Critical thinking is the process of recognizing and challenging the assumptions that we use to support our thoughts and actions. Brookfield says critical thinking examines two types of assumptions: assumptions related to our view of power relationships and hegemonic assumptions, which are accepted by the majority of people as working for their own interests when, in fact, they are constructed by minority interests to protect the status quo.
Learning to think critically involves risk and danger. Learners can feel like imposters as they challenge the assumptions they have based their thoughts and actions on for so long. As learners begin to voice what they are learning through critical thinking, they may find themselves at odds with friends and families. Facilitators should be aware of these risks and dangers, and prepared to meet with resistance form learners as they are asked to examine assumptions they are so comfortable with.
Brookfield suggests modelling critical thinking as the best method for helping learners practice critical thinking. He outlines six methods for instruction.
Teachers can user lectures to model critical thinking by “ending every lecture with a series of questions that your lecture has raised or left unanswered,” by intentionally introducing alternative perspectives, and by introducing “assumption hunting” period when the lecture allows time for the speaker to contemplate out loud the assumptions that might be supporting what is being said in the lecture (pp. 345-346).
Brookfield’s “Critical Incident Questionnaire” is a tool for learners and teachers to inquire into the learning experience. The questionnaire asks learners when they were most engaged and most distanced, what they found affirming and what they found confusing, and finally what they found surprising.
Scenario analysis presents students with a hypothetical scenario involving someone who is making a decision or initiating an action. By examining the assumptions that the hypothetical person might hold in making their decision or taking their action, learners are able to practice critical thinking with less risk than they would take in examining their own assumptions.
Brookfield suggests “Critical Debate” is another method that will help learners challenge their own assumptions without fully involving their “real” selves (p. 351). The facilitator asks for volunteers to represent each side of a contentious issue, then assigns learners not to the team they volunteered for, but to the other team. The idea is to lead learners to challenge the assumptions underlying their own opinion.
In “Structured Critical Conversation,” are able to closely examine the assumptions and individual is operating under, but it requires significant vulnerability from the learner playing the “storyteller” role. The “storyteller” is asked to focus the conversation by sharing a significant personal experience. Learners in the “detective” role then ask questions and identify the assumptions they think are at work, while learners in the “umpire” role monitor the conversation and point out when the conversation is becoming too personal or judgmental.
Brookfield provides a model for what critical reading looks like structured around four categories of questions. Epistemological questions focus on the validity of the argument presented in the literature being read. Experiential questions focus on how the literature relates to the experience of the reader and to the experience of others. Communicative questions focus on the voices present in a piece of writing and how the language used. Political questions focus on how a piece of writing may serve special interests and invoke hegemonic assumptions.
Application: Although Brookfield recommends that learners practice all three roles in ”Structured Critical Conversations,” most of the learning experiences I facilitate are too short to hope that learners will make the behaviors associated with each role into habits.
However, I think I could combine Brookfield’s roles and process with the “Fishbowl” instructional strategy. In a “Fishbowl” a small group of students discuss an issue while the rest of the class observes the conversation (Sterling and Tohe, 2017). In this hybrid approach, I would divide the class into groups. Each group would address a specific question related to an overarching topic or theme. When a group is “inside” the fishbowl, they would be playing the “storyteller” role, sharing and discussing their experiences. The groups “outside” the fishbowl would be assigned either the “detective” or “umpire” role. “Detectives” would silently take notes on the assumptions at play in the conversation and the content of the conversation. After the conversation period they would share what they learned in a class discussion. The groups playing the “umpire” role would observe and notate the conversation process looking for good and bad discussion practice, non-verbal communication and times when more facilitation was needed.
Three groups should be able to rotate through all three roles in about an hour.
Assessment: Fishbowl
In the application above, the Fishbowl process will serve as assessment as well. I will produce a form, online and on paper, which “detective” groups outside the fishbowl will use in assessing the content of and assumptions present in the conversation. I will produce another form that “umpire” groups will use to record the conversation and critical thinking skills on display. The class discussion of these elements will provide formative assessment for the learners. By collecting the forms, I will be able to examine them for patterns to inform future instruction.
References
Brookfield, StephenD. (2004). Critical Thinking Techniques. In Michael W. Galbraith (Eds.), Adult Learning Methods: A Guide for Effective Instruction (3rd Ed.) (341-360). Malabar, FL: Krieger Publishing Company.
Sterling, Shirley and Tohe, Laura (2017). Teaching Strategies: Fishbowl. In Teaching Multicultural Literature. Retrieved March 18, 2018, from https://www.learner.org/workshops/tml/workshop3/teaching2.html