Let's Stop Trying To Teach Students Critical Thinking

Illustration for article titled Let's Stop Trying To Teach Students Critical Thinking

Many teachers say they strive to teach their students to be critical thinkers. They even pride themselves on it; after all, who wants children to just take in knowledge passively? But there is a problem with the widespread treatment of critical thinking as a skill to be taught.


Above: Socrates, father of critical thinking | Photo Credit: lentina_x, CC BY-NC-SA

The truth is that you can't teach people to be critical unless you are critical yourself. This involves more than asking young people to "look critically" at something, as if criticism was a mechanical task.

As a teacher, you have to have a critical spirit. This does not mean moaning endlessly about education policies you dislike or telling students what they should think. It means first and foremost that you are capable of engaging in deep conversation. This means debate and discussion based on considerable knowledge – something that is almost entirely absent in the educational world. It also has to take place in public, with parents and others who are not teachers, not just in the classroom or staffroom.

The need for teachers to engage in this kind of deep conversation has been forgotten, because they think that being critical is a skill. But the philosopher John Passmore criticised this idea nearly half a century ago:

If being critical consisted simply in the application of a skill then it could in principle be taught by teachers who never engaged in it except as a game or defensive device, somewhat as a crack rifle shot who happened to be a pacifist might nevertheless be able to teach rifle-shooting to soldiers. But in fact being critical can be taught only by men who can themselves freely partake in critical discussion.

The Misuses of 'Criticism'

The misuse of the idea of "criticism" first became clear to me when I gave a talk about critical thinking to a large group of first-year students. One student said that the lecturers she most disliked were the ones who banged on about the importance of being critical. She longed for one of them to assert or say something, so she could learn from them and perhaps challenge what they say.


The idea that critical thinking is a skill is the first of three popular, but false views that all do disservice to the idea of being critical. They also allow many teachers to believe they are critical thinkers when they are the opposite:

  1. "Critical thinking" is a skill. No it is not. At best this view reduces criticism to second-rate or elementary instruction in informal and some formal logic. It is usually second-rate logic and poor philosophy offered in bite-sized nuggets. Seen as a skill, critical thinking can also mean subjection to the conformism of an ideological yoke. If a feminist or Marxist teacher demands a certain perspective be adopted this may seem like it is "criticism" or acquiring a "critical perspective", but it is actually a training in feminism or Marxism which could be done through tick box techniques. It almost acquires the character of a mental drill.
  2. "Critical thinking" means indoctrination. When teachers talk about the need to be "critical" they often mean instead that students must "conform". It is often actually teaching students to be "critical" of their unacceptable ideas and adopt the right ones. Having to support multiculturalism and diversity are the most common of the "correct ideas" that everyone has to adopt. Professional programmes in education, nursing, social work and others often promote this sort of "criticism". It used to be called "indoctrination".
  3. "Critical theories" are "uncritical theories". When some theory has the prefix "critical" it requires the uncritical acceptance of a certain political perspective. Critical theory, critical race theory, critical race philosophy, critical realism, critical reflective practice all explicitly have political aims.

What is Criticism?

Criticism, according to Victorian cultural critic Matthew Arnold, is a disinterested endeavour to learn and propagate the best that is known and thought in the world. We should all be as "bound" by that definition as he was. We need only to teach the best that is known and thought and "criticism" will take care of itself. That is a lesson from 100 years ago that every teacher should learn.

Illustration for article titled Let's Stop Trying To Teach Students Critical Thinking

Critical thinking seen as Arnold defined it is more like a character trait – like having "a critical spirit", or a willingness to engage in the "give and take of critical discussion". Criticism is always about the world and not about you.


The philosopher most associated with the critical spirit is Socrates. In the 1980s, Australian philosopher John Anderson put the Socratic view of education most clearly when he wrote: "The Socratic education begins … with the awakening of the mind to the need for criticism, to the uncertainty of the principles by which it supposed itself to be guided."

But when I discuss Socratic criticism with teachers and teacher trainers I miss out Anderson's mention of the word "uncertainty". This is because many teachers will assume that this "uncertainty" means questioning those bad ideas you have and conforming to an agreed version of events, or an agreed theory.


Becoming a truly critical thinker is more difficult today because so many people want to be a Socrates. But Socrates only sought knowledge and to be a Socrates today means putting knowledge first.

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.




I think I have to disagree with your titular proposal. Saying "Lets stop trying to teach students critical thinking" is a horrible idea. A better ideal would be "Lets identify the skills necessary for critical thought and ensure those skills are being taught to our children." In my opinion that is the far more useful tactic.

Critical thought comes from being able to detach oneself emotionally from the subject being discussed. To go out, gather information about that subject. To research, to understand, and to ultimately know the subject well enough to be able to teach someone else the subject. Once you can do that on any encountered subject, once you have the skills necessary to learn and gather information like that and form opinions based on facts - then and only then are you capable of critical thought.

And thus the way to teach critical thought is to teach the methods of information gathering and analysis. You want to teach people to think critically, you need to teach them how to research and to understand. Science does this best. You don't learn critical thought in literature or language class - that's for giving you the tools to understand the words. You learn critical thought in the sciences.

For me, critical thinking means that you don't trust information without facts. You need proof before you can believe in what someone is telling you. If you're willing to believe in what you're told or what you read without having any desire to double check the facts or at least do a little of the math and work yourself, then you are incapable of critical thought.

While you have several good points in the text above, the title of the article casts a very dubious light on the information. Of course, it depends too on whether you are of the opinion that the public educational systems are simply pathways for propaganda and doctrine to be passed on to young minds. It would be hard to argue against it, since most source information is single-sourced, most class environments are limited and even hostile to the ideals of independent research and learning... and critical thought does not produce the kinds of adults that would happily accept a mediocre or even boring job out of hand - which is necessary since most jobs that must be done require a minimal level of creative exercise and a maximum level of rote train-ability.

So what we need to do is change the culture that underpins our educational systems, and infuse our classrooms and our students with multiple options and multiple avenues for information gathering and research independent of political and socioeconomic factors.

In other words (TL:DR): we have to stop producing sheeple and start producing citizens.

Just my two cents on the matter, take it for what its worth.