Article Critique Sample 2013

Running Head: CHILDREN AND CRITICAL THINKING 1

Children and Critical Thinking

A Critique Submitted by

XXXXXXXXX

El Centro College

Psychology 2301, Section 53xxx, Spring 2013

CHILDREN AND CRITICAL THINKING 2

Abstract

Everyday children must decide for themselves about what is a reliable source of

information (Heyman, 2008). They must critically evaluate a source, be it a cartoon

watched on television or a conversation held with another child or adult. They must

determine if a source is reliable and credible or lacking in real information and thus

risky, then think critically about the information that is given to them. Heyman’s

(2008) meta‐analytic study explores how critical thinking skills can be taught to

children. The researcher (Heyman, 2008) defines critical thinking and analyses how

early and how well these critical thinking skills develop in children. Heyman (2008)

also explores how social experiences shape the development of these skills, including

a comparison of responses in Chinese and American children. The researcher

(Heyman, 2008) hopes that information from this study and prior studies discussed in

this article, can be used by parents as a means for guiding their children along a path

towards critical thinking.


Children and Critical Thinking

Summary

Children begin to develop skills to assess when a source is more creditable at a

very young age (Heyman, 2008). These skills continue to grow as a child gets older.

However, it is later in the cognitive developmental process that children begin to

understand personal motivations when giving false information at which time

children begin to be more sceptical. These skills are called critical thinking or critical

evaluations. An analysis of research (Heyman, 2008) examines how soon children

develop these skills and how social experience shapes the development of these

skills. It is hoped that one day these findings will help children find strategies that will

assist them in determining what is a reliable source and what is a risky source

(Heyman, 2008). In addition, this research (Heyman, 2008) will help parents develop

a means to guiding their children along the path towards critical thinking.

Review

Critical thinking is a way of thinking that refuses to accept all information as

necessarily valid (Heyman, 2008). Critical thinking involves how one deciphers both a

specific claim and the source of that claim (Heyman, 2008). In modern society one

cannot accept everything encountered as true; one must think critically about a

stimulus evaluate it critically, and then and decide whether or not the information

offered is indeed valid. Heyman (2008) analysed a variety of experiments on how

early in age children are able to critically evaluate information, the capacity to which


they are capable of critical evaluation, and why some children fail to properly critically

evaluate a source of information (Heyman, 2008).

The first study (Heyman, 2008) reviewed looks at how children ages three

and four choose which individuals have more credibility (Heyman, 2008). In this

experiment, a child is shown an object with which they are unfamiliar. They then

observe two actors label objects familiar to the child; one actor chooses correct

answers while the other chooses incorrectly. The actors also label the item the child

does not know. Afterwards, the child is asked what the unknown object is. Four‐year‐

olds tend to side with the actor who labelled the most items correctly (Heyman,

2008). It was concluded that a three‐year‐old’s range of critical thinking is not as

developed as that of a four‐year‐old’s, because the three‐year‐olds tended to side

with the actor who appeared more “knowing,” meaning if an actor said they did not

know when asked to label an object, the three‐year‐old was less likely to choose the

same answer as the actor (Heyman, 2008). These findings were repeated in 2007,

when it was concluded that four‐year‐olds preferred a source who labelled items

correctly 75% of the time as opposed to 25% of the time (Heyman, 2008).

A previous study (Heyman, 2008) showed that young children are capable of

evaluating when a source is unknowledgeable. There is also evidence that they are

able to evaluate when a particular source is more knowledgeable than another

(Heyman, 2008). In another experiment (Heyman, 2008), children ages three to six

were asked which of two objects was inside a container. The children were not

allowed to look inside it, they were only asked to guess. The children observed an


actor doing the same test, but the actor chose whichever object the child did not.

There were two different scenarios. In one, the actor was not allowed to look inside

the container; however, in the other scenario the actor conspicuously looked inside

the container. This showed that the child believed that the actor had more

knowledge on what the object was because they had the ability to see the object

(Heyman, 2008). Thus, the child evaluated them as a good, knowledgeable source of

information and chose to agree with their choice of object.

Researchers (Heyman, 2008) also found that children are able to judge

general knowledge. Children know that a doctor had more expertise in an area

dealing with the human body just as they know a mechanic would know more about

an engine. This implies that children are mindful that people have certain areas in

which they are more skilled (Heyman, 2008).

