Critical lessons: what our schools should teach

THE BOOKS Noah Feinstein and John L. Rudolph, Section Coeditors Critical Lessons: What Our Schools Should Teach, by Nel Noddings. Cambridge University Press, New York, NY, USA, and Cambridge, UK, 2006. vii + 328 pp. ISBN 978-0-5218-5188-6. Given the amount of ink that has been spilled on the topic of teaching for critical thinking in education, one might hope that schools were already on the road toward success in this regard. In her new book, Critical Lessons, Nel Noddings argues that schools are still doing a poor job of teaching students to think critically and that significant reforms in both curriculum and pedagogy are necessary. In each of the book’s 11 chapters, she explores a cross-curricular theme (e.g., animals and nature) that could be a fruitful site for teaching and practicing critical thinking skills. Some of Noddings’ themes, such as gender, religion, and advertising, are predictable, but others, such as self-understanding and parenting, are less frequently recognized in educational circles as opportunities for critical thought. Critical Lessons is written in an accessible, lucid style that moves the reader seamlessly from one theme to the next. Although Noddings is best known for her work as an educational theorist, this book is not intended solely for an audience of academics. Virtually any reader who is sincerely interested in improving America’s schools will find something worthwhile and thought provoking in this book. That said, the book does not sacrifice depth for breadth—Noddings’ discussion of the various critical themes are careful and thorough. Although Critical Lessons is not aimed specifically at science educators, Noddings addresses several topics that are highly relevant to science education. Perhaps most significantly, in the first chapter of the book, “Learning and Self-Understanding,” Noddings calls upon both students and teachers to reflect on the structure of schooling and on students’ motivations for learning. Invoking John Dewey’s concepts of single- and double-mindedness, she asks whether students approach tasks wholeheartedly (single-mindedly), or suffer from a pervasive “double-mindedness” in which they perform the task merely to satisfy some kind of extrinsic goal, such as better grades or future career goals. Dewey thought that this “double-mindedness” was problematic because it sapped students’ capacity for intrinsic motivation. In science classrooms where the pressure for academic achievement is high, reflecting on motivational questions like this may be fruitful for both teachers and students. In addition to questioning double-mindedness, Noddings maintains that it is not realistic for teachers to expect students to be heavily invested in every topic in the curriculum. She ridicules the notion that students should be urged constantly to do their best, remarking, “If you are vitally interested in mathematics, why should you ‘do your best’ in art. . . . living by this slogan puts one on an almost sure road to mediocrity” (p. 17). To allow students to explore their interests more thoroughly, Noddings proposes that students occasionally be allowed to pursue issues in depth, perhaps without the expectation of a “final answer.” This suggestion aligns well with inquiry and project-based conceptions of science education. Given these views on motivation, it is not surprising that Noddings is a critic of a decontextualized and rigid approach to science and mathematics. A great deal of schooling,
C 2009 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. BOOK REVIEW 775 she maintains, is simply an exercise in memorizing knowledge that is swiftly forgotten. To emphasize her point, she recounts an incident in which a high school student posed a mathematics question, taken from a standardized test, to Governor Jeb Bush of Florida. Bush could not answer, but maintained that the material was nevertheless important for the student to know. Noddings argues that this incident suggests to students “that they must learn volumes of material today that, by the time they are fifty, they may safely have forgotten” (p. 221). Despite her opposition to rote learning, she is not easily pigeonholed as an opponent of demanding curricula; she simply insists that critical lessons should be present in all aspects of the curriculum through a constant connection to everyday life and its challenges. Noddings contends that specialized knowledge of a subject, without the ability to discuss its historical, political, and ethical dimensions, is a hallmark of miseducation. Throughout the text, Noddings explains how various kinds of content can be integrated into the themes of her critical lessons. Science figures prominently in a number of these discussions. For example, in the chapter on “Advertising and Propaganda,” she suggests that students might benefit from knowing about the sociology and philosophy of science in order to be thoughtful, alert consumers of scientific research. In addition, she notes that questions surrounding the impact of everyday life choices could also be addressed in the science classroom. Noddings offers the American lawn as an example of a preference that is often held unreflectively, but which has significant social and environmental implications. Environmental questions, she suggests, are too often taught from an abstract, global perspective. Students need to see that the problems that call out for reflection (in the domain of science and elsewhere) are not remote, but close to home. There are some obvious criticisms that could be leveled at Noddings’ book. Advocates of a “pipeline” approach, in which science instruction is viewed as a pathway into sciencerelated specialties, may see her critical themes as a distraction from essential science content. Yet Noddings does not suggest that teachers abandon content. She notes that there are specialized bodies of knowledge that some students will need to master in order to progress and urges that teachers and curriculum planners follow Jerome Bruner’s advice and attend to the central concepts while clearing out extraneous material. In this way, some breathing space will be created for the exploration of critical themes. In addition to the “content” criticism, Noddings might also be taken to task for the apparent lack of intellectual rigor in certain of her chosen themes. “House and home” and “parenting” are two key areas for critical reflection, according to Noddings. However, similar themes formed much of the content for a dubious 1950s curricular effort called “Life Adjustment Education.” This movement, which helped future homemakers address weighty questions like “How can I look my best?” and “Making my home more attractive” is now viewed as an educational disaster (Hofstadter, 1963, p. 357). Noddings anticipates this line of criticism, and her discussion of the questions surrounding making a home and parenting demonstrates that these areas can be fertile ground for critical reflection. However, the history of this topic should remind us of the danger of “lethal mutations” in educational reform. In the hands of educators less thoughtful than Noddings, these particular themes could result in a pernicious weakening of academic content. These minor concerns aside, Critical Lessons offers a compelling vision of educational change. Toward the end of the book, Noddings quotes philosopher Alfred North Whitehead, who held that “the content of the school curriculum should be Life itself” (p. 284). Historically, it has often proven difficult for educators to live up to this ideal, but Noddings has offered us a useful road map for revitalizing it in the contemporary educational context. Science Education 776 BOOK REVIEW REFERENCE Hofstadter, R. (1963). Anti-intellectualism in American life. New York: Vintage Books. DAVID WADDINGTON Department of Education Concordia University 1455, de Maisonneuve Blvd. W. Montréal, Québec, H3G 1M8 Canada DOI 10.1002/sce.20345 Published online 18 February 2009 in Wiley InterScience (www.interscience.wiley.com). Science Education