CE2

Paid to Think - Redefining Civic Leadership
Written in the National Civic Review (found on EBSCO)
Ricardo Gomes (associate professor at Universidade de Brasilia and coordinator of the Public Administration and Government Division of the Brazilian Academy of Manage- ment (ANPAD).
Greg Streib (professor of public administration at Georgia State University).

This article looks at the importance of critical thinking within the public service domain (civil leadership). Specifically, it looks at critical thinking in relation to decision making. It notes some of the differences between advances in critical thinking and cognitive science in other domains but how the same advances have been lacking in public administration.

A main point of the article was how bias can feed into decision-making, noting “everyone involved in government decisions should be well aware of the potential biases that are inevitably part of every decision-making process.” The article went into different types of biases and one that resonated with me was the ‘sunflower bias’. This is when people tend to follow the views of their leaders as opposed to thinking more independently. This bias in particular, appears in my experience at least, to be most prevalent in the public sector.

To better public service decision-making the article concludes, “Civic leaders are paid to think, and we need to raise the performance expectations. The quality of the decisions made today will determine our future.” Specifically, in order to do that, it notes that the “essential steps involve critical thinking as a dedicated practice (asking questions and considering other points of view), knowing and avoiding cognitive biases, building effective decision teams, and using checklists to guide significant decisions.”

My second CE isn’t well defined yet but I’m looking at doing something related to critical thinking within government, so this article was a good start and linked me to a few other resources to explore.

My second collaborative exploration (CE) is definitely still in an incubation stage but in comparison to the first collaborative exploration, I feel a bit more comfortable with being uncomfortable about that.

My second exploration is looking at how everyone can think critically in relation to government (public sector) work. I’m not totally sure where it’s going yet or what form it might take for a final product. At the moment, I’ve basically been thinking about how all of the info I’m reading on effective critical thinking may apply to those working in the public sector.

My research has lead me to the article I posted an annotated bibliography (Redefining Civic Leadership) and some more resources from http://www.criticalthinking.org/, along with some other more general advice on how to think critically. I’ve also been reading a bit on the bystander effect since Peter’s comments on a previous post and thinking more generally about what it is that might stand in the way of people thinking critically within government.

Over the next few days, I plan to continue looking at what people have written about effective critical thinking and start ‘zooming in’ a bit more to find some more specific material related to the public sector (likely, around the blocks to critical thinking within the public sector). I’d also like to get a better picture of what my final product might look so that I can develop a work-in-progress presentation next week.

I am trying to get my hands on a copy of International Handbook of Research on Conceptual Change so I can look to see if the field has addressed:
a) the private universes that people bring to a situation with respect to what they are and are not prepared to subject to scrutiny in a critical thinking way; and
b) the kind of support a person needs to take the time it takes to allow in new influences that, while building on a., also allow the person to subject previous protected ideas and practices to scrutiny.
If the field hasn't addressed a & b, I may find researchers who seem good contacts to explore the issues.

This line of inquiry has emerged in part because I was fascinated with the stories told in the second round of autobiographical intros and how different they were from 4 weeks earlier. Each story helped me understand better how each of you had tackled CE1, in many cases promoting your favored ideas more than subjecting them to scrutiny. I am no doubting my first response, which was to provide more explicit instructions and coaching in CE1 to get students to scrutinize approaches. Now I think it is important to allow the private universes to come to light, then develop ways--and allow time--to support students in sense of b.

(Source for "private universe": http://www.scienceinschool.org/2010/issue17/privateuniverse)

When giving my revised introduction, I commented on how difficult it sometimes is to get people to want to think critically, or to see why they would want to. So for this CE, I'm trying to focus my inquiry on how to get people started - what tools and techniques are available to help people see how they can take the first steps toward critical thinking and how they could use it to their benefit. Is there a process that they could follow that would help guide them step-by-step?

Hey All-
I wasn't able to be in class on Tuesday due to work obligations. I just wanted to share with everyone were my head was at, when I was completing the free writing activity and my thoughts and plans for CE2. You certainly don't have to respond, just wanted to share. :)

This week I did find it a little challenging to start thinking about my CE2, while making the final touches to my CE1. However, one thing that sort of stemmed from the CE1 that I feel like I am bringing into CE2 is the concept of evaluation and assessment. I was really intrigued by the assessments I found to assess mentoring impacts.

I have begun looking at information on ways to assess critical thinking. If everyone CAN in fact think critically, what are some ways that we can look at this and know it is happening. Perhaps assessing change overtime? I have found that there is A LOT of information, so I am working to narrow down to a few that I find I like the best. I know from our introductions last week that many of us felt as though we were critical thinkers before, but we are now starting to open our eyes to it a bit more and I am really interested in looking at what other people’s perceptions are of critical thinking and some activities that you can use to promote, engage, assess, and practice.

Hi everyone -

I wanted to share a few thoughts after listening to this week's dialogue hour. I'm sorry I missed it because I found the flow of conversation to be really interesting. While doing the free writing exercise, I had similar thoughts to a couple of you in that I have been finding it difficult to finish CE1. Mostly because I feel like I have only scratched the surface so it feels wrong to call it "done." Of course I know it was meant to be just a starting point and I will still be carrying on with the overall concept as we move forward but it's hard to just draw the line in the sand, if that makes sense.

A number of comments made during the dialogue hour really hit home for me as well. I believe Mare initially commented about thinking about the specific processes and skills related to critical thinking (similar to when teaching reading) and that is something that interests me as part of CE2. Bill had also commented about understanding the obstacles to critical thinking and I think, for me, those two concepts tie together. I'm admittedly a "process" person so I tend to think of "how to's" and approaching things methodically. So I would think that having a clear process to follow (as much as possible) might help to identify or overcome some of those obstacles that we know exist (but maybe can't yet define). That's where I'm focusing my thoughts right now for CE2 but that is still admittedly very broad so I'm working to narrow that down a bit.

I have been looking at critical thinking and how it is done within government. Government being somewhere that I think doesn't provide a great environment/culture for critical thinking. I read lots on critical thinking itself and found less than I expected specific to government critical thinking (or even lack of government critical thinking). I spent a good part of the week not really sure how this CE2 was going to come together. I lost my drive to explore what I was exploring and considered starting over with something completely new but I didn't want to 'lose' what I had worked through already. Then, I listened to a radio program about critical thinking. (http://www.cbc.ca/radio/thecurrent/the-current-for-september-07-2015-1.3217914/critical-thinking-discourages-ideas-says-professor-1.3217951). In it, a professor from the University of Calgary essentially argues that critical thinking is destructive and we're misguided in teaching it to university students. I disagreed with him (on lots of points) and in short, think he's confused criticism and critical thinking. Then, I realized that maybe that's not his fault and similar to working in government or any culture that doesn't foster or appreciate critical thought, tone and tact are so important in conveying the results of critical thought. So for me CE2, as an entry to a guidebook on critical thinking, I've begun to focus not on how to critical think but how to provide the feedback from critical thinking without it being lost in translation as criticism or negatively judged in some other way.

For those interested, that website above with the radio program is a really interesting listen. They also have an 'expert' critical thinker on the program who happens to be a philosophy professor, who at one point argues that critical thinking is just logical reasoning.... though some of the other things she says makes me think she sees it a bit more through the 21st century wave as well. Anyway, it was all pretty interesting and relevant to what we've been discussing.

