery checker were taken
inside the ship.
I believe that their ship was from outer
space.
UFO Club member:
These creatures were just like the ones I
saw last time I encountered a UFO.
Last time, they took me
into their ship and removed their robes, and I saw that
they had elephant skin·and yellow eyes.
filled with amazing gadgets.
Their ship was
Just like last time, these
creatures' feet never touched the ground.
Now I believe in
UFO's more than ever.
~iter:
It was just like the last guy said.
When I got
inside, their ship was amazing, filled with gadgets I'd never
seen.
Their language was very strange, too, and they seemed
46
to float when they walked.
I sneaked off by myself and saw
one without his robe, and he had elephant skin and yellow
eyes, just like the other guy said.
I think I surprised him,
because he floated away from me really quickly.
Scientist:
That writer did sneak off, but I don't think
he saw anything, because he didn't mention anything about it
until now.
I never saw them without their robes, but the
cloth looked suspiciously like cotton, and the gadgets in
the ship could have been non-functioning, since we never saw
them work.
In my opinion, the whole thing could be a hoax,
although a good hoax.
The ship instruments were designed
so that we couldn't compare them to anything known.
What
bothers me, though, is that too much was familiar; the metal
looked like steel, the cloth looked like cotton, and the voices
sounded like they could be human with a chest-mounted synthesizer.
Also, from what we know about modern aeronautics, it didn't
appear that the ship should be able to take off from the
position in which it was sitting.
What I mean is that there
was no "runway," and the ship was formed such that it
appeared to need one.
Grocery checker:
The area was heavily wooded.
It's.true that the writer didn't say
anything about the spaceman until now, but he looked so sick
and pale when he came back that he might have been too scared
to speak.
I think the scientist was too busy looking around
at things in the ship to see that.
Anyway, we were only in
there for two or three minutes before they led us back here.
Then they returned in the direction of the ship.
It sure
47
looked real to me.
Of course, I'm no expert.
***
Have dittoed transcripts of all testimony prepared to hand
out to the class.
quietly.
Give students a few minutes to absorb this
The five "witnesses" should now resume their places
as students in the class.
Break up into "Be the Focus" discussion groups.
Give students
about sixty quiet seconds to collect thoughts upon their opinions
as to whether or not a UFO really landed.
Tell them before they
prepare that they should be able to show reasons from the testimony
for their opinions.
Present opinions in "Be the Focus" format.
For the activity phase, pass out the criteria for evaluating
authorities.
Assign students to mentally answer all questions
with each of the five witnesses in mind.
Assign them to list as
many assets and drawbacks for each witness as they can.
Assign
them to write two paragraphs, one giving their opinions as to who
are the most credible witnesses and why, and one giving their
opinions as to who are the least credible witnesses and why.
Be sure to briefly review paragraph form.
For the post-activity discussion, have students first present
information from the paragraphs and then whether opinions about
whether or not a UFO had landed changed.
silent seconds of preparation.
Give students sixty
You may assign an outline to assist
in preparation if you wish.
Collect paragraphs, lists, and any supplementary outlines
after discussion.
48
Follow-u~
Do the following exercise as a class after
reviewing the criteria:
Decide whether you accept (A) or reject (R) the credibility
of each source.
1. Automotive Safety Engineer, Consumer's Credit Union.
"The use of seat belts greatly reduces the possibility
of fatal accidents in automobiles."
2. Actor in a Popular TV Series.
"Nuclear power plants are the most inefficient and
dangerous of all possible ways to generate electricity."
3. Chairperson, Democratic National Political Party.
"The high rate of unemployment in this country is the
result of the policies of the current Republican President."
4. Executive, Large Power Lawn Mower Manufacturing Firm.
"The new safety regulations the govermnent proposes
will add about $40 to the price of each mower."
5. U.S. Supreme Court Justice.
"The number of people now in prison is greater than at
any time since 1925."
6. TASS, the Official News Agency of the Soviet Union.
"The missiles placed in Europe by the Soviet Union
are purely defensive weapons but those of the United States
are offensive weapons intended for attack against Russian
citizens."
7. Chemist, National Tobacco Institute.
"The effects of smoking are still very uncertain.
There
is no good evidence that it is harmful to a person's health."
49
8. Political Reporter, Local Newspaper.
"A majority of the state's legislators have indicated that
they will vote against a tax increase this year."
9. Minister.
"The best way to end the crime wave that is drowning
this country is to increase the length of prison sentences."
10. Car Insurance Agent.
"Drivers between sixteen and twenty-five years of age
tend to have more accidents than any other age group."
(Smith, 1983, p. 213)
Central activity.
approved topics.
Assign a research paper on a choice of
Some approved topics might be:
1. Are some UFO's actually from outer space?
2. Is it beneficial to our nation to stockpile nuclear
weapons?
3. Is capital punishment both beneficial to society and moral?
Stress the importance of citing all sources.
Tell students
that when the paper has been handed in, they will have to submit
reasons why each source they cited was desirable for the purpose
at hand.
A form such as this could be used:
TOPic·:
---------------------------------------------SOURCE:
---------------------------------------------
REASONS: ______________________________________
Have students use the enclosed criteria for their reasons.
· Means of evalua t·ion:
1. Paragraphs, lists, and outlines from focus activity.
p
50
Compare later assignments to earlier assignments to look for
acquired knowledge of criteria for judging authorities.
2. Exercises from follow-up.
Check for accuracy, or for whether
students can evaluate the credibility of a source according to
the criteria in the content analysis.
3. Research papers and source forms.
Check for knowledge
of what authoritative sources were used and for ability to apply
criteria to evaluate credibility.
· Lesson III:
Judging Whether a Statement Follows from the Premises
Rationale.
~en
writing, students often have difficulty
progressing beyond the simple repetition of the information which
they have read.
If students are to grow into citizens who are
able to evaluate the validity of information from the media and
other sources, they must begin to approach reading with an eye to
evaluation and to approach writing with an eye to drawing conclusions.
If students are to draw valid conclusions, they must begin to
understand what constitutes validity.
Content analysis.
Determining the validity of conclusions or
potential conclusions requires practice in two types of logic,
class logic and conditional logic.
For the purpose of the junior
high school class, class logic will involve knowing the following:
1. Whatever belongs to a class does not fail to belong to it.
2. Whatever belongs to a class belongs to any larger class to
which that class belongs.
Figure 1.
Animals
X
Dogs
'
51
3.
Whatever belongs to a class might not belong to other
classes within that class.
Figure 2.
Animals
4.
Whatever belongs to a class cannot belong to any class
excluded from that class.
Figure 3.
Animals
X
5.
Dogs
Items can belong to many classes if the classes do not
exclude one another.
Figure 4.
Redheads
X John
Males
X
John
52
For the purposes of the junior high school class, conditional
logic will involve knowing the following, assuming all statements
are true:
1. In an if-then statement, the truth of the if part means
the truth of the then part.
If Mr. Kelly had been dead for one hour when his body
was found, and his body was found at 1:30 a.m., then
Mr. Kelly died at 12:30 a.m.
Mr. Kelly had been dead for one hour when his body
was found, and his body was found at 1:30 a.m.
Therefore, he died at 12:30 a.m.
2. In an if-then statement, the falsity of the if part does
not necessarily mean the falsity of the then part.
If Rex is a tiger, then he has fangs.
Rex is not a tiger.
Yet Rex may still have fangs.
3. In an if-then statement, the truth of the then part does
not necessarily mean the truth of the if part.
If Rex is a tiger, then he has fangs.
Rex has fangs.
Yet Rex may not be a tiger.
4. In an if-then statement, the falsity of the then part
means the falsity of the if part§
If Rex is a tiger, then he has fangs.
Rex does not have fangs.
Therefore, Rex is not a tiger.
(Ennis, 1965)
@ '
53
Rather than requiring students to memorize principles which
may be quite difficult to apply, the principles will be learned
inductively.
Since Ennis (1965) has found that students have
difficulty mastering conditional logic formally before the age of
16, conditional logic in particular is introduced implicitly.
Realize that in order to fully practice all of the above aspects
of logic without presenting formal logic lessons, teachers may
need to present further lessons of their own design.
The sample
lessons is simply one idea.
The study of grammar, particularly the identification of
adverbs, adverb
phrases, and adverb clauses for the junior high
school level, provides practice in both class and conditional logic.
Objectives:
1. Students will design classes.
2. Students will assign statements or items to classes.
3. Students will demonstrate understanding of how conclusions
depend upon evidence.
4. Students will draw valid conclusions or inferences.
Prerequisite knowledge:
1. Criteria for evaluating authorities.
Students will need
to evaluate authorities and·observation statements in the course
of completing the assignment.
·Focus.
Distribute the following clues to each student.
Students should assume all statements are true and that all evidence
is present.
