Lesson Idea Draft

TT24

Reading-Powerful_Techniques_for_Teaching_Adults_CHAP2_Pg_47--64.pdf

Home >Psychology homework help >Lesson Idea Draft

Teaching for Critical Thinking

I have long believed that thinking critically lies at the heart of acting powerfully. If you know the

assumptions you’re operating under and are aware of different perspectives and possibilities, only

then can you act in a way to further your own genuine interests. Acting this way is one important

indicator of empowerment. Moreover, since becoming aware of your assumptions and finding out

about multiple viewpoints happens best in groups, critical thinking can be understood as a social

learning process that inevitably involves others. Since all groups exhibit constantly changing

power relationships, this means critical thinking constantly intersects with power.

When people think critically they try to identify the assumptions that frame their thinking and

actions, and they try to check out the degree to which these assumptions are accurate and valid.

The chief way they do this is by looking at their ideas and decisions (intellectual, organizational,

and personal) from several different perspectives. On the basis of this they then take what are

hopefully informed actions.

What critical thinking looks like and how it’s implemented varies by life context and academic

discipline. In (Brookfield, 2012), I outline five interpretations of Teaching for Critical Thinking

the process from the perspectives of analytic philosophy and logic, natural science, pragmatism,

psychoanalysis, and critical theory. The rest of that book explores multiple approaches and

exercises. In this present chapter, I understand the purpose of critical thinking as chiefly informed

by critical theory and its method as chiefly informed by pragmatism. I present the bookends to a

typical critical thinking sequence, beginning with modeling, following this with a Scenario

Analysis exercise, and ending with the Critical Conversation Protocol.

As with any aspect of teaching, the most important knowledge we need to do good work is a

thorough understanding of how students experience learning. Where learning to think critically is

concerned, five themes repeatedly emerge from surveys of adults’ experiences. First, students say

they are helped when teachers model the process and when they draw students’ attention to how

that’s happening. So one responsible and appropriate use of teacher power seems to be to describe

your own processes of critical thinking in front of students, as well as opening yourself up to their

critique, an approach that can itself feel empowering for them.

Brookfield, S. D. (2013). Powerful techniques for teaching adults. John Wiley & Sons, Incorporated. Created from liberty on 2025-06-23 04:40:44.

Second, learners say critical thinking is best developed in small groups where peers serve as

critical mirrors, shedding light on assumptions that have never been checked and introducing new

perspectives that have not been previously considered. It seems that students experience critical

thinking primarily as a social learning process. As already mentioned, this means it intersects

constantly with power dynamics. If you are going to be responsible for introducing group

processes that try to uncover hidden, implicit, or tacit assumptions, and if you are hoping that

students will generate different perspectives and interpretations, then you are going to be working

with currents of power flowing around and within the group.

Third, students say they find it helpful to ground critical thinking in concrete experiences through

case studies, critical incidents, simulations, and scenarios. Designing simulations is one explicit

use of teacher power that can be helpful to students. Moreover, if the scenarios themselves focus

on the use of power, then we have a multilayered situation in which (a) the content students are

exploring is power, (b) the materials are designed by the teacher, reflecting her authorial power,

and (c) the effective (and powerful) implementation of those materials involves teachers

incorporating an understanding of the group’s power dynamics.

Fourth, adults stress that the most significant moments in critical thinking happen when some

kind of unexpected event or idea jolts them out of their comfort zone, what theorists of

transformative learning call a “disorienting dilemma” (Mezirow and Taylor, 2009) and Vygotsky

(1978) calls moving people beyond their “zone of proximal development.” Creating these

moments of dissonance is a clear use of teacher power, particularly when they involve students’

being forced to deal with ideas and problems they would much rather avoid. For example, getting

some White adults (myself included) to acknowledge their own commission of class, race, and

gender microaggressions is something that many students would prefer to avoid. In these

circumstances forcing the issue may require teachers to exert the full extent of their institutional,

positional power.

Finally, when students look back on their learning journeys, they tend to view the trajectory of

how they learned to think more critically as developmental. They say they prefer to start by

practicing critical protocols in settings that are relatively nonthreatening before gradually bringing

this process to bear more and more closely on their own life and experiences. Designing the

sequence of exercises and judging when students are ready to move from one stage to the next is

another exercise of teacher power.

Brookfield, S. D. (2013). Powerful techniques for teaching adults. John Wiley & Sons, Incorporated. Created from liberty on 2025-06-23 04:40:44.

Beginning with Modeling

Of the five themes that emerge from students’ responses on what most helps them learn to think

critically, the importance of teachers’ modeling the process in front of them is the one that

surprises me the most. At the beginning of my career, I believed I could measure my success as a

teacher by how much my students notice me, how much they forgot I was there. If they didn’t

were learning without me saying or doing very much and if they mostly ignored my presence,

then I felt I was teaching in the best way possible. I still believe this is very valid in many

situations and that, in Finkel’s (2000) terms, you can be very effective when you teach with your

mouth shut. But when it comes to students’ learning how to practice critical thinking, it seems

they constantly look to us to see what the process looks like. Furthermore, because unearthing and

questioning assumptions is often risky, it’s important that teachers earn the right to ask students to

do this by first modeling how they try to unearth and research their own assumptions. There’s

something essentially false about you asking a learner to do something that you haven’t done first.

