The Need for Logic Instruction in Public Schools: A Sociohistoric Overview of Critical Thinking Instruction in Education from the Theoretical Perspective of Developmental Psychology

Sherri N. McCarthy-Tucker, Ph.D.

Northern Arizona University-Yuma


    The Need for Logic Instruction in Public Schools: A Sociohistoric Overview of Critical Thinking Instruction in Education
from the Theoretical Perspective of Developmental Psychology Engaging in Socratic dialogues was a means used to refine
critical thinking in ancient Greece and Rome (Robinson, 1921). From the time of the Roman Empire until the Protestant
Reformation, critical thinking was a skill which could be viewed as lethal; other than debates concerning the number of angels
one could place on the head of a pin, questioning the premises of the church was likely to lead one on a foreordained path to
the Inquisition. The doctrine of special creation left little room for teaching critical thinking, anyway; one was born with the
unalterable gifts or punishments bestowed by the creator (Grinder, 1985).

    Critical reasoning has been defined in many ways since ancient times, but the majority of philosophers who have studied the
human mind have believed that reasoning takes place according to laws governing logic. Such is the tradition that runs
unbroken from Aristotle to Piaget (Hunt, 1982). Piaget hypothesized a child's ability to organize perceptions and adapt to the
world developed through sequential stages. The developing brain built cognitive structures such as number, causality and
constancy through a series of dynamic interactions with the physical environment. At each stage, the thought processes became
more complex. The mature state of thought eventually reached was termed "Formal Operations" by Piaget. Formal operations
is characterized by mature, systematic and logical thought.

    Much evidence suggests, however, that formal operations is not attained by all individuals (Berger, 1992; Dacey & Travers,
1993). or utilized equally well (Keating, 1988) . It may even develop differently cross-culturally. Years of formal education are
the greatest predictor of formal operational reasoning (Cole, 1979; Cole & Scribner, 1977; Cole, Sharp & Lave, 1976).
Critical thinking may be acquired in correspondence to the amount of practice with formal logic available in the environment
(McCarthy-Tucker, 1998), and there is a dearth of such practice available in our current social and educational milieu.
Including instruction in logic during the educational process should increase the probability that formal operational thought will
be attained and critical thinking skills will be utilized.

    Curriculums which combine instruction in formal logic with reality-based practice in problem solving should produce the best
critical thinkers. The purpose of this article is to examine Western educational practices of teaching logic from a sociohistoric

A Sociohistoric Overview of the Significance of Teaching Logic to Develop Thinking Skills

    The ancient Greeks maintained that the best means to explore the nature of reality was through rigorous

deduction. Mathematics was considered the purest form of thought. Plato believed an understanding of mathematics was

prerequisite to the study of philosophy, while Aristotle stated that mathematics was a divine science because it dealt with

timeless and perfect realities (Gibbon, 1960). Even when the experimental approach began to yield returns through the work of

Sir Francis Bacon and others like him, many philosophers remained intent upon deciphering the world through deductive

reasoning. Spinoza, in the seventeenth century, developed his work through Euclidian proofs. Leibnez believed that logic could

best answer both metaphysical and moral questions and hoped to develop a new form of mathematical logic to replace

ordinary thinking so that, when disagreements occurred in daily life, disputants could sit down together with pens in hands and

say "Let us calculate...".

    In ancient Greece, an ideal education was based upon apprenticeship to a recognized teacher-philosopher-- Socrates, for

example. Students were engaged in dialogue during which they were expected to apply information they had mastered in order

to solve moral dilemmas and provide solutions for current problems. This process seemed to offer both instruction and practice

of critical thinking. Lewis (1981) notes that Plato and, later, Aristotle both emphasized the value of education. Both stressed

the importance of "molding children through stories, music and gymnastics." Plato thought the study of mathematics was

particularly important during adolescence to prepare the mind for abstract reasoning. Aristotle placed slightly less value on the

study of mathematics during adolescence and more value on reading, writing and drawing as tools to facilitate clear thinking.

    Since Roman education was based on the Greek model (Gibbon, 1960), similar practices were followed for educating

Roman patricians. From the fall of the Roman Empire until the Renaissance, Western educational practices were tied primarily

to the Roman Catholic Church, and the majority of the populace was neither educated nor literate. In the late 15th century, the

influence of the Renaissance was transported to England by clerics and government officials who had visited Italy and

witnessed the intellectual movement flourishing there. This influence was responsible for the English humanists' view of

education. It became the mission of prominent humanists such as Colet, Elyot and Ascham to persuade the English gentry that

their sons should study Latin and read the works of Terrence, Virgil, Horace and Cicero.

    Studying the moral, philosophical and political content provided therein was considered necessary to refine critical thinking

skills (Abrams, Donaldson, Smith, Adams, Monk, Lipking, Ford & Daiches, 1974). During the 16th century, education

consisted of studying these classics and the Bible in a manner considered liberal yet practical. The curriculum was designed

primarily to prepare elite citizens for duties in government and was presented by tutors who worked with small groups, or with

a single student at a time. Queen Elizabeth I, with her command of languages and her sense of diplomacy, is an example of the

results of the educational system used for royalty in England during this time (Abrams, et al, 1974). Elizabethan education was

based upon the quadrivium (arithmetic, geometry, astronomy and music) and the trivium (grammar, logic and rhetoric).

    This seven-part curriculum survived as a model for the education of the upper classes in England and, later, in America for

nearly four centuries. John Stuart Mill (1862), considered one of the most intelligent individuals in recent history, reported

receiving an education based on the trivium and quadrivium during the nineteenth century. The curriculum was subsequently

rearranged into "Arts & Letters" and "Arithmetic & Sciences." It appears that what we now term "critical thinking skills" were

incorporated primarily in the trivium when the early form of the classical curriculum was used, and later divided between

"Letters" and "Sciences"--- a division which, assuming critical thinking skills are taught at all in modern public schools, still

exists today. Early in this century, Alfred North Whitehead, Bertrand Russell, Rudolph Carnap and other logical positivists

took the view that laws of logic deal with relationships among statements; they are extremely valuable ways of handling

information, but do not produce new knowledge, nor guarantee infallibility.

    Their work was based, in part, on Kant's view that pure reason can lead to contradictory conclusions. Problems with the

validity of deduction noted by these more recent philosophers do not, however, make it any less valuable a tool for developing

thinking skills in human beings. As journalist Walter Lipmann pointed out earlier in this century, blind faith in irrational beliefs is

not a better alternative. One of the most important tasks of educators is to lay the foundations which allow

hypothetical-deductive reasoning skills to develop and intelligent questioning to occur. These are the elements of critical

thought.  The following section examines the role of contemporary American schools in teaching critical thinking skills to


Teaching Thinking Skills in 20th Century U. S. Public Schools

    The United States, during this century, took on the challenging task of attempting to educate ALL citizens born on her soil,

along with numerous resident aliens and naturalized immigrants, in a public education system designed to allow everyone to

acquire the skills needed to function in a republic.  Whether this intent was ever purely in place is debatable. George Bernard

Shaw's observation on English schools, as cited in Robinson (1921), may also be used to characterize the American system:

We must teach citizenship and political science at school. But must we? There is no must about it, the hard fact being that we

must NOT teach political science or citizenship at school. The schoolmaster who attempted it would soon find himself penniless

in the streets without pupils, if not in the dock pleading to a pompously worded indictment for sedition against the exploiters.

