Think Tank for Teachers of Critical Thinking

Notes and Minutes

Initial meeting on Oct. 4, 2000

Date/Time/Place:
The first CCT Think Tank meeting for teachers of critical thinking, hosted by the Outreach Unit of the CCT Program, was held on October 4, 2000, from 4-6:30 PM, in the Sociology Conference Room, Wheatley Hall, UMass Boston. CCT student, Brooke Sponseller, provided assistance (bsponsel@yahoo.com)

Participants:
CCT outreach committee members Peter Taylor, Nina Greenwald, Arthur Millman, and Allyn Bradford attended the meeting. Eleven other people were present who are CCT graduates and associates currently teaching at private and community colleges: Peter Galeno; Leor Alcalay Eunice Allman; Roy Dobbelaar; Ruth Westwater; John Carta; Shari Tishman; David Zwicker; Deanna Yameem. Rita Nethersole; Pat Germaine (regrets were sent from Patricia Allen and Verlyne Eanniello).

Materials:
The following documents were pre/circulated:
o mission statement (attached) and agenda for the CCT Think Tank
o excerpt from the June '00 Planning Document for CCT Program as background(attached)
o guidelines for NERCHE Think Tanks (attached)

Agenda:

The purpose of this meeting was to share people's interests, then collaboratively plan a process for exploring some of them with one another over the course of the academic year.

1. Peter Taylor, Acting Director of the CCT Program, gave a welcome.
Following an autobiographical introduction (given that many CCT graduates didn't know him), Peter provided an update on the CCT program. He emphasized the need for the program to foster more horizontal linkages.

2. Nina Greenwald introduced the agenda, then facilitated round robin sharing of people's backgrounds, interests and ideas for what they would like to get out of a Think Tank. (Everyone took a few moments to jot down some thoughts before speaking.) A summary of those exchanges follows:

David Zwicker (teaches CT at Mass Bay C.C): interests include transfer of learning; promoting reciprocal teaching and learning; modeling of teaching thinking; relationship of creative to critical thinking; scaffolding; collaboration with other programs (e.g., UMB instructional design program); providing training and professional development programs

Leor Alcalay (teaches at Quincy College): interests include learning/language/culture through ESL; critical thinking and ESL; internationalizing CCT

Rita Nethersole (Asst. Dean, Graduate Studies, UMass Boston): interests include needing "to break out of a rut"; moving "back and forth" in exploration; opportunity for sustained discussion on an issue; in addition to her UMB job, she is a zookeeper (tends to gorillas), enjoys reflecting on the meaning of "natural," vs. "civilized" issues, "natural vs. learned" and "organized vs. disorganized"

Deanna Yameem (Quincy College, higher ed. resource center,): interests include converting freshman writing courses into critical thinking experiences; transforming people and systems through CCT

Peter Galeno (Newbury College): interests include thinking through writing as an empowering experience; self-assessment of students; applying critical thinking to business

John Carta (Quincy College): interests include teaching critical thinking in business courses; overcoming passivity in learning

Shari Tishman (Harvard University, Project Zero): interests include critical thinking in responding to art; transfer; thinking and conceptual development; "discernment" as a critical thinking skill

Allyn Bradford (CCT part-time instructor): interests include communities of learning; systems thinking (5th discipline); dialogue process; questioning; relationship between thinking and learning

Ruth Westwater (Bunker Hill CC): interests include students' perceptions of the "nebulosity" and "elusiveness" of critical thinking as a hurdle in teaching/learning; need to cultivate respect for and understanding of critical thinking; translation of CT theory via CCT Practicum; formation of CCT Clubs

Nina Greenwald (CCT Program): interests include teaching/learning models and methods for problem and inquiry-based learning; problem-finding; cognitive aspects of creative problem-solving; personality/dispositional aspects in creative problem solving; humor and thinking

Roy Dobbelaar (Mass Bay CC): interests include transformational experiences; life-coaching; passion finding; young adult learning; empathic listening

