Recent work in cognitive science suggests that critical thinking is best taught through teaching content (Willingham, 2008). In practical terms, however, young learners need supports for developing critical thinking. So, how do we move from teaching children what to think to teaching them how to think? Through a joint project between Rollins College's Childhood Development Center and Department of Philosophy, we have devised strategies for integrating content and deep thinking through a form of play. Building on Philosophy-for-Kids approaches (Wartenberg, 2014), we structure this type of play through three interlocking rules: we listen, we think, and we respond. In line with positive behavior support methods, we describe and practice these rules daily with children in groups of varying sizes.
Rule #1: We listen. We symbolize this rule visually by moving a hand to an ear. In teaching the rule, we ask children to describe when they listen, how they listen, and why they listen. Some typical responses include, "when others are talking," "with our ears," and "so we can be safe." Understanding the rule is not enough; young students also need to practice listening skills with a series of activities. For example, in a musical listening game, children are challenged to distinguish between sounds from different musical instruments. We play telephone, where students must listen to a word and then pass it to their neighbor. This game, while fun and interactive, permits children to "play" with an aspect of a critical discussion before engaging in one. Over time, the children at our center have gotten better at actually listening to teach other. At the same time, teachers have gotten better at listening to children as we help them articulate their own ideas.
Rule #2: We think. We symbolize this rule visually by placing a finger to our heads and displaying an expression of deep thought. Practicing the thinking rule requires connecting children's ideas of "thinking" to particular moments in the day. During whole-group time, we ask open-ended questions; for instance, prompting children to choose an animal and then act it out for the group. While this is happening, we help children reflect, stating, "You are thinking with your brain," or "You are acting out your ideas." We also ask why they chose that animal. Answers reflect their state of mind: "Because Mommy likes them," or "I saw them at the zoo." Their comments exemplify the cognitive emphasis on children's experiential base and their close affinity to familiar people and places. To get children to consider alternative reasons for their thoughts, we look for "teachable moments" throughout the day to ask them why they think as they do and to verbalize for them how their understanding is evolving. The phrase "Kiss your brain," which symbolizes pride and awareness of one's own thinking, has become a staple for our teachers.
Rule #3: We respond. This rule gives children license to talk! Given the opportunity, children will talk at length, often not focusing on a specific idea. Our objective is to teach children to think about what their friends say and then respond to their friends' thoughts. To practice this, we tape a line on the floor and have someone make a claim, for example, about the best flavor of ice cream. Everyone who agrees stands with that friend; everyone else moves to the other side of the line. We then ask children why they have taken the stand they have, and we prompt them to respond to others' opinions using phrases like, "I agree because … " or "I disagree because … "
Questions about favorite flavors, colors, and animals work well for practice, and the habit of agreeing and disagreeing has led to a wide range of conversations during the children's play experiences, such as a prolonged debate—initiated by the children themselves—about who owns the ocean. Rule #3 has been an eye-opener. As teachers, we are so often dictating process, structure, and behaviors for safety reasons and management control that we seldom allow children the chance to disagree or agree with each other, nor do we consider how empowering such position-taking may be for their thought processes.
A Culture of Thinking
These three rules work together to nurture discussions where students can respectfully disagree with each other. But to create a culture of thinking, we also need teachers to embrace the idea that respectful disagreement is healthy and ought to be encouraged. Students from our college's Philosophy department, with their arsenal of puzzles, have been helpful here. On one occasion, they read Dr. Seuss's TheLorax and then gave a prompt for an art project, saying, "If you were the Once-ler, how many trees would you take?" Children's responses varied greatly, which is understandable: the correct way to balance ecological conservation and human need is hardly obvious even to adults. Yet it is precisely this kind of problem that a citizen of our democracy must be able to discuss in useful ways.
If we're honest, there is a whole range of questions for which adults lack clear-cut answers. Such questions leave us vulnerable, and there is a temptation for teachers to avoid them in an effort to maintain authority in the classroom. Instead, we recommend thinking of children as peers, for some questions at least, who can join with us in thinking through life's more intractable problems. Behavioral issues in the classroom often spring from moments when norms of sharing or fairness have gotten a bit murky—for example, when one friend has played with a toy a bit longer than another friend thinks is proper. Rather than simply dictate that one child give the toy over or telling the other to wait, we choose to see such conflicts as teachable moments when we can ask each child to articulate and respond to the other's perspective. This approach neatly dovetails with a commitment to positive behavior support in ways that prepare children to be active participants in their education and useful members of our democracy.