    Our schools teach the morality of feudalism corrupted by commercialism and hold up the military conqueror, the robber

baron and the profiteer as models of the illustrious and the successful (p. 23). Still, regardless of the outcome of American

public education during this century, the original intent was as lofty as the promise of the Statue of Liberty. As public education

became accessible to more and more of the citizenry, however, the pupil population became increasingly heterogeneous. As

the century progressed and the public school system grew to unwieldy proportions, teachers could no longer expect their

students to arrive with common skills --or even with a common language. As American society became urbanized, more

students were required to be in school and to stay in school longer. The overburdened educational system responded by

"cutting corners." If industrialized American society required a high school diploma to access its port of entry, went the

common scholastic reasoning, then it must be possible for every student to attain one. If that meant teaching less to more, so be

it.  Logic and rhetoric seem to have been among the first content areas to disappear from standard high school curriculums.

Other sociopolitical forces were also at work shaping the 20th century curriculum--specifically, economic forces. An

industrialized, compartmentalized, assembly-line driven society (DeBerry, 1991;1993) required citizens capable of following

orders and completing rote tasks.

    Public schools in the 20th century began producing just such citizens. Whether through lobbying forces, funding, and the

textbook industry or incidentally, as a function of what G. Stanley Hall (1921) referred to as the "Message of the Zeitgeist,"

curricula became segmented and compartmentalized. Students memorized "facts" in English which had little to do with "facts"

memorized in science which had little to do with "facts" memorized in social studies. A diploma ensured that these

compartmentalized facts had been, at least temporarily, encoded in memory and, more importantly, implied that the unwritten

curriculum--one of being to school on time, following directions and not questioning authority--had been mastered.

    Although a few private schools still followed a classical curriculum for educating the children of the elite who would run the

factories and the nation, public schools were, for the most part, engaged in the enterprise of producing automatons for an

automatic society. Critical thinking was not in vogue. Rather, it was considered a potentially dangerous practice which could

undermine the turning of industry's great wheels. Robinson (1921) noted this trend with concern, predicting that critical thinking

would soon be abolished in public education: Businessmen, whether conspicuous in manufacture, trade or finance, are the

leading figures of our age. They exercise a dominant influence in domestic and foreign policy, subsidize our education and exert

unmistakable control over it.

    In other ages, a military or religious caste enjoyed similar preeminence. In any case, economic issues are the chief and

bitterest of our time. It is in connection with them that critical, free thinking is most difficult and apt to be misunderstood, for

they easily become confused with the traditional reverences and sanctities of political fidelity, patriotism, morality and religion...

Once I feared that, given our current educational system, men might think too much. Now, I only dread lest they will think too

little and far too timidly, for I now see that real thinking is difficult and that it needs every incentive in the face of innumerable

discouragements and impediments....Every youngster in school might be given some notion that neither private property nor

capital is the real issue, but rather the new problem of supplying other than the traditional motives for industrial enterprise--

namely, the slave-like docility and hard compulsion of the great masses of workers on the one hand and speculative profits on

the other which now dominate in our present business system. This existing organization is not only becoming more and more

patently wasteful, heartless and unjust, but is beginning, for various reasons, to break down (pp. 161-211).

    Robinson's observations on both the assembly-line mentality of schools and the eventual breakdown of the industrial system

from early in the century foreshadowed not only the changes in our public education system as the century progressed, but also

McCarthyism, the Cold War, and the current global economy which is resulting in massive restructuring for many multi-million

dollar corporations. As Robinson predicted, the former organization of these corporations has now "broken down due to

waste" (Boroughs, 1990; Marshall, Yorks & Pitera, 1993). The long suppression and recent reemergence of teaching critical

thinking skills in public schools is, ironically, intricately interwoven with these economically-driven, sociopolitical forces.

    The era of McCarthyism, at the height of U.S. society's rejection of all systems except capitalism, probably also represented

the height of suppression of critical thinking in public school curricula. Other than in hodgepodge fashion through isolated bits of

instruction in science or literature, students were not encouraged to think. They were instead trained to internalize and parrot

the values of current society and prepared to assume their roles in the post-World War II workforce. Then came Sputnik.

Perhaps traceable to modifications in the Russian educational system made by Peter the Great which maintained vestiges of

classical education, including logic and rhetoric, in the USSR (Troyat,1987), Russia's aerospace technology surpassed that of

other nations. Neither business nor government interests in the United States were pleased. The nation needed to prepare to

meet the future, and one means of preparation was by educating able students to, once more, become thinkers and inventors

rather than assembly-line automatons. Thus began an increased focus on gifted education which, serendipitously, returned

instruction in logic and critical thinking in various forms to the curriculum.

    The "gifted education" movement, conceived in this country when Leta Hollingworth (Silverman, 1989) argued for special

programs for bright students and born when Lewis Terman received a generous grant from the Commonwealth Fund of New

York for the purpose of finding 1000 subjects with IQs above 140, had been cyclic, sparing and sporadic prior to the launch

of the Russian satellite. The oldest continuing gifted education program in America originated in Cleveland in 1921, where

pupils with high test scores devoted part of their school day to special curricula and methods which encouraged critical

thinking.  New York, the state which funded Terman's first grant, also has offered a variety of separate classes and schools for

exceptionally bright children since the 1920's, most notably the experimental programs at Public School 500 where Leta

Hollingworth developed the curricula. Selective magnet high schools for students with artistic or scientific talent have also

existed in New York City since the 1920s. But such programs were rare in the rest of the U. S. for the first half of the

twentieth century.

    After Sputnik, however, support for gifted and talented (GT) education peaked. Legislatures and local school boards in the

late 1950s moved hastily to improve education, especially for prospective scientists and engineers. Supporting federal

legislation carried the title: "National Defense Education Act" (Laycock, 1979). Educational changes were encouraged and

grants were provided for that purpose. Magnet schools for students deemed capable of exceptional achievements flourished.

Science was emphasized in curriculums across the country. Special programs aimed at educating "rocket scientists of the

future "were instituted. Critical thinking again had a place in our public schools--but only in GT programs.

    Gifted education has been available in most public school districts since the 1960s. The Office of the Gifted and Talented,

responsible for authorizing expenditures for model school programs, teacher training, research, and dissemination of

information regarding the gifted was established by U.S. Commissioner of Education Sidney Marland in 1972. Federal

expenditures on gifted education programs rose from about $300,000 that year to $2.6 million in 1977 (Laycock, 1979).

Lobbying and legislation have resulted in continued support for gifted education programs for the last two decades. Until the

recent movement to teach critical thinking explicitly, spurred by economic concerns (Paul, 1992), GT programs were the only

area of public school curriculum where a semblance of critical thinking skills were consistently taught. Much of this occurred

serendipitously, as GT instructors were discouraged from covering information taught in "regular" subjects.

