Critical Reading v. Critical Thinking
We can distinguish between critical reading and
critical thinking in the following way:
- Critical reading is a technique for discovering information and ideas
within a text.
- Critical thinking is a technique for evaluating information and ideas, for
deciding what to accept and believe.
Critical reading refers to a careful, active,
reflective, analytic reading. Critical thinking involves reflecting on the
validity of what you have read in light of our prior knowledge and
understanding of the world.
For example, consider the following (somewhat
humorous) sentence from a student essay:
Parents
are buying expensive cars for their kids to destroy them.
As the terms are used here, critical reading is concerned with figuring
out whether, within the context of the text as a whole, " them " refers to
the parents, the kids, or the cars, and whether the text supports that
practice. Critical
thinking would
come into play when deciding whether the chosen meaning was indeed true, and
whether or not you, as the reader, should support that practice.
By these definitions, critical reading would appear
to come before critical thinking: Only once we have fully understood a text
(critical reading) can we truly evaluate its assertions (critical
thinking).
The
Two Together in Harmony
In actual practice, critical reading and critical
thinking work together.
Critical thinking allows us to monitor our
understanding as we read. If we sense that assertions are ridiculous or
irresponsible (critical thinking), we examine the text more closely to test
our understanding (critical reading).
Conversely, critical thinking depends on
critical reading. You can think critically about a text (critical
thinking), after all, only if you have understood it (critical
reading). We may choose to accept or reject a presentation, but we must
know why. We have a responsibility to ourselves, as well as to others,
to isolate the real issues of agreement or disagreement. Only then can we
understand and respect other people’s views. To recognize and
understand those views, we must read critically.
The
Usefulness of the Distinction
If critical thinking and critical reading are so
closely linked, why is this still a useful distinction?
The usefulness of the distinction lies in its
reminder that we must read each text on its own merits, not imposing our
prior knowledge or views on it. While we must evaluate ideas as we read, we
must not distort the meaning within a text. We must not allow ourselves to
force a text to say what we would otherwise like it to say—or we will never
learn anything new!
Reading
Critically: How Well Does The Text Do What It Does
We can think of a writer as having taken on a
job. No matter what the topic, certain tasks must be done:
- a
specific topic must be addressed
- terms
must be clearly defined
- evidence
must be presented
- common
knowledge must be accounted for
- exceptions
must be explained
- causes
must be shown to precede effects and to be capable of the effect
- conclusions
must be shown to follow logically from earlier arguments and evidence
As critical readers and writers, we want to assure
ourselves that these tasks have been completed in a complete, comprehensive,
and consistent manner. Only once we have determined that a text is
consistent and coherent can we then begin to evaluate whether or not to
accept the assertions and conclusions.
Thinking
Critically: Evaluating The Evidence
Reading to see what a text says may suffice when the
goal is to learn specific information or to understand someone else's ideas.
But we usually read with other purposes. We need to solve problems, build
roads, write legislation, or design an advertising campaign. We must
evaluate what we have read and integrate that understanding with our prior
understanding of the world. We must decide what to accept as true and
useful.
As readers, we want to accept as fact only that
which is actually true. To evaluate a conclusion, we must evaluate
the evidence upon which that conclusion is based. We do not want just
any information; we want reliable information. To assess the validity
of remarks within a text, we must go outside a text and bring to bear outside
knowledge and standards.
|
|
