Teaching critical thinking as a vehicle for personal and social transformation

Abstract

During the second half of the 20th century, a new pedagogical movement emerged, which centered around the concept of critical thinking. While the movement soon became a significant player in the pedagogical field, its proponents continued to develop the theoretical and practical aspects of critical thinking, aiming to transform it into a full-fledged pedagogical ideal. However, at least two major issues have remained unresolved in critical thinking pedagogy. The first is the desired nature of the relation between the cognitive, moral, and social dimensions of critical thinking. The second involves the grave difficulties, many times accompanied by lack of success, encountered by teachers and educators who wish to promote critical thinking education. Therefore, in this paper, I examine the evolution of the ideal of critical thinking, arguing that from the outset it has contained—even if only in latent form—ethical, moral, and social elements, and thus these elements need to be explicitly integrated into the ideal. I then demonstrate the implementation of this broadened ideal of critical thinking in teacher education and offer a further expansion of the ideal, which strengthens its relationship to the notion of social justice, while, at the same time, suggests a way of improving the implementation of critical thinking education in the overall educational system.

Keywords

Critical thinking education transformation virtues criticality critical pedagogy

Thought and action, action and thought, that is the sum of all wisdom. (Goethe, 1829/1989: 280)

Introduction

When I was a student, I once heard my logic professor say that she teaches logic because she believes it makes us better and more moral people. Years later, and as I delved deeper into the worlds of critical thinking and teacher education, I have become convinced of the truth of these words. However, I have also learned that in order to make the teaching of critical thinking a real vehicle for both personal and social transformation, we need to teach our students—the future teachers—critical thinking in a broader sense than we usually do. Only then will our students be able to guide their own students on a path that leads toward the fulfilment of the potential rooted in the critical thinking approach. Therefore, in this paper, I examine the evolution of the ideal of critical thinking, claiming that this evolution entails a natural yet necessary broadening of the ideal; I then demonstrate the implementation of this broadened ideal in teacher education and offer some insights about how to facilitate its promotion through education.

The strata and dynamics of critical thinking education

From a historical perspective, the critical thinking movement is deeply rooted in the tradition of Western philosophy. Researchers most often portray Socrates as the father figure “who discovered […] that people could not rationally justify their confident claims to knowledge” (Paul, 1993: 2), and who developed a method of probing questioning by which any given belief or opinion can and should be examined (Paul, 1993; Reich, 2003). Although Socrates’ primary motivation was ethical (e.g., Russo, 1997)—his inquiry always revolved around the questions of the right way of living and the means to achieve it—he unequivocally aimed to reach the ideal of truth, even if this truth is only that he knows nothing (Plato, Apology: 21D 2-6). As we shall see, it is this double concern with truth and ethics that continues to shape the critical thinking movement.

Over the centuries, many other philosophers and thinkers contributed to the development of critical thinking methods and subject matter, but it was not until the second half of the 20th century that critical thinking became known as a distinct philosophical movement and a comprehensive pedagogical approach (e.g., Siegel, 1988). Tracking the changes and developments within this movement can shed light on the insights and aspirations of its proponents and the ways in which critical thinking education can contribute to the improvement of both individual and society.

From formal to informal logic

From its inception, the critical thinking educational movement was tied up with informal logic. While, as Johnson (1999) claims, the two are not identical—critical thinking should be understood as a broad educational ideal that uses informal logic as one of its tools—they are intimately connected. The kernel of this connection lies in the motivation behind the developing of informal logic, namely, establishing ways to understand, evaluate, and construct arguments that appear and function in real-life language and situations (Govier, 1987; Groarke, 2017); this, in contrast to formal logic, which is based on technical and symbolic language and focuses on deductive reasoning in an abstract and sterile environment (Johnson, 1999). Critical thinking as pedagogy aims to develop these informal–logic skills in all people—not just experts, in the pragmatic context of their shared lives.

From cognition to character

In a seminal article from 1962, Robert Ennis, one of the founding fathers of the critical thinking movement, defined critical thinking as “correct assessing of statements” (Ennis, 1962: 8). Years later, however, he adopted a new definition, which has been widely accepted and used ever since: “[Critical thinking is] reflective and reasonable thinking that is focused on deciding what to believe or do” (Ennis, 1985: 45). This change reflects a new understanding of the conditions and processes of critical thinking. For what one needs in order to correctly assess statements, or arguments, are mainly cognitive skills (or abilities), such as the abilities to analyze and evaluate arguments, and to make inferences. However, having these skills does not guarantee that they will be used (Facione, 2015; Passmore, 1972). Just as people who have the ability to run fast, for example, may avoid running, people who have all the skills needed for good critical thinking might hardly ever use them. For skills to be activated on a regular basis, one needs to have the dispositions, that is, the habits of mind (Facione et al., 1995), to use them. When Ennis incorporated elements of practical action (deciding, doing) in his revised definition, he aimed, as he himself acknowledged (Ennis, 1987: 11), to fill this lacuna, and connect between the skills required to master critical thinking and the dispositions necessary for their actualization.