    They sought materials with content which was not covered by other instructors. The "regular" public school curricula was

segmented, departmentalized, watered down and, as the report "A Nation At Risk" pointed out in the early 1980's, largely

ineffectual and incapable of competing with the educational systems of other industrialized nations. Critical thinking instruction

was seldom included anywhere, as evidenced by the fact that GT teachers could include the topic in some form without any

other content area teachers becoming "territorial" over that particular domain of knowledge. It is possible that even the

sporadic inclusion of logic and activities which focused on hypothetical deductive reasoning served to support and enhance the

thinking skills of the students in these programs, maintaining or enhancing their high scores on ability tests.

    This suggests that instruction in logical reasoning may result in increased performance on ability tests, a theory which is

supported by empirical research on instructing adolescents (Hernstein, Nickerson, Sanchez & Swets, 1986;

McCarthy-Tucker, 1998). The "Nation At Risk" report, combined with changing needs in the workforce of our country,

culminated in the current movement to teach critical thinking skills to ALL students in public schools. The Chase Manhatten

Bank pointed out that training can make up for a lack of many skills in newly-hired employees, but the one skill which

corporations most require and are least able to train for is critical thinking (Burns, 1983).

    The California State University system responded to the need for employees capable of thinking business leaders expressed

by requiring a class in "critical reasoning" as part of the general studies curriculum required for all baccalaureate degrees (Ennis,

1989). The National Association of American Colleges, community college systems in several states and numerous vocational

institutions have now become actively engaged in finding ways to teach critical thinking skills (Arons, 1985; Barnes, 1992;

Burns, 1983; Hartly, 1990). Liberal educators and conservative corporate CEOs are finally in agreement about at least one

aspect of schooling: the need to teach critical thinking skills. But is one course at the college level, as California has mandated,

sufficient to address this need, especially if no other instruction in the skill has ever occurred? This seems unlikely.

    Schools should be teaching students to engage in critical thinking, not in the regurgitation of facts as directions are followed

to the letter, throughout their educations. Is this being done? This question can be answered by considering developmental

psychological theories and principles about how students develop, learn and think. The next section will summarize and critique

programs which are currently used to teach critical thinking in U.S. schools from the perspective of these theories.

Current Programs Used to Teach Critical Thinking

    " Direct attempts in our schools to produce a more intelligently critical and open-minded generation are likely to be far less

feasible than indirect ones," Robinson (1921) wrote. This seems to have proved true. A thorough search of programs used in

American public schools to enhance critical thinking has shown these programs to be indirect, at best. According to the

curriculum director for a large southwestern high school district (Hathurn, 1993), and substantiated by the author's experiences

teaching public school in two states, they are diffused with no particular order, rhyme or reason throughout various content

areas. As noted earlier, when the trivium and quadrivium were split into "Arts & Letters" and " Mathematics & Sciences,"

critical thinking instruction seemed to be split, as well.

    Over 100 different programs for teaching critical thinking, other than those aimed specifically at gifted and talented groups,

are currently published in this country. Roughly half of these programs are divided between Language Arts and Social Studies,

with slightly more in Language Arts. The remainder, with a few exceptions, are divided between Mathematics and Natural

Science. Programs from each of these areas, selected on the basis of extensiveness of use and research available on

effectiveness, are described below to provide a sense of what is currently used to teach critical thinking in U.S. schools.

Critical Thinking Programs in Language Arts and Social Studies

    Aristotle stressed the importance of reading and writing to develop critical thinking skills. Later, Thorndike (1917) stressed

the link between reading and reasoning. Thus, including thinking skills instruction in language arts classes does have some

historical precedence. More recently, Brown & Campione (1990) cite reading to be the domain in which thinking skills figure

most prominently. Many English teachers seek to follow the suggestions of Aristotle by teaching logic, reasoning and critical

thinking through essay assignments and classroom discussions of literature. The insistent cry from those in higher education that

students are coming to college less able to write and think critically than ever before (Arons, 1985; Hirshberg, 1992; Heyman

& Daly, 1992; Paul, 1992) suggests something is missing in this approach. Despite this, many of the more well-known

programs to teach critical thinking skills are designed for use in the content area of language arts.

    Lipman, Sharp & Oscanyon (1980), of the Institute for the Advancement of Philosophy, developed a program called

"Philosophy for Children." Plato and Aristotle might consider introducing this subject to elementary school age children

developmentally inappropriate. Both believed the study of philosophy to be pointless before the age of 50 when adequate

knowledge structures had presumably been developed to deal with issues wrestled with by the discipline. Lipman's program

does, however, utilize one of the key instructional methods employed by both Plato and Aristotle--that of Socratic dialogue.

The program is based on what Lipman calls "social inquiry" (Lipman & Sharp, 1980) and consists of assigning a story to be

read by students in which the major character must make a critical choice, then discussing ways in which the character reached

a decision. Although marketed as an original approach based in the discipline of philosophy, similar practices are used by

teachers from early elementary school through college to enhance reading comprehension and thinking skills.

    Such strategies are taught to pre-service teachers in English, reading and language arts methods courses. Many junior high

and high school English instructors engage in the practice of discussing the motivations for decisions made by fictional

characters through the genre of Young Adult (YA) Literature. This strategy engages students in dialogue about social issues.

Harrison (1984) and DeHart & Bleaker (1988) found, however, that this practice often may fail to enhance students' thinking

since YA literature offers few, if any, characters who truly model critical thought processes and logical reasoning skills.

Lipman's program addresses this lack by providing stories specifically written to include protagonists who DO think critically.

Sternberg (1983) reviews "Philosophy for Children" as follows: ...consists of a series of texts in which fictional children spend a

considerable portion of their time thinking about thinking, and about ways in which better thinking can be distinguished from

poorer thinking.

    The keys to learning are identification and simulation: through reading the texts and engaging in classroom discussions and

exercises, the objective is for students to identify with the characters and simulate for themselves the kind of thinking depicted

in the program....

    The program has some limitations which ought to be considered prior to school adoption:

    (a) Students of average or below-average intellectual capabilities may have difficulty both with the reading and the
          reasoning involved;

    (b) Students from lower and lower-middle class backgrounds may have trouble relating to the characters in the stories,
          who come across as very upper-middle class in their values and orientation;

    (c) The success of the program will be at least as dependent upon the teacher as the materials....Indeed, some teachers
          may have trouble with the thinking skills taught in the program (pp. 29-30).

    Sternberg's critique illustrates major problems with "Philosophy for Children," and with the general approach used by many

language arts teachers who utilize literary discussion to encourage critical thinking, as well. First, although modeling and

identification are psychological principles upon which the technique is based, a very limited number of students will actually be

able to identify with the characters in any particular story assigned for a variety of reasons, including background experiences,

gender, socioeconomic status and ethnicity. Second, the technique is not developmentally sound for use with pre-adolescents.

