----------------- HES POSTING ----------------- 
Dear David and all: sorry that the URL was out of date for the Kloss. The 
issue of critical thinking in our discipline is of terrific interest to me. 
 Our standard teaching methods, those called by Bill Becker, "chalk and 
talk" work against any significant gains in critical thinking/reading 
skills. Again, this claim is supported by a large literature in cognitive 
development, intellectual growth. 
 
So when economists turn to teaching texts that require substantial reading 
and more sophisticated thinking, it is important to consider the 
appropriate pedagogical styles. 
 
There is a huge difference between assigning portions of Smith (or Marx or 
Perkins-Gilman) and then 
(1) delivering a lecture on what Smith or Marx or Perkins-Gilman really 
means 
or 
(2) working through the texts with the students so that they figure out 
what Smith or Marx or Perkins-Gilman was talking about. 
 
In the former case, the best students in the class get an A when they 
reproduce the professor's interpretation of the text. In the latter case, 
the best students in the class get an A when they can produce an 
interpretation, with appropriate textual reference, that makes sense to 
them. 
 
Student's will not universally appluad your efforts to help them think on 
their own. It is a foreign country to them and they need very clear 
directions on how to do this. 
 
Another reference that you may find helpful:  Browne and Keeley, Asking the 
Right Questions. Prentice Hall. 
 
This can be used in a standard intro course, if you take the time to spice 
the course up with short readings on topics like the environment, 
globalization, affirmative action, whatever.  Then have students learn to 
apply this framework: 
 
What is the "issue" the author is engaging? 
What "conclusion" does the author reach? 
What "evidence" is used to support the conclusion? 
 
Our unskilled readers do not read for the structure and logic of argument: 
they read for facts!  So teaching them to "to read" means helping them 
learn to recognize the components of an argument's structure. 
 
I developed something I call an ICE grid. I find short articles that 
address an issue from alternative perspectives.  Then have students, 
working in groups fill out a 4 x 2 chart. 
 
Author     ....  Issue .....  Conclusion .... Evidence 
 
Author 1 
 
Author 2 
 
You will be amazed at how difficult they find this.  Even if you take a 
perfectly lucid piece of writing from say the NYT OP ED section. Op Ed 
pieces are actually very good for this excercise. 
 
Hope this is helpful, Susan 
 
Susan F. Feiner 
 
------------ FOOTER TO HES POSTING ------------ 
For information, send the message "info HES" to [log in to unmask]