The modification of Ennis’ definition is not merely an improvement but rather marks a profound transition in the approach to critical thinking education: from a purely cognitive-based approach to an approach that takes educating for virtuous character as its objective. This, in turn, transforms critical thinking into a full-fledged educational ideal (Siegel, 1988). Thus, while Ennis (1987) developed a thorough list of critical thinking dispositions, such as the dispositions to search for alternatives and seek for reasons, others preferred to broaden the concept of the ideal critical thinker even further and to include rational passions, or intellectual virtues (Paul, 1993; Scheffler, 1991), character traits, and even a critical spirit (Facione, 2015; Orr and Klein, 1991; Passmore, 1972; Siegel, 1988). For, as Kotzee (2016) reminds us, while dispositions are habits of behavior, intellectual virtues, that is, the virtues of a good thinker (e.g., Baehr, 2013), are more than this: they involve understanding and inner motivation, and express the convictions of the person who adopts them. Thus, Paul (1993; see also Paul and Elder, 2001; Zagzebski, 1996) develops a list of intellectual virtues, the most prominent of which are intellectual integrity, intellectual empathy, intellectual humility, intellectual autonomy, intellectual perseverance, and confidence in reason; and Siegel (1988: 8) contends that the goal of critical thinking education is to raise a “person who is not simply a person with a certain disposition, but a certain sort of a person,” a person who does not only have the capacity to get closer to the truth but who is devoted and committed to it (Baehr, 2013; Facione, 1990, 2015; Holma, 2015; Kotzee, 2016; Paul, 1993).

Yet, a certain tension should be noted regarding the extended notion of critical thinking education as character education. While this notion was widely accepted by the critical thinking adherents, many of them were reluctant to include in it moral virtues. In other words, even though the view that intellectual virtues are character traits since they are inseparable from dispositional emotions and attitudes (Scheffler 1991; see also Steutel and Spiecker, 1997), and the view that critical thinking education should aim to develop intellectual skills and virtues side by side became accepted truths of the critical thinking movement, the majority of the critical thinking theoreticians insisted that critical thinking virtues do not entail moral virtues and that critical thinking is not inconsistent with immoral behavior (Facione, 1990, 2015).¹ This tension is well manifested in the Delphi Report (Facione, 1990: 15),² where critical thinking education is described as “vitally important” for individual and society—at least democratic society—alike, yet it is not conceived as necessarily connected to a moral education, that is, to education that promotes right and just judgment and action, usually with respect to other people (Kohlberg, 2000; Steutel and Spiecker, 1997). This tension will echo in the forthcoming discussion, and I return to it at the end of the article.

From thought to action

Suppose that the government of some country has just announced its intention to undertake a vast economic reform. A young critical thinker, well educated in the tradition of the critical thinking movement and hence well equipped with critical dispositions and skills, is moved by her critical spirit to analyze and evaluate this reform. She comes to the conclusion that the reform should be avoided since, according to her critical assessment, it will cause much more harm than good. There are other people who have come to the same conclusion, and they are now marching in the streets, demonstrating against the reform. The question thus arises: Will her education as a critical thinker dispose her not only to “reflectively and reasonably” think about the reform and what should be done regarding it, but also to actually act according to her judgment and join the demonstrators, or, alternatively, to try to prevent the execution of the reform in some other way?

Following Barnett (1997), Davies (2015) argues that the traditional sense of critical thinking, which was developed by the critical thinking movement, lacks the fundamental component of action. Writing about the definition of critical thinking presented in the Delphi Report (Facione, 1990), he underscores that the “phenomenon of action is not mentioned in [it]” (Davies, 2015: 49), and that the same holds true for Ennis’ widely-accepted definition:

Note that Ennis’ definition [of critical thinking] is somewhat limiting by not necessitating, for its application, any commitment to action on the part of the critical thinker. On Ennis’ account, a person might exhibit critical thinking defined as ‘reasonable and reflective thinking focused on deciding what to believe or do’, without requiring that the decision actually be implemented. (Davies, 2015: 53, emphasis in original)

The founders of the critical thinking movement concentrated on cognitive skills. Even when they and their successors broadened the definition of critical thinking to include character dispositions, virtues, and spirit, their locus remained thinking, not acting. The character that the disciples of critical thinking education were supposed to develop was the character of a thinker, not a doer, a character disposed to think critically but not necessarily to act critically, or, as we saw, morally. Thus, the answer to the question posed in the example above is negative: there was hardly anything in the education of the young critical thinker that would incline her to move beyond thinking and put her beliefs into action.

In an attempt to bridge the gap between critical thought and critical action, Barnett (1997) and other theorists of education (see especially Johnston et al., 2011) have advanced the concept of criticality, which broadens the concept of critical thinking by infusing the component of action into it. Much in the spirit of Passmore, Paul and Siegel, Barnett sees educating for criticality as a central pedagogical goal, which aims at the person as a whole (e.g., Hanscomb, 2017). However, he goes further and claims that the ideal of a fully critical being can only be reached by combining three dimensions of criticality: “critical reasoning, critical self-reflection, and critical action” (Barnett, 1997: 7). The first dimension relates to knowledge per se, and corresponds to the first-stage view of critical thinking as the formal art of assessing statements or arguments. The second dimension relates directly to character, or personality, and includes self-regulation, self-examination (i.e., of one own beliefs, acts, and position in the world), and self-construction. The third dimension relates to the world. It refers both to the desire to critically know and evaluate the world and to act upon it, that is, to change it, according to the conclusions and insights of these critical processes. It is when the three domains of thought, self, and action are brought together successfully under the umbrella of critical attitude, that a fully critical person emerges (Barnett, 1997: 87), and criticality become a potential transformative force for individuals and society.

The broadening of the range of critical thinking both inward—toward the entire self, and outward—toward action in and upon the world, entails the broadening of the concept of critical thinking to encompass both theoretical and practical knowledge, or, in Aristotelian terms, both episteme and phronesis (Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics: 1139a.25-1145a.11). For in order to deal successfully with the uniqueness of every self and the particularity of every concrete situation in the world, theoretical knowledge, which tends to be based on general and fixed formulas, is not enough (Dunne, 2015; Phelan, 2001). Practical wisdom, namely, the ability to attune oneself to the ever-changing and contextual order of things, is necessary. Of course, for Aristotle (Nicomachean Ethics: 1144b.31-1145a.6), moral behavior requires the integration of phronesis and moral virtues, and I will return to this important point later.