Eunice Allman (Quincy College): interests include exploration of the question, "if students believe they already think, what are we teaching?"; systems transformation through CCT

Arthur Millman (CCT Program): interests include co-developed products that that capture thinking done in Think Tank sessions (e.g. a CCT Fieldbook)

Peter Taylor (CCT Program): interests include listening and critical thinking; critical thinking as journey (and other metaphors); critical thinking and tensions; critical thinking in our academic institutions as organizations; CCT Outreach

Pat Germaine (UMB): thinking through writing as an empowering experience

3. Thoughts about the format(s) for Think Tank sessions:

David Zwicker suggested 4 components for each Think Tank session:
o instructional piece (demonstration of a skill/ technique)
o dialogue and brainstorming piece (feedback on what each of us is doing)
o feedback and reflection
o consideration of project possibilities and their
implementation

Allyn Bradford suggested the importance of contributing experiences from our individual life-work.

Shari Tishman suggested that having a structure helps a large group function more efficiently.

Peter Taylor suggested NERCHE guidelines as a check-list

Peter Galeno suggested that we set a specific goal for this year.

Roy Dobbelaar suggested we consistently use dialogue process. Nina Greenwald and Peter Taylor suggested that dialogue be one of many possible processes we use to explore ideas.

Leor Alcalay suggested that we identify clusters in what we'd like to get out of a think tank.

Rita Nethersole suggested there be opportunity for sustained discussion on a topic

4. Subsequent meetings will held alternately, on Wednesdays and Thursdays.

5. Next meeting: On Nov. 2, at UMB, Shari Tishman and Peter Taylor will lead a session on critical thinking in art and science. The session after this will be led by Allyn Bradford and Rita Nethersole who will use the dialogue process to lead a discussion on an issue yet to be determined. The date for this sessions will be decided at the November 2 meeting.

-----------------------
Mission of the Think Tank for Critical Thinking Teachers
(provisional 9/00 -- to be developed by the participants)

* To explore issues of interest to each of us in our quest to promote
effective thinking and problem solving in our professional lives and
communities.

* To consider ways to share the results of our explorations with wider
audiences.

-----------------------
Background -- Excerpt from the June '00 Planning Document for CCT Program
"Since the previous, very favorable Program Review in 1994-95, CCT has moved from the College of Arts and Sciences to the Graduate College of Education (GCOE) and experienced, unfortunately, a significant reduction of resources. Nevertheless, the Program aims to:
--maintain its strength as an interdisciplinary program with a strong focus on individualized learning, growth, and mid-career professional development ;
--develop a clear and constructive role in GCOE, coordinating with other GCOE graduate programs and outreach initiatives; and
--address the 1994-95 review committee's recommendations, in particular, that of presenting a higher profile, within the university and in the wider community, for what is distinctive about CCT's work.

...Initiatives to address recommendations from the previous review include the targeted certificate programs, outreach activities, and publication. These have been designed, however, to develop gradually and stay within the Program's means. In this spirit, writing about and disseminating techniques and illustrative cases that CCT faculty have already developed is given a higher priority for CCT than securing funding for new research projects.

...[The goal of outreach is to] build on the professional strengths of the part-time faculty and growing network of graduates, as well as the regular faculty."

The Think Tank for Critical Thinking Teachers is one of these outreach activities.

-----------------------
*NERCHE Think Tanks

Brief History
The New England Resource Center for Higher Education (NERCHE) was founded in 1988 and is located in the graduate College of Education at U Mass Boston.

Think Tanks, which are at the core of NERCHE's work, are designed to stimulate innovation and improve collaboration and community among higher education faculty and administrators in New England. They provide opportunities for members from public and private two and four-year institutions to discuss what they value, what impels them in their work and lives, and to pursue solutions to compelling problems they face in their work.

