Why a Debate is Not Always Critical Thinking

There is often a misunderstanding that teaching critical thinking means doing a lot of debates in class. While a debate is a great tool, it may not always be a great critical thinking methodology unless carefully designed.

A debate is a formal discussion where opposing sides of an issue or a topic are presented in the form of an argument. Each side needs to make a presentation that would convince the listeners that their perspective on the issue is the right one. The best strategy to do so is to present only those points in their argument that favour their position and downplay those that go against it. They may also need to put down their opponents in whichever way they can --- selectively picking problems in the opponents’ arguments while downplaying or rejecting their good points, using sarcasm, as well as various logical fallacies to suit their purpose.

This goes against the core idea of critical thinking. As already explained in previous posts, a critical thinker is one who is able to appreciate multiple perspectives of an issue and then come up with one’s own perspective, taking into consideration all opposing views on it.

Let us take a hypothetical situation of the government wanting to cut down a part of a forested park in a city and constructing a much needed metro station there. There would be many different perspectives on it, both for and against, each one quite valid. There would also be a lot of interest groups for or against the proposal. Each of these perspectives and interest groups would have its own argument on why the park should or should not be used for the purpose, and each would do their best to downplay their opposing perspective. A lasting solution would require the decision makers to objectively engage with the entire debate --- to listen to the arguments from each group, identify assumptions, vested interests and fallacies of each of the sides, before coming up with their verdict which takes into consideration each sides’ concerns. This is what critical thinking is all about. It is not just presenting one’s own argument in a debate.

Using a debate as a methodology to teach critical thinking requires the teacher to go beyond getting students to merely present their own sides. Students will need to understand that their argument is only one part of the entire process --- it just presents one perspective. The debate, to be fruitful, will need students to carefully analyze all perspectives, evaluate one against the other and finally come up with a balanced conclusion. Students would need to exercise their skills of questioning and appreciate other people’s viewpoints even though they are different from their own. Finally they will need to come up with a solution or a decision that would not be biased and one sided. This is where they can be encouraged to think out of the box and create unique but balanced solutions. It is this solution that they will need to justify. This is how they will learn to think critically.

I am not for a single moment asking you not to use debates in the classroom. They are a good way to get students into analytic thinking. The point I am trying to make through this post is that just getting students to present one side of an issue may make them get into the habit of only looking at their own viewpoint and justifying that viewpoint, creating a one sided view of situations.  They may learn to analyze an idea, but not think about it critically.  The skills of evaluation and generation of new ideas will not happen. For critical thinking to be practiced, the debate will need to be followed with students going beyond their own presentations, understanding and appreciating other’s points and finally coming up with a balanced position on the issue.

 

Stages of Knowing --- The Journey from a Non-critical to a Critical Thinker

While trying to articulate the journey from a non-critical to a critical thinker for this post, I stumbled across these three stages, so well said by Dr. William Perry and so well quoted by John Chaffee. I find John Chaffee’s view of critical thinking very close to mine, and I use his book a lot. I am therefore presenting this post very much as how he said it in his book. I have myself travelled as well as come across all the three stages in my life and career --- this I will talk about in subsequent posts. This is a longish post, but I think, worth your patience.

Stages of knowing:  

From: Thinking Critically by John Chaffee (Chapter: Constructing Knowledge)

The road to becoming a critical thinker involves passing through different Stages of Knowing in order to achieve an effective understanding of the world. These stages, ranging from simple to complex, characterize people’s thinking and the way they understand their world. A critical thinker is a person who has progressed through all of the stages to achieve a sophisticated understanding of the nature of knowledge. This framework is based on the work of Harvard psychologist Dr. William Perry (Forms of Intellectual and Ethical Development in the College Years: A Scheme), who used in-depth research to create a developmental model of human thought. This is a condensed three-stage version of Perry’s framework.

An individual may be at different stages simultaneously, depending on the subject or area of experience. For example, a person may be at an advanced stage in one area of life (academic work) but at a less sophisticated stage in another area (romantic relationships or conception of morality). In general, however, people tend to operate predominantly within one stage in most areas of their lives.

Stage 1: The Garden of Eden
People in this stage tend to see the world as black and white, right and wrong. Right and wrong is usually determined by authorities who tell them so.  Authority figures can be parents, teachers, religious heads, even the peer group and media. Knowledge is clear, certain, and absolute and is provided by authorities. People in this stage feel that a person’s role is to learn and accept information from authorities without question or criticism. Anyone who disagrees with the authorities must be wrong. There is no possibility of compromise or negotiation. Even authority figures themselves can be in this stage.

When people in this stage come across contradictory opinion, they deal with this contradiction by maintaining the view that my authorities know more than your authorities.

Once we are able to explain why we chose to believe one authority over another, we have moved from stage 1 thinking to stage 2.  Two key conditions are however needed to move to stage 2: emotional willingness and the cognitive ability to be open minded.