1. When he was discovered dead, Mr. Kelley had a bullet hole
in his thigh and a knife wound in his back.
54
2. Mr. Jones shot at an intruder in his apartment building
at 12:00 midnight.
3. The elevator operator reported to police that he saw Mr.
Kelley at 12:15 a.m.
4. The bullet taken from Mr. Kelley's thigh matched the gun
owned by Mr. Jones.
5. Only one bullet had been fired from Mr. Jones's gun.
6. When the elevator man saw Mr. Kelley, Mr. Kelley was bleeding
slightly, but he did not seem too badly hurt.
7. A knife with Mr. Kelley's blood on it was found in Miss
Smith's yard.
8. The knife found in Miss Smith's yard had Mr. Scott's
fingerprints on it.
9. Mr. Kelley had destroyed Mr. Jones's business by stealing
all of his customers.
10. The elevator man saw Mr. Kelley's wife go to Mr. Scott's
apartment at 11:30 p.m.
11. The elevator operator said that Mr. Kelley's wife frequently
left the building with Mr. Scott.
12. Mr. Kelley's body was found in the park.
13. Mr. Kelley's body was found at 1:30 a.m.
14. Mr. Kelley had been dead for one hour when his body was
found, according to a medical expert working with police.
15. The elevator man saw Mr. Kelley go to Mr. Scott's room
at 12:25 a.m.
16. The elevator man went off duty at 12:30 a.m.
17. It was obvious from the condition of Mr. Kelley's body
55
that it had been dragged a long distance.
18. Miss Smith saw Mr. Kelley go to Mr. Jones's apartment building
at 11:55 p.m.
19. Mr. Kelley's wife disappeared after the murder.
20. Police were unable to locate Mr. Scott after the murder.
21. When police tried to locate Mr. Jones after the murder,
they discovered that he had disappeared.
22. The elevator man said that Miss Smith was in the lobby
of the apartment building when he went off duty.
23. Miss Smith often followed Mr. Kelley.
24. Mr. Jones had told Mr. Kelley that he was going to kill
25. Miss Smith said that nobody left the apartment building
between 12:25 a.m. and 12:45 a.m.
26. Mr. Kelley's blood stains were found in Mr. Scott's car.
27. Mr. Kelley's blood stains were found on the carpet in
the hall outside Mr. Jones's apartment.
ANSWER (to be distributed after everyone has had a chance to
work): After receiving a superficial gunshot wound from Mr. Jones,
Mr. Kelley went to Mr. Scott 1 s apartment where he was killed by
Mr. Scott because Mr. Scott·was involved with Mr. Kelley's wife.
(Stanford, 1969, p. 24-26)
Give students approximately ten minutes of quiet time with
the clues to attempt to discover the murderer and the motive in
their own way.
After ten minutes instruct students to take out two sheets
of blank paper.
Prepared, dittoed forms may also be used.
On
56
one paper, students should place facts in the following classes:
facts about the body and its evidence, facts about weapons,
facts about locations of people at particular times, and facts
about relationships between people.
students should begin two lists.
On the second sheet of paper,
One should be of statements
which they believe are true but are not now on the list.
All
statements should be followed by a reason why they are probably true.
An example might be, "Mr. Kelley's body was found at 1:30, and experts
said he had been dead for one hour.
at 12:30."
So Mr. Kelley must have died
Students should be aware that they will be using some
expert and witness opinion to draw their conclusions.
The second
list should include the names of suspects which have been eliminated.
The reason for the elimination should be jotted in beside the
suspect.
Allow students to arrive at conclusions using this plan.
Encourage students to include on their two lists only conclusions
which they feel will help them to find the murderer.
Follow-up.
Have students write at the bottom of their second
papers who they believe committed the murder and why.
papers and share some solutions with the class.
Collect
Tell some of the
suspects who were eliminated and the reasons given for their
elimination.
Conduct a large group discussion here if you feel
comfortable doing so.
Preparation for central lesson.
Pass out the story
"Four and Twenty Blackbirds" (Christie, 1950).
Assign students
to read the story, stopping short of the last page, or the
portion which contains Hercule Poirot's explanation of the
crime.
Assign students to write a paragraph telling who they
57
believe committed the crime and why.
They should use similar methods
to the ones used in the focus exercise to reach conclusions.
Collect the paragraphs and return before the central lesson to
assure participation.
Further practice.
Present clues for a second detective game.
Instruct students to use the skills they learned in the first
detective game to solve the murder.
After all students have arrived
at a solution, have students present the solutions and reasons for
them in "Be the Focus" format.
For the activity phase, distribute
the actual answer, and assign students to list the clues that
reveal the correct answer and the reasons why they do.
form may be used.
A dittoed
For post-activity discussion, present the
information listed during the activity.
1. The bank discovered $1,000,000 missing at 8:00 a.m. on
Friday, November 12.
The bank had closed at 5:00 p.m. the previous
day.
2. Miss Margaret Ellington, a teller at the bank, discovered
the robbery.
3. The vault of the bank had been blasted open by dynamite.
4. The president of the bank, Mr. Albert Greenbags, left
before the robbery was discovered.
He was arrested by authorities
at the Mexico City airport at noon on Friday, November 12.
5. The president of the bank had been having trouble with his
wife, who spent all of his money.
He had frequently talked of
leaving her.
6. The front door of the bank had been opened with a key.
7. The only keys to the bank were held by the janitor and
58
the president of the bank.
8. Miss Ellington often borrowed the president's key to
open the bank early when she had an extra amount of work to do.
9. A panhandler with a backpack had been hanging around the
bank on Thursday, November 11, watching employees and customers.
10. A substantial amount of dynamite had been stolen from
the Acme Construction Company on Wednesday, November 10.
11. An Acme employee, Howard Ellington, said that a panhandler
asking for money had been hanging around the construction company
on Wednesday afternoon.
12. The panhandler, whose name was Dirsey Flowers and who
had recently dropped out of Southwest Arkansas State Teachers
College, was found by police in East Birdwatch, about ten miles
from Minnetonka.
13. Dirsey Flowers was carrying $500 when police apprehended
him and had thrown a package into the river as the police approached.
14. Anastasia Wallflower of East Birdwatch, Wisconsin, said
that she had bought $500 worth of genuine Indian beads from
Dirsey Flowers for resale in her boutique in downtown East
Birdwatch.
15. Anastasia said that Dirsey had spent the night of
November 11th in her parents' barn and had left after a hot
breakfast on the morning of the 12th.
16. When police tried to locate the janitor of the bank,
Elwood Smith, he had apparently disappeared.
17. Miss Ellington stated that her brother Howard·, when
strolling to Taylor's Diner for coffee about 11:00 p.m. on
59
Thursday, November 11, had seen Mr. Smith running from the bank.
18. Mr. Smith was found by the F.B.I. in Dogwalk, Georgia, on
November 12.
He had arrived there via Southern Airlines Flight
414 at 5:00 p.m. on the 11th.
19. The airline clerk confirmed the time of Smith's arrival.
20. Mr. Greenbags was the only person who had a key to the
vault.
21. There were no planes out of Dogwalk between 4:00 p.m.
and 7:00 a.m.
22. In addition to keeping payroll records, Mr. Ellington
was in charge of the dynamite supplies of the Acme Construction
Company.
23. Mr. Greenbag's half-brother, Arthur Nodough, had always
been jealous of his brother by his own admission.
24. Nodough always got drunk on Friday nights.
25. Arthur Nodough appeared in Chicago on Monday, November 8,
waving a lot of money.
26. Arthur wanted to marry Camelia Smith.
27. Miss Ellington said that Smith often flirted with her.
28. Mr. Smith's father, a gold prospector in Alaska, had
died in September.
29. Mr. Greenbags waited in the terminal at O'Hare Field
in Chicago for 16 hours because of engine trouble on the plane
he was to take to Mexico City.
ANSWER:
The Ellingtons collaborated to rob the bank, Miss
Ellington supplying the front door key which she had borrowed
from Mr. Greenbags.
Howard supplied the dynamite.
Greenbags
60
had already left for his Latin American vacation when the robbery
took place.
Mr. Smith was in Dogwalk on the night of the robbery.
Dirsey Flowers was asleep in the barn at the home of Anastasia's
parents.
Smith.
The Ellingtons were lying when they tried to implicate
There was no evidence that Arthur Nodough was connected
to the robbery in any way.
Central lesson.
(Stanford, 1969, p. 28-30)
Using the "Be the Focus"_discus:SiQn technique,
have students present their conclusions about "Four and Twenty
Blackbirds" and their reasons for them.
During the activity phase,
have the students answer the following questions:
1. What was odd about the order of food on Monday?
2. What odd information did Bennington give Poirot on the train?
3. Tell all details of Henry Gascoigne's death and the
circumstances surrounding it.
