In his essay “My 54-Year Love Affair with the SAT”, test-prep guru Stanley Kaplan explains that critical thinking is “to think things out, to think about the hows and whys” (Kaplan 267). He believes this is the most important skill to be taught to students in his SAT prep classes, and he uses several different teaching methods to accomplish this goal. He’s not alone in this belief; the authors of several other readings we’ve talked about in class also believe the skill essential to success, not just in test taking, but for education in general. Though each of these authors is teaching a myriad of learners from multiple demographics, their teaching methods still have certain characteristics in common that serve to unite them as champions of critical thinking skills in the classroom.
The first teaching method I realized these authors had in common is the usage of newspaper articles and current events as a way to encourage the development of critical thinking skills. When discussing vocabulary building activities he used to prepare students for the SAT, Kaplan claims in “My 54-Year Love Affair with the SAT” that newspapers can be a useful tool. He explains, “Each week I instructed students to cut out ten newspaper articles and underline all the challenging words. The more they read, the more powerful their vocabulary became” (Kaplan 271). Kaplan implies that critical thinking skills were used by the students in order to read and interpret the more challenging material in the newspapers, forcing them to read more and use their critical thinking skills to understand the difficult new vocabulary. Though Kaplan uses newspapers to expose students to new words, other instructors mentioned our readings use them to expose students to new concepts. In her article “Social Class and the Hidden Curriculum of Work”, Jean Anyon describes the affluent professional class of schools, claiming that social studies class work “involves almost daily presentation by the children of some event from the news” (81). The instructor guides the discussion of these events “to help [the students] see the connections between events” because, as one instructor says, “These children’s opinions are important—that they learn to reason these things through” (Anyon 84). Anyon mentions the method of using current events because it is a good example of how critical thinking skills are being taught successfully in upper class schools. This further proves her theory that the “curriculum of work” characteristic of upper class schools (as opposed to that of the lower-class schools) is actually preparing students to take on executive, professional jobs of the upper class. It is true that Anyon and Kaplan describe using current events and news media to accomplish different goals in the classroom, but in each case, their use of the material helps students a connection between themselves and the larger world—connections made possible by the critical thinking skills they’ve developed. It begs the question: could other skills such as writing be improved by the use of current events and news media in the classroom?
I also noticed that several authors mentioned that having an interdisciplinary curriculum present in the school aided their instruction of critical thinking skills thought so necessary for academic success. On their website, the American Montessori Society states that their elementary school teaching methods involve “work with the Montessori learning materials and an interdisciplinary curriculum as [the student] passes from the concrete to the abstract” (“Introduction to Montessori”). This alludes to the development of critical thinking skills, meaning proponents of the Montessori educational system believe their students are learning in their elementary school years to connect “concrete” facts in order to understand larger, “abstract” concepts. The Montessori Society mentions this curriculum in general terms, and I would like to know what specific subjects comprise their interdisciplinary approach. Another author is more specific about the fields of knowledge included in his approach and how it might improve thinking among his students. In his article “On the Uses of a Liberal Education”, Earl Shorris describes his Clemente humanities course to prospective students as comprised of “philosophy, poetry, art history, logic, rhetoric, and American history” where each subject will be instructed by “people of accomplishment” in each of their respective fields (54). He implies that each subject is an integral part of the “humanities” education each student is lacking--each of these subjects will help them build “a foundation for getting along with the world, for thinking, for learning to reflect on the world” (53). Shorris believes that all the humanities are important and intertwined. His description of how the course flows from the philosophy of Socrates to the artistic depictions of Ancient Greece mirrors the flow of connections he describe the students making between language and thought and history. From the successful outcomes mentioned in the article, Shorris demonstrates how these students became more willing and able make critical connections and learn in the Clemente course—one student even said that this was because “it was the first time anyone ever paid attention to their opinions” (58). Clearly, the interdisciplinary approach featured in Shorris’ Clemente course and the American Montessori Society model have encouraged the development of these critical thinking skills within each group of students, making this shared method critical to the success of both teaching strategies.