The modeling that students appreciate from teachers takes different forms. Most importantly, it

seems that the more personal examples we give of how we try to think critically, the more

students appreciate this. A teacher’s early disclosure of a critical thinking experience can set a

tone of openness that significantly influences students’ readiness to explore their own

assumptions. I often begin a session on critical thinking talking about my unwillingness to

question my assumptions about the causes and treatment of clinical depression and how that

prevented me from seeking help for my own depression. Or I will talk about how difficult it is for

me to question my assumption that I have escaped any kind of racist, sexist, or homophobic

conditioning. Describing racial or gender microaggressions I have recently committed is intended

to encourage students to be willing to talk about such aggressions in their own lives.

Students also say that when it comes to a threatening activity like being asked to think critically

about their long-held assumptions, it inspires confidence to see that teachers clearly have a plan

for doing this, a set of reasons informing their actions. Speaking out loud about why you are

introducing a particular classroom activity, why you’re changing learning modalities, or why you’

ve chosen certain readings demonstrates to students that you are a thoughtful, one might say

critically reflective, teacher. Knowing that they are in the hands of such a teacher builds students’

confidence. No one likes to think that the person leading them in an activity is making it up as she

goes along with no forethought, reasoning, or previous experience. This is particularly the case

Brookfield, S. D. (2013). Powerful techniques for teaching adults. John Wiley & Sons, Incorporated. Created from liberty on 2025-06-23 04:40:44.

when the teacher is asking you to engage in a risky learning activity, as is the case with practicing

critical thinking. So explaining the reasoning behind your classroom actions and decisions is

clearly a responsible use of power in students’ eyes.

Having discussed two general elements in modeling critical thinking—using personal examples

and explaining the reasoning behind your actions—let me review some specific modeling

practices that students have picked out over the years as being helpful. All of these are designed

to demonstrate either how to uncover and check assumptions or how to view knowledge and

skills from multiple perspectives.

Speaking in Tongues

This activity is designed to show students how the same idea, facts, skills, or content can be

interpreted in different ways. You begin by posting signs around the classroom corresponding to

the number of different viewpoints you wish to consider. So, for example, if I were teaching a

lesson on the intellectual traditions informing critical thinking, I might post five signs—analytic

philosophy, scientific method, pragmatism, psychoanalysis, and critical theory. The activity starts

with you standing in the center of the classroom and reviewing the content in the way it’s

generally understood. Hence, I might kick off by going over the definition of critical thinking

given in the syllabus and examining how the University of St. Thomas (my employer)

incorporates critical thinking into its mission statement.

You then move to the first sign you’ve posted and explain the content as if you were someone

who only thought within that framework. So if I moved to the analytic philosophy sign, I would

only speak about critical thinking as the construction and deconstruction of arguments and

detection of logical fallacies. You then move to the second sign you’ve posted and give your

understanding of the content as if you were solely concerned with that second perspective. So I

would move to the scientific method sign and speak about critical thinking as the generation and

testing of hypotheses and the application of the principle of falsifiability. The process would

continue as I moved around the different stations. Students say that bringing in a simple spatial

difference—speaking the language of a different theoretical paradigm when you are at a different

station in the room—helps them realize that different perspectives can be taken on the same

material.

A further variant on this exercise is to ask the class to generate questions about the topic after you’

ve done your minireview at each of the stations you’ve posted. You can then respond to the same

Brookfield, S. D. (2013). Powerful techniques for teaching adults. John Wiley & Sons, Incorporated. Created from liberty on 2025-06-23 04:40:44.

question in several different ways by going to two or three of the stations and responding in the

voice of someone answering just from that perspective. Finally, when you have done this a couple

of times in class you can add a further complexity. This time, you divide the class into groups and

ask different groups to go and stand at the different signs. You then pose a question or raise an

issue about the material, and you ask the groups to brainstorm for a couple of minutes on how

they would answer the question or respond to the issue if they operated within the framework only

represented by the sign they are standing by. The exercise ends with each group giving a

summary of their responses.

Assumptions Inventory

In this exercise you get into the habit of stopping any presentations you make to compile, in front

of the class, an Assumptions Inventory. This is, quite simply, an audit of the assumptions you

hold that inform how you’ve just presented an idea, theory, or concept. It can be adapted to

almost any subject or topic such as …

Presenting your reasoning behind the way you’ve just presented a mathematical problem and

demonstrated the solution

Explaining how you’ve designed an experiment to measure velocity

Describing how you discern the meaning of certain analogies used in a poem

Summarizing the causal chain you’ve identified in a sequence of historical events

Reviewing how a set of skills learned in a classroom can be applied to a real-life setting

Justifying why you choose one theory over others as the best explanation for a particular

phenomenon

At appropriate junctures you stop to distinguish between explicit and implicit assumptions

informing your argument and to give examples of the most persuasive evidence for each of those

assumptions. You also identify anything that’s questionable about the assumption. Perhaps some

assumptions are less evidence-based than others, or some have never been properly challenged.

