A critical evaluation of the understanding of critical thinking by school teachers: The case of Hong Kong

Abstract

There is a strong belief that critical thinking should be cultivated in schools. But it is not clear how critical thinking is understood by front-line teachers who are given the responsibility of training critical thinkers. Based on a study conducted in Hong Kong, we found that some school teachers were in favor of a “positive” image of critical thinker who is knowledgeable, prudent, being critical to the critics who are ready to criticize, and being constructive after making criticisms. We try to argue that such a positive portrayal, although uncontroversial from a detached point of view, may not be adequate in the context of Hong Kong where a critical stance toward power holders and established interests is badly needed. Without paying due attention to the “aporetic” dimension, such understanding of critical thinking would make it difficult for students to adopt a critical stance to the prevailing cultural beliefs, social values, political institutions, or economic ideologies that merit the greatest attention.

Introduction: Background and context of the study

The requirement that students and graduates should possess the ability to think critically has become a common expectation of educators, parents, and employers in developed societies (Pithers and Soden, 2000: 237–238). Critical thinking is considered essential for young people who want to pursue further education, to compete for jobs, or simply to become a responsible citizen. While there is an obvious consensus among major stakeholders over the importance of cultivating critical thinking in schools, it is far from clear how critical thinking is conceived and understood by front-line teachers. For critical thinking to be properly cultivated in schools, we have to make sure that teachers have a sound and adequate understanding of critical thinking.

In this article, we are going to report and discuss how critical thinking is understood by school teachers in Hong Kong. ¹ The case of Hong Kong merits our attention because of the constitutional status of Hong Kong as a Special Administrative Region under the sovereignty of Communist China, where critical thinking is not always welcome. It is therefore important to know how teachers perceive the values and meanings of critical thinking in a society where there are increasingly severe clashes of ideas, principles, and institutions between the authoritarian China and the relatively liberal Hong Kong. After the handover in 1997, Hong Kong has been caught between two very different forces. On one hand, there is still a strong tendency to retain its international outlook, to preserve the use of English Language, and to promote the civic-mindedness and global awareness of the people, especially students. Indeed, starting from 2007, all senior secondary students are required to take Liberal Studies, a new course aimed at boosting students’ critical thinking and awareness of local and global affairs. On the other hand, there is more and more emphasis of the understanding of Chinese culture, recognition of the Chinese identity, appreciation of the “national situation,” and deference to the Central (i.e. the Central People’s Government in Beijing) or the Mainland which is the sovereign country of Hong Kong. Schools are therefore encouraged to hold national flag–raising ceremony every day and to organize exchange trips to Mainland China. Teachers are constantly cautioned when discussing with students politically sensitive issues such as the June Fourth Crackdown and political prisoners in China.

Disputes over how critical thinking should be understood were in fact paralleled by the escalating protests and oppositions against the authority (of Hong Kong and the Mainland) in recent years. Shortly after the newly elected Chief Executive, CY Leung, took office in July 2012, the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (HKSAR) government decided to implement the newly designed Moral and National Education Curriculum as scheduled. It was met with strong opposition from almost all stakeholders including students, teachers, parents, and many political parties because it was generally felt that the teaching materials designed by the government would have brainwashing effects. The curriculum was finally shelved after a series of protest and demonstrations. Public policies from development of new town to reception of Mainland tourists continued to draw severe criticisms, especially from the young people. When some democrats perceived that the Beijing government refused to honor her promise of giving people of Hong Kong genuine democracy starting from 2017, thousands of protesters turned to civil disobedience and occupied the open areas surrounding the Government Headquarters on 28 September 2014. It was first named by the organizers as the Occupy Central movement and later commonly called the Umbrella Movement or the Umbrella Revolution. The government instructed the police to use tear gas against the crowd. Instead of driving the protesters home, it triggered more people to join the movement. There were occupations of main streets in several downtown areas of Hong Kong. One striking feature of this movement was the exceptionally high degree of participation by students and newly formed organizations comprising young people. Even those secondary and university students who did not take part in the occupation showed their support by staging class boycotts in their schools. In light of the political activism among students in recent years, some pro-establishment lawmakers such as Regina Ip tried to attribute the political opposition commonly found among young people to the idea of critical thinking students picked up in schools. In particular, she was dissatisfied with the Chinese translation of critical thinking which, in her opinion, suggests that the core of critical thinking is to make criticisms. She preferred a translation which embraces clarity and logic instead of being critical (4 December 2014, Ming Pao Daily News). Her criticism and suggestion were echoed by Lok-sang Ho (30 December 2014, ChinaDaily Hong Kong Edition) and Lenard Cheng (25 May 2015, Sing Pao) who are Professor and President, respectively, of the Lingnan University. With a more “accurate” understanding of critical thinking, Ms Ip believed that young people would not be inherently against the government and other institutions of the establishment (17 May 2015, Ming Pao Instant News). Critical comments like these were not common when we first started the study. Yet, we cannot preclude the possibility that critical thinking was already a sensitive idea among teachers and they were not without reservations in sharing their understanding of critical thinking. Anyway, it has become clear that different political forces are making active attempts to put forward their favorite understanding of critical thinking that should be taught in schools. What we witnessed in recent years reinforced our belief that critical thinking is an essentially contested concept and it matters to students what conception of critical thinking their teachers endorse.