Stage 2: Anything Goes
Once a person starts questioning authority figures, the tendency is often to go the opposite way --- that everything is right.  There is a feeling that no one really “knows” what is true or right. All beliefs are of equal value, and there is no way to determine whether one belief makes more sense than another belief. This also leads to a sense of confusion as to what to believe.

Stage 3: Thinking Critically
Stage 3 happens when a person is able to synthesise the opposing perspectives of Stage 1 and Stage 2.  He/she realizes that some viewpoints are better than other viewpoints, not because authorities say so but because there are compelling reasons to support these viewpoints.  At the same time, they are open minded towards other viewpoints, especially those that disagree with them.  They recognize that there are often a number of legitimate perspectives on complex issues, and they accept the validity of these perspectives to the extent that they are supported by persuasive reasons and evidence.  Stage 3 thinkers approach all issues by trying to understand all of the different viewpoints on the issue, evaluating the reasons that support each of these viewpoints, and then coming to their own thoughtful conclusion. When asked, they can explain the rationale for their viewpoint, but they also respect differing viewpoints that are supported by legitimate reasons, even though they feel their viewpoint makes more sense. In addition, Stage 3 thinkers maintain an open mind, always willing to consider new evidence that might convince them to modify or even change their position.  

But while people in this stage are actively open to different perspectives, they also commit themselves to definite points of view and are confident in explaining the reasons and evidence that have led them to their conclusions. Being open-minded is not the same thing as being intellectually wishy-washy. In addition to having clearly defined views, Stage 3 thinkers are always willing to listen to people who disagree with them. In fact, they actively seek out opposing viewpoints because they know that this is the only way to achieve the clearest, most insightful, most firmly grounded understanding. They recognize that their views may evolve over time as they learn more.

To me, this is what Critical Thinking is all about --- exploring every perspective, evaluating the arguments and supporting reasons for each, and developing our own informed conclusions that we are prepared to modify, or change based on new information or better insight.  This is a skill that is needed for solving problems and for making sound decisions. Even more importantly, these skills help social interactions --- while dealing with students, parents, colleagues, clients, friends and family.

Interpreting Critical Thinking Pedagogically

As I started reading up on and working with critical thinking skills as an educator, I realized that critical thinking is a very nebulous concept. Different people construe it in different ways.  Now, after years of  researching  and teaching these sets of skills, I can identify two major strands in interpreting this ‘topic’ pedagogically.

One strand equates critical thinking predominantly with how to improve one’s reasoning skills. This is the predominant way of teaching critical thinking, as can be seen from the numerous courses and books on the subject. The focus in these courses and books is on how to improve one’s reasoning.  The key areas of interest are how to make a reasoned argument and how to assess arguments.  A lot of emphasis is placed on how to critique someone’s reasoning --  how to find flaws and fallacies in an argument, how to pick out underlying assumptions in an argument, how to identify ways that would strengthen or weaken an argument, and so on. The methodology is predominantly exercise based, where students are exposed to numerous arguments to hone-in their reasoning skills. Many of these exercises are so structured that there can be only one right answer. Such courses lend themselves very well to large classes, online courses and self-study books.

The other strand takes a much broader perspective. It is based on the view that critical thinking goes beyond mere reasoning skills, and hence looking only at reasoning and arguments is very limiting. Critical thinking involves examining our own thought process, questioning our own thinking, appreciating multiple perspectives and adopting a balanced view of the world. This strand looks at critical thinking as a disposition, as a way of life.  

I would not call these strands mutually exclusive. The first strand focuses on the cognitive processes which form the base of critical thinking. The second strand connects critical thinking to the world around us --- brings in context to hone in those processes learned. Doing one without the other is futile. Learning how to detect a flawed argument is a basic critical thinking skill. It is, however, just a steppingstone and not the destination.  In our professional, social and personal lives, we will find that not all arguments are flawed. We may encounter a flawlessly made argument, however the perspective taken by that person on the issue discussed may be totally opposite to ours. Most of the time, solving major problems or taking crucial decisions depend on negotiating between these myriad perspectives. Critical thinking helps us evaluate these myriad arguments so as to arrive at our own informed decision in an issue or problem.  It then goes full circle and gives us the skill to communicate our own informed judgement to others convincingly.  These are the core skills of any thinking person and any good leader. Thinking in a well-rounded and balanced manner is the ultimate purpose of critical thinking.  

It is this combined view of critical thinking that this blog is about.  It is about how we as teachers can get our students to think for themselves --- analyze and create arguments, find connections, evaluate the perspectives they represent, synthesize ideas and then form their own independent opinion. These are skills imperative to problem solving and making sound decisions. That are also skills that help interpersonal relations --- skills that any good leader or team player needs to have.