The Best Strategies for Teaching Critical Thinking

I doubt any of us would argue that the development of critical thinking skills in our students is one of our key objectives, yet how systematically do we go about this? A 1997 study of college faculty in California found that 89 percent of instructors felt that teaching critical thinking was important, but only 9 percent of them felt they were actually teaching the skills on a regular basis (Paul, Elder& Bartell, 1997).

Even if we work in schools where the statistics are a lot healthier than this, the recent meta-analysis conducted by researchers at Concordia University in Canada investigating the kind of strategies that work best in teaching critical thinking skills will be of interest to us all. A meta-analysis is a study in which a large number of studies are compared using statistical procedures, allowing researchers to compare “effect sizes” (a standardized metric that expresses the difference between two means, usually a control group and a treatment group). Included in this particular meta-analysis were 684 different studies.

What were the results of the meta-analysis?

• There were no significant differences in studies that looked at different levels of education, which suggests that instruction in critical thinking can achieve at least some level of success at all grade levels. The average effect size was significantly greater than zero for all age groups except for adults.

• There were no significant differences across subject areas, and the average effect size was significantly above zero in every subject area, demonstrating that it is possible to effectively teach critical thinking across a range of subjects.

• Three categories of instructional strategies proved to be particularly effective at supporting students in developing critical thinking skills. These were:

Dialogue – characterized by learning through discussion. These strategies involved critical discussions of specific problems or questions. Discussions could be whole-class, group, or dyads. They could be teacher-led or student-led and could take place in oral or written form.

Authentic or Anchored Instruction – These strategies involved students being given genuine problems or questions as a stimulus to inquiry. Students were supported to explore these questions and problems in ways that allowed them to construct knowledge for themselves.

Mentoring – These strategies involved one-on-one interaction between the student and someone with greater expertise in the area of critical thinking.

• Two of these three strategies—dialogue and authentic instruction—showed significantly larger positive effect sizes. The greatest positive effect size was seen when a combination of all three strategies was used.

• Within the category of dialogue, discussions led by the teacher (both whole-class and group) produced larger effect sizes.

• Within the category of authentic instruction, the largest effect sizes were for learning activities involving applied problem solving and role-playing.

• The teaching of critical thinking skills had a significantly positive effect on achievement outcomes in the content area in studies where this was measured.

• When critical thinking skills were taught within specific content areas the average effect size was higher than when they were taught as generic thinking skills.

What might this mean for our classrooms?

This meta-analysis seems to clearly indicate that specific instruction in critical thinking skills is worthwhile at all grade levels and across all subject areas. It benefits students not only in the acquisition of critical thinking skills themselves, but also in their understanding of the content.

The most fertile ground for the acquisition of critical thinking skills seems to be classrooms with opportunities to participate in substantive discussion around well-crafted questions and problems with some guidance from the teacher, as well as opportunities to construct knowledge through inquiring into genuine questions and problems. An element of one-on-one mentoring layered on top of these, may, in the words of the researchers “serve in a catalytic capacity for CT; it can augment other strategies in a powerful way, but is not especially successful if pursued in isolation”(p. 302).

Gordon Eldridge is the Curriculum Director at the International School of Brussels, Belgium.

---

Please fill out the form below if you would like to post a comment on this article:

Nickname

(this will appear with your comments)

Email

Comments

---

Comments

There are currently no comments posted. Please post one via the form above.

MORE FROM

GORDON ELDRIDGE: LESSONS IN LEARNING