June 30, 2014

Critical Thinking in the Intermediate Classroom: Developing Teaching

Strategies for Grade 6 Language Arts

Submitted to the Faculty of the School of Education

In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the
Degree of Master of Education in Leadership and Administration
At
Gonzaga University
Spokane, Washington
(Date of Pro Sem)

By
Two Students
KVP 8
Dr. Jerri Shepard
i

6/30/14 Critical Thinking/Petersen & Marrs

ii

6/30/14 Critical Thinking/Petersen & Marrs

I certify that I have read this manuscript and that, in my judgment,

it is adequate in scope and quality for the degree of
Master of Education in Leadership and Administration.

Second Reader Name, degree

Dr. Jerri Shepard, degree

iii

6/30/14 Critical Thinking/Petersen & Marrs

Acknowledgments
Words of thanks to those you wish to acknowledge. (optional)

iv

6/30/14 Critical Thinking/Petersen & Marrs

Dedication

This work is dedicated

to

(also optional)

6/30/14 Critical Thinking/Petersen & Marrs

Abstract
The abstract serves as a brief, comprehensive summary of the contents of your
research project: the purpose of the curriculum, rationale, key ideas from the
literature, and a brief description of the curricular considerations. More
information about writing abstracts is available in the APA manual (6 th Edition)
on pages 25-27. The abstract should not exceed 120 words.

vi

6/30/14 Critical Thinking/Petersen & Marrs

Table of Contents
Chapter I - Introduction
Background

Rationale

Purpose

Developmental Statement

Operational Definitions

Summary

Chapter II - Review of the Literature

Introduction

21st Century Learners

Critical Thinking in Education

11

Teaching Critical Thinking in Elementary Classrooms

Summary

20
25

Chapter III Methodology

Considerations for Curriculum Development
Needs Assessment

27
27

Participants and Setting

29
vii

6/30/14 Critical Thinking/Petersen & Marrs

Data Collection Instrument and Process

30

Data Analysis

30

Conclusions

31

Target Audience

31

Guidelines for Curriculum Design

31

Procedures and Timeline

33

Summary

33

Chapter IV - Findings/Results
Chapter V- Conclusions
List of Figures
Figure 1. Needs Assessment Survey

30

Figure 2. Implementation of Procedure

33

References
Appendixes
Appendix A and B: Gonzaga University Student Responsibility
Forms
Appendix C and D: Gonzaga University IRB Forms
Appendix E and F: Tri-Council Policy Statement Certificates and
National Institutes of Health Certificates
viii

6/30/14 Critical Thinking/Petersen & Marrs

ix

June 30, 2014

Chapter I
Critical Thinking Teaching Strategies for the Elementary Classroom
Technology has revolutionized our lives and our society. If we want
information on any given topic, we can have access to it nearly instantaneously,
on a myriad of devices. Our elementary-aged children do not know of a world
where information is not readily available to them at their fingertips. This is
why our current model of content-driven education may be failing to adequately
prepare them for their future. Educators today "don't know all the information
that today's students will need or all the answers to the questions they will face."
(Treffinger, 2008, p.1). In other words, how we teach children to think about
what they are learning has become just as important as what (i.e. the content) we
are teaching them.
The reality for the job market today is that by the time our students enter
the work force, they "must be able to find and analyze information, often
coming from multiple sources, and use this information to make decisions and
create new ideas" (Silva, 2009, p.631). Much of the global economy is driven
by information and technology. This economy places demands on adaptable
intellectual skills, the ability to analyze information and integrate various
sources of knowledge in solving problems. Critical thinking in our schools
1

Commented [JS1]: Punctuation (period) at end of ().

6/30/14 Critical Thinking/Petersen & Marrs

should promote such thinking skills, and is very important in the rapidlychanging workplace.
This makes a strong case for the need to teach our children critical
thinking skills in conjunction with curriculum-based content. The skill of
teaching critical thinking, however, was not a component of many of the
teacher-education programs that our current educators graduated from, nor is it
yet a major focus of current professional development offerings in the field of
education. Additionally, the British Columbia Ministry of Education has
included critical thinking as a "cross-curricular competency" in their BCED Plan
(British Columbia Ministry of Education, 2013), therefore teachers will be
mandated to include it in their daily curriculum instruction. As such, in order
for teachers to successfully deliver lessons that foster critical thinking skills
while covering the required learning outcomes, we need practical strategies and
resources that allow our students opportunities to practice these skills. Without
routine and frequent opportunities to practice critical thinking, students cannot
internalize these skills and become critical thinkers (Paul & Elder, 2008, van
Gelder, 2005).
In order to best support this model of education, elementary educators are
faced with the task of imbedding critical thinking skills into their daily
curriculum in a way which is meaningful for their students. Roland Case and
the Critical Thinking Consortium (TC) have developed a framework for helping
teachers accomplish this goal (The Critical Thinking Consortium, 2011-2014).
Although TC currently has many relevant lesson plans accessible to teachers in
British Columbia, most were developed for middle- or high-school classes, and
the majority of the lessons are targeted towards a specific curricular area, and
require a substantial amount of time. We argue that teaching critical thinking

6/30/14 Critical Thinking/Petersen & Marrs

can be more problematic for elementary school teachers, who are generalists as
opposed to subject specialists.
For elementary teachers who are not yet certain how to incorporate the
teaching of critical thinking in their classrooms, there needs to be a way to
bridge the gap between teaching for learning outcomes only and implementing
critical challenges from TC. This is where practical teaching strategies that
enhance and foster critical thinking skills are required for elementary teachers,
and this need constitutes the rationale behind our project.

Rationale
From working through problems in class assignments to confronting real
world situations, critical thinking is hailed as an imperative goal of Education by
many educators and educational philosophers (Siegel, 2010). Teaching critical
thinking in elementary school elevates student learning beyond rote
memorization into the domain of analysis and logic. Critical thinking is the
ability to analyze the way one thinks and present evidence for their ideas, rather
than simply accepting personal reasoning as sufficient proof. Children can gain
numerous benefits from mastering critical thinking skills. To begin, as students
learn to think critically they become more self-sufficient. Rather than rely on
their teachers and textbooks for the delivery of their curriculum, they begin to
take ownership of their learning and become more independent and autonomous
(Ndofirepi, 2014, Paul & Elder, 2008). Students who know how to analyze and
critique ideas are able to make cross-curricular connections, to see knowledge as
useful and applicable to daily life and understand content on a deeper, more
lasting level. Furthermore, by incorporating reflective practices, critical
thinking allows students to assess their learning styles, strengths and weaknesses
from a more objective perspective.
3

