Michael Delahoyde
Washington State University
Before factions in the late 1980s vilified the term "liberal," it was
widely understood that the "liberal arts" were valuable in the process of
"liberating" us from the shackles of ignorance and illiteracy, from
leading lives of mere Pavlovian gratification. The "humanities" function
identically, seeking to cultivate what is best in us as humans, as
opposed to the animalistic consumers that corporations want us to be or
the mechanized automatons that our employers, the corporations, want us
to be. One of the reasons Shakespeare is respected still is that his
works seem ideal in the cultivation of a humanizing sensitivity and
sensibility.
Towards this kind and quality of education, Washington State University
is currently taking an impressive lead in finding and fine-tuning ways to
improve critical thinking skills. The
WSU Critical Thinking
Rubric,
a variation of which you may have already encountered in other classes,
provides a framework and vocabulary for identifying many of the elusive
features that teachers seek in their students' work and classroom
contributions but sometimes find difficult to convey to students clearly
as expectations. Here is an adaptation of the rubric to our Shakespeare
class.
1) Identifying and summarizing the problem/question at
issue (and/or the source's position).
This sounds basic but it's not a cinch, and I for one certainly had my
share of college English classes that never encouraged us even getting to
this rung of critical thinking. A "report" on the Globe theater, for
example, does not reach even this first step. Neither does a
"compare/contrast" discussion of individual characters from two different
plays. You want to tackle an authentic issue, not just carry out an
arbitrary exercise of blab. So instead of simply following a theme
through or describing a complex character or relationship, realize that
Shakespeare's works are riddled with ambiguities and quirks in need of
interpretation and explanation. Recognize that there are ongoing critical
debates about living issues
embedded in the texts. The Christopher Sly frame in The Taming of the
Shrew lends itself better to being cast as a problem or question to
be wrangled with. The depiction of Henry V as a hero or a war criminal
could work too, or the issue of "comedy" in The Merchant of
Venice, or why Timon of Athens does or doesn't work as
effective drama.
Good critical thinking of this type "identifies the main problem and
subsidiary, embedded, or implicit aspects of the problem, and identifies
them clearly, addressing their relationships to each other. [It]
identifies not only the basics of the issue, but recognizes nuances of
the issue."
2) Identifying and presenting the student's own perspective and
position as it is important to the analysis of the issue.
Students facing their first formal written assignment for a class often
ask me, "How much of this should be my opinion?" I'm afraid there's only
a long answer to this question. You certainly do not want to write a
"report" -- a regurgitation of well-researched but dry and pointless
factoids. On the other hand, neither should a writing serve as an
editorial spewing of "opinion." Somewhere between these extremes, and yet
transcending them both, comes what teachers really seek -- your
"perspective"
-- that is, a well-articulated indication that you have brought some
sophisticated worldview of your own to the subject, or that the subject
has contributed somehow to the development of that worldview.
Therefore, this item in the rubric needs considerable tweaking for our
context. Indeed, even within the wording of this component of the rubric,
one might take issue with the blurring of the terms "perspective" and
"position." Someone with a ferocious "position" on an issue may
desperately need some "perspective"! Most teachers have read, for
example, many term papers that are impressively researched, superbly
organized, excellently written, and utterly pointless. They fall dead
because the conclusion merely concludes and readers are left asking "so
what?"
So "perspective" is a significant and usually sophisticated
accomplishment, and teachers in many disciplines who have adapted the
entire WSU rubric, as a sequence, to their courses have relocated this
step to a place much later in the schematic. I recommend thinking of this
component as relocated before or after what is listed as #6: context.
3) Identifies and considers OTHER salient perspectives and
positions that are important to the analysis of the issue.
If you cannot see that multiple angles or possibilities are inherent in
the subject, then it's likely that you aren't conceptualizing the subject
as a problem or question to begin with. Return to step #1.
Weak critical thinking here offers "only ... a single perspective and
fails to discuss other possible perspectives, especially those salient to
the issue." Much better to address "perspectives noted previously, and
additional diverse perspectives drawn from outside information."
4) Identifies and assesses the key assumptions.
This means that you are perceiving the subject somewhat
three-dimensionally, or at least reading between the lines.
Questioning the widely-held assumption that, in accordance with
Elizabethan bigotry, Shylock is a bloodthirsty villain is a good sign of
the critical thinking process.
Weak critical thinking "does not surface the assumptions and ethical
issues that underlie the issue, or does so superficially," whereas better
critical thinking "identifies and questions the validity of the
assumptions and addresses the ethical dimensions that underlie the
issue."
5) Identifies and assesses the quality of supporting
data/evidence and provides additional data/evidence related to the
issue.
The distinction here is between merely regurgitating others' work or
reporting from research and truly incorporating the valuable findings.
Besides marshalling other critics' assertions, show your readers
primary source material -- lines from the play -- in a new light.
Poor critical thinking "merely repeats information provided, taking it as
truth, or denies evidence without adequate justification. [It] confuses
associations and correlations with cause and effect [and] does not
distinguish between fact, opinion, and value judgments." Much better
critical thinking "examines the evidence and source of evidence;
questions its accuracy, precision, relevance, completeness."
6) Identifies and considers the influence of the context on
the issue.
An appendix to the Critical Thinking Rubric lists possible contexts
(cultural, political, ethical, educational, etc.) for consideration. This
is not a matter of praising the mighty Shakespeare in general in a
conclusion, nor dismissing your entire analysis because "everyone has his
or her own interpretation." Nor is it excusing Shakespeare finally
because in Renaissance England supposedly everyone was a racist sexist
jingoistic bastard. Instead, considering Elizabethan stage practices
might serve as a context for the issue of Rosalind's epilogue in As
You Like It.
Good critical thinking here "analyzes the issue with a clear sense of
scope and context, including [perhaps] an assessment of the audience of
the analysis."
7) Identifies and assesses conclusions, implications, and
consequences.
Move beyond concluding with simply a reassertion of the thesis, or a limp
summary of the preceding discussion. Here too readers are asking, "So
what?" and the best signs of critical thinking are those indications that
you have activated the subject by showing its importance. After showing
your readers what a fink Henry V is, speculate on the implications that
the play can come across to its audience in two polar opposite ways.
Good critical thinking of this type reflects objectively on the
significance of the prior material.
Not every assignment demands your success in demonstrating all the above
skills with anything like equal emphasis. Rather, the Critical Thinking
Rubric is designed to lend us some framework and/or some language with
which to help pinpoint some ways to evaluate not writing strictly, but
thinking. Texts and materials in the humanities exist not to be
"appreciated" reverentially, but rather to encourage critical thinking
themselves. I think Shakespeare would agree.