LITERATURE REVIEW The articles and staff reviews are included in separate binders at the end of this report (Appendix A, three volumes). This literature review will give an in-depth summary of the staff’s findings, starting with an explanation of what critical thinking skills (CTS) are and why they are an important factor in education, and then analyzing several strategies for implementation of CTS in the elementary and middle school classroom. A BRIEF HISTORY OF CRITICAL THINKING The Western concept of critical thinking goes back about 2,500 years to the Greek philosopher Socrates, who established a method of teaching that encouraged students to question themselves, their teachers, and their fundamental assumptions about the subject being taught. Socrates asserted that even those in authority could have hidden agendas or confused reasoning and demanded that every idea be thoroughly investigated before being accepted as worthy of belief. The Socratic method of teaching was embraced by Plato and became a fundamental aspect of Greek thought and philosophy. In the Middle Ages, scholars such as Thomas Aquinas refused to blindly accept much of the religious dogma promoted by Church officials, and insisted on evaluating such matters critically. Aquinas, with his method of systematic cross-examination of beliefs, demonstrated the power of reason in supporting faith, showing that those who think critically need not reject established beliefs, but only those beliefs that lack reasonable foundations. During the Renaissance and Enlightenment, reason took on a central role and was the main point of several key works of literature. Francis Bacon’s The Advancement of Learning is considered by many to be the first written argument for critical thinking, and Rules for the Direction of the Mind by Rene Descartes followed shortly afterward, another key work in developing the concept of critical thinking (Paul, Elder, and Bartell, 1997). Building on these foundations, critical thinkers such as Isaac Newton, Adam Smith, and Thomas Jefferson were able to reach beyond the boundaries of previously accepted science, economics, and politics, demonstrating the power of critical thinking to revolutionize the world in which we live. Others, such as Karl Marx and Charles Darwin, show us that such power can be used—like any other tool—for good or ill. Perhaps fear of such power led to the tendency for our school system to back away from promoting critical thinking and rely instead on teaching methods designed to create orthodoxy of thought. In the twentieth century, education critics such as William Sumner warned that such orthodoxy produced a culture of “broad fallacies, half truths, and glib generalizations” (Folkways, p. 630) and maintained that “Education in the critical faculty is the only education of which it can be truly said that it makes good citizens” (p. 633). Sumner’s work was influential on John Dewey, whose philosophy is one of the pillars of public education in America today. Another pillar of twentieth-century education, Piaget, also recognized the importance of critical thinking skills in his Theory of Cognitive Development (1970). However, he believed that not all students have reached a level of cognitive development that is conducive to thinking critically. Not until Stage 3 on the Piaget scale, “Concrete Operations,” is such thinking possible, and then only on a limited level. It is in Stage 4, “Formal Operations,” that people can reason abstractly, which is an essential component of true critical thinking according to Piaget’s definition. It has been estimated that only a third of adults ever make it to the formal operations 1