6/30/14 Critical Thinking/Petersen & Marrs

A third benefit for students who are taught critical thinking is that it has
the potential to increase their emotional self-awareness. Students who are taught
to examine and evaluate beliefs on the basis of reason and evidence learn the
very difficult process of separating bias and opinions from fact. For example, a
student who writes a persuasive essay about the perils of drunk driving may use
a personal story to appeal to her reader's emotions, and then back up her
arguments with solid supporting evidence and statistics from credible sources.
Another benefit of teaching children to know the difference between a
rational judgment based on careful consideration and an emotional response
based on personal bias is learning about different perspectives. In the process of
becoming critical thinkers, children are taught to examine issues from various
perspectives and to base their ultimate decision on facts and reasons. As they
develop better control of their own learning, they also develop empathy for other
points of view, which enhances their ability to relate to others and work with
different people. Learning about various points of view when making reasoned
judgments helps children develop the capacity to understand that any given
problem can have multiple solutions.
The educational system in British Columbia is changing in response to the
needs of our technologically immersed students and the changing skills of the
work force. On the journey to creating a society of critical thinkers, elementary
school teachers are poised to play a crucial role in fostering the fundamental
skills and habits of thinking that are necessary before older students can transfer
these same skills into all areas of the curriculum. These teachers, however, are
burdened by the current demands of their positions which have them teaching
specific sets of learning outcomes and responsible for assessing and reporting on
their students' progress in relation to these outcomes. In order to both perform
their professional duties for the Ministry of Education as well as to address the
4

6/30/14 Critical Thinking/Petersen & Marrs

reality of the changes in the needs of our students, elementary school teachers
can bring critical thinking into their daily classroom routines in small ways, and
our project will help them achieve that goal.
By providing intermediate teachers with a set of practical, ready-to-use
strategies that can be incorporated in the Language Arts curriculum, our goal
with this project is to reduce anxiety that our colleagues may have surrounding
critical thinking. Our hope is that any teacher would be able to enhance the
critical thinking competencies of their students while themselves becoming
more comfortable and adept at using these strategies. It is our belief that even
those teachers hesitant about critical thinking, or who believe it to be another
educational "fad", will change their minds once they experience how engaged
their students become during these lessons, and how much more they are able to
learn over and above the content.
Purpose
The purpose of this project is to develop a document to help elementary
school teachers incorporate critical thinking into the Grade Six language arts
curriculum.

Developmental Statement
In order to accomplish our purpose, we will review the literature related to
critical thinking, examine the TC model of instruction for concepts and
methodologies relevant to elementary students, and rely on our own experience
teaching students in this grade. Having evaluated these components, we will
then develop a document containing practical teaching strategies that
incorporate critical thinking into the Grade 6 curriculum in areas of reading and
writing.

6/30/14 Critical Thinking/Petersen & Marrs

Operational Definitions
Background Knowledge: One of the five categories of critical thinking tools
identified by
TC. Students cannot think deeply about a topic if they know
little about it. Background knowledge is essentially the
required information one needs to know about a subject
before thoughtfully thinking about it (Case & Daniels, 2002).

Criteria for Judgment: One of the five categories of critical thinking tools
identified by
TC. Critical thinking is essentially a matter of judging which
alternative is sensible or reasonable. Criteria for judgment
are the
standards, considerations or grounds for deciding which of
the
alternatives is the most sensible or appropriate (Case &
Daniels, 2002).
Critical Thinking:
"The thoughtful examination of a question for the
purpose of discerning what is reasonable to believe or do in a
given situation" (British Columbia Ministry of Education,
2013).
Critical Thinking Vocabulary: One of the five categories of critical thinking
tools identified by TC. This is the terminology used to
describe the knowledge of the concepts and vocabulary
needed by students to make important distinctions among the
various issues and thinking tasks facing them (Case &
Daniels, 2002).
Habits of Mind: One of the five categories of critical thinking tools identified
by TC. These are 20 intellectual virtues or ideals that orient
and motivate thinkers in habitual ways that are conducive to
careful and conscientious thinking (Case & Daniels, 2002).

Commented [JS2]: I would omit the by or continue the

sentence; confusing as is; same for the five below
Commented [JS3]: Did you mean to have TC2 after by?
Maybe it is misplacled?

6/30/14 Critical Thinking/Petersen & Marrs

Thinking Strategies:
One of the five categories of critical thinking tools
identified by TC. Refers to the numerous strategies that are
useful in working through a problem. Refers to the
repertoire of heuristics, graphic organizers, models and
algorithms that may be useful when thinking through a
problem (Case & Daniels, 2002).
Tools for Thought:
A term used by TC to outline five areas which work
in concert to develop students' capacity for critical thinking.
These are Background Knowledge, Criteria for Judgment,
Critical Thinking Vocabulary, Thinking Strategies, and
Habits of Mind (Case & Daniels, 2002).

Summary
Today's students require a different skill set than our current, contentbased education model can provide them. This is especially true for our
intermediate and secondary-aged students, for whom technology is integrated
into their everyday lives. Given the irrefutable argument that technology has
given students access to an enormous volume of content at their fingertips, it
follows that teachers need to shift their teaching methodology from what they
want their students to know (content-driven) towards how their students are
thinking about what they are learning as well as the application of their
knowledge to create solutions for real-world problems. In order to best meet the
needs of our students and our technologically-enhanced society, educators must
place more emphasis on teaching students to think critically about the content
they are exposed to. This major shift in teaching can be overwhelming for many
educators, therefore it is important that they be given readily accessible,
practical strategies which will allow them to incorporate critical thinking into
their lesson plans, in all subject areas.
Although our project is designed around the Language Arts curriculum,
the critical thinking strategies taught are easily adaptable to multiple grade
7

6/30/14 Critical Thinking/Petersen & Marrs

levels, and the skills that the children will learn are transferable across subject
areas. As the children develop their critical thinking skills, they become more
autonomous learners, increase their ability to differentiate between opinion and
fact, become more aware of bias, and more practiced in considering different
points of view before arriving at a judgment based on evidence and criteria.
Our goal is that our project will help teachers by providing practical ways
to incorporate critical thinking into their existing lessons without having to
possess training or deep understanding of the concept. It is our hope that such
strategies will be transferred into other curricular areas as the teachers using
them come to see their value. As with any other teaching methodology, the
more practice one has using it, the more it becomes part of their instinctual
teaching repertoire.

Commented [JS4]: This will move to past tense

6/30/14 Critical Thinking/Petersen & Marrs

Chapter II
Review of the Literature

Introduction
Children today are digital natives. They have never experienced a world
without the internet and near-instantaneous access to a plethora of information
on any given topic. "No human can handle or analyze the volumes of data we
now have and need" (Prensky, 2013, p. 24). Yet these same children do not
have the skills to sort through the incredible amount of data to discern what is
relevant, trustworthy and to recognize bias (Dede, 2005). As such, there is an
increasing impetus on educators to develop the essential skills that will enable
our children to succeed in the twenty-first century. But the current contentdriven model of education, in which teachers focus on the acquisition of facts
over problem-solving abilities, remains prevalent in most schools today
(OECD, 2009 as cited in Saavedra & Opfer, 2012). However to best meet the
needs of our students, however, our teaching methodology needs to shift