David Kooharian
Where I am at:
My project has evolved and the focus has changed to understanding how the stories we tell ourselves control our lives and if they are not enhancing our lives and giving us comfort and direction then they need to be changed. I am looking at examples of stories that control people and societies and find ways in which these stories were changed, either by accident or on purpose.
I have found new sources of information and I am still looking for more. I am applying critical thinking to issues of the day, both personal and societal, to explain what we do through the lens of story. I will then offer alternative ways of doing things.
What I need to do:
I need to focus my idea on a few examples. At least one example should be a cultural story. One should be personal or pertaining to the individual. One will deal with our place in the world and the universe. The last will be about stories that should open us up to the experience of being alive.
Obstacles:
The obstacle I face is finding ways that are effective in changing minds whether or not those ways are strictly considered critical thinking. This means understanding what makes people do things even if it seems against their best interests.

David Kooharian
601 Notes on CE2
10/25/15
I am reading an article in Harper’s magazine called “Let There be Markets, the Evangelical Roots of Economics”, by Gordon Bigelow. The premise is that the evangelical Christians of the 1800-1850s started to look at the capitalist economy as a reflection of their beliefs. Bigelow describes economics as sold to us through its advocates and the media, has become our creation myth, our story of how the universe is ordered and where we stand in relation to it, to God.
Maybe that is a bit over the top but then again it does explain a lot and it also fits nicely into my thoughts that we become the stories we tell ourselves and that one of those stories is about the supremacy of capitalistic economics. One example of this takes place during the Irish famine. At the outset of the blight the English government acted to import grain from America to feed the hungry. This however did not last long as the liberal government was replaced by the more conservative, religious party and they viewed the famine through their different story. The new government looked at the famine and didn’t see a blight that happens in nature arbitrarily. Instead they saw a message from God about the wickedness of the catholic Irish. The best help that they could provide was not food for the starving but a lesson in suffering that would reveal the error of their ways. Food deliveries were turned away, charities closed, starvation increased. All for a story.
Looking at our own country today I see echoes of this story. Cut all aid and help to those who need it and transfer as much wealth as possible to the top 1 percent. The story of economics mixed with religious beliefs protects the adherents of austerity from the guilt and responsibility of the suffering of the poor. Again, it is just a story, not a law of nature.

We all want practical ways to bring critical thinking into our daily lives. I am interested in exploring the steps to take in order to enter into a state of critical thinking.

Can we not approach critical thinking from the perspective of what is best for the person or situation-this would be particularly helpful in a classroom environment where a multitude of diverse thinking exists. This would of course require the instructor to already be in a mature state of thinking. In my last CE I discussed states of higher thinking and the role of individual intelligence once acknowledged and accepted-this would be an example of being in a mature state of thinking. The state of the individual is a key component in building critical thinking-the individual has to comfortably and confidently be able to leave one space and enter another without threat. I would like to explore the conditions that allow this to happen.

This time around, I feel like I am finding ALOT of information on assessments and I am working on narrowing it down as much as possible. During CE1, I explored Mentoring as a way to change thinking, which calls for a person to be reflective. I am finding that many of these tools are also asking for both the person administering and that person taking the assessment to be reflective. Cleary a common trait in critical thinking, but not always as easy as it sounds.

While critical thinking is such a large spectrum, I am trying to focus on specific things to be assessed and general tools. I have found a few formal assessments, that need to be purchased, however, I am seeing that many of them were created in the 80's!

After last Week's class, I begun to explore what the compromise could have been between the different generations of the critical thinking movements, and I thought of a guide or schema as to extracting the best qualities from each movement, and meshing them to sync into a coherent and effective process. The best way I can describe it is the "Objective and Subjective Dual Model" Where the process is broken down to several steps. The first being to lay out all the observations about a particular subject or problem. Second would be to organize/categorize what is an observable truth/facts in one group and what has subjective influence in another. Third would be to plot key stakeholders and players. Last would be the messiest process of creating connections between all factors, and trying to map out causations, effects, reactions, and assumptions.

Title: An Exhibit to the CE2 Guidebook on the Writings of “Perspective Transformation” by Early Critical Thinker Stephen Brookfield

Stephen Brookfield was one of the early writers of critical thinking specifically as it applied to adults, adult learning, and teaching adults. He published a number of books in the area of critical thinking in the 1980s. One of which is what I intend to focus on was published in 1987 is entitled: "Developing Critical Thinkers: Challenging Adults to Explore Alternative Ways of Thinking and Acting." In this book he tied critical thinking to a concept called "perspective transformation." (this term coined by his colleague at Columbia by the name of Jack Mezirow). I would like to explore various aspects of Brookfield's writings as it relates to this CE.

Key concepts from Brookfield (1987):
• Focus on how to “Thinking Critically in Adult Life”
• Importance of critical thinking to perspective transformation
• Application of critical thinking concepts to various professions and aspects of life
• The formation of competence in the adult learner from critical thinking and this transformation
• How to teach critical thinking to elicit transformational learning to adult learners (effective instructional techniques)
• Teachers have a responsibility to produce critically reflective adults/students

Therefore, this CE2 will be an examination of this early critical thinking book relative to a few key points:

1. What is written in the Brookfield book that seems to be relevant and persistent with today’s modern writings on critical thinking (a brief overview)?
2. What issues about the Bookfield book that are false, true, very true, and essential to the study of critical thinking today nearly 30 years after this seminal work was published?
3. Anything about “indirect learning” in the Brookfield book?
4. How does “perspective transformation” relate today with regard to critical thinking?

Respectfully submitted,
Bill Haney

Clearly critical thinking is the undisputed goal for 21st century students regardless of how you define it. While there is much variety in just what should be called “critical thinking” there is consensus that higher order thinking (including skills, disposition, and habits) is the goal of our modern educational system. Students need to be able to function in an ever changing, global climate. But how do you know that you are accurately measuring the skills that you are seeking to assess? And do these measures inform teaching practices and student learning. First, critical thinking skills must be delineated in such a way that they can be measured. So a working definition of critical thinking is required in order to measure what students know, understand, and can do. Furthermore, what is the best tool(s)to measure such skills especially when a student's thinking is not visible? From what I've read this week, there is no argument that the best way to assess CT skills is over a period of time in a variety of settings – in the classroom and at home. Why aren’t we doing that? Instead we are administering standardized tests to measure learning– I heard a statistic on the radio yesterday that students take an average of 112 tests in their K-12 career. That would be fine if the tests actually measured the outcomes we expected. Maybe we are going about it the wrong way. The hue and cry is that teachers are “teaching to the test,” but shouldn’t that be the goal instead of the argument? In 2005 McTighe and Wiggins published a book called Understanding By Design in which they suggested that backward design is the most effective way to teach – teachers need to create lessons that achieve preconceived goals, in other words, beginning with the end in mind. This book came out at the same time that standards were being mandated in all states. McTighe and Wiggins, both veteran educators and assessment specialists, suggested a radical (although certainly sensible) plan. They advised teachers to create a curriculum that was based on those specified benchmarks. Rather than plan a summative test after the teaching, the assessment preceded the teaching with lessons and activities that were truly designed with those standards in mind. Along the way formative assessments would help measure student growth and development and guide the course of instruction. Makes sense. In the schools where I taught (upper middle class communities with plenty of resources), we certainly adopted the UbD methodology: we wrote common assessments incorporating the standards and created lessons that addressed those standards. And we “taught to the test.” But did those assessments accurately measure all aspects of CT? And were these CT skills transferred beyond the content domain? And how did the local assessments synch with the state tests? Did the state tests measure CT as it purported to?