    Lipman's program is designed for use in middle schools, although research suggests that few students in grades five through

eight are capable of formal operations in a Piagetian sense. Some teachers may not even be capable of such thought processes

(Jones & Norman, 1989).

    Yet, the skills Lipman's program is built upon nearly all require formal operational logic. Here is a partial listing of the 30

skills he suggests that the program is designed to establish: (a) generalizing; (b) formulating cause-effect relationships; (c)

drawing syllogistic inferences; (d) understanding consistency vs. contradiction; (e) identifying underlying assumptions; (f)

grasping part-whole connections; (g) working with analogies; (h) formulating problems; (i) comprehending non reversibility of

"All" statements and (j) comprehending reversibility of "No" statements.

    It may not be reasonable to expect children operating at a concrete level of thought to master these skills (Otto, 1986).

Thus, although the strategy of using literature to teach critical thinking offers the advantage of modeling social interactions which

can build the foundations for critical thought processes, Lipman's program does not seem compatible with what we know of

learning from a developmental perspective. Similar, commonly-used methods in high school language arts may be more

appropriate from a developmental perspective but fail to offer critically reasoning models with whom students can identify.

Another attempt to teach critical thinking through language arts is Chicago Mastery Learning (Jones, 1982).

    The Chicago Mastery Learning program is designed for use in grades five through eight. It is divided into four levels which

contain units on sentence context, mood in reading and writing, organizing complex information, comparisons, character

analysis, separating fact from opinion and study skills. The program is based upon the belief that almost all students can learn

what only the best students currently learn, provided sufficient time and a variety of instructional tools are provided. This

program has been shown to improve student skills in reading comprehension (Fenson & Fenson, 1992), although the extent to

which improved reading comprehension generalizes to critical thinking skills has not been established. Peer tutoring, grouping,

formative and evaluative testing, reteaching and enrichment are all components built into Chicago Mastery Learning.

    The peer-tutoring and cooperative learning components of the program may enhance critical thinking. Many current

researchers in the area of critical thinking support these methods as effective means to build thinking skills (Brown &

Campione, 1990; Damon, 1990; Paul, 1992). Beyond this, though, the Chicago program seems to train students in a very

limited domain--ie..reading comprehension and verbal skills. Unless research establishes, as Aristotle seemed to believe, that

these skills generalize to critical thinking in other areas, the program may be viewed as effective in language arts, but

questionable for establishing thinking skills in a broader sense.

    Another thinking skills program which has received attention in both practice and research is Feuerstein's (1980)

Instrumental Enrichment. There are several levels of the program available for students of varying abilities from late elementary

through early high school. This program, generally used in language arts, social studies or special education classes, emphasizes

what Sternberg (1983) refers to as metacomponential and performance-componential functioning.

    Instrumental Enrichment is designed to address and correct deficits which impair critical thinking through a series of units and

tests which include: orientation to dots and figures; categorization; temporal relations; numerical progressions; stencil designs;

comparison of pictures, and following directions. Feuerstein's list of thinking deficits, which these activities supposedly correct,

includes: (a) unplanned, impulsive and unsystematic exploratory behavior; (b) lack of, or impaired, capacity for considering two

sources of information at once, reflected in dealing with data in a piecemeal fashion rather than as a unit of organized facts; (c)

inadequacy in experiencing the existence of an actual problem and subsequently defining it; (d) lack of spontaneous

comparative behavior or limitation of its appearance to a restricted field of need; (e) lack of, or impaired, strategies for

hypothesis testing; (f) lack of orientation toward the need for logical evidence; (g) lack of, or impaired, planning behavior, and

(h) an episodic grasp of reality. Feuerstein (1980) seeks to correct these deficits through his activities and tests while, at the

same time, increasing each student's intrinsic motivation and feeling of self-worth.

    His is one of the most widely-studied programs, and there is evidence that its use tends to significantly raise student scores

on measures of ability (Sternberg, 1983). The isolation of Feuerstein's problems from any working knowledge base or

academic discipline raises questions concerning the transferability of skills to academic and real-world intellectual tasks.

Transfer of knowledge is an important psychological consideration which must be addressed in instruction. As Sternberg

(1983) points out, Instrumental Enrichment seems to train primarily those abilities tapped by IQ tests rather than a broader

spectrum of abilities and adaptibilities that go beyond what tests measure as intelligence.

    Writing assignments, discussions and debates focused on current events are viewed as important means to enhance critical

thinking skills in language arts and social studies classes (Bender & Leone, 1988; Fleming, 1982; Jones, Ternzmann, Friedman

and Walker, 1992; Karolides, 1987; O'Banion, 1989; Oliver, 1985; Parker, 1989; Rosenblum-Cale, 1992; Spicer, 1991;

Stahl, 1988) If logical reasoning and critical thinking skills are not established prior to engaging in these activities, however,

students are unlikely to succeed at these assignments. Further, no clear evidence exists to establish that such assignments

enhance thinking skills. It may be more appropriate to instruct students in the components of logic and critical thinking prior to

assigning tasks such as these, rather than making assignments which are impossible to complete accurately considering the lack

of a critical knowledge base in most students and then bewailing the lack of reasoning skill students display (O'Banion, 1989;

Oliver, 1985).

    Using a metaphor of language acquisition, one would not expect a child who had grown up in an environment without any

exposure to the spoken word to adequately complete a vocabulary assignment on the first attempt. Similarly, students who

have no exposure to logic may be unable to think critically. Another strategy which has been explored recently gives

adolescents the task of writing a personality profile of a particular adult whom the students have interviewed or heard speak.

This adult may be a community member who attended the same school as the student, a person currently working in a field of

interest to the student, or an elderly adult from a local geriatric center (Beyersdorfer & Schauer, 1992; Hamilton, 1990).

    Although systematic research to determine whether such assignments enhance critical thinking has not yet been conducted,

based upon principles of identification, modeling and transfer of knowledge, such methods may be fertile avenues for future

exploration. Although the above review is by no means an exhaustive summary of all critical thinking programs available for use

in language arts and social studies, the programs reviewed here are representative of the approaches currently used to enhance

student thinking skills. One element from the classic trivium which seems to be missing in many of these programs (except,

perhaps, Lipman's, and, in a visual format, Feuerstein’s) is instruction in formal logic.

    Rhetoric has survived in the form of the discussion, reading and writing assignments summarized above, but without the

foundation of logic upon which it was traditionally based. Without a base of logic, it may be of little value for enhancing critical

thinking. One may discuss feelings and opinions exhaustively but, without logic as a basis for such discussions, no reasonable

means of evaluation exists. Mass opinion and consensus is likely to replace more solid foundations for decision making.Morris

(1984) comes to this conclusion when reviewing social studies and economics texts in Great Britain. He suggests that inclusion

of logical reasoning instruction in the classroom would improve student performance.

