<p>
</p>
<p>No, don’t do that. If possible, always avoid anything that involves a multiple choice aspect. And unless you’re specifically studying for a standardized test, avoid standardized test material.
The problem is standardized test make two really bad assumptions:
- You can accurately measure the concept (critical thinking) in question. [Can you even define “Critical Thinking”? I don’t think I can]
- This test in question is an accurate (to X degree) measurement of said concept. </p>
<p>Something to keep in mind is [Chekhov’s</a> gun](<a href=“http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chekhov’s_gun]Chekhov’s”>Chekhov's gun - Wikipedia). Wikipedia can tell you more, but I want to point towards one important line “do not include any unnecessary elements in a story.”
If you were writing a book and you said “There stood a large rifle mounted atop the fireplace”, you just made the reader read nine words. Why? Is the rifle going to be used by the son to kill the father (foreshadowing)? Is it a motif for violence in the household? Is it part of his character, representing time in the army (and why is his army background important?). After all, you don’t tell people your dinner table has four legs. </p>
<p>So look at this from the reader (as opposed to writer) side. Read something and tell me why the writer said what they said? What was the overall theme of the (for example) book and how did each chapter support that thesis of the book*? In turn, how did each paragraph support the chapter? And how did each sentence support the paragraph->chapter->thesis?
Although this is a fairly literary definition. If you’re watching The Simpsons, a scene may not be important to the story line, but it may be too funny to leave out. </p>
<p>Some things to note:
- I have no idea if this will work from a pedagogy standpoint. I hope it does though.
- Don’t assume the writer is competent. They may make illogical statements or (very often) have a deep set of presumptions and build from that. Few people work from first principles. Here’s and example of a Harvard Professor that I can’t understand for the life of me.
[Manliness</a> and Morality | The Weekly Standard](<a href=“http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/manliness-and-morality_571624.html]Manliness”>http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/manliness-and-morality_571624.html) - Don’t read into things. If you’re watching a film and one cowboy’s hat is one style and the other cowboy’s hat another, maybe it means something about their personality and how they mesh. Or maybe it’s just a low-budget movie and those were the two hats someone had. </p>
<p>Really, the best advice is to read and try to critically analyze that. I recommend Wired magazine, The Economist, and The New Yorker. And there’s no reason to restrict yourself to reading.
Watch The Wire and apply the same ideas. Why do all the pay phones have giant Verizon stickers on them? Does Verizon have a monopoly on phone lines in East Baltimore that affects the plight of the city? No, Verizon just payed for it. Product placement. Blah.
Or why is it called The Wire? Oh, its because getting a wire tap is the only way for the police to get information from the drug organizations. But why can’t they get informants? Oh, because people don’t trust the police. Police officers nearly start riots. And when people do talk, they get harassed/killed for being a snitch. </p>
<p>You should notice, this sounds dangerously similar to a literature class… Or a good math class. </p>
<p>*I don’t understand the chapter on the turtles in Grapes of Wrath.</p>