Literature Review
Before finalizing specific interventions for my own students, I conducted a review of relevant theories and research related to the topic of my concern. My exploration of the literature took me from broader philosophical ideas, such as the definition of critical thinking and the view of the classroom as a community of learners, to concrete methodologies that can be used in the classroom.
Philosophical Foundations
“Critical thinking”. Since the underlying concepts that my students seem to find challenging are higher-order thinking skills – what are often labeled “critical thinking” skills – I choose to begin my literature exploration there. This was a somewhat burdensome process because, as I quickly discovered, no clear definition of the term “critical thinking skills” exists. However, there are some common threads that I discovered in my reading. Ennis (1985) considered critical thinking to be essentially “reflective and reasonable thinking that is focused on deciding what to believe or do”. He further notes that this includes the process of forming hypotheses, questions, and alternative views or solutions. Halpern (1998) also saw critical thinking as higher-order cognitive skills (i.e., those thinking skills requiring “judgment, analysis, and synthesis” and which “are not applied in a rote or mechanical manner”) that are oriented toward evaluating an outcome, decision or solution, as well as the thinking process itself. Similarly, Dixon, et al. (2004) identified critical thinking skills as the use of higher-level mental processes, specifically analysis (breaking down information), synthesis (combining or blending information into an organized thought or train of thought), and evaluation (determining what information is important). After considering the points at which these definitions converge with or complement each other, I came up with my own working definition. For purposes of this action research project, the term “critical thinking” includes the processes of analysis, synthesis, and evaluation of information gathered through reading, dialogue, or observation, and which are focused on arriving at a conclusion or solution.
Importance of critical thinking in education. But why is critical thinking so important for students? Abrami (2008) argued that critical thinking skills are vital to addressing problems within academic disciplines, such as history and mathematics, as well as the social, political, and ethical issues we each will inevitably encounter in the world. Its development is necessary academically ‘‘to favour pupils’ true comprehension of events rather than developing and maintaining a simplifying vision of the information related to these events” (Delors, 1996, p. 47). Additionally, critical thinking is fundamental to a functioning society: “in order for democracy to exist and work, citizens are required to think critically, i.e., to have the ability to make judgments of value and interact with others” (Vieria, et al., 2011). William Graham Sumner (1906) comments:
Philosophical Foundations
“Critical thinking”. Since the underlying concepts that my students seem to find challenging are higher-order thinking skills – what are often labeled “critical thinking” skills – I choose to begin my literature exploration there. This was a somewhat burdensome process because, as I quickly discovered, no clear definition of the term “critical thinking skills” exists. However, there are some common threads that I discovered in my reading. Ennis (1985) considered critical thinking to be essentially “reflective and reasonable thinking that is focused on deciding what to believe or do”. He further notes that this includes the process of forming hypotheses, questions, and alternative views or solutions. Halpern (1998) also saw critical thinking as higher-order cognitive skills (i.e., those thinking skills requiring “judgment, analysis, and synthesis” and which “are not applied in a rote or mechanical manner”) that are oriented toward evaluating an outcome, decision or solution, as well as the thinking process itself. Similarly, Dixon, et al. (2004) identified critical thinking skills as the use of higher-level mental processes, specifically analysis (breaking down information), synthesis (combining or blending information into an organized thought or train of thought), and evaluation (determining what information is important). After considering the points at which these definitions converge with or complement each other, I came up with my own working definition. For purposes of this action research project, the term “critical thinking” includes the processes of analysis, synthesis, and evaluation of information gathered through reading, dialogue, or observation, and which are focused on arriving at a conclusion or solution.
Importance of critical thinking in education. But why is critical thinking so important for students? Abrami (2008) argued that critical thinking skills are vital to addressing problems within academic disciplines, such as history and mathematics, as well as the social, political, and ethical issues we each will inevitably encounter in the world. Its development is necessary academically ‘‘to favour pupils’ true comprehension of events rather than developing and maintaining a simplifying vision of the information related to these events” (Delors, 1996, p. 47). Additionally, critical thinking is fundamental to a functioning society: “in order for democracy to exist and work, citizens are required to think critically, i.e., to have the ability to make judgments of value and interact with others” (Vieria, et al., 2011). William Graham Sumner (1906) comments:
The critical habit of thought, if usual in a society, will pervade all its mores, because it is a way of taking up problems in life. Men educated in it cannot be stampeded by stump orators… They are slow to believe. They can hold things as possible or probable in all degrees, without certainty and without pain. They can wait for evidence and weigh evidence, uninfluenced by the emphasis or confidence with which assertions are made on one side or the other. They can resist the appeal to their dearest prejudices and all kinds of cajolery. Education in critical faculty is the only education of which it can be truly said that it makes good citizens.