stage (Huitt and Hummel, 2003), but whether this is a limiting factor in CTS education or is caused by a lack of age-appropriate CTS education has not been determined. According to some early childhood development specialists, it is never too early to introduce CTS (Black, 2005). Studies have shown that fourth and fifth graders are capable of formal operations (Hudgins and Edelman, 1986). In the twenty-first century, a plethora of literature about critical thinking has emerged as efforts are made to codify CTS into a testable format that can be scientifically applied in all subject areas. In this respect, although the concept of critical thinking is thousands of years old, teaching CTS is actually the new frontier of education and is still more of an art than a science. AN INTRODUCTION TO CRITICAL THINKING SKILLS When directed to include more CTS in their classrooms, most teachers have no idea where to begin. Although it is commonly accepted nowadays that CTS are important, an exact definition of what they are and a precise methodology for their instruction are lacking. There are many definitions of CTS—too many, perhaps—and this causes much of the confusion. In its simplest definition, CT is “thinking about thinking,” or metacognition. Simply asking a student Why? can promote critical thinking, and many educators incorporate this strategy and believe that they’ve fulfilled the directive to teach CTS. Others look to Bloom’s Taxonomy as a guide to defining CTS. Using this system, knowledge and comprehension are considered basic levels of thinking, while application, analysis, synthesis, and evaluation are classified as higher-level thinking. By some definitions, “higher-level” and “critical” are synonymous and the focus then becomes including these higher Bloom levels in the classroom (Paziotopoulos and Kroll, 2004). Not everyone agrees with these definitions. Stanley Ivie states that requiring children to memorize Dewey’s six steps of scientific problem solving or Bloom’s six levels of thinking is “not only an exercise in futility but the antithesis of critical thinking.” He proposes his own sixlevel model for teaching CTS which include a central question, three positions, a proposition, reasoning and evidence, assumptions, and metaphor (Ivie, 2002). Other educators include factors such as creativity and flexibility as components of the CTS definition. The American School Board (ASB) includes “observing, interpreting, associating, problem solving, and flexible thinking” in its list of CTS, and argues that arts education has a significant positive impact on critical thinking and learning (ASB, 2007). Richard Paul and his colleagues at CFCT, along with others in this field, put more emphasis on the concept of critical in the Socratic sense—criticizing, or critiquing, the assumptions that underlie any thought. This definition begins by breaking the CTS into two categories: cognitive skills and affective skills. The cognitive skills relate to reasoning and mental operations, while the affective skills have more to do with the student’s behavior and social interactions. Both are of equal importance, since a person’s frame of mind will invariably affect the way he or she approaches a problem’s solution. Cognitive CTS include such skills as developing criteria for evaluation of information and assumptions, raising and pursuing significant questions, and developing and analyzing arguments and theories. Affective CTS include the ability to think independently and fairly, explore underlying thoughts and feelings, and develop intellectual integrity (Black, 2005). Critical thinking thus becomes an exercise in self-examination. “Critical thinking is the 2

art of analyzing and evaluating thinking with a view to improving it” (Paul and Elder, 2006). The person engaged in critical thinking will ask himself a number of questions that impact both the cognitive and affective domains (Paul and Willsen, n.d.): What is the purpose of my thinking? •

What precise question am I trying to answer?

•

Within what point of view am I thinking?

•

What information am I using?

•

How am I interpreting that information?

•

What concepts or ideas are central to my thinking?

•

What conclusions am I coming to?

•

What am I taking for granted, what assumptions am I making?

•

If I accept the conclusions, what are the implications?

•

What would the consequences be, if I put my thought into action?

By any definition, how successfully are CTS being incorporated in the classroom? Mary Kennedy conducted some research into classroom practices (Kennedy, 1991) and identified five trends: •

National assessments show that American students can practice basic skills but cannot reason effectively on a higher level

•

Textbooks in America typically focus on facts but avoid analysis of bigger ideas

•

Teachers in America teach most content for exposure rather than understanding

•

Teachers tend to avoid thought-provoking activities and stick to predictable routines, producing students who are incapable of intellectual work

•

Teachers tend to teach material the same way it was taught to them, making it difficult to significantly change teaching practices in America

Although a greater emphasis is now being placed on CTS, most teachers still have only a vague idea of how to teach them, largely because they themselves were not educated in classrooms that consistently modeled the use of CTS. For this reason, CTS instruction is being added into the curriculum—much like adding a layer of frosting to a cake—but the overall paradigm of education has not changed. THE IMPORTANCE OF CRITICAL THINKING IN CHRISTIAN EDUCATION “Students who have been able to explore why the wrong idea is wrong have a more secure and deeper understanding of why the right idea is right” (Osborne, 2010). Without the ability to think critically, people are much more likely to fall prey to propaganda, advertising claims, false teachers, political messiahs, and all of the other traps that have been set for the unwary and the gullible. For this reason, nearly three centuries ago the 3