4. Tell all circumstances concerning his family, including
the circumstances of his brother's death.
5. Tell all circumstances of the day leading up to Gascoigne's
death.
6. Tell all personal information available concerning Gascoigne's
brothers and any wives.
7. Tell the locations at time of death of all possible parties
involved.
8. Form a list of suspects.
9. Why was Poirot concerned that the victim's teeth might be
stained?
10. Evaluate the credibility of the waitresses as witnesses
to the dinner.
"
'
61
11.
Tell all evidence concerning the letter from the nephew.
12.
Evaluate Mrs. Hill as a witness.
13.
List all evidence gathered from Mrs. Hill.
14.
What is odd about Dr. Ramsey's appearance?
15.
After reading the ending, tell when it is first possible
to know the solution and why.
These questions may make students aware of evidence which they may
have missed before.
For this reason, students may wish to revise their
conclusions for the post-activity discussion.
quate time for this revision.
Be sure to leave ade-
Students should organize new evidence
into classes.
Follow-up.
Distribute Hercule Poirot's conclusion.
In the large
group, discuss the validity of students' and Poirot's conclusions.
Discuss where some conclusions may have broken down.
Assign final drafts of paragraphs.
Students who were satisfied
with their conclusions may recopy them for grammar and spelling and
may receive an improved score.
Means of evaluation:
1.
Lists from mystery activities.
Look for appropriate assign-
ment of items to classes and for awareness of interrelationship
between evidence and conclusions.
2.
Activity paragraphs from detective game.
Look for knowledge
of connection between evidence and conclusions.
3.
Activity questionnaire from Christie story.
Look for transfer
of conditional logic and classifying skills.
Lesson IV:
Judging Whether Something is an Assumption
Rationale.
In order to evaluate statements made by public figures,
62
citizens must be able to determine if those statements are founded
upon other statements which are logically sound and/or true.
Practice
in using the skills involved in judging assumptions will provide
practice in this area.
Content analysis.
with here:
Two basic types of assumptions will be dealt
premises and presuppositions.
A premise is a statement
which is used before the conclusion in an argument.
The conclusion
depends on it, and if one accepts the conclusion, one must accept the
premise.
Following are the criteria for judging premises:
1.
Of the premises available, the one used must be the best
one available for making the finished argument satisfactory.
2.
The premise should be the simplest one available.
3.
If there is a better premise according to the above standards,
it must be used.
4.
The finished argument must become false if the premise is not
true.
Presuppositions are included in the concluding statement of an
argument.
sense.
Presuppositions must be true for the argument even to make
For example, for the statement, "The senator's mistakes have
led to our problem," to be true, the senator must have made mistakes.
Here is an example of a statement depending upon a premise:
Since it has rained all week, the corn will come up.
Premise:
A successful corn crop depends upon rain.
Notice how premises are located back in the line of reasoning.
Here is an example of a statement containing a presupposition:
His ability to read Latin probably saved him in that situation.
This sample lesson will deal with presuppositions.
It is my
63
opinion that premise finding may be too complex for many junior high
school students since it requires some relatively sophisticated conditional logic.
Teachers may use their discretion in designing lessons.
Prerequisite knowledge:
1.
Judging whether a statement follows from the premises.
Since
statements containing presuppositions depend upon their presuppositions, students must understand the concept of dependency of conclusions upon premises.
Objectives:
1.
Students will identify presuppositions.
2.
Students will recognize the importance of determining the
accuracy of presuppositions.
Focus.
Place the following statements on the board one at a
time:
1.
Bob's ability to drive a truck will get him a good job this
summer.
2.
Senator Smith's poor attendance record at Senate meetings
has led to some of our area's problems.
3.
We can use George's five dollars to go to the movies.
4.
My donkey can't come into the house because his wings keep
him from coming through the door.
5.
Tom's ability to fly like a bird is what helps him to get
around town.
As you put each one up, ask students to think about what has to
be true in each statement for it to make sense.
Assign students to
write the statements down and to underline the portion that we are
presupposing, or assuming to be true, when we believe the statement.
64
By the time the last statement is up, students should be aware of what
you are aiming at.
Central lesson.
Explain to students that sometimes we accept that
something is true because someone states it so emphatically that we do
not dispute it.
It slips past us in a statement that appears to be
about something else.
We may hear that something is going to take
place because this "fact" is the accepted cause.
But the cause might
not really exist.
Explain that it is always important to find and think about reasons
and causes that are given when someone makes a statement.
Explain
that sometimes the reason or cause will look so much like a part of
the statement that it will be hard to spot.
Discuss statement three
from the focus lesson at this point.
Pass out the following paragraph:
Since Congressman Jones knew about his congratulations
party, we see no reason why he couldn't have been there.
Dr.
Disorganized, the Congressman's closest friend, was the logical
choice for our social director, and we were lucky to have him.
He enabled us to choose all of the Congressman's favorite foods,
which should have made the party a total success:
salad, snails in butter, and garlic spaghetti.
romaine lettuce
We all waited in
the dark for three hours, but the Congressman never arrived.
Congressman Jones's new victory has gone to his head, and it kept
him from attending our party.
Assign students to write a paragraph citing as many presuppositions
as they can find in this paragraph.
include the following:
Presuppositions they should find
65
1.
That Congressman Jones knew about the party.
2.
That Dr. Disorganized is his closest friend.
3.
That romaine salad, snails, and garlic spaghetti are
the Congressman's favorite foods.
4.
That Congressman Jones's victory has gone to his head.
Break into "Be the Focus" groups and present the information
from the paragraphs.
For the activity phase, present the following paragraph,
giving a similar assignment:
Congressman Jones should be impeached for his crime
of jewel smuggling.
Congressman Jones's participation in
this evil act was brought about by his relationship with James
Smith, a man formerly convicted of jewel smuggling; Hr. Smith
and Congressman Jones were seen at a party together last June.
When all of the evidence is in, we are sure that Congressman
Jones's pending trial for jewel smuggling will end in conviction
and that he will be impeached.
Ask three questions:
1.
What two major presuppositions begin this paragraph?
2.
What might you have assumed if you had not read the whole
thing?
3.
Do the presuppositions later turn out to be warranted?
Why or why not?
For post-activity discussion, present the answers to these
questions in small groups.
Collect afterwards.
If consensus occurs, assure the leader that this is alright.
66
Follow-through assignments:
1.
In the process of reading and other related assignments
for The Yearling (Rawlings, 1970), ask students to write about the
presupposition the Forresters proceeded upon when burning Grandma
Hutto's house and how this presupposition led to great harm.
2.
In the process of reading and other related assignments for
Tom Sawyer (Twain, 1981), ask students to write about what presupposition prevented Mrs. Thatcher from realizing that Becky was lost in the
cave and caused her to conclude that Becky was safe.
Ask students to
see if they can identify other presuppositions in Tom Sawyer (Twain,
1981).
3.
Assign students to identify presuppositions in letters to the
editor from your local newspaper.
Means of evaluation:
1.
Paragraphs on Congressman Jones's party.
Look for awareness
of presuppositions and strategies for identifying them.
2.
Answers to questions on Congressman Jones's impeachment.
Check for accuracy.
Look for awareness of presuppositions and of the
results of making them without checking for accuracy.
3.
Papers from follow-through assignments.
Look for ability
to detect presuppositions.
Lesson V:
Judging Whether an Argument Depends on an Ambiguity
Rationale.
Frequently terms are used loosely in public argument;
a term or word may have a particular meaning when the argument or
presentation begins and may take a subtle shift or turn in meaning
by its end.
This manner of using words, whether accidental or
purposeful, may give an argument a greater appearance of universal
67
appeal than is warranted.
Students need to be able to identify when
terms have not been clearly defined and applied throughout the course
of an argument if they are to evaluate written and spoken arguments
effectively.
Content analysis.
Finding ambiguities in an argument involves
determining whether terms are clearly defined and then applied
using that definition throughout the argument.
Words which have
multiple, broad, or relative definitions particularly lend themselves
to ambiguity.
Such words may include "religion," "love," "morality,"
"science," "government," "suffering," "democracy," or "communism."
Following is an example of an obviously ambiguous argument:
The teachings of our church dictate that we do everything
in our power to relieve human suffering.
I, the choirmaster,
suffer greatly that I cannot afford to buy my wife a mink coat.
Therefore, it is the responsibility of the church to raise my
salary.
This is, of course, an obvious example.
The teachings of the
church do not likely imply a definition of suffering that is similar
to the choirmaster's.
Ambiguities can often occur with technical or "official" language.
Since the definitions of such terms are often unknown to the listener
or reader, it is terribly important to attempt to determine intended
definitions from context as often as possible.
Practice in using
context clues is recommended to provide a background for using this
skill.
Following is an example of an ambiguous presentation using
"official" language:
0
'
68
Our government recently built a new peace-keeping device in
space.