By actively promoting critical thinking skills in school, young people will be better prepared to be responsible, independent thinkers amidst the rigorous challenges that await them both in school and in the global society.
Classroom community. Critical thinking skills clearly have a place in the classroom, but moving from theory into reality can seem like a daunting task. However, when the classroom is seen through the lens of community and collaboration, the translation becomes clearer. Philosopher and pragmatist John Dewey (1897) viewed “school as a form of community life” because it allows the students to reach out beyond their naturally egocentric mental limits. By participating in dialogue and other interactions with their peers, students begin to see the value of their own thoughts and activities. The classroom then becomes a community of inquiry in which students become actively involved in discovering and piecing together meaning or knowledge about a particular problem or condition (Dewey, 1938). This process of discovery and synthesis of knowledge and meaning is what brings about real education (Lipman, Sharp & Oscanyan, 1980). Students “will not acquire such meaning merely by learning the contents of adult knowledge. They must be taught to think and, in particular, to think for themselves” (p. 13). Seeing the classroom as a community of learners is key to creating an environment where critical thinking skills can flourish; students who are allowed and encouraged to collaborate with each other and discover knowledge for themselves move from passive receptacles to engaged, active learners.
When students move from being passive receivers of information to active participants in their education, whether through forming questions of their own or discussing those of their peers, the teacher’s role changes as well. Instead of being the primary speaker and the dispenser of knowledge, the teacher becomes a facilitator of knowledge. Dewey (1938) states:
Classroom community. Critical thinking skills clearly have a place in the classroom, but moving from theory into reality can seem like a daunting task. However, when the classroom is seen through the lens of community and collaboration, the translation becomes clearer. Philosopher and pragmatist John Dewey (1897) viewed “school as a form of community life” because it allows the students to reach out beyond their naturally egocentric mental limits. By participating in dialogue and other interactions with their peers, students begin to see the value of their own thoughts and activities. The classroom then becomes a community of inquiry in which students become actively involved in discovering and piecing together meaning or knowledge about a particular problem or condition (Dewey, 1938). This process of discovery and synthesis of knowledge and meaning is what brings about real education (Lipman, Sharp & Oscanyan, 1980). Students “will not acquire such meaning merely by learning the contents of adult knowledge. They must be taught to think and, in particular, to think for themselves” (p. 13). Seeing the classroom as a community of learners is key to creating an environment where critical thinking skills can flourish; students who are allowed and encouraged to collaborate with each other and discover knowledge for themselves move from passive receptacles to engaged, active learners.
When students move from being passive receivers of information to active participants in their education, whether through forming questions of their own or discussing those of their peers, the teacher’s role changes as well. Instead of being the primary speaker and the dispenser of knowledge, the teacher becomes a facilitator of knowledge. Dewey (1938) states:
The teacher is not in the school to impose certain ideas or to form certain habits in the child, but is there as a member of the community to select the influences which shall affect the child and to assist him in properly responding to these influences.
In other words, the students are the ones taking the teacher acts as facilitator and moderator of information-gathering, with the students each taking an active role in engaging in their own learning and thinking processes. As the teacher takes on an appropriately passive role, space is created to allow the students to take on more active roles. They are not apprentices in the teacher’s way of thinking, but instead formulate and voice their own ideas, opinions, and conclusions. “[T]he school environment becomes a community of learners who help one another see patterns and connections between what is currently known and their own newly constructed knowledge” (Dixon, et al., 2004). As a teacher, this means I must provide my students with a supportive but flexible structure in the classroom that encourages them to do the thinking, analyzing, and communicating in order to help them become active learners. It also means that I should model all of these processes, so that they can see an example of how a person might go about making quality observations, dialoguing with others, or drawing rational conclusions.
