Lions and STOP Signs and Nazis, Oh My! (Comprehension: Part II)
When we learn to critically think, we make the most logical, well-informed decision possible based upon the evidence, perspectives, consequences, facts, counter-facts, life experiences, morals, and beliefs that encompass our own time on Earth – our own lives. So how do we foster an educational environment to induce critical thinking in our students? We simply eliminate dichotomies.
At its most basic, learning is simply comprehension. Does one understand a specific task, concept, or set of facts? Can one write a complete sentence, calculate the area of a rectangle, describe the process of photosynthesis, perform the foxtrot, or create a painting using only primary colors? Through errors and with the mentorship of an authoritative classroom role model (a teacher), students eventually comprehend what actions or steps are necessary to reach a desired and successful task outcome. When looking at education as a system, school can then be seen as the progressive increase of task complexity with the progressive increase of student age (time spent experiencing shit on Earth).
Mentally, I do not believe kindergarteners have less academic ability than fifth graders. Rather, I think kindergarteners have less complexity than fifth graders (in the type of task, the clarity of communication, and the attachment of meaning). To me, the only real difference between a kindergartener and a fifth grader is time. That is to say, what distinguishes a kindergartener from a fifth grader is the quantity and type of life experiences their brains and sensory organs have processed into information. Quite simply, one must live and experience shit to understand and attach meaning to things. In other words, one must live to comprehend. Since children are less complex than their authoritative classroom mentors (because they have far less time alive experiencing shit – mastering tasks requiring thought, communicating, and attaching meaning to things), the academic responsibility of the teacher becomes clear: to elicit depth and supply vocabulary. Let me provide an example.
Any child with the required sensory organs and brain that watches The Lion King can extrapolate or identify or infer a whole bunch of shit. But a kindergartener might just be able to communicate that Simba is a good lion and Scar is a bad lion. These young students just don’t have enough film, story, life experience, or words to communicate more about the movie than that. But through the movie’s visuals, music, colors, facial features of the characters, dialogue, and whatever the fuck else humans perceive, these little people can easily follow along and understand the movie. Furthermore, though the kindergarteners may lack complexity and clarity in their communication, they could probably still tell you the main idea of the story and a few key events such as Scar killing Mufasa, Simba joining Timone and Pumba, and Simba fighting scar to become the Lion King. Academically, the teacher might then introduce the vocabulary word hero to describe Simba, which then provides the kindergarteners time to discuss their favorite superheroes, superhero movies and cartoons they’ve seen, characters from other stories in class, what they will dress as for Halloween, real life heroes, and so on. In essence, the kindergarteners can attach meaning to the word hero and add it to their index of schemata, thus increasing the complexity and clarity of their future language. Furthermore, the students have a baseline with which to measure whether or not future characters and people they encounter are also heroes.
Graduating to second grade, the teacher might tell those same students that a protagonist is a synonym for a hero, both of which Simba represents, meaning he’s the story’s good lion. As well, the teacher would also likely introduce the antonym antagonist, or villain (bad lion), which Scar embodies. Students might then be directed to create a Venn diagram with Simba and Scar representing the two over-lapping circles and chart the character traits of each to analyze what makes a good or bad lion (hero or villain, protagonist or antagonist). At this stage, critical analysis of information can begin, especially with the overlapping portions of the Venn diagram (Is it possible both heroes and villains have shared qualities?). It’s the same task undertaken as kindergarteners, but in this instance, there is more complexity in the vocabulary and in the assignment. Additional effort and rationalization is required in order to attach meaning to an idea (right and wrong, good or bad lion, hero or villain, antagonist or protagonist). It opens the possibility that lions are not dichotomous – that both good and bad lions might be strong or sing or have a group of friends.
Having graduated to fifth grade, the teacher decides it’s time to tell the students the truth: Simba and Nala are married, and when Nala doesn’t make Simba happy, he punches the fuck out of her. Furthermore, the teacher also informs the students that Scar killed Mufasa in vengeance to maintain his family’s honor (Mufasa defiled Scar’s mother or some terrible shit like that). After providing that context, the teacher might then ask the students, “So is Simba a protagonist? Is Scar an antagonist? Who is the hero? Who is the villain?” At that point, critical thought can begin. Why? Simply because we’ve entered, intellectually, into a realm with no right answers. We have eliminated a dichotomous choice and left open infinite possibilities, beliefs, and interpretations. We’ve entered an area, educationally, where quantity and types of life experiences, perspectives, emotions, morals, beliefs, facts, and counter-facts all must be weighed to come to a well-reasoned conclusion. Some brave students, after analyzing the evidence and sifting through their own experiences and morals, might even offer the opinion that neither lion is a protagonist or antagonist – they’re both just assholes. Even if no student had come to that conclusion (that Simba and Scar were both flawed lions or that both exhibited heroic and villainous qualities), then it is the authoritative classroom mentor’s duty to elicit that depth by guiding students into different thought processes and perspectives. “How can Simba be a good lion if he punches Nala when he’s mad? How can Scar be a bad lion if he was trying to avenge his mother? Is it okay to seek vengeance to protect honor? What if someone did something awful to your mother? What if Simba tried to punch your mom? Is it possible neither lion is a hero or villain? Is it possible Simba and Scar both sometimes act as heroes and villains? Is one of the lions mostly heroic? Is one of the lions mostly villainous?”
In any event, it’s the same kids with the same story doing the same thing. The only difference is the complexity of the communication and the complexity of the task. And again, the differences in complexity are easily understood by the notion that complex thoughts, analysis, communication, and attachment of meaning come only through time and experience. One doesn’t know to stop at a red octagon until they’ve encountered a stop sign. One can’t spot the Nazi if they don’t know what a swastika represents. One can’t vote to uphold their rights if they can’t decipher the letters of a ballot into words with meaning. And, certainly, one can’t determine the quality of a lion or its goodness just because it smiles. Instead, critical thinking is required.