-----------------------
Organization of the Think Tanks
NERCHE's six Think Tanks value quality, collaboration, diversity, and scholarship rooted in practice. Individuals are invited because of their ability to be creative, collaborative, and change-oriented as well as problem solvers and leaders in their institutions. Think Tank groups meet for a half-day, an average of five times during the academic year, and operate in accordance with these guidelines:

* a diversity of institutions and individuals is actively sought
* members identify a theme for the year and topics for each discussion
* a "curriculum" of readings, case studies and discussion questions is developed by NERCHE staff around the theme and topics
* a co-coordinator from the group develops a structured agenda for each meeting and facilitates discussions along with NERCHE staff
* a group member is responsible for selecting readings and leading an active discussion at each meeting
* time is allotted for a round robin or "kitchen cabinet" discussion, which enables members to seek advice and support from one another
* after each discussion, NERCHE staff reflects with the group on themes, patterns and inconsistencies, relevant research, etc.
* a confidential set of minutes taken by a group member ensures a record of discussions and group memory
* members may work together on group projects, such as published articles, making presentations and developing conferences

(* This information is provided only as an example of how one think tank group chooses to operate, some or none of which may be appropriate and/or desirable for our purposes.)

"Generative tensions in art and science"

4-6.30, Thurs.Nov. 2nd. Wheatley-4-022

Shari Tishman and Peter Taylor will lead the Think Tank in two 45 minute activities designed to explore critical thinking issues they are chewing over. There will be time to continue to get to know each other at the start (4-4.15) and in the middle (5-5.15), and time at the end (6-6.30) to reflect on the format and its value to community-college critical thinking teachers.

The rest of this email contains material the presenters would like you to read before the meeting. You'll probably need to print it out.

--------------------
Shari Tishman (4.15-5)
By asking people to view and discuss a work of art, I hope to demonstrate how conversations about art can naturally and spontaneously involve reasoning. In part, the purpose of this demonstration is to share with the group a technique for teaching thinking through art that I have found to be especially effective. In part, the purpose is to raise some puzzles about the nature of reasoning itself that I hope the group will help me think through.

In the interests of spontaneity, I don't want to tell you more now about the exact structure of the session. I'd like you simply to read a short blurb I've written on reasoning and art. I will bring in some handouts and materials for you to take away and read after the session.

Art and the Art of Reasoning

When people look at works of art they often ask questions like: What does this mean? What's going on here? What's this work of art all about? These are questions of interpretation, and they are the most natural questions in the world. They are also questions that naturally invite reasoning.

Most reasoning processes start with a puzzle or question: Why is something the way it is? A question invites an answer, an answer requires support, support invites justification, and there you have the process of reasoning. From a structural point of view, the process of reasoning is the same in art as it is in other disciplines. It involves formulating an interpretation or explanation and supporting it with appropriate evidence. Critiquing an interpretation is also similar across disciplines. For example, in the sciences as well as the arts, critique involves seeking conflicting evidence, reinterpreting existing evidence, impugning the logic behind reasoning, and constructing plausible alternative interpretations.

Although the structure of reasoning is similar across disciplines, there are some important non-structural differences. For instance, one difference concerns the role of emotion. In art, it is perfectly legitimate to cite one's feelings as reasons to support an interpretation. For example, a painting can give us a particular feeling -- a feeling of foreboding, or intimacy, or hopefulness -- that rightly plays a role how we make sense of it. On the other hand, although emotions play some important roles in science, personal emotional reactions are not viewed as legitimate evidence in support of a scientific explanation.

Another difference concerns the possibility of multiple interpretations. Unlike things we study in science, works of art often have no single correct interpretation. They are open to many different interpretations, few of which are objectively right or wrong, but many of which can be insightful and revealing. For instance, one painting can legitimately have many different interpretations. On the other hand, a natural phenomenon such as an eclipse has only one scientific explanation.

In science, alternative explanations are typically in conflict with one another. But in art this isn't necessarily so. Works of art often mean more than one thing. For example, the meaning of a painting may include, but also go beyond, the artist's intention, just as it may include but also go beyond the work's original social and historical context. Nonetheless, the fact that it is possible to have several non-conflicting interpretations about works of art doesn't mean that conflicts don't occur or that they should be shunned. On the contrary. It is often by exploring and examining conflicting views that one's insight into a work of art is deepened. All of us have had the experience of making sense of a work of art only to find that the person standing next to us sees it in an entirely different way. And many of us have also experienced a shift in our perception of the artwork as a consequence.

