Myth #1: Teaching Critical Thinking Takes Time Away from Core Content
Reality: Integrating critical thinking into the curriculum can enhance students' understanding and retention of core content. It encourages students to engage more deeply with the material and apply their knowledge in various contexts, rather than just memorizing facts.
Myth #2: Critical Thinking Skills Develop Naturally Without Explicit Instruction
Reality: While some aspects of critical thinking might develop through general life experiences, explicit instruction and guided practice in schools are essential for students to develop strong critical thinking skills. Educators play a crucial role in modeling and teaching these skills through structured activities and discussions.
Myth #3: Some Students Just Aren't Good at Critical Thinking
Reality: All students have the potential to develop critical thinking skills. While individuals may have different starting points and learning styles, with the right instruction and opportunities, every student can improve their ability to think critically.
Myth #4: Critical Thinking is Just for Older Students
Reality: Critical thinking skills can and should be taught at all age levels. Young children are naturally curious and can start learning basic critical thinking skills through inquiry-based learning and age-appropriate problem-solving activities.
Myth #5: Critical Thinking is Only About Logic and Reasoning
Reality: While logic and reasoning are important aspects of critical thinking, it also involves creativity, intuition, and an open-minded approach to exploring multiple perspectives and solutions. Critical thinking in education encompasses a broad range of cognitive skills and dispositions.
What claim is being made? Is the claim testable or falsifiable? What evidence is available?
Who is making the claim and why? Is it someone you trust or based on a belief you hold dear? If so, double-check yourself. Watch out for biases.
What is the information or evidence behind this? Is it anecdotal or a story? Or is it a single event or based on lots of events/observations? Assess level of scientific evidence available.
How can the claim be tested? How can you move from a hypothesis (none to little evidence to theory with absolute confirmation)? Is rapid prototyping an option? How will you experiment?
Has the claim been tested by others? Are the results of the test, replicable or reproducible by others?
What explanation, if any, is being suggested? Is this a conclusion that can change with fresh evidence or information? Is the explanation free from bias or self-deception?
trust the source (e.g. a family member, close friend, colleague). What we believe and what we share flows from whom we identify with. If those we identify with disagree with an aspect of science, we do as well.
are convinced by the reasons offered (e.g. you accept reasons without critically analyzing them). Thinking is hard. It’s easier to assume something is true because it’s what we want, and we don’t have to think about it, even if it is false.
are helped by these beliefs (e.g. you feel relief or better because of them). We all have beliefs that are certain. It’s that certainty that is the problem. Scientists are more tentative about what is held to be true since new evidence can change that truth.
you may have biases that interfere with your reasoning. If you have a bias, failing to identify it can skew your reasoning when examing evidence. That means your bias can lead you to the conclusion you want rather than the conclusion the facts point to.
Most of our worldview lies in deep and shallow culture (see Zaretta Hammond's The Culture Tree). If someone we trust tells us something, we're inclined to believe it.
Confirmation Bias: We are more likely to seek out and agree with judgements or analses that fit our worldview rather than anything that challenges it.
Negativity Bias: Our brains try to protect us from threats, and it is aware of negative things.
There are many types of cognitive bias. See a LONG list here. (another representation)
Many people don’t trust the society around them, most notably the representatives of that society. That trust often falls even further when it comes to elite representatives of that society, which include government officials, members of academia, and scientists like me. By claiming that Earth is flat, people are really expressing a deep distrust of scientists and science itself. So if you find yourself talking to a flat-Earther, skip the evidence and arguments and ask yourself how you can build trust. (source)
― Eliezer Yudkowsky as cited in “Life is Simple: How Occam’s Razor Set Science Free and Shapes the Universe”
Source: News Literacy Project
Be skeptical. Stop and ask if it is true. Do this especially if it confirms existing biases or triggers strong emotions (e.g. anger or fear).
Check TYPE of content. What's its purpose? Is it advertisement? Satire? Opinion?
Look laterally. What do others say? Search source, claims, check accuracy and bias with other independent, trustworthy sites.
Look for RED flags. Any signs of low quality? Is there name-calling, inflammatory language, mis-spellings, grammatical errors, etc.?
Fill out an email form to get these Critical Thinking Cards, Fallacies and Biases wall posters, and more, from School of Thought. Shared under Creative Commons.
Civic Online Reasoning has free lessons and videos.
Developing Digital Detectives: Essential Lessons for Discerning Fact from Fiction in the ‘Fake News’ Era by Jennifer LaGarde and Darren Hudgins
Fact Vs. Fiction: Teaching Critical Thinking Skills in the Age of Fake News by Jennifer LaGarde and Darren Hudgins
Two Truths and a Lie: It’s Alive! by Ammi-Joan Paquette, Laurie Ann Thompson, and Lisa K. Weber
The Nantucket Sea Monster: A Fake News Story by Darcy Pattison and Peter Willis
Want more resources? Explore this Wakelet by high school teacher, Julie Drewry. She does a wonderful job wrapping up stories and ideas, some of which I’ve included in this blog entry.