Massachusetts colony adopted the “Ol’ Deluder Satan Act” to establish the first public school system in America and ensure that their children would be able to read the Bible and critically evaluate the teachings of the world in its light. Today, however, in a society where instant gratification has become the norm and television has replaced reading as the primary source of entertainment and information, fewer demands are made upon children to think for themselves. Our culture has moved away from the Biblical foundations of the public education system, and schools teach our children to read and write but not to think about what they are reading and writing in the context of God’s revealed Truth. As C. S. Lewis pointed out several times in his children’s story, The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe, schools stopped teaching logic as a formal discipline and, at the same time, the church accepted the lie that faith and reason were antonyms. In the twenty-first century, students face the added challenge of life in the electronic age. With instant access to more information—and misinformation—than ever before possible, students are in need of the ability to critically evaluate and process that information. Dubbed “the new literacies” by Donald Leu, certain of the CTS have become as vital to life and success in the Internet Age as the “Three R’s” were in the Industrial Age (Leu, Kinzer, Coiro, Cammack, 2004). FOUR STRATEGIES TO TEACH AND ENHANCE CRITICAL THINKING SKILLS Four primary teaching strategies recur in journal articles related to CTS. These are: writing, questioning, cooperative learning, and use of technology. Ideally, a classroom teacher would incorporate all four of these strategies in order to maximize opportunities for students to think critically. The major obstacles to implementation are teacher training and time constraints. This section will summarize the research for each of these strategies and discuss them in relation to Park Avenue Christian Academy. Strategy #1: Using Writing to Enhance CTS Writing is ordinarily taught in the context of the English Language Arts and focuses on the ability to communicate ideas using standard grammar and mechanics. When used purposefully to stimulate reflection, however, writing has the ability to enhance the development of CTS in every subject area. The impact of writing across the curriculum is significant in developing CTS. Students who journal or use other writing assignments to explain their reasoning in math, science, and even PE classes are more likely to think critically about their assignments. For this reason, writing should not be viewed as enhancement but as foundational to every subject (Baker, Barstack, Clark, et al, 2008). According to a team at Washington State University, a well-developed rubric system is foundational to improving CTS when assigning writing projects. Their study showed that courses using such a rubric demonstrated positive, measurable, and immediate results in students’ CTS scores (Kelly, Brown, Condon, and Law, 2001). Another study points out the positive impact that a school librarian can have on CTS by helping teachers and students plan writing projects around questions that require higher levels of thinking (Pentland, 2010). Journal writing can be used in conjunction with many assignments, including drama. 4

First-person writing coupled with role-play forces a student to think critically and creatively about assignments by making a personal connection to the material (Philbin and Myers, 1991). Writing can also be used to include every student in a discussion. Rather than calling on students who may not have had adequate time to think critically about their answers, the teacher poses questions before, during, and after an activity and has the students record their answers. Students then share their writing and get feedback into their thought processes from the teacher and their peers (Brown, 2010). Journal writing is only one form of writing that enhances CTS. Another is the creation of charts such as the I-chart. Because charts involve planning, interaction, integration of information, and evaluation, they are good tools for promoting CTS (Hoffman, 1992). One essential feature of writing to promote CTS is the inclusion of “personal reflection” as a required element. Students must go beyond factual reports and explain their own reactions to their research projects (Jorgensen and Hansen, 2004). PACA CONNECTION: Teachers should be encouraged to use a variety of writing assignments in all subject areas and to require students to make personal connections to these assignments by recording their thoughts on the subjects and not merely the facts. Journals, charts, role play, and research projects can all be used to enhance CTS. Strategy #2: Using Cooperative Learning to Enhance CTS Proponents of collaborative/cooperative learning claim that the active exchange of ideas within small groups not only increases interest among the participants but also promotes CTS. The students are responsible for one another’s learning as well as their own. Thus, the success of one student helps other students be successful. Test results (at the college level) show that students in collaborative learning groups perform better on questions that test critical thinking, although there was not a significant difference on drill-and-practice test items (Gokhale, 1995). Some subject areas lend themselves naturally to cooperative-learning activities. Social studies teachers, for example, can help students think critically about the cultures they are exploring using drama and role playing. By working together to recreate a culture, students not only solve problems as individuals but share their thought processes with the rest of the group, helping one another develop CTS. One danger inherent in an activity of this sort is the possibility that students will rewrite history based on their own personal experiences (in effect, avoiding the problem rather than solving it), so close teacher monitoring of the process is necessary (Philbin and Myers, 1991). By allowing students to work cooperatively to explore a new concept before the teacher explains it, teachers provide additional opportunities for CTS. Students should be given enough prior knowledge and tools to succeed in a task, and then be allowed time to work it out for themselves and discuss their reasoning with their teammates. Teachers should then bring closure to the activity by reviewing student answers and revising them as needed (Brown, 2010). When using cooperative learning groups, it is most effective if each student has a clearly defined role. Real-life problems chosen by the group increase interest levels and active participation. After completing a project, students should be given the opportunity to present their findings in a number of creative ways, and to share these publicly (Khalid, 2010). In cooperative learning, teachers serve primarily as facilitators and coaches. Teachers design problems in such a way as to focus on desired learning outcomes. During the lesson itself, teachers need to coach students in the right direction. Finally, a teacher needs to provide the 5

