CRITICAL THINKING IN MODERN EDUCATION

The eighties witnessed a growing accord that the heart of education lies exactly where traditional advocates of a liberal education always said it was — in the processes of inquiry, learning and thinking rather than in the accumulation of disjointed skills and senescent information. By the decade’s end the movement to infuse the K-12 and post-secondary curricula with critical thinking (CT) had gained remarkable momentum [1].

Now it is time to investigate the formation of healthy self-consciousness and thinking in Kazakhstan. Secondary and higher education do not give universal and fundamental skills of healthy critical thinking that could be compared with the completeness of reading and writing skills, while in fact the meaning and concerning of such “skill” is not less than literacy in our life (at least in Kazakhstan and the Commonwealth of Independent States, and as it seems in all highly developed countries). The right reflection, technically and in essence, is a narrow professional and specialized domain, while the scientific data about really applicable and practical features of human mind is the field of some faculties’ students. For example in Kazakhstan students have only a term-long course of logic (school students are deprived of it, though, paradox is that in Stalin times logic was an compulsory school subject), while the topic of social psychological security is not present at all even in the curriculums of the psychologists-to-be.

In relation to this, it is extremely demonstrative that in the country that pretends to be an example of true democracy, I mean the USA, the deficiency of healthy thinking was realized more than twenty years ago by professionals and concerned citizens. Since then, there grows quite a powerful and efficient movement for critical thinking, a similar movement functions now in Western Europe.

This success also raised vexing questions: What exactly are those skills and dispositions which characterize CT? What are some effective ways to teach CT? And how can CT, particularly if it becomes a campus-wide, district-wide or statewide requirement, be assessed? When asked by the individual professor or teacher seeking to introduce CT into her own classroom, such questions are difficult enough. But they take on social, fiscal, and political dimensions when asked by campus curriculum committees, school district offices, boards of education, and the educational testing and publishing industries.

Given the central role played by philosophers in articulating the value, both individual and social, of CT, in analyzing the concept of CT, in designing college level academic programs in CT, and in assisting with efforts to introduce CT into the K-12 curriculum, it is little wonder that the American Philosophical Association, through its Committee on Pre-College Philosophy, took great interest in the CT movement and its impact on the profession. In December 1987, that committee asked the researchers to make a systematic inquiry into the current state of CT and CT assessment. A key outcome of the study was to determine the meaning of CT (critical thinking). We understand critical thinking to be purposeful, self-regulatory judgment which results in interpretation, analysis, evaluation, and inference, as well as explanation of the evidential, conceptual, methodological, criteriological, or contextual considerations upon which that judgment is based. CT is essential as a tool of inquiry. As such, CT is a liberating force in education and a powerful resource in one’s personal and civic life. While not synonymous with good thinking, CT is a pervasive and self-rectifying human phenomenon. The ideal critical thinker is habitually inquisitive, well-informed, trustful of reason, open-minded, flexible, fairminded in evaluation, honest in facing personal biases, prudent in making judgments, willing to reconsider, clear about issues, orderly in complex matters, diligent in seeking relevant information, reasonable in the selection of criteria, focused in inquiry, and persistent in seeking results which are as precise as the subject and the circumstances of inquiry permit. Thus, educating good critical thinkers means working toward this ideal. It combines developing CT skills with nurturing those dispositions which consistently yield useful insights and which are the basis of a rational and democratic society [1].

There is also a view that Critical thinking - disciplined, self-directed thinking, which shows improvement ideas relevant to a particular method or field of thought. It is divided into two forms. If disciplined in the interests of a particular individual or group to the exclusion of other relevant individuals and groups, it is sophistic or weak sense of critical thinking, disciplined If to take into account the interests of various individuals or groups, it is - fair or a strong sense of critical thinking.

In critical thinking, we use our team members thought to adapt our thinking to the logical requirements of the type or mode of thought. If we are accustomed to think critically in the strong sense, we develop special features of thinking: intellectual humility, intellectual courage, intellectual perseverance, intellectual honesty, and trust in reason. Sophistic or weak sense of critical thought involves the development of these features only narrowly in accordance with the egocentric and sociocentric obligations [2].

In general, experts find good critical thinking to include both a skill dimension and a dispositional dimension. The experts find CT to include cognitive skills in (1) interpretation, (2) analysis, (3) evaluation, (4) inference, (5) explanation and (6) self-regulation. Each of these six is at the core of CT. Associated with each are criteria by which its execution can be meaningfully evaluated. However, no attempt is made here to specify those criteria since ample criteriological discussions exist in the literature.

All CT instruction should aim at developing good critical thinkers — persons who can integrate successful execution of various skills in the CT enhanced classroom with the confidence, inclination and good judgment to use these powerful tools in their other studies and in their everyday lives. Persons who have proficiency in CT skills but fail to use them appropriately are most unlikely to be regarded as good critical thinkers.