Critical Thinking in Natural Sciences and Mathematics

    Plato's strategy for developing abstract reasoning skills in adolescents utilized instruction in mathematics. This philosophy

may still be the underlying premise upon which high school algebra requirements in our public schools are based. A number of

programs to improve critical thinking skills in adolescents have been directed toward science and mathematics curricula. A

substantial body of research (Bitner, 1989; 1990; Blosser & Helgeson, 1984; Galotti & Komatsu, 1989; Leary, 1993) has

established that skills in spatial reasoning ability, problem-solving skills, proportional reasoning and probabilistic reasoning are

highly correlated to student achievement in science and mathematics. Underlying these abilities is the Piagetian concept of Need

for formal operational reasoning, typically not available to students until at least adolescence and sometimes not available in all

content areas, dependent upon student knowledge structures, even then (Arons, 1984; Bitner, 1989; 1990; Blosser &

Helgeson, 1984; Keating, 1988).

    Programs aimed at enhancing thinking skills in science and mathematics are typically more compatible with developmental

and other psychological theories than those designed for use in language arts and social studies. Science and mathematics

programs are also more frequently studied systematically to assess results. Perhaps this is because educators in these areas are

more familiar with the scientific method and more likely to read and apply research to curriculum development than educators

in other content areas. Regardless of causes, a survey of programs designed to teach critical thinking skills in science and math

revealed that most do account for student developmental level. Most also tend to focus on enhancing specific requisite skills to

scientific, visual-spatial or mathematical reasoning.

    One example is Peterson's (1986) model to teach proportional reasoning to adolescents, which addresses both definitional

and developmental concerns, and then proposes a hierarchy of several skills and mental processes required for proportional

reasoning before presenting a series of science activities designed to teach and reinforce each of these skills. Narode, Heiman,

Lochhead and Slomianko (1992) suggest several strategies for use in science and mathematics classes to enhance visual-spatial

reasoning, including concept mapping and Venn diagrams. Arons (1982) successfully utilized these strategies to enhance visual-

spatial reasoning in an introductory physics course.

    Linn (1989) found that combining content area instruction in human biology with instruction in logical reasoning, including

syllogistic reasoning and Venn diagrams, had a positive effect on student mastery of concepts. Crow & Haws (1985) had

similar results in a geology course. Instruction in logic combined with content-area instruction enhanced student achievement in

both critical thinking and mastery of geology. These studies provide support for the need to include instruction in formal logic in

coursework for adolescents and young adults in order to refine thought processes and facilitate mastery of concepts and


    In mathematics, units to improve visual-spatial reasoning are common, as are approaches to develop problem-solving skills

based on solving mathematics word problems. Instruction in formal logic is also sometimes employed (Miller,1986; Heiman,

Narode, Slomianko & Lochhead, 1992). Logical reasoning ability has been found to have a high correlation with achievement

in statistics (Harvey, 1985), matrix algebra and graphing, computer programming (Foreman, 1988) and geometry

(Massachusetts Education Assessment Program, 1987). Jansson (1988) and others have carefully documented and researched

a series of underlying logical reasoning hierarchies required in mathematics and established that mastery of these logical skills

seems to be developmentally tied, in a Piagetian sense. Thus, most current elementary mathematics programs utilizing concrete

examples and hands-on approaches are based on developmental theory.

    Many secondary programs seek to incorporate instruction in logical reasoning to some extent (Baxandall, 1978; Cook,

1989; Michigan State Board of Education, 1988). Plato's assertion that adolescence is the appropriate time to focus on more

abstract forms of mathematics and logic seems to be supported by this body of research. University methods courses in math

and science instruction also frequently include units on logical reasoning (Jones & Norman, 1989; Piburn & Baker, 1988).

Strategies used to teach logic in math and science include but are not limited to: use of Euhler and Venn diagrams; practice with

verbal and visual analogies; diagrammatic representation of information presented in word problems and practice with the

scientific method. Such activities can be found in most secondary math and science texts. They are typically included during

pre-service teacher instruction in math and science methods classes and are a part of numerous supplementary materials

published for math and science instruction (Seymour, 1992.)

    Good sources of example activities similar to those commonly used are be found in Baron & Sternberg (1990) and

Sternberg (1983). Research in computer-assisted instruction (CAI) related to teaching logic and critical thinking has focused

primarily on middle-school students. This may introduce developmental issues which need to be considered when analyzing the

results. Some of the findings, however, are worth noting. Seidman (1990) found that instruction in LOGO programming tended

to boost fifth grade students' abilities in conditional reasoning--an unexpected but beneficial spontaneous transfer. Shaw (1985)

found that use of microcomputer simulations increased achievement on tests of logical reasoning in middle school students, but

Bright (1983) found that using the computer game "Mastermind" with sixth and eighth grade students had no effect on logical

reasoning skill in other areas.

    Bezenilla & Ogden (1992) engaged 13 and 14 year-olds in tasks requiring database searches and found logical reasoning

skills lacking. They suggested instruction in logic--particularly concepts of AND, OR, ALL, SOME, NO and NOT from

syllogistic reasoning--might benefit students. Bass & Perkins (1984) developed a nine-week CAI unit to teach critical thinking

skills to seventh graders. Results indicated gains were made in inductive/deductive reasoning and verbal analogy by students

who participated in the unit. Hunter and Wold (1982) reviewed several computer games and suggested they were valuable

tools for classroom use to improve logical reasoning, perseverance, goal setting and attention to detail in students. As

previously noted, numerous programs to teach critical thinking skills are used in gifted education programs at all levels.

    One prototypic example is Runkle and Tansey's (1980) "Logic: A Unit for 4-8 Graders, Especially Gifted and Talented"

available through Area Education Agency 7, Cedar Falls, IA. This unit includes lessons in scientific reasoning, spatial reasoning,

inductive logic, deductive logic, analogies, if-then statements, syllogistic reasoning and logical fallacies. Another example is

Iozzi's (1987) unit on "Science, Technology and Society," a multidisciplinary unit which focuses students on important issues

related to the relationship between scientific advances and societal values. At the other end of the spectrum, a number of

programs to enhance logical thinking focus specifically on at-risk students, learning disabled students and deaf students

(Buehner & Lucas, 1986; Green, 1989; Martin & Jones, 1987; 1988; Norris, 1990). Interestingly, there are few substantial

differences between these programs and the programs for GT students--except, perhaps, readability level and ethnicity of the

characters included in text.

    Research (Martin & Jones, 1987;1988) has established the effectiveness of programs which teach critical thinking skills to

special populations. It appears logic and reasoning skills are not available only to GT students. These skills are available to

virtually everyone IF adequate instruction is provided at the proper time developmentally AND sufficient modeling of these

skills occurs during childhood. Zechmeister & Johnson (1992) recommend a functional approach to teaching critical thinking.

A self-contained course which encourages students to apply planning, verification, evaluation and logic in their daily lives is

likely to help overcome attribution error, according to these authors. Their approach is based on a review of the literature in the

area of social psychology.