Arthur Costa, creator of the Habits of Mind, wrote an article delineating a system of assessment for critical thinking in which he advocated local, often, and personal record keeping. I like it. And I certainly did much of it in the classroom. But it took time, effort, and training which not every school system is devoted to. I annotated the article below.

Costa, Arthur L. and Bena Kallick. "Building a System for Assessing Thinking." Developing Minds: A Resource for Teaching Thinking. 3rd ed. (2001): 517-524. Print.

Even though there is little disagreement that critical thinking is required for the workplace and the democracy, there is much debate about how to measure it. When you hear the word assessment or standardized testing it implies accountability – and there is a negative connotation to the term since testing is intended to identify failing teachers and school systems. Rather, the authentic goal of assessment should be to improve teaching and learning, so testing measures should include more than just standardized testing. Costa and Kallick suggest that interdependent assessments of a composite view of thinking, including cognitive skills, thinking tasks, and habits of mind, must include various forms of evaluation with the overall goal of assessing students over time in a rich variety of contexts. These measurement tools, when conducted regularly in the classroom and at home, give educators and parents a truer record of student growth and development in critical thinking, leading eventually to self-evaluation, the ultimate goal. As the title of the article suggests, these tools are part of a system of evaluation in which teachers collect a myriad of data from a variety of feedback sources including checklists, rubrics, portfolios, performances, anecdotal records, interviews, journals, and logs. This documentation is a far more accurate representation of student thinking and provides better ways to foster growth.

Asp, Elliott. “To Think or Not To Think: Thinking as Measured on State and National Assessments.” Developing Minds: A Resource for Teaching Thinking. 3rd ed. (2001): 497-510. Print.

Testing is not an option in public education today, but the manner of testing is open to debate. There is no doubt, however, that testing has an influence on classroom instruction; the fact is that teachers use instructional practices that mimic the format of the tests. But, are the tests accurate measures of student thinking? The author, a former teacher and curriculum specialist who emphasizes data-driven decision making, offers some encouraging news about improvement in state tests with regard to measuring thinking; however, this is not universal since many states have regressed “in how they address thinking” to a more traditional approach. No state tests are a match for high-quality classroom assessment, but improved standardized measures are possible if the criteria for specific aspects of thinking are spelled out ahead of time and informed by practitioners, cognitive psychologists, and professional educators rather than state policymakers and testing directors. The introduction of new technology as well as the incorporation of more thought provoking test items can have a positive effect on the future of standardized testing.

This weekend I attended a Socrates Cafe, conducted in the style of Christopher Phillips who authored the book by the same name (mentioned in my first CE). It was held in a Unitarian Church in the Washington, DC area - facilitated by a church member who has been doing it every month for the last six years having taken over from another gentleman who did it for four years prior. There were almost 20 attendees, a diverse crowd, some of whom were long time participants. The facilitator conducted the cafe according to the DOs and DON'Ts outlined in the book and on the website. Everyone suggested a question and we voted on what to talk about. Then we broke into three groups and discussed the BIG question for about an hour. After that we came back and reorganized to discuss the second most popular question. So, the first question was "Is regret a useful emotion?" And the second question was "Should a philosopher's personal life be considered separately from his ideas?" That first conversation was very Socratic - questions and more questions asked and commented on. One gentleman was silent the whole hour until another member of the group asked him a direct question. He then unleashed a narrative that was so compelling that we all just sat there and were trasnfixed. It was somewhat of a diversion from the original question, but after I reconsidered, I realized that it was right on, and quite revealing about this man's regret (or lack thereof). The second question did not go so well - the conversation meandered and was unsatisfying perhaps because it was already getting late (and I think it was a bad question). Overall I thought it was a hoot. I'm not sure I'd drive there again, but I enjoyed observing the model. It was a good research opportunity.