The ideal of critical thinking education

Although, as Davies (2015: 65) notes, the criticality approach is by no means a main-stream approach in the critical thinking movement, it nevertheless expresses and develops the essence of the movement. As mentioned above, throughout the evolution of the critical thinking movement, many of its prominent figures “have made the case that educating students to be critical thinkers is vital for the students themselves and for society in general” (Facione, 1990: 1); this is to say that, from its beginning, the critical thinking movement has had an ethical goal to educate virtuous individuals endowed with the abilities and dispositions of critical thinking that would drive and enable them to advance and improve themselves as well as society. Indeed, the brief review of the changes in the critical thinking movement laid out above demonstrates this point by showing the efforts that were made to connect critical thinking to real life, to the education of all people and to the infrastructure of human character. In this light, criticality, with its special emphasis on action in the world, is a natural step in this maturation process, which advances the fulfillment of the ethical potential that is rooted in the critical thinking movement by broadening and crystallizing the pedagogical ideal of critical thinking so as to refer to a being who has the skills and dispositions to analyze, evaluate, and judge beliefs and stances in various fields, as well as to decipher the complexity of real-life situations, while aspiring to improve both the self and the world.

Educating for critical thinking in teacher education

While discussions about criticality tend to focus on higher education, the traditional center of critical thinking education is k–12.³ Teacher education obviously combines the two worlds, since it is a post-school education whose goal is to qualify people to work as teachers–educators in schools. In teacher education, practice has particular importance (Kansanen, 2003; Zabalza Beraz, 1996), because the future teachers are supposed to learn how to teach, and they are usually trained in schools during their studies. Moreover, in teacher education, educational ideology plays a double role, since it establishes the ground for the learning experience of the teachers-to-be, while, at the same time, it lays the foundations for their future teaching. In the context of the critical thinking pedagogy, this means that future teachers should be educated and trained with the double goal of becoming good critical thinkers as well as educators for critical thinking. This dual objective also underscores and expresses the ambition to reinforce the role played by critical thinking in the entire field of education.

In what follows, I explore some examples from my own experience of teaching critical thinking in teacher education.⁴ These examples will serve to demonstrate and examine the pedagogical practice of teaching critical thinking—in the broad sense it was given here—in teacher education, and, more generally, to learn about the possible implementation of the ideal of critical thinking education.

Teaching for critical skills and character

The online course in critical thinking is a semester-long course for up to 30 students. The course combines traditional teaching and learning of critical thinking skills, with educating for the wider sense of the ideal critical thinker as a critical person endowed with the spirit of criticality (Passmore, 1972; Siegel, 1988). In the course, I try to take advantage of the opportunities offered by the online environment and technology to foster the critical thinking spirit.

From the outset, students are encouraged to bring their own life experiences, their opinions, and their teaching experience into the discussions and assignments. This personal involvement helps to arouse intrinsic motivation, since the students can connect their personality and inner interests to the learning process (Deci and Ryan, 2000; Limbach and Waugh, 2005). It creates a bridge between the person who studies and what is being studied, nourishes the alliance between the domains of knowledge, self and action, and thus helps to advance the ideal of critical being (Barnett, 1997). For example, in the final stage of the course, students are asked to critically reflect on their teaching practice, and bring into it elements of critical thinking that are both important for them personally, and that they identify as missing from it.

Use of the discussion features of the LMS (e.g., learning management system, like Moodle), such as the chat and the forum, helps to create a safe and open environment where students are encouraged to present their ideas, provide and receive critical feedback, and develop their understanding of critical thinking together. During the discussions, I try to act as a facilitator rather than a lecturer (Limbach and Waugh, 2005), guiding the students toward self and mutual examination and self-study but without giving up on critical feedback when I believe it is needed. In accordance with Siegel’s (1988) approach, I also continuously remind the students of the importance of well-reasoned discourse. The rationale behind this way of teaching is not only to direct the students and allow them the space for deep self-learning, but also to create an atmosphere that fosters critical thinking and to set an example of the critical spirit teacher, both of which, as Passmore (1972: 311; see also Baehr, 2013) reminds us, are crucial elements for educating the critical spirit.

The LMS platform, with its various communication and collaborative tools (e.g., wiki, blog, shared database) is also very useful for encouraging collaborative learning. There are many studies (Abrami et al., 2008; Godat, 2012; Gokhale, 1995; Nelson, 1994) that demonstrate how collaborative learning promotes critical thinking. The need to clearly articulate ideas, to evaluate peers’ ideas and projects and to be evaluated by them in turn, all contribute to improving critical thinking skills and dispositions. Furthermore, the collaborative learning and practicing of critical thinking take critical thinking out of the artificial space of individual learning (Salmon and Perkins, 1998; Vygotsky, 1978) and thus connects it to the real world. Therefore, the two major course assignments are group assignments, and on some other smaller assignments, students get to decide whether to work together or alone.

Finally, special attention is given to developing dialogical thinking which, according to Paul (1993: 310) is a way of thinking that “involves extended exchange between different points of view.” The subject matter of dialogical thinking includes issues and problems that can and should be viewed from different perspectives, since they do not have one simple solution or one correct way with which they should be handled. In this sense, engaging in dialogical thinking brings the students closer to the complexity of actual life situations. Moreover, learning processes that involve dialogical exchange expose students to other, sometimes contesting, points of view, guiding them toward a more balanced and careful examination and judgment of any given view, including their own. Thus, a door is opened to a deeper level of critical spirit, one that Paul (1992, 1993) terms strong sense critical thinking, where one develops a more objective and less attached approach toward one’s own point of view, beliefs, and guiding assumptions.

