Critical thinking and teacher behavior stefan rathert

1,153 views

Published on

Constraints and fallacies in teaching criitical thinking, and frames for teaching critical thinking

Published in: Education
0 Comments
2 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Views
Total views
1,153
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
3
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
34
Comments
0
Likes
2
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Critical thinking and teacher behavior stefan rathert

  1. 1. ELT 738 CRITICAL THINKING CREATING THE ENVIRONMENTCONDUCIVE TO CRITICAL THINKINGTeacher Behaviour and Frames for Teaching Critical Thinking Stefan Rathert
  2. 2. “School is indeed a trainingfor later life not because itteaches the 3 Rs* (more orless) but because it instills theessential cultural nightmarefear of failure, envy ofsuccess, and absurdity”(Henry, 1963, p. 305).*Reading, writing and arithmetic
  3. 3. WHAT KIND OF SCHOOL DO WE WANT? WHAT KIND OF SCHOOL PREVAILS?•transmitting predetermined •raising or pursuing questionsinformation about ideas•teaching discrete skills in •integrating information intostructured settings existing knowledge•impeding controversy •incorporating different•rewarding “right” answers perspectives •challenging doctrinesno teaching for critical thinking teaching for critical thinking
  4. 4. What factors • contextual impede constraints critical • teacher fallacies thinking?What factors • frames for promote teaching critical critical thinking thinking?
  5. 5. FACTORS THAT IMPEDE CRITICAL THINKING (Cornbleth, 2001) focus on school rules simplifying no tolerance of contents for to avoid questioning or controversy Law and innovation Order Climate control by defensive principals, senior teaching teachers, parents
  6. 6. FACTORS THAT IMPEDE CRITICAL THINKING (Cornbleth, 2001) focus on community, sc hool or teacher culture change not maintaining likely (but possible over Conservative the status time) climate quo questioning of cultural norms not desired
  7. 7. FACTORS THAT IMPEDE CRITICAL THINKING (Cornbleth, 2001) censorship caused by law and order and conservative climates impedes affects subject incorporation Climate of contents, mat of diverse perspectives Censorship erials, method s wish to avoid conflicts leads to self-censorship
  8. 8. FACTORS THAT IMPEDE CRITICAL THINKING (Cornbleth, 2001) assumption that an educational setting is highly problematic Climate learner is pathologized, i.e. of learners are regarded as personally responsible for pathology incapable of critical the problems and thinking pessimism focus on “basics” and drill
  9. 9. FACTORS THAT IMPEDE CRITICAL THINKING (Cornbleth, 2001) dominance of student testing and public traditional school instructional ranking strategies to prepare students for tests emphasis on standardized test Competitive climate avoidance of tests do not innovative assess ability instructional to think strategies critically but to memorize
  10. 10. Such climates…… generate “the essentialcultural nightmare fear offailure, envy of success, andabsurdity” (Henry, 1963, p.305).
  11. 11. Fallacies obstructing the teaching of thinking (adapted from Sternberg and Spear-Swerling, 1996) The teacher is the Thinking is the teacher and the students’ job and student is the only the students’ student. job. There is a correct program for the implementation of critical thinking.
  12. 12. Fallacies obstructing the teaching of thinking (adapted from Sternberg and Spear-Swerling, 1996) What really Classroom counts is the discussion is a right answer. means to an end. Mastery-learning principles can be applied to learning to think.
  13. 13. Frames for critical thinking (Duran, Limach and Waugh, 2006; Martinez, 2006; Pithers and Soden, 2000; Sternberg and Spear-Swerling, 1996; Udall and Daniels, 1991) Teaching throughDetermining learning Addressing different questioning and objectives kinds of thinking scaffolding• define • critical - analytic • stimulate/challenge expected/required thinking learners’ ideas learner behaviour • creative – synthetic • enable students to• target behaviours in thinking develop thinking high order thinking • practical - skills (instead of contextual thinking direct instruction)
  14. 14. Frames for critical thinking (Duran, Limach and Waugh, 2006; Martinez, 2006; Pithers and Soden, 2000; Sternberg and Spear-Swerling, 1996; Udall and Daniels, 1991) Employing Providing feedback Reflecting own metacognitive and assessment of teaching approaches learning• monitoring and • monitor • assessment control of thought classroom through teacher• helps raise interaction and • create awareness activities opportunities for • get student self-assessment feedback
  15. 15. REFERENCESCornbleth, C. (2001). Climates of constraints/restraint of teachers and teaching. In: Stanley, W.B. (Ed.). Critical issues in social studies research for the 21st century, pp. 73-96. Greenwitch, CT: Information Age Publishing.Duran, R., Limbach, W. and Waugh, W. (2006). Critical thinking framework for any discipline. International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education 17/2, 160-166.Foley, J. (1994). Scaffolding. ELTJournal 48/1, 101-102. doi: 10.1093/elt/48.1.101Henry, J. (1963). Culture against man. New York: Random House.Martinez, M. E. (2006). What is metacognition? Phi Delta Kappa 87/9, 696- 699.Pithers, R.T. and Soden, R. (2000). Critical thinking in education: a review. Educational Research, 42/3, 237-249.Sternberg, R.J. and Spear-Swerling, L. (1996). Teaching for thinking. Washington, DC, US: American Psychological Association.Udall, A.J. and Daniels, J.E. (1991). Creative active thinkers. 9 strategies for a thoughtful classroom. Chicago: Zephyr Press.
  16. 16. Thank you very muchfor your attention.

×