Presentation to Lakewood School Board...
Posted: Mon Apr 18, 2005 5:52 pm
THE PRESENTATION I WOULD MAKE TO THE SCHOOL BOARD IF I THOUGHT IT WOULD HAVE ANY EFFECT
Some months ago I went to the LRC at the High School to post a leaflet. Coming out of the LRC I noticed the Hall of Fame pictures on the opposite wall and stopped to look at them. A student came by and we had a casual conversation. I showed him the plaques of some of the teachers I was familiar with. There was T.R. Evans, who told my future wife that she would get over her liking for the Romantic composers. (She hasnÃÂt, so I hear a lot of Rachmaninoff. Or at least it seems like a lot.) There was Andy Watters, whose daughter Sally married my class-mate, Bob Burson. At one of our reunions, Bob told me that before their marriage, he and Sally had worried that they would be arguing all the time, but that since being married they hadnÃÂt had a single argument. I was speechless with awe and admiration ñ and disbelief.
One of the teachers whose picture I didnÃÂt see ñ although I believe it is on the wall ñ is Maggie Warner (Margaret Warner if you prefer) of beloved memory, who taught me Modern European History. One thing I remember from that class is the wonderful textbook written by the historian Carl Becker ñ his description of the original man on the white horse (I believe his name was Boulanger), and his account of the way in which Bismarck preempted the Socialists, which years later gave me the framework for understanding why 65 is the standard retirement age. So whenever I hear complaints that a school system is using old textbooks, I hope that wonderful texts such as BeckerÃÂs are not victims of age discrimination.
But what I remember primarily about Miss WarnerÃÂs class is her teaching me how to make an outline. This was important because outlining, along with the diagramming of sentences, were the only ways in which I learned how to recognize the relationship of one idea to another in a purely verbal, non-mathematical context. (Of course I learned to recognize such relationships in geometry, wherein a proof presented us with what were in effect premises and conclusion, but the transfer of geometric proofs to real life was problematic.)
Among my memories of teachers, there is one who stands out in sharp contrast to Miss Warner. She was an algebra teacher, probably in what was then junior high school. IÃÂm not sure I remember her name correctly, so to avoid a possible slander of the innocent I will call her Miss WhatÃÂs-Her-Name. At the time in question, we were studying positive and negative numbers. Miss WhatÃÂs-Her-Name stated that minus two is less than plus two. I immediately raised my hand and said, No, minus two is the same quantity as plus two ñ they only have different signs. This seemed self-evident to me at the time, since minus two multiplied by minus two yields the same product as plus two multiplied by plus two. And it seems self-evident to me still, subject to a qualification I will get to in a moment. What was memorable about this exchange is Miss WhatÃÂs-Her-NameÃÂs reaction. Without making any attempt to show why my answer was faulty, she ridiculed me unmercifully and at length for asserting such an outlandish idea ñ and of course, for challenging her authority. Since this was the 1940s instead of the 1960s, I did not jump up on my desk and exhort my classmates to rebel against this stupid and repressive pig; I merely blushed and remained silent, but ever since then I have remembered Miss WhatÃÂs-Her-NameÃÂs response as a pure and egregious abuse of power directed against independent thinking. .
However, at some point this spring I somewhat revised my estimate, as a result of that font of wisdom, the Internal Revenue Service Form 1040. As you no doubt know, this form requires the taxpayer to make a number of additions and subtractions. As my eye went over one of these, I noticed that the form states: "If the answer is less than zero, write down zero." So the IRS says that some answers can be less than zero! These number are of course negative numbers. So as far as the IRS is concerned, negative numbers are less than positive numbers! According to the IRS, minus two is less than plus two! The lesson from this is that, whether minus two is less than plus two, or whether it is the same in quantity, depends on the context.
In addition to being guilty of abuse of power, then, Miss WhatÃÂs-Her-Name was guilty of a far greater crime, namely, ignoring a teachable moment. What she could have done is praise me for questioning conventional belief, ask my reasons for saying that minus 2 is the same quantity as plus 2, and then say something like this: "Well, Gordon, it is true sometimes that minus 2 is the same quantity as plus 2 ñ for example when weÃÂre multiplying ñ and itÃÂs also true that sometimes minus 2 is less than plus 2, as for example when we subtract a larger from a smaller number. And sometimes it makes no difference, as when we subtract a smaller from a larger number. The reason is that the phrase ëless thanàchanges meaning from one situation to another." That is to say, she could have used the occasion to make me more sensitive to the meanings of words and the ways in which they change. But she didnÃÂt.