Amy Plus: Was interesting because we've looked at a lot of the same things (the how to of critical thinking). I took a course (put on by work) from Nosich... he's the person that got me into all this! to your point... i think he gave me the baby steps Delta: Have you considered looking at any blocks that might get in the way of the steps? Also maybe look at Paul Elder guidebooks (i think you can probably get them online..)
Amy (BH) Plus: I have not read much by Paul...that is, he has a LARGE volume of work published on CT. Almost too much! LOL... Because it is so large, it is hard to digest. So it is nice to see someone boil all that down, hope you are able to do that for what this CE is able to accomplish. Delta: Finding information about something specific like you are asking is hard. Funny how we have access to SO MUCH professional and scholarly information and yet, it is so difficult to find exactly what we are looking for. That is what happened in my CE1...which led me to believe that there is nothing out there on what I was looking for. So I either had to change my question about the CE...or....do the research myself! Keep on searching!
Amy (JN) Plus: I'm glad that you approached the inquiry of there being a go to guide for critical thinking. Delta: I don't think I have one, but I do have a opinion as to why such a thing does not exist yet, and that is that it is a skill set we demand all the time, that it is taken for granted as to "how" one actually "do" critical thinking.
Amy (SF) Plus: The concept of a 'step by step' for those feeling intimidated or not sure is great. This being my first graduate course in CRTH and I think this would be helpful to have. Delta: Perhaps interviewing people in CRTH courses who are new to this and maybe asking them some of their apprehensions and ways they have adjusted.
Amy (SS) Plus: It is related to my inquiry Delta: Maybe a deeper explanation of what she is hoping to gain and expose in the CE
Amy by Peter Plus: Reviewing the literature with a specific & relevant search item Delta: "Does the lack of a starting point and step by step approach say something more general?
"
Amy CE-2 (ma) Plus: It is difficult to find just the right sources to answer your questions. Delta: The Nosich book is a very nice guide. I hope you will find it useful.
Amy DK Plus: I like the Idea that a guide may exist. Delta:
Bill Plus: I keep running into new and old sources but haven't critically compared the two... Delta: Maybe explore some of the reasons why information that is in the old sources has been 'left behind'... was it proved to be not true/not useful etc. (though you may already be doing this)
Bill Plus: I'm glad that you are using a source that seems interdisciplinary, and applying it in this class context Delta: I don't have much, but possibly increasing the saturation of other literature to help shape your case?
Bill (pt) Plus: Reminding us about Brookfield's early work Delta: Is perspective transformation like my 1->2 schema or the platform picture?
Bill CE-2 presentation Plus: As usual you are very organized. I like the idea that you are revisiting a resource that was very meaningful to you at one time. Delta: This is very relevant to our work with adult students. Your findings will be useful.
Bill H DK Plus: I thought Bill did a great job of explaining where he was going. Delta: I would like to hear more about the Brookfield ideas.
Bill Haney -WIP CE2 (AS) Plus: Interested to hear more of your thoughts having re-read the book so many years later and with such a better knowledgebase now. Delta:
Bill-SS Plus: The concept being explored. Delta: Think this will come out in the actual paper.
David Plus: I think this is such an interesting topic and I think that you are totally right that there is a stigma that critical thinking is just an opinion, but you are right, people feel very strongly about their opinions. Delta: I don't have anything, I think you are on the right track here. Sorry!
David Plus: I think our inquiries are similar in a lot of ways. Delta: Some of the readings I've been looking at are about "constructive criticism", which however soft seem to point in some direction towards a way of providing critical thinking without running into the roadblocks.
David (BH) Plus: Obstacles to getting an idea across...I think yours was the only presentation that talked about EMOTIONS that a person might be experiencing. You talked about FEARS that people might have. "How can they digest the message so that they can feel good about." I appreciated that. Delta: So, I think that some of what you are saying might be a bit vague...that is, I'm not sure I understand fully what this CE is about with you. Maybe it was that you did not have a visual that I could "see" it...but that is my problem. What matters is the learning that you are undergoing. But communicating that to us is important too. Might want to think about that a little...:-)
david (pt) Plus: What's the story that got us to be inside a limited framing? Delta: How do we find the threads to pull to get us to an alternative story that gets us out of the limited framing?
David CE2 (ma) Plus: Looking at how people can be shaken from their fiercely held beliefs is a laudable albeit difficult goal. Delta: The stories are compelling.
David CE2 WIP - (AS) Plus: Good point that people try to hold emotion separate from critical thinking. Delta:
David JN Plus: I'm glad you tackled the resistance to critical thinking Delta: Do you know how or if there are any sources that have tackled this issue?
David-SS Plus: That people hold strongly to their opinions and fears. Delta: Is the objective of the CE to find ways to break down people's fear and connect?
Joey Plus: I appreciated the bullets and diagram in the presentation (working together) that helped me understand. Delta: You might want to consider running your scenario an example in the product.
Joey Plus: This was very interesting and creative. I was interested in the disaggregation phase the most, as this is probably difficult to do. I like that you added, 'to that best of your ability' Delta: I think it is well thought out and on its way! I know you are still working on it but maybe a more concrete model with an example? However, I think you made it quite clear and easy to understand.
Joey - CE2 WIP (AS) Plus: Like the organization and structure that you are using to segregate the components of the conflict. Delta: are there specific types of conflicts that this would be better suited for or do you think it would be applicable to most?
Joey (BH) Plus: "My diagram needs a few more arrows..." Great way to start your presentation! LOL.... Great idea...that is, put the three "eras" of critical thinking together! I like it. Delta: Sounds like you are developing your own theory which might be moving into CE#3 which Peter talked about in the introduction. I'm just not sure how critical thinking "fits" into your model...that is, what are the underlying theories that your model is built upon? You seem to be building on "eras" rather than theories...not sure though. You might want to think about that. It also seems more like a "conflict resolution" model (for a conflict resolution class) than a critical thinking model. Maybe you can balance the two out together. But I like the initiative you have taken to think this through.
joey (PT) Plus: Connecting conflict resolution with critical thinking Delta: How Stanja's action plan and movement might merge with your dispute resolution
Joey DK Plus: I thought that focusing on a 4 step process was effective. Delta: I would like to see it applied to an example problem.
Joey-SS Plus: Very interesting topic and well explained-would like to see more. Delta: A deeper explanation of the diagram
Mare Plus: Interesting take, turning it on its head. Teaching to the test is a good thing, the tests need to just be better. Made me think! Also the ability to allow failure seems so important. Delta: Maybe consider looking at how other 'similar' things are assessed and if those tools might be applicable to critical thinking. (it sounds like maybe you're already done some of this with portfolios, logs etc.)
Mare Plus: Being also in the education field, I am familiar with 'starting backwards' with the assessment first. Also nice to hear from someone in your field! Delta: I was intrigued by your comment to agreeing to teaching to the test. Maybe you can argue this point further as to why?
Mare (BH) Plus: This is very interesting to me (assessment) because my university is ALL ABOUT assessment...that is, everything we do is about assessment. I think we "over-assess". So it will be interesting to hear about how CT is assessed. Delta: The problem with starting with the assessment and then "working background" to form curriculum is that often it is done to satisfy the assessment measures/requirements of some outside accrediting board that often limits the creativity of the curriculum. Not sure if that applies to this CE#3 for you but it might be worth thinking about.
Mare (JN) Plus: I like that you approached the evaluation question, because it is always tough and sometimes disregarded in terms of processes of Critical thinking Delta: Have you looked at how critical thinking is evaluated in other countries? maybe even in countries that do extensive testing, compared to some that dont do much of it?
Mare (pt) Plus: Taking a systematic approach (McT & W-style) as if we could define the learning goal for developing critical thinking Delta: Where to allow space for teacher to evolve goals in response to students, setting, events,...?
Mare CE2 WIP - (AS) Plus: Definitely agree with the need to measure/evaluate; otherwise how do we know if we are succeeding. Delta: But, if we should be teaching to the test, then we need to make sure that the tests are testing the right things correct? So we know that we are learning what will be useful.
Mare DK Plus: I was interested in the idea of reverse engineering the assessments. Delta: I would like to see a standardized test that can accurately measure critical thinking and or creativity.
Mare-SS Plus: The idea of analyzing current assessment tools Delta: Would have liked more time on the visual
Peter Plus: the private universe has been a tough thing to set aside, I find I'm always contextualizing the course information within, so your inquiry into the scaffolding is appreciate because that seems to really be where we begin. Delta: You may wish to see how private universes affect other things...ie. not critical thinking and see how that might apply to critical thinking (if you are still having difficulty finding info)
Peter - CE-2 Plus: I like the idea of contacting researchers to get the most current and relevant information. Usually people are very willing to share their knowledge and perspective - that's been my experience anyway. Delta: Your idea is very hard to wrap my head around, but I anticipate clarity as we go further.
Peter (BH) Plus: I enjoyed that you were starting to develop your own theories about CT through this CE2. Delta: Not sure I understand the concept of "personal universe." I think that term needs to be defined a bit more in depth.
Peter (pjt) Plus: Taking the first turn. Admitting hat it was more like CE3 and yet to review established texts Delta: Explain what's wrong with linear view
Peter (SF) Plus: I like that you were intrigued by other peoples experiences for the CE. I think it allows for a good deal of real life experience in your research. Delta: Perhaps interviewing others to talk about 'platforms' and test your theories.
Peter Taylor - CE2 WIP (AS) Plus: Like the idea of the platform as part of your framework and also that the inquiry arose from seeing differences in how we presented our autobiographical introductions. Delta: Nothing as yet. I look forward to seeing the end product.
Peter Taylor DK Plus: I liked the clear way you presented your information. Delta: I missed some of it as I came in late.
Peter-SS Plus: Like the direction and the inquiries-found similarities in what I am looking to explore. Loved the visual aids Delta: I actually don't have any. I really connected with the presentation.
Peter Plus: I like the Schemas developed, they are very clear. Delta: I didn't know if the development in the second slide, showed that these students over time learned this integration and development through your model, or if it is an assumption that combined with your first slide's model, it would help improve that dynamic.
Phil Plus: I think it is great that you are focusing on the positive of critical thinking and trying to research ways to make feedback effective and not seem argumentative. Delta: Why do you think that critical thinking can have this bad or negative rep?
Phil -CE2 WIP (AS) Plus: Good point that how feedback is presented can have a big impact on how it is received. Delta: I think training to give/receive feedback would be a huge benefit, right?
Phil (BH) Plus: "Blocks" is what I am most interested in learning about in this CCT program. And so I liked how you talked about the "ball getting past the blocks" as I have never thought of it that way before. Delta: Learning about blocks to CT is an entire subject that has not been written about a lot. And I'm not satisfied to simply say that "it is the opposite of what it takes to be a good critical thinker"...I think there is more to it than just that. But again, I think that the literature is limited on this inquiry. So you may have trouble finding stuff...not sure.
Phil (pt) Plus: Blocks in cultures where CrTh is not appreciated Delta: "See my comment on Finn as critical thinker on the CE2 page
Focused conversations are a way for person or group to discover what's limited in their initial thinking. See the models in the book."
Phil CE2 (ma) Plus: You have done a good job narrowing your focus. Delta: "Everyone can think critically but do they want to? Do they internalize the value of it?

