CRITICAL THINKING IN U.S. HISTORY:
IMPROVING JUDGMENT FOR CITIZENSHIP
EXPANDED EXPLANATIONS
CRITICAL THINKING DEFINITIONS
There are a number of definitions of critical thinking. I used the earliest version by Robert Ennis in the introduction to the booklets: “The reasonable assessment of statements.” This definition has the advantage of being concise and straightforward. Professor Ennis later expanded his definition, but this early definition fits well with the focus in these books on the skills of evaluating interpretations.
There are other definitions, for example:
“Ideas are advanced and rigorously tested. Those that withstand critical examination are provisionally accepted, while those that do not are discarded.” (Robert Grimes)
“Thinking that explicitly aims at well-founded judgment … to determine the true worth, merit, or value of something.” (Richard Paul, Linda Elder, Ted Bartell)
BLOOM’S TAXONOMY
For those familiar with Bloom’s Taxonomy of Educational Objectives (see bibliography), the books in this series focus on these levels: analyze, evaluate, create.
CLOSE READING OF TEXTS
All of the problems in these books provide opportunities for students to improve at close reading of texts (primary and secondary sources in history). The texts vary from a single sentence to longer pieces of several pages. Through teaching specific skills in how to analyze and evaluate and argument, students are given the tools to slow down and consider the strength of specific arguments in texts. These are skills and attitudes that will stay with students.
THE ROLE OF BIASES
We want students to focus on their own biases. Richard Paul, in his book Critical Thinking, argues that we do not want to teach critical thinking skills so that students can win arguments. He says that true critical thinking – what he calls “critical thinking in the strong sense” – occurs when we recognize our own biases and errors in thinking.
Several lessons in each book involve examination of student biases. Some lessons focused on evaluating sources include questions of student opinions on these topics before they begin using critical thinking skills to evaluate those sources. We want students to reflect on their opinions of a topic as they dive into their analysis because if their opinions are likely to shape the way they analyze the sources. A student who thinks Ben Franklin was a terrible person needs to be conscious of their opinion as they evaluate sources on Ben Franklin, since that opinion could shape the way the student sees the sources.
Likewise, there is a survey on the causes of the American Revolution that is referenced in the teacher materials for Lesson 9 and Lesson 10 on interpretations of the causes of the Revolution. Again, opinion on the causes, particularly on which side was more at fault, may shape the way students evaluated the interpretations.
In addition, the first lesson in each book is devoted specifically to biases in thinking. The reason bias is the subject of the first lesson is that bias influences all our other thinking on the other historical topics. These activities on bias take many forms:
Confirmation bias: The most common of all the biases, confirmation bias (also called my side bias) affects all people. It is the tendency to accept uncritically that information or arguments that confirm our point of view, but to be very critical of information or arguments that contradict our point of view.
Emotions: Our emotions on a topic influence the way we evaluate evidence and arguments on that topic. Anger, disgust, sympathy, joy, sadness, love and other emotions can cloud our ability to fairly evaluate claims and evidence. Audio visual presentations are especially dangerous in bringing up emotions, so visual images are included in some books in the series. One of the biggest emotions that affects our judgment is fear. If we fear that a group or individual has evil intent, we are much less likely to view their statements or actions objectively. Fear also plays a role in our per group. If we think that taking a position will be popular with our group, we are more likely to adopt that position, whereas if that position is likely to be unpopular, we are less likely to adopt it. On the other hand, if we pride ourselves on being a maverick, we may take a position contrary to our peer group in order to show our individuality.
Ideology: When someone’s frame of reference is influenced or controlled by an ideology, their confirmation bias can be extreme, filtering out any contrary ideas. For example, communist ideology in China led many Chinese people to follow the pronouncement of Mao Zedong and filter out any other views. When he initiated the Great Leap Forward, people melted their farms implements in backyard furnaces in order to use the metal to meet Mao’s expanded production goals. As a result, millions of people starved. Ideology can severely distort our view of reality.
Conspiracy theories: Research indicates that many people are susceptible to conspiracy theories, and that people who believe in one conspiracy are more likely to believe in other conspiracies. There are conspiracies in history, so sometimes identifying a conspiracy is correct. In these books, the term conspiracy theory applies to a belief in a conspiracy by unseen others without solid evidence of the actual conspiracy. People who believe in conspiracy theories tend to attribute causes to the intentions of individuals or groups and to downplay the importance of historical forces. When people advance a conspiracy explanation, we need to ask what evidence they have to prove the conspiracy. Some people are attracted to conspiracy theories because they are exciting or melodramatic. Conspiracy theories can provide a social group of like-minded people. They can also provide a sense of superiority: the devotees of the conspiracy theory may feel they know the true causes of events that those outside the group just don’t understand.