Our study was based upon a set of in-depth interviews with front-line teachers conducted in Hong Kong from July 2012 to June 2013. Some teachers, while acknowledging the merits of critical thinking, were highly sensitive to the negative connotation of critical thinking. They have a strong tendency of inserting what they consider to be the positive elements into the concept by stressing the duty of the critical thinker to have a comprehensive understanding of the issues concerned and emphasizing the importance of “being constructive” or “being practical” as key attribute of a critical thinker. A critical thinker, according to their portrayal, is supposed to knowledgeable, objective and neutral, and practical-minded, rather than someone who is keen to criticize and to question but without trying to put forward any workable solution. Their good intention of conceiving critical thinking as something positive and useful is beyond doubt. However, we noticed that there was a general neglect of the “aporetic dimension” (i.e. the tendency to question and to scrutinize the fundamental goals and objectives) as coined by Papastephanou and Angeli (2007) among the teachers. This neglect in turn led to their insensitivity to specific ideas, practices, and institutions that students should be especially critical of. An understanding of critical thinking tainted by this neglect and insensitivity, we are afraid, would not only fail to facilitate a critical examination of the economic forces and political powers, especially those from Communist China, which is dominating Hong Kong. It would also be biased toward the establishment and reinforce the existing power structure.

In the following, we will first have an overview of the literature on the variety of core elements or understandings of critical thinking. It will be followed by the methodology of our research and the background of the group of teachers we interviewed. Finally, we will present the features of their understanding of critical thinking and discuss what we believe to be their bias and inadequacies.

The plurality of views on the essence of critical thinking

Critical thinking is commonly defined by two major elements: (1) skills or abilities and (2) attitudes, dispositions, or character. For instance, Stephen P Norris and Robert H Ennis (1989) argue that “in order to carry out the critical thinking process effectively, one needs both abilities and dispositions” (p. 8). By abilities they refer to these four sets of critical thinking abilities: “those [ability] involved in thinking clearly; those involved in making and evaluating inferences; those needed to establish a sound basis for inference; [and] those involved in carrying out the critical thinking process in an orderly and effective way” (Norris and Ennis, 1989: 10). Apart from abilities, a critical thinker should also possess certain dispositions. In particular, he or she is to be

a particular type of person: one who is open to the views of others; one who does not jump to conclusions, but bases action and belief on good reasons; one who wishes critical thinking to be directed equally to his or her own thinking. (Norris and Ennis, 1989: 23)

Similarly, according to Mark Mason’s understanding, critical thinking is primarily “a set of skills to be acquired such as the skills of reasoning and the rules of making inferences or generalizations.” However, he is also aware of the importance of the dispositions to be nurtured such as “the critical attitude, intellectual honesty, impartial consideration of different points of view, and moral orientation such as concern for a humane and just world” (Mason, 2008: 5–6). Or, as suggested by Jennifer Moon, critical thinking is a matter of logic out of a concern for quality of reasoning and argument; a matter of strengthening our skills, process, or abilities such as identification of assumptions, clarification of ideas, judgment of credibility of claims, and evaluation of judgments. And equally important to a critical thinker are certain habits of engagement with the world such as respect for persons, readiness to consider alternative explanations, care for procedures of inquiry, and readiness to listen to others (Moon, 2008: 47). Similar classification can also be found in the understanding of critical thinking proposed by Richard Paul and Linda Elder (2004: 1–14).

Diane Halpern also defines critical thinking in terms of skills and dispositions. The five categories of generic skills she finds most crucial are as follows: (1) verbal reasoning skills, (2) argument analysis skills, (3) skills in thinking as hypothesis testing, (4) correct use of probability and likelihood, and (5) decision-making and problem-solving skills (Halpern, 2009: 3). The dispositions she deems important include habit of planning; willingness to consider new options, to suspend judgment, and to gather more information; persistence; willingness to self-correct, admit errors, and recognize the factors leading to error; awareness of the social realities that need to be overcome; and willingness to compromise, to seek consensus, and to achieve agreement (Halpern, 2003: 15–18). But what distinguishes Halpern (2003) from other theorists is her clear emphasis that critical thinking is a “purposeful, reasoned, and goal directed” activity; in particular, the skills and dispositions mentioned above are critical because they are expected to contribute to “desirable outcomes,” for example, in “solving problems, formulating inferences, calculating likelihoods, and making decisions” (p. 6).

However, it is important to note that achievement of workplace success and accomplishment of socially desirable outcomes, as ideals of critical thinking, are not uncontroversial. Just the opposite, such a “positivist confinement of critical thinking to evaluation of thinking processes and achievement of desired outcomes” (Papastephanou and Angeli, 2007: 608) was subject to severe criticisms. There are strong voices suggesting that the very objective of critical thinking is to scrutinize those socially approved outcomes and standards of success rather than to take them for granted. Besides, there is alternative view regarding what it is to be useful. To some theorists of critical thinking, even “criticisms in the negative sense and tearing things down” may well serve very useful purposes. The worry of Papastephanou and Angeli is that the kind of critical thinking as envisaged by Halpern may help students to achieve socially approved and recognized tasks, but at the expense of “pupils’ ability to critique the task itself, and take a reflective distance from their own involvement in it” (Papastephanou and Angeli, 2007: 608). Teaching of critical thinking, in their opinion, is not to facilitate the achievement of socially desirable goals but to nurture the inclination and the “ability to think over and argue for or against their meaningfulness or moral pertinence” (Papastephanou and Angeli, 2007: 609). What they believed to be integral to the practice of critical thinking is to adopt an “aporetic stance” (Papastephanou and Angeli, 2007: 611), that is, the mentality of always ready to question the meaningfulness and moral merit of the goals, ends, outcomes, values, and beliefs that are considered socially desirable. And they contended that such a critical stand, although in a negative sense, may serve useful purposes:

