Critical Thinking - a Fragile Skill
Critical thinking is the ability to analyze information, evaluate evidence, recognize assumptions, and make reasoned judgments rather than simply recalling facts or repeating learned responses. It involves questioning, interpreting, synthesizing ideas, and applying knowledge to unfamiliar situations. In short, critical thinking is thinking that goes beyond what to why and how.
Most educators agree on this definition in principle. In practice, however, many schools are discovering just how fragile this skill has become.
Across education systems worldwide, schools increasingly identify critical thinking as an urgent area for development. Teachers observe that many students struggle when asked to explain their reasoning, justify choices, or solve problems without a prescribed method. This concern spans age groups, curricula, and national contexts.
Several forces contribute to this decline. Social media, search engines, and now artificial intelligence provide instant answers, often without requiring learners to engage deeply with the underlying thinking. Students become accustomed to finding answers rather than constructing them. Over time, this erodes confidence in their own reasoning.
The problem becomes particularly visible when internet access is removed. In classrooms where devices are restricted, or during examinations, students often grapple with tasks that require original thinking. When no ready-made answer appears on a screen, many are unsure how to begin.
This gap is most evident in problem-solving situations that demand analysis rather than recall. Students may understand terminology and remember definitions, yet falter when asked to apply concepts to new contexts. Instead of experimenting with ideas, testing assumptions, or exploring multiple solutions, they search for familiar keywords and hope recognition will carry them through.
The issue is not a lack of intelligence or effort. It is a learned dependency on external sources and fixed patterns of response.
Another significant contributor lies within education systems themselves. In environments where success depends heavily on rote learning and memorization, students are rewarded for accuracy of recall rather than depth of understanding. Over time, they learn that reproducing information is safer than questioning it.
When assessments emphasize right answers over reasoning, critical thinking becomes optional rather than essential. This creates learners who are well prepared for predictable tasks, but ill-equipped for complex or unfamiliar challenges.
One incident from my own teaching experience illustrates this vividly. While grading an AP Macroeconomics test paper, I encountered two identical wrong answers to a question that required higher-order thinking. Cheating was impossible. The students were seated far apart, and I controlled the test conditions tightly.
When I spoke to the students afterward, the explanation emerged. Both had the same after-hours tutor, although they attended sessions separately. The tutor had provided model answers for common question types, which the students memorized. Faced with the test question, both students latched onto familiar keywords, failed to read the question carefully, and reproduced the memorized response verbatim.
The irony was striking. The question was designed specifically to assess critical thinking, as Advanced Placement examinations require. The students’ preparation had trained them to bypass thinking altogether.
This story is not about poor teaching or weak students. It is about systems that unintentionally prioritize shortcuts over understanding. If students are consistently shown that memorization leads to success, they will naturally rely on it, even when it fails them.
Latching onto keywords and giving the memorized answer becomes a survival technique. A Grade 3 English teacher once told me that he asked a student, “How are you today?” and the child answered, “It’s sunny.” In the textbook, the question had been “How is the weather today?” The keyword was today. There was no thinking, just a memorized phrase.
Rebuilding critical thinking requires deliberate effort. It means designing learning experiences that value process over product, reasoning over recall, and questions over answers. It also means helping students become comfortable with uncertainty and intellectual struggle.
One practical and accessible resource that supports this work is “The Critical Thinking Companion” by WABISABI LEARNING. Rather than treating critical thinking as an abstract ideal, it offers concrete strategies and language that teachers can use across subjects and age levels. Resources like this matter because critical thinking does not develop by accident. It must be explicitly taught, modeled, and practiced.
Critical thinking is not a luxury skill for advanced learners. It is a foundational capacity for navigating complexity, misinformation, and real-world problems. If schools want students who can think independently, then education must consistently demand independence of thought.
The challenge is clear. The responsibility is shared. The work must begin with action research in everyday classrooms, one question at a time.