It is the unarmed Watcher I, which makes infrared video-
tapes of the landscapes of other countries, enabling us to tell
if weapons are present.
Since other countries are aware of its
presence, they are deterred from building secret weapons.
Our new XYZ bomber is our most interesting new peacekeeping device, however.
It may prove to be an even greater
deterrent.
In its first sense, a "peace-keeping device" is an unarmed
surveillance instrument.
In its second sense, it is a weapon.
Prerequisite knowledge:
1.
Ability to judge meanings from context.
Students will need
to detect whether the dictionary definition of a word is entirely
consistent with the context in which it is used and whether contextual
meaning is kept consistent throughout the statement being evaluated.
Objectives:
1.
Students will detect ambiguities.
Focus.
Ask students if they see anything confusing about the
following statements which you have placed on the board.
Discuss
which word or words are confusing in each and why.
1.
Stealing is a crime.
Taking eggs from chickens is stealing.
Therefore, we shouldn't eat eggs because it involves committing a
crime.
2.
It is wrong to kill.
Vegetables are living things.
It is
wrong to eat vegetables because it is killing.
3.
At our store, blenders are on sale at the low, low price
of ten dollars.
Living room furniture is also on sale at low, low
69
prices.
4.
Come right down and buy some furniture.
There is a law against betraying the government.
George
has been passing out literature that criticizes our government, and
so he has broken this law.
5.
starving.
6.
It's only right to help starving people, and boy, am I
You ought to give me five dollars.
Tom has a very strong character, and so he has the qualifica-
tions to enter the Strong Man Competition.
7.
Ted is a very religious man.
8.
You can be suspended from school for fighting.
having a fight with her boyfriend.
9.
Viet Nam.
10.
He goes to church religiously.
Jane is
She should be suspended.
Peace means there is no war.
War was never declared in
Therefore, Viet Nam was at peace.
To be rational is to have reason and understanding.
rational is also to be sane.
To be
Since babies do not have reason and
understanding, babies are insane.
Discuss how sometimes people rely on us having a particular
definition of a word.
Then they use it in a different way.
Discuss how key words can cause great confusion if they are not
defined in complete detail.
Central assignment.
Assign students to choose one of the above
topics and write a paragraph telling which word was misused and what
the person misusing the word was trying to gain or prove.
Collect.
Mark and return.
Break into "Be the Focus" discussion groups.
Present the content
of the paragraphs.
For the activity phase, duplicate and distribute chapters 113
70
and 114 of Roots (Haley, 1976).
Assign students to read them and then
to write two paragraphs, one defining freedom for the white man and
one defining freedom for the black man in 1865.
Instruct them before
they read to pay particular attention each time the w·ords "freedom" or
"free" are used.
Read aloud if you do not wish to make copies or if
the material is too difficult for your class.
For post-activity
discussion, present the content of the new paragraphs.
Later assignments.
Discuss how in some states some people have
maintained in the past that no further work was needed to assure black
people's rights, since black people were already "free" under the law.
In the process of reading the novel Black Like Me (Griffin, 1976)
together, make writing and "Be the Focus" assignments of your own
design on this topic.
Find editorials or letters to the editor from your local newspaper
which contain ambiguities.
Distribute, and assign students to detect
ambiguities and write about them.
Be sure the ambiguities are
sufficiently obvious for your group.
Means of evaluation:
1.
Paragraphs from opening of central lesson.
Check for aware-
ness of words which may cause ambiguity and for awareness of possible
motives for being intentionally ambiguous.
2.
Paragraphs on Roots.
Look for sensitivity to practical im-
plications of not detecting ambiguous language or of accepting powerful
words at face value without examining context.
3.
Work from later assignments.
ambiguities.
Look for ability to detect
71
Lesson VI:
Judging Whether a Statement is Overvague or Overspecific
Rationale.
Citizens need to be able to judge whether statements
made by authoritative speakers are sufficiently specific or broad to
address the subject of concern.
Often public figures speak in ex-
tremely broad terms in response to questions about specific policy
problems, thereby avoiding the question.
Occasionally, overly specific
replies are given to questions about broad issues.
Also, students need to be able to narrow and broaden central
ideas with a sense of appropriateness to topic so that they can
effectively control their essay writing.
Content analysis.
In order to judge whether a statement is
overvague or overspecific, a student must develop a sense of appropriateness to the question such as that demonstrated by the following
statements:
1.
Education is disappearing from the schools.
Appropriate:
When the question is whether school buildings
are no longer being used to educate students but are being used
for some other purpose.
Inappropriate/too vague:
When the question is whether the
curriculum council has taken steps to increase graduation requirements.
2.
We are proud to report that this type of toxic waste is under
control.
Appropriate:
If the question is whether or not a specific
law governs the control of a certain toxic waste.
Inappropriate/too vague:
If the question is whether or
not anything has been done to clean up a large number of dumps
72
containing a particular type of toxic waste.
3.
The famous John Smith case resulted in a conviction and life
imprisonment last week.
Appropriate:
If the question is whether or not John Smith
was convicted.
Inappropriate/too specific:
If the question is whether or not
the rate of conviction for violent crimes is increasing in our
state.
Prerequisite knowledge:
1.
Difference between fact and opinion.
When looking for specif-
ic responses from a source, students often need to be aware of whether
sufficient factual information is provided by the source.
Objectives:
1.
Students will determine whether statements are too vague or
too specific for the purpose at hand.
2.
Students will demonstrate ability to broaden and narrow
statements.
Focus.
time.
Ask two students to practice the following skit ahead of
Assign a third student to pose as a cameraman.
er hold a fake microphone.
Have the report-
Discuss examples such as the ones in the
content analysis before presenting the skit.
Reporter:
Mayor Smith, what are you doing about getting hot
meals for elderly people in our community who can't leave their
homes?
Mayor:
The care of the elderly is one of my greatest concerns.
It is something I think of every day.
Reporter:
Yes, but have you done anything specific to help our
73
community's elderly?
Mayor:
Just last week I brought a hot meal to Mrs. Roberts.
We
had a very pleasant talk about her grandchildren.
Reporter:
I see.
Alright, Mayor, lately citizens have been
concerned that our neighborhoods have not been safe from home
robberies and muggings.
What steps have you taken to deal with
this problem?
Mayor:
Crime is one of my administration's number one concerns.
Rest assured it is getting our full attention.
Reporter:
Mayor:
Yes, but what specifically is being done?
Yesterday Harold Jones, the man who robbed Anderson's
Grocery, was put behind bars.
That is a good example of how we
are getting criminals off the street.
Reporter:
Thank you, Mayor Smith.
This is Bob Lewis for KKID
News.
Central lesson.
should be evaluated.
Tell students that all of Mayor Smith's comments
Pass out transcripts of the interview.
Have
students write beside each of Mayor Smith's answers whether it is
too specific or too vague to answer the question.
Discuss again what
is meant by specific and vague.
Assign students to choose one of the two issues discussed and
rewrite the questions and answers using fictitious information to make
what would constitute a satisfactory interview in their opinions.
Break into "Be the Focus" groups.
Have students present first
their evaluations of whether each of the answers was too vague or too
specific, and then, for one of the two issues, the type of information
Mayor Smith could have given to make his answers satisfactory.
Allow
74
them to prepare a speaking outline first.
Extend timed intervals if
necessary.
For the activity phase, take several volunteers to present their
rewritten half-skits from their seats.
Allow each student presenter
to select another seated near him to be the reporter.
After this,
assign all students to rewrite the mayor's answers for the issue they
didn't choose before, thereby making a whole skit per student.
For post-activity discussion, assign students to present what the
mayor could have said for the second issue.
Collect skits.
The original focusing interview from the central lesson could be
rewritten by the teacher if she prefers different issues.
Later, assign students to rewrite the reporter's questions so
that Mayor Smith's original answers would be appropriate.
Pass out
a dittoed transcript of the original interview stapled to a dittoed
copy of the interview with the questions missing.
Work on the first
question together after reviewing examples like the ones from the content analysis.
The first question could be rewritten to say, "Is the care of
elderly citizens one of the issues your administration is interested
in?"
If you wish to go on to do the second question together, it
could be rewritten, "Have you gotten to know any of our elderly
citizens personally?"
Discuss how the tone of the interview changes
when the questions change from specific to broad or vice versa.
Later assignment.
Place the following topics on the board.
Ask
the class if anyone can tell you why these topics would be difficult
to write a paragraph about.
1.
War can lead to great harm.
75
2.
Women's lives have changed in recent years.
3.
Kids today are smarter than ever.
4.
Television has many valuable programs.
5.
Our town has a great deal to offer.
Discuss what it means to narrow a topic so that it can be handled
in a paragraph or paper.
together.