It is also to bring hidden aspects to the fore, to accommodate reflectively the new and the unknown. To be critical means first and foremost to be imaginative of alternative realities and thoughtful about their possible value or non-value. (Papastephanou and Angeli, 2007: 612)

As far as teaching of critical thinking is concerned, the significance of the view as championed by Papastephanou and Angeli is of twofold: first, what is to be cultivated is not simply a set of universal skills and dispositions that could be applied to almost all sorts of reasoning and argumentation, but a sensitivity or alertness to the particular set of goals, ends, and beliefs that the society may impose on individuals; second, the positive task of goal achievement may start with questioning the value and merit of the socially approved goals and exploration of other possible goals to achieve rather than taking the goals approved for granted.

The importance of the aporetic stance, as a core element of critical thinking, is not only well received in liberal arts and social sciences disciplines but also echoed by people studying management education, whose ultimate goal is of course success in workplace. For example, John Mingers (2000) noted that, even in the management field, there has been a discontent with the mainstream “utilitarian” or “managerial” view that “management education is primarily concerned with enhancing managerial effectiveness” (p. 221). What is emerging, he noticed, is a critical management education which attempts to “decouple management education from management activity in order that the claims and practices of management can be called into question” (Mingers, 2000: 221). In designing his own course on critical management, he went on to define what is meant by a critical approach and to specify four key dimensions of questioning or skepticism that are constitutive of a critical approach to management education, namely, the critique of rhetoric, the critique of tradition, the critique of authority, and the critique of objectivity. ²

The plurality of views we have reviewed above suggests that teaching of critical thinking may be defined or understood as one or more of these three elements:

1. Training of thinking skills or reasoning abilities;

2. Cultivation of dispositions, attitudes, or virtues such as openness, fair-mindedness, tolerant, humility, and impartiality;

3. Nurturing of a tendency to be skeptical of, for example, the tradition, authority, established interests, socially desirable goals, and objective knowledge.

With these three key elements of critical thinking as our framework, our primary aim is to investigate how critical thinking is perceived and understood by front-line teachers by exploring whether they would understand it as a set of skills or a list of virtues or an inclination to be critical to established values, norms, practices, and institutions.

A few remarks regarding method

The teachers we chose to interview were experienced in the delivery of civic, moral, or national education. We have a good reason to believe that they were well aware of the importance of the cultivation of critical thinking, which is one of the key emphases of the curriculums of civic, moral, and national education of Hong Kong (see Note 1). From July 2012 to June 2013, a total of 17 teachers from 10 different schools were interviewed. They were locally trained Cantonese-speaking teachers (the interviews were all conducted in Cantonese). Over 80% of the interviewees were front-line teachers with more than 10 years’ experience in civic, moral, and national education. ³ They were all teaching in publicly funded schools with half of them having religious affiliations. ⁴ They were invited to be interviewed primarily because they were all previous recipients of the Chief Executive’s Award for Teaching Excellence (granted either the Award for Teaching Excellence or Certificate of Merit). The award was open for all registered teachers (as individual or as groups) to compete. All nominations were screened and assessed by panels comprising unofficial members coming mainly from the education profession. As award-winning teachers (or teaching teams) under the domain of “civic and moral education,” they can be seen as a convenient sample of teachers who were expected to cultivate critical thinking in the delivery of civic and moral education. Out of the 59 teachers who were awarded, 17 accepted our invitation to be interviewed. We did not presume that they were necessarily competent in the theory and practice of critical thinking. However, as they were given the responsibility of cultivating critical thinking, it is still worthwhile to explore how they would perceive or conceive critical thinking. Finally, we have to admit that this small sample of 17 teachers cannot claim to be representative. However, we believe that through in-depth interviews, their responses can shed some light on how teachers experienced in civic and moral education understand the highly contested concept of critical thinking.

First, interviewees were asked what is critical thinking and what would they refer to when talking about critical thinking. Then they were asked to define critical thinking and to identify the key features constitutive of a critical thinker or a person with critical mind. This set of questions was to test whether the interviewees tend to understand critical thinking more as reasoning skills and abilities or as dispositions and virtues. Finally, interviewees were invited to respond to the idea that to practice critical thinking is very often to be critical to something, and if they agree, what are the things (issues, ideas, institutions, practices, mechanisms, and so on) students should be especially critical of, and if there are anything students should take as given and any forbidden areas students should refrain from criticizing. This final set of questions served to test to what extent interviewees are aware of and treasure the “aporetic dimension” of critical thinking as described above.

Key features of teachers’ understanding of critical thinking

In this section, major findings collected from the interviews conducted with 17 front-line teachers will be presented. In reporting the views of the 17 teachers, code names from T1 to T17 will be used.