Those who seek to infuse CT into the educational system to be guided by a holistic conceptualization of what it means to be a good critical thinker. That some aspects of CT, particularly features within its skill dimension, are more readily targeted by existing educational assessment strategies should not distort the conceptualization of CT nor truncate full-blown CT instruction.

The experts characterize certain cognitive skills as central or core CT skills. The experts are not, however, saying that a person must be proficient at every skill to be perceived as having CT ability. The experts to be virtually unanimous (N>95%) on including analysis, evaluation, and inference as central to CT. Strong consensus (N>87%) exists that interpretation, explanation and self-regulation are also central to CT.

Finding: There is consensus that one might improve one’s own CT in several ways. The experts agree that one could critically examine and evaluate one’s own reasoning processes. One could learn how to think more objectively and logically. One could expand one’s repertoire of those more specialized procedures and criteria used in different areas of human thought and inquiry. One could increase one’s base of information and life experience.

The experts do not regard CT as a body of knowledge to be delivered to students as one more school subject along with others. Like reading and writing, CT has applications in all areas of life and learning. Also as with reading and writing, CT instruction can occur in programs rich with discipline-specific content or in programs which rely on the events in everyday life as the basis for developing one’s CT.

Finding: One implication the experts draw from their analysis of CT skills is this: "while CT skills themselves transcend specific subjects or disciplines, exercising them successfully in certain contexts demands domain-specific knowledge, some of which may concern specific methods and techniques used to make reasonable judgments in those specific contexts".

Although the identification and analysis of CT skills transcend, in significant ways, specific subjects or disciplines, learning and applying these skills in many contexts requires domain-specific knowledge. This domain-specific knowledge includes understanding methodological principles and competence to engage in norm-regulated practices that are at the core of reasonable judgments in those specific-contexts. The explicit mention of "evidential, conceptual, methodological, criteriological, or contextual" considerations in connection with explanation reinforces this point. Too much of value is lost if CT is conceived of simply as a list of logical operations and domain-specific knowledge is conceived of simply as an aggregation of information. Inquiry into the nexus of reasonable judgment and actual application can produce new appreciations of the necessity of robust concepts of both CT and domain-specific knowledge in education.

Since becoming adept at CT involves learning to use CT skills effectively in many different contexts, the experts insist that "one cannot overemphasize the value of a solid liberal education to supplement the honing of one’s CT skills and the cultivating of one’s CT dispositions".

CT skills can usefully be grouped and sub-classified in a number of legitimate ways. Hence, the sub-classification which resulted from this Delphi research should not be interpreted as necessarily excluding all others. Indeed, while declaring themselves to be in agreement with this sub-classification, various participating experts have also published their own sub-classifications. While characterizing each skill and sub-skill is important, creating arbitrary differentiations simply to force each and every sub-skill to become conceptually discrete from all the others is neither necessary nor useful. In practical contexts the execution of some skills or sub-skills may presuppose others.

Many of the CT skills and sub-skills identified are valuable, if not vital, for other important activities, such as communicating effectively. Also CT skills can be applied in concert with other technical or interpersonal skills to any number of specific concerns such as programming computers, defending clients, developing a winning sales strategy, managing an office, or helping a friend figure out what might be wrong with his car. In part this is what the experts mean by characterizing these CT skills as pervasive and purposeful.

Not every useful cognitive process should be thought of as CT. Not every valuable thinking skill is CT skill. CT is one among a family of closely related forms of higher-order thinking, along with, for example, problem-solving, decision making, and creative thinking. The complex relationships among the forms of higher-order thinking have yet to be examined satisfactorily.

Modeling that critical spirit, awakening and nurturing those attitudes in students, exciting those inclinations and attempting to determine objectively if they have become genuinely integrated with the high quality execution of CT skills are, for the majority of panelists, important instructional goals and legitimate targets for educational assessment. However, the experts harbor no illusions about the ease of designing appropriate instructional programs or assessment tools [1].

Healthy and well-armed instrumental systems thinking as a mass cultural achievement possible. And certainly vital. For, despite all our The computerized, the thinking in cognitive terms of our culture we are still in the deep Middle Ages. And the combination of the current technical equipment with the wildest infantile thinking clearly suicidal [3].

Literature:

1. Critical Thinking: A Statement of Expert Consensus for Purposes of Educational Assessment and Instruction. Executive Summary. - «The Delphi Report». - By Dr. Peter A. Facione, Dean of the College of Arts and Sciences Santa Clara University. The Complete American Philosophical Association Delphi Research Report is available as ERIC Doc. No.: ED 315 423;

2. Paul, Richard W. Critical Thinking: What Every Person Needs to Survive in a Rapidly Changing World.Rohnert Park, CA: Center for Critical Thinking and Moral Critique, Sonoma State Univ., 1990. - p.45;

3. http://www.evolkov.net/critic.think/articles/Volkov.E.Critical.think.

principles.introduction.html.