LITERATURE REVIEW
The articles and staff reviews are included in separate binders at the end of this report
(Appendix A, three volumes). This literature review will give an in-depth summary of the staff’s
findings, starting with an explanation of what critical thinking skills (CTS) are and why they are
an important factor in education, and then analyzing several strategies for implementation of
CTS in the elementary and middle school classroom.
A BRIEF HISTORY OF CRITICAL THINKING
The Western concept of critical thinking goes back about 2,500 years to the Greek
philosopher Socrates, who established a method of teaching that encouraged students to question
themselves, their teachers, and their fundamental assumptions about the subject being taught.
Socrates asserted that even those in authority could have hidden agendas or confused reasoning
and demanded that every idea be thoroughly investigated before being accepted as worthy of
belief. The Socratic method of teaching was embraced by Plato and became a fundamental
aspect of Greek thought and philosophy.
In the Middle Ages, scholars such as Thomas Aquinas refused to blindly accept much of
the religious dogma promoted by Church officials, and insisted on evaluating such matters
critically. Aquinas, with his method of systematic cross-examination of beliefs, demonstrated
the power of reason in supporting faith, showing that those who think critically need not reject
established beliefs, but only those beliefs that lack reasonable foundations.
During the Renaissance and Enlightenment, reason took on a central role and was the
main point of several key works of literature. Francis Bacon’s The Advancement of Learning is
considered by many to be the first written argument for critical thinking, and Rules for the
Direction of the Mind by Rene Descartes followed shortly afterward, another key work in
developing the concept of critical thinking (Paul, Elder, and Bartell, 1997).
Building on these foundations, critical thinkers such as Isaac Newton, Adam Smith, and
Thomas Jefferson were able to reach beyond the boundaries of previously accepted science,
economics, and politics, demonstrating the power of critical thinking to revolutionize the world
in which we live. Others, such as Karl Marx and Charles Darwin, show us that such power can
be used—like any other tool—for good or ill. Perhaps fear of such power led to the tendency for
our school system to back away from promoting critical thinking and rely instead on teaching
methods designed to create orthodoxy of thought.
In the twentieth century, education critics such as William Sumner warned that such
orthodoxy produced a culture of “broad fallacies, half truths, and glib generalizations”
(Folkways, p. 630) and maintained that “Education in the critical faculty is the only education of
which it can be truly said that it makes good citizens” (p. 633). Sumner’s work was influential
on John Dewey, whose philosophy is one of the pillars of public education in America today.
Another pillar of twentieth-century education, Piaget, also recognized the importance of
critical thinking skills in his Theory of Cognitive Development (1970). However, he believed
that not all students have reached a level of cognitive development that is conducive to thinking
critically. Not until Stage 3 on the Piaget scale, “Concrete Operations,” is such thinking
possible, and then only on a limited level. It is in Stage 4, “Formal Operations,” that people can
reason abstractly, which is an essential component of true critical thinking according to Piaget’s
definition. It has been estimated that only a third of adults ever make it to the formal operations
1
stage (Huitt and Hummel, 2003), but whether this is a limiting factor in CTS education or is
caused by a lack of age-appropriate CTS education has not been determined. According to some
early childhood development specialists, it is never too early to introduce CTS (Black, 2005).
Studies have shown that fourth and fifth graders are capable of formal operations (Hudgins and
Edelman, 1986).
In the twenty-first century, a plethora of literature about critical thinking has emerged as
efforts are made to codify CTS into a testable format that can be scientifically applied in all
subject areas. In this respect, although the concept of critical thinking is thousands of years old,
teaching CTS is actually the new frontier of education and is still more of an art than a science.
AN INTRODUCTION TO CRITICAL THINKING SKILLS
When directed to include more CTS in their classrooms, most teachers have no idea
where to begin. Although it is commonly accepted nowadays that CTS are important, an exact
definition of what they are and a precise methodology for their instruction are lacking. There are
many definitions of CTS—too many, perhaps—and this causes much of the confusion.
In its simplest definition, CT is “thinking about thinking,” or metacognition. Simply
asking a student Why? can promote critical thinking, and many educators incorporate this
strategy and believe that they’ve fulfilled the directive to teach CTS.
Others look to Bloom’s Taxonomy as a guide to defining CTS. Using this system,
knowledge and comprehension are considered basic levels of thinking, while application,
analysis, synthesis, and evaluation are classified as higher-level thinking. By some definitions,
“higher-level” and “critical” are synonymous and the focus then becomes including these higher
Bloom levels in the classroom (Paziotopoulos and Kroll, 2004).