The importance of reasons giving

When asked how they would understand critical thinking, almost all teachers tried to define it as either abilities to be acquired or dispositions to be cultivated. One teacher (T3) defined it as “a process, through appropriate use of skills and methods, by which students can rethink or reconsider their positions.” To another teacher (T4), critical thinking is mainly “a process of collecting relevant information, analyzing the information, differentiating right from wrong, forming one’s preference and justifying it.” Other teachers simply stated that what matters most is the “ability to state the reasons and justifications behind one’s own judgment” (T12), the willingness “to give evidence before coming to conclusion” (T9), or the presence of “rationales behind one’s action” (T17). Their understandings of critical thinking were not stated in a very technical and precise language. But it is clear enough to suggest that to some teachers, learning of critical thinking is about acquisition of skills and abilities to collect relevant information and to come up with sound reasons, rationales, or justifications, in the course of defending one’s judgment or conclusion.

The importance of independence, detachment, and respect of diversity

However, the view that was shared almost unanimously among the teachers we interviewed is the understanding of critical thinking as dispositions, attitudes, or virtues. Many teachers found it important for a critical thinker to possess the disposition to “be independent” (T1), to “cast one’s independent judgment” (T10 and T11), without “having to defer to prevailing views” (T9) or “easily affected by others” (T12). Another disposition quite a number of them cherished is detachment. As one teacher contended, “the most important quality of being a critical thinker is the attitude of not sticking to one’s own position and the willingness to put aside one’s identity and values” (T3). Another teacher echoed the importance of “being detached from one’s interests, thinking from other’s perspectives, and putting ourselves into others’ shoes” (T5). Similar view was expressed by a teacher (T11) who regarded a critical thinker as someone who would incline to “step aside from one’s self-interest in the process of thinking.” This emphasis on detachment from one’s interests and perspective has close connection with respect of diversity, the virtue of critical thinker which was most frequently mentioned by our interviewees. The presence of multiple stakeholders, the need to address the rival standpoints and perspectives they represent, and the importance to respect the diversity of views and interests they stand for were all explicitly mentioned and acknowledged by a number of teachers (T3, T5, T6, T7, T14, and T15).

Nothing particular to be critical of

What we found most striking are the interviewees’ responses to the questions about “critical to what,” the set of questions meant to test their awareness and acceptance of the “aporetic dimension.” When asked whether there are any ideas, practices, office-holders, or institutions of which students, in practicing critical thinking, have to be specifically critical, most respondents failed to give us an instant and direct response. We first started with the general and open-ended question of what do you think students should be most critical of in dealing with social issues. Usually, after a long pause, we asked the question again. When they still did not get it, we started to make the question more specific by asking if there are any ideas, practices, institutions, or policies students should be especially critical of. After further probing and rephrasing like this, they were still very hesitate to give a specific reply and what we got in most cases was the very safe and formal answer that “in principle anything can be subject to scrutiny and nothing should be free from critical examination.” Only one teacher (T17), out of the 17 we interviewed, responded clearly that a critical thinker has to be “critical to government policies, school rules, and traditional values and practices.” If interpreted in the most sympathetic way, such a reply suggests an open and impartial attitude that critical thinking should apply to all issues and there are no forbidden areas where critical judgment is to be suspended. That is probably why they felt that there is no need to identify something to which students should be especially critical. However, judging from the gestures, tone, and facial expressions of the teachers giving this reply, we have reason to believe that they had strong hesitations in addressing this question and were rather reluctant to name any names (i.e. specific ideas, practices, institutions, or authorities) against which students particularly need to take a critical stance. Of course, there was a possibility that some interviewees were either not comfortable with or not really interested in this question and so not enthusiastic in giving a substantive response.

Critical to those who are critical

When talking about difficulties of cultivating critical thinking, some teachers worried that students were biased by popular views and sentiments. For example, two teachers (T2 and T6) were of the view that students should beware of those media which are generally considered to be more liberal and critical to the government of both Hong Kong and Mainland China. They opined that students were manipulated or even brainwashed by those media. One teacher (T2) explained the widespread social movement against Hong Kong Government’s proposal (in the summer of 2012) to introduce a National Education Curriculum ⁵ for all schools by the severe criticisms against the proposal as reported in those media. This curriculum was criticized by many teachers, students, and parents as biased toward the Chinese government and trying to promote a kind of blind and dogmatic patriotism. And she went on to argue that we should be critical to the objectivity and fairness of the media in reporting and commenting on events related to Mainland China. One example of lack of critical thinking, in her opinion, is people always questioning the motives and sincerity of current party officials (of the Chinese Communist Party) on the basis of the wrongdoings committed by the party in the past.

Another teacher (T6) was also holding a skeptical attitude to the liberal media. She admitted that in dealing with some politically sensitive issues, she would only let the students know the key facts but without letting them to discuss further for fearing that they would be biased by the severe criticisms made by the liberal media and the opposition parties. One of the sensitive political issues she was referring to was the case of Li Wangyang, ⁶ a political dissident released by the Chinese government in 2012 after serving an imprisonment for more than 20 years. He was already blind, handicapped, and not able to take care of himself when he was released. Shortly after his release, he was found dead in a hospital after making criticisms against the Chinese Communist Party and reiterating his support of the June Fourth democratic movement in 1989 in an interview by a reporter of the Hong Kong Cable TV. The Chinese officials insisted that he committed suicide. A lot of people of Hong Kong rejected this official conclusion, took to the streets to show their grievances about a dissident who died a tragic and mysterious death, and called for a thorough investigation. This dissatisfaction with the liberal media was also shared by a teacher (T9) who believed that those calling for the downfall of the Chief Executive of Hong Kong (even before he assumed office) were merely blind followers of criticisms orchestrated by the “biased” media. What this teacher failed to mention was the inherent lack of legitimacy of the Chief Executive who was selected by an election committee ⁷ comprising only 1200 members, instead of being elected by universal suffrage.