Superstitions: History provides a multitude of superstitions, such as Friday the 13th. These superstitions are generally just fun and not taken too seriously. According to studies, some people are attracted to superstitions to help them make sense of a chaotic, complex world. It gives them a feeling of control, such as wearing lucky socks before an athletic game. But sometimes it goes too far when they are used to guide important decisions, such as postponing a needed surgery until after Friday the 13th. By looking at superstitions in history, students will have a safe place to reflect on the role of superstition and not use them as a basis for making important decisions.
Propaganda: Propaganda involves purposeful selection of information and the use of misleading information in order to influence an audience to a particular point of view. Identifying propaganda in history is intended to build student awareness to propaganda and otherwise slanted views in their own lives.
Attribution theory: People tend to attribute simple, evil motives to people they dislike or don’t agree with, while allowing for more complex motives for people they agree with or like. (“They were forced into it. What else could they have done?”) This bias is one focus of Lesson 1, Handout 4.
For each of these biases, the first and most important step is getting students to identify that they may hold some of these biases on some topics. Discussion about the characteristics of each type of bias can help reduce their influence.
THE PSYCHOLOGY OF JUDGMENT
Humans have survived because of their ability to think. Compared to many animals, we are not strong, or fast, or equipped with weapons (claws, sharp teeth) or armament (exoskeletons). Our ability to think and communicate has helped us to flourish in many ways. All our tools have been developed by our thinking. In order to save mental energy, we have developed shortcuts, called heuristics or shortcuts. Once we recognize a pattern, we use a shortcut – a guideline – instead of having to think about it each time before we take action. Imagine if you had to think about whether the floor would hold you up every time you are getting up out of bed. These guidelines, which allow us to act without have to stop and think, are absolutely necessary to functioning in the real world.
But there is a downside to these heuristics. In their research, Daniel Kahneman and Amos Tversky, as well as many other cognitive psychologists, showed that these guidelines also lead to biases. What they mean by biases are errors in thinking that tend to fall in the same direction. For example, if a coin had come up heads five times in a row, many people would say that it is more likely to come up tails the next time, even though the actual odds are still 50/50 (the gambler’s bias). In his book Thinking Fast and Slow, Kahneman explains that thinking fast (using guidelines) is fine for most activities, but we need to use slow thinking (using critical thinking skills and being reflective) for activities like… evaluating interpretations in history!
Slow thinking is what we would all want more people to use as citizens on current issues and political questions. History class is a safe place to develop those critical thinking skills and attitudes necessary for reflective citizenship. Since the issues occurred in the past, emotions are not as central to the discussion as they would be for current events, where polarization might mitigate against thoughtful conversation. That does not mean that emotions are not ever involved in the study of history. When they do arise in class, we want to focus students on why they are feeling those emotions. Student reflection (what critical thinking experts call metacognition) is a central goal.
PRINCIPLES OF CAUSATION
The subskills taught in these books on cause-and-effect are based on the way historians evaluate causes. It is common, for example, for historians to say that something could not have been an important cause because it doesn’t have an outcome that is consistent with that cause. (“Imperialism couldn’t have been an important cause of World War I because if it were, Britain and France, which were the main countries involved in imperialist conflicts, would have fought against each other. But they were on the same side against Germany.”) Historians also search for evidence to support or weaken proposed causes and they put great effort into explaining how proposed causes led to particular events. Each of these methods of evaluation is targeted in lessons on causation.
Mark Buchanan brings a different perspective on causation in history. In his book, Ubiquity: The Science of History (see sources), he argues that events may not have main causes. Rather, causes may pile up until they get too high, at which point the pile falls into revolution or some other event. Teachers may want to tell students about this theory of causation, but I wasn’t able to think of another way to incorporate it.
A NOTE ON INTERPRETATIONS
Interpretations are a key component of these critical thinking books. This is where students get the opportunity to apply the critical thinking skills they have learned to actual (albeit shortened and summarized) historical interpretations. Although the interpretations comprise only 2 or 3 lessons in each book, they often take up close to half the pages of those books.
In addition, interpretations introduce students to the idea that historians often disagree on what exactly happened in history, what caused historical events, and what is important about those events. Just seeing different interpretations changes students’ epistemology. Instead of information to be memorized, history becomes the area of study where interpretations are evaluated according to their evidence and arguments. Student’s become active participants. They become detectives in the search for truth. To paraphrase one of my colleagues, Dick Aieta, “Once students see that there are different interpretations of historical events, they can never go back. Their view of history is forever changed.”
The evaluation of interpretations is emphatically not the same as “everyone has their own opinion.” Here, we are judging the strength of interpretations according to their evidence and the strength of their arguments. All views are most certainly not equal. Each interpretation must earn our support as we analyze their arguments in support of their thesis. In the words of David Grimes, “Ideas [interpretations] are advanced and rigorously tested. Those that withstand critical examination are provisionally accepted, while those that do not are discarded.”
In a sense, some of the shorter lessons are also interpretations, so students get practice in evaluating different viewpoints in less encompassing arguments and focused on a single skill.