Classroom Methodologies
So how does one turn these philosophical ideas into reality in the elementary classroom? To answer this, and to have a more practical foothold for developing effective interventions for my students, I explored some concrete approaches to improving higher-order cognitive processes during reading in my students. In light of this, as well as the results of my needs assessments, I decided to examine the use of student-led dialogue, explicit instruction and practice with Question-Answer Relationships (QAR), and writing to promote a deeper understanding and more active approach to reading.
Classroom dialogue. I decided to explore the use of student-led dialogue first because the formation of the questions that stimulate conversation has been a part of critical thinking for centuries (e.g., the Socratic Method) and is also at the heart of John Dewey’s view of the classroom community. Daniel, et al. (2005) stated that encouraging the students to engage in questioning and conversation with their peers was key to their learning because it places the students right into the inquiry process.
Several studies have found positive correlations between Socratic-style dialogue and the strengthening of critical thinking skills among middle and high school students (cf. Mawhinney, 2000; Polite and Adams, 1997; Tanner and Casados, 1998). Tredway (1995) notes that as the junior high students in the study considered alternative and conflicting ideas in the Socratic seminars, they “think deeply and critically about concepts… [t]hey thereby refine their critical thinking skills and deepen their collective understanding of the material they discuss” (p. 26). Additionally, Chorzempa and Lapidus (2009) discuss the use of Socratic seminars to encourage evidence-based thinking in elementary classrooms. These seminars involved open, student-led discussions that were driven by questions the students themselves had generated after reading a text. The question and response cycle that occurs in Socratic dialogue activates those higher-order thinking processes that are involved in critical thinking. Chorzempa and Lapidus found that the third- and fifth-grade students who engaged in the Socratic seminars developed stronger critical thinking skills, and a deepened sense of responsibility and community.
Question-Answer Relationships. While Socratic seminars have apparent positive results in terms of critical thinking and comprehension skills, it is reasonable to think that younger students, such as my own, might need additional support in forming the questions that stimulate dialogue. Raphael (1982, 1986) developed a strategy known as Question-Answer Relationship, or QAR, that builds connections in the student’s mind between the type of question asked and the answer that responds to it. In this strategy, there are two categories of questions, each of which has two types of questions:
Figure 4 is a visual depiction of the classification of the QAR question types.
Classroom Methodologies
So how does one turn these philosophical ideas into reality in the elementary classroom? To answer this, and to have a more practical foothold for developing effective interventions for my students, I explored some concrete approaches to improving higher-order cognitive processes during reading in my students. In light of this, as well as the results of my needs assessments, I decided to examine the use of student-led dialogue, explicit instruction and practice with Question-Answer Relationships (QAR), and writing to promote a deeper understanding and more active approach to reading.
Classroom dialogue. I decided to explore the use of student-led dialogue first because the formation of the questions that stimulate conversation has been a part of critical thinking for centuries (e.g., the Socratic Method) and is also at the heart of John Dewey’s view of the classroom community. Daniel, et al. (2005) stated that encouraging the students to engage in questioning and conversation with their peers was key to their learning because it places the students right into the inquiry process.
Several studies have found positive correlations between Socratic-style dialogue and the strengthening of critical thinking skills among middle and high school students (cf. Mawhinney, 2000; Polite and Adams, 1997; Tanner and Casados, 1998). Tredway (1995) notes that as the junior high students in the study considered alternative and conflicting ideas in the Socratic seminars, they “think deeply and critically about concepts… [t]hey thereby refine their critical thinking skills and deepen their collective understanding of the material they discuss” (p. 26). Additionally, Chorzempa and Lapidus (2009) discuss the use of Socratic seminars to encourage evidence-based thinking in elementary classrooms. These seminars involved open, student-led discussions that were driven by questions the students themselves had generated after reading a text. The question and response cycle that occurs in Socratic dialogue activates those higher-order thinking processes that are involved in critical thinking. Chorzempa and Lapidus found that the third- and fifth-grade students who engaged in the Socratic seminars developed stronger critical thinking skills, and a deepened sense of responsibility and community.