批判性思考——一項脆弱的能力
批判性思考是指分析資訊、評估證據、辨識假設，並做出有理有據的判斷，而不只是回憶事實或重複學過的回應。它包括提問、詮釋、整合想法，以及將知識應用於不熟悉的情境。簡言之，批判性思考就是超越「是什麼」，進而思考「為什麼」與「如何」。
多數教育工作者在原則上都同意這一定義。然而在實務中，許多學校正逐漸發現，這項能力其實有多麼脆弱。
在全球各地的教育體系中，學校愈來愈將批判性思考視為迫切需要發展的重點。教師觀察到，許多學生在被要求解釋自己的推理、為選擇提出理由，或在沒有既定方法的情況下解決問題時，往往感到困難。這樣的現象橫跨不同年齡層、課程體系與國家背景。
多種因素共同導致了這樣的退化。社群媒體、搜尋引擎，以及如今的人工智慧，都能即時提供答案，卻往往不要求學習者深入參與背後的思考過程。學生逐漸習慣於「找到」答案，而不是「建構」答案。久而久之，他們對自身推理能力的信心便被削弱。
當網路存取被移除時，問題便顯得格外明顯。在限制使用裝置的課堂中，或在考試期間，學生常常必須面對需要原創思考的任務。當螢幕上沒有現成答案出現時，許多人甚至不知道該如何開始。
這個落差在需要分析而非記憶的問題解決情境中表現得最為明顯。學生或許理解術語、記得定義，卻在被要求將概念應用於新情境時表現失常。他們不是嘗試想法、檢驗假設，或探索多種解決方案，而是尋找熟悉的關鍵字，並希望「看起來對」就能帶他們過關。
這個問題並非源自智力不足或努力不夠，而是一種對外部資源與固定回應模式的習得性依賴。
另一個重要的成因，其實來自教育體系本身。在高度依賴死記硬背與記憶學習的環境中，學生因為記憶準確而受到獎勵，而不是因為理解深度。久而久之，他們學會了複述資訊比提出質疑來得安全。
當評量強調正確答案勝過推理過程時，批判性思考便成為可有可無，而非不可或缺。這樣的制度培養出能應付可預測任務的學習者，卻難以面對複雜或陌生的挑戰。
我自身的一段教學經驗，生動地說明了這一點。在批改一份 AP 經濟學（總體經濟）考試試卷時，我發現有兩位學生在一道需要高層次思考的題目上，給出了完全相同的錯誤答案。作弊是不可能的。學生座位相距甚遠，而我也嚴格掌控了考試條件。
事後與學生談話時，原因才逐漸浮現。兩人都有同一位課後家教，雖然並非同時上課。這位家教為常見題型提供了「標準答案」，要求學生背誦。面對考試題目時，兩位學生都抓住了熟悉的關鍵字，沒有仔細閱讀題目內容，而是逐字重現了背過的答案。
其中的諷刺意味十分明顯。這道題目正是為了評量批判性思考而設計，這也是 AP 考試的核心要求。然而，學生所接受的準備卻訓練他們完全繞過思考。
這個故事並不是關於不良教學或能力不足的學生，而是關於那些無意間將捷徑置於理解之上的制度。如果學生一再被告知，死記硬背等同於成功，他們自然會依賴這種方式，即使在它失效時也是如此。
抓住關鍵字並給出背誦過的答案，逐漸成了一種求生技巧。一位三年級英文老師曾告訴我，他問學生：「你今天過得如何？」孩子回答：「天氣晴朗。」在課本中，問題原本是：「今天天氣如何？」關鍵字是「今天」。沒有思考，只有背過的句子。
重建批判性思考需要有意識的努力。這意味著設計重視過程而非結果、重視推理而非記憶、重視提問而非答案的學習經驗。同時，也意味著幫助學生逐漸適應不確定性與思考上的掙扎。
一項實用且容易上手、能支持這項工作的資源是 WABISABI LEARNING 出版的《The Critical Thinking Companion》。它並未將批判性思考視為抽象理想，而是提供具體策略與語言，讓教師能在不同學科與年齡層中加以運用。這類資源之所以重要，是因為批判性思考並不會自然發展，它必須被明確地教授、示範，並反覆練習。
批判性思考並非進階學習者的奢侈能力，而是一項用來應對複雜性、錯誤資訊與真實世界問題的基礎能力。如果學校希望學生能夠獨立思考，那麼教育就必須持續要求思想上的獨立。
挑戰已經很清楚。責任是共同的。而這項工作，必須從日常課堂中的行動研究開始，一次一個問題。