Judging from the examples used by some teachers in illustrating their understanding of critical thinking, the “aporetic dimension” is not completely missing. However, it differs significantly from the “aporetic dimension” as defined above by Papastephanou and Angeli in that teachers’ skepticism was targeted not on those who were enjoying authority and exercising powers but, just the opposite, on those who were subject to powers and authority. Contrary to the usual impression that critical thinking is about being critical to the power holders, critical thinkers, in their portrayal, especially need to be critical to those who are critical to the power holders.

The importance of being knowledgeable and constructive

Some teachers suggested that proper exercise of critical thinking has to meet two further conditions: (1) possession of adequate knowledge (before making criticisms) and (2) provision of constructive comments or suggestions (after criticizing). Several teachers (T1, T8, and T9) believed that students should possess adequate background knowledge before making judgment or criticisms. It was echoed by another (T2) who opined that “solid knowledge base and comprehensive information are prerequisite to critical thinking.” One teacher (T4) even argued that students “should do comprehensive research and come up with sound justifications before challenging prevailing social norms.” They seem to suggest that you need to be a dutiful and diligent student in order to become a critical thinker. As one of them (T2) concluded, students have to “acquire a rich knowledge base,” to get access to “multiple sources of information,” and to “do their research duty first before they start to criticize.”

Students are not only supposed to be well-prepared before pointing out what went wrong, they are also expected to be constructive and to be able to suggest what could make things right. Some teachers contended that after making criticisms, students should “explore what could be done to solve the problem (T9),” and to “suggest feasible solutions, to identity what could be done to improve the situation and to make things better (T7).” One teacher (T17) even commented that “criticism without suggesting alternative solution is only low level of critical thinking.” A genuine critical thinker, in his opinion, would need to assume the “duty to provide input and to suggest workable alternatives.” In short, practice of critical thinking should go beyond making criticisms, and a critical thinker should be able to contribute to the ultimate goal of problem-solving. Obviously, they wanted to see that critical thinking carries a positive connotation; and they believed that a positive image should best be built by subjecting exercise of critical thinking to the two conditions just described, that is, by portraying the critical thinker as someone who is knowledgeable and constructive in decision-making or problem-solving.

To summarize, the major elements comprising the understanding of critical thinking by the front-line teachers we interviewed are as follows: first, in terms of skills and abilities, it is important to be able to make use of relevant information and evidence in giving reasons and constructing arguments that could justify one’s position; second, they accorded special weight to this set of dispositions: courage to think independently, tendency to detach from one’s self-interest, and acknowledgment of multiple stakeholders and respect for diversity of positions and interests; third, regarding the question of critical to what, most teachers were reluctant to name any names and refused to specify any ideas, tradition, practices, or institutions students should keep a critical stance, some urged students to be critical to those (media and parties) who were critical to the establishment.

Evaluation and discussion

Neglecting the importance of being context-sensitive

First, it makes perfect sense for our teachers to expect a critical thinker to be ready to give reasons, to think independently, to see things in a detached manner, and to respect divergent interests and perspectives. However, they seemed to be ignorant of the forces or factors that would pose the greatest threat to a society committed to independence, openness, and diversity. They appeared to be unaware of any political actors (in power), economic ideologies (enjoying popularity), or social and religious institutions (being considered authoritative) that would undermine (or have already undermined) the openness and diversity they cherish and should therefore become something they have to be critical of. To use the terminology suggested by Papastephanou and Angeli (2007), the “aporetic dimension” is missing in their understanding of critical thinking. As described above, to affirm this dimension is to agree that critical thinking is to question the meaningfulness and moral merit of the goals, ends, outcomes, values, and beliefs that are considered socially desirable. And to call them into question we need to be sensitive to and to “unveil [the] power mechanisms and workings of heteronomy in goal-setting” (p. 614).

The importance of this dimension, in our opinion, is to bring up the idea that critical thinking is not exercised in a vacuum but in a particular social and political context which is always dominated by powerful political actors and established authority. Cultivation of critical thinking is not merely to train up students’ reasoning skills and to nurture the general dispositions to be open and receptive of diversity, but more importantly to draw their attention to the particular actors, institutions, or authorities that would have an incentive to exert their powers to contain the diversity of goals, ends, values, and beliefs.