    In contrast to a self-contained course approach, several units to teach logic are "multidisciplinary." The move away from

segmented academic disciplines, each with their own body of knowledge and method of reasoning, seems to go hand in hand

with the critical thinking movement, perhaps with good reason: Critical thinking is a skill which should generalize to all areas. It

is not the domain of a particular subject area. Cook & Martinello (1993) studied an urban middle school which had

implemented interdisciplinary theme units into the curriculum and found that teachers perceived this to be a useful strategy for

improving student understanding and critical thinking skills. Examples of numerous multi-disciplinary programs are recounted in

Neubert and Binko's (1992) Inductive Reasoning in the Secondary Classroom; Heiman and Slomianko's (1992a; 1992b)

Critical Thinking Skills and Thinking Skills Instruction and Presseisen's (1992) Thinking Skills: Research and Practice.

    Utilizing several content areas to teach logical reasoning is recommended by scholars active in the area of thinking skills,

including Perkins (1985) and Quellmalz (1990). Implications for Instruction It is likely that all of the programs cited above may

be useful for improving critical thinking to some degree because of their inclusion of components of logic, but systematic

integration of such programs in public education is lacking.

    Two common problems in logic instruction are that: (a) teachers focus on relating the skills presented only to their own

subjects, thus limiting transfer of knowledge to other areas by students who do not make such connections independently and

(b) instruction in logic is inconsistently utilized from teacher to teacher, school to school and district to district. Although logic is

commonly included to some degree in district curriculums, it is not consistently presented and few means are available to

systematically introduce, teach and practice logical reasoning skills from year to year (Miller, 1993). Consequently, because

instruction is content-tied and sporadic, students may have difficulty transferring it to daily life. It may be viewed as an isolated

"fact" rather than a strategy useful in daily life.

    Teaching logical reasoning skills in conjunction with course content seems to be the preferred method, and is supported by

research. Availability of materials to teach logic at the high school level in this way is limited, however. The most effective units

studied have been developed by teachers for use specifically in their own classrooms. However, many teachers receive no

training in formal logic during their own educations, and are therefore unable to appropriately integrate it into their classrooms.

Even those who are trained to do so may not have sufficient time to develop units in logic to accompany their teaching. Thus,

finding a means to include logic in the curriculum is a current concern for public school curriculum developers and teacher

trainers (Hathurn, 1993; Leyba, 1993; Spratlen-Mitchell, 1993). Also, because of the "watering down of the curriculum"

described earlier, instruction in logic is often seen as a "frill" for which there is no time while instructors are forced to encourage

students to memorize "facts and formulas" for assorted district, state and national assessments in their content areas.

    Thus, although the programs which do exist to teach critical thinking in science and mathematics tend to be consistent with

psychological principles, such programs are unlikely to transfer to critical thinking skills in other areas. It appears that the

current public school system does not support the teaching of logic to most adolescents. Although many high schools offer

instruction in metacognition and logic in some form such as elective courses in psychology, philosophy, semantics and formal

logic, these course are typically only available to high achieving students. If  research establishing the importance of training

adolescents in logical reasoning in order to enhance critical thinking continues, however, the focus could change. Assessing

mastery of logical reasoning skill could become more important than measuring recognition memory for isolated "facts"

(Shoemaker & Lewin, 1993). Some researchers (Martin, 1983a; 1983b) suggest that the best way to improve critical thinking

skills among students is to train teachers in formal logic and thinking skills so they are able to impart these skills to students in

whatever area they teach. This seems compatible with the suggestion that students be exposed to logical reasoning throughout

their schooling, in all subject areas, so that they are able to internalize the thinking strategies involved. Modeling is a powerful

tool for teaching. Just as infants must hear language used constantly before they begin to speak, children may need to watch

logical reasoning skills being applied continuously before they are able to think critically. Ensuring that all teachers understand,

apply and consistently model logical reasoning skills in their classes may be an appropriate means of assisting students to learn

critical thinking skills.

    Another option is to establish a national requirement for a course which includes formal logic in public high schools. Although

most high schools currently have an overload of required and recommended courses, the following comment from a freshman

completing a unit on logic and cognition as part of a pilot study conducted at an inner city school offers a suggestion. After a

discussion of knowledge structures, intensional and extensional features and the hierarchical nature of information stored in

memory, the student commented: "Is that true? Do people really think like that? Wow, I know I do--and since I know that, I

think better than most of my friends 'cuz I can check to make sure things in my head are in the right place. That's psychology,

man!" Perhaps the most efficient place to include formal logic in the high school curriculum would be in a required psychology

course at the freshman level which covered metacognition, life skills, career exploration and human development as well as

units on the various components of formal logic as part of a "thinking skills" unit.

    Lessons on categorization, hierarchical organization, intensional and extensional meanings, propositional logic, Venn

diagramming, hypothesis testing, and inductive, deductive and analogical reasoning could be presented in the context of how

the human brain organizes information. Transferring this knowledge to other classes and activities would thus be encouraged;

logic would be viewed as a thinking skill we use consistently in all areas of our lives rather than in just math or science. Such a

reintroduction of logic into the high school curriculum would be efficient not only from the standpoint of knowledge transfer, as

noted above, but in other ways, as well. The required psychology class could meet one of the social studies requirements most

high schools have. Psychology instructors, provided they are certified in the discipline and have had sufficient training, will

already be familiar with formal reasoning and the scientific method, so required in-servicing will be minimal.

    Many of the current materials aimed at teaching critical thinking in logic courses were written by psychologists, so

psychology instructors will be familiar with the perspectives presented and the terminology used. High school psychology

classes are an appropriate place to infuse logic and metacognition into the curriculum. Students could study WHY and HOW

they reason in the context of learning about the human brain. Psychology courses in high school, though currently available to

more students than the electives of philosophy and semantics, are generally elective courses in the current high school system.

Changing psychology courses in high schools to "required" status and using these courses to provide instruction in logical

reasoning, critical thinking and metacognition to ALL students along with life skills and human development training might be an

effective means of returning logic to the curriculum. This return of logic would likely result in overall improvements in the critical

thinking skills for the next generation.


    Abrams, M. H., Donaldson, E. T., Smith, H., Adams, R. M., Monk, S. H., Lipking, L., Ford, G. H. & Daiches, D. (1974). The Norton Anthology of English Literature, Vols. l & 2. New York: W. W. Norton & Company.

    Arons, A. B. (1982). Phenomenology and logical reasoning in introductory physics courses. American Journal of Physics, 50, 1. 13-20.

    Arons, A. B. (1984). Education through science. Journal of College Science Teaching, 13, 4, 210-220.

    Arons, A. B. (1985). Critical thinking in the baccalaureate curriculum. Liberal Education, 71, 2 , 141-58.

    Baron, J. B. & Sternberg, R.J. (Eds.) (1990). Teaching thinking skills: Theory and practice. New York, NY: Freeman.

    Barnes, C. A. (1992). Critical thinking: An educational imperative. New Directions for Community Colleges, 20, 1.

    Bass, G. M. & Perkins, H.V. (1984). Teaching critical thinking skills with CAI: A design by two researchers shows computers can make a difference. Electronic Learning, 4, 2. 32-4.

    Baxandall, P.R. (1978). Proof in mathematics: If, then and perhaps). ERIC/IRC Information Reference Center. Columbus, OH: Ohio State University.