Following Paul’s (1993: ch. 26) suggestion, in the course’s final assignment, the students are asked to choose a current and controversial issue that has ethical and social implications, such as abortion, legalizing drugs, vegetarianism, and to inquire deeply into the opposing views while establishing their own reasoned position. And although I have not conducted a methodical study, from conversations with the students, examining their final products, and reading their written feedbacks I can cautiously infer that they are indeed motivated to encompass as many aspects of the issue they deal with as possible; that they try to argue both sides of the issue fairly, and that this process increases their awareness of the complexity of the problem as well as of public controversies in general. All of this seems to indicate (Kotzee, 2016) that there is some development of the critical thinking skills of building and assessing arguments, and of a character that is more open-minded, fair-minded, and intellectually humble (Paul, 1993; Paul and Elder 2001; Zagzebski, 1996).

Deepening critical self-reflection

The course cultural, professional, and personal identity, which is given in a workshop format during one semester in relatively small groups of not more than 15 students, takes the critical self-reflection encouraged by the teaching of dialogical thinking further. Through a combination of narrative technique—where students share personal stories involving cultural themes (such as religion, gender, ethnic heritage)—and a version of the Socratic questioning method,⁵ the students examine their self-identity in relation to their cultural background and their developing professional identity. This examination has a twofold goal: first, to develop awareness of one’s own assumptions, presuppositions, and frames of reference (Cheng et al., 2015; Mezirow, 2006) and to critically question them and develop alternative ways of understanding and acting (Stein, 2000); and second, to build a professional identify that is strongly connected to one’s personal identity, and thus to ignite a process of both personal and professional transformation. Indeed, the underlying assumption of the course is that the personal identity and professional identity of teachers are inseparable (Mansur Shachor, 2016). As Palmer (1998: 2) articulates it: “[…] we teach who we are […] as I teach, I project the condition of my soul onto my students, my subject, and our way of being together.” A teacher, in other words, is not a mere technician who transforms knowledge according to accurate rules and protocols (Back, 2016; Caine and Caine, 2011). Teaching is an interpersonal activity in an ever-changing and fluid environment, which demands from the teacher an ongoing interpretation, improvisation, and thinking in action and on action (Schön, 1983). These necessarily involve the teacher’s own point of view and her character. Moreover, teachers are educators who guide their students on the paths of life (Back, 2016). Such guidance cannot occur without bringing their own perspective, beliefs, and values—indeed, without bringing their very personality—into the pedagogical process.

While the dynamic process of self-questioning, which involves potentially changing one’s point of view, already helps to transform students’ self-identity and professional identity, and while the format of this critical process also aims to strengthen the critical aspects of the students’ personality, students are also encouraged to find and develop paths that are connected to their inner motivation, and to integrate these motivations into their profession. Thus, the process of critical self-reflection promotes both the development of the critical spirit and self-realization (Barnett, 1997, Wright, 2004). A good example of this can be found in the final assignment of the course, where students are asked to reflect on the life path that has led them to desire to become teachers. Most of the students identify key points in their life that the reflective and retrospective gaze encourages them to re-read as meaningful for their personal and professional development. In addition, the student’s reflections usually include serious criticism of their own former pedagogical assumptions and habits, and of the educational system that has instilled these habits in them, while simultaneously expressing an aspiration—albeit not often articulated—to find new ways for teaching and educating.

Turning critical thinking toward the world

In the open-space learning workshop,⁶ the domains of knowledge, self, and the world are brought together in order to promote the ideal of a critical being, while reaffirming the link between individual and society, between the epistemological and the ethical, and between thought and action.

This yearlong course is conducted in a community of learners (Rogoff, 1994; Rogoff et al., 1996; Wenger, 1998) format, in which students engage in active and collaborative learning, creating and sharing knowledge that is relevant and of interest to them as individuals and as a community. In addition to the positive contributions that an active and collaborative learning environment makes to the advancement of critical thinking skills and disposition, which I mentioned above, the communal framework also provides an ethical dimension to the learning process, since mutual commitment and shared values are essential elements of every established community (McMillan and Chavis, 1986; Rovai, 2002). This ethical dimension is further enhanced when students are asked to go out to the world and examine it through a dialectical gaze that is both responsive (Phelan, 2001) and critical, with the purpose of identifying areas where they think they can contribute to the community—any community, be it the school where they practice, the neighborhood where they live, their home town, and so forth. The openness of the course is manifested in the freedom students have in choosing their projects, their partners, and their way of learning. Nevertheless, students are guided and encouraged to combine theoretical learning with the actual work in the area they have chosen, as well as to apply critical reflection to the overall process.

The active immersion in the community helps the students to develop their sensitivity and their ability to act in the actual world, both as teachers–educators and as engaged civilians. The relative freedom that the students possess during the course, the outward and inward critical thinking they practice, and the active implementation of the outcome of their thought processes in the world, all helps to brings about the possibility of individual as well as social transformation (Mezirow, 2006). As in the other courses discussed above, dialogical discussions are held throughout the course in which students discuss issues that have arisen during their work. These discussions, as mentioned, advance the students’ critical skills and dispositions while increasing their awareness of the course’s main issues. However, I also urge the students to pay special attention to the issue of the teacher’s role in society, particularly in the light of the ideal of the critical being, and to contemplate and discuss two main questions: to what degree should the teacher not only be a critical thinker in the traditional sense but also a social reformer; and is there, or at least should be, a commitment on behalf of the teacher to educate her students toward the ideal of critical being?

