DRAFT
By Tanya Stanley
Many
college freshmen define critical thinking as thinking critically, as analyzing,
or as thinking outside the box. The issue with each of those definitions lies
in the process that follows them. Learners are often quick to recite what they
have heard in previous coursework, which is positive in regards to scaffolding,
but the underlying issue occurs when students begin to think critically,
analyze information, and think outside the box; the transparency of the definitions
become apparent in the lack of many students' capabilities to perform the supposed
task. Educators can teach students how to think critically after a concrete
definition is provided and after the process is taught. Critical thinking is a
humanistic ability achieved by complete comprehension of information followed
by unbiased and thorough analysis, synthesis of data, and the ability to make
connections outside of personal parameters.
Without
comprehension of textual information, critical thinking cannot occur. Students
who struggle with reading texts and images often misinterpret the information
and the context in which the information is provided. Many readers begin
reading at the beginning and end at the ending; this is a basic narrative
approach to reading, one that basic stories are told. Students often mistake
articles, essays, and reports as stories, which begins to explain the error in
logic in students' approaches to non-fiction texts. Students also mistake an
author for a narrator, again focusing on the text as a story, not as a non-fiction
text. Stories help learners make sense of the information, and there is power
in storytelling, but students in higher education often struggle with leaving
their secondary education behind in order to think like a freak. Authors
Stephen D. Levitt and Stephen J. Dubner continue their economical approach to
solving everyday problems in their third book Think Like a Freak. Students most often cite the example of the
soccer player who
has to decide where the penalty kick should go (Chapter 1). Most players and
students are quick to choose a side of the goal, but Levitt and Dubner suggest
that data show the center is where the player should kick the ball: “a penalty
kicked aimed at the center of the goal is significantly more likely to succeed,
only 17 percent of kicks are aimed there” (Chapter 1). Even though data shows a
kick to the center of the goal is more likely to succeed, players are not
competing against spreadsheets, bar graphs, or authors; players, and more
poignantly, people in general, also factor in the communal incentive that team
sports build their foundations on (Levitt and Dubner Chapter 1). When a player
focuses on his or her fans’ perception of himself or herself, quantitative data
resides low on the list of factors, especially when a decision has to be made
without much time or consideration; time, or lack thereof, can be a determining
factor of a rushed response and a correct response. Along with time, worrying
about other people’s perception creates a biased analysis of one’s surroundings.
Even if a team reviews countless recordings of their opponents’ previous games,
the in-the-moment response, the action one takes, can easily be temporarily
forgotten and potentially ignored if the player achieves the desired results.
Like a soccer player, comprehension of the text—the rules of the games, the
conditions of the field, the opponents’ abilities, and the communal incentive
to win the game—is necessary for students to achieve an accurate understanding
of course materials. Students also need to ignore what their peers may think of
them—communal incentive—in order to thoroughly analyze the text in front of
them. Without the aforementioned processes, synthesis of data and the ability
to remove the personal connections as the basis for all understanding will not
be manageable; therefore, critical thinking will not be achieved.