If we agree that even in a genuinely free, democratic, and liberal society, there are certain forces, hidden or explicit, in operation that are eager to convince the general public to take some goals, practices, and values for granted, it is even more so in the case of Hong Kong, which is under the duo influence of a relatively free but less than democratic local system and a sovereign state, China, which is anything but liberal and democratic. However, contrary to our expectation, most of the teachers we interviewed paid little attention to the “aporetic dimension” and had nothing in mind regarding what students specially need to be critical of. The awareness of the context, that is, the sensitivity to the potential sources of threat against diversity and the dominant authority and beliefs to be critically examined, was almost absent in their understanding of critical thinking. More importantly, what we noticed was not just a lack of awareness of the context but a deliberate detachment from the context. In identifying critical thinking as essentially a set of generic skills and dispositions that could be exercised in any context, they obviously tried to save the trouble of having to name any names (of individual, group, ideology, practice, or institution) peculiar to the context. In particular, they preferred a very general reply that “anything can be subject to scrutiny and nothing should be free from critical examination” to an attempt to specify what students need to be critical of. One possible explanation is that teachers believed that in choosing a thin understanding of critical thinking (as possession of generic skills and dispositions) they could appear to be open-minded and impartial to all stakeholders, without having to specify which viewpoints or stakeholders we need to guard against. But in the context of Hong Kong, where many dominant economic and political beliefs and institutions are subject to scrutiny, dropping the “aporetic dimension” would run the risk of being shallow and insensitive in the disguise of being impartial.

Another possibility is that teachers were well aware of the ideals, beliefs, and institutions whose prestige and authority are questionable. They were only reluctant to bring them up and to expose them under the spotlight of critical examination. Such a thick description or context-sensitive understanding of critical thinking would commit them (and their students) to draw up a list of powerful stakeholders whose authority should be questioned, and then to engage in a debate or dialogue, real or imaginary, with them over fundamental political principles and institutions, moral values and beliefs, or social goals. Their reluctance to enter into such kind of debate and discussion can be understood as an evasion of politics and value judgment. It is because, in so doing, they need to have their own reading of the context and to distinguish, based on their good will and prudence, between who is vulnerable and who is powerful, which authority should be called into question and which deserves a sympathetic treatment, what values to be strictly scrutinized, and what should be given benefit of the doubt.

We understand that some teachers really wanted to be impartial and politically neutral. However, they have to understand that in avoiding the trouble of naming names and choosing not to draw students’ attention to the dominant beliefs, values, traditions, practices, and institutions which are exerting their influences on everybody, they are not being neutral. Instead, they would be acknowledging the status quo, sustaining their domination, and hence equally liable to the charge of being value-laden.

Failing to recognize the multiple sources of bias

As reported in section “Evaluation and discussion,” some teachers (T2, T6, and T9) did have something in mind in responding to the question of critical to what. Their unanimous voice was that students should especially be critical to those who are critical to government officials and governmental policies. The severe criticisms against the government (Hong Kong as well as the Mainland China), they believed, were orchestrated by some mass media which has been printing or broadcasting biased news and commentaries under the pretext of freedom of the press. The mass media they hated most is a local newspaper called Apple Daily. Being one of the most popular newspapers in Hong Kong, it is, on one hand, renowned for its anti-Communist and pro-democracy stance; on the other hand, it is notorious for its lack of respect for professionalism, accuracy, privacy, and decency in news-making. It is widely known that their news reports are not always accurate, their comments are not strictly fair, some of the stories they published are far from decent, and they have their own political agenda and positions instead of being politically neutral. The presence of such kind of newspaper is no surprise to any liberal democratic society. Admittedly, they are necessary evil in societies where freedom of speech and freedom of the press are respected.

Our front-line teachers were certainly legitimate in showing their discontents with the exaggeration, partiality, indecency, and sensationalism that are often found in those newspapers. Considering this contextual feature, it could not be wrong for teachers to remind their students to be especially critical to the liberal media, and to treat the anti-government or anti-establishment commentaries and criticisms they published with doubt and caution. On one hand, their understanding of critical thinking was context-sensitive; on the other hand, their reading of the context was incomplete and their understanding of the sources of bias was one-sided. While the teachers were doing a wonderful job in exposing the bias and misunderstanding engendered by the media rather hostile to the government, they surprised us in appearing to be almost ignorant of the wider institutional setting and societal changes that have been nurturing another kind of bias – bias toward the government and the establishment. What they failed to notice (or noticed but fail to mention) is that if people can be biased by views challenging the status quo, people can be equally, if not more, biased by views reinforcing or supporting the status quo. In the case of Hong Kong, while there are just a few newspapers and radio stations (real and online) which are always critical to the government, there are a lot more media (newspapers, radio stations, and TV stations) which are clearly pro-establishment and skeptical, if not hostile, to the opposition parties and pro-democracy groups. It can partly be explained by the fact that the proprietors of those media ⁸ have either strong political affiliation with the Mainland government or substantive business interests in China. The magnitude of bias engendered by these pro-establishment media must be no less than that can be mobilized by one Apple Daily, the only newspaper in Hong Kong with a clearly anti-communist owner. And we have reasons to believe that the bias toward the government or the establishment is being aggravated in recent years in view of the following incidents: (1) the popular and outspoken radio phone-in host, Chi-sum Ng, failed to get his contract renewed in November 2011 by the Radio Television Hong Kong (RTHK), a publicly owned radio station supposed to be run independent of the government; (2) Kelvin Lau, a senior editorial staff renowned for his professionalism and impartiality, was removed from the post of editor-in-chief in January 2014 by the Ming Pao Daily, a newspaper widely read by the educated public and the intelligentsia; (3) at about the same time, several banking corporations indirectly owned by the Mainland government suddenly chose not to place any advertisement in several local newspapers including the Apple Daily and the free newspaper am730; (4) another radio host, Wei-ling Li, who was well known for her ultra-critical stance toward government officials and Mainland authorities, was sacked by the Commercial Radio in February 2014. However, the teachers we interviewed mentioned none of the above, and no teachers suggested that we should be critical to the mainstream news and commentaries published or broadcasted under such circumstances.