Spreading critical thinking

The courses I have explored above embody an attempt to educate for critical thinking in the wide and holistic sense of critical being, namely, the cultivation of a person who has the critical thinking abilities to judge and evaluate beliefs, viewpoints, and actions, and regularly uses these abilities to examine and improve the self and the world. This ideal of critical being, I have claimed, is a natural extension of the classical ideal of the critical thinker, and it is meant to be a comprehensive pedagogical ideal that encompass both individual and society. Teaching for this ideal in teacher education represents an aspiration to incorporate it as a central aspect of the entire educational system. However, from the discussions with the students during the courses and observations of their teaching practice, as well as from various research studies (e.g., Chee Choy and Kin Cheah, 2009; Fox, 1962; Landsman and Gorski, 2007), a serious problem comes to light, one that seems to undermine the very project of critical thinking education: teachers-in-training as well as veteran teachers have great difficulties in teaching critical thinking.

The difficulties teachers encounter while attempting to teach for critical thinking can be divided into two main categories. First, there are the constraints of the educational system itself. Preservice teachers, veteran teachers, and researchers, all complain and raise doubts about the possibility of teaching effectively for critical thinking, given the official environment that “worships test scores” (Bean, 1998: 10; see also: Landsman and Gorski, 2007; Wong, 2007), focuses on content rather than process, memory rather the understanding (Snyder and Snyder, 2008), and that fails to provide students with the space or time for self-study and self-reflection which, as we saw, are preconditions for the learning of critical thinking. Second, there are difficulties that relate to the teachers themselves: lack of knowledge of critical thinking essentials and of critical thinking pedagogy (Broadbear, 2003; Kang and Howren, 2004), and—no less important, their adherence to traditional ways of teaching, and the traditional role of the teacher in which teachers attempt to control most of the learning process, usually through the lecture format, and seek to transmit knowledge rather than to facilitate the development of skills, dispositions, and character (Mason, 2000; Tishman et al., 1992).

One possible answer to these difficulties is to infuse critical thinking into teacher education in a more structured, cross-curricular way. Instead of being taught in a few isolated courses—which is not far from the examples I have presented above—critical thinking should be taught in an integrated way, where it is incorporated into all, or at least most, of the courses—in different contexts and at different levels of complexity—while addressing the different dimensions of critical thinking (e.g., Barnett, 1997; Ennis, 2013). Such an enterprise would require coordination and staff collaboration, and, additionally, the adaptation of alternative teaching methods—some of which were exemplified above—that would promote not only the learning of critical thinking skills but also the development of the students’ critical personality, while equipping them with the technical and personal foundation necessary for the teaching of critical thinking.

Another venue for the promotion of critical thinking education might come from an unexpected direction, indeed from the other side of the critical universe, in the shape of the critical pedagogy school. Several writers (Burbules and Berk, 1999; Davies, 2015; Rahimi and Asadi Sajed, 2014) have tried to connect between the discourse of critical thinking and the approach of critical pedagogy. These two schools share a history of antagonism, yet, as Burbules and Berk (1999) notice, have much in common:

Each invokes the term “critical” as a valued educational goal: urging teachers to help students become more skeptical toward commonly accepted truisms. Each says, in its own way, “Do not let yourself be deceived.” And each has sought to reach and influence particular groups of educators, at all levels of schooling, through workshops, lectures, and pedagogical texts. They share a passion and sense of urgency about the need for more critically oriented classrooms. (Burbules and Berk, 1999: 45)

The major difference between the two schools lies in the opposition between the sociopolitical and moral orientation of the critical pedagogy school and the ostensible neutrality of the critical thinking school. For the former, epistemology is inseparable from politics, and no truly critical approach can exist without awareness of the power relations and structural inequalities in society, and particularly in capitalistic societies (Freire, 1993; Giroux, 2000). The proponents of critical thinking see this approach as dangerous, and even contra-critical, since prima facie it makes some uncertain assumptions about society, and thus leads us astray from the objective truth-seeking path desired by and for the critical thinker. The advocates of critical pedagogy, however, claim the opposite: since the social, political, and educational systems already operate under conditions of unequal and oppressive relations, ignoring these conditions, which shape the life and thoughts of everyone, undermines the aspiration for objective critical thinking, and thus the progress of individuals and societies alike (Burbules and Berk, 1999; Rahimi and Asadi Sajed, 2014). To be sure, for critical pedagogy, the logical and reflective critical thinking skills and dispositions are important; but they are not enough (Giroux, 1994). They must be accompanied by awareness of the social, political, and historical conditions that shape society as well as human knowledge, and they must be turned into action that transform society into a more just and equal place (Freire, 1993; Glass, 2000). Hence, critical pedagogy, as Davies (2015) contends, can be understood as taking the critical thinking educational ideal one step further, even beyond the ideal of critical being, by anchoring it in a more concrete social and ethical context, where the critical thinker, the critical being, turns into a “critical participant” (Davies, 2015: 76), who seeks to act in and upon the world in a way that is committed to the transformation of the social order. At the same time, critical pedagogy also provides possible explanation for at least some of the barriers that prevent successful implementation of the critical thinking education: as part of the governing political forces, the educational system has an interest in preventing education that develops autonomous and critical thinkers that might challenge the values and basic assumptions of the system (Hicks, 2004).

