Journal of Family and Consumer Sciences Education, Vol. 23, No.

2, Fall/Winter, 2005

TEACHING FROM THE CRITICAL THINKING, PROBLEM-BASED

CURRICULAR APPROACH: STRATEGIES, CHALLENGES, AND
RECOMMENDATIONS

Cheryl A. Mimbs
Missouri State University

This article describes professional development efforts in a large,

Midwestern state that aimed to enhance teacher’s use of a critical-thinking,
problem-based curricular approach in family and consumer sciences (FCS). A
total of 25 Teacher Leaders who self-selected to continue in a professional
development Teacher Leader Institute for follow-up sessions in fall 2000 and
spring 2001 and complete a mailed questionnaire in 2002 are the participants
whose discussions and reflections are included in this study. Their perceptions of
their success in using the techniques, and ongoing challenges are discussed.
Recommendations include 1) teachers’ need a solid understanding of the critical
thinking, problem-solving approach and the value it has for themselves and their
students; 2) teachers must learn to think critically and model and practice the
techniques consistently with students; and 3) support and continued professional
development for current and future teachers in the critical thinking, problem-
solving approach is needed.

Critical thinking is an important life skill for people today. Teachers need to model
critical thinking skills to their students and explicitly teach them to think critically. Teachers can
be transformed in their teaching and students can be transformed in their learning through
continued, consistent use and application of critical thinking skills. Family and Consumer
Sciences (FCS) teachers have been learning, practicing, and modeling the critical thinking,
problem-based curricular approach for some time. This study shares FCS teacher leaders’
perceptions of their success in modeling and teaching from the critical thinking, problem-based
perspective, examines their perceived challenges in implementing the new approach, makes
recommendations for the future, and ties their perceptions to recent literature on critical thinking,
transformative learning, and constructivism.

Purposes and Research Questions

This article describes professional development efforts in a large, Midwestern state that
aimed to enhance teacher’s use of a critical-thinking, problem-based curricular approach in
family and consumer sciences. Questions that guided the study are
1. What are teachers’ perceptions of their success in incorporating the critical
thinking, problem based approach?
2. What are teachers’ perceptions of the most important teacher behaviors in helping
students develop critical thinking skills?
3. What are teachers’ perceptions of the on-going challenges of implementing a
critical thinking, problem-based curricular approach?

Related Literature
The study of thinking in education is still emerging, being developed and practiced by
educators and students. According to Beyer (1987) critical thinking goes beyond problem-

7
solving, by using both “analysis and evaluation” when examining beliefs and making judgments.
(p. 33). Kegen (2000) describes two kinds of learning as a development process, “Informative:
Changes in what we know…and Transformative: Changes in how we know” (p. 50). Change in
curricular approach requires a new pattern of thinking, a new means of instructional planning
and delivery, and a new way of learning for students. Marlowe and Page, (1998) describe
constructivist learning as a procedure that includes questioning, filtered through our experiences,
that then modifies our comprehension.
Constructivist techniques require the use of critical thinking. Kauchak, Eggen, and Carter
(2002) describe constructivism as a way for teachers to use a variety of different experiences for
students that is in contrast to a more traditional philosophy of education, the teacher as all
knowing. Constructivism involves a shift of ownership of the learning from the teacher to the
student; the teacher no longer directs and feeds information to the students, but now opens the
door so that students can discover information and construct their own learning. Marlowe and
Page (1998) note, “Constructivism is about thinking and the thinking process rather than about
the quantity of information a student can memorize and recite” (p. 11). The constructivist
approach focuses on “real-world tasks and the central role of the individual in determining reality
and promoting learning” (Kauchak, et al., p. 195).
Family and consumer sciences (FCS), itself an integrative discipline, supports use of
critical thinking and a problem-solving perspective. FCS integrates content knowledge from the
sciences, the issues of individuals, families, and the community, and the balance between work
and family roles, all of which set the stage for multiple uses of critical thinking and problem
solving techniques (Rowley, 1998). The ultimate goal is to have students use critical thinking by
identifying problems, asking questions, examining problems in context, determining the
consequences for themselves and others of possible actions to solving the problems, and
transform their learning – be emancipated by it – to make sound decisions in their day to day
activities in real life. It is important to understand adolescents, their behavior, and how they
interact with their near environment. Rowley makes the connection between students’ sense of
self worth and their social dimensions, and how that contributes to self value and motivation to
use critical thinking skills to solve problems. FCS is unique in its approach and applicability as it
focuses on issues of every day life, the context within which problem solving occurs, making
learning relevant.
The three curriculum models in FCS are the technical skills model, interpretive
communication model, and the critical thinking for ethical action model (Rowley, 1998). Fox
and Laster (2000) describe practical reasoning as the foundational theory and thinking model for
teaching FCS. In addition to scientific reasoning, practical reasoning includes a need to act on
issues. It is more than observation, but includes participation in the solving of reoccurring
problems and issues of life that are faced by individuals, families, and communities and is
described as the reasoning for action standard. This is foundational to the new National
Standards for Family and Consumer Sciences (NASAFACS, 1998).
Williams (2005) discusses the importance of pre-service teachers using critical thinking
skills and teaching them to their students, and the larger potential this may have to “help us
effectively address the challenges we are facing as a nation” (p. 164). As Ley (1998) writes, “By
building our repertoire of thinking skills in the living of our daily lives, we are able to move
beyond purely technical means to address life’s concerns toward emancipatory critical science
action that transforms society for us all” (p. 252). Gabler and Schroeder (2003a) described the
need for persons to have critical thinking skills as “vital to those living in a democratic society”