Not everyone agrees with these definitions. Stanley Ivie states that requiring children to
memorize Dewey’s six steps of scientific problem solving or Bloom’s six levels of thinking is
“not only an exercise in futility but the antithesis of critical thinking.” He proposes his own sixlevel model for teaching CTS which include a central question, three positions, a proposition,
reasoning and evidence, assumptions, and metaphor (Ivie, 2002).
Other educators include factors such as creativity and flexibility as components of the
CTS definition. The American School Board (ASB) includes “observing, interpreting,
associating, problem solving, and flexible thinking” in its list of CTS, and argues that arts
education has a significant positive impact on critical thinking and learning (ASB, 2007).
Richard Paul and his colleagues at CFCT, along with others in this field, put more
emphasis on the concept of critical in the Socratic sense—criticizing, or critiquing, the
assumptions that underlie any thought. This definition begins by breaking the CTS into two
categories: cognitive skills and affective skills. The cognitive skills relate to reasoning and
mental operations, while the affective skills have more to do with the student’s behavior and
social interactions. Both are of equal importance, since a person’s frame of mind will invariably
affect the way he or she approaches a problem’s solution. Cognitive CTS include such skills as
developing criteria for evaluation of information and assumptions, raising and pursuing
significant questions, and developing and analyzing arguments and theories. Affective CTS
include the ability to think independently and fairly, explore underlying thoughts and feelings,
and develop intellectual integrity (Black, 2005).
Critical thinking thus becomes an exercise in self-examination. “Critical thinking is the
2
art of analyzing and evaluating thinking with a view to improving it” (Paul and Elder, 2006). The
person engaged in critical thinking will ask himself a number of questions that impact both the
cognitive and affective domains (Paul and Willsen, n.d.): What is the purpose of my thinking?
•
What precise question am I trying to answer?
•
Within what point of view am I thinking?
•
What information am I using?
•
How am I interpreting that information?
•
What concepts or ideas are central to my thinking?
•
What conclusions am I coming to?
•
What am I taking for granted, what assumptions am I making?
•
If I accept the conclusions, what are the implications?
•
What would the consequences be, if I put my thought into action?
By any definition, how successfully are CTS being incorporated in the classroom? Mary
Kennedy conducted some research into classroom practices (Kennedy, 1991) and identified five
trends:
•
National assessments show that American students can practice basic skills but
cannot reason effectively on a higher level
•
Textbooks in America typically focus on facts but avoid analysis of bigger ideas
•
Teachers in America teach most content for exposure rather than understanding
•
Teachers tend to avoid thought-provoking activities and stick to predictable routines,
producing students who are incapable of intellectual work
•
Teachers tend to teach material the same way it was taught to them, making it
difficult to significantly change teaching practices in America
Although a greater emphasis is now being placed on CTS, most teachers still have only a
vague idea of how to teach them, largely because they themselves were not educated in
classrooms that consistently modeled the use of CTS. For this reason, CTS instruction is being
added into the curriculum—much like adding a layer of frosting to a cake—but the overall
paradigm of education has not changed.
THE IMPORTANCE OF CRITICAL THINKING IN CHRISTIAN EDUCATION
“Students who have been able to explore why the wrong idea is wrong have a more
secure and deeper understanding of why the right idea is right” (Osborne, 2010).
Without the ability to think critically, people are much more likely to fall prey to
propaganda, advertising claims, false teachers, political messiahs, and all of the other traps that
have been set for the unwary and the gullible. For this reason, nearly three centuries ago the
3
Massachusetts colony adopted the “Ol’ Deluder Satan Act” to establish the first public school
system in America and ensure that their children would be able to read the Bible and critically
evaluate the teachings of the world in its light. Today, however, in a society where instant
gratification has become the norm and television has replaced reading as the primary source of
entertainment and information, fewer demands are made upon children to think for themselves.
Our culture has moved away from the Biblical foundations of the public education
system, and schools teach our children to read and write but not to think about what they are
reading and writing in the context of God’s revealed Truth. As C. S. Lewis pointed out several
times in his children’s story, The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe, schools stopped teaching
logic as a formal discipline and, at the same time, the church accepted the lie that faith and
reason were antonyms.