Before leaving the case of Miss WhatÃÂs-Her-Name, letÃÂs look at another approach she could have taken. She could have said, "Well, Gordon, you believe that minus 2 is as great as plus 2, and if thatÃÂs what you believe, then itÃÂs right for you!" That answer would have made me feel better, but I think we can agree that it would have been just as inappropriate, just as harmful, as what she actually said, and possibly more so. But of course, this kind of response is not what I have just been talking about. So letÃÂs put to rest forever the idea that the only alternative to an absurdly permissive approach is an authoritarian one. There is a third alternative ñ the right and proper alternative ñ and that is to give students the tools and inclinations they need to make justified decisions and come to justified conclusions on their own.
As I stood with the student in front of the hall-of-fame plaques, we talked briefly about his experience at Lakewood High. He told me he had only been here for a year, having moved from California. I then asked him if at any point in his class work at Lakewood he had been taught critical thinking. His reply was no, he hadnÃÂt, and that if you want to get critical thinking you have to go to a Catholic school. Well, I donÃÂt know whether he was right about Catholic schools, though I notice that some time ago a certain Frank Schiros of Lakewood, in a letter to the Sun-Post, described four parochial schools as being "like another world of Academic Heaven compared to our public schools." In any case, comparisons are pointless. The only significant question is whether the Lakewood school system is doing as well as it ought to, and I have to conclude that the student was right in his judgment about Lakewood.
Which brings me to the main purpose of my presentation ñ to call attention to critical thinking and its foundation, the reasoning process overall. The Lakewood schoolsàmission statement calls for the teaching of critical thinking, and I think we all agree that we want to take Lakewood schools as far as possible in the direction of Margaret WarnerÃÂs classes, and as far as possible away from Miss WhatÃÂs-Her-NameÃÂs. How can we do this? How can we promote clear, coherent, critical and independent thinking in Lakewood High students?
Consider first what clear, coherent, critical and independent thinking consists of. That is a big question, but here are the main ingredients:
Students need to be made sensitive to meaning, as my hypothesized exchange with Miss WhatÃÂs-Her-Name illustrates. Words must be their servants, not their masters. They must learn to be aware of meanings and changes in meanings, and to be able to capture meaning in a clear definition. This is pretty well recognized.
Second, they must be able to think for themselves, as the saying goes. This does not merely mean being contrary. It means that the students are able to determine whether there is good reason for their beliefs, as opposed to blind obedience to authority or convention.
Third, it means being able to respond to changing circumstances; deriving proper conclusions from unchanging basic principles or goals in combination with changing estimates of the facts.
Finally, it means being able to recognize bad reasoning. One way of doing this is to recognize when the reasoning falls into one of the illegitimate patterns called fallacies (for example, circular reasoning).
Another way of recognizing bad reasoning is to recognize the consequences, or implications, of the judgments it involves. If these implications are false, the judgment is false also. (A classic example of failure to consider consequences is provided by David Perkins in SMART SCHOOLS. According to his account, a number of college students were asked to explain why the weather is hotter in summer and colder in winter. Many or most explained by saying that hotter summer weather is caused by the fact that in summer the earth is closer to the sun. We can easily see that this explanation is false because it implies that both the northern AND southern hemispheres are warmer in our summer months. But this is clearly false ñ in our summer months, the northern hemisphere is warmer but the southern hemisphere is colder. So it cannot be true that summer heat is caused by the earthÃÂs being closer to the sun.)
The common theme in these ingredients, beyond being clear about meanings, is the ability to recognize where an argument came from and what it leads to. ñ to recognize what lies behind a judgment (the reasons for it) and what the argument leads to (its consequences, or implications).
In other words, students must recognize the STRUCTURE in a controversy ñ how various judgments that enter into that controversy are related to one another.. This means forming arguments, i.e., specific premises (reasons) leading to specific conclusions. It means being able to identify the issues raised in a controversy ñ the questions that must be answered if a justified conclusion is to be reached. It means being able to identify specific ways in which arguments can go wrong while still looking legitimate (the fallacies).
Now, the big question: How can these abilities be taught? The answer to this involves several other questions and distinctions: 1) Should the concepts and abilities be taught explicitly, or only implicitly, in the expectation that the student will pick them up through modeling or incidentally? 2) Should a special class be devoted to critical thinking or the reasoning process? 3) Should critical thinking or the reasoning process be taught to all students, or just to the gifted? 4) What is the relationship between learning the concepts or abilities, per se, and applying them?