Narrow one of the topics above on the board
For example, topic five could be changed to, "Our YMCA
has excellent swimming activities for youth."
Entertain many ideas,
listing good ones on the board.
Assign students to offer two narrower options for each of the
other four topics.
Have them write these options down.
Collect.
Return.
Next, assign students to choose any two of their narrowed topics
and write paragraphs about them.
Collect.
Assign students to, at some time during the semester, report on
an interview in which the subject gives answers thRt are too vague
or too specific.
Videotape a single interview for the whole class
and discuss together if desired.
Heans of evaluation:
1.
Skits.
Look for appropriate specificity or broadness of
statements in relation to the issue at hand.
2.
Question rewrites.
Look for ability to control broadness
and narrowness when creating statements.
3.
Paragraphs from later assignments.
Look for ability to
provide support that is sufficiently specific for the demands of
the topic.
4.
Interview reports.
Look for ability to detect inappropriate
76
vagueness or specificity.
Lesson VII:
Judging Whether a Simple Generalization is Warranted
Rationale.
When forming opinions about issues, students occa-
sionally make generalizations about large groups of people which are
not warranted and, if carried into adulthood and acted upon, could
become damaging to the community. An example of such a generalization
is the type which Ku Klux Klan members make about members of races
other than their own.
Students must learn to guard against forming
such generalizations and accepting any argument which rests upon such
a generalization.
Content analysis.
In order to evaluate whether a generalization
is warranted, students must be able to answer such questions as the
following:
1.
Is there a bulk of reliable instances of the situation about
which you are generalizing?
The more varied the population involved,
the greater the bulk required.
2.
Does the generalization fit in with general knowledge?
3.
Is the selection of population members being evaluated an
unbiased sample, random and without trend?
4.
Are there any counter-instances?
Objectives:
1.
Students will evaluate generalizations and determine if they
are warranted.
2.
Students will provide reasons when a generalization is not
warranted.
Prerequisite knowledge:
1.
Difference between fact and opinion.
Students need to be
77
aware that opinion statements may never be considered valid generalizations.
Focus.
While students are in the process of reading and complet-
ing other assignments for Black Like Me (Griffin, 1976) or The Diary
of a Young Girl (Frank, 1952), present a lesson which begins with the
teacher writing a statement such as the following on the board:
Kids today are lazy and do nothing but misbehave.
Tell why this unfair statement is wrong.
Assign students to write a rough draft paragraph on this topic.
Collect.
Assure them that this will be graded at a flat rate of
credit since it is preliminary only.
After paragraphs are collected, explain that the statement which
you put on the board was a faulty generalization.
Discuss the rules
for spotting and evaluating generalizations with your class.
the criteria in the content analysis.
Use
Then, talk about under what
conditions generalizations such as the ones on the coming list would
be warranted or unwarranted.
Also discuss the inadvisability of making and acting upon
generalizations about something as complex as human character.
Not
only are such generalizations inhumane and intrusive into people's
privacy, but they are often based upon value judgment or opinion and
are not often based upon documentable facts upon which everyone can
agree.
Acting upon such generalizations, particularly when negative,
historically has brought harm to innocent people.
Mention that people
do conduct psychological research, but that it is usually handled
under controlled circumstances and without intent to harm.
Discuss that some generalizations have value if they are evalu-
78
ated properly.
Also discuss that it is important never to accept
a generalization without evaluating it.
Discuss such issues as to
the possibility of gathering reliable facts and under what conditions
it is worthwhile and/or humane to gather such facts.
Evaluate the following sample generalizations:
1.
Red headed people often have bad tempers.
2.
The items at Joe's Market are cheaper.
3.
This is a Republican town.
4.
The people who are voting for Smith are against our govern-
5.
The car salesmen in our county are overcharging.
6.
The people who live in Jonesville are not as friendly as
ment.
the people in our town.
7.
Nuclear power plants in our country are not able to assure
against leakage.
8.
The members of the Senate have not been attending all voting
sessions.
9.
10.
Our schools are not offering art programs.
Hospitals say that Anti-Pain is their preferred pain re-
liever.
11.
Our country's nurses are going on strike.
12.
People of that religion are not as intelligent as people
of my religion.
13.
People say that our product is better than Super Soap at
getting your clothes white.
14.
People in our country are making more money and profit this
year than they were last.
79
15.
Nobody's voting for that candidate.
Assign students to search the newspapers for editorials, letters
to the editor, and advertisements which contain generalizations.
the students clip two and bring them in.
Have
In class, have the students
choose one of the generalizations and write a paragraph telling whether
enough facts were present to evaluate it, and if there were not enough
facts, what facts should have been present and where they should have
been obtained.
Collect two articles and one paragraph from each
student.
Return paragraphs.
Break into "Be the Focus" discussion groups
for a one-round presentation with no activity phase, unless you wish
to add an activity.
Central lesson.
After reading and related assignments for Black
Like Me _(Griffin, 1976) or The Diary of a Young Girl (Frank, 1952),
ask students to consider how generalizations by one group of people
about another led to great harm.
Ask students to think of as many
times in history as they can when generalizations either led to or
perpetuated a great wrong.
List several on the board.
If you like,
you may add some instances of which junior-high-school-age children
may not be aware.
McCarthyism proceeded on the generalization that
those who associated with Communists were Communists, and that all
those with communist beliefs were a threat to the government.
The
Japanese internment proceeded on the generalization that those who were
Japanese might be sympathizers with the enemy and might be a threat to
the government.
The Salem witch trials, which are usually known to
students, are often a topic of interest, also, and should be added
to the list if not mentioned by a student.
80
Assign students to do a research paper on one of the examples
from the board.
Have them report on the generalizations, or bigotry,
involved and the outcomes.
After the papers have been collected, break into "Be the Focus"
discussion groups to present the research.
speaking outline beforehand.
You may want to assign a
For the activity phase, assign students
to make a speaking outline containing information about a topic which
they learned about from another speaker that day.
For post-activity
discussion, present the new speaking outlines.
Means of evaluation:
1.
Paragraphs on "kids."
Look for prior knowledge about gener-
alizations.
2.
News article paragraphs.
Look for ability to detect gener-
alizations and to determine whether or not they are appropriate.
3.
Research papers.
Look for ability to detect inappropriate
generalizations and to identify the harm to which they can lead.
Lesson VIII:
Judging Whether a Hypothesis is Warranted
Rationale.
In order for citizens to be able to evaluate the
opinions and conclusions of experts and of those who occupy the media,
citizens must be able to determine whether these opinions and conclusions are supported and whether they are directly related to the
support offered.
Practice in judging hypotheses will provide practice
in these skills.
Content analysis.
According to Ennis (1964), a hypothesis is a
"statement which is fairly directly related to its support by virtue
of its power to explain this support (p. 605)."
In order to judge a hypothesis, it is necessary to be able to
81
answer such questions as the following:
1.
Does the hypothesis explain a bulk and variety of reliable
facts?
2.
Is the hypothesis explained by a system of facts?
3.
Does the hypothesis make sense with all evidence?
4.
Do other hypotheses fail to make sense with all of the evi-
dence?
5.
Is it testable, or is it possible to make predictions using
the hypothesis?
Objectives:
1.
Students will evaluate hypotheses using stated criteria.
2.
Students will form hypotheses using appropriate support.
Prerequisite knowledge:
1.
Criteria for judging whether a statement follows from the
premises.
Students will need to determine whether evidence justifies
a conclusion.
Focus.
Mention approximately two days in advance that you will
be doing a lesson on an author named Stephen Vincent Benet.
Talk a
little about his life and mention those of his works used in the
following game.
Make up a cardboard box containing a variety of objects which
pertain to Stephen Vincent Benet.
The box could contain a little
doll or picture of the devil or, if you wish to be tricky, devil clues
such as a pitchfork for The Devil and Daniel Webster (1939); a little
figure of a cat and plastic crown for "The King of the Cats" (1937);
a Spanish fan or comb and mantilla and a toy bayonet for The Spanish
Bayonet (1926); a clock stopped before midnight for Tales Before
82
Midnight (perhaps include some "tails" as well); and, finally, a copy
of "By the Waters of Babylon" with Benet's name on it.
Do not reveal
the last clue until all others have sat out for a while.
Pull out
clues one at a time, giving students an opportunity to guess who the
person is, until all but the last clue are out.
Extend the guessing
as long as you like if students do not figure it out quickly.
If
you like, take up secret written guesses with reasons and then read
some aloud.
If you choose this method, you may structure it so that
students begin to write as soon as they know the answer and then keep
their answers secret until all have had a chance to guess.
After the guessing activity, explain to students that they have
been practicing a type of thinking that they will use when reading
;
a Stephen Vincent Benet story, "By the Waters of Babylon."
They will
need to look at clues and from them try to determine the setting, or
the time, place, and circumstances, of the story.