group with feedback that goes beyond grades, encouraging students to self-evaluate and make appropriate modifications. These methods, if used consistently, result in measurable improvements in CTS and overall achievement (Thomas, 2009). In general, students are more likely to participate in discussions when they take place in small groups rather than whole-class environments. Training of both teachers and students increases the success of cooperative learning groups. Teachers should model techniques such as evidence gathering beforehand, but should refrain from leading the discussion; their primary role is to help the group stay on task (Hudgins and Edelman, 1986). Cooperative learning groups can be implemented across the curriculum. A music class where students were given a familiar song and asked to create a new arrangement serves as one example of how student-centered classrooms promote CTS (Blair, 2009). A study from Thailand shows that development of CTS in a classroom depends heavily on a teacher’s CTS, and that teachers who facilitate students in working cooperatively and encourage them to share their own knowledge with one another have the greatest success in teaching CTS (Rumpagaporn and Darmawan, 2007). Physical education is another subject where cooperative learning is often used (in the form of team sports), and CTS can also be taught in this context. Games should be viewed not merely as exercises to develop physical strength and teamwork, but also as opportunities for students to engage in CTS. Teachers should encourage students to think about the strategies they choose and evaluate their effectiveness (Everhart, 2010). Math classes can also benefit from cooperative learning as students are pressed to explain their reasoning in solving problems. The key is for teachers to develop complex problems that allow for more than one method of reaching the correct answer, and to ask students probing questions about their choices. As students work collaboratively to solve these problems, CTS are engaged (Kazemi and Stipek, 2001). CTS are learned skills rather than innate abilities, and the process for teaching them is just that: a process. One essential element in this process is modeling of CTS by the teacher and within cooperative learning groups. Staff development is vital in the process because most teachers know how to think critically but not how to teach CTS (Snyder, 2008). Finally, technology is most effective in enhancing CTS when computers are used collaboratively rather than in isolation. The internet allows students to work in groups within a classroom and over long distances, having real-time discussions that were previously impossible. There are a number of collaborative websites and other projects available online that help promote 21st-century literacy skills and develop CTS (Leu, 2001). Students can also use new technologies such as email, texting, and discussion boards to work cooperatively (Scarce, 1997). PACA CONNECTION: Cooperative learning seems to deliver the most “bang for the buck” where CTS is concerned, increasing student interest, participation, and success as well as enhancing CTS. Cooperative learning can be used with students of any age, although younger students require more active teacher involvement. It is therefore likely that this strategy will be used more often in the upper elementary and middle school grades. With inservice training, teachers will be able to more effectively implement cooperative learning in their classrooms. It is recommended that this be our focus during the 2011-2012 school year. Strategy #3: Using Technology to Enhance CTS Technology, particularly communications technology, is evolving too rapidly for 6

