----------------- HES POSTING ----------------- Dear David and all: sorry that the URL was out of date for the Kloss.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]