8
(p. 19). This movement towards a practical reasoning, critical thinking approach requires
development of curriculum that fits this mode of inquiry.
Teaching critical thinking skills to students requires teachers themselves to be competent
in using higher order thinking skills. Williams (2005) promotes this idea as essential for teacher
educators to teach pre-service teachers who can then model critical thinking to their students.
Williams further clarifies that there is a difference between having a disposition to be a critical
thinker versus having the ability. Teachers in FCS are assisted in the development of these skills
by using questioning skills and by teaching their students to write critical thinking questions. The
National Standards for Family and Consumer Sciences (NASAFACS, 1998) uses process
questions in four areas – thinking, communication, leadership, and management – and integrates
these process questions with content areas. These questions “are based on three interrelated
systems of action that individuals and families use to address the issues they face. Technical
actions . . . interpretive actions . . . [and] reflective actions” (Fox, 2000, p. 15). Process questions
guide the learner and encourage them to construct knowledge. Ashby, Conkin, and O’Connor
(2000) are teachers who have implemented process questions in their FCS problem-based
curriculum. They describe it this way

As a teacher, I begin to develop process curriculum by looking at the topic,

theme, or concept of the curriculum and developing questions that will challenge
the students to begin thinking about how this curriculum impacts them personally
. . . Questions allow students to think about what they are learning and reflect on
the information, making it relevant. This does not happen overnight. It evolves as
the teacher consistently teaches using process curriculum. (p. 213)

A practical problems approach is developed throughout the planning and implementation

of instruction and is constructivist oriented (Thomas, 1998a). Gabler & Schroeder (2003b)
describe it as “an active process emphasizing purposeful interaction and the use of knowledge in
real situations, otherwise known as authentic learning” (p. 4). Using practical everyday problems
posed to students, along with process questions, FCS teachers engage students in critical higher
order thinking as they examine the rich context of problems and address consequences of
choices. This helps students make wise decisions and practice transferable critical thinking and
problem-solving skills. The intent is to give students the tools wherewith they can then make
responsible choices and take ethical action when dealing with practical problems within their
own lives as individuals and members of families and communities.

Description
The Teacher Leader Institute was developed to prepare family and consumer sciences
teachers in a large Midwestern state to incorporate critical thinking and process skills into their
classrooms. This began with state wide in-services, summer conference sessions, and specialized
training workshops starting in 1996 which developed into a Teacher Leader Institute. In 1996,
the state purchased six of the different curriculum guides for their FCS teachers from the Ohio
Work and Family Life resource guides.
A total of ten different workshops or sessions were conducted over this period of years
focusing on authentic learning and assessment, use of higher order thinking skills, and practical
problem solving techniques. Some of the topics for sessions included “Developing Curriculum
for Family and Consumer Sciences,” “Assessment Using a Problem-Based Curriculum,” and
“Implementing National Standards.” Modification of state curriculum guides and standards to

9
crosswalk to new National Standards of FCS, adopting of the Ohio curriculum guides built on
the critical thinking problem solving perspective, and training to use the guides were all part of
the state’s in-service activities and Teacher Leader Institute. The Teacher Leader Institute is
modeled after that used in Virginia and Ohio (Arendt, Boggs, & Glasscock, 2000).