Question-Answer Relationships. While Socratic seminars have apparent positive results in terms of critical thinking and comprehension skills, it is reasonable to think that younger students, such as my own, might need additional support in forming the questions that stimulate dialogue. Raphael (1982, 1986) developed a strategy known as Question-Answer Relationship, or QAR, that builds connections in the student’s mind between the type of question asked and the answer that responds to it. In this strategy, there are two categories of questions, each of which has two types of questions:
- In the Book. Answers can be found somewhere in the text.
- “Right There”. The answer is in one spot in the text, usually in one sentence.
- “Think and Search”. The answer is in more than one spot in the text; the reader needs to combine ideas and information across sentences or paragraphs.
- “Author and Me”. The answer is formed from combining information from the text and outside knowledge.
- “On My Own”. The answer is formed completely from outside knowledge; information from the text is not needed at all.
Figure 4 is a visual depiction of the classification of the QAR question types.
The QAR strategy helps students to differentiate between types of questions, thereby guiding them in their reading and answering (Caldwell and Leslie, 2005). Several studies in upper elementary, middle, and high schools have shown that QAR is effective in improving students’ reading comprehension (cf. Ezell, Hunsicker, & Quinque, M.M, 1997; Ezell, Hunsicker, Quinque, & Randolph, 1996; Ezell, Kohler, Jarzynka, & Strain, 1992; Graham & Wong, 1993; Raphael & McKinney, 1983; Raphael & Pearson, 1982, 1985; Raphael & Wonnacutt, 1985). Since this method seemed to meet the needs of my students, I decided to consider incorporating this into the first phase of my interventions.
Writing. Lastly, because writing plays such a large part in demonstrating critical thinking, and because it is a large component of my students’ apparent needs, I wanted to explore research linking the two. Writing in the classroom is often used as a vehicle for demonstrating knowledge. However, it also can assist students in the learning process as well. For example, Kelly and Farnan (1991) examined the use of student reader-response logs in promoting analytical and evaluative thinking in students. Instead of serving as merely another time for students to recall information received, these writing logs became an effective tool in evidencing student engagement in and interaction with the information they received. Also, Gammil (2006) proposes the use of the writing-to-learn method as a way to help students shape and deepen their own understanding of information by integrating problem-solving skills. “In writing to learn, students use language to shape, order, and represent their own experience to reach fuller understanding… students reflect and think critically about content.” This use of informal writing also supports students in their development as communicators as well.
After educating myself through this literature, I found some key points that helped me create a solid hypothesis for my students’ main challenge as well as some strategies for addressing their areas of need. First, I was able to come up with a more practical definition of “critical thinking” that specified the metacognitive actions of analysis, synthesis, and evaluation of information for a purpose. Second, I found that these skills are best learned when they are discovered and practiced by in an environment where learners dialogue and collaborate with each other. Third, I found three concrete methods of practicing and improving higher-order thinking skills: student-led dialogue, the QAR strategy, and writing-to-learn. All in all, these ideas came together to guide me in determining how best to identify and address the challenges my students faced.
Writing. Lastly, because writing plays such a large part in demonstrating critical thinking, and because it is a large component of my students’ apparent needs, I wanted to explore research linking the two. Writing in the classroom is often used as a vehicle for demonstrating knowledge. However, it also can assist students in the learning process as well. For example, Kelly and Farnan (1991) examined the use of student reader-response logs in promoting analytical and evaluative thinking in students. Instead of serving as merely another time for students to recall information received, these writing logs became an effective tool in evidencing student engagement in and interaction with the information they received. Also, Gammil (2006) proposes the use of the writing-to-learn method as a way to help students shape and deepen their own understanding of information by integrating problem-solving skills. “In writing to learn, students use language to shape, order, and represent their own experience to reach fuller understanding… students reflect and think critically about content.” This use of informal writing also supports students in their development as communicators as well.
After educating myself through this literature, I found some key points that helped me create a solid hypothesis for my students’ main challenge as well as some strategies for addressing their areas of need. First, I was able to come up with a more practical definition of “critical thinking” that specified the metacognitive actions of analysis, synthesis, and evaluation of information for a purpose. Second, I found that these skills are best learned when they are discovered and practiced by in an environment where learners dialogue and collaborate with each other. Third, I found three concrete methods of practicing and improving higher-order thinking skills: student-led dialogue, the QAR strategy, and writing-to-learn. All in all, these ideas came together to guide me in determining how best to identify and address the challenges my students faced.