education research to keep up with it. Many teachers have been incorporating these developments into their classrooms and sharing their findings online rather than in traditional journals, however, and the tech-craze is “going viral” in classrooms around the world. Teachers have found that students are more likely to participate enthusiastically in assignments that incorporate the latest gadgets; the challenge then becomes providing these gadgets to all students equally. In the 1990s, teachers began using email, instant messaging, and chat rooms as a forum for class discussions. One advantage of electronic discussion boards is that students who are shy in class are given ample time to think about and formulate their responses, which increases both participation and CTS. Also, use of communications technology frees up class time for other activities (Scarce, 1997). Research shows that many students are dependent on the internet for information, but are not thinking critically about that information. Efforts need to be made to ensure that CTS are taught in conjunction with technology; technology alone does not promote CTS but is a tool like any other for enhancing CTS (Peck, 2002). Critical thinkers raise vital questions and formulate them clearly; they gather and assess relevant information; they use abstract reasoning to interpret information; they come to wellreasoned conclusions and test them against established criteria; and they think open-mindedly about all data, considering their assumptions, implications, and practical consequences. In order for teachers to use technology to develop these skills in students, they must first be trained in both the use of the technology and in practical reasoning. Familiarity with available resources such as webquests, podcasts, white papers, etc. is necessary (Mosenson and Johnson, 2008). Although students can learn some CTS indirectly, students who receive direct instruction in CTS show a statistically significant advantage. Software programs (such as the University of Melbourne’s Reason!Able program) have been developed specifically to teach CTS and have been shown to be effective (Van Gelder, 2001). Whether or not specific technologies are used to enhance CTS, research shows that students must be taught to use CTS when approaching technology. Before teachers can teach these skills to students, they must themselves be “critically literate,” but college programs do not typically provide prospective teachers with these skills. Combining technology with critical thinking education is seen by some as the most important preparation for success after school (Hlinka, Lovall-Cole, et al, 2004). While most internet use is geared toward older students, research shows that early information literacy instruction promotes CTS and children as young as three should be taught information literacy as part of their reading readiness education. A helpful factor in teaching early literacy skills is to utilize the school librarian and media specialist. By fourth grade, students should be able to access, evaluate, and use information acquired from nonfiction sources (Heider, 2008). Technology allows students to explore areas of inquiry that would not be otherwise possible, expanding their opportunities to exercise CTS. Virtual reality is one area of technology that challenges students to solve real-world problems, such as pollution. Using virtual reality, middle school students can have the opportunity to conduct CTS-intensive science experiments that would be too costly or dangerous in the real world (Ketelhut, et al, 2010). Older students can benefit from instruction in recognizing bias and perspective in the material they discover online. Two strategies for teaching CTS to evaluate online materials are “Key Media Literacy Questions” and CRITIC (claim, role of claimant, information backing the 7

claim, test, independent agreement, cause proposed). These techniques can be adapted to any form of media and are especially important in a media-driven culture such as ours (Thier, 2008). Another field that can be used to teach CTS is media advertising. Using activities such as the “Bubble” project, upper elementary teachers can teach their students to identify propaganda techniques in advertising. A combination of slides, internet, television, and digital photography can be used to stimulate critical thinking (Gainer and Kinard, 2009). Students now conduct most of their research on the internet rather than in the library. A simple six-step process can be used to teach them to use CTS when viewing and choosing information online. The key component of this process is the hands-on use of model internet sites, many of which provide misinformation designed to look valid. Continued hands-on work and application is essential to continue learning in this important use of technology to teach CTS (Heil, 2005). Another thought to keep in mind when considering technology’s impact on CTS is the fact that the computer allows students to write more quickly and revise their papers more efficiently, thus better expressing their thoughts and allowing them to devote more mental energy to CTS. A June 2005 article in the Journal of Secondary Gifted Education shows that high school boys, in particular, write longer and more complex essays when allowed to use a computer as opposed to writing longhand. Most articles agree that students must be taught effective strategies for locating and engaging with material on the Internet. Julie Coiro’s research with sixth-grade students suggests that Internet text demands higher levels of inferential reasoning and comprehension monitoring activities to help readers stay on task. She suggests that teachers anticipate these problems in the lesson-planning stage by conducting an Internet search and capturing an image of the first few entries, then using questions and think-aloud modeling to help students critically examine each entry (Coiro, 2005). The goal of CTS is to move students beyond comprehension of their reading and into analysis of how and why the author developed the text. There are major differences between traditional information texts (which the school curriculum committee or other reliable authority has already evaluated in these areas) and Internet texts. Young readers are often deceived or persuaded to believe what they read because of the way information is published on the Internet (layout, graphics, etc. can make a site look authoritative or “official” when it is not). Even teachers struggle with being able to differentiate fact from opinion while reading on the Internet. Developmentally-appropriate CT strategies should be incorporated into classroom instruction (Coiro, 2003). PACA CONNECTION: Teachers need to be made aware of the need for close monitoring of student research on the Internet and the need for critical evaluation of material found there. Direct instruction along the lines suggested by Coiro and others should be part of the curriculum for the Computer Lab. Technology in-services and other professional development opportunities could be used to help teachers develop strategies for assisting students to approach technology more critically. Strategy #4: Using Socratic Questioning Techniques to Enhance CTS Socratic questioning asks open-ended questions designed to challenge students to examine their own assumptions. Instead of asking “What is 2+2?” a teacher could ask, “How do you know that 2+2=4 and why is that important?” According to Matthew Lipman, teachers can 8