Paul has a critical thinking tool - for sale - on the website. Couldn't get it, but maybe you'll have good luck."
Phil DK Plus: I liked the idea of how to convey critical thinking. Delta: I would like to see more about the obsticals of delivering the message.
Phil JN Plus: Your visual was clear and the approach was too Delta: I would have like to see more on the barriers that prevent folks to positively react to critical thinking
Phil-SS Plus: The inquiry into how to convey critical thinking in environments where it is not necessarily fostered. Delta: A better understanding of how this would be applied to a real live situation.
Shawna Plus: The clarity of expectations seemed really important.. I also see the importance of self-assessment that I think you're getting into Delta: Maybe consider exploring the importance of assessment, why it's necessary.
Shawna (BH) Plus: Although BIG...I like the larger comprehensive view of this topic...it helps to have a bird's-eye view of the topic. That view might be able to be used to help you "assess" whether this is too large a topic to do this small CE on...not sure. Delta: I think this is the third CE for this CE#2 that deals with assessment of critical thinking. Nothing wrong with that, but I wonder what the "obsession" (is that the right word) is with assessment. So...having said that...with all the factors you wrote there (four domains, types of assessments, instruments, etc.) is it even possible to get a good comprehensive assessment on something that often seems so amorphous? I'm not sure.
Shawna (CE2 WIP) - AS Plus: Very interesting to see how many types of assessments there are. I didn't realize.... Delta: The info you can find about self-assessment will be really interesting.
shawna (pt) Plus: "critical thinking is thinking that assesses itself" Delta: Balance the emphasis on summative assessment with formative assessment (during the process to help it improve)
Shawna CE2 (ma) Plus: This is clearly something that is relevant to your field. Helps with motivation and focus. And your results may be applied to your own work. Delta: Explore assessment tools for young learners (your focus group) since tests are not useful.
Shawna DK Plus: I liked the effort to think about assessments of critical thinking. Delta: I am interested in assessments that work. Examples.
Shawna JN Plus: Im glad that you approached the assessment aspect. Delta: I would like to know more on the self assessments protocols
Shawna-SS Plus: The idea of self-assessing and its' importance to critical thinking Delta: Maybe a bit more explanation on clarity on what is hoped to be gained from the CE.
Stanja Plus: your diagram was really helpful for me to understand your inquiry. Delta: You could possibly consider providing examples in your product to illustrate such things as when flexibility might be important etc.
Stanja Plus: I really liked how you used experiences from our class mates, as well as material we have already discussed to formulate your project thus far. Delta: Your statement that critical thinking takes time and is ongoing, is really great. Maybe you can start to explore some of the stages in life and expectations of brain development? IE. How it starts in childhood?
Stanja (BH) Plus: I think what you might be saying is that we have to "prepare" ourselves to be a critical thinker. I think there is a LOT out there one how to prepare ourselves to be a critical thinker..that is, "prerequisites" on how to be a critical thinker. Delta: I would have liked to have seen what some of the early writers might have said about "critical thinking action plan" because I have never seen that term used about CT.
Stanja (JN) Plus: I love the clarity of your visual aid and your model. Delta: for all the development to happen in critical thinking, would there be more clarification that creates the environments in which promote the values you mentioned.
stanja (pt) Plus: Start with Action Plan Delta: What would an action plan look like in the arena of critical thinking?
Stanja CE-2 (ma) Plus: Appreciating diversity is something important to consider. Delta: Traveling and exposure to other cultures were mentioned in our creativity class as something that contributes to creative thinking. It is an important consideration for critical thinking too. Would like to know more about that.
Stanja CE2 WIP - (AS) Plus: love the idea of the action plan. Delta: Would love to hear more about the "movement" component of your framework.
Stanja DK Plus: The plan for being a critical thinker was nicely laid out. Delta: I would like to hear about some of the areas of transference.
William (SF) Plus: Really great visual aid. I think your idea for this CE is really creative and will be a pretty cool learning process for you. I am excited to see final draft of it. Delta: I think your questions to explore are right on track for ways to further your CE.
William(FDD) Plus: Your idea of indirect learning related to perspective transformation Delta: More detail about the relationship between perspective transformation and reflexive transformation

Part of my early morning reflections after yesterday's presentations and activity and after starting to read the references suggested by researchers I have been contacting.

What is the goal of having a required course on critical thinking for a graduate program in critical and creative thinking? The goal, I think, is to foster something and foster the students’ capacity to do likewise, to pay it forward. What is that “something" and what is its relationship to "critical thinking"?
Read more: http://wp.me/p1gwfa-IJ #601

Constructive Criticism: A Tool for Improvement
By Dr. Ken Petress, University of Maine at Presque Isle
College Student Journal, 01463934, Sep2000, Vol. 34, Issue 3
Found vis EBSCO

The article discusses the importance of providing feedback and criticism in a constructive way. To that end, it gives some advice on “phrasing and style” and how it can “enhance or hinder critical reception”. It notes the importance of paying attention to “tone, timing, and context” when providing constructive criticism. It provides a few examples but doesn’t go into great detail in providing how these issues might be dealt with. However, that might speak to their complexity and the need for tone/tact to tie in closely with specific individual circumstances.

My CE2 is looking at how to convey critical thinking effectively. Essentially, I’m looking at how to provide the results of critical thinking in a constructive way in order to further it in organizations/cultures that may not typically support it.
Where the article expanded my view was in talking about ‘the receivers’ of criticism and the role they play. It’s made me think about my particular situation, where the receiver isn’t always a willing participant but is a major factor in how feedback is going to be received.

Jackson, G. (2012). Charting the Thought Process. Bized, 11(1), 44-47.

In this article Giles Jackson discusses a teaching model he developed after he observed that students with less developed critical thinking skills needed more support and structure to get started. Through this model, which he calls Clockwise, students move through a three step, circular process to develop their critical thinking skills. The students begin by reading an article and they then summarize the main points, analyze and critique what they've found and then try to make connections between the information they've read and other sources, topics, etc. They work on these individually at first and then later collaborate with other students to try to consolidate into one broader model.

It was interesting to note in the article that Jackson believed that the third step of "connecting" provided an important bridge between critical thinking and creativity. He felt that this form of lateral thinking would help students ease into making more creative connections as they developed. He also mentions that as he provides articles for the students to review, he is able to force deeper thinking and connections by providing articles across a broader range of topics. He also notes that by asking students to repeat Clockwise charts that they had done earlier in the semester, they could easily see how much their thinking had improved.