You also explain how and why your assumptions have changed and which you feel most or least

confident about.

Brookfield, S. D. (2013). Powerful techniques for teaching adults. John Wiley & Sons, Incorporated. Created from liberty on 2025-06-23 04:40:44.

Point-Counterpoint

This activity is possible only if you are team-teaching a class. Essentially, it requires two or more

people to analyze an idea or take apart a piece of content from discernibly different perspectives

in front of the class. I usually team-teach once a year and the point-counterpoint moments are

often the ones that students pick out as the most engaging parts of the course. This is where

students see the faculty attempt to model what respectful disagreement and a critical analysis of

each other’s positions look like. This is extremely helpful if you are asking students to do these

things as part of their own small group discussions.

Certain kinds of interactions are important to demonstrate when modeling Point-Counterpoint.

Probably the most important is showing students how to pose questions that ask for evidence

without attaching judgmental elements to them. Examples of these would be “Can you tell me

more about…?,” “Why do you think that’s the case?,” “What’s the most convincing piece of

evidence for that view?” or “How do you respond to Smith’s research that challenges your

position?” Other questions would seek clarification such as “If I understand you correctly you

seem to be saying…” or “Can I just check that I’ve followed your argument correctly?”

Point-Counterpoint also allows you to show how you try to incorporate, or build on, your co-

teacher’s comments, which, in turn, emphasizes for students the importance of careful listening.

You can strive to answer questions addressed to you by your teaching partner as fully and clearly

as possible, and be ready to admit when you don’t have an answer or when you need some time to

think through what you want to say. When you disagree with a co-teacher’s analysis, or you take

a very different position on understanding a piece of content, you can say “I take a different view

on this and here’s why I think the way I do” or “My approach doesn’t emphasize what you cover,

here’s my line of analysis.” Often the greatest moments of delight that students note on their

Critical Incident Questionnaires are when two instructors publicly disagree on something. This

immediately gets their attention and wakes them up.

Structured Devil’s Advocacy

This is a solo version of Point-Counterpoint. As part of your presentation you strive to spend

some time presenting any arguments that counter your own assertions. A dramatic approach is to

state your opening position while you stand in one part of the room and then to move to another

part of the room, look back at where you originally stood, and then direct a second set of

comments back at that spot as if you were speaking to the person (yourself) who was standing

Brookfield, S. D. (2013). Powerful techniques for teaching adults. John Wiley & Sons, Incorporated. Created from liberty on 2025-06-23 04:40:44.

there. Here you deliberately state an alternative view, or you analyze the ideas you were just

describing through a different research paradigm or a different theoretical framework. You are

deliberately playing devil’s advocate with the position you’ve just stated.

Structured Devil’s Advocacy articulates a different perspective on what you’ve just said and

opens up questions about it. You say things like “looking at this idea from another point of view

we can see that …” or “here’s a whole other interpretation of this argument that calls many of its

central assumptions into question.” You can model critical analysis by presenting

counterarguments or rebuttals, in essence using the principle of falsifiability described by Karl

Popper (1959/2002). When you do this you address your imaginary other self by name and say

things like “Stephen, what you’re omitting to mention is …,” or, “Of course, Stephen, you could

pursue a very different line of reasoning if you argue that …”

Ending Lectures and Discussions with Questions

Lecturers are often told that the golden rule of effective lecturing is to “tell ’em what you’re going

to tell ’em, tell em, then tell ‘em what you’ve just told ‘em.” The problem with this rule is that it

commodifies knowledge as a neatly bounded package of facts or concepts. Doing this is inimical

to intellectual inquiry, particularly to the student’s ability to make connections across subject

areas and disciplines. Even more worryingly, ending with a summary of what’s already been said

establishes a sense of definitive closure, of the last word having been spoken on the subject.

I argue that good lecturers end their presentations by pointing out all the new questions that have

been raised by the content of the lecture, and also by pointing out which of the questions posed at

the start of the lecture have been left unanswered or been reframed in a more provocative or

contentious way. This prepares students for the same practice in discussion where conversation

sessions can be ended by asking students to volunteer the most pressing questions the discussion

has raised for them rather than by asking for a summary of “what we’ve learned today in our

discussion.” If possible, lecturers should spend the last ten minutes of a lecture asking students to

write down the questions the lecture has raised for them and then find a way to make them public.