promote a form of inquiry that will develop CTS through the use of philosophy and holistic thinking. He states that thinking only becomes a good practice when it incorporates selfcorrectiveness through inquiry (Lipman, 1993). This type of self-examination is at the heart of critical thinking. For CTS to develop in students, therefore, they must be actively engaged in problemsolving activities and must be taught (through modeling) to ask good questions. One key to developing CTS is teacher questioning on a higher level (application, analysis, synthesis, evaluation). CTS are best taught in an environment that utilizes effective questioning techniques (Snyder, 2008). CTS are not just for academic subjects, but can also apply in classroom management situations such as behavior problems. Most behavior management techniques that teachers employ do all the thinking for the child. Questioning can be used to teach students to employ CTS in conflict resolution; studies show that good problem solvers are also more socially competent (Shure, 2006). Although teachers spend a great deal of classroom time asking questions, most of the questions ask students to recall basic facts. Statistics show that students later remember only 1020% of what was covered through this type of questioning, but recall 80-85% of the material learned as the result of higher-level questions. However, teachers are inadequately prepared to incorporate higher-level questioning into their classroom practices (Savage, 1998). Questioning is effective when leading to two types of discovery: guided discovery and convergent discovery. In the first, the teacher acts as facilitator and asks guiding questions to help students achieve the learning objective. In the second, the teacher becomes an observer as the students work to figure out the problem for themselves. Both methods can be used effectively in a variety of subject areas, including physical education (a ropes course is given as an example). (Blitzer, 1995) Although transitioning from a more structured (i.e. teacher-directed) methodology to a less structured (i.e. student-directed) one can be difficult in some settings (such as a science lab), students can become comfortable making decisions related to their learning if the teacher plans the transition and continues to provide guidance and feedback in the form of probing questions (Colburn, 2008). The use of essential questions that are open ended and do not have a simple or fact-based answer will encourage multiple perspectives when analyzing and evaluating information to reach a conclusion. As students work through their responses to thought-provoking essential questions, they are able to use social technologies that foster exploration, collaboration, networking, and information sharing. This allows them to connect learning with their own personal experience as well as develop the ability to depend less on learned assumptions and more toward CTS (Brown, 2009). Teachers can also ask these questions to help students identify propaganda and discrepant events (Cook, 1991). Students can be taught to use CTS beyond the classroom and apply them to their daily lives. Stanley Ivie’s six-level model of critical thinking education concludes that all of our thinking revolves around metaphors; change our metaphors and our whole way of thinking changes. This model begins with asking a Central Question and questioning is an integral part of the model throughout (Ivie, 2002). Questioning can be further broken down into three levels of inquiry: aesthetic, creative, and critical. These combine to promote a type of CT that is “a reasonable reflective thinking 9

focused on deciding what to believe or do” and helps students make thoughtful and confident decisions (Lampert, 2006). Although Lampert relates these types of inquiry to the art classroom, every area of life has elements of aesthetics and students who learn to articulate why they like or dislike something are more likely to use CTS in making daily decisions outside the classroom. Socratic questioning not only challenges students to question their aesthetic values, but also engages them in argument (in the classic sense of the word), requiring them to continuously reflect upon their initial ideas and use new and prior knowledge to support their beliefs. When teachers engage in argumentative dialogue with students and are perceived to endorse independent critical thinking, “students do appear to have a deeper engagement and greater satisfaction with their . . . learning” (Osborne, 2010). PACA CONNECTION: Socratic questioning does require more classroom time than traditional closed-end or even higher-level questioning techniques. Teachers would benefit from an inservice activity on effective methods for incorporating the Socratic method in the classroom. Ultimately, good questioning techniques and models are integral to CTS development in every model (collaborative learning, technology integration, etc.) and should be part of the long term plan for implementation of this project. More importantly, Socratic questioning will help students strengthen their faith by forcing them to examine and internalize their beliefs.