Here are the answers, as I see them from my experience:
1) The concepts and abilities ñ for example, discerning and formulating arguments, identifying issues, recognizing fallacies ñ must be taught explicitly at some point. They donÃÂt come naturally. You canÃÂt expect students to reason well simply because they have been urged to do so or simply because they have been incidentally exposed to good reasoning -- any more than you can expect students to play good basketball simply because they have urged to do so and have had the chance to watch LeBron James. If a basketball player is to develop a good jump shot, for example, he or she must be shown at some point exactly how a jump shot should be carried out (e.g., not beginning at the chest as might naturally be done, but somewhere above the head), and the player must practice jump shots repeatedly with the coach watching and correcting every wrong move. Likewise, if students are to learn how to identify and formulate arguments, for example, they must be shown how to do so, and they must repeatedly practice, perhaps by means of argument diagramming or the like, under the eye of a teacher who tells them when they are getting it right and when they are getting it wrong. It is simply not enough to merely encourage students to express their own ideas.
2) Should reasoning be an independent subject, taught in its own classes? Probably not. The curriculum seems to be crowded enough as it is, and if reasoning were taught as a special class, the students might well construe what is taught in that class as separate from the rest of their thinking and the rest of their life. Instead, the reasoning process should probably be taught within existing courses.
3) The reasoning process should definitely be taught to all students. Every student is at the very least a citizen and as such will have to reason out their political choices. To teach reasoning only to the gifted is to teach it to those who need it least.
4) In most areas of knowledge, one learns a concept and then learns how to apply it. I have found the reverse to be true in the area of reasoning and critical thinking. I say this largely because of my experience with the informal program called "Thinking Fellows." I found that the students quite readily learned the concepts and abilities ñ for example, they could diagram the arguments in the abstract examples ñ but when it came time to apply these concepts and abilities to life-like case studies, they fell down. I concluded that the notion of "seeing as" applies here. (Remember the pictures that can be seen as a rabbit or as a duck, or can be seen as a vase or a pair of faces, etc.) A person must SEE a controversy AS a set of ideas to be structured in the form of arguments, issues, etc., rather than as a chaotic set of ideas to be accepted or rejected in isolation. Thus, before the concepts and abilities in question are taught explicitly, the student must be gradually introduced to and eased into the appropriate mind-set.
There is a significant analogy to reinforce this viewpoint. Parents and other adults are urged to read to pre-schoolers, conspicuously turning pages and demonstrating the pages being read from, in order that the children will SEE a book AS something to gain information and pleasure from. At this point, the relevant concepts (letters, words and meanings) have not yet been explicitly taught; rather, the students are being shown that there is an activity, reading, and will later learn the concepts that apply to it. Similarly, students at the earliest stages of instruction in reasoning can be taught that there is an activity, reasoning, and later learn the concepts -- premises, conclusion, arguments, issues, etc. ñ that apply to it. .
What does this mean for the overall curriculum? The teaching of critical thinking and reasoning in general must be a continuing part of the continuum in a graduated sequence, incorporated into conventional subjects. What parts of the curriculum should be assigned to what grades depends on the developmental stages of the students. I surmise (tentatively, and dependent on the judgments of developmental psychology combined with experiment) that the progression could go roughly like this:
Around the fifth grade the students would be gently introduced to the idea of argument structure, as I have just mentioned. This mindset would be reinforced during the next few grades. Around the eighth grade students would begin to recognize and formulate specific arguments. They would confront more and more complicated arguments through the ninth grade, and for the complicated arguments would learn argument diagramming. In the tenth grade they would begin to identify issues. In the final two grades they would be introduced to the traditional fallacies and would use their abilities to structure their thinking in complex, life-like case discussions.
I urge you to institute this kind of curriculum. In doing so, I urge you to notice what we find in every book on organizational development ñ that basic change must come from the top; you canÃÂt merely express your wishes and leave the rest to individual teachers. If you carry out such a critical thinking and reasoning curriculum ñ it might be called the Lakewood Curriculum ñ you will add a new and valuable dimension to Lakewood studentsàeducation, and as a side benefit will make Lakewood Schools more attractive to parents who want to give their children the kind of education they need in todayÃÂs complex world, as well as putting another feather in LakewoodÃÂs cap.
