Teaching Critical Thinking in the Context of Political Rhetoric

A Guide for Classroom Practice

Joseph Sanacore

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2021
• eBook ISBN: 9781000459227
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Education
• Subtopic: Education General

During the past several decades, there has been a blitz of information, sometimes referred to as the knowledge explosion, and students have struggled in their attempts to distinguish true, fake, and terribly biased information, especially regarding political issues. This book highlights the value of critical thinking as a way to navigate this difficult and frustrating terrain, so that students grow and develop as knowledgeable, independent thinkers. To promote this growth, the book offers thoughtful, evidence-based advice for teachers to support students' deep thinking as it relates to real-world contexts. Strategies presented include student reflection based on experience, moving from narrow to broader perspectives, and using graphic organizers to build and activate knowledge before, during, and after instructional activities. With the instructional guidance and activities presented in this short, easy-to-apply volume, teachers can give students the tools they need to negotiate the often-murky waters of political communication.

1 Introduction

DOI: 10.4324/9781003212300-1

“... I think that sometimes life and language break each other open to change, that a rupture in one can be a rapture in the other, that sometimes there are, as it were, words underneath the words–even the very Word underneath the words” (Wiman, 2016). Writing in The American Scholar, Christian Wiman’s (2016) reflection is spiritually inclined, and it has value for understanding the varied meanings of words and their empowering potential for changing people’s beliefs, for better or for worse. In the political context, words in the form of rhetoric have dominated politics in all countries for thousands of years, reflecting both positive and negative motivations. Some politicians, religious leaders, philosophers, news anchors, journalists, salespersons, neighbors, and others have used words to lie, exaggerate, exploit, bully, and promote bigotry. This broad, inclusive perspective suggests that the words political and rhetoric are used not only by politicians but also by others with questionable intent. Words can be used to “grab attention, manipulate emotions, and sneakily win arguments when you are backed into a corner. Ultimately, rhetoric provides a means to magnify your cause. It can be used for good or evil … I encourage students to use it for good” (Building Critical Thinking, 2013). When negative motivations occur, however, they often generate alternative facts, as the average citizen sometimes struggles in varied attempts to distinguish fake news from factual content. Aristotle (1924/2011, p. 203) believed that although the intent of rhetorical speech was “to lead to decisions,” not all speakers are credible and trustworthy. Aristotle observed that sophistic rhetoric, for example, “deliberately used misleading arguments and ambiguous words to deceive the listeners. When used this way, discourse no longer communicates wisdom; rather it obfuscates and deceives the public” (Minin-White, 2017, p. 14). Because language and power can manipulate and influence the world (Freire, 2000), this reality instigates a call to action to teach critical thinking so that citizens—old and young—have opportunities to interpret the rupture of language and to experience the rapture of becoming rational, independent thinkers.

In this book, critical thinking is often referred to as higher interactive thinking skills (HITS) because it is hard to imagine deep thinking without engaged communication for processing and interpreting meaning in any venue. Furthermore, although definitions and interpretations of critical thinking abound, The Foundation for Critical Thinking (2019) provides commonalities for understanding and applying this essential part of school curricula:

Critical thinking is that mode of thinking—about any subject, content, or problem—in which the thinker improves the quality of his or her thinking by skillfully analyzing, assessing, and reconstructing it. Critical thinking is self-directed, self-disciplined, self-monitored, and self-corrective thinking. It presupposes assent to rigorous standards of excellence and mindful command of their use. It entails effective communication and problem-solving abilities, as well as a commitment to overcome our native egocentrism and sociocentrism.

Complementing this definition is Elfatihi’s (2017) rationale for teaching critical thinking skills. Although it focuses on language teaching for ESL (English as a Second Language) and EFL (English as a Foreign Language) students, the rationale is applicable to all learners because virtually everyone is a language learner. According to Elfatihi,

1. Philosophically, critical thinking is connected to language and thought;
2. Cognitively and metacognitively, critical thinking influences and is influenced by processes, including comprehension, memory, and metacognitive awareness;
3. Pedagogically, instructional strategies and methodologies often require engagement in processing information, solving problems, making decisions, and evaluating results;
4. Socioeconomically, critical thinking is useful and pragmatic in social and interpersonal contexts, and the same perspective is needed to access the job market and to be successful in it.