It is pretty clear that teachers were highly sensitive to the bias of liberal and sensational media but failed to notice the emergence of an arguably more dangerous source of bias. Having said that, we have no intention to speculate why they appeared to be sympathetic to the establishment, and neither do we have any proof to suggest that their selective sensitivity could be attributed to their political inclination, if any. We just want to suggest, through their examples, the multiple sources of bias to which critical thinkers should pay special attention. Some of our teachers paid sole attention to the undesirable fact that partial and irresponsible criticisms were made in some media but paid almost no attention to another problematic phenomenon that some criticisms failed to emerge, to get heard or published, and to be adequately and thoroughly understood, as a result of the incidents we have just mentioned. The possible reason, in our opinion, is that they failed to realize that people would not only be biased by what they read but also by what they are not allowed to read. Students would of course be biased by the sensational news and partial commentaries they can get access to; however, they could equally be biased, although in a hidden way, by being denied access to alternative viewpoints, perspectives, and options. We perfectly understand that teachers, like everybody else, were so easily disturbed by the criticisms already there that they simply lost sight of the importance of the views and ideas that should have been heard but never were. They need to note that powers are not only exercised nakedly when the government try to impose her view on the people, it could be exercised in such a subtle way that people would, being uninformed and unaware of potential alternatives, eventually be steered to endorse the view favored by the government. ⁹

A narrow understanding of “knowing”

In trying to portray a positive image of critical thinking, quite a number of teachers (T1, T2, T8, and T9) found it important for critical thinkers to have “adequate background knowledge,” “comprehensive information,” and even to conduct “comprehensive research” before they begin to criticize. The merits of knowing more and gathering more relevant facts and information are beyond dispute. And it is highly understandable for primary school teachers to place more emphasis on comprehensive background knowledge. But we still want to ask what exactly do students need to know and understand more in order to engage in critical thinking? And what kind of knowledge is conducive to critical appraisal of different possible options? Our teachers would probably say that students need to have an objective account of the facts related to the issue being examined, in particular the comprehensive information about the rival positions, claims, and interests of all stakeholders concerned, before they can comment and criticize in a responsible manner. However, we want to stress that gathering of objective facts and comprehensive information is necessary but not sufficient to the use of critical thinking in appraising rival positions in a controversial issue. Let us explain by the following three points. First, the bulk of facts and information our teachers are expecting would help us to cast a normative judgment on the merits of the plurality of options as long as there is already an agreement on the criteria of assessment or the priority of our values. But as we all know, critical appraisal of a plurality of options being advocated is rarely about the direct use of factual information in assessing the merits of different possible options with reference to agreed criteria, be it maximization of social utility, satisfaction of basic needs, or promotion of fundamental rights. Second, the options we need to consider usually differ significantly from one another in the values they try to maximize, the assumptions they want to take for granted, and the criteria of assessment they want to be judged. As a result, critical appraisal of rival options calls for an adequate understanding of the contested values and assumptions underlying those options. What is being done, in the course of critical thinking, is not to identify, with reference to the relevant facts and information, the option that can best match the priority of values that is predetermined and taken for granted; instead, in the process of deliberation, we expect that an option is chosen as a result of a reexamination of the merits of the values concerned and their relative priority. Third, the crux of using critical thinking in appraising rival options is to go beyond the gathering of relevant facts and information and start afresh in reflecting on the ways, manner, and criteria by which those facts are conceived and judged. Put another way, the knowledge that is badly needed in the practice of critical thinking is not so much a more comprehensive understanding of the factual information of the issue concerned; what is in need is perhaps a novel understanding of ourselves and our society, in particular a critical reflection of our core values or foundational beliefs, and a recognition of the bias, unexamined assumptions, and the many hidden value judgments we take for granted.

Bias underlying the requirement of being constructive

As mentioned before, some teachers (T7, T9, and T17) were of the view that a responsible critical thinker is not merely to criticize but to be constructive, that is, to contribute to problem-solving by suggesting feasible solutions that can make things better. It coincided with Diane Halpern’s (2003) view that critical thinking should be conducive to desirable outcomes in problem-solving and decision-making (p. 6). In a way, the requirement of being constructive seems to be so positive and neutral that it can be universally endorsed. However, it is the case as long as we can agree to the terms, conditions, and constraints under which workable solutions are being constructed. In fact, to be constructive is not to suggest something in a vacuum, but in a particular social and political setting, constrained by terms and conditions governing what works and what does not, what is feasible and what is not. More often than not, if one is expected to be constructive, he or she is invited to suggest, to revise, or to propose something new, but within the limits and constraints as prescribed by the ones who have the final say in decision-making. But the reasonableness of the presuppositions or background constraints of the setting are always in dispute. That is why the requirement of being constructive is not necessarily neutral; just the opposite, it is liable to the charge of bias toward the status quo or those who have the powers to say what is possible and what is not.

