When New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern spoke at Harvard University’s commencement ceremony recently, she warned about the flood of disinformation that she sees as a threat to fragile democracies.
“In a disinformation age, we need to learn to analyze and critique information,” she said.
Ardern was referring to the importance of teaching critical thinking in the development of young minds.
Often confused with criticism, critical thinking is the analysis of available facts, evidence, observations and arguments to form a judgment, while criticism is about finding fault with something or someone.
Critical thinking, which can include finding faults and flaws, has more emphasis on questioning and analysis, while criticism is often based on emotion and directed at a specific target.
Critical thinking is always directed at the argument or concept, not the individual.
While critical thinking may analyze the role of emotion, it is essentially about assessing the value of an argument objectively.
Critical thinking is also about a student learning to think for him/herself rather than unquestioningly accepting someone else’s thinking. It involves judgment that is justified with reason, logic and observable fact.
To reframe Ardern’s message to the Harvard grads, teaching students how to examine issues fair-mindedly, and how to analyze and evaluate diverging claims thoughtfully is vital to the success of a free and informed democracy.
This raises two questions: first, can critical thinking actually be taught, and second, can the outcome of an attempt to teach kids how to think critically be measured?
The answer to the first question is “absolutely yes.”
Discussing actual examples of successful and unsuccessful decision-making and problem-solving situations with case studies as examples would be a place to start.
The shortage of family doctors in sa国际传媒, for example, is an issue widely addressed in local newspaper comment articles, letters to the editor and editorials.
Students could be asked to analyze the situation in the light of a series of common evaluative elements.
What are the current conditions that are relevant to the situation? Which authorities are likely to be able to remedy the situation? Are the reports and opinions accurate in terms of the size of the problem? Has the situation been manipulated for political purposes?
That’s critical thinking. Criticism would be just looking for someone or some group to blame without addressing the elements of the problem or situation under discussion.
An important exercise in teaching critical thinking would be to have students learn to distinguish between misinformation and disinformation in media.
Misinformation is generally considered to be false information that is shared by a source who had the intent to inform but is unaware the information is false or inaccurate. Misinformation includes conspiracy theories, even satire. Misinformation is not deliberately intended to deceive, but often does aim to shape or change public opinion on a given topic.
Disinformation, on the other hand, is false information that is shared by a source with the deliberate intent to deceive or obfuscate. The source is fully aware that the information is false, but uses it anyway to incite an emotional response or create a distraction.
In both cases, students can be encouraged to examine information and ask themselves: What is the essential content of this information asking you to focus on? Is this information reasonable? Is it reputable, or does it cite reputable sources?
Fake news on social media is inevitable and, for anybody using online information, unavoidable. Through the application of critical-thinking techniques that involve examining available facts and evidence from a variety of sources, students can learn to do their own rational, skeptical, unbiased analysis and evaluation of the information.
As students become comfortable with the elements of critical thinking, they learn to ask better questions and uncover some of their own biases.
As Ardern proposed in her Harvard address, this is why democracy requires critical thinkers.
But how can success in teaching critical thinking be measured?
Most writers and researchers suggest that teachers should be asking students leading questions and then, by using the students’ own answers, drawing from them information, inferences and predictions about a topic.
Students should be able to identify and summarize the pivotal issues of the topic and explain why they are important. Students should also be able to tell the difference between facts and suppositions.
As Aristotle, one of the original teachers of critical thinking, wrote: “It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it.”
Geoff Johnson is a former superintendent of schools.
