RunningHead:CHILDRENANDCRITICALTHINKING ChildrenandCriticalThinking ACritiqueSubmittedby XXXXXXXXX ElCentroCollege Psychology2301,Section53xxx,Spring2013

CHILDRENANDCRITICALTHINKING

Abstract

Everydaychildrenmustdecideforthemselvesaboutwhatisareliablesourceof information(Heyman,2008).Theymustcriticallyevaluateasource,beitacartoon watchedontelevisionoraconversationheldwithanotherchildoradult.Theymust determineifasourceisreliableandcredibleorlackinginrealinformationandthus risky,thenthinkcriticallyabouttheinformationthatisgiventothem.Heymans (2008)metaanalyticstudyexploreshowcriticalthinkingskillscanbetaughtto children.Theresearcher(Heyman,2008)definescriticalthinkingandanalyseshow earlyandhowwellthesecriticalthinkingskillsdevelopinchildren.Heyman(2008) alsoexploreshowsocialexperiencesshapethedevelopmentoftheseskills,including acomparisonofresponsesinChineseandAmericanchildren.Theresearcher (Heyman,2008)hopesthatinformationfromthisstudyandpriorstudiesdiscussedin thisarticle,canbeusedbyparentsasameansforguidingtheirchildrenalongapath towardscriticalthinking.

CHILDRENANDCRITICALTHINKING

ChildrenandCriticalThinking Summary Childrenbegintodevelopskillstoassesswhenasourceismorecreditableata

veryyoungage(Heyman,2008).Theseskillscontinuetogrowasachildgetsolder. However,itislaterinthecognitivedevelopmentalprocessthatchildrenbeginto understandpersonalmotivationswhengivingfalseinformationatwhichtime childrenbegintobemoresceptical.Theseskillsarecalledcriticalthinkingorcritical evaluations.Ananalysisofresearch(Heyman,2008)examineshowsoonchildren developtheseskillsandhowsocialexperienceshapesthedevelopmentofthese skills.Itishopedthatonedaythesefindingswillhelpchildrenfindstrategiesthatwill assistthemindeterminingwhatisareliablesourceandwhatisariskysource (Heyman,2008).Inaddition,thisresearch(Heyman,2008)willhelpparentsdevelop ameanstoguidingtheirchildrenalongthepathtowardscriticalthinking. Review Criticalthinkingisawayofthinkingthatrefusestoacceptallinformationas necessarilyvalid(Heyman,2008).Criticalthinkinginvolveshowonedeciphersbotha specificclaimandthesourceofthatclaim(Heyman,2008).Inmodernsocietyone cannotaccepteverythingencounteredastrue;onemustthinkcriticallyabouta stimulusevaluateitcritically,andthenanddecidewhetherornottheinformation offeredisindeedvalid.Heyman(2008)analysedavarietyofexperimentsonhow earlyinagechildrenareabletocriticallyevaluateinformation,thecapacitytowhich

CHILDRENANDCRITICALTHINKING

theyarecapableofcriticalevaluation,andwhysomechildrenfailtoproperlycritically evaluateasourceofinformation(Heyman,2008). Thefirststudy(Heyman,2008)reviewedlooksathowchildrenagesthree andfourchoosewhichindividualshavemorecredibility(Heyman,2008).Inthis experiment,achildisshownanobjectwithwhichtheyareunfamiliar.Theythen observetwoactorslabelobjectsfamiliartothechild;oneactorchoosescorrect answerswhiletheotherchoosesincorrectly.Theactorsalsolabeltheitemthechild doesnotknow.Afterwards,thechildisaskedwhattheunknownobjectis.Fouryear oldstendtosidewiththeactorwholabelledthemostitemscorrectly(Heyman, 2008).Itwasconcludedthatathreeyearoldsrangeofcriticalthinkingisnotas developedasthatofafouryearolds,becausethethreeyearoldstendedtoside withtheactorwhoappearedmoreknowing,meaningifanactorsaidtheydidnot knowwhenaskedtolabelanobject,thethreeyearoldwaslesslikelytochoosethe sameanswerastheactor(Heyman,2008).Thesefindingswererepeatedin2007, whenitwasconcludedthatfouryearoldspreferredasourcewholabelleditems correctly75%ofthetimeasopposedto25%ofthetime(Heyman,2008). Apreviousstudy(Heyman,2008)showedthatyoungchildrenarecapableof evaluatingwhenasourceisunknowledgeable.Thereisalsoevidencethattheyare abletoevaluatewhenaparticularsourceismoreknowledgeablethananother (Heyman,2008).Inanotherexperiment(Heyman,2008),childrenagesthreetosix wereaskedwhichoftwoobjectswasinsideacontainer.Thechildrenwerenot allowedtolookinsideit,theywereonlyaskedtoguess.Thechildrenobservedan

CHILDRENANDCRITICALTHINKING

actordoingthesametest,buttheactorchosewhicheverobjectthechilddidnot. Thereweretwodifferentscenarios.Inone,theactorwasnotallowedtolookinside thecontainer;however,intheotherscenariotheactorconspicuouslylookedinside thecontainer.Thisshowedthatthechildbelievedthattheactorhadmore knowledgeonwhattheobjectwasbecausetheyhadtheabilitytoseetheobject (Heyman,2008).Thus,thechildevaluatedthemasagood,knowledgeablesourceof informationandchosetoagreewiththeirchoiceofobject. Researchers(Heyman,2008)alsofoundthatchildrenareabletojudge generalknowledge.Childrenknowthatadoctorhadmoreexpertiseinanarea dealingwiththehumanbodyjustastheyknowamechanicwouldknowmoreabout anengine.Thisimpliesthatchildrenaremindfulthatpeoplehavecertainareasin whichtheyaremoreskilled(Heyman,2008). Heyman(2008)reviewedanotherstudythatfurthersupportedtheclaimthat childrenunderstandpeopleliebutdonotyetrealizethemotivesbehindproviding falseinformation.Theresearchers(Heyman,2008)studiedchildrenfromtwo differentagegroups:sixtosevenyearoldsand10to11yearolds.Theparticipantsof thatstudywereaskedifapersonsowndescriptionofthemselveswasareliable sourceofinformation.Thereweretwodifferenttypesofdescriptivecharacteristics considered,evaluative(suchasbeingintelligent)andcomparison(suchasbeing positive).Itwasfoundthatchildrenfrombothagegroupswerenotverysuspicious whenitcametocomparisoncharacteristics,butolderchildrenweremuchmore suspiciouswhenitcametoevaluativecharacteristics.AccordingtoHeyman(2008),