REFERENCES American School Board. Art improves critical thinking. American School Board Journal, May 2007, p. 8. Baker, William; Barstack, Renee; Clark, Diane; Hull, Elizabeth; Goodman, Ben; Kook, Judy; Kraft, Kaatje; Ramakrishna, Pushpa; Roberts, Elisabeth; Shaw, Jerome; Weaver, David; and Lang, Michael. Writing-to-learn in the inquiry-science classroom: effective strategies from middle school science and writing teachers. The Clearing House, Vol.81, Issue 3, 2008, pp. 105108. Black, Susan. Teaching students to think critically. The Education Digest. Feb 2005, pp 42-47. Blair, Deborah. Stepping aside: teaching in a student-centered music classroom. Music Educator’s Journal, Vol 95, Issue 3, 2009, pp. 42-45. Blitzer, Laura. It’s a gym class...what’s there to think about? JOPERD. August 1995. pp. 44-48. Brown, Karen. Questions for the 21st century learner. Knowledge Quest. Volume 38, No 1. Sept/Oct 2009. pp.24-27. Brown, Timothy M. Enhancing elementary students’ experiences learning about circuits using an exploration-explanation instructional sequence. Science Activities, Vol. 47, 2010, pp. 54-57. Coiro, Julie. Making sense of online text. Educational Leadership. October 2005, pp. 30-35.

10

Coiro, Julie. Rethinking comprehension strategies to better prepare students for critically evaluating content on the internet. The NERA Journal, Vol 39 (2). 2003. pp. 29-34. Colburn, Alan. The prepared practitioner: bridging educational theory and practice. The Science Teacher. December 2008. pp. 12-13. Cook, Jimmie E. Events, words, and critical thinking. Teaching K-8. February 1991. Everhart, Brett and Kimberly. Using cylinder ball to emphasize tactics and critical thinking in territorial sports. Journal of Physical Education, Recreation & Dance. 81, 3, March 2010, pp. 12-15. Gainer, Jesse S; Valdez-Gainer, Nancy; and Kinard, Timothy. The elementary bubble project: exploring critical media literacy in a fourth grade classroom. The Reading Teacher. Vol. 68 (2), 2009, pp. 674-683. Gokhale, Anuradha A. Collaborative learning enhances critical thinking. Journal of Technology Information, Volume 7, Fall 1995. Heider, Kelly L. Information literacy: the missing link in early childhood education. Early childhood education journal. Vol 36, No 6, 2008, pp. 513-518. Heil, Delilah. The internet and student research: teaching critical evaluation skills. Teacher Librarian. Vol. 33(2), December 255, pp. 26-29. Hlinka, Lovall-Cole, Sly, Wright, and Wright. Technology’s effect on capacities and dispositions in education. http://students.ed.uiuc (University of Illinois/Champaign-Urbana), Fall 2004. Hoffman, James V. Critical reading/thinking across the curriculum: using I-charts to support learning. Language Arts, Vol. 69, Feb. 1992, pp. 121-127. Hudgins, Bryce and Edelman, Sybil. Theahing critical thinking skills to fourth and fifth graders through teacher-led small group discussions. Journal of Educational Research, Vol 79, No 6, July/August 1986, pp. 333-341. Ivie, Stanley D. Metaphor: a model for teaching critical thinking. Contemporary Education. Vol. 72, No. 1. 2002. pp. 18-22. Jorgensen, Lone Morris and Hansen, Sally. Assessing reflection through portfolios. Thinking Classroom, Vol 5, Oct 2004, pp. 5-11. Kazimi, Elham and Stipek, Deborah. Promoting conceptual thinking in four upper-elementary mathematics classrooms. The Elementary School Journal, Vol 102, Issue 1, 2001, pp.123-138. Kelly, Diane; Brown, Gary; Condon, Bill; Law, Richard. Washington State University critical thinking project. WSU, 2001.