Students can be asked to speak their questions to the whole class, or they can be asked to share

them with each other in small buzz groups of two or three. If they write them down, they can pass

them to the lecturer and have the lecturer read out a random selection. As handheld devices

become common in classrooms, students can send their questions anonymously and electronically

Brookfield, S. D. (2013). Powerful techniques for teaching adults. John Wiley & Sons, Incorporated. Created from liberty on 2025-06-23 04:40:44.

to a classroom whiteboard for review. When I give a keynote speech, I like to have a Twitter feed

projected onto a large screen next to my PowerPoint slides so participants can see a running

stream of comments and questions.

Even if none of these things are possible, your own behavior of finishing a lecture with a list of

new questions the lecture raises for you, or ending with an acknowledgment of the omissions,

ethical dilemmas, and contradictions that challenge what you’ve just articulated, is a powerful

piece of modeling. You should be warned, though, that initially students will probably be very

critical of this approach. They will see your behavior of ending with questions or raising problems

as unnecessarily confusing, as pulling the rug out from under their feet. Over time, as you

consistently explain how doing these things is your best attempt to model the spirit of critical

inquiry you are trying to encourage in learners, students’ frustration will often diminish.

So What Do Think, Teacher?You

One of the classroom moments a lot of us dread is the question from students—“But what do you

think, teacher?” If we are trying to get them to think critically about their own and others’

assumptions about a topic, and if we are encouraging them to take responsibility for developing

their own independent intellectual judgments, then we may feel that the last thing we want to do

is tell them what our thinking is on the question that’s been raised. The danger of doing this, of

course, is that students will then take your response as gospel truth, as the “correct” way to think

about a topic or problem. On the other hand, if we wish to model for students what we’re asking

them to do, it seems fundamentally contradictory not to be able to give our views on something.

After all, we’re asking students to tell us their emerging thinking—shouldn’t students expect us to

tell them ours?

My way through this is slightly convoluted, but it is one I use a lot and it has got me out of a lot

of these “What do think, teacher?” situations. Basically, I tell the students I will give them you

two or three answers to the question. One of them represents my true reasoning on the topic, the

other one or two are plausible viewpoints but they don’t represent my own thinking. I briefly

explain my two or three responses, and then ask students to vote on which of my answers they

feel really represents my own views. Students then form into groups based on which of the three

answers they chose. I give them a few minutes to share with each other the reasons they have for

believing my view was a, b, or c.

Brookfield, S. D. (2013). Powerful techniques for teaching adults. John Wiley & Sons, Incorporated. Created from liberty on 2025-06-23 04:40:44.

The whole class then reconvenes, and I ask each group to tell me what were the main reasons why

they thought view a, b, or c represented my own thinking. I ask them particularly to talk about the

assumptions they think I hold and to provide the evidence that prompted their choice. This is

where students will refer back to the evidence I quoted in previous class meetings, or they’ll point

to the correspondence between one of my answers and what they’ve read in the textbook. When I’

ve heard from the different groups, then I’ll tell them which answer is the one I actually believe.

I like this exercise because I’m meeting students half way and showing them that I’m not playing

a game where I hide my own opinions while asking for theirs, and then pounce on someone who

says something that contradicts my beliefs. Students find out what I believe, but they have to

work to do this. They have to trawl my past comments or review what they think course materials

say before deciding what they think are my opinions. And then, of course, they have to provide

reasons, assumptions, and evidence to support their choice. To me this exercise strikes a nice

balance between telling people immediately what you think (which is consistent with you doing

what you’re asking students to do, but runs the risk of then having students ape your views), and

avoiding their question entirely (which forces them to think it out for themselves, but contradicts

the conviction that you should be willing to model, first, whatever you’re asking students to do).

Scenario Analysis

Against the background of public and explicit teacher modeling of critical thinking, I usually

recommend beginning a critical thinking sequence with the Scenario Analysis technique. Here

you take a piece of material you are trying to teach and rewrite it as a description of an imagined

event in which a fictional character is making a choice. Students are then asked to put themselves

in the head of the character and try to identify the assumptions that character might be operating

under. They give suggestions on how the character might check his assumptions, and then offer

another way of looking at the scenario that the character clearly does not share. These scenarios

are usually brief, from two paragraphs to a page. They are really bite-size case studies and,

because of their brevity, are easy to fit into any class period.

This exercise can be adapted to almost every subject and topic by writing the scenario as a

situation in which a fictional character is making a judgment about the correctness of how a

chunk of content should be understood or a skill practiced. So, for example, you could write

scenarios in which …

Brookfield, S. D. (2013). Powerful techniques for teaching adults. John Wiley & Sons, Incorporated. Created from liberty on 2025-06-23 04:40:44.

A fictional chemist trying to understand the cause and effect relationship in a particular

chemical reaction sets up an experiment to test what she feels is a plausible hypothesis.

Students are asked to identify the reasoning behind the chemist’s choice of her particular

hypothesis and also encouraged to propose an alternative hypothesis that the fictional chemist

could have chosen.