In the twenty-first century, students face the added challenge of life in the electronic age.
With instant access to more information—and misinformation—than ever before possible,
students are in need of the ability to critically evaluate and process that information. Dubbed
“the new literacies” by Donald Leu, certain of the CTS have become as vital to life and success
in the Internet Age as the “Three R’s” were in the Industrial Age (Leu, Kinzer, Coiro, Cammack,
2004).
FOUR STRATEGIES TO TEACH AND ENHANCE CRITICAL THINKING SKILLS
Four primary teaching strategies recur in journal articles related to CTS. These are:
writing, questioning, cooperative learning, and use of technology. Ideally, a classroom teacher
would incorporate all four of these strategies in order to maximize opportunities for students to
think critically. The major obstacles to implementation are teacher training and time constraints.
This section will summarize the research for each of these strategies and discuss them in
relation to Park Avenue Christian Academy.
Strategy #1: Using Writing to Enhance CTS
Writing is ordinarily taught in the context of the English Language Arts and focuses on
the ability to communicate ideas using standard grammar and mechanics. When used
purposefully to stimulate reflection, however, writing has the ability to enhance the development
of CTS in every subject area. The impact of writing across the curriculum is significant in
developing CTS. Students who journal or use other writing assignments to explain their
reasoning in math, science, and even PE classes are more likely to think critically about their
assignments. For this reason, writing should not be viewed as enhancement but as foundational
to every subject (Baker, Barstack, Clark, et al, 2008).
According to a team at Washington State University, a well-developed rubric system is
foundational to improving CTS when assigning writing projects. Their study showed that
courses using such a rubric demonstrated positive, measurable, and immediate results in
students’ CTS scores (Kelly, Brown, Condon, and Law, 2001).
Another study points out the positive impact that a school librarian can have on CTS by
helping teachers and students plan writing projects around questions that require higher levels of
thinking (Pentland, 2010).
Journal writing can be used in conjunction with many assignments, including drama.
4
First-person writing coupled with role-play forces a student to think critically and creatively
about assignments by making a personal connection to the material (Philbin and Myers, 1991).
Writing can also be used to include every student in a discussion. Rather than calling on
students who may not have had adequate time to think critically about their answers, the teacher
poses questions before, during, and after an activity and has the students record their answers.
Students then share their writing and get feedback into their thought processes from the teacher
and their peers (Brown, 2010).
Journal writing is only one form of writing that enhances CTS. Another is the creation of
charts such as the I-chart. Because charts involve planning, interaction, integration of
information, and evaluation, they are good tools for promoting CTS (Hoffman, 1992).
One essential feature of writing to promote CTS is the inclusion of “personal reflection”
as a required element. Students must go beyond factual reports and explain their own reactions to
their research projects (Jorgensen and Hansen, 2004).
PACA CONNECTION: Teachers should be encouraged to use a variety of writing
assignments in all subject areas and to require students to make personal connections to these
assignments by recording their thoughts on the subjects and not merely the facts. Journals,
charts, role play, and research projects can all be used to enhance CTS.
Strategy #2: Using Cooperative Learning to Enhance CTS
Proponents of collaborative/cooperative learning claim that the active exchange of ideas
within small groups not only increases interest among the participants but also promotes CTS.
The students are responsible for one another’s learning as well as their own. Thus, the success of
one student helps other students be successful. Test results (at the college level) show that
students in collaborative learning groups perform better on questions that test critical thinking,
although there was not a significant difference on drill-and-practice test items (Gokhale, 1995).
Some subject areas lend themselves naturally to cooperative-learning activities. Social
studies teachers, for example, can help students think critically about the cultures they are
exploring using drama and role playing. By working together to recreate a culture, students not
only solve problems as individuals but share their thought processes with the rest of the group,
helping one another develop CTS. One danger inherent in an activity of this sort is the possibility
that students will rewrite history based on their own personal experiences (in effect, avoiding the
problem rather than solving it), so close teacher monitoring of the process is necessary (Philbin
and Myers, 1991).
By allowing students to work cooperatively to explore a new concept before the teacher
explains it, teachers provide additional opportunities for CTS. Students should be given enough
prior knowledge and tools to succeed in a task, and then be allowed time to work it out for
themselves and discuss their reasoning with their teammates. Teachers should then bring closure
to the activity by reviewing student answers and revising them as needed (Brown, 2010).
