Throughout my teaching career, I regularly heard “critical thinking” extolled as one of my field’s primary goals. In multiple fields, but especially in fundamental core courses like freshman writing (which is what I taught), we repeatedly heard that students should emerge with more refined and practicable critical thinking skills. Seldom did I hear what those skills were or how they were evaluated; their innate goodness was just viscerally understood.
Educational entrepreneur and curriculum writer Jonathan Haber spent his career trying to better understand what critical thinking was, and how its principles could be made portable. This, one of his last publications before his abrupt passing, compiles his insights into an easily readable pamphlet for general or specialist readers. It encompasses the important debates, and explores them in plain English. It’s a good introduction to the necessary components.
Haber introduces general principles and history of critical thinking. Though descended from the general history of Western intellectual process, critical thinking is a distinctly American distillation of that tradition, based on making mental processes practical. From Plato and Aristotle, to William James and Thomas Dewey, Haber lays out the critical thinking heritage in brief, with an emphasis on useful concepts. It’s fun, exciting, and intellectually dynamic.
What, though, actually is critical thinking? Haber acknowledges that remains controversial, but that academic consensus exists on several important points. Critical thinking involves reason based on evidence and testing, incorporating both scientific method and rhetorical communication. Useful application of these skills usually boils down to three important traits: “knowledge, skills, and dispositions.” That is, knowing information, using that information productively, and maintaining character traits like curiosity, open-mindedness, and creativity.
Though Haber dedicates an entire chapter to teaching and evaluating critical thinking, he doesn’t do anything as prescriptive as writing lesson plans. Though he describes having written social science curricula himself, he seems to prize individual and institutional autonomy. And he admits that evaluating critical thinking is slippery. Though scholars have written evaluative rubrics, none has achieved widespread use; evaluation is ultimately subjective.
One declaration Haber is willing to make: repeated studies demonstrate that teaching critical thinking explicitly, yields better outcomes than teaching it implicitly. Expecting students to absorb critical thinking skills through osmosis, in classes like math, writing, science, and history, generally doesn’t work. Students learn best when teachers explain exactly what skills matter, demonstrate them in action, and give students ample opportunity to practice.
I really like Haber’s process. He directly explains concepts I needed to learn through trial and error, and never wholly figured out how to apply. Though he doesn’t write teachers’ lesson plans for them, he provides enough access to existing resources, and enough keywords for ongoing research, that committed teachers can close that gap themselves. If I’m ever given another opportunity to teach, I’ll apply Haber’s principles from the begining.
However.
Much as I appreciate Haber’s tutelage, I cannot help noticing shortcomings. First, Haber lavishly praises reason and analysis as benchmarks of critical thinking. He never acknowledges a growing corpus of scholarship, led by researchers like Jonathan Haidt, who contend (with evidence) that most human decision-making is instantaneous and preconscious. Though I think reason can retrain Haidt’s preconscious choices, such retraining must happen openly and deliberately. Which, right now, it isn’t.
Also, Haber praises advances in American critical education, and discusses how critical thinking makes for better citizens. How to reconcile this civil application with the evidence of increasing political intolerance around us? As critical thinking has become more widespread in American education, our body politic has become more divided, characterized by factionalism, in-group thinking, and violence. Almost like critical thinking in school isn’t enough on its own.
Indeed, one of Haber’s critical thinking virtues is “charity,” understanding the other side in the most forgiving terms possible. In today’s politics, one side desperately tries to play fair, court the center, and make peace; the other doubles down on sectarianism and anger. That side also decries higher-order education as anti-American and evil. You can’t educate people out of insularity when they consider fairness itself an immoral educational goal.
Therefore, let’s read Haber’s guide as introductory, not exhaustive. Haber himself talks about reading others’ claims to find the unspoken premise. In Haber’s case, the unspoken premise is that critical thinking is a challenge, not a goal: spreading deeper thought undermines some power structures, and those power structures respond by opposing education. Haber’s premise is incomplete for not addressing current affairs. But it is, nevertheless, a necessary first step to actually dealing with the problem.
Amazon Customer
Kevin L. Nenstiel