Next I would like to suggest a program that should generate a great deal of favorable publicity for the Lakewood Schools, in addition to providing a uniquely valuable learning experience for students from Lakewood and elsewhere
My suggestion is modeled after a program that was discontinued a few years ago, called University for Young Americans. Several times a year, on a school day, the UYA brought contingents of students, each led by a teacher, from high schools around the area to day-long workshops. Each workshop was devoted to some general area in which policy decisions are called for, e.g. the global environment or media impact on public opinion. Each began with an overall meeting at which a keynote address was given. Then the student participants broke up into discussion groups led by adults who had some relevant expertise. These groups met twice, once before and once after lunch. After the discussion meetings the entire group came together for a final meeting in which each discussion group reported their results.
If my memory serves, there were perhaps 100 to 150 students in all at a workshop.
My suggestion is that the Lakewood schools host such a program. I see two alternatives as to time and place. One is to hold the workshops on Saturdays, with the overall meeting being held in the Civic Auditorium and discussion meetings being held in classrooms. The other alternative is to hold the workshops on weekdays in some place such as the Beck Center, where the overall meetings could be held in the main theater and the discussion meetings could be held in various places around the building. (The UYA held its meetings during the week, and they were held in such places as law offices, CSU, etc.)
By all accounts, the students who participated in the UYA found the experience invaluable, and I believe the same would hold for the revival of the program that I am suggesting. It would be especially beneficial for Lakewood students, since as hosts for the program, they could construct the framework for discussions in accordance with the reasoning structure I described a little while ago. And as I mentioned, the program would be a signal for parents and students that Lakewood schools offer more educational opportunities and turn out students who are more sophisticated.
In addition to a venue, the program would require discussion leaders, presumably volunteers, and a paid staff of at least one person plus clerical support. The volunteer discussion leaders would be easy to get (I was one, for example), and I should think that funds for the staff could easily be obtained from a local foundation. The director of the UYA ñ her name is Florence Vipond ñ can apparently be reached through the phone book..
Each of the programs I have suggested ñ a reasoning/critical thinking curriculum, and a program of workshops modeled on the University of Young Americans ñ will enhance the educational experience of Lakewood students and will considerably enhance the reputation of the city. I urge you to consider them carefully.
Thank you.
-- Gordon Brumm
Some months ago I went to the LRC at the High School to post a leaflet. Coming out of the LRC I noticed the Hall of Fame pictures on the opposite wall and stopped to look at them. A student came by and we had a casual conversation. I showed him the plaques of some of the teachers I was familiar with. There was T.R. Evans, who told my future wife that she would get over her liking for the Romantic composers. (She hasnÃÂt, so I hear a lot of Rachmaninoff. Or at least it seems like a lot.) There was Andy Watters, whose daughter Sally married my class-mate, Bob Burson. At one of our reunions, Bob told me that before their marriage, he and Sally had worried that they would be arguing all the time, but that since being married they hadnÃÂt had a single argument. I was speechless with awe and admiration ñ and disbelief.
One of the teachers whose picture I didnÃÂt see ñ although I believe it is on the wall ñ is Maggie Warner (Margaret Warner if you prefer) of beloved memory, who taught me Modern European History. One thing I remember from that class is the wonderful textbook written by the historian Carl Becker ñ his description of the original man on the white horse (I believe his name was Boulanger), and his account of the way in which Bismarck preempted the Socialists, which years later gave me the framework for understanding why 65 is the standard retirement age. So whenever I hear complaints that a school system is using old textbooks, I hope that wonderful texts such as BeckerÃÂs are not victims of age discrimination.
But what I remember primarily about Miss WarnerÃÂs class is her teaching me how to make an outline. This was important because outlining, along with the diagramming of sentences, were the only ways in which I learned how to recognize the relationship of one idea to another in a purely verbal, non-mathematical context. (Of course I learned to recognize such relationships in geometry, wherein a proof presented us with what were in effect premises and conclusion, but the transfer of geometric proofs to real life was problematic.)
