Bookmark this page

Translate this page from English...

*Machine translated pages not guaranteed for accuracy.

Click Here for our professional translations.


Print Page Change Text Size: T T T

Critical Thinking Instruction in Greater Los Angeles Area High Schools

Paul Everett Thomas

Abstract

                The purpose of this study was to determine to what extent and under what conditions high school teachers articulate and demonstrate elements of critical thinking in their instruction. The design of the study was to interview high school teachers and to observe them in their classrooms with regard to critical-thinking instruction. Forty teachers were interviewed from six public high schools in the greater Los Angeles area. Thirty-three of these teachers were observed during a class period of instruction.

                Some of the information was analyzed quantitatively. Profiles of teachers who were strong and weak in critical-thinking instruction were reported.

                This study was a partial replication of the Commission on Teacher Credentialing Study done by Paul, Elder, and Bartell (1997). The results of this study appear consistent with the results of that study. A large percentage of teachers do not articulate a clear understanding of what constitutes critical-thinking instruction. They have little vocabulary to talk about standards of critical thinking, what critical thinking looks like when it is done correctly, how they would reconcile covering content with fostering critical thinking, or what specific critical thinking skills they would like their students to develop.

                This study’s observation component yielded examples of exemplary practice in critical thinking in high school instruction. Students in honors classes are better served by critical-thinking instruction than those in lower achievement levels. Most teachers who demonstrated exemplary practice in critical thinking did not learn how to do it in their teacher preparation programs.

                The major implications of the dissertation are the following:

1). All teachers need to be educated in the philosophy, vocabulary, standards, intellectual traits, skills, and processes of critical thinking in their preservice and inservice education.

2). A concerted effort needs to be made to assure that all students, regardless of achievement level, be given the opportunity to learn to think critically.

3) Critical thinking should become an organizing core for other school reforms.

4) Textbooks need more critical thinking language and open-ended questions so as to encourage independent cognitive development and reasoning skills in students.

To read the full study, click here



Please do not pass this message by.

CRITICAL THINKING IS AT RISK.

Here are some of the big reasons why:

  1. Many people believe that critical thinking should be free and that scholars qualified to teach critical thinking should do so for free. Accordingly, they do not think they should have to pay for critical thinking textbooks, courses, or other resources when there is "so much free material online" - despite how erroneous that material may be.
  2. There are many misguided academicians, and some outright charlatans, pushing forth and capitalizing on a pseudo-, partial, or otherwise impoverished concept of critical thinking.
  3. Little to no funding is designated for critical thinking professional development in schools, colleges, or universities, despite the lip service widely given to critical thinking (as is frequently found in mission statements).
  4. Most people, including faculty, think they already know what critical thinking is, despite how few have studied it to any significant degree, and despite how few can articulate a coherent, accurate, and sufficiently deep explanation of it.
  5. People rarely exhibit the necessary level of discipline to study and use critical thinking for reaching higher levels of self-actualization. In part, this is due to wasting intellectual and emotional energy on fruitless electronic entertainment designed to be addictive and profitable rather than educational and uplifting.
  6. On the whole, fairminded critical thinking is neither understood, fostered, nor valued in educational institutions or societies.
  7. People are increasingly able to cluster themselves with others of like mind through alluring internet platforms that enable them to validate one another's thinking - even when their reasoning is nonsensical, lopsided, prejudiced, or even dangerous.
  8. Critical thinking does not yet hold an independent place in academia. Instead, "critical thinking" is continually being "defined" and redefined according to any academic area or instructor that, claiming (frequently unsupported) expertise, steps forward to teach it.

As you see, increasingly powerful trends against the teaching, learning, and practice of critical thinking entail extraordinary challenges to our mission. To continue our work, we must now rely upon your financial support. If critical thinking matters to you, please click here to contribute what you can today.

WE NEED YOUR HELP TO CONTINUE OUR WORK.

Thank you for your support of ethical critical thinking.