win10当前壁纸位置:ELICITING CRITICAL THINKING SKILLS THROUGH QUESTIONING

Recently, during a graduate class for teachers of gifted children and youth, the class members and I reviewed the ebb and flow of interest in gifted children in our country. We noted the high-interest period after the launching of Sputnik and the low-interest period during the early civil rights movement. Other peaks and valleys of interest during the seventies and eighties were discussed.

When the class was subsequently asked to write an answer to the question, "What are some of the reasons for the `ebb and flow' of gifted education in contemporary history?" a surprising number of teachers simply reiterated a chronology of milestones. Only a few exhibited higher-level thinking by formulating generalizations from the information learned and then substantiating their generalizations, as this teacher did:

Generalization: Throughout history the "ebb and flow" of gifted education has been determined by social and cultural changes, national interest, and the availability of economic resources.

Substantiation: Because of our democratic heritage, there have been periods of social pressure to equalize education for all. . . . When other nations accomplish scientific or academic feats before the United States, we immediately react with an outpouring of concern to promote our finest students. . . .

Another question asked was, "What is the significance to gifted education of (1) Gardner's definition of intelligence, (2) Sternberg's theory of intelligence, and (3) the information processing theory of intelligence?" Again, a surprising number of teachers simply restated the definition of each. A more expected response came from a teacher who first provided a concise background of the theories of intelligence from the time of Galton through Sternberg, Gardner, and the information processing theory, then concluded with this statement: "The three definitions of intelligence offer to gifted education a challenge to broaden identification procedures currently based on IQ scores, and on a more practical level, models for individualizing and enriching educational experiences."

Still another question was, "How do environmental setting and public policy inhibit or enhance gifted education?" This question was interpreted a number of different ways. One response discussed the effect that age grouping, graded classrooms, and a wide range of student achievement levels have on educators' efforts to present the curriculum in manageable ways. Another focused the discussion on a more cellular level of dendritic branching and complexity of brain functioning. Both teachers were correct, of course, because questions that elicit critical thinking usually do not have one best, correct answer. Yet, throughout the class, there seemed to be a constant searching by the teachers for those correct answers.

There are many classroom strategies to help teachers teach critical thinking (Beyer 1987; Chance 1986; Costa and Lowery 1986; Paul 1990; Raths et. al. 1986; Schiever 1991; Swartz and Perkins 1990), and it is common knowledge that the strategy that can have the greatest impact on student thinking is teacher questioning (Clasen 1990). The level of student thinking, in fact, is directly proportional to the level of questions asked (Clasen 1990).

Research has shown that the greatest majority of a teacher's instructional time is spent asking students questions (Dillon 1982; Feldhusen and Treffinger 1980; USDOE 1986). Seventy to eighty percent of the questions asked require factual recall (USDOE 1980), what Schiever (1991) refers to as "shrinking questions." This in spite of the fact that 80 percent to 90 percent of what students learn through factual questioning is forgotten! Research has also shown that higher-level questions elicit higher cognitive processes (Batson 1981; McKenzie 1972; Taba 1966), and 80 percent to 85 percent of what students learn by such questioning is retained. In light of such overwhelming research over a long period of time, why are teachers not more effective questioners?

First, as the examples from my class indicate, teachers themselves have not been encouraged to formulate generalizations from information given and to defend their generalizations. Nor have they been energized to make conjectures, search for convincing arguments that support their conjectures, or show discrepancies in their own or another's thinking. Because these were intelligent and for the most part experienced teachers and graduate students in a master's program, it is likely that many have not been given the opportunity to learn and practice the very skills that are needed to teach children how to think.

Furthermore, the textbooks available to teachers are of little help. They do not provide students with a chance to do very much thinking beyond reiterating previously learned information, which does not promote the development of critical thought. Teachers have to be taught to use textbooks as an instructional resource.

Another deterrent that teachers cite is the increasing emphasis on test scores. Costa (1986) held that what is inspected is expected and what is tested is taught. Questions that require one right answer do not encourage critical thinking, which seeks multiple answers. Critical thinking is unpredictable and, therefore, not easily evaluated by objective tests that have been ranked according to established norms. Yet these are the measures by which teachers are increasingly being judged because of the current emphasis on competing globally on standardized tests.

Finally, the national trend toward inclusion is making it more difficult for teachers to teach for critical thinking. To meet the demands of the wide range of abilities found in inclusive classrooms, teachers are being asked to quantify instruction as never before: The amount of time spent on task, the percentage of learning objectives met, gains in achievement scores, and the amount of time spent in school are given paramount importance.

It is imperative that graduate schools, colleges, and trained supervisors help teachers to become more skillful questioners. In my work with teachers, I have found it useful to provide a series of workshops that focus on how to teach higher-order thinking within any content area. The workshops include attention to the specific steps required for teaching thinking and the questioning skills that will elicit higher-level thinking from students.