A fictional mathematician formulating a mathematical proof adapts a protocol the students are

familiar with to construct an equation. Students are asked to identify the reasoning behind the

mathematician’s adaptation of the protocol and to propose an alternative method of

constructing an equation.

A fictional psychologist studying a child with learning difficulties concludes the child is

autistic. Students are asked to identify the assumptions the psychologist held when he made

the diagnosis and how he could have checked these out. Students then suggest alternative

diagnoses that the fictional psychologist could have made based on the information provided

in the scenario.

A fictional climatologist is researching greenhouse gas emissions and concludes from

studying records of iceberg movement that global warming is a hoax (or a real threat).

Students try to identify the piece of evidence the fictional climatologist took most seriously.

They try to pose alternative assessments of the existence of global warming that the

climatologist might have made had he focused on different information.

A fictional triage nurse in an understaffed emergency room makes a decision about the

relative seriousness of a patient’s condition based on information he gathers from the patient.

Students try to identify the information that they feel was most influential in the nurse’s

diagnosis. They offer alternative plausible diagnoses that could have been made if the

fictional nurse had focused on different information.

To illustrate what a Scenario Analysis exercise might look like, let me give an example of one I’

ve used in leadership training.

Scenario Analysis Exercise—The Anti-Racist Ground Rule

David is a White college teacher working on a campus that comprises 90 percent White European

Americans. In recent months the campus has experienced a number of racially motivated hate

crimes. Crosses have been burned, swastikas daubed on the Jewish frat house, and racist epithets

sprayed on the side of the building housing the minority students’ center. As a response to these

Brookfield, S. D. (2013). Powerful techniques for teaching adults. John Wiley & Sons, Incorporated. Created from liberty on 2025-06-23 04:40:44.

events the university has initiated a program of antiracist workshops involving students who have

been identified as influential campus leaders. The hope is that after participating in these

workshops, these leaders will spearhead an attempt to condemn and prevent these racist acts.

The college has asked for faculty to volunteer to lead some of these workshops. Although he has

no experience working in this area, David wants to do something to help, so he signs up. From the

few discussions he’s led in the past concerning the dynamics of race and racism, David knows

things can get contentious very quickly. He’s seen discussions that have been designed to

decrease racism actually incite it and lead to minority students dropping out of class.

To make sure that the antiracist workshops don’t fall into the same pattern of making the situation

worse, David decides he will institute a ground rule to guide conversation in the workshop he will

be running. His ground rule is that if a person of color discloses an experience where they have

been the target of racist speech or actions, the White students should not try to convince the

student that they misperceived the situation and saw racism where it really didn’t exist. One of the

topics the workshop is supposed to address is racial microaggressions—the subtle and small

gestures, remarks, and actions that Whites exhibit that people of color perceive as racist but that

Whites don’t recognize as such. David wants to make sure that White students don’t dismiss

examples of racism they are confronted with and that they don’t try to maintain that such events

are all in the heads of students of color. He believes that the ground rule that White students

should not try to talk students of color out of their belief that they have experienced racism will

help keep the group’s focus on racial microaggressions.

What assumptions—explicit and implicit—do you think David is operating under in this

situation? List as many as you can.

Of the assumptions you’ve listed, which ones could David check by simple research and

inquiry? How could he do this?

Give an alternate interpretation of this scenario. A version of what’s happening that is

consistent with the events described but that you think David would disagree with.

Typical Assumptions Students Believe David Holds

Workshops are a good response to hate crimes.

The students chosen to participate in the workshops are people whose voices carry weight

with other students in the broader campus community.

Students will change behavior if their racism is pointed out to them.

Brookfield, S. D. (2013). Powerful techniques for teaching adults. John Wiley & Sons, Incorporated. Created from liberty on 2025-06-23 04:40:44.

10.

11.

12.

The ground rule will protect students of color from further racism.

Students of all races will observe the ground rule.

Students of color will appreciate the ground rule.

White students are unaware of their racist actions.

David is nonracist

David has the authority to insist the ground rule is observed.

The ground rule will decrease racist thoughts and feelings in White students.

Talking about racism can be done calmly.

White faculty members are the people best qualified to lead the workshops.

Ways That David Could Check These Assumptions That Students Often Propose

Study how other campuses have responded to hate crimes and the effectiveness of any

antiracism workshops they have instituted.

Ask students of color how they feel about the proposed ground rule.

Ask students across campus to nominate the most influential student leaders.

Ask faculty who have experience in these kinds of workshops their opinion of the ground rule.

Review antiracist workshops run at other campuses and find out what exercises and

approaches worked best.

Ask community leaders in the area how they have responded to racism in businesses and

government agencies.

Institute some form of anonymous ongoing evaluation to see if the ground rule is having the

effect intended for it.

Ask faculty colleagues of color their opinion of the ground rule.

Alternative Interpretations Students Often Give

The ground rule will lead to White students feeling they have been labeled as racist before

they have had the chance to contribute to a discussion. It will increase their feelings of

resentment and harden their resolve not to take the workshop seriously.