Among my memories of teachers, there is one who stands out in sharp contrast to Miss Warner. She was an algebra teacher, probably in what was then junior high school. IÃÂm not sure I remember her name correctly, so to avoid a possible slander of the innocent I will call her Miss WhatÃÂs-Her-Name. At the time in question, we were studying positive and negative numbers. Miss WhatÃÂs-Her-Name stated that minus two is less than plus two. I immediately raised my hand and said, No, minus two is the same quantity as plus two ñ they only have different signs. This seemed self-evident to me at the time, since minus two multiplied by minus two yields the same product as plus two multiplied by plus two. And it seems self-evident to me still, subject to a qualification I will get to in a moment. What was memorable about this exchange is Miss WhatÃÂs-Her-NameÃÂs reaction. Without making any attempt to show why my answer was faulty, she ridiculed me unmercifully and at length for asserting such an outlandish idea ñ and of course, for challenging her authority. Since this was the 1940s instead of the 1960s, I did not jump up on my desk and exhort my classmates to rebel against this stupid and repressive pig; I merely blushed and remained silent, but ever since then I have remembered Miss WhatÃÂs-Her-NameÃÂs response as a pure and egregious abuse of power directed against independent thinking. .
However, at some point this spring I somewhat revised my estimate, as a result of that font of wisdom, the Internal Revenue Service Form 1040. As you no doubt know, this form requires the taxpayer to make a number of additions and subtractions. As my eye went over one of these, I noticed that the form states: "If the answer is less than zero, write down zero." So the IRS says that some answers can be less than zero! These number are of course negative numbers. So as far as the IRS is concerned, negative numbers are less than positive numbers! According to the IRS, minus two is less than plus two! The lesson from this is that, whether minus two is less than plus two, or whether it is the same in quantity, depends on the context.
In addition to being guilty of abuse of power, then, Miss WhatÃÂs-Her-Name was guilty of a far greater crime, namely, ignoring a teachable moment. What she could have done is praise me for questioning conventional belief, ask my reasons for saying that minus 2 is the same quantity as plus 2, and then say something like this: "Well, Gordon, it is true sometimes that minus 2 is the same quantity as plus 2 ñ for example when weÃÂre multiplying ñ and itÃÂs also true that sometimes minus 2 is less than plus 2, as for example when we subtract a larger from a smaller number. And sometimes it makes no difference, as when we subtract a smaller from a larger number. The reason is that the phrase ëless thanàchanges meaning from one situation to another." That is to say, she could have used the occasion to make me more sensitive to the meanings of words and the ways in which they change. But she didnÃÂt.
Before leaving the case of Miss WhatÃÂs-Her-Name, letÃÂs look at another approach she could have taken. She could have said, "Well, Gordon, you believe that minus 2 is as great as plus 2, and if thatÃÂs what you believe, then itÃÂs right for you!" That answer would have made me feel better, but I think we can agree that it would have been just as inappropriate, just as harmful, as what she actually said, and possibly more so. But of course, this kind of response is not what I have just been talking about. So letÃÂs put to rest forever the idea that the only alternative to an absurdly permissive approach is an authoritarian one. There is a third alternative ñ the right and proper alternative ñ and that is to give students the tools and inclinations they need to make justified decisions and come to justified conclusions on their own.
As I stood with the student in front of the hall-of-fame plaques, we talked briefly about his experience at Lakewood High. He told me he had only been here for a year, having moved from California. I then asked him if at any point in his class work at Lakewood he had been taught critical thinking. His reply was no, he hadnÃÂt, and that if you want to get critical thinking you have to go to a Catholic school. Well, I donÃÂt know whether he was right about Catholic schools, though I notice that some time ago a certain Frank Schiros of Lakewood, in a letter to the Sun-Post, described four parochial schools as being "like another world of Academic Heaven compared to our public schools." In any case, comparisons are pointless. The only significant question is whether the Lakewood school system is doing as well as it ought to, and I have to conclude that the student was right in his judgment about Lakewood.
Which brings me to the main purpose of my presentation ñ to call attention to critical thinking and its foundation, the reasoning process overall. The Lakewood schoolsàmission statement calls for the teaching of critical thinking, and I think we all agree that we want to take Lakewood schools as far as possible in the direction of Margaret WarnerÃÂs classes, and as far as possible away from Miss WhatÃÂs-Her-NameÃÂs. How can we do this? How can we promote clear, coherent, critical and independent thinking in Lakewood High students?
Consider first what clear, coherent, critical and independent thinking consists of. That is a big question, but here are the main ingredients:
Students need to be made sensitive to meaning, as my hypothesized exchange with Miss WhatÃÂs-Her-Name illustrates. Words must be their servants, not their masters. They must learn to be aware of meanings and changes in meanings, and to be able to capture meaning in a clear definition. This is pretty well recognized.
