While
pondering a problem in a plant biology course at Ohio University
one semester, John Withers suddenly realized something unusual
was going on: This class was actually requiring him to think.
Thinking
is presumed to be the bread and butter of higher education.
Beyond simply getting a diploma to land a job that pays well,
the promise of sharpening thinking skills still looms as a key
reason millions apply to college.
Yet
some say there is a remarkable paucity of critical thinking
taught at the undergraduate level - even though the need for
such skills seems more urgent than ever.
Americans
can now expect to change jobs as many as a half-dozen times
in their lives - a feat requiring considerable mental agility.
The ability to sift, analyze, and reflect upon large amounts
of data is crucial in today's information age.
Yet
a major national report released last year entitled "Greater
Expectations: A New Vision for Learning as a Nation Goes to
College" raises serious questions as to whether undergraduates
are absorbing these essential skills.
"Outsiders
who find college graduates unprepared for solving problems in
the workplace question whether the colleges are successfully
educating their student to think," the report notes.
Critical
thought certainly receives considerable lip service on many
campuses. College websites beckon students to "learn to
think critically." Classes with "critical thinking"
in the title are abundant.
But
Carol Schneider, president of the Association of American Colleges
and Universities in Washington isn't convinced.
"Critical
thinking, social responsibility, reflective judgment, and evidence-based
reasoning ... are the most enduring goals of a first-rate liberal
education," says Ms. Schneider. Yet research shows "many
college graduates are falling short in reaching these goals."
That's
why some college faculty are leading the charge to move the
teaching of thinking skills out of isolated courses and into
all classes. Much as writing is now often taught as part of
every discipline, they argue, learning to think ought to be
the goal of every class.
In
the case of Mr. Withers's biology class, that's exactly what
his professor, Sarah Wyatt, was aiming at.
Inspired
by an initiative at Ohio University in Athens - where she was
teaching - to focus harder on teaching students critical thinking
skills, she directed her class to turn away temporarily from
the usual round of textbooks, lectures, notes, and tests.
She
asked them instead to break into teams and work to develop original
hypotheses of a plant's development.
As
Withers and his group began designing an experiment to test
their hypothesis, they were forced to reconsider methods and
conclusions.
What
flaws and limits might be embedded in their approach? What could
they know with certainty? What could they not know?
It
was a challenging mental exercise, and as a result, Withers
found he began thinking about biology outside class with more
clarity, precision, and reflection than ever before.
At
the University of Massachusetts in Boston, Esther Kingston-Mann
is interested in training her students to think like historians
rather than biologists.
But
her goal of encouraging her students to do their own thinking
is similar to that of Professor Wyatt's.
Like
Wyatt, she has her students occasionally close their textbooks.
In her course on the cold war, she asks them to read newspaper
accounts instead.
They
scan articles dating from the "red scare" in the 1920s
on through World War II and then read further new accounts of
relations between the US and the Soviet Union in later decades.
Later
they collaborate in small groups, trying to identify in the
newspaper clippings the voices being used to tell the story
at a particular moment - and to note which perspectives and
voices are missing.
"They're
looking directly at the newspapers and not at a textbook,"
she says. "They find it difficult, but they end up liking
it, and they feel more confident intellectually."
It's
all part of asking students to hone their own thinking skills,
rather than simply allowing them to absorb and repeat the material
they find in their textbooks or absorb from lectures.
Unless
the professor creates a situation where students are required
to reflect explicitly on an issue, says Professor Kingston-Mann,
"they don't necessarily carry it anywhere else; it's just
'something I took in that class.' "
Yet
some say efforts like these are still the exception on many
campuses - despite a decades-long discussion on the need for
critical thought in higher education.
Buzz word of the '80s
At
least since the 1970s, some college faculty have been calling
for higher education to refocus on the "liberal learning"
model espoused by John Dewey.
The
philosopher argued that teaching students to be learners was
the whole point of education. His belief that good thinkers
make good citizens also seemed an apt message for the times.
Indeed,
many seemed ready - even eager to inject critical thinking much
more deliberately into higher education. Critical thinking became
a 1980s buzzword in academe. Sometime in the 1990s, it lost
its buzz - not because it was rejected, but because it was adopted
wholesale.
Professors
today often believe erroneously that they are already teaching
critical thinking in their courses and that students are absorbing
it.
But
that's not necessarily the case, says Richard Paul, president
of the Center for Critical Thinking and author of "Critical
Thinking: How to Prepare Students for a Rapidly Changing World."
At
the request of California's Commission on Teacher Credentialing,
Dr. Paul and his colleagues in 1995 conducted interviews with
faculty at 83 public and 28 private colleges and universities
in California.
The
professors were asked specifically how they taught students
to think critically.
"The
basic conclusion we came to is that while everyone claims to
be teaching critical thinking ... the evidence is that very
few can articulate what they mean by it or explain how they
emphasize it on a typical day," Dr. Paul says. "It's
something everyone wants to believe they are doing."
But
if not teaching thinking, then what are colleges doing?
Patricia
King and her colleagues in educational psychology at the University
of Michigan have spent the last 25 years conducting experiments
to assess the degree to which college produces "reflective
judgment" and higher-order thinking skills in undergraduates.