When using cooperative learning groups, it is most effective if each student has a clearly
defined role. Real-life problems chosen by the group increase interest levels and active
participation. After completing a project, students should be given the opportunity to present
their findings in a number of creative ways, and to share these publicly (Khalid, 2010).
In cooperative learning, teachers serve primarily as facilitators and coaches. Teachers
design problems in such a way as to focus on desired learning outcomes. During the lesson itself,
teachers need to coach students in the right direction. Finally, a teacher needs to provide the
5
group with feedback that goes beyond grades, encouraging students to self-evaluate and make
appropriate modifications. These methods, if used consistently, result in measurable
improvements in CTS and overall achievement (Thomas, 2009).
In general, students are more likely to participate in discussions when they take place in
small groups rather than whole-class environments. Training of both teachers and students
increases the success of cooperative learning groups. Teachers should model techniques such as
evidence gathering beforehand, but should refrain from leading the discussion; their primary role
is to help the group stay on task (Hudgins and Edelman, 1986).
Cooperative learning groups can be implemented across the curriculum. A music class
where students were given a familiar song and asked to create a new arrangement serves as one
example of how student-centered classrooms promote CTS (Blair, 2009).
A study from Thailand shows that development of CTS in a classroom depends heavily
on a teacher’s CTS, and that teachers who facilitate students in working cooperatively and
encourage them to share their own knowledge with one another have the greatest success in
teaching CTS (Rumpagaporn and Darmawan, 2007).
Physical education is another subject where cooperative learning is often used (in the
form of team sports), and CTS can also be taught in this context. Games should be viewed not
merely as exercises to develop physical strength and teamwork, but also as opportunities for
students to engage in CTS. Teachers should encourage students to think about the strategies they
choose and evaluate their effectiveness (Everhart, 2010).
Math classes can also benefit from cooperative learning as students are pressed to explain
their reasoning in solving problems. The key is for teachers to develop complex problems that
allow for more than one method of reaching the correct answer, and to ask students probing
questions about their choices. As students work collaboratively to solve these problems, CTS are
engaged (Kazemi and Stipek, 2001).
CTS are learned skills rather than innate abilities, and the process for teaching them is
just that: a process. One essential element in this process is modeling of CTS by the teacher and
within cooperative learning groups. Staff development is vital in the process because most
teachers know how to think critically but not how to teach CTS (Snyder, 2008).
Finally, technology is most effective in enhancing CTS when computers are used
collaboratively rather than in isolation. The internet allows students to work in groups within a
classroom and over long distances, having real-time discussions that were previously impossible.
There are a number of collaborative websites and other projects available online that help
promote 21st-century literacy skills and develop CTS (Leu, 2001). Students can also use new
technologies such as email, texting, and discussion boards to work cooperatively (Scarce, 1997).
PACA CONNECTION: Cooperative learning seems to deliver the most “bang for the
buck” where CTS is concerned, increasing student interest, participation, and success as well as
enhancing CTS. Cooperative learning can be used with students of any age, although younger
students require more active teacher involvement. It is therefore likely that this strategy will be
used more often in the upper elementary and middle school grades. With inservice training,
teachers will be able to more effectively implement cooperative learning in their classrooms. It is
recommended that this be our focus during the 2011-2012 school year.
Strategy #3: Using Technology to Enhance CTS
Technology, particularly communications technology, is evolving too rapidly for
6
education research to keep up with it. Many teachers have been incorporating these
developments into their classrooms and sharing their findings online rather than in traditional
journals, however, and the tech-craze is “going viral” in classrooms around the world. Teachers
have found that students are more likely to participate enthusiastically in assignments that
incorporate the latest gadgets; the challenge then becomes providing these gadgets to all students
equally.
In the 1990s, teachers began using email, instant messaging, and chat rooms as a forum
for class discussions. One advantage of electronic discussion boards is that students who are shy
in class are given ample time to think about and formulate their responses, which increases both
participation and CTS. Also, use of communications technology frees up class time for other
activities (Scarce, 1997).
Research shows that many students are dependent on the internet for information, but are
not thinking critically about that information. Efforts need to be made to ensure that CTS are
taught in conjunction with technology; technology alone does not promote CTS but is a tool like
any other for enhancing CTS (Peck, 2002).
