Professional development for informal educators to bring critical thinking strategies into interactions with students in an out-of-school-time (OST) setting. Developed as part of How People Learn foundations course at the Harvard Graduate School of Education.
Project Synopsis
A design proposal for a program-level intervention based on evidence that metacognition — planning, monitoring, and evaluating one’s thought process — can spur critical thinking to be applied consistently within a domain and even across domains. This two-part professional development workshop was developed during the How People Learn foundations course using the backwards design process.
Critical thinking involves making judgments and decisions by analyzing and evaluating evidence, arguments, claims, and beliefs. It is often considered one of the most important 21st century skills.
Learning Goals
- Participants will be able to apply pedagogical knowledge (knowledge about high-quality teaching that is helpful regardless of the discipline being taught) for engaging students in critical thinking.
- Participants will be able to identify situations where metacognitive strategies can be implemented to encourage transfer.
Design Process
First, I identified three learner personas:
Experienced Educator
| Description: 40s-60s; small-town native; graduate degree and/or professional certifications; works in the school as an aide during the day and works in OST part-time during the school year; |
| Attitudes: may see OST as simply “care” when contrasted to the formal educational settings they are familiar with; may see PD as a “waste of time” due to their existing degrees and certifications; prefers paper and face-to-face methods over digital technologies; |
Dedicated Specialist
| Description: late 20s-30s; diverse cultural identity; undergraduate degree; works in OST full-time; background is in their discipline rather than education; |
| Attitudes: may see PD as hoop to jump through; prefers to allocate their PD hours towards self-directed learning in their discipline (ex: art education); may assume PD does not apply to their discipline; open to both digital and traditional methods of instruction; |
High School/College Student
| Description: late teens-early 20s; small-town native; in process of completing high school/undergraduate degree; enjoys working with children and is exploring education as a career path; |
| Attitudes: sees PD as “more school” and would prefer to be working, relaxing, or spending time on their actual schoolwork; not committed to education as a career path so may see PD as irrelevant to their future; open to both digital and traditional methods of instruction; |
Next, I used backwards design to define measurable outcomes, followed by assessments that would identify evidence of progress towards these outcomes, and lastly, learning content and activities.
Identify Desired Results
At the end of the workshop, participants should be able to:
- Identify 1-2 situations where critical thinking strategies can be implemented in conversations / activities with students.
- List 4-5 critical thinking (theoretical or domain-specific) concepts, metacognitive strategies, or questions that encourage critical thinking that can be applied in the identified situations.
Determine Acceptable Evidence
Assessment will consist primarily of formative assessments throughout the two sessions and conclude with a final summative assessment.
- Participants complete a background knowledge probe emailed prior to in-person workshop. (Formative)
- Participants submit a two-part exit ticket at the end of the 1st session. (Formative)
- Participants complete a self-reflection based on their journaling between sessions (Formative)
- Participants are paired and give/receive peer feedback on written out strategies, questions, and concepts. (Formative)
- Participants complete an exit ticket for the 2nd session with key takeaways. These include 4-5 concepts, questions, and strategies that the participant feels are relevant to their practice as well as the situations they can use them in. (Summative)
Plan Learning Experiences and Instruction
25% of the PD will be teacher-centered, with multimedia slides and printed materials. Direct instruction will allow participants to define critical thinking skills as part of 21st century skills, explore the evidence on the efficacy of critical thinking strategies and pedagogical techniques, and access a toolkit of talk-moves, strategies, prompts, concepts, and questions.
75% of time will be spent on activities where the instructor takes a facilitator/coach role.
Session 1
Critical thinking prompt
As participants arrive, they are asked to solve a prompt at their table, such as a logic puzzle or an item from a Critical Thinking Appraisal.
Discussion
Participants are asked “How did you realize Santa Claus wasn’t real?” exploring the relationship between claims, sources, and evidence. The discussion also explores transfer with the follow-up question “Did this lead you to question the Tooth Fairy?”
Question Generation
On a large whiteboard, participants write questions they might ask students related to the concept: “technology.” The instructor facilitates categorizing into questions that do and do not prompt critical thinking. Next, participants repeat the activity for a specific claim such as “books are not technology,” focusing on questions that do prompt critical thinking.
Opportunity Identification
In small groups, participants review a list of scenarios and rank them based on opportunity to prompt critical thinking in students.
BETWEEN SESSIONS
Journaling
Participants note down opportunities to engage students in critical thinking. Observations can be during any interaction with K-12 students.
SESSION 2
Critical thinking prompt
Participants solve a prompt that shares deep structure (underlying organization /logic) with the Session 1 prompt, providing firsthand experience of transfer.
Self-Reflection / Strategy Selection
Participants reflect on their journaled opportunities and apply strategies to an opportunity of their choice.
Pair & Share / Peer Feedback
Participants pair up to share their approach from the previous activity and give/receive feedback.
Domain-Specific Teach-back
Participants form groups based on preferred domain and brainstorm critical thinking concepts and metacognitive strategies specific to those domains, then present the most salient to all participants.
Leave a Reply