Sessions 1 and 2

In the first two sessions, the workshops review Bloom's taxonomy and how the thinking skills in this taxonomy can be put into practice by way of problem solving, decision making, and conceptualizing. We work on ways to increase discussion in the classroom, including the development of listening skills and group decision-making processes. The objective in the first two workshops is to help teachers create an atmosphere in their classrooms that will encourage higher-level thinking and maximize verbal interaction. If teachers can learn how to get students to defend their responses to questions, entertain a variety of viewpoints, and go beyond mere textbook learning, we are on the way to a thinking classroom.

Sessions 3 and 4

In the next two sessions, the teachers identify the kinds of questions that promote critical thinking. Teachers learn to ask such questions as these:

1. What reasons do you have for saying that?
2. Why do you agree (or disagree) on that point?
3. How are you defining the term that you just used?
4. What do you mean by that expression?
5. Is what you are saying consistent with what you said before?
6. Could you clarify that remark?
7. When you said that, just what is implied by your remarks?
8. What follows from what you just said?
9. Is it possible you and he are contradicting each other?
10. Are you sure you're not contradicting yourself?
11. What alternatives are there to such a formulation? (Lipman, Sharp, and Oscayan 1980, 112)

Teachers need to be encouraged to ask such questions and be given practice in actually doing so.

Sessions 5 and 6

In the next two workshop sessions, we use a four-step process adapted from Beyer (1987) for introducing a thinking skill or strategy. The process is designed to help students detect bias, determine the credibility of a source, analyze the strength of a conclusion, clarify unstated assumptions, and map concepts. Beyer's steps include introducing, explaining, demonstrating, and applying any given skill (e.g., the thinking skill of detecting bias).

Sessions 7 and 8

In the final two workshop sessions, teachers continue to practice and demonstrate various strategies for teaching thinking. They find it particularly useful to examine their own textbooks and to discuss changes that can be made in various units to encourage more critical thinking. They leave the workshop sessions with a host of activities that will help them supplement textbook assignments and even "repair" textbook activities to include more higher-level thinking strategies.

At the end of our series of workshops, teachers report that they (a) have become more aware of the levels of questioning they use and (b) are able to change their own levels of thinking. As teachers internalize critical-thinking skills, they learn to model good questioning behavior. My experience has been that teachers have the power to change students' thinking more than tests, texts, curriculum, or the all-powerful schedule.

Teacher training, community resources, and research must be expanded in the area of teaching thinking. The best place to begin the critical thinking movement is with teachers themselves, helping them to become better thinkers. There is no better way to do that than to develop their ability to ask questions that are truly thought-provoking.

Special thanks to Connie Garrett, Arlene Rose, and Tim Smith for allowing me to use their responses to questions.

Batson, A. D. 1981. Questioning: A reading/thinking foundation for the gifted. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Southwest Regional Conference of the International Reading Association, San Antonio, Texas, 29-31 Jan. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 201 999.)

Beyer, B. K. 1987. Practical strategies for the teaching of thinking. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Chance, P. 1986. Thinking in the classroom. New York: Teachers College Press, Columbia University.

Clasen, D. R., and C. Bonk. 1990. Teachers tackle thinking. Madison, Wis:: Madison Education Extension Program.

Costa, A. L., and L. F. Lowery. 1986. Techniques for teaching thinking. Pacific Grove, Calif: Midwest Publications.

Dillon, J. T. 1982. The multi-disciplinary study of questioning. Journal of Educational Psychology 74(2): 147-65.

Feldhusen, J. F., and D. J. Treffinger. 1980. Creative thinking and problem solving in gifted education. Dubuque, Iowa: Kendall/Hunt.

Lipman, M., A. Sharp, and F. Oscanyan. 1980. Philosophy in the classroom. 2d ed. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.

McKenzie, G. R. 1972. Some effects of frequent quizzes on inferential thinking. American Educational Research Journal 9(2): 231-40.

Paul, R. 1990. Critical Thinking. Rohnert Park, Calif.: Center for Critical Thinking and Moral Critique, Sonoma State University.

Raths, L. E., S. Wassermann, A. Jonas, and A. Rothstein. 1986. Teaching for thinking. New York: Teachers College, Columbia University.

Sanders, N. M. 1966. Classroom questions. New York: Harper and Row.

Schiever, S. W. 1991. A comprehension approach to teaching thinking. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Swartz, R. J., and D. N. Perkins. 1990. Teaching thinking: Issues and approaches. Pacific Grove, Calif.: Midwest Publications.

Taba, H. 1966. Teaching strategies and cognitive functioning in elementary school children. Cooperative Research Project No. 2404. San Francisco: San Francisco State College.

U. S. Department of Education (USDOE). 1980. What works: Research about teaching and learning. Washington, D.C.: USDOE.

~~~~~~~~

By LUISE B. SAVAGE

Luise B. Savage, an adjunct assistant professor at the West Virginia University (WVU) School of Medicine, Morgantown, West Virginia, is retired from the special education faculty at WVU, where she coordinated the program for gifted education.