Critical thinking is also essential for building a solid foundation in teaching and learning because “Much of our thinking, left to itself, is biased, distorted, partial, uninformed, or down-right prejudiced. Yet the quality of our life and that of which we produce, make, or build depend precisely on the quality of our thought” (Paul & Elder, 2007). As educators support the use of critical thinking in their classroom practice, they need to highlight the fundamental purpose of fostering traits of mind because “intellectual traits or dispositions distinguish a skilled but sophisticated thinker from a skilled fair-minded thinker. Fair-minded critical thinkers are intellectually humble and intellectually empathic. They have confidence in reason and intellectual integrity. They display intellectual courage and intellectual autonomy” (Elder & Paul, 2010, p. 38).

There are a range of critical thinking dispositions (CTDs) that are identified in professional literature. They include: inquisitiveness, open-mindedness, self-efficacy, attentiveness, intrinsic goal orientation, perseverance, organization, truth-seeking, creativity, skepticism, reflection, and resourcefulness. Of these 12 categories, research findings suggested “that the most influential of CTDs were inquisitiveness, open-mindedness, and self-efficacy, whereas the CTDs most enhanced by other dispositions were reflection and resourcefulness” (Dwyer, 2019; see also Dwyer, Harney, Hogan, & Kavanagh, 2016).

These dispositions suggest that effective critical thinking is neither value-neutral nor merely instrumental because it is deeply and personally connected with values and attitudes. Concerning values, making effective judgments or evaluations of problems requires not only an evaluative basis for decision-making but also a challenge of the values on which the judgment is made. Thus, effective critical thinking involves thoughtful reflection and analysis of values before they are accepted. It also increases the potential that critical thinkers and their perspectives will be challenged and may be changed. This reflexive context further supports connections between critical thinking and attitudes because it suggests growth in maturity, independence, and openness to consider and understand different perspectives. “Critical thinking, then, is not a merely logical exercise, but is a practice richly imbued with a set of values and attitudes” (Lynch, n.d.; see also Bartlett, 1932; Nord, 1995).

Supporting critical thinking and encouraging related dispositions are especially needed today because people have easy access to a blitz of information from their cell phones, iPads, laptops, and other technological devices. This blitz has resulted in “ideological bubbles” as people tend to pursue information sources that reflect their values and opinions (Bavel & Pereira, 2018), thereby hindering an understanding of others’ perspectives and opinions (Lombard, Schneider, Merminod, & Weiss, 2020; Rowe et al., 2015). Managing and understanding the increased access to information require critical thinking so that citizens develop the ability to distinguish true from fake or terribly biased information. In his essay “It’s Time to Get Serious About Teaching Critical Thinking” (2020b) and his book Critical Thinking (2020a), Jonathan Haber provides valuable insights that can be adapted to elementary, secondary, and college settings. Foremost is the application of critical thinking across content areas, resulting in transfer of learning, and this vitally important approach is more effective than teaching critical thinking generically (Willingham, 2019).

As teachers incorporate critical thinking across the curriculum, they come to realize that higher interactive processing requires calm, reflective thinking, and we can gain related insights from the themes and events in children’s literature. In his book titled Quiet, award-winning children’s writer Tomie dePaola (2018) provides a warm story with beautiful cartoon illustrations—done with transparent acrylics and colored pencils using a muted palette—that show a grandfather and his granddaughter and grandson walking in a park and observing busy aspects of nature. When they decide to sit on a bench and quietly observe and reflect, they realize that being quiet and still is good for thinking and seeing. Metaphorically, the serene context of Quiet can be applied to many aspects of life, including the busy rhetoric and actions of politicians and the need for reflection and engagement in critical thinking.