Second, they must be able to think for themselves, as the saying goes. This does not merely mean being contrary. It means that the students are able to determine whether there is good reason for their beliefs, as opposed to blind obedience to authority or convention.
Third, it means being able to respond to changing circumstances; deriving proper conclusions from unchanging basic principles or goals in combination with changing estimates of the facts.
Finally, it means being able to recognize bad reasoning. One way of doing this is to recognize when the reasoning falls into one of the illegitimate patterns called fallacies (for example, circular reasoning).
Another way of recognizing bad reasoning is to recognize the consequences, or implications, of the judgments it involves. If these implications are false, the judgment is false also. (A classic example of failure to consider consequences is provided by David Perkins in SMART SCHOOLS. According to his account, a number of college students were asked to explain why the weather is hotter in summer and colder in winter. Many or most explained by saying that hotter summer weather is caused by the fact that in summer the earth is closer to the sun. We can easily see that this explanation is false because it implies that both the northern AND southern hemispheres are warmer in our summer months. But this is clearly false ñ in our summer months, the northern hemisphere is warmer but the southern hemisphere is colder. So it cannot be true that summer heat is caused by the earthÃÂs being closer to the sun.)
The common theme in these ingredients, beyond being clear about meanings, is the ability to recognize where an argument came from and what it leads to. ñ to recognize what lies behind a judgment (the reasons for it) and what the argument leads to (its consequences, or implications).
In other words, students must recognize the STRUCTURE in a controversy ñ how various judgments that enter into that controversy are related to one another.. This means forming arguments, i.e., specific premises (reasons) leading to specific conclusions. It means being able to identify the issues raised in a controversy ñ the questions that must be answered if a justified conclusion is to be reached. It means being able to identify specific ways in which arguments can go wrong while still looking legitimate (the fallacies).
Now, the big question: How can these abilities be taught? The answer to this involves several other questions and distinctions: 1) Should the concepts and abilities be taught explicitly, or only implicitly, in the expectation that the student will pick them up through modeling or incidentally? 2) Should a special class be devoted to critical thinking or the reasoning process? 3) Should critical thinking or the reasoning process be taught to all students, or just to the gifted? 4) What is the relationship between learning the concepts or abilities, per se, and applying them?
Here are the answers, as I see them from my experience:
1) The concepts and abilities ñ for example, discerning and formulating arguments, identifying issues, recognizing fallacies ñ must be taught explicitly at some point. They donÃÂt come naturally. You canÃÂt expect students to reason well simply because they have been urged to do so or simply because they have been incidentally exposed to good reasoning -- any more than you can expect students to play good basketball simply because they have urged to do so and have had the chance to watch LeBron James. If a basketball player is to develop a good jump shot, for example, he or she must be shown at some point exactly how a jump shot should be carried out (e.g., not beginning at the chest as might naturally be done, but somewhere above the head), and the player must practice jump shots repeatedly with the coach watching and correcting every wrong move. Likewise, if students are to learn how to identify and formulate arguments, for example, they must be shown how to do so, and they must repeatedly practice, perhaps by means of argument diagramming or the like, under the eye of a teacher who tells them when they are getting it right and when they are getting it wrong. It is simply not enough to merely encourage students to express their own ideas.
2) Should reasoning be an independent subject, taught in its own classes? Probably not. The curriculum seems to be crowded enough as it is, and if reasoning were taught as a special class, the students might well construe what is taught in that class as separate from the rest of their thinking and the rest of their life. Instead, the reasoning process should probably be taught within existing courses.
3) The reasoning process should definitely be taught to all students. Every student is at the very least a citizen and as such will have to reason out their political choices. To teach reasoning only to the gifted is to teach it to those who need it least.
4) In most areas of knowledge, one learns a concept and then learns how to apply it. I have found the reverse to be true in the area of reasoning and critical thinking. I say this largely because of my experience with the informal program called "Thinking Fellows." I found that the students quite readily learned the concepts and abilities ñ for example, they could diagram the arguments in the abstract examples ñ but when it came time to apply these concepts and abilities to life-like case studies, they fell down. I concluded that the notion of "seeing as" applies here. (Remember the pictures that can be seen as a rabbit or as a duck, or can be seen as a vase or a pair of faces, etc.) A person must SEE a controversy AS a set of ideas to be structured in the form of arguments, issues, etc., rather than as a chaotic set of ideas to be accepted or rejected in isolation. Thus, before the concepts and abilities in question are taught explicitly, the student must be gradually introduced to and eased into the appropriate mind-set.