Critical thinkers raise vital questions and formulate them clearly; they gather and assess
relevant information; they use abstract reasoning to interpret information; they come to wellreasoned conclusions and test them against established criteria; and they think open-mindedly
about all data, considering their assumptions, implications, and practical consequences. In order
for teachers to use technology to develop these skills in students, they must first be trained in
both the use of the technology and in practical reasoning. Familiarity with available resources
such as webquests, podcasts, white papers, etc. is necessary (Mosenson and Johnson, 2008).
Although students can learn some CTS indirectly, students who receive direct instruction
in CTS show a statistically significant advantage. Software programs (such as the University of
Melbourne’s Reason!Able program) have been developed specifically to teach CTS and have
been shown to be effective (Van Gelder, 2001).
Whether or not specific technologies are used to enhance CTS, research shows that
students must be taught to use CTS when approaching technology. Before teachers can teach
these skills to students, they must themselves be “critically literate,” but college programs do not
typically provide prospective teachers with these skills. Combining technology with critical
thinking education is seen by some as the most important preparation for success after school
(Hlinka, Lovall-Cole, et al, 2004).
While most internet use is geared toward older students, research shows that early
information literacy instruction promotes CTS and children as young as three should be taught
information literacy as part of their reading readiness education. A helpful factor in teaching
early literacy skills is to utilize the school librarian and media specialist. By fourth grade,
students should be able to access, evaluate, and use information acquired from nonfiction sources
(Heider, 2008).
Technology allows students to explore areas of inquiry that would not be otherwise
possible, expanding their opportunities to exercise CTS. Virtual reality is one area of technology
that challenges students to solve real-world problems, such as pollution. Using virtual reality,
middle school students can have the opportunity to conduct CTS-intensive science experiments
that would be too costly or dangerous in the real world (Ketelhut, et al, 2010).
Older students can benefit from instruction in recognizing bias and perspective in the
material they discover online. Two strategies for teaching CTS to evaluate online materials are
“Key Media Literacy Questions” and CRITIC (claim, role of claimant, information backing the
7
claim, test, independent agreement, cause proposed). These techniques can be adapted to any
form of media and are especially important in a media-driven culture such as ours (Thier, 2008).
Another field that can be used to teach CTS is media advertising. Using activities such as
the “Bubble” project, upper elementary teachers can teach their students to identify propaganda
techniques in advertising. A combination of slides, internet, television, and digital photography
can be used to stimulate critical thinking (Gainer and Kinard, 2009).
Students now conduct most of their research on the internet rather than in the library. A
simple six-step process can be used to teach them to use CTS when viewing and choosing
information online. The key component of this process is the hands-on use of model internet
sites, many of which provide misinformation designed to look valid. Continued hands-on work
and application is essential to continue learning in this important use of technology to teach CTS
(Heil, 2005).
Another thought to keep in mind when considering technology’s impact on CTS is the
fact that the computer allows students to write more quickly and revise their papers more
efficiently, thus better expressing their thoughts and allowing them to devote more mental energy
to CTS. A June 2005 article in the Journal of Secondary Gifted Education shows that high
school boys, in particular, write longer and more complex essays when allowed to use a
computer as opposed to writing longhand.
Most articles agree that students must be taught effective strategies for locating and
engaging with material on the Internet. Julie Coiro’s research with sixth-grade students suggests
that Internet text demands higher levels of inferential reasoning and comprehension monitoring
activities to help readers stay on task. She suggests that teachers anticipate these problems in the
lesson-planning stage by conducting an Internet search and capturing an image of the first few
entries, then using questions and think-aloud modeling to help students critically examine each
entry (Coiro, 2005).
The goal of CTS is to move students beyond comprehension of their reading and into
analysis of how and why the author developed the text. There are major differences between
traditional information texts (which the school curriculum committee or other reliable authority
has already evaluated in these areas) and Internet texts. Young readers are often deceived or
persuaded to believe what they read because of the way information is published on the Internet
(layout, graphics, etc. can make a site look authoritative or “official” when it is not). Even
teachers struggle with being able to differentiate fact from opinion while reading on the Internet.
Developmentally-appropriate CT strategies should be incorporated into classroom instruction
(Coiro, 2003).
PACA CONNECTION: Teachers need to be made aware of the need for close
monitoring of student research on the Internet and the need for critical evaluation of material
found there. Direct instruction along the lines suggested by Coiro and others should be part of
the curriculum for the Computer Lab. Technology in-services and other professional
development opportunities could be used to help teachers develop strategies for assisting
students to approach technology more critically.