This perspective fits well with current views of how the human brain functions. In Kahneman’s (2011) view, briefly described, the brain has two systems that inform our thinking: System 1 represents fast thinking related to visual and cognitive illusions demonstrated through quick impressions, impulses, and intuitions (often in error), whereas System 2 reflects slow thinking related to effort and self-control. Individuals who uncritically adhere to their intuitions are likely to accept suggestions from System 1. “In particular, they are impulsive, impatient, and keen to receive immediate gratification” (p. 48), and they are more likely to believe and appreciate quick, gut-level rhetoric. If children are observing related household dispositions and are not encouraged to disagree in an agreeable manner, they probably will not grow beyond their limited backgrounds, as they undoubtedly will continue to demonstrate comparable feelings and behaviors learned and reinforced during childhood and adolescence. The outcomes are obvious: The next generation of American citizens will lack the ability to think critically and beyond the rhetoric of their favorite political leaders, colleagues, parents, neighbors, friends, and others—with or without moral intent.

Understanding this perspective is essential for navigating today’s culture of questionable discourse. In a special issue of Informal Logic, guest editors Katharina Stevens and Michael Baumtrog (2018) highlighted the theme of “Reason and Rhetoric in the Time of Alternative Facts.” The articles in this issue are thoughtful and provocative, and they contribute to a growing awareness of reason and rhetoric in today’s culture of politics. Collectively, the articles clarify issues of political fabrications and fake news, and they reinforce the importance of teaching critical thinking in elementary and secondary schools and colleges.

Moving in this direction requires genuine caring with a “big-picture” vision of learning and teaching (Sanacore, 1999). Especially needed is serious holistic attention to students’ emotional, social, cognitive, and interactive needs, regardless of their genders, cultures, disabilities, and socioeconomic backgrounds. Thayer-Bacon (1993) clarified this relational epistemology view of caring in her thoughtful essay “Caring and Its Relationship to Critical Thinking”:

People do not have to like or love each other in order to care. They do need to develop the ability to be receptive and open to other people and their ideas, willing to attend to them, to listen and consider their possibilities. Care does NOT entail that people agree with each other. Care does mean that people are open to possibly hearing others’ voices more completely and fairly … Caring about other people … requires respecting others as separate, autonomous people (ideas, other life forms, etc.) worthy of caring. It is an attitude that gives value to others by denoting that others are worth attending to in a serious or close manner (p. 325).

While caring about students’ growth and development, some educators avoid potentially controversial issues (Murray-Everett & Coffield, 2020), even though students need and generally want to learn to deliberate about such issues. As important, this learning experience is powerfully connected to political engagement (McAvoy & Hess, 2013). According to Kolluri (2017/2018), “Democracy necessitates civil deliberation of thorny political issues. If schools, out of fear, neglect to develop this capacity, students will graduate unprepared to navigate political controversies and potentially reluctant to influence the political contexts that shape their lives” (p. 41).

Fortunately, the wave of social justice movements in the United States has resulted in one of the first school systems nationwide to recognize the importance of student activism. The Fairfax (VA) County Public Schools, for example, will allow secondary-level students one excused absence every school year to engage in such civic activities as sit-ins, marches, and trips to lobby legislators. According to Ryan McElveen, Fairfax School Board member, “I think we’re setting the stage with this … It’s a dawning of a new day in student activism, and school systems everywhere are going to have to be responsive to it” (cited in Natanson, 2019). From a curricular perspective, student activism is passionate and has the potential to engage students in the critical thinking process as a firsthand, lived-through experience.

In support of social justice movements, student activism can be especially effective when it is influenced by moral imperatives and when moral decisions are not only about inspiration but also about pertinent information. In his blog “Research is Vital to the Moral Integrity of Social Movements,” Rev. Dr. William J. Barber II (2019) noted that factual information forces society to realize the harm and the hurt of decisions people are making. “We’ve seen too many movements that have bumper sticker sayings but no stats and no depth. Researchers help to protect the moral integrity of a movement by providing sound analysis of the facts and issues at hand.”

Barber II’s perspective is well received. Before students engage in activism, they should be encouraged to conduct research to determine the efficacy of the social justice movement they intend to support. A re...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half Title
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Dedication
• Contents
• Easing into the Book
• 1 Introduction
• 2 The Need to Teach Critical Thinking
• 3 Promoting Critical Thinking
• 4 Application and Transfer of Learning
• 5 Other Strategies and Activities That Support Transfer of Learning
• 6 The Value of Hard Work
• 7 Reflections on Critical Thinking
• 8 In Retrospect
• References
• About the Author