The concept of students becoming teachers is another teaching method valued by several authors who use the strategy to effectively promote critical thinking skills. On the American Montessori Society webpage entitled “Introduction to Montessori”, student teachers are mentioned as the “hallmark of the Montessori method”, where “older students reinforce their learning by teaching concepts they’ve already mastered”. This implies that when students become teachers they gain more skills than through instruction by the teacher alone, making this teaching method essential to the students’ development as learners. This concept is also seen in Jean Anyon’s description of the teaching methods characteristic of upper-class schools. She describes language arts instructional methods used within executive elite class of schools, outlining how each student in the class “had to plan a lesson…and explain the concept to the class” (Anyon 85). Grades were given based on the student’s style and presentation of the lesson, as well as their classroom management skills. Anyon describes this method as the predominant teaching method used in the language arts classes in this type of school, implying the following: that the leadership and critical thinking skills developed during this activity are of high priority to the executive elite students, and that such skills are crucial for the students’ development as future executive-level workers. I noticed that both authors stress the importance of developing these skills in the elementary years, so I wondered: would the student teacher method be as effective at promoting critical thinking skills in older students like those in Shorris’ Clemente course?
Another teaching method I noticed to be common among the readings we’ve read in class is the use of guided choice in student activities. The American Montessori Society mentions this as another hallmark of their teaching philosophy on their “Introduction to Montessori” webpage, claiming that “the child, through individual choice, makes use of what the [classroom] environment offers to develop himself”. By making this part of the foundation of their educational structure, the Montessori Society shows that giving students “freedom within limits” is essential to improving critical thinking. They believe that freedom encourages students to learn independently and figure things out in their own unique ways; the teacher will not always be there to tell them how to think. Shorris also mentions an instance where students chose to take over their class during the logic section of his Clemente course in the humanities, resulting in a very positive change in their reasoning skills. The logic professor gave the students a difficult problem and sat back as students went to the board to solve the problem for themselves. The discussion over the solution was intense and respectful; Shorris states: “[the character of the argument] was even more polite than it had been in the classroom, because now they governed themselves” (58). This evidence demonstrates how guided choice within the classroom led students to continue their learning even outside the classroom, making even more use of their newly developed critical thinking and logic skills than in the author’s classroom alone. Both authors speak to the effectiveness of guided choice in the classroom in promoting independent critical thought, but of all the teaching methods, I am most skeptical of this one’s effectiveness. After reading about the utility of guided choice in these instances, I thought about some of the drawbacks to guided choice in the classroom. Anyon mentions instances where classroom management became an issue for teachers employing this method in the executive elite schools, so I wonder: what disciplinary or classroom management techniques have to be used in tandem with guided choice in order to avoid chaos in the classroom? Also, is guided choice more appropriate as a teaching method for more mature students as opposed to all ages?
After noticing the similarities and differences between the teaching methods described in each article, I have to wonder at the effectiveness of introducing a novel teaching method into an established classroom and seeing how it would affect the development of critical thinking for students. While several of the methods are shared between the teachers and authors of these articles, each classroom situation seems to be missing something and could stand to be improved by the addition of a new and effective way of learning. For example, what would happen if Shorris were to begin to use current events in his humanities classes? Would that help his students to apply their new philosophy or logic concepts to their own lives in a more effective way than using hypothetical situations? Would using student teaching methods improve how students are prepared for the SAT in Kaplan’s courses? Could the “executive elite” classes benefit more from an interdisciplinary approach like that outlined by the Montessori system? It would seem that since all the authors achieved success in their classrooms by employing these different methods, they might argue that each different classroom would be positively affected by the inclusion of a novel teaching method. Each method seems to have been proven effective, so I think it would what would happen in terms of critical thinking development if a teacher were to employ all these teaching methods in one classroom.
Works Cited
Anyon, Joan. “Social Class and the Hidden Curriculum of Work.” Journal of Education 162.1 (1980): 67-92.
Kaplan, Stanley. “My 54-Year Love Affair with the SAT.” Considering Literacy: Reading and Writing the Educational Experience. Ed. Linda Adler-Kassner. New York: Pearson, 2006. 265-273. Print.
Shorris, Earl. “On the Uses of a Liberal Education.” Harper’s September 1997: 50-60. Print.
“Introduction to Montessori.” American Montessori Society. American Montessori Society, n.d. Web. 1 March 2013.
No comments:
Post a Comment