higher learning

Lately I’ve been thinking about the arrogance of academia, specifically with regard to the teaching of ‘international’ or ‘outside of the EU’ learners. Academics seize the idea of ‘critical thinking’ and give it a large emphasis as part of the UK higher education experience. We tell our learners that they must be seen to think (and evidence their thinking) critically, and we offer rules for referencing and citation to ‘avoid plagiarism’. Critical thinking is often assumed to be needed, without justification. We assume that it is ‘part of higher education’ and offer no explanation as to why. We encourage students to question, yet not the need of the subject itself. Why would a learner not question its relevance?

If we teach critical thinking then we also assume that we are being unbiased and fair. But are we? Are we being dishonest? How can we teach critical thinking without being biased?

Critical thinking usually reflects the values and beliefs of a western society. Immediately this challenges those who hold different values from the outset. If we maintain a view that critical thinking is fundamental, then we are hardly displaying any tolerance for cultures other than our own. Is this bigotry or blindness?

But what is critical thinking anyway?

Peirce offers one explanation. Critical thinking is essentially the management of doubt; we are not convinced by a premise and we conduct enquiry until we have established sufficient evidence that will withstand rigorous reasoning. Once we have the facts our belief is ‘fixed’. But this in itself is only partially helpful in that it describes a state, but not really how to get there. Perhaps our curriculum should emphasise and support not only the process of ‘fixing’ a belief, but also the understanding of conditions that may lead us to falsely conclude.

Peirce describes four possible outcomes:

1. tenacity - this reflects purely the will of the person to believe. Any evidence to the contrary is rejected outright.
2. authority - a belief is enforced by an external agency such as a community, peer group or family. These three agencies in particular often have significant influence over international learners who do not wish to be disrespectful of their community.
3. a priori - the belief is seen as a pre-ordained outcome and therefore the facts are reconstructed to suit this outcome. Whilst this gives an illusion of reason, there is no factual basis that could be argued critically.
4. the scientific - doubt is maintained until a robust set of facts is obtained from a process of enquiry that will withstand critical analysis, therefore critical thinking is achieved.

I think it would be useful to let learners explore these outcomes in order for them to understand their own position in relation to a western secular view of critical thinking. Clearly critical thinking is more than just referencing, although some academics may have not yet reached this conclusion yet. It might be that the teaching of critical thinking is seen to be too problematic and therefore the issuing of elementary rules for referencing may be judged as the most pragmatic way forward.

But we could raise the quality of our arguments if we all practiced ‘the scientific’ approach. And wouldn’t our learners benefit also? Those who have experienced more ‘closed’ cultures would be in an improved position to understand the differences of a western point of view. Western students would also be exposed to other cultures and perhaps would experience the impact of different thinking processes. Wouldn’t then the higher education learning experience be truly international?

Tags: critical thinking, I18N

This entry was posted on Tuesday, August 11th, 2009 at 8:21 pm and is filed under Research. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.