Brookfield, S. D. (2013). Powerful techniques for teaching adults. John Wiley & Sons, Incorporated. Created from liberty on 2025-06-23 04:40:44.

The students of color will perceive the ground rule to be condescending and patronizing,

because it implies they are unable to stand up for themselves when pointing out examples of

racial microaggressions.

The ground rule itself is a racial microaggression because it springs from an unarticulated

assumption that Whites are the “saviors” of people of color.

The ground rule is primarily designed to make David feel better about himself and to increase

his own feeling of self-importance. It is designed to allow him to congratulate himself on his

own antiracist righteousness.

The workshops will be perceived as a public relations exercise by students of color who will

view them as exercises in image manipulation designed to make sure enrollment doesn’t

suffer.

Several observations need to be made about the Scenario Analysis technique. The first is that it is

a social learning exercise, one in which students work in groups to focus on uncovering and

checking assumptions by viewing them through different perspectives. Although the exercise

begins with each student individually completing the three questions about the scenario, it is in

the group sharing that the real learning occurs. Students come to realize they need others to help

them see things they’ve missed, a major reason why students’ preference for learning critical

thinking through social learning was emphasized earlier. The exercise works best when different

students identify assumptions that come as a surprise to their peers and when they propose widely

varying explanations of what could be happening in the scenario.

The second point is that this exercise also builds on an insight students offer of how they best

learn critical thinking; in this case through a concentration on specific experiences. The scenario

focuses on a concrete situation, and students find it much easier to hunt assumptions when there is

a specific experience to explore. Scenarios can be written in more complex ways by adding

multiple characters who all have to make choices and giving more nuanced information that

complicates their options. Third, it’s important to stress is that there is no right or correct answer

to any of the questions. Telling students this at the outset takes a lot of the pressure off their

shoulders. Now they don’t need to worry about whether their understanding of the scenario is the

proper or “correct” one.

In fact I usually tell students that the more assumptions and interpretations they generate, and the

more different ways they propose for the fictional characters to check those out, the better. The

Brookfield, S. D. (2013). Powerful techniques for teaching adults. John Wiley & Sons, Incorporated. Created from liberty on 2025-06-23 04:40:44.

intent of the exercise is to provide an introductory engagement in the critical protocol of

unearthing and checking assumptions by viewing them through different perspectives. Because it

is not the students’ own reasoning at stake, and because all the attention is on the fictional

character’s assumptions and interpretations, students are mentally freer to participate than if we

began with an example from their own lives. Even if the scenario happens to be close to one the

students have experienced, there is no pressure on the students to disclose that fact. All they are

being asked to do is be a mental detective regarding the thinking of a fictional individual.

What is the instructor’s role in a Scenario Analysis? Well, she usually writes the vignette and runs

the exercise, essentially coordinating the different responses that groups come up with in their

discussions. In the later phases of this exercise, instructors do offer judgments and clarification.

When students suggest different ways the actors in the scenarios could check out the accuracy of

their assumptions, these have to be within the range of possibility. When proposing alternative

interpretations of the scenario, it is the teacher’s job to probe why the students came to their

alternative interpretation and to ask for information from the scenario that justifies the

interpretation.

In fact this third part of the exercise—offering alternative interpretations—is usually the one that

students find it hardest to complete. What often happens is that they offer alternative

recommendations for action, telling the character how they should behave differently, rather than

giving an alternative interpretation of what’s happening that fits the brief facts given. I usually

have to stress that the one thing students doing Scenario Analysis should do is offer any not

advice to the fictional characters as to how they should resolve their situation differently. This is

very deliberate on my part. Unless I specify very clearly that no advice should be given, the

students will spend the bulk of their time discussing what David should do. Removing that

possibility from the exercise means (theoretically, at least!) that students will focus all their

attention on assumptions and interpretations.

In passing, I might add that the same dynamic is true of teachers. Get a group of teachers together

over coffee, tea, or beer, and as soon as one of them brings up a problem they’re facing and asks

for help, the first thing the other group members will do is start telling the teacher in trouble what

to do. What is skipped over is the critical scrutiny of how the teacher has framed the problem,

whether or not it’s the real problem to focus on, what assumptions the teacher brings to

understanding and resolving the problem, and the different approaches that could be taken to

addressing it. This is why critical conversation groups focus not on brainstorming solutions to

Brookfield, S. D. (2013). Powerful techniques for teaching adults. John Wiley & Sons, Incorporated. Created from liberty on 2025-06-23 04:40:44.

problems, but rather on understanding what assumptions teachers hold about their problems, and

what different understandings of these problems can be generated.

Critical Conversation Protocol

The Critical Conversation Protocol is an activity that should be placed towards the end of a

critical thinking program since its complexity makes it a far more intimidating experience than a

Scenario Analysis. A critical conversation is a focused conversation in which someone is helped:

To come to an awareness of the assumptions she is operating under.