CHILDRENANDCRITICALTHINKING

theseresearchersbelievedthesefindingssuggestedthatchildrenbecomeawareof selfpresentationmotivesbetweentheagesofsevenand10. Thislastexperiment(Heyman,2008)wasrepeatedinChinatostudyhow socialexperiencesshapehowweviewselfservingmotives.Chinesechildrenwere studiedinthisinstancebecauseChineseculturevastlydiffersfromthatofourown AngloSaxon/JudeoChristianenvironment.TheChinesehaveagreateremphasison impressionmanagementasaresultoftheirbeliefinConfucianism(Heyman,2008). ThefindingsforcomparisoncharacteristicswereconsistentwiththatofAmerican children,butthereweresignificantdifferencesinusingselfreportasanaccurate meanstomeasureevaluativecharacteristics.Boththeyoungeragegroup(sixto sevenyearsold)andtheolderagegroup(1011yearsold)inChinashowedgreater disbeliefwhengivenascenariothatwasintheinterestofthespeakersevaluative characteristicsthandidsameageAmericanchildcounterparts.Theseresearchers evidencesuggeststhatsocialexperiencedoesshapehowachildcriticallyevaluates socialinteractions(Heyman,2008). Heyman(2008)believesitisintheinterestoffuturegenerationstoteach childrenhowtothinkcritically.AsshownbythecomparisonbetweentheChinese andUnitedStatesschoolagedchildren,criticalthinkingisalearnedskill;wedonot simplydeveloptheseskillsasanaturalpartofourmaturationprocess(Heyman, 2008).Whenoneteachesachildhowtocriticallyevaluateinformation,onemustbe carefulinthewaytheyjustifyreasonsforlying.Childrencannotbetoldthatonlybad peopletelllies,becausethatisnotstrictlytrue.Childrenunderstandthatpeople

CHILDRENANDCRITICALTHINKING

sometimesdistortthetruth,butasstatedearliertheydonotalwaysunderstandthe motivesbehindthatdistortion.Heyman(2008)hopesthatinthefuturechildrenwill betterunderstandpersonalmotivesinordertobemoresuccessfulindeciphering informationandinlearningtomakechoicescarryingminimalrisks.Heyman(2008) hopesthatfutureresearchwillstudyhowchildrenrelyonpastsourcesandhowthey evaluatetrustinrealworldsituations. Comments Inmyopinion,Heyman(2008)didaverygoodjobofexaminingthegeneral ideabehindchildrenscriticalthinkingwhenlearningfromothers.However,Iwish shehadgivenmoreinformationregardingtheexperimentsshereported.Theonly demographicsprovidedwererelativeagegroups;knowingspecificsregarding genderandsocioeconomicstatus(SES)ofthechildrensfamilieswouldhavebeen informative,asitispossiblethatbothgenderandSEShadsomeimpactonthe outcomesobserved.Iwouldliketohaveknownwhetherthechildrentheytestedall camefromaparticularareaoftheUnitedStatesandChina(e.g.,rural,suburban, innercity,etc.)oriftheywerechosenrandomlyacrossthecountriesinvolved.There wasnomentionofarequirementforconsentofaparentorguardianandasthe childrenstudiedwerebelow18yearsofage,Iassumesuchconsentwasnecessary, buttherewasnoconformation.Onealsowondersifparental/guardianconsentis requiredinChinaasitisintheUnitedStates. IntheexperimentHeyman(2008)reportedregardingthecontainerwiththe

objectinside,Ifeelastheresultsprovidedwereinconclusive.Heyman(2008)

CHILDRENANDCRITICALTHINKING

providedthefindingthatchildrenwerelikelytochangetheiranswertothatofthe actorwhosawinsideofthecontainer,butdidnotmentionhowoftenchildren changedtheiranswertomatchthatoftheactorwhowasnotallowedtolookinside. Thisseemstometobeacriticalpieceofinformation;ifitwasfoundthatchildren oftenchangedtheiranswertothatoftheactorwhowasnotallowedlookinthe container,thatknowledgewouldaltermyconclusionsontheentirestudy.Iwould feelmorethatthechildrenagreedwithafiguretheybelievedheldauthorityover themratherthantheirhavingagreedwithwhowasregardedasbeingmore informative. Iwouldlovetolearnmoreoverthistopic.SpecificallyIwouldliketoseehow

childrensattitudeonlyingaffectsthewaythattheyevaluateaclaim.Forinstance,if achildbelievesonlybadpeoplelie,aretheymoreorlessapttobesceptical?Alsoare childrenmoresuspiciousofanadultorofachildwhoisgivingdistortedinformation? Perhapsfurtherresearchwillanswerthesequestions.

CHILDRENANDCRITICALTHINKING

References

Heyman,G.D.(2008).Childrenscriticalthinkingwhenlearningfromothers.Current DirectionsinPsychologicalScience,17(5),344347.AcademicSearchComplete. doi:10.1111/j.14678721.2008.00603.