How many definitions are there for the term: critical thinking?

Well, if you use Google and type: define:critical thinking in the search box, you will see at the top of the page, a link (Web definitions for Critical thinking) which will take you to several different website links, each with a different definition. As well, on that first Google results page and the following pages, there are so many websites promoting their own definition that one could be led astray for hours and days. Wow.

You know, for something that has been around for more than 60 years, one would think that the pundits would have an agreed-upon definition worked out by now. But no, some of the groups/organizations think that their definition is the one true definition. Good grief. Sounds like a religion!

Since there is so much disparity, then we must fall back to common sense (what!) and make a definition based on need, future education goals and the instruments to get us there.

One site that has a definition that I personally could work with, is from Prof. Brad Dowden at California State University. He has a light-hearted page with a definition which he likes which is actually a page of his Critical Thinking course. Be sure to read the Specific Skills page too.
A quote from his page:
"The following is a brief, but excellent, definition of "critical thinking" from a bill in the California State Senate that was trying to update the State's Education code:
Critical thinking is the ability to engage in reasoned discourse with intellectual standards such as clarity, accuracy, precision, and logic, and to use analytic skills with a fundamental value orientation that emphasizes intellectual humility, intellectual integrity, and fair-mindedness."

OK then, let's go to a so serious you can't crack a smile definition found here.
"Paul (1992, p. 9-10) defines critical thinking as "disciplined, self-directed thinking that exemplifies the perfections of thinking appropriate to a particular mode or domain of thought." Glock (1987, p. 9) offers the following broad definition: "Critical thinking skills are (a) those diverse cognitive processes and associated attitudes, (b) critical to intelligent action, (c) in diverse situations and fields, (d) that can be improved by instruction or conscious effort."

Then there is this more mellow, thoughtful reference to related "Reflected Thinking".

There are more "definitions" here.

So the beat goes on...

It is my hope that Alberta Education will present a coherent, logical, simple, easy to understand, easy to adopt, definition of "critical thinking", which will take us into the "21st century". The term has been bandied about quite a bit over the last 2-3 years in Alberta. I'm betting that for every school in Alberta there is a unique definition.

To think forward we sometimes have to look at the past, and preferably not make the same mistakes again.

Good teaching...Good learning...

Cheers - Mike

It was with great anticipation that I visited the Alberta Education website after the announcement today that the Inspiring Action on Education Discussion Paper was available to read. It can be found here. It is a pdf file which you may want to save on your computer to read at your leisure.

Well, then - here is my initial impression after reading the discussion paper once. I know that re-reading it will shed more insight, but first impressions are interesting.

It seems to be written by academics, for academics. I ran some paragraphs through a Flesch-Kincaid reading level analysis and from two different sources it ranged between 17.8 to 20.7 (grade level) with a Reading Ease of -.6 to 12.1 (a higher score indicates easier readability; scores go from 0 to 100).
The following scores were based on this paragraph:
"Education partners including government, school boards, schools, students, parents, teachers, post-secondary, business, industry and increasingly mobilized communities will need to develop and enhance relationships to support young Albertans. Focusing less on the system and the school and more on the student and their education will be achieved by learning partners recognizing and understanding the importance of student needs and the student voice. Partners will actively engage the student voice in further developing innovative and creative opportunities to optimize student success. This will involve developing new models and approaches to identifying student needs, developing flexible learning opportunities and supports, and creating responsive policies and enabling structures. Traditional learning approaches will be enhanced to incorporate emerging learning and teaching approaches, expanding learning contexts and enhanced learning experiences."

The Gunning-Fog Score was 20.90, the Coleman-Liau Index was 22.40, the SMOG (Simple Measure of Gobbledygook) Index was 15.40, the Automated Readability Index was 21.70.

The "discussion paper" seems to be aimed at teachers and government workers but not necessarily the stake-holders and partners, including parents and students. To reach the most number of people it seems to me that the score or index should be 12-14. Perhaps it could be re-written with that in mind.

I believe most parents reading it would just throw up their hands and say BS. Most of the items mentioned seem to be forgone conclusions and decisions made. I think it is called a discussion paper because people could provide input on the little, tiny details which won't matter much in the long run. The section about teachers was an interesting read. When will there be enough teachers to pull this knowledge-enhancement off, and where are they going to get the time to do it? Considering that right now school boards are considering layoffs because of budget constraints, this grandiose plan is a bit in cloud heaven.
Ah, but this is a plan for the future, right? Well, when is the future?

Is it possible that enabling legislation will be passed and the policy and procedural details will be worked out later? And, who will be doing that? The ones without a reality check - heads in clouds - making decisions which may not make sense? Or is it that the "public" will be "engaged" to "help" with input to the decisions or plans? With facilitators to help guide the public responders in an appropriate direction? I sure hope not.

So I am still hoping that some good will come of this next "engagement" process. But, after all the "feel good" and hope from last year and then to be presented with this "discussion paper", I'm starting to wonder.

You know, I am not normally negative about things. So I will re-read the paper and try to find some good in it and update this blog when I do.

To all you teachers, students and parents, I hope (yes, still hope) that your education future will be bright, thoughtful, meaningful and helpful, with incredible learning opportunities for all.

Good teaching...Good learning...

Cheers - Mike

PS: more related light reading for you...
Inspiring Education, Alberta Education, the School Act review
Anticipating Alberta's Inspiring Education Report as a Game Changer
inspiring education in alberta. | daveberta.ca
Braid: Alberta's education vision collides with hard reality‎
Alberta Education report is recycled edu-babble‎
Report may spark reform in Alberta schools

And finally;
Get with the times by Dave Hancock