To investigate whether these assumptions are well grounded.

To look at her reasoning and actions from different viewpoints.

To think about the implications of the conversation for her future actions and thinking.

In a process of structured critical conversation I suggest that people think of playing one of three

possible roles—storyteller, detective, or umpire. The storyteller is the person who is willing to

make herself the focus of critical conversation by first describing some part of her thinking,

practice, or experience. The detectives are those in the group who help her come to a more fully

informed understanding of the assumptions and actions that frame her thinking, practice, or

experience. The umpire is the group member who has agreed to monitor the conversation with a

view to pointing out when people are talking to each other in a judgmental way. She also keeps

the group focused on the discrete stages in the exercise.

All participants in the group play all three of these roles at different times. The protocol is so rich

and complex that it happens several times, but each time the roles switch so participants have the

chance to be the storyteller at least once, the umpire at least once, and the detectives several

times. The idea is that if this is done multiple times, the behaviors associated with each role

gradually become habitual.

The exercise has five discrete stages to it and the person chosen to be the umpire has the

responsibility to make sure the stages are followed in sequence. The umpire is mostly a non-

speaking role. She interjects only if the group is going off track or if she judges that someone is

breaking the ground rules for the exercise. Here’s how the activity proceeds …

Brookfield, S. D. (2013). Powerful techniques for teaching adults. John Wiley & Sons, Incorporated. Created from liberty on 2025-06-23 04:40:44.

1. The Storyteller Tells the Tale (10 minutes)

The conversation opens with the person who is the storyteller describing as concretely and

specifically as possible an incident from her learning that for some reason was a problem. In the

natural sciences, this could be an experiment that, to the storyteller, went disastrously and

puzzlingly wrong. In the humanities, it could be an aesthetic engagement with art, philosophy, or

literature in which the student was the only person to experience a work of art or set of ideas in a

particular way that set her off from the mainstream. In social sciences, it could be a theoretical

paradigm that the student was unable to understand or one that once understood seemed to have

no application to the content it was supposed to explain. In fields of applied studies, it could be a

nurse or a teacher who was faced with a serious dilemma that seemed to have no clear resolution.

The learning incident is one that is recalled because it was particularly frustrating. Most probably

it is an incident that leaves the teller somewhat puzzled by its layers and complexities. The

storyteller describes the incident in her own words and without any questions or interruptions.

Her colleagues, who are in the role of detectives, attend to her remarks very carefully. They are

listeners with a purpose.

The detectives are trying to identify the explicit and implicit assumptions the storyteller holds

about what are supposedly correct ways of understanding the problem she discloses. Some of

these will be general assumptions about the procedures used to judge whether or not knowledge

can be trusted in the discipline. Some will be about how a good scholar should behave or what a

correct intellectual protocol or research methodology looks like. Some will be more specific to

the particular topic, assignment, or action described. These will have to do with the choices the

storyteller made and the actions she took. The detectives are listening particularly for assumptions

the storyteller holds about what counts as legitimate knowledge. They listen also for assumptions

that are hegemonic; that is, ones that seem admirable and useful to the storyteller but that actually

work against her best interests.

The detectives are also asked to imagine themselves inside the heads of the other researchers or

learners in the story (if there are any) and to try to see the events through their eyes. If this is an

incident involving only the learner, and no teachers or other students were involved, the

detectives try to think of different intellectual orientations in the field that might help deal with

the confusion the storyteller is recounting. If possible, the detectives make mental or written notes

about plausible alternative interpretations of the story that fit the facts as they hear them but that

would come as a surprise to the storyteller. Brookfield, S. D. (2013). Powerful techniques for teaching adults. John Wiley & Sons, Incorporated. Created from liberty on 2025-06-23 04:40:44.

2. The Detectives Ask Questions About the Event (10 minutes)

After the storyteller has finished speaking, the detectives are allowed to break their silence to ask

her any questions they have about the events she has just described. The detectives are searching

for any information that will help them uncover the assumptions they think the storyteller holds.

They are also looking for details not provided in the first telling of the story that will help them

relive the events described through the eyes of the storyteller or through the eyes of the other

participants involved, if there are any. This will help them to understand these events from the

different participants’ perspectives.

The ground rules they must observe concern how they ask questions of the storyteller. They can

only ask questions that request information (Can you say more about…?, Can you explain again

why you decided to…?) not questions that pass judgment (Are you seriously telling me that

you…?, Why on earth would you…?). Their questions are asked only for the purpose of

clarifying the details of what happened. They must refrain from giving their opinions or

suggestions, no matter how helpful they feel these might be. Detectives should also ask only one

question at a time. They must avoid asking multiple questions masquerading as a single request

for information. They should not give advice on how the storyteller should have acted.

As the storyteller hears the detectives’ questions, she tries to answer them as fully and honestly as

possible. She also has the opportunity to ask the detectives why they asked the particular

questions they put to her. The umpire points out to the detectives any examples of judgmental

questions that they ask, particularly those in which they imply that they have seen a better way to

respond to the situation. An example of such a question would be one beginning “Didn’t you

think to…?”