The
good news, she says, is that an increase in critical thinking
appears to be a direct outcome of attending college. The bad
news is that even by the time they graduate, most college students
don't reach the higher levels of critical thinking involving
true reflective judgment.
"They're
making what we call quasi- reflective judgments," she says.
"Even four years of college only brings traditional-age
college students to a very low level of critical thinking and
judgment," she says.
Seniors
do have the ability to understand that a controversial problem
can and should be approached from several perspectives, she
says. But they are often unable to come to a reasoned conclusion
even when all the facts to solve a problem are present.
"They're
left on the fence," she says. "They say, 'Look how
open-minded I am.' But when pressed to say, 'What do you think
about this? What suggestions would you make and what are they
based on?' - that's when the process falls apart. They are unable
to reach or defend a conclusion that's most reasonable and consistent
with the facts."
Pressure
for colleges to cultivate critical thinking is growing, however,
as state legislatures interested in accountability press educators
to determine what kind of learning an undergraduate diploma
represents.
Margaret
Miller, a University of Virginia professor and director of the
National Forum on College Level Learning, is leading the charge
to measure what students at state-funded colleges know and can
do, including an assessment of intellectual skills. She worries
that critical-thinking skills are not truly valued by many state
schools and their students.
"Students
and institutions are more and more focused on the vocational
- at a high level, but vocational nonetheless," she says.
"But producing a group of non- reflective highly competent
technicians is something we want to avoid if we want a functioning
society."
Because
the curriculum is so fragmented across many narrow disciplines,
students have a greater challenge in making sense of it. That
means colleges can't just ghettoize critical thinking in a few
courses, but need to spread the focus on thinking across the
curriculum.
"All
disciplines need to become more liberal-arts-like in their focus
on the intellectual skills that underlie what they do,"
she says. "Some of that is critical thinking, some of it
is broader and encompasses that."
Cultivating open-mindedness
If
undergraduates aren't learning to think, one major reason may
be that most higher education institutions don't know how to
systematically teach it, says Elizabeth Minnich, professor of
philosophy at the Union Institute and University in Cincinnati.
In
an article last month entitled "Teaching Thinking: Moral
and Political Considerations" in Change magazine, a higher-education
publication, she argues that thinking can and should be taught
more deliberately and intentionally in college courses.
She
then goes on to describe the kind of thought process she most
values.
"Thinking
is neither coerced nor coercive," she writes. "It
is exploratory, suggestive; it does not prove anything, or finally
arrive anywhere. Thus, to say people are 'thoughtful' or 'thought-provoking'
suggests that they are open-minded, reflective, challenging
- more likely to question than to assert, inclined to listen
to many sides, capable of making distinctions that hold differences
in play rather than dividing in order to exclude, and desirous
of persuading others rather than reducing them to silence by
refuting them."
Rather
than trying to "cover the material" in a class and
force-feed terms and concepts to undergraduates, she says in
an interview that she tries to cultivate open-mindedness, reflection,
and a questioning attitude.
She
might, for instance, begin a class using Plato's Republic as
an occasion for "thinking practice."
Before
the students are even assigned to read the Republic, she explains
to her class the confusing mixture of tongues and nationalities
Socrates and his friends would encounter at the port of Athens.
For help, they turned to an old man, Cephalus, to ask questions.
"Then
I ask the students, 'To whom would you take a question raised
for you by an encounter with people(s) whose differences suddenly
make you unsure of your own, hitherto unquestioned, values?
Would you take it to an old person? A religious authority? A
political leader? Your mother or father? A scientist? A friend?'
"
Rather
than just downloading content of the Republic, she wants to
be sure "the students are bringing something to it."
The
idea is that the students then begin to read Plato as if reading
it through the lens of their own experience.
She
often asks at some point: "What would you do if you were
an Aristotelian? How would you see that tree, or how would you
listen to your friend when they are trying to tell you their
problem?"
'Hey, I'm already doing that'
There
are, of course, a number of liberal arts college and a few public
universities that consciously pursue critical thinking across
the curriculum.
George
Nagel is a professor of communications at Ferris State University,
just north of Grand Rapids, Mich.
"I
was pretty skeptical, probably a little cynical, like a lot
of our faculty," he says. "I had the attitude [three
years ago] - 'Hey, I'm already doing that and doing it well.'
But it's funny, when you ask [the faculty] what they're doing
so well, they can't really explicate it for you."
Now
he and a growing number of faculty on campus are warming to
the idea of specifically and intentionally teaching critical
thinking in every discipline. Professor Nagel has received training
from the Center for Critical Thinking in Dillon, Calif., and
is now teaching others at Ferris to do the same.
But
such notions are not always immediately welcomed on campus.
At
Ohio University, Wyatt at first had to buck the tide of opinion
among some colleagues when she retooled her courses to focus
on critical thinking.
"What
I'm doing is different than what normally is done," she
says. "When I first started, people said that's going to
be a lot more work and students won't get it. This is the way
you do lab: You run the lab, the cook book, and this is what
you get."
Today,
instead of being in the academic doghouse, Dr. Wyatt finds her
thinking-based classes are a hit - popular with both students
and a growing number of faculty who believe she offers something
of genuine value.
"They
like the product we're turning out," she says, "kids
who are actually thinkers."