This is Lucy, our latest author to tackle the subject of critical thinking. Of these pictures, she said, "It somehow became a tradition in our family in the last few years to smear cake all over each other's face during birthdays.We always get the birthday person first except [this time] we were too afraid to put some on my dad as it was his 75th birthday. [The second picture is my nephew Johnny. I believe this was about his 4th or 5th time going to the park. He really loves the park and it was so hard to keep up with him." Clearly, Lucy's family is playful, and engaging children in play certainly provides many opportunities to facilitate their critical thinking. Happy reading!
I have to admit that I was overwhelmed by the chapter’s length but enjoyed all that Galinsky had to share. She really made me think of the different ways children reason and hold knowledge, making me feel as curious, perhaps, as Piaget did during his work in the intelligence lab. The studies Galinsky introduced were very engaging and made me feel as if I could easily agree with everything she presented, but I did not. The experiment by Paul Harris had me questioning the term ignorance. Galinsky described the experiment along the lines of one friend giving the right answer, while the other “professed ignorance.” From what I interpreted, people who use the term “I don’t know” are ignorant. I feel that Galinsky may have used that term strictly pertaining to this experiment, but it still offended to an extent. When I say I do not know, I simply do not know the answer. Never have I thought I was ignorant for using that term. Aside from that, the experiment made me think of the children I work with and myself.
The experiment (of Paul Harris) reminds me of myself presently as well as many adults. If I know someone who always has the right answers, I will come to believe that that person is always right. One example would be my parents. Even if I disagree with my parents, I still have the sense that they are right. Though decisions and factual information may be different, I see that the situations are somewhat the same, especially when I was a child. If my parents told me that such and such event happened, I would believe them. They are my parents and I did not think they would lie to me. Even if it were a white lie, I would believe it. I feel that many adults have a person in their life that holds the “right” facts and decisions that they can rely upon.
The children I work with, ages 5 to 6, seem to believe what the teacher tells them, including negative statements. I feel that the children are used to the teacher teaching and showing them new information, so they rarely believe their teacher would lie to them. They begin to form a relationship and trust with their teacher, so they may not question the new information they are given.
Young children tend to trust those who are helpful, and I agree with this statement, but it also has me questioning it. I wonder how children get this connection between positive and malicious actions and people at such a young age. The experiment did not even use people, which really made me think harder and longer. Even when the reading explained its possible connection, I was still baffled by the results. It makes me question how children are bad at judging facial expressions, but can judge positive and malicious actions with correct responses.
By the end of the chapter I began to feel overwhelmed but very informed. I still have many questions about how to help children think critically. At times I feel restricted in this process. I do not have children of my own and am afraid of giving other children a different style of learning than what their parents may prefer. I would like to challenge the children I work with, but at times I am stumped by some of their questions. It is hard for me to think of some critical answers they will understand. At those times, I try to ask the children for their opinion or why they believe such a thing occurs. I feel that having them analyze and consider their own solutions is a start towards critical thinking.
Your thoughts on Galinsky's use of the word "ignorance" have reminded me that words, when used in different contexts, can mean different things. When Galinsky used ignorance here, in relation to the experiment, by "professed ignorance," she simply meant there was an absence of understanding or knowledge -- they didn't know about that specific thing. She did not use the word ignorance to suggest that the person, overall, was ignorant. It sounds like that is the way you are used to hearing that word -- to be a judgmental qualifier, like "stupid." You've perhaps only heard it used in a derogatory way. I'm confident that is not the way she meant it here. While all of us are knowledgeable about some things -- a lot, even! -- we're also all ignorant about other things. We simply lack knowledge in some areas, and that doesn't mean that, overall, we're "ignorant" -- we're just ignorant (lack knowledge) in that area. This is a great example of the many nuances in language!
ReplyDelete