The umpire brings the detectives’ attention to the ways in which their tone of voice and body

language, as well as their words, risk driving the storyteller into a defensive bunker. Essentially

the umpire serves as the storyteller’s ally, watching out for situations in which the storyteller

might start to feel under attack.

3. The Detectives’ Report the Assumptions They Hear in the Storyteller’s

Descriptions (10 minutes)

When the incident has been fully described and all the detectives’ questions have been answered,

the conversation moves to the assumption reporting phase. Here the detectives tell the storyteller,

Brookfield, S. D. (2013). Powerful techniques for teaching adults. John Wiley & Sons, Incorporated. Created from liberty on 2025-06-23 04:40:44.

on the basis of her story and her response to their questions, what assumptions they think she

holds.

This is done as nonjudgmentally as possible, as a reporting back exercise. The detectives seek

only to state clearly what they think the storyteller’s assumptions are, not to judge whether they

are right or wrong. They are asked to state these assumptions tentatively, descriptively, and

nonjudgmentally, using phrases like “It seems as if…,” “I wonder if one assumption you might be

holding is that…?,” or “Is it possible that you assumed that…?” They state only one assumption

at a time and do not give any advice about the way the learner have understood or should

responded to the incident described. The umpire intervenes to point out to detectives when she

thinks they are reporting assumptions with a judgmental overlay.

4. The Detectives Give Alternative Interpretations of the Events Described (10

minutes)

The detectives now give alternative versions of the events that have been described, based on

their attempts to relive the story through the eyes of the other participants involved, or to

understand the learning event through alternative intellectual paradigms. These alternative

interpretations must be plausible in that they are consistent with the facts as the storyteller

describes them. When appropriate, detectives should point out how power or hegemony plays

itself out in the different interpretations they are giving.

The detectives are to give these interpretations as descriptions, not judgments. They are

describing how others involved in the events might have viewed them, not saying whether or not

these perceptions are accurate. They are speculating how the learning event might look when

viewed from a different intellectual framework, not saying that this is the one the storyteller

should have used. They should not give any advice here.

As the storyteller hears these alternative interpretations, she is asked to let the detectives have the

floor so that they can state their case as fully as possible. After they have described how the

situation might look through the eyes of other participants or from a different intellectual vantage

point, the storyteller is then allowed to give any additional information that would cast doubt on

these interpretations. She is also allowed to ask the detectives to elaborate on any confusing

aspects of why they are making their interpretations. At no time is she expected to agree with any

interpretations the detectives offer.

Brookfield, S. D. (2013). Powerful techniques for teaching adults. John Wiley & Sons, Incorporated. Created from liberty on 2025-06-23 04:40:44.

5. Participants Do An Experiential Audit (10 minutes)

Finally, the ground rules cease to be in effect any longer and the detectives can give whatever

advice they wish. The storytellers and detectives state what they have learned from the

conversation, what new insights they have realized, what assumptions they have missed or need

to explore further, what different understandings they have as a result of the conversation, and

what their reflection means for their future actions. The umpire gives an overall summary of the

ability of participants to be respectful listeners and talkers and also gives her perspective on the

story.

Although this is a heavily structured and artificial exercise, the intent is for these dispositions to

become so internalized that the ground rules outlined above eventually become unnecessary. And,

although I’ve presented this as a neatly sequenced exercise with five discrete stages, the reality is

that, of course, it isn’t! As the conversation proceeds past the designated question period, the

detectives think up new questions that they want to ask that will help them tell the storyteller what

her assumptions are and offer her new perspectives. So the assumption giving and the alternative

perspective reporting periods are always peppered with questions.

In my experience using this with thousands of different participants, the most frequent job the

umpire has to do is step in when people give advice in the guise of asking questions, reporting

assumptions, or providing alternative perspectives. We are so culturally conditioned to move

straight from being told the problem to providing the solution, that the intermediate stages of

critical analysis are completely forgotten. Yet problem solving can be done uncritically, as when

no one asks whether the problem we’re spending time solving is the real problem at issue or in

whose interests is it that the current problem be solved. Critical problem solving tries to unearth

the assumptions that frame why someone sees something as a problem, it tries to unearth the

assumptions informing how people take action to solve the problem, and it constantly explores

different perspectives that have not previously been considered.

I have used this process in multiple settings: at retreats to help a group of practitioners come up

with new ways of responding to wearyingly familiar problems; in faculty conversation circles in

schools, colleges, and seminaries; and in community action groups. It has been used in nursing

education training and in leadership workshops for corporations. I have also used it as a way to

shake up meetings. It seems to be infinitely

Brookfield, S. D. (2013). Powerful techniques for teaching adults. John Wiley & Sons, Incorporated. Created from liberty on 2025-06-23 04:40:44.