They should think
about certain questions when they are looking at their clues.
At
this point go over the criteria for judging hypotheses in whichever
manner you think appropriate for you class.
Assign students to read "By the Waters of Babylon."
Then ask
the following questions:
1.
Who is ASHING?
2.
What are the god roads?
3.
What is the Bitter Water?
4.
What could UBTREAS be?
5.
Why are some of the mysterious foods "death"?
6.
What was the fire from the sky?
7.
What might the life of the man in the chair have been like?
83
8.
How was this somewhat primitive civilization born?
If the students deduce correctly, they will come to the conclusion that the civilization was born in nuclear holocaust.
reveal this.
Do not
Coming to this conclusion will require students to
form a variety of hypotheses and to evaluate them.
Collect answers
to questions.
Assign students to write a paragraph stating their hypotheses
about the setting and giving at least five reasons for them.
Follow-up.
Get into "Be the Focus" discussion groups.
should present the information from their paragraphs.
Collect.
Students
For the ac-
tivity segment, ask students to write a paragraph describing what
kind of damage they think a nuclear holocaust would cause and a second
about whether they believe that building or ceasing to build nuclear
weapons would prevent that.
faces.
At this point you may see some surprised
Ask students to think about why you assigned this topic when
they have finished their paragraphs.
After paragraph writing, ask in large group discussion if anyone
can tell you why you assigned the writing topic.
Carefully discuss
all clues available from the story for reaching hypothesis.
Break into "Be the Focus" discussion groups for post-activity
discussion.
Have students present opinions from nuclear holocaust
paragraphs.
Collect.
Future assignment.
ing hypothesis.
Fiction?"
natural.
Assign a research paper to evaluate an exist-
A sample topic might be "Poltergeists Exist:
Fact or
This might dovetail with a unit on stories about the super"Be the Focus" activities could follow.
84
Means of evaluation:
1.
Guessing assignment.
Look for ability to see an overall
picture from parts.
2.
Answers to eight questions.
Look for ability to assemble
evidence and to draw a conclusion which creates a larger picture.
3.
Paragraphs about story.
Look for ability to assemble evi-
dence and to draw a conclusion which creates a larger picture.
Lesson IX:
Judging Whether a Theory is Warranted
According to Ennis (1964), judging theories is a highly complex
task which may not be expected of secondary students.
College under-
graduates are only sometimes equipped to perform this task; only graduate students may be expected to be fully equipped to attempt it.
Content analysis.
In order to judge a theory, one must be pre-
pared to answer such questions as the following:
1.
Does it explain a bulk and variety of data, with the more
abstract statements explaining the less abstract ones?
2.
Is it explained by broader theories?
3.
Is it inconsistent with any evidence?
Sometimes it is
acceptable to say that a theory does not hold for a particular case.
4.
Are its competitors inconsistent with the data?
5.
Is it testable?
Freudian psychology is sometimes accused of
being untestable and of having been adjusted to fit the data.
6.
Is it simpler than its rivals?
When theories are adjusted
to fit the data, they may become quite complicated.
Closing Comments
These lessons should be modified or augmented by the teacher to
meet her own needs.
I recommend that the teacher study the content
0 '
85
analysis that comes with each lesson before making modifications.
She should try to include the skills from the content analysis in
her modified lessons.
Modeling of Program Skills
Modeling of the inservice skill should take place on the same
day or days as the presentation of theory and the presentation of
the instructional program.
I recommend that the teacher who presents
the program practice it fully with her own classes first, making use
of the attached videotape as a model for her own study.
then make a videotape of her own class.
She should
A videotape of the presenter's
own class will be more meaningful to the workshop participants since
the presenter will be the guide and expert on campus for this project
and will be working with the participants in their classes.
The enclosed videotape includes one class session which uses the
"Be the Focus" technique.
This technique will be the workshop skill
which represents an entirely new organizational pattern for most
teachers and should be the center of each later practice.
After the presentation of theory and before the presentation of
the instructional program, show the videotape demonstrating the "Be
the Focus" technique.
This will enable teachers to better visualize
the nature of the lessons in the instructional program.
After the presentation of the instructional program, break
teachers into "Be the Focus" groups.
outline on a topic.
Assign them to make a speaking
A recommended topic might be, "Name a group in
history about which a generalization was made and which later came
to great harm because of the generalization.
Describe the circum-
stances surrounding the harm to which this group came."
Present the
,,
86
information from the speaking outlines in "Be the Focus" format.
For
the activity phase, assign teachers to outline what someone else said.
During post-activity discussion, present the content of the new outlines.
Peer Practice Sessions
The first peer practice meeting should take place no more than
ten days after the initial presentation and modeling.
An agenda for the first peer practice meeting might include the
following:
I.
Questions about the process, either "Be the Focus" or the
instructional program.
II.
Discussion of suggested modifications by teachers --list
modifications.
III.
Presentation of teacher and student self-evaluation checklists for the "Be the Focus" element (see "Feedback" section).
IV.
Suggestion of topics and practice moderators for future
practice meetings.
V.
"Be the Focus" practice with the presenter as moderator on a
topic which was announced in the meeting advertisement.
VI.
Refreshments.
An agenda for a later practice meeting might include the following:
I.
"Be the Focus" practice on a pre-specified topic with a
participant as moderator.
II.
III.
Choice of partner-coaches.
Discussion of using the content analyses while making modi-
'
87
fications.
IV.
Refreshments.
An additional meeting might include the following:
I.
"Be the Focus" practice with volunteer participant moderator
and volunteer student fishbowl group.
II.
Presentation of videotaped classroom session made by a
participant beginning to attempt the program.
III.
Refreshments.
Try to schedule all practice meetings in a neutral location which
belongs to no individual teacher.
The library has been useful at
my own school.
Feedback
Following are teacher and student self-evaluation checklists for
the "Be the Focus" element.
Teacher self-evaluation checklists may be used by teachers in
their own classrooms to monitor their own progress.
ers to keep track of the many elements of the method.
They help teachThese checklists
may also be used by partner-coaches to assist in the follow-up to the
class visitation.
Student self-evaluation checklists may be rewritten by the teacher to class level if needed.
They may be filled out
together as a
class, filled out individually, or passed out ahead of time to alert
students to important aspects of the method.
Teacher Checklist for "Be the Focus"
YES
Preparation:
1.
Were students allowed a voice
PARTLY
NO
88
YES
in shaping the lesson?
2.
Were students given
sufficient time to think and write
about the topic?
3.
Was printed matter adapted
to appropriate level?
4.
Were leaders prechosen
according to their personal maturity
and ability to deal somewhat easily
with others?
Discussion sequence:
5.
Were the questions sequenced
according to the "Be the Focus" program:
a.
Rephrase.
b.
Agree/disagree if appropri-
c.
State own opinion or re-
ate.
search.
6.
Was the time limit chosen
appropriate to the lesson?
7.
Was the need for additional
modifications to the needs of the group
considered?
8.
Was time allowed directly
before discussion to clarify the
topic?
PARTLY
NO
89
YES
9.
Were the "rules of the game"
made clear; was time left to clarify
them?
10.
Did the teacher move through
the room offering support to students?
11.
Did the teacher enforce the
rules of the program according to a
preestablished disciplinary plan?
12.
Did the teacher either make
note of areas needing modification or
make modifications on the spot?
Follow-up:
13.
In the follow-up, was time
left for class members to respond to
leader comments?
14.
Did the teacher assure that
each leader followed the comment sequence
in summation, not simply stating his own
views?
15.
Did the teacher try to involve
quiet students in the large group
follow-up by being sensitive to a desire
to speak, even though a hand may not have
been raised?
16.
Was the teacher sure to ask
for changes of opinion in the follow-up?
PARTLY
NO
90
YES
17.
Did the teacher ask students
to consider how they could have been
more effective?
a.
Did they need to listen more
carefully to improve rephrasing?
b.
Did they need to edit
themselves to fit the time
limit?
c.
Did they need to re-
strain judgment/body language
while others were speaking?
18.
Did the teacher refrain from
expressing her own opinion?
Student Checklist for
11
Be the Focus"
Preparation:
1.
Did you think and write
about the topic ahead of time, considering reasons for your statements?
Discussion sequence:
2.
Did you remember your role as
a participant or leader as the activity
took place?
3.
Did you think about the "rules
of the game"?
4.
Did you follow the rules by
PARTLY
NO
I
91
YES
a. Listening carefully
without commenting?
b.
Considering how your comment
related to the person's before you?
c.
Being cooperative about
the time limit?
d.
Following the sequence of
comments?
5.
Did you make an effort to see
the logic in following the rules?
6.
Did you listen closely to others
and respond directly to them instead of
simply talking and thinking about
yourself?
7.
Did you restrain negative
feelings and body language when
hearing the ideas of others?