Therefore, the goal of education for critical pedagogy is by no means purely intellectual, and it cannot be achieved by intellectual means alone. In terms of the virtue discourse, this means that critical pedagogy offers the tradition of critical thinking the opportunity for reestablishing the old alliance between moral and intellectual virtues, in accordance with the Aristotelian position (Nicomachean Ethics: 1144b.3), that education must cultivate and combine the two kinds of virtues; otherwise, the good life for individuals and society cannot be attained. According to this line, education in general should strive to cultivate a spirit that is endowed with the cardinal virtues of commitment and devotion to the truth and a concern for the well-being of other people and society, as well as with other intellectual and moral virtues that are derivatives of these.⁷ Regarding teacher education, Freire (1997, 1998a, 1998b) develops a list of moral virtues, the most conspicuous of which are humility, courage, respect for others and, perhaps the most importantly for him, the virtue of loving. For Freire, these virtues are indispensable for the progressive teacher who wishes to empower students and help them in their journey toward self and social liberation (Darder, 2003), and at the same time needs to overcome her inner obstacles and the outer obstacles of a system that discourages any deep sociopolitical change. These virtues, together with the intellectual virtues (and skills) mentioned above, and the developing of an awareness of the social reality, might help teachers reach the goal that both schools aspire to, that is, the cultivation of critical persons who can better themselves and society. The suggested integration of the intellectual and moral virtues under the extended notion of critical education also provides a possible answer to opposition that might arise against the demand for education that profoundly undermines the system that nourishes it. For the motivation behind this integration is the ethical motivation to create a better life for all people, and this motivation by itself can supply justification for the apparent subversiveness of critical education.

If we consider that most teachers are raised and educated in “untroubled middle-class circumstances” (O’Sullivan, 2008: 95); and that the educational institutions currently operate under neoliberal hegemony, which more than ever directs students and teachers alike toward the single-minded pursuit of jobs and careers (Cowden and Singh, 2013; Hursh and Martina, 2003), it appears reasonable to assume that in order to fulfill the aspirations of critical thinking education and to overcome the difficulties that stand in its way, some integration between the critical thinking and critical pedagogy movements is necessary. Indeed, it seems reasonable to assume that praxis, that is, a combination of thought and action, which aims from the start to transform both individuals and society, should be integrated into the very fabric of the educational process.

Footnotes

Declaration of conflicting interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Notes

References

Abrami

Bernard

Borokhovski

et al. (2008) Instructional interventions affecting critical thinking skills and dispositions: A stage 1 meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research 78(4): 1102–1134.

Aristotle (2015) Nicomachean Ethics. Ross WD (trans.). Available at: http://classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/nicomachaen.html (accessed 15 December 2017).

Back

(2016) The journey of ACE: The hermeneutical-phenomenological approach to teacher education. In: Bark

Gidron

(eds) Active Collaborative Education: A Journey Towards Teaching, Rotterdam: Sense, pp. 121–148.

Baehr

(2013) Educating for intellectual virtues: From theory to practice. Journal of the Philosophy of Education 47: 248–262.

Barnett

(1997) Higher Education: A Critical Business, Buckingham: Open University Press.

Bean

(1998) Reclaiming a democratic purpose for education. Educational Leadership 56(2): 8–11.

Broadbear

(2003) Essential elements of lessons designed to promote critical thinking. Journal of Scholarship of Teaching and Learning 3(3): 1–8.

Burbules

Berk

(1999) Critical thinking and critical pedagogy: Relations, differences, and limits. In: Popkewitz

Fendler

(eds) Critical Theories in Education: Changing Terrains of Knowledge and Politics, New York: Routledge, pp. 45–66.

Caine

(2011) Natural Learning for a Connected World: Education, Technology, and the Human Brain, New York: Teachers College Press.

10.

Chee Choy

Kin Cheah

(2009) Teacher perceptions of critical thinking among students and its influence on higher education. International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education 20(2): 198–206.

11.

Cheng M, Barnes GP, Edwards C, et al. (2015) Transition Skills and Strategies: Critical Self-Reflection. Report written for the QAA Scotland. Available at: http://www.enhancementthemes.ac.uk/docs/publications/transition-skills-and-strategies—critical-self-reflection.pdf?sfvrsn=8 (accessed 29 November 2017).

12.

Cowden

Singh

(2013) Acts of Knowing: Critical Pedagogy In, Against and Beyond the University, London: Bloomsbury Academic.

13.

Darder

(2003) Teaching as an act of love: Reflections on Paulo Freire and his contribution to our lives and our work. In: Darder

Barltodano

Torres

(eds) The Critical Pedagogy Reader, New York: Routledge, pp. 567–578.

14.

Davies

(2015) A model of critical thinking in higher education. In: Paulsen

(ed.) Higher Education: Handbook of Theory and Research (Vol. 30), New York: Springer, pp. 41–82.

15.

Deci

Ryan

(2000) The “what” and “why” of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry 11(4): 227–268.

16.

Dunne

(2015) Beyond critical thinking to critical being: Criticality in higher education and life. International Journal of Educational Research 71: 86–99.

17.

Elder

Paul

(1998) The role of Socratic questioning in thinking, teaching, and learning. The Clearing House 71(5): 297–301.

18.

Ennis

(1962) A concept of critical thinking. Harvard Educational Review 32(1): 81–111.

19.

Ennis

(1985) A logical basis for measuring critical thinking skills. Educational Leadership 43(2): 44–48.

20.

Ennis

(1987) A taxonomy of critical thinking abilities and dispositions. In: Baron

Sternberg

(eds) Teaching Thinking Skills, New York: WH Freeman, pp. 9–26.

21.

Ennis

(2013) Critical thinking across the curriculum. Inquiry 28(2): 25–45.

22.

Facione PA (1990) The Delphi Report: Critical Thinking: A Statement of Expert Consensus for Purposes of Educational Assessment and Instruction. Millbrae, CA: California Academic Press. Available at: https://archive.org/stream/ERIC_ED315423/ERIC_ED315423_djvu.txt (accessed 15 December 2017).

23.