An earlier post pushed against the teaching of critical thinking as a coherent set of skills and dispositions to be fostered on their own, as in the “teaching of thinking.” Instead, teaching critical thinking could be presented as an opportunity to introduce tools and processes that the student may adapt adopt and adapt in the larger process of developing their capacities to make change in their work, lives, and world. But why teach critical thinking even in this sense of an entry point to change making? Why not pursue “action learning” from the get go? Read more: http://wp.me/p1gwfa-IU

Annotated Bibliography
I am working on a paper I call, Changing the Story We Tell Ourselves. I believe that we as a species become the stories we tell ourselves. Some times that is good and it raises us up but all stories are not good. We can get caught in a story that diminishes life and I think we as a society and as individuals can chose to change our stories through critical and creative thinking. Here are two of my sources:

Graeber, D. (2014). Debt, The First 5,000 Years. Brooklyn, NY: Melville House.
This is a fascinating book about a seemingly dull subject but what makes it so good is that it tells a story of a subject we thought we knew. The history of debt and the economy has been mythologized the book claims. In this mythology the room for critical thinking is very narrow as all of the important facts have been decided and there is little room for discussion or change. Greaber asks us to consider that the story we know is in fact just a story and as such it can and should be questioned. This fits nicely into my project because I am looking into how the stories we tell ourselves and up controlling how we live and the only way to change that is to understand that the stories we live by can be critically examined and rewritten if needed.

Elder, L., & Paul, R. (n.d.). Become A Critic of Your Thinking. Retrieved from http://www.criticalthinking.org/pages/becoming-a-critic-of-your-thinking/478
This is a very straight forward look at CT. I appreciate how it gets right to the point in simple, clear, points. It starts out with a description of critical thinking and breaks it down into bullet points. Sticking to the point is then emphasized including useful strategies. The importance of questioning our questions is laid out and examples given. Advice about maintaining an open mind and being prepared to change one’s mind is advised. I am reminded of Robert Kennedy’s changing stance on the death penalty. He had been in favor of it but after his brother’s death he spent a great deal of time thinking and reading. When he ran for president he came out in opposition to the death penalty. When he was sked about his former endorsement of the penalty he responded that that was before he read Sartre. This is a powerful example of a Politician having the courage to change his mind when a new way of thinking emerges. At the end there is a segment on Dysfunctional habits of critical thinking which I really responded to. Not so much because I see myself in these habits but because I see the habits of someone that I simply cannot speak with in a productive way. This person has all of the bed habits listed and is, I believe, struggling with a borderline personality disorder. There is an exact match in dysfunctional habits of critical thinking. Reason is powerless in this case. It is purely emotional and even that is unstable.
An area for further research would be how to use critical thinking with a dysfunctional individual.

Paul, R. & Elder, L. (2001). Critical Thinking in Everyday Life: 9 Strategies. Modified from the book by Paul, R. & Elder, L. (2001). Critical Thinking: Tools for Taking Charge of Your Learning and Your Life. Retrieved from http://www.criticalthinking.org/pages/critical-thinking-in-everyday-life-9-strategies/512.

In this article, Paul and Elder start by discussing that the effort to develop critical thinking skills should be undertaken with the understanding that it may take years to improve, there is no quick fix. To this end, they suggest a number of strategies to be used to increase critical thinking within our daily lives. They also give a brief mention of different stages of development of a critical thinker*.

I found these strategies to be interesting because they provide an actual exercise for students to do to develop critical thinking. Especially for beginners, I think having a task-oriented exercise or approach might be helpful to get them started. These exercises don't need to be done in any specific order nor would a student need to necessarily do all of them which is another benefit as it makes them feel more accessible and less overwhelming.

Still not the step-by-step approach I had initially been looking for but a good resource nonetheless.

*More detail about the stages provided in their article Critical Thinking Development: A Stage Theory (found at http://www.criticalthinking.org/pages/critical-thinking-development-a-stage-theory/483)

Continuing my backwards approach to CE2, by clarifying how I think CCT differs from direct approaches to critical thinking and direct approaches to creative thinking as well. With a bit more setting of the scene, this could become an entry in the guidebook.

A 22-minute video on what it is that students have become by the time they graduate from the Critical and Creative Thinking program, how that happens, and ways it contrasts with alternative models. This exposition builds on recent posts about teaching critical thinking and previous posts about studios and a "slow mode."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jQOgdlvBdA0&feature=youtu.be

Kassem, C. L.. (2000). Implementation of a School-Wide Approach to Critical Thinking
Instruction. American Secondary Education, 29(2), 26–36.

College Professor Cherri Kassem explains her model of CRTA, which is a baseline for creating and implementing a curriculum that fosters Critical Thinking. Kassem discusses each step of this model that covers environment, reflection, and assessment. In this article Kassem shares an example of a small high school in Georgia that is using a modified model of her CRTA with the help of professional development specialists. Kassem explores assessment methods that we used, highlighting their strengths and weakness. She discusses each step of the mode, including both successes and setbacks they faced. Kassem also discusses changes that have been made to the program, since implementation based on assessment results.

Paul, R., & Nosich, G. (1993). A Model for the National Assessment of Higher Order Thinking.
Retrieved October 23, 2015.
https://www.criticalthinking.org/pages/a-model-for-the-national-assessment-of-higher-order-thinking/591

Informative article that explores the concept of assessing Higher Order thinking, as well as various methods and techniques. Paul and Nosich introduce the Domains of Critical Thinking, which allow for more accurate evaluation, as the topic is not so board. They then pair each domain the most appropriate assessment methods to get accurate results. This article also includes example of each assessment and what it may look like.

An Exhibit to the CE2 Guidebook on the Writings of “Perspective Transformation” by Early Critical Thinking Writer Stephen Brookfield

William J. Haney, Student
CRCRTH601 Critical Thinking
University of Massachusetts Boston
Dr. Peter Taylor, Instructor
November 9, 2015

ABSTRACT

This paper is part of a “collaborative exercise” in the CRCRTH601 Critical Thinking class taught by Dr. Peter Taylor at the University of Massachusetts Boston. This “collaborative exercise” adds to an overall exhibit that makes the assertion “Everyone Can Think Critically!” To contribute to that assertion, this collaborative exercise examines the contributions of early critical thinking author Dr. Stephen Brookfield in the text “Developing Critical Thinkers: Challenging Adults to Explore Alternative Ways of Thinking and Acting.” The paper is divided into four questions that result in a better understanding of that book: the relevance of the text today, an examination of the truth and falsehood of the assertions made in the text, a comparison and inclusion of the concepts of “indirect learning” in the text, and whether a key concept of the text called “perspective transformation” has application in today’s world.