6/30/14 Critical Thinking/Petersen & Marrs

towards "what students can do with knowledge, rather than what units of
knowledge they have" (Silva, 2009, p. 630).
The conundrum facing educators is that we don't know the exact skills
and knowledge students will need to have ten, twenty, or thirty years from now.
What we do know is that children need to be explicitly taught to think critically;
they will not learn this skill on their own. Evidence supports the idea that the
twenty-first century work force will require a new skill set, including
communication, critical thinking and collaboration (Levy & Murnane, 2006).
This presents a considerable shift in Education, but a necessary one. Daniel
Pink, in his book A Whole New Mind (2005) argues that today's global economy
requires our students to synthesize knowledge, think critically about that
knowledge, and develop creative, inventive solutions to problems facing the
modern workplace.
Critical thinking can be traced back thousands of years to Socrates and
Plato (Siegel, 2010). John Dewey discussed the importance and relevance of
critical thinking in his 1910 book How We Think. The backing of critical
thinking as an important goal for education has achieved nearly undisputed
approval over the last forty years (Lipman, 2003). Critical thinking, despite
mainstream acknowledgement, is not being employed in our classrooms any

10

6/30/14 Critical Thinking/Petersen & Marrs

more than it was when it was first acknowledged as an objective for North
American instructors twenty-five years ago (Lipman, 2003).
The discrepancy between the need for critical thinking skills and the lack
of implementation in the classroom may have several root causes. As Sternberg
notes in his article The Challenge of Implementation (2009), new teachers
coming out of universities are still being taught to deliver the curriculum using
traditional, content-based practices. Teaching thinking skills rather than content
is unfamiliar territory. Elementary teachers in British Columbia, faced with the
daunting task of delivering curriculum in all subject areas, with little preparation
time allotted to them each week, struggle to find time to learn how to implement
critical thinking into their current lessons. They are also instructing an agegroup that is less developmentally ready to apply critical thinking skills to broad
concepts or global issues (Armstrong, 2007). Also, teachers may not be
incorporating critical thinking skills in their classrooms because it can be an
intimidating process for them and changing the way teachers think about
teaching children takes time and practice. Elementary teachers need practical
strategies that they can use without feeling intimidated by lack of knowledge or
practice. Therefore, elementary teachers today are faced with the problem of
needing to accommodate their teaching practices for the evolving skill set of

11

6/30/14 Critical Thinking/Petersen & Marrs

their learners and the needs of the future economy, yet may not have developed
the capacity to teach thinking skills and content together.
21st Century Learners
The children in our elementary schools today have never known a world
without the internet. These are the 21st century learners, also known as digital
natives (Prensky, 2001). These children have access to an unimaginable amount
of information on any given topic, on a variety of devices, and they learn to
operate these devices before they can read or write. The internet has empowered
our students by making a wealth of information available to them on demand
while making them incredibly vulnerable at the same time (Merlis, 2005).
Youth today confront a host of issues as they negotiate their way through the
mass of digital data and connect socially with others. Although there are
numerous exciting benefits to children having full access to the internet, there
are also many social and health challenges, and children need informed adults to
help them navigate their way through these unchartered waters (O'Keeffe,
Clarke-Pearson & Council on Communications and Media, 2011). In the
aforementioned article from the American Academy of Pediatrics, the authors
stipulate that children connecting with others through social media sites are
learning important communication skills, gaining awareness of global issues,
and are experiencing how sharing ideas on public spaces can enhance and
12

6/30/14 Critical Thinking/Petersen & Marrs

promote creative problem-solving (2011). Conversely, most elementary-aged

children using the internet are not developmentally or intellectually prepared to
deal with the negative effects of social media, such as on-line harassment and
cyber bullying (Livingstone & Brake, 2009).
Much has been written about the need for educators to help their
elementary-aged students learn the skills necessary to navigate their way around
issues of reliability and credibility of information, as well as the social
challenges that arise from their digital communications. A common thread
throughout the literature about 21st century learning is the need to teach students
problem-solving or critical thinking skills (Case, 2005; Dede, 2005; Gainer,
2012; Gunn & Hollingsworth, 2013; Treffinger, 2008; van Eyk, 2012). British
Columbia is in the process of changing the current curriculum to better meet the
needs of the 21st century learners (2012). This new curriculum intends to focus
less on curricular content and more on teaching students the skills they need to
apply their knowledge in meaningful ways. Similarly, in 2008 the American
Association of School Librarians published their Standards for the 21st Century
Learner in which they outline the skills, dispositions, responsibilities and selfassessment strategies necessary for students to become productive citizens.
Globally, educators are realizing that the current model of education has become
irrelevant and that new, inquiry-based, student-centered curriculum needs to be
13

6/30/14 Critical Thinking/Petersen & Marrs

designed that allow us to target the critical thinking skills necessary for our
emerging economy (Bevins, Carter, Jones, Moye & Ritz, 2012; Goodwin &
Miller, 2013; Saavedra & Opfer, 2012; Schleicher, 2012; Silva, 2009).
Educators, economists and policy makers have speculated about the
competencies that our school-aged children will need to successfully enter the
work force in North America. As noted by van Eyk, many of our children will
most likely be employed in careers that have not yet been conceived (2012).
The job of educators is to prepare our students to become productive, fairminded members of society who can think critically about complex global and
social issues (Gainer, 2012; Levy & Murnane, 2006; Saavedra & Opfer, 2012).
Although there is uncertainty about the types of jobs that our students need to be
prepared for, there is relative consensus in the research about the skills required
for rewarding careers. Strong communication skills, the ability to collaborate
with others and critical thinking emerge as the competencies that employers are
seeking in a global economy (Silva, 2009). Voogt, Erstad, Dede & Mishra
(2013), having researched various frameworks of 21st century competencies,
created the following list of commonly agreed upon skills: collaboration,
communication, digital literacy, citizenship, problem-solving, critical thinking,
creativity, and productivity. The government of British Columbia recognizes
that these are cross-curricular skills; that is, we do not need to design curriculum
14

6/30/14 Critical Thinking/Petersen & Marrs

that teaches new subject content as much as we need to explicitly teach students
how to think (BC Ministry of Education, 2012). The rapidly changing
globalized economy demands that our education system reflects the needs of the
21st century learners.
Critical Thinking in Education
Lipman (1998) and Wright (1992) consider critical thinking to be an
essential element in the growth of an progressive democracy because a culture
of critical thinkers embraces representative government, due process, protection
of human rights and civil liberties, and the cultivation of rational social
institutions, while a society deprived of critical thinking is founded upon elitism,
wealth, power or intelligence. Educators know that the creation of a society of
critical thinkers starts with educating the young, and recognize that the 21 st
century skills.
Cognitive skills such as critical thinking and problem solving have a long
empirical history closely connected with academic achievement. These
skills, rather than being novel to the 21st century and necessary for success
in the 21st century, are skills that are required for successful learning and
achievement at any time, including but not limited to the 21 st century.
Additionally, interpersonal competencies such as communication,
collaboration and responsible behavior have been integral to successful
interpersonal relationships for centuries, although all of these take on new
dimensions in 21st century virtual interaction. (Voogt, Erstad, Dede &
Mishra, 2013).