    Bender, D. L. & Leone, B. (1988). Opposing viewpoints: Poverty. St. Paul, MN: Greenhaven. Berger, K. S. (1992). The developing person through the lifespan. NY: Worth.

    Beyersdorfer, J. M. & Schauer, D. K. (1992). Writing personality profiles: Conversations across the generation gap. Journal of Reading, 35, 8. 612-16.

    Bezenilla, J. J. & Ogden, J. (1992). Logical sentences and searches. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 6, 1. 37-44.

    Bitner, B. L. (1989, March). Developmental patterns of logical reasoning of students in grades six through ten: Increments and plateaus. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching. San Francisco, CA.

    Bitner, B. L. (1990, April). Thinking processes model: Effect on logical reasoning abilities of students in grades six through twelve. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, Atlanta, GA.

    Blosser, P. E. & Helgeson, S. L. (Eds.) (1984). Investigations in science education. Investigations in Science Education, 10,1.

    Boroughs, R. (1990). Amputating assets. U.S. News and World Report, May 4.

    Bright, G. W. (1983). Use of a game to instruct logical reasoning. School Science and Mathematics, 83, 5, 395-405.

    Brown, A. J. & Campione, J. C. (1990). Communities of learning and thinking, or a context by any other name. In Contributions to Human Development, 21, 108-125. New York: Karger.

    Buehner, L. J. & Lucas, V. H. (1986). MAP: A model for teaching problem solving. British Columbia Journal of Special Education, 10, 3, 251-9.

    Burns, S. (1983). From student to banker: Observations from the Chase Bank. Washington, D. C. :Office of National Affairs, Association of American Colleges.

    Cole, M. (1979). Culture, cognition & IQ testing. National Elementary Principal, 54,4 , 49-52.

    Cole, M. & Scribner, S. (1977). Literacy without schooling: Testing for intellectual effects. Harvard Educational Review, 48, 4, 448-61.

    Cole, M., Sharp, K. & Lave, L. (1976). The cognitive consequences of education: Some empirical evidence and theoretical misgivings. Urban Review, 9,4, 218-33.

    Cook, M. (1989). Ideas. Arithmetic Teacher, 36, 7.

    Cook, G. & Martinello, M. (1993, April). Implementing interdisciplinary theme studies in the urban middle school: Problems and possibilities. Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association Annual Meeting, Atlanta, GA.

    Crow, L. & Hawes, S. (1985, April). The effects of teaching logical reasoning upon student critical thinking and science achievement. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, French Licks, IN.

    Damon, W. (1990). Social relations and children’s thinking skills. In Contributions to Human Development, 21, 95-106. New York: Karger.

    Darcy, J. & Travers, J. (1993). Human development across the lifespan. Dubuque, IA: Wm. Brown, Pub.

    DeBerry, S. (1991).  The externalization of consciousness and the psychopathology of everyday life. New York, NY: Greenwood.

    DeBerry, S. (1993). Quantum psychology. New York, NY: Praeger. DeHart, F. E. & Bleaker, G. W. (1988). Young adult realistic novels: Models for information transfer? Journal of Youth Services in Libraries, 2, 1, 64-70.

    Ennis, R. H. (1989). Critical thinking and subject specificity: clarification and needed research. Educational Researcher, 18,3, 4-10.

    Fenson, L. & Fenson, J. (Eds.) (1992). Annual editions in human development. Guilford, CT:

    Dushkin. Feuerstein, R. (1980). Instrumental enrichment: An intervention program for cognitive modifiability. Baltimore, MR: University Park Press.

    Fleming, M. (Ed.) (1982). Challenges in the future for teachers and students of English. Arizona English Bulletin, 24, 3.

    Foreman, K. H. (1988). Cognitive style, cognitive ability and acquisition of initial programming competence. Proceedings of selected research papers presented at the annual meeting of the association for educational communications and technology. AECT: New Orleans, LA.

    Galotti, K. & Komatsu, L. K. (1989). Correlations of syllogistic reasoning skills in middle childhood and early adolescence. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 18, 1, 85-96.

    Gibbon, E. (1960). The decline and fall of the roman empire. New York: Harcourt, Brace & Javanovich.

    Green, R. (1989). At-risk youth can succeed. School Administrator, 46, 1, 13-16.

    Grinder, R. E. (1985). The gifted in our midst: By their divine deeds, neuroses and mental test scores we have known them. In F. D. Horowitz & M. O'Brien (Eds.) The gifted and talented: Developmental perspectives. Washington, D. C.: American Psychological Association.

    Hall, G. S. (1921). The message of the zeitgeist. Educational psychologist.

    Halpern, D. (1984). Thought and knowledge: An introduction to critical thinking skill. Hillsdale, N. J. : Erlbaum.

    Hamilton, S. F. (1990, April). Linking school learning with learning on the job. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Boston, MA.

    Harrison, T. R. (1984, November). Application of popular adolescent literature to adolescent development and to adolescent psychology. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Mid-south Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA.

    Hartley, N. K. (1990). An analysis of the professional development needs of Colorado vocational educators. Denver, CO: Colorado State Community College and Occupational Education System.

    Harvey, A. L. (1985, March). The validity of six beliefs about factors related to statistics achievement. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL.

    Hathurn, M. (1993). Personal communication between author and curriculum specialist for Phoenix Union High School District, Phoenix, AZ, March 8.

    Heiman, M. , Narode, R., Slomianko, J. & Lochhead, J. (1992). Teaching thinking skills: Mathematics. NEA: Washington, D.C.

    Heiman, M. & Slomianko, J. (1992a). Critical thinking skills. Washington, D.C: NEA. Heiman, M. & Slomianko, J. (1992b). Thinking skills instruction: Concepts and techniques. Washington, D.C.: NEA.

    Hernstein, R., Nickerson, R. Sanchez, M. & Swets, J. (1986). Psychology in action: Teaching thinking skills. American Psychologist, 41, 11, 1279-89.

    Heyman, G. & Daly, E. (1992). Teaching critical thinking in vocational-technical and occupational classes. New Directions for Community Colleges, 20, 1, 103-08.

    Hirschberg, D. (1992). Source and information: Critical thinking skills instruction in the community college. New Directions for Community Colleges, 20, 1, 109-16.

    Hunt, M. (1982). The story of psychology. New York: Doubleday.

    Hunter, C. B. & Wold, A. L., (1982). Computer games in the classroom. Curriculum Review, 21, 3, 273-75.

    Iozzi, L. A. (1987). Science, technology and society: Preparing for tomorrow’s world. A multidisciplinary approach to problem solving and critical thinking. Longmont, CO: Sopris West, Inc.

    Iran-Nejad, A. (1990). Active and dynamic self-regulation of learning processes. Review of Educational Research, 60,4, 573-602.

    Jansson, L. C. (1988). Logical reasoning hierarchies in mathematics. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education.

    Jones, B. F. (1982). Chicago mastery learning: Reading (2nd ed). Watertown, MA: Mastery Education Corporation.