Strategy #4: Using Socratic Questioning Techniques to Enhance CTS
Socratic questioning asks open-ended questions designed to challenge students to
examine their own assumptions. Instead of asking “What is 2+2?” a teacher could ask, “How do
you know that 2+2=4 and why is that important?” According to Matthew Lipman, teachers can
8
promote a form of inquiry that will develop CTS through the use of philosophy and holistic
thinking. He states that thinking only becomes a good practice when it incorporates selfcorrectiveness through inquiry (Lipman, 1993). This type of self-examination is at the heart of
critical thinking.
For CTS to develop in students, therefore, they must be actively engaged in problemsolving activities and must be taught (through modeling) to ask good questions. One key to
developing CTS is teacher questioning on a higher level (application, analysis, synthesis,
evaluation). CTS are best taught in an environment that utilizes effective questioning
techniques (Snyder, 2008).
CTS are not just for academic subjects, but can also apply in classroom management
situations such as behavior problems. Most behavior management techniques that teachers
employ do all the thinking for the child. Questioning can be used to teach students to employ
CTS in conflict resolution; studies show that good problem solvers are also more socially
competent (Shure, 2006).
Although teachers spend a great deal of classroom time asking questions, most of the
questions ask students to recall basic facts. Statistics show that students later remember only 1020% of what was covered through this type of questioning, but recall 80-85% of the material
learned as the result of higher-level questions. However, teachers are inadequately prepared to
incorporate higher-level questioning into their classroom practices (Savage, 1998).
Questioning is effective when leading to two types of discovery: guided discovery and
convergent discovery. In the first, the teacher acts as facilitator and asks guiding questions to
help students achieve the learning objective. In the second, the teacher becomes an observer as
the students work to figure out the problem for themselves. Both methods can be used
effectively in a variety of subject areas, including physical education (a ropes course is given as
an example). (Blitzer, 1995)
Although transitioning from a more structured (i.e. teacher-directed) methodology to a
less structured (i.e. student-directed) one can be difficult in some settings (such as a science lab),
students can become comfortable making decisions related to their learning if the teacher plans
the transition and continues to provide guidance and feedback in the form of probing questions
(Colburn, 2008).
The use of essential questions that are open ended and do not have a simple or fact-based
answer will encourage multiple perspectives when analyzing and evaluating information to reach
a conclusion. As students work through their responses to thought-provoking essential questions,
they are able to use social technologies that foster exploration, collaboration, networking, and
information sharing. This allows them to connect learning with their own personal experience as
well as develop the ability to depend less on learned assumptions and more toward CTS (Brown,
2009).
Teachers can also ask these questions to help students identify propaganda and discrepant
events (Cook, 1991). Students can be taught to use CTS beyond the classroom and apply them to
their daily lives.
Stanley Ivie’s six-level model of critical thinking education concludes that all of our
thinking revolves around metaphors; change our metaphors and our whole way of thinking
changes. This model begins with asking a Central Question and questioning is an integral part of
the model throughout (Ivie, 2002).
Questioning can be further broken down into three levels of inquiry: aesthetic, creative,
and critical. These combine to promote a type of CT that is “a reasonable reflective thinking
9
focused on deciding what to believe or do” and helps students make thoughtful and confident
decisions (Lampert, 2006). Although Lampert relates these types of inquiry to the art classroom,
every area of life has elements of aesthetics and students who learn to articulate why they like or
dislike something are more likely to use CTS in making daily decisions outside the classroom.
Socratic questioning not only challenges students to question their aesthetic values, but
also engages them in argument (in the classic sense of the word), requiring them to continuously
reflect upon their initial ideas and use new and prior knowledge to support their beliefs. When
teachers engage in argumentative dialogue with students and are perceived to endorse
independent critical thinking, “students do appear to have a deeper engagement and greater
satisfaction with their . . . learning” (Osborne, 2010).
PACA CONNECTION: Socratic questioning does require more classroom time than
traditional closed-end or even higher-level questioning techniques. Teachers would benefit from
an inservice activity on effective methods for incorporating the Socratic method in the
classroom. Ultimately, good questioning techniques and models are integral to CTS development
in every model (collaborative learning, technology integration, etc.) and should be part of the
long term plan for implementation of this project. More importantly, Socratic questioning will
help students strengthen their faith by forcing them to examine and internalize their beliefs.