15

6/30/14 Critical Thinking/Petersen & Marrs

When arguing for the relevance of teaching critical thinking in our schools, it is
important to acknowledge the historical contributions of preeminent educational
philosophers. Out of the numerous individuals who have developed
philosophies regarding critical thinking in education, we will explore the
approaches of the following: Benjamin Bloom, Robert Ennis, Richard Paul and
Linda Elder, John McPeck, Daniel T. Willingham, Harvey Siegel, Matthew
Lipman and Roland Case. Although each of these educational philosophers
differ in their definitions and approaches to critical thinking, they all believe
strongly in the importance of bringing critical thinking into the forefront of
education.
Working with collaborators Max Englehart, Edward Furst, Walter Hill,
and David Krathwohl, Benjamin Bloom created a framework for classifying
educational goals. In 1956 they published the Taxonomy of Educational
Objectives, which every K-12 teacher in British Columbia learns about in their
philosophy of education course during university. Blooms taxonomy is a tiered
structure classifying six levels of thinking and learning skills: Knowledge,
Comprehension, Application, Analysis, Synthesis, and Evaluation. According
to the creators, knowledge, or content, is the basic building block upon which all
of the higher-order thinking skills such as synthesis, evaluation, and creativity,
are formed. This hierarchical structure presupposes that learners must master
16

6/30/14 Critical Thinking/Petersen & Marrs

each category in succession before they can progress to a more complex

thinking ability. As Ken Petress notes, the taxonomy emphasizes what a learner
does with their knowledge more than the quality of the information that is
learned (2004).
In the world of education, Bloom's Taxonomy triggered discourse about
higher-order thinking and the importance of teaching thinking skills alongside
conceptual knowledge. Ennis (2001) argued that the six categories or concepts
included in the Taxonomy were too vague, interdependent as opposed to
hierarchical, and were open to interpretation. He defines critical thinking as a
"reflective and reasonable thinking that is focused on deciding what to believe or
do" (1985, p.45). In the 1980s, Ennis' work concentrated around four sets of
abilities that could be transferred to any situation or subject area where critical
thinking was required: clarity-related abilities, inference-related abilities,
abilities related to collecting information necessary for making inferences, and
problem-solving abilities. He created a critical thinking graphic organizer in
which these four skills sets are mapped out (p.47). In 1991, however, Ennis
redesigned his theory of critical thinking to include twelve dispositions and
sixteen abilities that describe the characteristics of "the ideal critical thinker"
(1991). Ennis has been criticized for offering a vague, complicated and
underdeveloped conception of critical thinking (Siegel, 1999). Although Ennis
17

6/30/14 Critical Thinking/Petersen & Marrs

provides a clear list of skills and dispositions necessary for critical thinking, he
does not address how to incorporate critical thinking in the classroom.
Richard Paul, working with Linda Elder is another prominent figure in
research about critical thinking in education. Similar to Ennis, Paul and Elder
believe that there are a set of definable skills necessary for teaching students
how to think critically. Paul and Elder categorize thinking skills into three
different ability levels, ranging from "lowest" to "highest order thinking" (2008).
Together they created The Foundation for Critical Thinking based around a set
of nine intellectual standards and eight intellectual traits. Paul and Elder theorize
that the highest quality of critical thinking cannot be achieved by explicitly
teaching intellectual skills alone, but that students also must possess a set of
habits of mind (intellectual traits) necessary for unbiased or empathetic
reasoning (Elder & Paul, 2010). They define the relevant elements of thought
as: Point of View, Purpose, Question at Issue, Information, Interpretation and
Inference, Concepts, Assumptions, and Implications and Consequences, while
the intellectual standards associated with critical thinking are: Clarity, Accuracy,
Precision, Relevance, Depth, Breadth, Logic and Fairness. Finally, the
intellectual virtues central to critical thinking are: Intellectual Humility,
Intellectual Courage, Intellectual Empathy, Intellectual Autonomy, Intellectual
Integrity, Intellectual Perseverance, Condence in Reason, and Fairmindedness
18

6/30/14 Critical Thinking/Petersen & Marrs

(Paul & Elder, 2008). Mulnix disagrees with the prominent role that the
intellectual virtues play in Paul and Elder's view of critical thinking. Mulnix
argues that such habits of mind are morally based therefore interfere with the
process of thinking critically by imposing ethics on the thinker: "Critical
thinking, as an intellectual virtue, is not directed at any specic moral ends. That
is, it does not intrinsically contain a set of beliefs that are the natural outcomes
of applying its method. For instance, two critical thinkers can come to hold
contrary beliefs despite each applying the skills associated with critical thinking
well and honestly" (2010, p. 3).
Whereas Ennis, Paul and Elder argue for a set of generalized thinking
skills that can be applied across all subject areas, John McPeck disagrees.
McPeck asserts that critical thinking skills are subject-specific (as cited by
Mason, 2007). He argues that when a generalized set of critical thinking skills
are taught across the curriculum, students do not necessarily have the reasoning
ability to apply them in different settings (McPeck, 1990). McPeck proposes
instead that critical thinking skills vary from discipline to discipline; that the
thinking skills students need in mathematics are vastly different from those they
apply in the arts. Furthermore, McPeck emphasizes that rather than explicitly
teaching critical thinking skills, learning is a much richer experience when these
skills are immersed within the subject-specific curriculum. In his review of
19

6/30/14 Critical Thinking/Petersen & Marrs

McPeck's book, Richard Paul finds McPeck's view of critical thinking as

subject-specific "fundamentally flawed" (1993, p. 518). Daniel and Auriac
further theorize that McPeck's view of critical thinking would have to exclude
children and others who are not "experts" in their field, as his argument is based
around the idea that one must possess deep understanding about a topic before
they can think critically about it (2011).
Daniel T. Willingham is similar to McPeck in that he also believes that
domain-specific thinking is more successful than teaching generalized explicit
sets of thinking skills (2008). Willingham, a professor of cognitive psychology,
believes that critical thinking cannot be defined as a skill because it is imbedded
with subject knowledge.
The processes of thinking are intertwined with the content of thought (that
is, domain knowledge). Thus, if you remind a student to look at an issue
from multiple perspectives often enough, he will learn that he ought to do
so, but if he doesnt know much about an issue, he cant think about it
from multiple perspectives. You can teach students maxims about how
they ought to think, but without background knowledge and practice, they
probably will not be able to implement the advice they memorize.
(Willingham, 2008, p. 21)
According to Willingham, children learn to think critically about their subject
material only when they have sufficient background knowledge as well as
practice with the concepts. He admonishes the idea that critical thinking can be
taught as a set of definable skills removed from the content in any particular
20

6/30/14 Critical Thinking/Petersen & Marrs

subject area. Students have to possess a basic understanding of the concepts

before they can be challenged to think critically about their learning. He notes
that the critical thinking challenges must be "appropriate" to the student's
"current level of competence" in order for them to "engage" with the problem
(2009, pp. 12-13). Mulnix disagrees with Willingham's view of critical thinking
as domain-specific. She maintains that a student does not require background
knowledge to think critically. Rather, Mulnix recognizes that when students are
faced with a question that they do not have sufficient content knowledge to
tackle, they can use critical thinking skills to identify what information they
need to learn in order to form reasoned opinions about the original problem
(2010). Therefore content knowledge, or domain-knowledge is not a necessary
precursor to thinking critically, but it occurs simultaneously.
Unlike McPeck and Willingham, Siegel is a critical thinking theorist who,
like Ennis, Paul and Elder, believes that there are critical thinking dispositions
and skills that are transferable across subject areas. Siegel argues that
reasoning abilities cannot occur without "the fostering of a wide range of
attitudes, habits of mind, and character traits thought to be characteristic of the
rational or reasonable person" (Siegel, 1998 as cited in Siegel, 2007). For
Siegel, a critical thinker is someone who is curious, and who possesses the
character necessary to question the purpose behind the line of inquiry; he calls
21