There is a significant analogy to reinforce this viewpoint. Parents and other adults are urged to read to pre-schoolers, conspicuously turning pages and demonstrating the pages being read from, in order that the children will SEE a book AS something to gain information and pleasure from. At this point, the relevant concepts (letters, words and meanings) have not yet been explicitly taught; rather, the students are being shown that there is an activity, reading, and will later learn the concepts that apply to it. Similarly, students at the earliest stages of instruction in reasoning can be taught that there is an activity, reasoning, and later learn the concepts -- premises, conclusion, arguments, issues, etc. ñ that apply to it. .
What does this mean for the overall curriculum? The teaching of critical thinking and reasoning in general must be a continuing part of the continuum in a graduated sequence, incorporated into conventional subjects. What parts of the curriculum should be assigned to what grades depends on the developmental stages of the students. I surmise (tentatively, and dependent on the judgments of developmental psychology combined with experiment) that the progression could go roughly like this:
Around the fifth grade the students would be gently introduced to the idea of argument structure, as I have just mentioned. This mindset would be reinforced during the next few grades. Around the eighth grade students would begin to recognize and formulate specific arguments. They would confront more and more complicated arguments through the ninth grade, and for the complicated arguments would learn argument diagramming. In the tenth grade they would begin to identify issues. In the final two grades they would be introduced to the traditional fallacies and would use their abilities to structure their thinking in complex, life-like case discussions.
I urge you to institute this kind of curriculum. In doing so, I urge you to notice what we find in every book on organizational development ñ that basic change must come from the top; you canÃÂt merely express your wishes and leave the rest to individual teachers. If you carry out such a critical thinking and reasoning curriculum ñ it might be called the Lakewood Curriculum ñ you will add a new and valuable dimension to Lakewood studentsàeducation, and as a side benefit will make Lakewood Schools more attractive to parents who want to give their children the kind of education they need in todayÃÂs complex world, as well as putting another feather in LakewoodÃÂs cap.
Next I would like to suggest a program that should generate a great deal of favorable publicity for the Lakewood Schools, in addition to providing a uniquely valuable learning experience for students from Lakewood and elsewhere
My suggestion is modeled after a program that was discontinued a few years ago, called University for Young Americans. Several times a year, on a school day, the UYA brought contingents of students, each led by a teacher, from high schools around the area to day-long workshops. Each workshop was devoted to some general area in which policy decisions are called for, e.g. the global environment or media impact on public opinion. Each began with an overall meeting at which a keynote address was given. Then the student participants broke up into discussion groups led by adults who had some relevant expertise. These groups met twice, once before and once after lunch. After the discussion meetings the entire group came together for a final meeting in which each discussion group reported their results.
If my memory serves, there were perhaps 100 to 150 students in all at a workshop.
My suggestion is that the Lakewood schools host such a program. I see two alternatives as to time and place. One is to hold the workshops on Saturdays, with the overall meeting being held in the Civic Auditorium and discussion meetings being held in classrooms. The other alternative is to hold the workshops on weekdays in some place such as the Beck Center, where the overall meetings could be held in the main theater and the discussion meetings could be held in various places around the building. (The UYA held its meetings during the week, and they were held in such places as law offices, CSU, etc.)
By all accounts, the students who participated in the UYA found the experience invaluable, and I believe the same would hold for the revival of the program that I am suggesting. It would be especially beneficial for Lakewood students, since as hosts for the program, they could construct the framework for discussions in accordance with the reasoning structure I described a little while ago. And as I mentioned, the program would be a signal for parents and students that Lakewood schools offer more educational opportunities and turn out students who are more sophisticated.
In addition to a venue, the program would require discussion leaders, presumably volunteers, and a paid staff of at least one person plus clerical support. The volunteer discussion leaders would be easy to get (I was one, for example), and I should think that funds for the staff could easily be obtained from a local foundation. The director of the UYA ñ her name is Florence Vipond ñ can apparently be reached through the phone book..
Each of the programs I have suggested ñ a reasoning/critical thinking curriculum, and a program of workshops modeled on the University of Young Americans ñ will enhance the educational experience of Lakewood students and will considerably enhance the reputation of the city. I urge you to consider them carefully.
Thank you.
-- Gordon Brumm