Heyman (2008) reviewed another study that further supported the claim that

children understand people lie but do not yet realize the motives behind providing

false information. The researchers (Heyman, 2008) studied children from two

different age groups: six‐ to seven‐year‐olds and 10‐to‐11‐year‐olds. The participants of

that study were asked if a person’s own description of themselves was a reliable

source of information. There were two different types of descriptive characteristics

considered, evaluative (such as being intelligent) and comparison (such as being

positive). It was found that children from both age groups were not very suspicious

when it came to comparison characteristics, but older children were much more

suspicious when it came to evaluative characteristics. According to Heyman (2008),


these researchers believed these findings suggested that children become aware of

self‐presentation motives between the ages of seven and 10.

This last experiment (Heyman, 2008) was repeated in China to study how

social experiences shape how we view self‐serving motives. Chinese children were

studied in this instance because Chinese culture vastly differs from that of our own

Anglo‐Saxon/Judeo‐Christian environment. The Chinese have a greater emphasis on

impression management as a result of their belief in Confucianism (Heyman, 2008).

The findings for comparison characteristics were consistent with that of American

children, but there were significant differences in using self‐report as an accurate

means to measure evaluative characteristics. Both the younger age group (six‐ to

seven‐years‐old) and the older age group (10‐11‐years‐old) in China showed greater

disbelief when given a scenario that was in the interest of the speaker’s evaluative

characteristics than did same‐age American child counterparts. These researchers’

evidence suggests that social experience does shape how a child critically evaluates

social interactions (Heyman, 2008).

Heyman (2008) believes it is in the interest of future generations to teach

children how to think critically. As shown by the comparison between the Chinese

and United States school aged children, critical thinking is a learned skill; we do not

simply develop these skills as a natural part of our maturation process (Heyman,

2008). When one teaches a child how to critically evaluate information, one must be

careful in the way they justify reasons for lying. Children cannot be told that only bad

people tell lies, because that is not strictly true. Children understand that people


sometimes distort the truth, but as stated earlier they do not always understand the

motives behind that distortion. Heyman (2008) hopes that in the future children will

better understand personal motives in order to be more successful in deciphering

information and in learning to make choices carrying minimal risks. Heyman (2008)

hopes that future research will study how children rely on past sources and how they

evaluate trust in real world situations.

Comments

In my opinion, Heyman (2008) did a very good job of examining the general

idea behind children’s critical thinking when learning from others. However, I wish

she had given more information regarding the experiments she reported. The only

demographics provided were relative age groups; knowing specifics regarding

gender and socioeconomic status (SES) of the children’s families would have been

informative, as it is possible that both gender and SES had some impact on the

outcomes observed. I would like to have known whether the children they tested all

came from a particular area of the United States and China (e.g., rural, suburban,

inner city, etc.) or if they were chosen randomly across the countries involved. There

was no mention of a requirement for consent of a parent or guardian and as the

children studied were below 18 years of age, I assume such consent was necessary,

but there was no conformation. One also wonders if parental/guardian consent is

required in China as it is in the United States.

In the experiment Heyman (2008) reported regarding the container with the

object inside, I feel as the results provided were inconclusive. Heyman (2008)


provided the finding that children were likely to change their answer to that of the

actor who saw inside of the container, but did not mention how often children

changed their answer to match that of the actor who was not allowed to look inside.

This seems to me to be a critical piece of information; if it was found that children

often changed their answer to that of the actor who was not allowed look in the

container, that knowledge would alter my conclusions on the entire study. I would

feel more that the children agreed with a figure they believed held authority over

them rather than their having agreed with who was regarded as being more

informative.

I would love to learn more over this topic. Specifically I would like to see how

children’s attitude on lying affects the way that they evaluate a claim. For instance, if

a child believes only bad people lie, are they more or less apt to be sceptical? Also are

children more suspicious of an adult or of a child who is giving distorted information?

Perhaps further research will answer these questions.


References

Heyman, G.D. (2008). Children’s critical thinking when learning from others. Current

Directions in Psychological Science, 17(5), 344‐347. Academic Search Complete.

doi:10.1111/j.1467‐8721.2008.00603.

Article Critique Sample 2013

Documents

Transcript of Article Critique Sample 2013