The current Primary School Curriculum – introduced in Cyprus in 2010 –
belongs to the category of the respective national curricula that foster the cultivation of critical thinking. In actual fact, however, critical thinking is but a mere term referred to in a teachers’ handbook among other educational objectives,
rather than a concept that is actively promoted in the scholastic environment. Beyond the official statements, the Cypriot Primary School teachers I worked with stated that, each educator may interpret the term subjectively; what is more, albeit it appears in teaching handbooks, critical thinking was not explored in their undergraduate studies or later on in their teaching career, for instance in seminars run by The Pedagogical Institute, which renders it a fairly vague concept. This is what one of the teachers had to say on the subject:
“What we need is not a mere mention of the term, but a clear explanation, analysis and ideas we can use to actually make students think critically” (third class teacher interviewed on 23/04/2012).
This is what the three teachers told me when I asked them what they think critical thinking entails:
First class teacher: “The capability to vote for or against a specific idea… If I were to define the critical thinker, I would say that he or she might be one who does not act spontaneously; rather when he or she is called upon to make a decision, he or she employs logic, and calculates both the positive and negative aspects of the issue as well as their impact, before actually going through with a particular course of action” (first class teacher interviewed on 23/01/2012).
Second class teacher: “To think critically, one should make decisions based on certain criteria which will help establish whether something is right or wrong and act accordingly. In other words, the critical thinker should be able to ask “what”, “how” and “why” when investigating an issue or a situation and to apply reason with the aim of finding the best possible alternative or solution. To this end, it is useful to make connections with their personal experiences and thus make sense of it” (second class teacher interviewed on 12/04/2012).
Third class teacher: “It is the ability to filter the data one is presented with, by using logic and by tapping into their education and personal experiences so that they can consider a case in depth, draw conclusions and give their own interpretations. In other words, instead of accepting a piece of information or a fact passively, the critical thinker reflects on it by examining it from all angles” (third class teacher interviewed on 23/04/2012).
The teachers’ interpretations were evidently based on their own way of approaching the term in the context of their own pedagogy. Wright (2002) explains that it is the teachers’ readings or objective understanding of critical thinking that will determine what they teach and how they will teach it. There is, Wright (2002) argues, an abundance of materials and programs which supposedly foster thinking (i.e. higher order thinking, problem-solving, decision-making, etc.),
but teachers are unable to select and use them because they do not know how. He concludes that “[t]hey have not usually been exposed to the definitional conversation, and the scant evidence that exists would point to the fact that teachers and curriculum developers have quite different conceptions of critical thinking from those advanced” (ibid, p.4).
When it came to assessing the level of critical thinking in Cypriot Education and in particular, in primary stages, the teachers unanimously stated that this is an issue they repeatedly bring to the staff meetings, because the difficulty the majority of students have in expressing themselves is clearly evident. Some manifestations of this are their lack of linguistic confidence, their struggle to consider issues in depth and their inability to explain their point of view using “appropriate” vocabulary. Reflecting on the way the Cypriot educational system has been reformed, teachers reported that the cultivation of critical thinking in students is also hindered by three main obstacles: the evident lack of critical thinking activities in the Cypriot curriculum, the pressure on teachers to teach all the modules dictated by the curriculum with emphasis on the “core modules” and, by extension, the little room left for children to express their voices. These parameters essentially espouse the training syndrome of the “right answer” and the “high score achievement”. To this end, alternative ways of learning, including play, are minimised whereas the endorsement of memorisation and technical skills are given priority. These views are consistent with what Maxine Greene (1995) calls the concept of “seeing schooling small” (p.11), an idea which was bred in a competitive society:
“Seeing schooling small is pre-occupied with test scores, ‘time on task’, management procedures, ethnic and racial percentages and accountability measures, while it screens out the faces and gestures of individuals, of actual living persons” (ibid).
Along these lines, it seems that the pedagogical approach, encountered –
at least – in these three schools, can be associated with Bernstein’s (1977) collection code, according to which the model of learning is limited to the transmission of knowledge “that [has] little significance to conduct life” (Aronowitz, 2009, p.106) rather than knowledge construction. As the teachers admitted, core modules are given priority; in case the aims related to literacy and mathematics are not met promptly, complementary or “second-class” modules, namely Art, Music and Physical Education, are put aside. Even though the addition of drama to the new curricula was highly celebrated by policy makers and a number of educators who were qualified in drama or generally promote the Arts, students rarely experience drama and theatre; when they do, as all three teachers stated in their first interviews, it is only through their participation in extra- curricular activities, in short plays related to national and religious celebrations or by watching plays subsidised by the Cypriot Ministry of Education.
One of the teachers noted:
“Sadly, we give priority to other modules and overlook the Arts and specifically, drama. Yes, we employ them, but this happens approximately
two to three times a year in each class, mainly in the context of the Christmas or end-of-school celebrations” (third class teacher interviewed on 23/04/2012).
Besides, the consideration of drama as an important medium, although time consuming, in combination with the stress to meet the requirements for literacy and numeracy seemed to justify why two out of the three teachers asked me to do the fieldwork during the teaching hours of “complementary modules”. Only one teacher suggested that I should use some of the teaching hours allotted to the module of Greek language. This stance is indicative of the fact that, although most teachers claim to be proponents of a well-rounded education, in actual fact they are not. According to Sherman (2009), the “lack of staying power” (p.44) of such educational ideals seems to be caused by various aspects including both the political climate and the personal beliefs of teachers who have been educated in more conventional ways. To him, these people may have deeply held conservative views of teaching approaches, based on their own schooling experiences or on their university training, attitudes that are probably prolonged in the next generation in one way or another. Even if these people, who are now working as teachers or headmasters, are informed about new approaches, there is no guarantee as to whether, when and how they will adopt them. In this way, it is questionable whether these attitudes challenge the adoption of alternative approaches; especially when coupled with the all-time call for better results in test scores and standardisation; in essence, the pressures to achieve the Ministry standards conflict with the ideal of a more all-encompassing curriculum (ibid).
When designing and applying my drama workshops, I had in mind the data collected from the teachers’ interviews prior to the fieldwork, as well as the social and attitudinal parameters that they themselves emphasised as typical of their students’ behaviour, such as gender discrimination. Some of the following sections will explore what happened when I applied drama to enhance certain critical thinking skills and habits; I will also discuss the extent to which the above- mentioned parameters challenged the process of drama lessons and the ways in which I endeavoured to eliminate their negative impact.