Facione PA (2015) Critical Thinking: What is it and Why it Counts. Millbrae, CA: California Academic Press. Available at: http://www.student.uwa.edu.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0003/1922502/Critical-Thinking-What-it-is-and-why-it-counts.pdf (accessed 15 December 2017).

24.

Facione

Sanchez

Facione

et al. (1995) The disposition toward critical thinking. The Journal of General Education 44(1): 1–25.

25.

Fox

(1962) Difficulties in developing skill in critical thinking. Journal of Educational Research 55: 335–337.

26.

Freire

(1993) Pedagogy of the Oppressed, New York: Continuum.

27.

Freire

(1997) Pedagogy of the Heart, New York: Continuum.

28.

Freire

(1998a) Teachers as Cultural Workers: Letters to Those Who Dare to Teach, Colorado: Westview.

29.

Freire

(1998b) The virtues of the progressive educator, lecture given at Edinburgh, Scotland. In: Templeton

(ed.) Discussion Papers, Edinburgh: CTPI, University of Edinburgh, pp. 1–6.

30.

Giroux

(1994) Toward a pedagogy of critical thinking. In: Walters

(ed.) Re-Thinking Reason: New Perspectives in Critical Thinking, Albany: SUNY Press, pp. 199–205.

31.

Giroux

(2000) Stealing Innocence: Youth, Corporate Power, and the Politics of Culture, New York: St. Martin’s Press.

32.

Glass

(2000) Education and the ethics of democratic citizenship. Studies in Philosophy and Education 19(3): 275–296.

33.

Godat M (2012) Collaborative learning and critical thinking in technology-enhanced environments: an instructional design framework. PhD Thesis, Queensland University of Technology, Australia.

34.

Goethe JW (1829/1989) Wilhelm Meister’s journeyman years, or the renunciants. In: Goethe JW (ed) Conversations of German Refugees; Wilhelm Meister’s Journeyman Years, or the Renunciants (Goethe Collected Works, vol. 10). JK Brown (ed) JV Heurck and K Winston (trans.). Princeton New York: Suhrkamp, pp. 93–436.

35.

Gokhale

(1995) Collaborative learning enhances critical thinking. Journal of Technology Education 7(1): 22–30. Available at: http://scholar.lib.vt.edu/ejournals/JTE/v7n1/gokhale.jte-v7n1.html?ref=Sawos.Org (accessed 29 November 2017).

36.

Govier

(1987) Problems in Arguments Analysis and Evaluation, Dordrecht: Foris.

37.

Groarke

(2017) Informal logic. In: Zalta

(ed.) The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Available at: https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2017/entries/logic-informal (accessed 9 October 2017).

38.

Hanscomb

(2017) Critical Thinking: The Basics, New York: Routledge.

39.

Hicks

SRC

(2004) Explaining Postmodernism: Skepticism and Socialism from Rousseau to Foucault, Tempe, AZ: Scholargy. Available at: file:///C:/Users/uesr1/Desktop/OneDrive/hicks%20explaining%20post-modernism.pdf (accessed 15 December 2017).

40.

Holma

(2015) The critical spirit: Emotional and moral dimensions of critical thinking. Studier i Pædagogisk Filosofi 4(1): 17–28. Available at: http://docplayer.net/41970813-Katariina-holma-the-critical-spirit-emotional-and-moral-dimensions-of-critical-thinking-1.html (accessed 15 December 2017).

41.

Hursh

Martina

(2003) Neoliberalism and schooling in the U.S. How state and federal government education policies perpetuate inequality. Journal for Critical Education Policy Studies 1(2): . Available at: http://www.jceps.com/archives/405 (accessed 15 December 2017).

42.

Johnson

(1999) The relation between formal and informal logic. Argumentation 13: 265–274.

43.

Johnston

Ford

Mitchell

et al. (2011) Developing Student Criticality in Higher Education, London: Continuum.

44.

Kang

Howren

(2004) Teaching for conceptual understanding. Science and Children 42(1): 28–32.

45.

Kansanen

(2003) Teacher education in Finland: Current models and new developments. In: Moon

Vlasceanu

Barrows

(eds) Studies on Higher Education, Institutional Approaches to Teacher Education within Higher Education in Europe: Current Models and New Developments, Bucharest: CEPES, pp. 85–108.

46.

Kohlberg

(2000) The cognitive-developmental approach to moral education. In: Smith

Pellegrini

(eds) Psycology of Education: Major Themes, vol. 3, The School Curriculum, London: RoutledgeFalmer, pp. 597–614.

47.

Kotzee

(2016) Problems of assessment in educating for intellectual virtue. In: Baehr

(eds) Intellectual Virtues and Education: Essays in Applied Virtue Epistemology, New York: Routledge, pp. 142–162. . Available at: https://www.academia.edu/11286855/Problems_of_Assessment_in_Educating_for_Intellectual_Virtue_forthcoming_in_Baehr_J._ed._Intellectual_Virtues_and_Education_Essays_In_Applied_Virtue_Epistemology_London_Routledge (accessed 30 October 2017).

48.

Landsman

Gorski

(2007) Countering standardization. Educational Leadership 64(8): 40–41.

49.

Limbach

Waugh

(2005) Questioning the lecture format. The NEA Higher Education Journal: Thought and Action 20(1): 47–56. Available at: http://www.nea.org/assets/img/PubThoughtAndAction/TAA_05_05.pdf (accessed 30 November 2017).

50.

Mansur Shachor

(2016) Narrating culture identity: Getting to know the me I bring to class. In: Bark

Gidron

(eds) Active Collaborative Education: A Journey Towards Teaching, Rotterdam: Sense, pp. 21–36.

51.