6/30/14 Critical Thinking/Petersen & Marrs

these character traits "critical spirit" (Siegel, 1998). Siegel suggests the idea of
the critical spirit to encapsulate this dispositional aspect, which he sees as being
of equal importance with the reason assessment/ critical thinking component.
The critical spirit specifies that a critical thinker values good reasoning and is
disposed to reason/ think critically. In his 2009 article Open-mindedness,
Critical Thinking, and Indoctrination: Homage to William Hare, Siegel explores
the relationship between open-mindedness and critical thinking. Here, he
explains that open-mindedness is one component of critical spirit and that
although open-mindedness is necessary for critical thinking, one can be openminded without necessarily being a critical thinker. Furthermore, whereas
McPeck argues for subject-specific critical thinking skills, Siegel espouses that
both subject-specific skills and dispositions, and "subject-neutral" critical
thinking skills and dispositions are required for reasoning (Mason, 2007). The
subject specific category refers to the skills of assessment of reasons within a
certain context, subject or discipline, while subject-neutral describes general
skills that apply across a wide variety of contexts (Siegel, 2013).
Matthew Lipman is another education philosopher who has written much
on the topic of critical thinking. Lipman argues that all reasonable decisions are
based on criteria and evidence. His view of critical thinking supports the
development of dispositions of a critical thinker, and it proposes the idea that
22

6/30/14 Critical Thinking/Petersen & Marrs

critical thinking should be taught within subject disciplines (Lipman, 1988).

Lipman suggests that whereas many people propose that critical thinking is
about being critical, he believes the true nature of critical thinking is establishing
criteria that guide or help individuals make reasoned judgments. Contrary to
other educational theorists, Lipman has broadened the approach to teaching
critical thinking to include very young students. He created an educational
program called Philosophy for Children, which teaches philosophy through
novels in an attempt to make critical thinking skills more accessible to younger
children (Lipman, 1998). The educational program involves children sitting in a
circle and taking turns reading aloud from a novel that is intended to stimulate
philosophical discussion. Professor Lipman called the exercise a community of
inquiry" (Lipman, 1984). Criticism for Lipman appears to center around the
notion that his approach to critical thinking does not create new ideas or
knowledge, but instead is a path that leads children back to contemplate age-old
questions of philosophy (Vansieleghem, 2005).
Like Lipman, Dr. Roland Case of Simon Fraser University, stresses the
importance of using criteria for judgment to justify reasoned conclusions.
Having attended professional development seminars with Roland Case through
School District 23, his model for teaching critical thinking was our first
introduction to this topic. Case, working alongside collaborators such as Ian
23

6/30/14 Critical Thinking/Petersen & Marrs

Wright, LeRoi Daniels and Sharon Bailin, began publishing documents about
Critical Thinking in the 1970s. The Critical Thinking Consortium (TC) was
created in 1993 by LeRoi Daniels and Jerrold Coombs from the University of
British Columbia, and Sharon Bailin and Roland Case from Simon Fraser
University. TC is a non-profit organization that co-creates curriculum and
facilitates professional development of elementary and secondary school
teachers across Canada. Case and associates are unique in their field due to the
fact that they do not fully engage in the philosophical debate about how best to
bring critical thinking into the classroom. Their approach appears to be a hybrid
of both explicitly teaching the tools and habits of mind necessary for thinking in
the process of close examination of curricular challenges. When interviewed by
Catherine Edwards, who asked him how the TC model was different from other
approaches, Case answered as follows.
We do not support the view that critical thinking is a generic set of skills
or processes that can be developed independent of content and context.
Nor do we believe that critical thinking can adequately be addressed as an
add-on to the curriculum. Instead, critical thinking must be seen as a way
to teach the content of the curriculum. Teachers can help students
understand the subject matter, rather than merely recalling it, by providing
continuing opportunities for thoughtful analysis of issues that are central
to the subject matter (2005, para. 15).
Rather than immerse himself in this intellectual deliberation, he seems to have
synthesized the common core beliefs that are espoused by all the eminent
theorists into the TC model, and has focused on bringing the philosophy into
24

6/30/14 Critical Thinking/Petersen & Marrs

practical classroom applications. Case has researched the prominent theories of

critical thinking and has concluded that although both sides of the debate have
merit, they fall short of developing practical curriculum that can be applied by
teachers in the classroom
Thus, theorists whose abstract definitions of critical thinking appear to be
roughly similar tend to differ with regard to the language they use in their
more concrete conceptions of critical thinking, the range of activities they
regard as falling within its ambit, the emphases they give to various
aspects of critical thinking, and the kinds of activities they see as relevant
to learning to think critically. Moreover, there is considerable debate
about which is most adequate and efficaciousDespite the fact that some
very good work has been done in this area, our experience in working
with teachers and curriculum developers convinces us that there are still
important improvements to be made in conceptualizing critical thinking
for this audience. Although our conception shares several important
features with other well-known conceptions, such as those explicated by
Ennis (1987) [the parenthesis are the authors', not our own], Paul (1990)
and Lipman (1991), it also differs from these in important ways. (Bailin,
Case, Coombs & Daniels, 1999, p. 286).
Case also differs from other educational philosophers in his ground-level,
practical approach to critical thinking. In his 2005 interview with Catherine
Edwards, he states that the TC approach to critical thinking was based upon
scholarly research, professional development work with thousands of teachers.
Case and associates recognized the need to develop materials to meet the needs
of teachers in the classroom. Paul (1985) and Siegel (1999) discuss embedding
critical thinking in the classroom, but TC moves beyond theory and recognizes
that a model for critical thinking must be manageable and usable for teachers.
25

6/30/14 Critical Thinking/Petersen & Marrs

Case and his associates have developed a conception of critical thinking

that is directly applicable to classrooms in Canada. The TC model of critical
thinking is based upon four central tenants that explain how critical thinking can
be taught. According to TC, a teacher can foster critical thinking in their
classroom by:
1. Establishing a community of thinkers
2. Utilizing critical challenges throughout the curriculum
3. Teaching the intellectual tools to their students
4. Assessing their students' ability to use those thinking tools (Case &
Daniels, 2002, pp. 2-6).
In order to successfully embed critical thinking in the classroom, they believe
that teachers must understand these four categories and be able to conceptualize
how all four pieces of the model work together. TC further defines the
intellectual tools required for thinking critically, and argue that teachers must
explicitly teach these tools to their students so that the children gain fluency in
the language of thinking, and develop common language to justify their thinking
(Case & Daniels, 2002). Case and collaborators have the named the intellectual
tools as follows: background knowledge, criteria for judgment, critical thinking
vocabulary, thinking strategies, and habits of mind. Bailin, Case, Coombs and
26

