Groundwork needed: why Critical Thinking is essential in citizenship education

Critical thinking has been an object of study for many decades now, although of course its origins can easily be traced back to at least Aristotle. And while one single definition of ‘Critical thinking’ has not yet been agreed upon, most of those interested in the question will accept that critical thinking can be sub-defined as having two main aspects – related, imbricated, intertwined yet distinct. These two aspects are the skills (properly so-called), and the dispositions.

As those names indicate, there are two operations at work when ‘thinking critically’: there is the mental attitude required, the frame of mind: the dispositions. And there is the applying of well-known rules (or mechanisms) to understand where thinking went wrong: the skills. Dispositions are basically habits we must learn to develop: open-mindedness, fair-mindedness, inquisitiveness, the desire to be well-informed, respecting others’ perspective (see E. Lai, reference below). Those dispositions, those habits of mind, are then in need of tools to concretise them: it’s all very well to have dispositions, but how do you use them in the real world? Well, you use tools, you use Skills: how to analyse arguments, and their flaws; making inferences using inductive and deductive logical thinking (and therefore spotting when inferences are wrongly made); defining terms; asking questions.

As you can see with that last – ‘asking questions’ – dispositions and skills work hand-in-hand; after all, asking questions is a propensity (a habit, a disposition), but asking the right question, at the right time, in the right way, to elicit the information needed, is a skill. Similarly, Paul (2008) pointed out how easy it was to think wrongly – wrongly as in making false inferences, drawing conclusions on flimsy premises, accepting too little information (unsourced) as evidence, for example. And he has many more of those, a good reality-check for anyone too sure of themselves. And as Watson (2018) remarks, it’s all very well to be inquisitive, but that’s not enough: you need to be ‘virtuously’ so, that is, you must apply thinking skills in order for your questions to elicit the right information.

But that’s not the most interesting part here: the most interesting is to ask what it is all for – why do we need to ensure we have the dispositions to thinking critically, and the tools to do so? Is it just another of those moral, educational stances?

One way to answer this – there are many more – is by considering those skills and dispositions from a societal perspective – how do they fit into our everyday living together? What is their practical, daily use, and why should teachers care – all teachers, not just some of them?

We could start by pointing out that the Council of Europe (2018) as well as the SLO (2024), attempting to define Citizenship (burgerschap), both identify Critical thinking as a core area of said citizenship. The Council of Europe, for example, sub-divides its ‘Descriptors of competences for democratic culture’ in four areas (Values, Attitudes, Skills and Knowledge and Critical understanding), where the last three are obviously heavily dependent on (and encouraging of) both critical thinking skills and dispositions. The SLO doesn’t do anything different by putting elements of Critical Thinking in all three of its sub-domains: most of the time it’s really an appeal to develop dispositions rather than tools (i.e. Skills properly-so-called), but of course those tools are not forgotten either.

So now we have a new angle: it turns out that fostering CT skills and dispositions is (or should be) beneficial to living together harmoniously – or harmoniously enough that we can make our societies work despite individual differences, beliefs, belief systems or ambitions. Which makes sense: we’re bombarded with information, a lot of it is false, or untrustworthy, or simply poor, partial or defective, so we need the tools and the attitude to question it and look further. We’re also bombarded with claims and counter-claims, fallacious arguments, lies by design and lies by omission, skewed perspectives and political agendas: believing in the inherent good nature of mankind might not be enough anymore, and so something else is needed.

One could argue that citizenship is all about democratic principles, for example (something I already discussed earlier here) and knowing one ought to respect (and accept) differences. While this is a worthy starting point, it’s also obvious that it cannot be the whole of citizenship: after all, telling a racist that racism is unacceptable is unlikely to lead him (or her) to change their ways. At most, they will not be open about it, but underneath their feelings won’t change, especially nowadays where science-based claims are ridiculed and serious investigative work is countered by cheap – but powerful and easier-to-take-in – memes or short videos.

No, really: if we want to create the conditions for harmonious living together and anchor the concept of citizenship, we need to start working on Critical Thinking Skills and Dispositions early, systematically and over a long period. We need to assess how well (or badly) children and teenagers handle critical thinking, how their thinking is constructed and influenced, and we must help them – daily – develop the tools they will need to be free: one is not free when one believes every tiktok video; one is not free when one believes any claim, any theory, any speaker without having the reflex to think, ponder, reflect, examine and (virtuously) question.

And that’s where we, teachers, come into play: yes we give exercises and lessons on those subjects, but the real question is: how do we help our learners daily, in our normal lessons, for example through the questions we ask them? Through our encouragement of their questions, and their questioning? How do we instil those skills and dispositions so that they become natural, instead of forced?

How do we react when a pupil gives a good (or bad) answer? What types of questions do we actually ask? (i.e. are they mostly factual? Evaluative? How many times do we ask real interpretive questions? Read HERE and THERE if you don't remember the differences between types of question - also essential if you teach literature! ). Do we encourage debate, do we create the conditions for discussions? Are we supportive rather than dismissive of a wrong answer? Do we ask how someone got to that answer instead of just focusing on the answer itself? Do we discuss how they reason, or do we latch on the conclusion of the reasoning without inspecting the way it’s reached?

If someone builds my house and they botch it up, I’ve got two choices: I can say: demolish it all, it’s not good enough – you’re not good enough.

Or I can say: let’s find out what the root(s) of the problem is, and fix that. No need to tear everything down; no need to dress you down; no need to simply tell you that you’re wrong and you’ve got to change your mind.

Critical thinking is multi-faceted, it contains different sub-elements that can all be developed and worked on: it’s not a monolithic unit, and it is most certainly something that needs to be worked on every day, in every class, in every subject.

Why? If only because citizenship is multi-faceted, it contains different sub-elements, and it cannot be reduced to just one approach: I’s the job of all of us, every day, in every class, in every subject.

Like, hmmm….Literature?

• Lai, E. (2011). Critical thinking: a literature review. Pearsons.
• Paul, R. (2008). The miniature guide to critical thinking. Berkeley:  Foundation for Critical Thinking.
  
• https://www.criticalthinking.org/pages/dr-richard-paul/818