Put the toolkit on trial
You've watched the toolkit tested on other people's arguments. Now test the toolkit itself. A cognitive scientist argues that critical thinking can't really be taught as a set of general-purpose tools. The critical thinking toolkit has just given you seven general-purpose tools. Who's right, and how far? We'd like to know what you think.
The reading
This one is pitched at JC and senior high school students. Younger students are very welcome to try it: take the reading slowly, and don't worry if some of it goes over your head the first time.
The article
Daniel T. Willingham, "Critical Thinking: Why Is It So Hard to Teach?", American Educator, Summer 2007. Willingham is a professor of psychology at the University of Virginia who studies how people learn. Read it free from the American Federation of Teachers ↗
It was written for teachers, not students, so expect some slow going. Read it twice: once to follow the argument, and once with a pencil, marking every study he uses as evidence.
Five terms from the article you'll need:
| Term | What it means |
|---|---|
| Surface structure | What a problem looks like it's about: the story, the setting, the objects in it. |
| Deep structure | What a problem is really about underneath: the principle or method that solves it. |
| Domain knowledge | What you know about a particular subject — biology, football, the history of the Cold War. |
| Metacognitive strategy | A rule of thumb for steering your own thinking, such as "look at both sides of an issue." |
| Transfer | Using something you learned in one situation in a different situation that needs it. |
Questions and angles to consider
Write about 800–1,000 words saying what you think. There's no set structure. The questions below are starting points, not a checklist: take up the ones that interest you, and write connected paragraphs that build an argument rather than answering them one by one. A few questions explored properly beat many touched on briefly. Explain the article in your own words; quote Willingham only where his exact wording matters, and keep quotations to a sentence or less.
Take the argument apart (Tool 1)
- What is Willingham's main claim, in one sentence of your own?
- Which studies carry his argument? What did the participants do, what happened, and what does he conclude from it?
- What does his argument rest on that he never says out loud?
Test the argument (Tools 2, 4, 6 and 7)
- Compared with what? In the band-and-garden study, a hint raised the success rate from 19% to 35%. Is that a big effect or a small one? What does Willingham conclude from the fact that the number rose at all — and from the fact that most people still failed?
- Compared with what? He calls the critical-thinking programs of the 1980s "not very effective" but says they had a modest benefit. Not very effective compared with what? What would you need to know to judge that for yourself?
- Over what period? The article was published in 2007 and discusses programs from the 1980s. What would you need to find out to decide whether its conclusions still hold today?
- What would change your mind? Students often fail to use a method they've learned when a new problem looks different. Willingham's explanation is that they lack the knowledge to see the deep structure. Is there a rival explanation? Where would the two explanations predict different things — and does any study in the article help you tell them apart?
Turn it on the toolkit
- The top of the toolkit page says the seven tools "work on economics, science, politics, advertising, social media". Would Willingham agree? Which of his three conclusions at the end of the article does that promise clash with, and which does it fit?
- In Willingham's terms, are the seven tools skills or metacognitive strategies? Does the answer change from one tool to another?
- Look back at your Try it answers on the toolkit page. Which did you answer well, and which did you struggle with? How much did each depend on what you already knew about the topic — memory, advertising, football, your school?
- Which parts of the toolkit might Willingham approve of, and why? Look closely at what the case studies and the practice section ask you to do.
Where you land
- Can critical thinking be taught? A clear position helps your reader, and "yes, but only if…" is a position.
- What is the strongest point against your view, and what evidence would change your mind? (Tool 7 applies to you too.)
- If you could change one thing about the toolkit page to make it teach critical thinking better, in Willingham's terms, what would it be?
- One way to finish: "I used to think ___. Now I think ___, because ___. I'm still unsure about ___."
Send us your opinion
Sending it in is optional: the thinking is the point, whether or not anyone else reads it. But if you'd like us to read it, we'd love to.
How to submit
Email it to hello@mail.smartpathsg.com with "Toolkit on trial" in the subject line. Paste it into the email, or attach it as a document or PDF.
Tell us the name you'd like it to appear under: a first name, a pen name, or "Anonymous". Please don't include your full name or your school.
What happens next
By submitting, you agree that we can choose to publish part or all of your piece on SmartPathSG, possibly with edits for clarity. We can't publish every piece we receive, and we will never publish your email address.
Why ask?
The checklist told you to run its questions on anything — including the toolkit itself. This is that, done properly. A toolkit that can't survive its own questions isn't worth keeping.