6/30/14 Critical Thinking/Petersen & Marrs

Daniels (1999) stipulate that children are already involved in making judgments
by the time they enter Kindergarten, but point out that their arguments will not
be very strong, and will be made without considering other points of view. The
authors insist that it is an educator's duty to guide young children through the
process of becoming critical thinkers with a developmentally appropriate
approach, being mindful of their continuing intellectual maturation.
Teaching Critical Thinking in Elementary Classrooms
Many teachers believe they know the meaning of what critical thinking is
a term that most educators believe they know the meaning of, yet few people
can either define it or agree on a true definition. Richard Paul conducted a study
in 1997 on the pervasiveness of critical thinking in university and college
courses. Paul's study found that 89% of the 140 university and college
professors interviewed believed critical thinking was a crucial objective of their
teaching. However, only 19% of these professors were able to provide a simple
and clear description of what critical thinking was (Paul, Elder & Bartell, 1998).
This same issue can also be found in British Columbia schools. A 1989 survey
revealed that 88% of 1 700 social studies teachers in British Columbia supported
the teaching of critical thinking in their classrooms. Of these same teachers, 79%
judged critical thinking to be a major emphasis in their teaching (Bognar,
Cassidy, Manley-Casimir & Lewis, 1991). Roland Case (1992) evaluated this
27

6/30/14 Critical Thinking/Petersen & Marrs

study and determined that there is a dearth of instructional strategies which

support the progress of critical thinking in students at the secondary level.
The Critical Thinking Consortium (TC) is a Canadian source of practical
lesson plans that teachers can use directly in their classrooms to teach critical
thinking skills alongside relevant curricular learning outcomes in various subject
areas, at different grade levels. Teachers are able to meet the demands of the
curriculum through challenges which foster critical thinking skills and
dispositions. Roland Case, on behalf of TC, also offers professional
development seminars and workshops for educators. He believes that in order to
teach critical thinking in the classroom, teachers need to have a working
definition for the term, and have to understand all four elements of the TC
model and how they work together. As such, his professional development
workshops focus on the TC framework and he demonstrates the practical
application of their model through an exemplar. Oftentimes, participants are
made to engage in a short "critical challenge" so that they can experience the
process for themselves, and then reflect on its importance and ease of
application in their own classroom.
Roland Case (2009) borrows a quote from Ralph Tyler when he suggests
that teaching critical thinking to students is like dripping water on a stone: "In a
day or week or a month there is no appreciable change in the stone, but over a
28

6/30/14 Critical Thinking/Petersen & Marrs

period of years definite erosion is noted" (p. 205). Like dripping water that
slowly erodes a stone, critical thinking will not begin to make an impact on
students unless it is practiced mindfully throughout their entire school years. As
espoused by many philosophers, critical thinking is a very hard task that requires
intentional, mindful practice. Roberts and Billings (2008) note that their
"experience with teaching thinking has taught [them] that learning to think
requires frequent, deliberate practice." Tim van Gelder (2005) compares
critically thinking to ballet, in its complexity and in its requirement for years of
structured practice and preparation. He also theorizes that mastery of critical
thinking is a life-long pursuit that is not natural to humans, nor can we learn this
skill simply being exposed to it. Moreover, many educational experts have
recognized that although teaching critical thinking skills occurs over years of
practice and hard work, it is a very important and worthwhile pursuit. To this
end, Peterson and Taylor (2012) have noticed improvements in the academic
success of students who are engaged in thinking activities. They documented
significant increases in the reading ability of second and third graders when
these students were taught to think critically about the texts they read, rather
than practicing reading skills in isolation:
We have found that engaging students in high-level talk and writing about
texts takes time, but it is worth it! In second and third grades, students'
reading scores consistently grew more, compared with other students,
29

6/30/14 Critical Thinking/Petersen & Marrs

when they had teachers who regularly engaged them in high-level

thinking about the texts they read (p. 304).

Of the various practical classroom-ready critical thinking programs, the

TC model stands out from others in the field. The founders have collaborated
with classroom teachers in various grade levels and disciplines to create a
variety of ready-to-use lesson plans and resources for Canadian teachers. The
majority of their resources, however, are geared toward teachers who are already
familiar with their approach to critical thinking, and also to students at the
secondary level (Grades 8-12). Elementary teachers in this province are faced
with a noticeable lack of educational materials which target developmentally
appropriate critical thinking skills for their young students. These teachers also
recognize that the critical challenges found through TC are often too complex
for young students to engage in without previous introduction to the five types
of intellectual tools, and numerous habits of mind that are incorporated into the
TC lesson plans. These challenges are daunting for the teachers, let alone their
young students. Therefore, this begs the question: How do elementary teachers
introduce and foster the fundamental critical thinking intellectual tools and
habits of mind to their young students in order that they arrive in the secondary
school classrooms ready to tackle the critical challenges that have been
developed by TC?
30

6/30/14 Critical Thinking/Petersen & Marrs

Perhaps the first step in the process is to educate elementary teachers

about the TC model, which Roland Case does by offering numerous
professional development opportunities. Attending a professional development
workshop helps teachers gain insight into the TC belief that critical thinking "is
not simply an important goal, but more importantly a powerful method of
teaching all other aspects of the curriculum- both content and skill" (Case, 2005,
p. 2). Once a foundational understanding of the model has been established,
elementary teachers then need to be equipped with knowledge of how they can
facilitate critical thinking skills and attributes in their classrooms. This is where
Roland Case's articles Nurturing critical thinking at home (2000) and Nurturing
critical thinking: A note to parents (n.d.) can be instrumental. In these
documents, Case outlines three steps that parents of young children can take in
order to foster the development of critical thinking skills in their children:
1. Promoting a thoughtful atmosphere
2. Posing critical thinking challenges
3. Teaching the "tools" for thinking.
Case also demystifies the complexities of teaching critical thinking skills to
young children very successfully by giving parents practical activities that they
can use to help their children build and practice critical thinking. If given to
elementary school teachers, these same activities can be used daily in their
31

6/30/14 Critical Thinking/Petersen & Marrs

classrooms to introduce children to thinking challenges and to foster their

familiarity with the intellectual tools and habits of mind. Even more, these
articles can provide elementary teachers new to the TC model with an
intellectual bridge between the larger critical challenges and practical, comfortbuilding critical thinking activities that can be used immediately with their
younger students.
Case (2005), Sousa (2011) and McCall (2011) and have all written about
the necessity of establishing a safe and supportive learning environment in
which children feel free from criticism when testing out their thinking. Sousa in
particular draws upon research from the field of neuroscience when he states
that children learn best when they feel that their classroom has a positive
atmosphere and that they are respected. Willingham (2009) further adds to this
idea by pointing out that educators can foster critical thinking skills by
promoting failure as a necessary part of learning when students are being asked
to do the hard work of critical thinking. The combination of a safe learning
environment with practical teaching materials is necessary for elementary
teachers to incorporate the TC model of teaching into their everyday practices.
Summary

