This article draws on Ellul’s analysis of propaganda in understanding propaganda in the helping professions. Key in such an analysis is the interweaving of the psychological and sociological. Contrary to the discourse in mission statements of professional organizations and their codes of ethics calling for informed consent, competence of professionals and taking advantage of research findings, in everyday practice we find a variety of avoidable lapses, including decontextualized problem framing, bogus claims concerning risks, accuracy of assessment measures, and effectiveness of (...) interventions. Perhaps most troubling is obscuring the causes of human problems, for example, framing problems-in-living such as anxiety, alienation, and loneliness that result from living in a technological society as brain disorders, so mystifying the causes of distress. (shrink)

Like many others, I have resisted the idea that education, in general, is a form of training. We always talk about training for something, while an educated person is not educated for any one thing. But for this very reason, I do not wish to abandon the term ‘teacher training’ in favor of ‘teacher education’, although ideally I would prefer to speak of ‘teacher preparation’ because the term ‘training’ always reminds me of monkeys. I shall use the terms ‘training’ and (...) ‘preparation’ interchangeably, with both standing in contrast to ‘education’. All persons deserve to be educated; there is nothing specific to teachers here. Teacher training, whether general or specific to a subject or discipline, remains a contentious business. Some regard Pedagogy as a legitimate subject area and structure training around it; others prefer to see teacher training firmly in the context of the various disciplines that teachers will, in turn, be teaching: mathematics, literature, history and, in this case, philosophy. Indeed, when it comes to training teachers to teach philosophy, the problem is exacerbated by the plain fact that most teachers have no formal background in philosophy. So we are faced with the rather daunting prospect of providing such a background as well as providing whatever is needed in order to teach philosophy to others. Matthew Lipman and Ann Margaret Sharp were well aware of this challenge when they set up the first training programs in Philosophy for Children at Montclair State College in the early 1970s; hence the requirement that if classroom teachers were not actually qualified in philosophy, at least those who trained them to do philosophy with children should be. However, this idealistic model was always going to be difficult to apply. The problem, as it developed in countries around the world, was two-fold: teachers with little or no philosophical background were, increasingly, being trained by other educators who were in the same boat ; and conversely, when professional philosophers did become involved in teacher training, it quickly became apparent that they lacked any real training in pedagogy, and so were inadequate to the task of modeling the role of the teacher in the classroom. To look on the bright side, some constructive attempts have been made to resolve these shortcomings. The one with which I am most familiar is the Australian model for what is termed ‘Level Two training’, that is, training those who will, in turn, train and work with classroom teachers. This model recognizes the complementary requirements of philosophical and pedagogic expertise, respectively, by awarding certificates of achievement based on whether those trained have come from the discipline of philosophy, the practice of teaching, or both. Ideally, then, training workshops for teachers would be directed by at least one person in the former category, and at least one in the latter. (shrink)

Some ways of teaching critical thinking seem destine to failure, e.g.,CT across the curriculum, and some obstacles to acquiring CT skills seem insurmountable, e.g., cognitive biases, but some approaches to teaching and learning to think critically, discussed in this article, can mitigate those biases and be demonstrably successful.

Critical thinking is currently much celebrated in the contemporary West and beyond, not least in higher education. Tertiary education students are generally expected to adopt a critical attitude in order to become responsible and constructive participants in the development of modern democratic society. Currently, the perceived desirability of critical thinking has even made it into a seemingly successful marketable commodity. A brief online search yields a vast number of books that are mostly presented as self-help manuals to enable readers to (...) enhance their critical abilities. But how should critical thinking be taught? Is it at all possible? Instead of attempting to provide a direct answer to this pressing question, this paper seeks inspiration in a culturally rather remote philosophy of education that hitherto has not been regarded as a stimulant for critical thinking, namely the ancient philosophy of Confucianism. The paper argues that not only are most if not all types of thinking regarded in the West as ‘critical’ also present in Confucianism, but also that the Confucian philosophy presides over a particular type which increasingly tends to be neglected in the contemporary West; a type that I call ‘transformative self-critical attitude’. Through a comparison with the well-known Teaching Perspectives Inventory in higher education, the transformative self-critical attitude is used to elucidate some further aspects of the Confucian philosophy of education that may offer valuable insights to contemporary educators. (shrink)

Two main approaches in the conceptualization of critical thinking, logical and epistemological, are presented and analyzed in this paper. The review of logical approach begins with defining its general framework and afterwards we analyze abilities and skills which are seen as basic constituents of critical thinking. In the review of epistemological approach we analyze four conceptions that present the main directions in criticizing logical approach, and also in developing the broader perspective on critical thinking that includes specific view of knowledge (...) and its development, noncognitive dispositions and the role of subject based knowledge. At the end, we discuss the relationship between logical and epistemological approach. We claim and justify that they should be understood as complementary approaches, and we consider specific contribution of each approach to comprehensive definition of critical thinking.. (shrink)