8.
Did you remain open to
changing your opinion while still
remaining critical?
Follow-up:
9.
If you were a leader, did you
a.
Make sure you accurately
portrayed the ideas of your group
members?
b.
Leave your own opinion
PARTLY
NO
•
Q '
92
YES
PARTLY
NO
until last according to the
sequence of comments?
10.
If you were a participant,
did you
a.
Mentally check your leader's
comments for accuracy?
b.
Raise your hand and ask
for clarification if needed
during the large group
portion?
c.
Have the courage to
comment if you had something
to contribute, even during the
large group portion?
Coaching
Participants should try to choose partner-coaches whose rooms
are close by, who have preparation periods different from their own,
and with whom they are friendly.
It may not be possible, of course,
to meet all of these standards.
The presenter should try to arrange for substitute time or administrator coverage time for teachers to visit one another's classrooms.
If time is not possible, partner-coaches may need to visit on
their preparation periods.
Partner-coaches may be used in a variety of ways.
They may
assist in the presentation of the method, either by actually speaking or by roving and offering support; they may simply sit and observe
93
while filling out a checklist, then later meet with the observed
teacher for a follow-up session; or they may videotape sessions for
the observed teacher so that she can observe her own progress.
Partner-coaches perform these and similar services for one another.
Coaching should begin as soon as teachers begin to use the method
in their classrooms.
Conclusion and Recommendations
Although many students never encounter an opportunity to practice
some of the skills included in this program unless they become college
educated, the enclosed skills are vital for all citizens to acquire
if they are to become able to make effective decisions about their
lives and about our society.
Using skills such as searching for
ambiguities, judging generalizations, and evaluating hypotheses should
not be confined to the college research project.
In my experience, the enclosed instructional program and inservice sequence are extremely effective.
The instructional program
seems interesting to students, increases their apparent classroom
control, assures full participation, and seems to increase ability
to perform the program skills in situations outside the specific
lessons.
The inservice sequence attracts participants because of its
participatory nature and results in participants actually using the
inservice skills.
I recommend the development of more programs in critical thinking based on single, specific theories so that teachers may be provided with clear choices.
For example, a program could be developed
based upon Guilford's (1960) evaluation level, exploring his semantic
evaluation of relationships, systems, transformations, and implica-
94
tions.
I also recommend the development of more inservice packages which
may be studied and presented from start to finish by school site personnel.
For example, programs could be structured with sections on
how to carry through presentation of theory, modeling, practice,
feedback, and coaching of the skill in question.
95
REFERENCES
Aschner, M.J. (1963).
classroom.
The analysis of verbal interactions in the
In A.A. Bellack (Ed.), Theory and research in
teaching (pp. 53-78).
New York:
Bureau of Publications, Teach-
ers College, Columbia University.
Aschner, M.J., & Gallagher, J. (1970).
Aschner-Gallagher system for
classifying thought processes in the context of classroom verhal interactions.
behavior:
In A. Simon & E.G. Boyer (Eds.), Mirrors for
An anthology of classroom observation instruments
(pp. 3-1- 3-6).
Philadelphia:
Research for Better Schools.
Assembly Bill 551 of 1978, 5 C.A.C. Education §4100 (1982).
Atkinson, J. (1978).
An introduction to motivation.
New York:
Van Nostrand.
Barnes, C.P. (1979).
thinking skills.
Questioning strategies to develop critical
Paper presented at the meeting of the Claremont
Reading Conference, Claremont, CA.
Benet, S.V. (1926).
The Spanish bayonet.
New York:
George H. Doran
Company.
Benet, S.V. (1937).
By the waters of Babylon.
Stories of several worlds.
Benet, S.V. (1937).
The king of the cats.
Stories of several worlds.
,-
Benet, S.V. (1939).
New York:
New York:
Tales before midnight.
In Thirteen o'clock:
Farrar & Rinehart.
In Thirteen o'clock:
Farrar & Rinehart.
New York:
Farrar & Rine-
hart.
~
Benet, S.V. (1980).
The devil and Daniel Webster.
New York:
Pocket
Books, Simon & Schuster.
Berman, P., & McLaughlin, M. (1976).
Implementation of educational
96
innovations.
Educational Forum II, 347-370.
Berman, P., & McLaughlin, M. (1978).
educational change, vol. VIII:
innovations.
Santa Monica, CA:
Federal programs supporting
Implementing and sustaining
The Rand Corporation.
Bloom, B., Englehart, M.D., Furst, E.J., Hill, W.H., & Krathwohl, D.R.
(1956).
Taxonomy of educational objectives:
nitive domain.
New York:
Cog-
David McKay.
Borg, W., Langer, P., & Kelley, M. (1971).
tool for the education of teachers.
Bovard, E.W. (1951).
Handbook I:
The minicourse:
A new
Education, 232-238.
Group structure and perception.
Journal of
Abnormal and Social Psychology, 46, 298-405.
Brandt, R. (1982, October).
On improving teacher effectiveness:
A conversation with David Berliner.
Educational Leadership,
40, 12-15.
Brown, M. (1982).
Creative prescriptions.
(Available from Marilyn
Brown, East Whittier City School District, Wltittier, CA)
Callahan, C.M., & Corvo, M.L. (1980).
Validating the Ross test for
identification and evaluation of critical thinking skills in
programs for the gifted.
Gifted,~
Journal for the Education of the
(1), 17.
Carpenter, C.R. (1959, March).
The Penn State Pyramid Plan:
Inter-
dependent student work study groupings for increasing motivation
for academic development.
Paper presented at the 14th National
Conference on Higher Education, Chicago, Illinois.
Christie, A. (1950).
Four and twenty blackbirds.
mice and other stories.
Costa, A. (1983).
New York:
In Three blind
Dodd, Mead, & Company.
Teaching for intelligent behavior.
InS. Winocur
97
(Ed.), Project IMPACT:
Improving minimal proficiencies by ac-
tivating critical thinking (pp. I-65- I-78).
(Available from S.
Winocur, Orange County Department of Education, 200 Kalmus Drive,
Post Office Box 9050, Costa Mesa, CA 92626)
Cunningham, J. (1980, Spring).
not critical.
Reading comprehension is crucial but
Reading Horizons, 20, 165-168.
Current Index to Journals in Education (1969 to date).
New York:
MacMillan Information.
Davage, R.H. (1958).
The pyramid plan for the systematic involvement
of university students in teaching-learning functions.
vania:
Pennsyl-
Academic Resources, Pennsylvania State University.
Edwards, C.H. (1975).
Changing teacher behavior through self in-
struction and supervised microteaching in a competency based
program.
Journal of Educational Research, _§_, 607-619.
Ennis, R.H. (1962, Winter).
A concept of critical thinking.
Harvard
Educational Review, 32, 81-111.
Ennis, R.H. (1963, October).
Needed:
Research in critical thinking.
Educational Leadersh!£, 17-20, 39.
Ennis, R.H. (1964).
Teacher,
12,
A definition of critical thinking.
599-612.
Ennis, R.H. ,& Millman, J. (1971).
Level X.
The Reading
Urbana, Illinois:
Cornell Critical Thinking Test:
University of Illinois Critical
Thinking Project.
Ennis, R.H.,& Paulus, D. (1965).
Critical thinking readiness in
grades 1-12 (Cooperative Research Report No. OE1680).
New York:
Ithaca,
School of Education, Cornell University.
Feely, T. (1976).
Critical thinking: Toward definitions, paradigms,
p •
98
and research agenda.
~(1),
Theory and Research in Social Education,
1-19.
Frank, A. (1952).
The diary of a young girl.
New York:
Modern
Library.
Friebel, A., & Kallenbach, W. (1969, March).
Effects of videotape
feedback and microteaching as developed in the field test of
Minicourse I with student teachers.
Paper presented at the
California Educational Research Association, Los Angeles, CA.
Fuller, F. (1969).
tualization.
Concerns of teachers:
A developmental concep-
American Educational Research Journal,
~(2),
207-226.
Gall, M.D., & Gall, J.P. (1976).
The discussion method.
In N.L. Gage
(Ed.), The psychology of teaching methods (pp. 166-216).
Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.
Gall, M.D., & Gillett, M. (1980).
teaching.
The discussion method in classroom
Theory into Practice,
~(2),
98-103.
Gall, M., Ward, B., Berliner, D., Cahen, L., Winne, P., Elashoff,
J.D., & Stanton, G. (1978).
Effects of questioning techniques
and recitation on student learning.
American Educational Re-
search Journal, 11(2), 175-199.
Gold, P., & Yellin, D. (1982).
Be the Focus:
A psychoeducational
technique for use with unmotivated learners.
Journal of Reading,
25(6), 550-552.
Griffin, J.H. (1976).
chusetts:
Black like me (3rd edition).