32

6/30/14 Critical Thinking/Petersen & Marrs

Educational academics, government educational departments, school

administrators and teachers are unanimous that the creation of critical thinkers is
one of the important goals of the 21st century education system (Peters, 2007).
Lipman (1998) and Wright (1992) believe that critical thinking is key
component in the development of a higher quality democracy and Paul (2005)
points out that the damage caused by prejudice and narrow-mindedness is
mounting. A society that does not utilize critical thinking will lack the ability to
adapt itself to the social, political, environmental and economic problems that
developed and undeveloped nations are current facing. The global issues that
our students will encounter in the future require creative solutions that stem
from collaboration and critical thinking skills. Mass media and politicians
constantly feed the demand for simple answers, but these problems cannot be
solved unless significant intellectual development occurs (Paul, 2005). Forming
conclusions, recognizing bias and point of view, and studying issues from
multiple perspectives are tools that our students need to develop the capacity to
learn on the job and in their civic and social lives.
Critical thinking represents the future of our education system. It can
only be accomplished by using a method of teaching that multiplies
comprehension and insight, and stimulates and empowers students. Research
indicates that although the majority of teachers recognize the importance of
33

6/30/14 Critical Thinking/Petersen & Marrs

teaching critical skills and habits, very few teachers do this in practice. To
promote and foster confidence teaching their students how to think critically, it
is essential that teachers be offered opportunities to learn and grow as critical
thinkers themselves. As critical thinking is fundamental to long-term success it
is crucial that curriculum is developed that explicitly teaches educators and
children how to develop and grow critical thinking skills (Case, n.d.).
Teaching elementary-aged children in British Columbia can be a daunting
task. Faced with an overwhelming amount of learning outcomes in several
subject areas leaves teachers with little time to learn and grow professionally.
Many professional development programs fail to make it into classrooms
because teachers lack time in their schedules to add more curriculum on top of
what they are currently mandated to teach. Realistically, in order to implement
critical thinking in their classrooms, elementary teachers need access to
practical, ready-to-use materials that can help both them and their students
become more comfortable and confident thinking critically. TC, although
providing teacher tested lesson plans, caters more to those professionals who are
either subject specialists, or who are already comfortable with the TC critical
thinking model. If we truly believe in the importance of critical thinking, our
elementary teachers need a program that indoctrinates them into the world of
TC and its critical challenges in an introductory manner. If we set the goal of
34

6/30/14 Critical Thinking/Petersen & Marrs

engaging our secondary students in critical challenges; it stands to reason that

elementary teachers need manageable lessons that introduce young children to
the basic building blocks of the TC model.

References
American Association of School Librarians (2008). Standards for the 21st
century learner.
Retrieved February 10, 2014 from http://www.ala.org/aasl/standardsguidelines/learning-standards
Armstrong, T. (2007). The curriculum superhighway. Educational Leadership,
64(8), 16-20.
Bailin, S., Case, R., Coombs, J. R., & Daniels, L. B. (1999). Common
misconceptions of
critical thinking. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 31(3), 269.
Bailin, S., Case, R., Coombs, J. R., & Daniels, L. B. (1999). Conceptualizing
critical thinking.
35

6/30/14 Critical Thinking/Petersen & Marrs

Journal of Curriculum Studies, 31(3), 285.

Bevins, P. S., Carter, K., Jones, V. R., Moye, J. J., & Ritz, J. M. (2012).
Producing a 21st
century workforce. Technology & Engineering Teacher, 72(3), 8-12.
Bognar, C.J., Cassidy, W., Manley-Casimir, M., and Lewis, C. (1991). Social
Studies in
British Columbia: Technical report of the 1989 social studies assessment.
Victoria:
Ministry of Education.
Case, R. (1992). Educational reform in British Columbia: Bold vision/flawed
design.
Journal of Curriculum Studies, 24, 381-387.
Case, R. (2005). Bringing critical thinking to the main stage. Education Canada,
45(2), 45-49.
Case, R. (n.d). Nurturing critical thinking: A note to parents. Professional
Readings TC.
Retrieved January 7, 2014 from The Critical Thinking Consortium
Website.
Case, R. (2000). Nurturing critical thinking at home. Professional Readings TC.

36

6/30/14 Critical Thinking/Petersen & Marrs

Retrieved January 7, 2014 from The Critical Thinking Consortium

Website.
Case, R. (2009). Teaching and assessing the tools for thinking. In J. Sobocan
(Ed.),
Critical thinking: Teaching, testing and accountability. London, Ontario,
Canada:
The Althouse Press, 197-214.
Case, R. & Daniels, L. B. (2002). Introduction to critical thinking. Retrieved
January 20,
2014 from the Critical Thinking Consortium Website.
Cotter, E. M., & Tally, C. S. (2009). Do critical thinking exercises improve
critical thinking
skills? Educational Research Quarterly, 33(2), 50-59.
Daniel, M., & Auriac, E. (2011). Philosophy, critical thinking and philosophy
for children.
Educational Philosophy and Theory, 43(5), 415-435.
Dede, C. (2005). Planning for neomillennial learning styles: Implications for
investments in technology and faculty. In J. Oblinger and D. Oblinger
(Eds.),

37

6/30/14 Critical Thinking/Petersen & Marrs

Educating the net generation, 226-247. Boulder, CO: Educause

Publishers.
Dewey, J. (1910). How we think. Buffalo, N.Y.: Prometheus Books.
Edwards, C. (2005). Critical thinking: An interview with Roland Case. Canadian
Teacher,
Winter. Retrieved December 6, 2013 from
http://www.canadianteachermagazine.com /archives/
ctm_life_skills/winter05_critical_thinking.shtml
Elder, L., & Paul, R. (2008). Critical thinking: Strategies for improving student
learning.
Journal of Developmental Education, 32(1), 32-33.
Elder, L., & Paul, R. (2010). Critical thinking: Competency standards essential
for the
cultivation of intellectual skills, part 1. Journal of Developmental
Education, 34(2),
38-39.
Ennis, R.H. (1985). A logical basis for measuring critical thinking skills.
Educational
Leadership, 43(2), 44-48.

38

6/30/14 Critical Thinking/Petersen & Marrs

Ennis, Robert H. (1991). Critical thinking: A streamlined conception. Teaching

Philosophy,
14 (1), 5-25.
Ennis, R. H. (1996). Critical thinking. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Facione, P.A. (2013). Critical thinking: What it is and why it counts. Millbrae,
CA: Measured Reasons and The California Academic Press.
Fisher, R. (2007). Teaching thinking in the classroom. Education Canada, 47(2),
72-73.
Gainer, J. (2012). Critical thinking: Foundational for digital literacies and
democracy. Journal
of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 56(1), 14-17.
Goodwin, B., & Miller, K. (2013). Creativity requires a mix of skills.
Educational
Leadership, 70(5), 80-83.
Gunn, T. M., & Hollingsworth, M. (2013). The implementation and assessment
of a shared
21st century learning vision: A district-based approach. Journal of
Research on
Technology in Education, 45(3), 201-228.