REFERENCES
American School Board. Art improves critical thinking. American School Board Journal, May
2007, p. 8.
Baker, William; Barstack, Renee; Clark, Diane; Hull, Elizabeth; Goodman, Ben; Kook, Judy;
Kraft, Kaatje; Ramakrishna, Pushpa; Roberts, Elisabeth; Shaw, Jerome; Weaver, David; and
Lang, Michael. Writing-to-learn in the inquiry-science classroom: effective strategies from
middle school science and writing teachers. The Clearing House, Vol.81, Issue 3, 2008, pp. 105108.
Black, Susan. Teaching students to think critically. The Education Digest. Feb 2005, pp 42-47.
Blair, Deborah. Stepping aside: teaching in a student-centered music classroom. Music
Educator’s Journal, Vol 95, Issue 3, 2009, pp. 42-45.
Blitzer, Laura. It’s a gym class...what’s there to think about? JOPERD. August 1995. pp. 44-48.
Brown, Karen. Questions for the 21st century learner. Knowledge Quest. Volume 38, No 1.
Sept/Oct 2009. pp.24-27.
Brown, Timothy M. Enhancing elementary students’ experiences learning about circuits using an
exploration-explanation instructional sequence. Science Activities, Vol. 47, 2010, pp. 54-57.
Coiro, Julie. Making sense of online text. Educational Leadership. October 2005, pp. 30-35.
10
Coiro, Julie. Rethinking comprehension strategies to better prepare students for critically
evaluating content on the internet. The NERA Journal, Vol 39 (2). 2003. pp. 29-34.
Colburn, Alan. The prepared practitioner: bridging educational theory and practice. The Science
Teacher. December 2008. pp. 12-13.
Cook, Jimmie E. Events, words, and critical thinking. Teaching K-8. February 1991.
Everhart, Brett and Kimberly. Using cylinder ball to emphasize tactics and critical thinking in
territorial sports. Journal of Physical Education, Recreation & Dance. 81, 3, March 2010, pp.
12-15.
Gainer, Jesse S; Valdez-Gainer, Nancy; and Kinard, Timothy. The elementary bubble project:
exploring critical media literacy in a fourth grade classroom. The Reading Teacher. Vol. 68 (2),
2009, pp. 674-683.
Gokhale, Anuradha A. Collaborative learning enhances critical thinking. Journal of Technology
Information, Volume 7, Fall 1995.
Heider, Kelly L. Information literacy: the missing link in early childhood education. Early
childhood education journal. Vol 36, No 6, 2008, pp. 513-518.
Heil, Delilah. The internet and student research: teaching critical evaluation skills. Teacher
Librarian. Vol. 33(2), December 255, pp. 26-29.
Hlinka, Lovall-Cole, Sly, Wright, and Wright. Technology’s effect on capacities and dispositions
in education. http://students.ed.uiuc (University of Illinois/Champaign-Urbana), Fall 2004.
Hoffman, James V. Critical reading/thinking across the curriculum: using I-charts to support
learning. Language Arts, Vol. 69, Feb. 1992, pp. 121-127.
Hudgins, Bryce and Edelman, Sybil. Theahing critical thinking skills to fourth and fifth graders
through teacher-led small group discussions. Journal of Educational Research, Vol 79, No 6,
July/August 1986, pp. 333-341.
Ivie, Stanley D. Metaphor: a model for teaching critical thinking. Contemporary Education. Vol.
72, No. 1. 2002. pp. 18-22.
Jorgensen, Lone Morris and Hansen, Sally. Assessing reflection through portfolios. Thinking
Classroom, Vol 5, Oct 2004, pp. 5-11.
Kazimi, Elham and Stipek, Deborah. Promoting conceptual thinking in four upper-elementary
mathematics classrooms. The Elementary School Journal, Vol 102, Issue 1, 2001, pp.123-138.
Kelly, Diane; Brown, Gary; Condon, Bill; Law, Richard. Washington State University critical
thinking project. WSU, 2001.
11
Kennedy, Mary. Policy issues in teaching education. Phi Delta Kappan, May 1991, pp 661–66.
Ketelhut, Diana Jass; Nelson, Brian; Clarke, Jody; and Dede, Chris. A multi-user virtual
environment for building and assessing higher-order inquiry skills in science. British Journal of
Education Technology, Vol 41, No 1, 2010, pp. 56-68.