Key Words: perspective transformation, Stephen Brookfield, Columbia University Teachers College, critical thinkers, adult learning, critical thinking, Jack Mezirow,

INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND

Dr. Stephen Brookfield currently holds the “John Ireland Endowed Chair” at the University of St. Thomas in Minneapolis-St. Paul, Minnesota. He has won numerous awards and honors chiefly in the area of adult learning, higher education, and critical thinking. He has published a vast number of books and articles in critical thinking. One of his seminal works in the area of critical thinking is entitled “Developing Critical Thinkers: Challenging Adults to Explore Alternative Ways of Thinking and Acting.” This book, published in 1987 by Jossey-Bass Publishers, was one of the first books to combine the initial precepts of critical thinking with a concept he called “perspective transformation.” First described by his colleague at Columbia University Jack Mezirow, and later adapted and tied into critical thinking, “perspective transformation” combines critical thinking to behavior change to form a new way of behaving as a result of critical thinking (Mezirow, 1978). Simply put, perspective transformation as it relates to adult learners are the learning processes by which people begin to recognize and re-frame their culturally induced biases and dependencies and relationships (Mezirow, 1991). It is a transformation of a person’s thinking through significant personal learning (Knowles, 1990).
Given the importance of Brookfield to the development of early theories of critical thinking, and, his relevance to adult learning, three research questions will be asked in this collaborative exploration:
1. What is written in the Brookfield book that seems to be relevant and persistent with today’s modern writings on critical thinking (a brief overview)?
2. What issues about the Bookfield book that are false, true, very true, and essential to the study of critical thinking today nearly 30 years after this seminal work was published?
3. Anything about “indirect learning” in the Brookfield book?
4. How does “perspective transformation” relate today with regard to critical thinking?

QUESTION 1: THE RELEVANCE OF BROOKFIELD TODAY

Brookfield’s emphases in his writings have been mainly in the area of applied adult learning theory. Specifically, he is most noted for the application of adult learning theory into classroom pedagogy and andragogy. In the process of developing those theories, he “stumbled” into the area of critical thinking. There is no evidence that his primary research emphasis is “critical thinking” in his writing since most of his articles and books deal with adult learning theory. However, in much of his writing he links critical thinking and applied adult learning theory in so many ways that he began to write about critical thinking.
Prior to the authorship of “Developing Critical Thinkers: Challenging Adults to Explore Alternative Ways of Thinking and Acting,” in 1987, Brookfield concentrated on learning theory with titles that dealt with issues like self-directed learning, the facilitation of adult learning, and effective methods of adult teaching. The text mentioned in this inquiry was the first book published that discussed critically thinking specifically, but mainly, as it applied to exploring alternative ways for adults to think and act. So even with this book, the emphasis was on adult learning methodology.
An examination “Developing Critical Thinkers: Challenging Adults to Explore Alternative Ways of Thinking and Acting” shows some key concepts that are clearly relevant to today’s theories of critical thinking. The text is divided into three parts as follows:
1. Understanding Critical Thinking in Adult Life
2. Practical Approaches for Developing Critical Thinkers
3. Helping Adults Learn to Think Critically in Different Arenas of Life
Part one is merely an overview of his definitions associated with critical thinking. He outlines what it means to think critically, how to recognize critical thinking, and how to learn to think critically in adult life. Additionally he seems to make an application to these concepts of critical thinking to provide example of his perspective by including a chapter entitled “How Critical Thinking Sustains a Healthy Democracy.” While this topic is a bit surprising for an adult education textbook, it is not surprising given how Brookfield tends to make application of his theories in a number of his works. He seems fascinated with the concept of adult learning and democracy because several of his future works include topics on issues like: just worlds, democratic classrooms, helping children stand up to society, and social change.
Part two of the book describes practical approaches for developing critical thinkers. In this part, Brookfield discusses strategies and techniques in developing critical thinkers, mainly pointed toward adult learners. He also describes in this part the assumptions underlying critical thinkers’ thoughts and actions. In later written works by Brookfield, he developed further the concept of “assumptions” and how they relate to critical thinking.
Part three of the book is primarily the “application” section of the book. In it, Brookfield describes various arenas of life where educators can help adults learn to think critically. He specifically discusses the workplace, political arenas, television reporting, and personal relationships. He also briefly discusses how to become a skilled facilitator of critical thinking.
Brookfield seems to describe critical thinking rather than define it. In some of his later works, he explains in great detail, and, ties the examination of assumptions into the definition of critical thinking (2011). But in this early work, he describes how to “recognize critical thinking” and the “components of critical thinking.” Relevant to today’s readings on critical thinking, Brookfield mentions several issues that seem to be relevant today. They include:
• Critical thinking is a process, not an outcome (p. 6), and
• Critical thinking is emotive as well as rational (p. 7).
Based on some of the readings found in this course, those two concepts seem to be two of the most relevant for today’s literature on critical thinking. However, having said that, most of the concepts that Brookfield mentions seem to be wholly applicable to todays’ study of critical thinking. In Part One, he also discusses the concept of “emancipatory learning” From the work of Apps (1985) he defines emancipatory learning as “that which frees people from personal, institutional, or environmental forces that prevent them from seeing new directions, from gaining control of their lives, their society and their world.” (p. 12). Additionally, the concept of “dialectical thinking” is when people “engage in a continual process of making judgements about aspects of their lives, identifying the general rules implicit in these judgements, modifying the original judgments in light of the appropriateness of these general rules.” (p. 13).
These two concepts of emancipatory learning and dialectical thinking” seem important and relative to the concept of meta-analysis in today’s literature and practice. The ability of a person to perform self-analysis on their thinking seems to be a concept that has taken firm root in critical thinking literature. This is very relevant to today’s concepts.

QUESTION 2: THE TRUE AND FALSE OF BROOKFIELD

Any conclusion about the truth or falsehood of an author is extremely difficult to undertake. This is even more difficult when the author is still alive and continuing to develop his or her theories. In the case of Brookfield, he is prolific in his writing and publishing. And therefore, it would be unfair to prematurely judge his body of work while it is not complete, and certainly through the words of only this one book.
However, there is nothing that this researcher found in this text that seems to be outdated, false, or even controversial. Parts one and two seem to be some of the earliest writings of his views on critical thinking as it relates to adult learning. He bases his theories on the foundation writings of Malcolm Knowles and Jack Mezirow who are two of the most influential educators of the 20th century in the area of adult learning. Brookfield “links” adult learning theory to critical thinking in this text.
The one area of Brookfield that seems to be noticeably missing is “assessment.” Very little of the book entitled “Developing Critical Thinkers: Challenging Adults to Explore Alternative Ways of Thinking and Acting” has information about how to assess the learning of critical thinking. There is no chapter on measurement, or, efforts to measure the application of critical thinking in any of the chapters. Even in Part Three of the text where Brookfield applies critical thinking to the workplace, political arenas, television reporting, and personal relationships, there is no way to determine whether or not the application of these critical thinking principles is successful.
Today’s classroom is fret with assessment. Assessment is critical to a person’s movement toward becoming a better critical thinker. Paul and Elder (2013) state, “if you start to pay attention to thinking in a manner analogous to the way a botanist observes plants, you will be on your way to becoming a truly exceptional person. You will begin to notice what few others notice” (p. 10). At least in this Brookfield text, this important part of critical thinking seems to be missing.