39

6/30/14 Critical Thinking/Petersen & Marrs

Levy, F., & Murnane, R. J. (2006). Why the changing American economy calls
for twentyfirst century learning: Answers to educators' questions. New Directions
For Youth
Development, 2006(110), 53-62.
Lipman, M. (1973). Philosophy for children.
Lipman, M. (1984). The cultivation of reasoning through philosophy.
Educational
Leadership, 42(1), 51-56.
Lipman, M. (1988). Critical thinking--what can it be? Educational Leadership,
46(1), 38.
Lipman, M. (1998). Teaching students to think reasonably: Some findings of the
philosophy
for children program. The Clearing House, 71(5), 277-280.
Livingstone, S., & Brake, D. R. (2010). On the rapid rise of social networking
sites: New
findings and policy implications. Children & Society, 24(1), 75-83.

Mason, M. (2007). Critical thinking and learning. Educational Philosophy &

Theory, 39(4),
40

6/30/14 Critical Thinking/Petersen & Marrs

339-349.
McCall, A. L. (2011). Promoting critical thinking and inquiry through maps in
elementary
classrooms. Social Studies, 102(3), 132-138.
McPeck, J. E. (1990). Critical thinking and subject specificity: A reply to Ennis.
Educational
Researcher, 19(4), 10-12.
Merlis, S.E. (2005). Preserving internet expression while protecting our
children: solutions
following Ashcroft v. ACLU. Northwestern Journal of Technology and
Intellectual
Property, 4(1), 117-132.
Ministry of Education, Province of British Columbia (2013). Defining crosscurricular

competencies: Transforming curriculum and assessment. Retrieved

May 24, 2014,

from

https://www.bced.gov.bc.ca/irp/docs/def_xcurr_comps.pdf
Ministry of Education, Province of British Columbia. (n.d.). Transforming BC's
curriculum Retrieved June 14, 2014 from
https://www.bced.gov.bc.ca/irp/transforming_

41

curriculum.php

6/30/14 Critical Thinking/Petersen & Marrs

Mulnix, J. W. (2012). Thinking critically about critical thinking. Educational

Philosophy &
Theory, 44(5), 464-479.
Mulnix, J., & Mulnix, M. J. (2010). Using a Writing Portfolio Project to Teach
Critical
Thinking Skills. Teaching Philosophy, 33(1), 27-54.
Ndofirepi, A. P. (2014). Is critical thinking desirable for children?
Mediterranean Journal of

Social Sciences, 3 (10), 325-330.

O'Keeffe, G. S., & Clarke-Pearson, K. (2011). Clinical report: The impact of

social media on
children, adolescents, and families. Pediatrics, 127(4), 800-804.

Paul, R. W. (1985). Bloom's taxonomy and critical thinking instruction.

Educational
Leadership, 42(8), 36.
Paul, R. W. (1993). Critical thinking: What every person needs to survive in a
rapidly
changing world. (J. Willsen & A. J. A. Binker, Eds.). Santa Rosa, CA:
Foundation
for Critical Thinking.
42

6/30/14 Critical Thinking/Petersen & Marrs

Paul, R. W. (2005). The state of critical thinking today. New Directions for
Community
Colleges, 2005(130), 27-38.
Paul, R. W., & Elder, L. (2008). The miniature guide to critical thinking:
Concepts and tools.

Tomales, CA: Foundation for Critical Thinking Press.

Paul, R. W., & Elder, L. (2010). Critical thinking development: A stage theory.
Retrieved
June 2, 2014 from www.criticalthinking.org
Paul, R., & Elder, L. (2011). Critical thinking: Competency standards essential
for the
cultivation of intellectual skills, part 3. Journal of Developmental
Education, 35(2),
34-35.
Paul, R. W., Elder, L., & Bartell, T. (1998). Study of 38 public universities and
28
private universities to determine faculty emphasis on critical thinking
instruction.
Retrieved February 2, 2014 from The Critical Thinking Community
Website: http://www.criticalthinking.org/aboutCT/Research.shtml#study

43

6/30/14 Critical Thinking/Petersen & Marrs

Peters, M. A. (2007). Kinds of thinking, styles of reasoning. Educational

Philosophy &
Theory, 39(4), 350-363.
Peterson, D. S., & Taylor, B. M. (2012). Using higher order questioning to
accelerate
students' growth in reading. Reading Teacher, 65(5), 295-304.
Petress, K. (2004). Critical thinking: An extended definition. Education, 124(3),
461-466.
Pink, D. H. (2006). A whole new mind: Why right-brainers will rule the future.
Penguin.
Prensky, M. (2013). Our brains extended. Educational Leadership, 70(6), 22-27.
Prensky, M. (2001). Digital natives, digital immigrants. On The Horizon, 9(5),
1-9.
Roberts, T., & Billings, L. (2008). Thinking is literacy, literacy thinking.
Educational
Leadership, 65(5), 32-36.
Rotherham, A. J., & Willingham, D. (2009). 21st century skills: The challenges
ahead.
Educational Leadership, 67(1), 16-21.

44

6/30/14 Critical Thinking/Petersen & Marrs

Saavedra, A. R. & Opfer, V. D. (2012) Learning 21st-century skills requires

21st-century
teaching. Phi Delta Kappan, 94(2), 8.
Schleicher, A. (2011). Lessons from the world on effective teaching and
learning
environments. Journal Of Teacher Education, 62(2), 202-221.
Siegel, H. (1999). What (good) are thinking dispositions? Educational Theory,
49(2), 207.
Siegel, H. (2009). Open-Mindedness, Critical Thinking, and Indoctrination.
Unpublished
paper: University of Miami.
Siegel, H. (2013). Educating reason. New York, NY: Routledge.
Sousa, D.A. (2011). Mind, brain, and education: The impact of educational
neuroscience on
the science of teaching. Learning Landscapes, 5(1), 37-43.
Sternberg, R. J. (2009). The challenge of implementation. Knowledge Quest,
38(2), 10-11
The Critical Thinking Consortium. (2011-2014). Retrieved October 26, 2013,
from
http://tc2.ca
Treffinger, D.J. (2008). Preparing creative and critical thinkers. (Electronic
version).
Educational Leadership, 65(9), 1-10. Retrieved September 18, 2013.
45

6/30/14 Critical Thinking/Petersen & Marrs

Voogt, J., Erstad, O., Dede, C., & Mishra, P. (2013). Challenges to learning and
schooling in
the digital networked world of the 21st century. Journal of Computer
Assisted
Learning, 29(5), 403-413.
van Eyk, J. (2012, September 4). Artful teaching is key to creativity, critical
thinking. Toronto
Star.
van Gelder, T. (2005). Teaching critical thinking: Some lessons from cognitive
science.
College Teaching, 53(1), 41-46.
Vansieleghem, N. (2005). Philosophy for children as the wind of thinking.
Journal of
Philosophy of Education, 39(1), 19-35.
Willingham, D. T. (2008). Critical thinking: Why is it so hard to teach? Arts
Education Policy
Review, 109(4), 21-29.
Willingham, D.T. (2009). Why dont students like school?: A cognitive scientist
answers
questions about how the mind works and what it means for the classroom.
San
Francisco: Jossey Bass.
Wright, I. (1992). Critical thinking: Curriculum and instructional policy
implications.
Journal of Education Policy, 7(1), 37-43

46

6/30/14 Critical Thinking/Petersen & Marrs

47

6/30/14 Critical Thinking/Petersen & Marrs

48