11

Kennedy, Mary. Policy issues in teaching education. Phi Delta Kappan, May 1991, pp 661–66. Ketelhut, Diana Jass; Nelson, Brian; Clarke, Jody; and Dede, Chris. A multi-user virtual environment for building and assessing higher-order inquiry skills in science. British Journal of Education Technology, Vol 41, No 1, 2010, pp. 56-68. Khalid, Tahsin. An integrated inquiry activity in an elementary teaching methods classroom. Science Activities, Vol 47, 2010, pp.29-34. Lampert, Nancy. Enhancing critical thinking with aesthetic, critical, and creative inquiry. Art Education. September 2006. pp. 46-50. Leader, Lars and James Middleton. Promoting critical thinking dispositions by using problem solving in middle school. Research in Middle Education Online. Vol 28 Issue 1. 2004. pp. 55-71. Leu, Donald J. Jr. Internet project: preparing students for new literacies in a global village. The Reading Teacher, March 2001. Leu, Donald; Kinzer, Charles; Coiro, Julie; and Cammack, Diane. Toward a theory of New Literacies emerging from the internet and other information and communication technologies. Reading Online, April 2004. http://www.readingonline.org/newliteracies/lit_index.asp?HREF=/newliteracies/leu Lipman, Matthew. Promoting better classroom thinking. Educational Psychology. Vol. 13, Issue 3/4. 1993. pp. 291-303. McVerry, J. Gregory, Lisa Zawilinski and W. Ian O’Byrne. Navigating the Cs of change. Educational Leadership. Vol. 67. Sept. 9, 2009. Mentoring Minds. Research for Mentoring Minds’ critical thinking wheel. Mosenson, Andrea B. and Johnson, Julie M. Instructional strategies and resources - exploring the use of technology. Journal of family consumer sciences education. Vol. 26, 2008, pp. 17-35. Osborne, Jonathan Francis. An argument for arguments in science class. Kappan. V91, N4. Dec 2009/Jan 2010. pp. 62-65. Paul, Richard; A.J.A. Binker; and Daniel Weil. Introduction to remodeling: components of remodels and their functions. Critical Thinking Handbook: K-3rd Grades. 1995. Paul, Richard; Elder, Linda; Bartell, Ted. A brief history of critical thinking. California Teacher Preparation for Instruction in Critical Thinking: Research Findings and Policy Recommendations: State of California, California Commission on Teacher Credentialing, Sacramento CA, March 1997.

12

Paul, Richard and Willsen, Jane. Critical thinking: identifying the targets. http://www.criticalthinking.org/articles/ct-identifying-targets.cfm Paziotopoulos, Ann and Kroll, Marianne. Hooked on thinking. International Reading Association. 2004, pp 672-677. Peck, Michael D., Ph.D. Critical thinking and the internet. 2002. www.sjsu.edu/depts/SocialWork.swarc Pentland, Courtney. Nudging research projects toward critical thinking. School Library Monthly, Volume XXVI, Number 10, June 2010, pp.10-11. Philbin, M; Myers, J.S. Classroom Drama. Social Studies, Vol. 82 Issue 5, Sept-Oct 1991, pp.179-182. Rumpagaporn, Methinee Wongwanich and Darmawan, I Gusti Ngurah. Students’ critical thinking skills in a Thai ICT schools pilot project. http://iej.com.au (University of Adelaide, School of Education). Shannon Research Press, ISSN 1443-1475, 2007. Savage, Luise B. Eliciting critical thinking skills through questioning. The Clearing House. May/June 1998. pp. 291-293. Scarce, Rik. Using electronic mail discussion groups to enhance students’ critical thinking. The Technology Source. July 1997. Shure, Myrna B. Helping children solve problems: how to help children handle conflicts through problem-solving techniques. NJEA Review, 76,4. April 2006. pp. 10-11. Snyder, Lisa Gueldenzoph and Mark J. Teaching critical thinking and problem solving skills. The Delta Pi Epsilon Journal, Vol. L No. 2, Spring/Summer 2008, pp. 90-99. Sumner, William G. Folkways. 1906. Thier, Marlene. Media and Science: developing skepticism and critical thinking. Science Scope. November 2008, pp. 20-23. Thomas, Laura. From experience to meaning: the critical skills program. KAPPAN Online Exclusive (pdkintl.org), Vol 91 Number 2, October 2009, pp. 93-96. unknown. Effects of technology on critical thinking and essay writing among gifted adolescents. Journal of Secondary Gifted Education. June 22, 2005. Van Gelder, Tim. How to improve critical thinking using educational technology. Department of Philosophy, University of Melbourne, Australia, 2001. pp. 539-548.

13