Mason

(2000) Teachers as critical mediators of knowledge. Journal of Philosophy of Education 34(2): 343–352.

52.

McMillan

Chavis

(1986) Sense of community: A definition and theory. Journal of Community Psychology 14(1): 6–23.

53.

Mezirow

(2006) An overview of transformative learning. In: Sutherland

Crowther

(eds) Lifelong Learning: Concepts and Contexts, New York: Routledge, pp. 24–38.

54.

Monk

Chillington Rutter

Neelands

et al. (2011) Open-Space Learning: A Study in Transdisciplinary Pedagogy, London: Bloomsbury Academic.

55.

Nelson

(1994) Critical thinking and collaborative learning. New Directions for Teaching and Learning 59: 45–58.

56.

Orr

Klein

(1991) Instruction in critical thinking as a form of character education. Journal of Curriculum and Supervision 6(2): 130–144.

57.

O’Sullivan

(2008) You can’t criticize what you don’t understand: Teachers as social change agents in neo-liberal times. Brock Education 17: 95–110.

58.

Palmer

(1998) The Courage to Teach, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

59.

Passmore

(1972) On teaching to be critical. In: Dearden

Hirst

Peters

(eds) Education and the Development of Reason, London: Routledge, pp. 309–322.

60.

Paul

(1992) Teaching critical thinking in the strong sense: getting behind worldview. In: Talaska

(ed.) Critical Reasoning in Contemporary Culture, Albany: State University of New York Press, pp. 135–156.

61.

Paul

(1993) Critical thinking: What Every Person Needs to Survive in a Rapidly Changing World, Santa Rosa, CA: Foundation for Critical Thinking.

62.

Paul

Elder

(2001) The Miniature Guide to Critical Thinking: Concepts and Tools, Dillon Beach, CA: Foundation for Critical Thinking. Available at: https://www.criticalthinking.org/files/Concepts_Tools.pdf (accessed 15 December 2017).

63.

Phelan

(2001) The death of a child and the birth of practical wisdom. Studies in Philosophy and Education 20: 41–55.

64.

Plato (2008) Apology. Jowett B (trans.). Available at: http://classics.mit.edu/Plato/apology.html (accessed 15 December 2017).

65.

Rahimi

Asadi Sajed

(2014) The interplay between critical pedagogy and critical thinking: Theoretical ties and practicalities. Procedia: Social and Behavioral Sciences 136: 41–45.

66.

Reich

(2003) The Socratic method: What is it and how to use it in the classroom. Speaking of Teaching, Stanford University Newsletter on Teaching 13(1): 1–4. Available at: http://web.stanford.edu/dept/CTL/Newsletter/socratic_method.pdf (accessed 15 December 2017).

67.

Rogoff

(1994) Developing understanding of the idea of communities of learners. Mind, Culture, and Activity 1(4): 209–229.

68.

Rogoff

Matusov

White

(1996) Models of teaching and learning: participation in a community of learners. In: Olson

Torrance

(ed.) The Handbook of Education and Human Development, Malden: Blackwell, pp. 388–414.

69.

Rovai

(2002) Sense of community, perceived cognitive learning, and persistence in asynchronous learning networks. Internet and Higher Education 5: 319–332.

70.

Russo

(1997) Introduction to Socratic ethics. Sophia Project, Philosophy Archive. . Available at: http://www.sophia-project.org/uploads/1/3/9/5/13955288/russo_socrates1.pdf (accessed 12 December 2017).

71.

Salmon

Perkins

(1998) Individual and social aspects of learning. Review of Research in Education 23: 1–24.

72.

Scheffler

(1991) In praise of the cognitive emotions. In: Scheffler

(ed.) In Praise of the Cognitive Emotions and other Essays in the Philosophy of Education, New York: Routledge, pp. 3–17.

73.

Schön

(1983) The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think in Action, London: Temple Smith.

74.

Siegel

(1978) Is it irrational to be immoral? A response to Freeman. Educational Philosophy and Theory 10(2): 51–61.

75.

Siegel

(1980) Rationality, morality, and rational moral education: Further response to Freeman. Educational Philosophy and Theory 12(1): 37–47.

76.

Siegel

(1988) Educating Reason: Rationality, Critical Thinking, and Education, New York: Routledge.

77.

Snyder

(2008) Teaching critical thinking and problem solving skills. Delta Pi Epsilon Journal 50(2): 90–99.

78.

Stein

(2000) Teaching critical reflection. Myths and Realities 7. . Available at: http://files.eric.edgov/fulltext/ED445256.pdf (accessed 12 December 2017).

79.

Steutel JW and Spiecker B (1997) Rational passions and intellectual virtues: A conceptual analysis. Studies in Philosophy and Education 16(1-2): 59–71.

80.

Tishman

Jay

Perkins

(1992) Teaching thinking dispositions: From transmission to enculturation. Theory into Practice 32(3): 147–153.

81.

Vygotsky

(1978) Mind in Society: The Development of Higher Psychological Processes, Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

82.

Wenger

(1998) Communities of Practice: Learning, Meaning, and Identity, Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

83.

Wong

(2007) Beyond control and rationality: Dewey, aesthetics, motivation, and educative experiences. Teachers College Record 109(1): 192–220.

84.

Wright

(2004) Politically reflexive practitioners. In: Dracklé

Edgar

(eds) Current Policies and Practices in European Social Anthropology Education, New York: Berghahn Books, pp. 34–52.

85.

Zabalza Beraz

(1996) Practical experience in teacher education: ts meaning, value and contributions. European Journal of Teacher Education 19(3): 269–271.

86.

Zagzebski

(1996) Virtues of the Mind: An Inquiry into the Nature of Virtue and the Ethical Foundations of Knowledge, Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.