Boston, Massa-
Houghton Mifflin.
Guilford, J.P. (1960, February).
should know about.
Frontiers in thinking that teachers
The Reading Teacher, 176-182.
Q '
99
Guilford, J.P. (1967).
The nature of human intelligence.
New York:
McGraw Hill.
Haley, A. (1976).
Roots:
The saga of an American family.
New York:
Dell Publishing Company.
Hall, G., & Loucks, S. (1978).
Innovation configurations:
the adaptations of innovations.
Analyzing
Paper presented at the meeting
of the American Educational Research Association, Toronto,
Canada.
Hare, A.P. (1962).
Handbook of small group research.
New York:
Free Press.
Hartoonian, H. (1979).
The first R- reasoning:
for the social studies curriculum.
A skill network
Madison, Wisconsin:
Wis-
consin Department of Public Instruction.
Herber, H. (1970).
Teaching reading in content areas.
Cliffs, New Jersey:
Hill, W.F. (1969).
Englewood
Prentice-Hall.
Learning thru discussion.
Beverly Hills, CA:
SAGE Publications.
Hough, W., & Urick, R. (1981).
Leadership, educational change, and
the politicalization of American education.
In L.E. Edinger,
P. Houts, & D. Meyer (Eds.), Education in the 80's:
challenges.
Washington, DC:
Curricular
National Education Association.
Johnston, G.S., & Yeakey, C.C. (1977).
Administrators' and teachers'
preferences for staff development.
Educational Leadership,
~.
230-238.
Joyce, B., & Showers, B. (1980, February).
training:
The messages of research.
37, 379-385.
Improving inservice
Educational Leadership
100
Joyce, B., & Showers, B. (1981).
Teacher training research:
Working
hypotheses for program design and directions for further study.
Paper presented at the meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Los Angeles, CA.
Joyce, B., & Showers, B. (1982, October).
The coaching of teaching.
Educational Leadership, 40, 4-10.
Landis, R., & Michael, W. (1981).
The factorial validity of three
measures of critical thinking within the context of Guilford's
Structure-of-Intellect model for a sample of ninth grade students.
Educational and Psychological Measurement,
Lawrence, G. (1974).
il•
1147-1166.
Patterns of effective inservice education:
A
state of the art summary of research on materials and procedures
for changing teacher behaviors in inservice education.
hassee, Florida:
Florida State Department of Education.
Lipman, M., Sharp, A., & Oscanyon, F. (1980).
classroom.
Philadelphia:
Philosophy in the
Temple University Press.
Los Angeles County Superintendent of Schools (1984).
inquiry:
Talla-
Developing critical thinking.
Teaching toward
Advertising circular.
(Available from Gus Dalis, Educational Services Group, Office
of the Los Angeles County Superintendent of Schools, 1-213-9226337)
Maier, N. (1967, July).
solving:
Assets and liabilities in group problem
The need for an integrative function.
Psychological
Review, 74, 239-249.
Maier, N., & Maier, L. (1957).
An experimental test of the effects
of "developmental" vs. "free" discussion on the quality of
group decisions.
Journal of Applied Psychology,
il•
310-323.
101
Martorella, P. (1972).
Concept learning:
Scranton, Pennsylvania:
McKeachie, W.J. (1951).
Designs for instruction.
Educational Publishers.
Anxiety in the college classroom.
Journal
of Educational Research, 45, 153-160.
McKeachie, W.J. (1969).
college teacher.
McKinnan, J. (1976).
Teaching tips:
A guidebook for the beginning
Boston, Massachusetts:
D.C. Heath and Company.
The college student and formal operations.
In
Rinner (Ed.), Research, teaching, and learning with the Piaget
model (pp. 110-129).
Norman, Oklahoma:
University of Oklahoma
Press.
Mohlman, G., Coladarci, T., & Gage, N. (1982).
Comprehension and
attitude as predictors of implementation of teacher training.
Journal of Teacher Education, 33, 31-36.
National Education Association Instruction and Professional Development (1982).
A profile of excellence for teacher education
(Stock No. 1421-9-00).
Washington, DC:
National Education
Association.
Orme, M. (1966).
The effects of modeling and feedback variables on
the acquisition of a complex teaching strategy (Doctoral
dissertation, Stanford University, 1966).
International,
Patton, J.A. (1955).
~'
Dissertation Abstracts
3320A.
A study of the effects of student acceptance of
responsibility and motivation on course behavior (Doctoral
dissertation, University of Michigan, 1955).
Abstracts International,
Purkey, W. (1970).
11,
Dissertation
637.
Self concept and school achievement.
Cliffs, New Jersey:
Prentice-Hall.
Englewood
102
Rawlings, M.K. (1970).
The yearling (3rd edition).
New York:
Charles Scribner's Sons.
Remy, R. (1980).
ington, DC:
Handbook of basic citizenship competencies.
Wash-
Association for Supervision and Curriculum Develop-
ment.
Resources in Education (1966 to date).
Washington, DC:
National
Institute of Education.
Ross, J.D., & Ross, C.M. (1976).
Processes.
Novato, CA:
Ross Test of Higher Cognitive
Academic Therapy Publications.
Saloman, G., & McDonald, F. (1966).
Pretest and posttest reactions
to self-viewing one's teaching performance on videotape.
of Educational Psychology,
Schellenberg, J. (1959).
11,
Journal
86-90.
Group size as a factor of success in aca-
demic discussion groups.
Journal of Educational Sociology,
43, 73-79.
Showers, B. (1983).
Transfer of training.
Paper presented at the
meeting of the American Educational Research Association,
Montreal, Canada.
Skinner, S.B. (1983).
critical thinking.
Cognitive development:
A prerequisite for
InS. Winocur (Ed.), Project IMPACT:
Im-
proving minimal proficiencies by activating critical thinking
(pp. I-21- I-33).
(Available from S. Winocur, Orange County
Department of Education, 200 Kalmus Drive, Post Office Box 9050,
Costa Mesa, CA 92626)
Smith, B. (1983, September- October).
thinking skills.
Instruction for critical
The Social Studies, li(5), 210-214.
Smith, E.R., & Tyler, R.W. (1942).
Appraising and recording student
103
progress.
New York:
Stachowski, E. (1978).
Harper.
Eight-year summary report 1969-1977.
Un-
published report, Long Beach Professional Development and Program
Improvement Center, Long Beach, CA.
Stanford, G., & Stanford, B.D. (1969).
through games.
New York:
Stauffer, R.G. (1969).
New York:
Citation Press.
Teaching reading as a thinking process.
Harper and Row.
Steinzor, B. (1950).
groups.
Teaching discussion skills
The spatial factor in face to face discussion
Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 45, 552-555.
Stephan F., & Mischler, E. (1952).
in small groups:
An experimental approximation.
Sociological Review,
Taba, H. (1966).
The distribution of participation
ll•
American
598-608.
Teaching strategies and cognitive function in
elementary school children (U.S. Office of Education Cooperative
Research Project No. 2404).
San Francisco:
San Francisco State
College.
Taylor, D., Berry, P., & Block, C. (1958, June).
Does group partic-
ipation when using brainstorming facilitate or inhibit creative
thinking?
Administrative Science Quarterly,}, 23-47.
Titsworth, G., & Bonner, C. (1983).
Michigan school district.
School improvement in a local
Journal of Staff Development,
~.
120-128.
Tuckman, B., McCall, K., & Hyman, R. (1969).
teacher behavior:
Effects of dissonance and coded feedback.
American Educational Research Journal,
Twain, M. (1981).
The modification of
~.
607-619.
The adventures of Tom Sawyer (Bantam Classic
104
Edition).
New York:
Bantam Books.
U.S. National Commission on Excellence in Education (1983).
at risk:
DC:
The imperative for educational reform.
A nation
Washington,
U.S. Government Printing Office.
Wagstaff, W., & McCullough (1973, May).
Education's disaster area.
Inservice educators:
In Midwest Administration Center
(Ed.), Administrator's handbook.
Chicago:
Weinstein, J., & Laufman, L. (1981).
University of Chicago.
The fourth R- reasoning.
Roeper Review, !(1), 20-22.
. ' A., & Lochhead, J. (1980).
Wh1mbey,
sion:
Problem solving and comprehen-
A short course in analytical reasoning.
Philadelphia:
The Franklin Institute Press.
Winocur, S.L. (Ed.) (1983, September).
Project IMPACT:
Improving
minimal proficiencies by activating critical thinking.
(Avail-
able from S.L. Winocur, Orange County Department of Education,
200 Kalmus Drive, Post Office Box 9050, Costa Mesa, CA 92626)
Wood, F., Thompson, S., & Russell, F. (1981).
staff development programs.
Designing effective
In B.D. Peterson (Ed.), Staff
development/organization development.
Alexandria, Virginia:
Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.