For instance, one teacher (T7) brought up the case of several hundred thousand young children developing kidney failure and other health problems as a result of drinking contaminated milk powder produced by Sanlu, a private enterprise which allegedly had been enjoying exemptions from food safety checks because of good connections with the Mainland China authorities concerned. ¹⁰ He tried to use this as an example to show that as a critical thinker students should not only criticize but also suggest workable solutions which can make things better. But what does it mean to be constructive in this case? And what a workable solution would look like? One way of being constructive is to suggest remedial solutions that can realistically be put into practice. In the case of contaminated milk powder, a critical thinker may well question, given the allegation is proved, why such a generous exemption was granted, whether the officials concerned were corrupted, and how come the whole thing could escape the attention of the governing party and the legislature for an extended period of time. As a constructive thinker, he or she may suggest that the exemption be suspended and even abolished, any corrupted officials be heavily punished, and there should be more rigorous checks on market operations by the executive and the legislature. These are all realistic suggestions because none of them challenge or undermine the authority of the Chinese Communist Party – the only party that is allowed to rule in China. In fact, implementation of these suggestions would only strengthen but not restrict the powers enjoyed by the ruling party. In other words, if you want to be constructive, you can be critical but up to a point, that is, without challenging the dictatorship of the ruling party. However, if one is really critical, he or she may think of the following fundamental changes: (1) press freedom be allowed so that managers of enterprises and government officials would be subject to severe checks from mass media or (2) genuine opposition party be allowed so that the monopoly of power by the Chinese Communist Party would come to an end and the corruptions arising from the extreme concentration of powers could be much better contained. But, as we all know, these would probably be regarded as unrealistic, considering the fact that the Communist Party would not give up or share her powers with others voluntarily. If so understood, what is critical is potentially in tension with what is constructive. And it is entirely possible that the scope and extent of critical thinking are unreasonably restricted by the requirement of being constructive.

However, it is not necessarily the case if we can agree with John Rawls (2001) that “the limits of the possible are not given by the actual, for we can to a greater or lesser extent change political and social institutions, and much else” (p. 5). What Rawls is trying to say is that though we need to care about matters of practicality in deliberating politics and public affairs, we need not be bound entirely by what is actually possible at the moment. While “probing the limits of practicable political possibility,” he believed that we can explore options that are “realistically utopian” (Rawls, 2001: 4). This way of deliberation is realistic in the sense that it “takes people as they are” and would only consider those options that are compatible with people’s “moral and psychological natures” (Rawls, 1999: 7–13). It is at the same time utopian because it acknowledges people’s legitimate hope that “the social world [as long as it does not violate people’s nature] allows at least a decent political order, so that a reasonably just, though not perfect, democratic regime is possible” (Rawls, 2001: 4). With the help of this idea of being “realistically utopian,” we can contemplate an “achievable social world” (Rawls, 1999: 6) where critical thinkers may still need to be constructive and obliged to suggest feasible solutions that are in line with people’s moral and psychological natures, but with no loss of critical sharpness, and without having to be bound by what could come true in the near future. If understood this way, the tension between what is critical and what is constructive may be relieved. If applied in the case of poisoned milk powder, the most critical challenge against the fundamental institutional fact in China – the monopoly of power by the ruling party – may also be accepted as constructive, although a remedial measure that calls for genuine checks against the Chinese Communist Party is not likely to be in place in the near future.

The above discussions are not meant to repudiate the teachers’ requirement that critical thinkers be constructive and ready to suggest remedial solutions after making criticisms. We just want to point out that both teachers and students should (1) caution against the bias toward status quo or preconditions set by the power holders in complying with the requirement of being constructive and (2) take note of the idea that we need not be bound by what is permissible and realizable at the moment in suggesting options that are constructive and feasible.

Conclusion

To recapitulate, many teachers understood critical thinking as generic reasoning skills to be acquired and dispositions to be cultivated. They found it important for a critical thinker to have independent thinking, to respect diversity of views and perspectives, and to be critical to bias engendered by the mass media. They agreed that critical thinking should apply to all issues and nothing should be exempted from critical thinking. Moreover, they expected that critical thinker should possess in-depth knowledge of the issue concerned and be able to suggest feasible solutions. These all sound uncontroversial. However, their understandings of critical thinking are liable to the following criticisms: (1) ignorant of the “aporetic dimension” and insensitivity to the (less than liberal democratic) context, hence failing (or reluctant) to pinpoint the policy actors, economic ideologies, conventional beliefs, and political institutions students should be especially critical of; (2) paid sole attention to the bias engendered by the sensational anti-government media but grossly ignorant of the bias inflicted by those even more powerful pro-establishment and pro-government media; (3) stressed the importance of background knowledge and comprehensive information to critical thinking, wrongly presuming that critical appraisal and judgment of rival options are more a matter of objective comparison of facts and information than competition of values; (4) the requirement that critical thinker be constructive is liable to the danger of limiting options to those acceptable by the ones having the greatest say in decision-making. We do not mean to infer that the teachers should be criticized or corrected. Our analysis only suggests that there is an alternative understanding of critical thinking (the one emphasized the aporetic dimension) our teachers may have paid insufficient attention. In view of the above concerns, schools and educational authority, if they are truly committed to the cultivation of critical thinkers, may need to recognize that critical thinking is more than generic and context-independent reasoning skills. It calls for deep knowledge of the socioeconomic context (especially, the dominating beliefs and institutions that should be doubted), an awareness of the multiple sources of bias (from both anti-government and pro-government), an ability to distinguish between matter of facts and matter of values, and the mentality of not taking for granted what the power holders claim to be realistic and feasible. As to why there was such an insufficient attention and to what extent they can be attributed to the prevailing political and institutional pressures applied by the HKSAR government on the education sector, further research has to be done.