Khalid, Tahsin. An integrated inquiry activity in an elementary teaching methods classroom.
Science Activities, Vol 47, 2010, pp.29-34.
Lampert, Nancy. Enhancing critical thinking with aesthetic, critical, and creative inquiry. Art
Education. September 2006. pp. 46-50.
Leader, Lars and James Middleton. Promoting critical thinking dispositions by using problem
solving in middle school. Research in Middle Education Online. Vol 28 Issue 1. 2004. pp. 55-71.
Leu, Donald J. Jr. Internet project: preparing students for new literacies in a global village. The
Reading Teacher, March 2001.
Leu, Donald; Kinzer, Charles; Coiro, Julie; and Cammack, Diane. Toward a theory of New
Literacies emerging from the internet and other information and communication technologies.
Reading Online, April 2004.
http://www.readingonline.org/newliteracies/lit_index.asp?HREF=/newliteracies/leu
Lipman, Matthew. Promoting better classroom thinking. Educational Psychology. Vol. 13, Issue
3/4. 1993. pp. 291-303.
McVerry, J. Gregory, Lisa Zawilinski and W. Ian O’Byrne. Navigating the Cs of change.
Educational Leadership. Vol. 67. Sept. 9, 2009.
Mentoring Minds. Research for Mentoring Minds’ critical thinking wheel.
Mosenson, Andrea B. and Johnson, Julie M. Instructional strategies and resources - exploring
the use of technology. Journal of family consumer sciences education. Vol. 26, 2008, pp. 17-35.
Osborne, Jonathan Francis. An argument for arguments in science class. Kappan. V91, N4. Dec
2009/Jan 2010. pp. 62-65.
Paul, Richard; A.J.A. Binker; and Daniel Weil. Introduction to remodeling: components of
remodels and their functions. Critical Thinking Handbook: K-3rd Grades. 1995.
Paul, Richard; Elder, Linda; Bartell, Ted. A brief history of critical thinking. California Teacher
Preparation for Instruction in Critical Thinking: Research Findings and Policy
Recommendations: State of California, California Commission on Teacher Credentialing,
Sacramento CA, March 1997.
12
Paul, Richard and Willsen, Jane. Critical thinking: identifying the targets.
http://www.criticalthinking.org/articles/ct-identifying-targets.cfm
Paziotopoulos, Ann and Kroll, Marianne. Hooked on thinking. International Reading
Association. 2004, pp 672-677.
Peck, Michael D., Ph.D. Critical thinking and the internet. 2002.
www.sjsu.edu/depts/SocialWork.swarc
Pentland, Courtney. Nudging research projects toward critical thinking. School Library Monthly,
Volume XXVI, Number 10, June 2010, pp.10-11.
Philbin, M; Myers, J.S. Classroom Drama. Social Studies, Vol. 82 Issue 5, Sept-Oct 1991,
pp.179-182.
Rumpagaporn, Methinee Wongwanich and Darmawan, I Gusti Ngurah. Students’ critical
thinking skills in a Thai ICT schools pilot project. http://iej.com.au (University of Adelaide,
School of Education). Shannon Research Press, ISSN 1443-1475, 2007.
Savage, Luise B. Eliciting critical thinking skills through questioning. The Clearing House.
May/June 1998. pp. 291-293.
Scarce, Rik. Using electronic mail discussion groups to enhance students’ critical thinking. The
Technology Source. July 1997.
Shure, Myrna B. Helping children solve problems: how to help children handle conflicts through
problem-solving techniques. NJEA Review, 76,4. April 2006. pp. 10-11.
Snyder, Lisa Gueldenzoph and Mark J. Teaching critical thinking and problem solving skills.
The Delta Pi Epsilon Journal, Vol. L No. 2, Spring/Summer 2008, pp. 90-99.
Sumner, William G. Folkways. 1906.
Thier, Marlene. Media and Science: developing skepticism and critical thinking. Science Scope.
November 2008, pp. 20-23.
Thomas, Laura. From experience to meaning: the critical skills program. KAPPAN Online
Exclusive (pdkintl.org), Vol 91 Number 2, October 2009, pp. 93-96.
unknown. Effects of technology on critical thinking and essay writing among gifted adolescents.
Journal of Secondary Gifted Education. June 22, 2005.
Van Gelder, Tim. How to improve critical thinking using educational technology. Department of
Philosophy, University of Melbourne, Australia, 2001. pp. 539-548.
13