QUESTION 3: INDIRECT LEARNING AND BROOKFIELD

Indirect learning can be thought of as a process of high-level student involvement where learning takes place actively whether in a classroom or outside a classroom though a supportive environment by the instructor. It is a process where learning takes places in such a way where the learner is encouraged to “take charge” of the generational of alternatives to solve problems (Class Notes, CRCRTH601 September 22, 2015). This differs from direct learning where facts are taught to the learner by a learned instructor who is the font of knowledge and is decimating that knowledge to the learner/student.
Both indirect and direct learning complement one another in a classroom setting. However, in the Brookfield text, like indirect learning, perspective transformation is achieved when facilitators (instructors) model openness and critical analysis. This modeling is then adapted by the student who then undergoes enquiry on his or her own. He calls this environment a “reflective classroom” (p. 71). The principles of a reflective classroom guides the practice of instructors in specific ways including:
• Affirms critical thinkers’ self-worth
• Listens attentively to critical thinkers
• Shows support toward critical thinkers’ efforts
• Reflects and mirrors critical thinkers’ ideas and actions
• Motivates people to think critically
• Evaluates progress regularly
• Helps critical thinkers create networks
• Models critical thinking.
In the class CRCRTH601 at the University of Massachusetts Boston, all of these principles have been discussed in some form throughout the course. This is especially true for the “Helps Critical Thinkers Create Networks.” This principle seems to have been discussed several times. Instructor Peter Taylor mentioned the desire to create a network of philosophers, teachers, and students…a community or network…of critical thinkers as part of the UMB program (Class Notes, CRCRTH601 October 20, 2015). Additionally, nearly all of the class activities in CRCRTH601 at UMB have been “indirect” or as Brookfield calls it “reflective classroom” in intent. This includes activities like free writing, Plus/Delta, advanced autobiography discussion, collaborative explorations, think-pair-share, and dialogue hour.
All of these activities are designed to guide a person to a point where he/she feels supposed in the learning quest toward critical thinking and eventually a perspective transformation based on that learning. Brookfield defines “indirect learning” slightly differently than the CRCRTH601 definition, but in essence they are virtually the same idea.

QUESTION 4: PERSPECTIVE TRANSFORMATION TODAY

The basic question must be asked, “Do adult learners really want to change their perspectives today?” At first glance it seems that the application of critical thinking principles could not be further from reality. The ability to recognize and re-frame culturally induced biases and dependencies and relationships seems as foreign and impossible as man’s walking on Mars next year! In fact, with the rash of bombings in the name of deities, terrorist plots for power, retreats to more extreme positions, and ongoing arguments about even the basics of what human rights and laws should be, it seems impossible to think that perspective transformation has any hope of succeeding in reality.
Like many of the other theories espoused by both adult learning theorists and critical thinking philosophers, they assume that mankind wants to progress to a state of critical thinking “nirvana.” Brookfield’s book seems like a hopeful theory still encased in a glass display surrounded by barbed wire set to alarm at the slightest inference of possible global use. It is all too easy to believe that concepts like “emancipatory learning” and “dialectical thinking” and “perspective transformation” can be applied to the workplace, political arenas, television reporting, and personal relationships, let along entire democracies as Brookfield seems to imply in Part Three of the text, as well as other future writings.
But that is not the fault of Brookfield. Society seems to be visiting upon itself an era where opposing forces are taking positions where the ability to see other perspectives is nearly impossible. If that were not the case, Brookfield’s theories would be lauded as a new and perfect framework for social action and change. However, for those few who are not cynical and disenchanted and who truly seek out an honest and open quest for truth, the models associated with perspective transformation seem relevant and valid today.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS

With regard to the first question (the relevance of the Brookfield book with today’s modern writings on critical thinking), it is this researcher’s view that Brookfield is relevant now more than ever. This book written in 1987 holds true to its most fundamental tenant “taking the risk to think critically, and to realize in our actions the insights we gain through this, is one of the most powerful activities of adult life. The reason we persist in doing this, even when it seems to produce only frustration, perplexity, and anxiety, is the rewards it produces.” (Brookfield, 1987, p. 254). This “tension” or even “frustration” has been talked about in CRCRTH601 several times. This tension between two opposing forces of thought helps to propel a person into the processes of transformative learning (Class Notes CRCRTH601, October 6, 2015).
However, it is too early to tell whether or not Brookfield is true or false in his writing. There seems to be a progression in his writing toward application and expansion of assumptions and biases that were not part of this collaborative exploration. So no conclusion is being made to the truth of falsehood of this text. Additional information about “how” critical thinking according to Brookfield is assessed would have been a welcomed addition to this book.
“Indirect learning” is a key part of the Brookfield book although he does not use that term specifically. However, nearly all of the concepts mentioned in this book seem to support the link between CRCRTH601’s definition and use of the term “indirect learning” and the application of concept mentioned in the Brookfield textbook. Instead, the author uses the term “reflective classroom” to describe many of the same ideas associated with “indirect learning.” Therefore, it is being concluded that the two terms are similar enough to show a link between them.
Finally, the concept of “perspective transformation” is relevant albeit maybe not alive today with regard to critical thinking. Like many other wonderful human-relations theories that describe the human species, it too begs the ideal in humankind which unfortunately seems to be in short supply in today’s world.
 
REFERENCES

Bookfield, S. (1987). Developing critical thinkers: Challenging adults to explore alternative ways of thinking
and acting. San Francisco: Jossey Bass.

Brookfield, S. (2011). Teaching for critical thinking. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Knowles, M.S. (1990). The adult learner: A neglected species. (4 Ed.). Houston, TX: Gulf Pub.

Mezirow, J. (1978) Perspective Transformation. Adult Education Quarterly. 28 (2), 100-110.
Mezirow J. (1991). Transformative Dimensions of Adult Learning. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco
Paul, R. and Elder, L. (2013). Critical thinking. Pearson, Upper Saddle River, NJ.
www.stephenbookfield.com

Paul, R., & A.J.A Binker (2012). Critical Thinking Handbook: K-3rd Grades
Tomales, CA: Foundation for Critical Thinking Press.

A detailed guide on ways to implement critical thinking skills in the early developing years. Paul & Binker highlight the importance of laying the foundation for critical thinking in early school years when children are just formulating thought and awareness of themselves and the world.

“Children enter school as fundamentally non-culpable, uncritical and self-serving thinkers. The educational task is to help them to become, as soon as possible and as fully as possible, responsible, fair-minded, critical thinkers, empowered by intellectual skills and rational passions” (16).

The authors also demonstrate the role of creativity and creative tools like Drama in facilitating the practical transfer of meaning to every day life.

Wagner, Tony (2014). The global achievement gap. New York, NY: Basic Books

A serious expose on the gap between what is being taught in schools versus the skills that are needed in “new world of work”. Wagner introduces seven core survival skills based on conversations and input from top business leaders. He warns educators and parents of the fate awaiting children who do not adhere to these skills.

“Young people who want to earn more than minimum wage and who go out into the world without the new survival skills I’ve uncovered in my research are crippled for life” (14).

I was interested by a citation in this academic paper on a study done with critical thinking with Undergraduate students. The quote goes as follows: Critical thinking is, in short, self-directed, self-disciplined, self-monitored, and self corrective
thinking. It requires rigorous standards of excellence and mindful
command of their use. It entails effective communication and problem-solving
abilities and a commitment to overcome our native egocentrism and sociocentrism.
(Paul & Elder 2004, pg. 1)

The quote itself makes an interesting statement that critical thinking is self regulated, and as a guide, it might be useful to folks who are lost in the critical thinking process, and either don't know how to begin, and/or lost in their thought process.

I discovered a flowchart that revolves around the processes of description, analysis, and evaluation. This is followed by prompting questions that breaks it down. The chart can be seen in "figure 1" of the link http://archive.learnhigher.ac.uk/resources/files/Critical%20thinking/8%20Critical%20Thinking.pdf