Thus far, this discussion of argumentation has mixed intent with consequences. The intent of argumentation is to identify, discuss, and support positions and viewpoints on issues, themes, propositions, and hypotheses.  A positive consequence is that the argument made proves effective in that others agree. A Negative consequence is that the argument fails because others can find clear fault with it.

But there is a much bigger problem hidden within these AILACT exchanges. One gets the impression that argumentation is the only way to approach critical thinking. Furthermore, if we do not define our terms when discussing critical thinking, then there is little that can be advanced when it comes to bringing critical instruction and learning into actual practice in school and college classrooms. So, consider the following.

We think critically whenever we encounter one these three circumstances: (1) When presented with an idea, concept, or situation we do not understand, our human instinct is to look for intent, for motivation; (2) When presented with a viewpoint or position with which we do not agree or which we doubt, we (ideally) seek to discover the basis for our disagreement or doubt. If we explore the viewpoint through discussion (i.e., engage in argumentation), we can then accept it, modify our view, reject it, or advance an alternate view; and (3) When presented with a problem, we take the necessary steps to effect a solution.

Speaking generally then, the purposes of critical thinking are therefore, to (1) understand, comprehend, and explain; (b) resolve or advance issues through argumentation; and (c) solve problems, conditional or scientific . These are the three modes of critical thinking. Think of it this way. There are three horses drawing a cart. The leading horse is Mode 1 of critical thinking. The two following horses, hitched side by side, are Modes 2 and 3. The cart contains the facts and ideas. As a teacher or student, you are the driver.

Here is what I believe the critical thinking movement, AILACT, and this thread has overlooked. If you are interested in modes 2 and 3 of critical thinking (argumentation and problem solving), mere possession of facts and ideas is of small value. To engage effectively in argumentation or problem solving you must first critically comprehend the facts and ideas associated with the issue being debated or the problem requiring resolution. You first achieve comprehension of and the ability to explain issues related to that topic. In other words, you must first engage in Mode 1 of critical thinking. With a critical foundation provided by Mode 1, you can then go on to Mode 2 and/or Mode 3.

The real work we have to do is to first bring instruction in Mode 1 of critical thinking into school and college classrooms as the basis to understand, comprehend, and explain new and revisited subject matter.  To date, this has not been done in teacher preparation programs, schools and colleges, professional development programs, and in instructional materials.  Instead, the profession at all levels and all disciplines continues to engage in roteism. Roteism is presenting a topic’s facts and ideas without making critical connections (intent, processes, consequences), within and among them. Roteism is not a critical reasoning process. It cannot be used to develop critical literacy. The consequences are rote learning and the inherent defeat of critical thinking, reading, listening, writing, speaking and observing abilities (i.e., critical literacy), in all learners (teachers and students).

To increase greatly its relevance re classroom instructional practice, AILACT should seek grants to fund new AILACT projects that address Mode 1 of critical thinking.   

Victor Maiorana

Author of:

Preparation for Critical Instruction – How to Explain Subject Matter While Teaching All Learners to Think, Read, and Write Critically (2016), Rowman & Littlefield.

This work addresses Mode 1 of critical thinking as the basis for teaching critical literacy and new and revisited subject matter at the same time. The work answers this question: How do we bring our conscious, innate, but informal ability to think critically – which we practice daily outside the classroom – into the classroom? Preparation for Critical Instruction takes our innate but informal grammar of mind (which shows itself early in life, as does the grammar of the sentence), and applies it to new and revisited subject matter. This formal and explicit application of our innate and critical grammar of mind is called Mind Grammar.

*****