    Jones, B. F. Tazmann, L., Friedman, L. & Walker, B. (1992). Teaching Thinking Skills: English/Language Arts. NEA: Washington, D. C.

    Jones, M. K. & Norman, J. T. (1989). The effect of a preservice elementary science methods course emphasizing the mastery of science process skills on the development of integrated process skills and logical thinking. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, San Francisco, CA, March 30-April 1, 1989.

    Karolides, N. J. (Ed.) (1987). Beyond the two Rs. Wisconsin English Journal, 29., 2. Keating, D. (1988). Adolescents' ability to engage in critical thinking. National Center on Effective Secondary Schools: Madison, WI.

    Laycock, (1979). Gifted children, Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman & Co. Leary, R. (1993). Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Arizona State University.

    Lewis, R. (1981). The philosophical roots of lifelong learning. Center for the Study of Higher Education: Toledo, OH.

    Leyba, T. (1993). Personal communication. South Mountain High School, Phoenix, AZ. Linn, M. C. (1989) Scientific reasoning during adolescence: The influence of instruction in science knowledge and reasoning strategies. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 26, 2, 171-87.

    Lipman, M. & Sharp, A. (1980). Social inquiry: Instructional manual to accompany MARK. Institute for the Advancement of Philosophy in Children, First Mountain Foundation, Montclair State College, Montclair, NJ.

    Lipman, M., Sharp, A. M. & Oscanyan, F. S. (1980). Philosophy in the classroom (2nd ed.). Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.

    Marshall, R., Yorks, L. & Pitera, J. (1993). Redeployment: An organizational transformation strategy which activates and uses individual ego energy to enhance corporate performance in the globally competitive market of the 90's. In Model Practices: Proceedings of the 1992 Conference on Ego Energy in Business. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

    Martin, D. S. (1983A, November). Can teachers become better thinkers? Paper presented at the Annual Conference of the National Staff Development Center, Tulsa, OK.

    Martin, D. S. (1983b, February). Thinking skills: A critical new role in teacher education. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education, Detroit, MI.

    Martin, D. S. & Jones, B. S. (1987, October). Improving thinking skills in deaf college students. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Evaluation Association, Boston, MA.

    Martin, D. S. & Jones, B. S. (1988). Cognitive enhancement of hearing impaired postsecondary students. (ED309726).

    Massachusetts State Department of Education (1987). Moving geometry from the back of the schoolroom: A report on geometry and measurement in the 1986 assessment. Boston, MA :Education Assessment Program.

    McCarthy-Tucker, S. (1998). Teaching logic to adolescents to improve thinking skills. Korean Journal of Critical Thinking. Michigan State Board of Education (1988). Michigan essential goals and objectives for mathematics education. Lansing, MI : Author.

    Mill, J. S. (1862). System of logic, ratiocinative and inductive, being a connected view of the principles of evidence and the methods of scientific investigation. London: Parker, Son and Bourn, West Strand.

    Miller, I. (1986). Techniques for teaching word problems. Lifelong Learning, 9, 4, 29-31.

    Miller, K. (1993). Personal communication with author by mathematics department chairperson at South Mountain High School, Phoenix, AZ. April 12.

    Morris, P. (1984). Where’s the logic in the introductory economics curriculum? Economics, 20, 87, 109-11.

    Narode, R., Heiman, M., Lochhead, J. & Slomianko, J. (1992). Teaching thinking skills: Science. Washington, D.C.: NEA

    Neubert, G. & Binko, J. (1992).   Inductive reasoning in the secondary classroom. Washington, D.C.: NEA.

    Norris, V. P. (1990). Developing positive attitudes toward school in middle school dropout prevention program using multidisciplinary units. Practicum Report: Nova University.

    O’Banion, J. D. (1989, March). Bridging the gap between literature and composition: Rediscovering the synthesis of logical and narrative argumentation. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Conference on College Composition and Communications, Seattle, WA.

    Oliver, P. (1985, August). How well are we meeting the goals of high school debate? Paper presented at the National Forensic League Conference, Kansas City, MO.

    Otto, R. (1986). Logical reasoning patterns in students and social studies instruction. (ED274606).

    Parker, W. (1989). Critical reasoning on civic issues. Theory and Research in Social Education, 27, 1, 7-32.

    Paul, R. (1992). Critical thinking: What every person needs to survive in a rapidly changing world. Santa Rosa, CA: Foundation for Critical Thinking.

    Perkins, D. (1985, March). Knowledge as design: Teaching thinking through content. Paper presented at the Connecticut Thinking Skills Conference, Wallingford, CT.

    Peterson, R. (1986, September). Toward the advancement of teaching logical thinking: A mental processing model for proportional reasoning. Paper presented at the United States-Japan Seminar on Science Education, Honolulu, HI.

    Piburn, M. & Baker, D. (1988). Reasoning about logical propositions and success in science. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA, April 5-9, 1988.

    Presseisen, B. (1992). Thinking skills: Research and practice. Washington, D.C. : NEA. Quellmalz, E. (1990). Developing criteria for performance assessments: The missing link. Applied Measurement in Education, 4, 4, 319-31.

    Robinson, J. H. (1921). The mind in the making. New York, NY: Harper. Rosenbaum-Cale, K. (1992). Teaching thinking skills: Social studies. Washington, D.C. :NEA.

    Runkle, S. & Tansey, P. (1980). Logic: A unit for 4-8 graders especially for gifted and talented. Area Agency 7, Cedar Falls, IA. (ED2444433).

    Seidman, R. (1990). Computer programming and logical reasoning: Unintended cognitive effects. Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 18, 2, 123-41.

    Seymour, D. (1992). Materials for classroom use. Palo Alto, CA: Dale Seymour Publications.

    Shaw, E. (1985, April). Effects of microcomputer simulations on achievement and attitudes of middle school students. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, French Lick Springs, IN.

    Shoemaker, B. & Lewin, L. (1993). Curriculum and assessment: Two sides of the same coin. Educational Leadership, 50, 8, 56-58.

    Silverman, (1989). It all began with Leta Hollinworth: The story of giftedness in women. Journal of the Education of the Gifted,12,2,86-98.

    Spicer, K. (1991, October). The application of critical thinking in the public relations curriculum. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Speech Communication Association, Atlanta, GA.

    Spratlan-Mitchell, P. (1993). Personal communication between author and English instructor at South Mountain High School, Phoenix, AZ, May 24.

    Stahl, R. (1988). Materials and resources review. Social Studies Teacher, 9, 4, 9-10.

    Sternberg, R. J. (1983). Criteria for intellectual skills training. Educational Researcher, 12, 6-26.

    Thorndike, E. (1917). Reading and reasoning: A study of mistakes in paragraph reading. Journal of Educational Psychology, 8, 323-332.

    Troyat, V. (1987). Peter the great. New York: Scribner.

    Zechmeister, E. & Johnson, J. (1992). Critical thinking: A functional approach. Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole Publishing.

    Zeidler, D. (1984). Hierarchical relationships among formal cognitive structures and their relationship to principalled moral reasoning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 22, 5, 461-472.

Back to top