But just because something can have many different interpretations doesn't mean that all interpretations are equally good. A good interpretation is one that yields insight or understanding. Interpretations tend to be good when they are well-reasoned; that is, when they are built out of careful observations and good inferences, and when they account for many aspects of the object in question. Teaching students to reason thoughtfully about art means helping each student to craft his or her best interpretation of a work of art, and to consider and evaluate alternative interpretations. It doesn't mean teaching all students to see works of art in the same way.

Shari Tishman, Harvard Project Zero. Adapted from: Tishman S. & Wise D. (1999) "Thinking Through the Arts." In L. Hetland & S. Veenema (Eds.) The Project Zero classroom: Views on understanding. Fellows and Trustees of Harvard College.

---------------------
Peter Taylor (5.15-6)

"I want students to see that they understand things better when they have placed established facts, theories, and practices in tension with alternatives." This phrase is from a paragraph on teaching critcal thinking that I formulated in 1995 (appended below**). In a number of my classes I lead students in activities that are designed to introduce "critical heuristics" or "critical tensions" that I hope the students will apply in other areas. (By heuristics I mean propositions that stimulate, orient, or guide our inquiries, yet break down when applied too widely. Critical heuristics are ones that place established facts, theories, and practices in tension with alternatives.) I see a relationship here with creative thinking--The more items in one's tool-kit of alternatives or tensions, the more likely one is to be creative or generative, to invent something unanticipated, to surprise oneself in a new situation.

The problems I'm grappling with are:
i) I don't think many students grab onto these heuristics in the context I introduce them or apply them in other areas;
ii) The same seems to be true for the college teachers I've presented these ideas to in workshops;
iii) I haven't learned much about critical tensions in fields other than my own when I get "assignments" back from these teachers.

The source of these problems could be in the theory, the presentation, the workshop formats, or... I want to explore this through a two-part activity:
A. "How do we know there is a population-environment problem?" An abbreviated presentation with overheads that moves from simple models of population growth and environmental change to a simulation that motivates a "critical heuristic" about inequality making a qualitative difference to one's analysis.
B. Exploration by participants through guided freewriting and small group discussion of
a) equivalent accounts, tensions, and heuristics in their own fields and
b) their thoughts on my problems i)-iii) above.
Groups compose a summary notecard to read aloud to everyone and for me to digest later.

Email me (peter.taylor@umb.edu) if you want to read a related paper, "Critical tensions and non-standard lessons from the "tragedy of the commons"," in M. Maniates (Ed.), Teaching Global Environmental Politics As If Education Mattered. New York: Rowman & Littlefield, in press.

**From statement of teaching philosophy, omega.cc.umb.edu/~ptaylor/goalsoverview.html
"In a sense subscribed to by all teachers, critical thinking means that students are bright and engaged, ask questions, and think about the course materials until they understand well established knowledge and competing approaches. This becomes more significant when students develop their own processes of active inquiry, which they can employ in new situations, beyond the bounds of our particular classes, indeed, beyond their time as students. My sense of critical thinking is, however, more specific; it depends on inquiry being informed by a strong sense of how things could be otherwise. I want students to see that they understand things better when they have placed established facts, theories, and practices in tension with alternatives. Critical thinking at this level should not depend on students rejecting conventional accounts, but they do have to move through uncertainty. Their knowledge is, at least for a time, destabilized; what has been established cannot be taken for granted. Students can no longer expect that if they just wait long enough the teacher will provide complete and tidy conclusions; instead they have to take a great deal of responsibility for their own learning. Anxieties inevitably arise for students when they have to respond to new situations knowing that the teacher will not act as the final arbiter of their success. A high level of critical thinking is possible when students explore such anxieties and gain the confidence to face uncertainty and ambiguity."