Participants
The most recent Teacher Leader Institute workshop sessions held at a resort location,
central in the state, included 25 teacher leaders from throughout the state’s six regions who came
together for two 2-day sessions in September 2000 and April 2001. Most of the teacher leaders
that participated in these two sessions had attended the prior sessions since 1996, had a solid
foundation in the theoretical knowledge and background, and had access to new curriculum
guides and practice in implementing them. The workshop sessions were developed and
implemented within a critical thinking problem-based curricular approach with input from state
FCS director and staff. Techniques modeled in the sessions included authentic problem-based
strategies, using critical thinking questioning, and reflective writing. These were practiced using
a variety of individual, small and large group activities. Critical thinking was discussed from
many perspectives, and teacher’s examples of new materials were also examined and best
practices shared.
In July 2000, through a reorientation, the teacher leaders self-selected to continue with
the Institute, signed contracts with the state, and obtained the support of their school
administrators to commit to the fall 2000 and spring 2001 sessions. Although the teacher leaders
had been applying the new approaches in their classrooms, they admitted to inconsistency in
their methods, struggles with getting the students engaged, some discomfort in modeling critical
thinking, and expressed a need for updating. A concern expressed by a majority of the group was
their discomfort with teaching thinking skills explicitly and separately rather than infusing or
mixing them within content matter. The agenda for the fall session included the topics
“Implementing Critical Thinking and National Standards,” “Teaching Process Skills: The
Foundation for Problem-Based Learning,” and “Constructing Authentic Assessments for
Problem-Based Learning in Family and Consumer Sciences.”
The spring session focused on teachers’ sharing their experiences using the techniques,
their on-going challenges in teaching thinking to students, and their continued understanding
through application as they integrated critical thinking and practical problem solving techniques.
Teachers brought lesson plans, teaching activities, and ideas to share at both the fall and spring
sessions. One of the key session topics for the spring session was “How to Make the Most of
your Role as a Family and Consumer Sciences Teacher Leader.”
The original purpose of the Institute included the intent that the teacher leaders would
then teach what they have learned to others across the state. Developing goals for taking on their
leadership role was an outcome of the spring session. Teacher leaders saw their leadership
development as an integrated process with their own personal development. Their goals focused
on three areas: provide training sessions for other teachers, network and mentor other teachers,
and incorporate new curricular approaches in their classrooms. The leadership development of
the teacher leaders from their participation in the Institute was reported separately (Mimbs,
2002). The 25 Teacher Leaders who self-selected to continue in the Institute for follow-up
sessions in fall 2000 and spring 2001 are the participants whose discussions and reflections are
included in this study. A brief follow-up questionnaire of these participants was mailed in June
2002 and is also summarized here.

10
 Data Collection, Preparation, and Analysis
During the large group sessions of the workshops, the following were collected:
teachers’ perceptions of the reasons for teaching critical thinking; the roles, attributes, and
challenges of the process; and the classroom environment and resources needed to be effective.
The teachers’ individual reflection activities that were used as transitions between and closures
to workshop sessions focused on four open-ended prompts:
1. Why is it important to teach thinking skills?
2. What teacher behaviors seem to be the most important in helping students develop
critical thinking skills?
3. Even with practice implementing a critical thinking skills curriculum and
problem-based approach, I am still challenged with?
4. When I think about directly teaching a practical problem solving unit in my
classroom, will I do it differently now? How?
Teacher leaders’ responses to the open-ended prompts were tabulated based on their use
of key words and phrases. This was accomplished by reading and rereading the sections of text
for individual words and phrases to be examined for similar meanings and repetitive use. Themes
became evident and are shared here for each reflective prompt. Finally, a follow-up
questionnaire was mailed to all teacher leaders in June 2002, and its focus was to determine the
teachers’ perceptions on how well they met their goals which they set at the spring 2001 follow-
up session for leadership, mentoring, and professional development.

Discussion of Teachers’ Perceptions

A revisit to the literature to clarify the collected anecdotal data and the triangulation of
several data collections points (workshop sessions notes, written responses to reflective prompts,
and written responses on follow-up questionnaire) adds substance to the discussion of findings
and implications for making recommendations and is included here.

Group Sessions Summary

The teacher leaders shared many reasons for teaching critical thinking, with an emphasis
on how it benefits the students. Some of their thoughts include

helps students appreciate and value others and their opinions, and helps them
defend and justify their positions; creates more independent thinking; empowers
students and allows them to use their own learning style; creative and thought
provoking; life-like; forces self evaluation; taking ownership in life.

Teacher leaders assigned the following roles and attributes to critical thinking: “Don’t be
passive; requires questioning; examine the evidence; specify, look for and consider alternatives;
avoid oversimplification; look for errors in arguments; attempt to conquer biases and go beyond
the obvious.” Browne and Keeley (2001) illustrate critical thinking and the use of questioning as
having an “awareness of a set of interrelated critical questions”; then to have the “ability to ask
and answer critical questions at appropriate times”; and thirdly, the “desire to actively use the
critical questions” (p. 2). Identifying the problem, issue, is at the heart of critical thinking. What
is it that you need to know and how do you know the conclusion you come to is relevant,
applicable, and appropriate? How can you then evaluate the information? It requires using
critical questions (Browne and Keeley).

11
 The environment for best practice experienced by the teacher leaders was described as
“active, noisy, productive, with an informal structure, with more of a team approach that is
student oriented driven and owned.” Gabler and Schroeder (2003b) agree. The constructivist
classroom is an active environment that at first “may appear to lack structure” and some may
wonder if learning is happening (p. 202). Problem-solving is by its nature an interactive
approach. Sharing ideas with one another requires dialogue between and among students and
teacher (Marlow and Page, 1998). The teacher’s role is more of facilitator and collaborator, to
help channel and propose ideas, show the way(s), and evaluate success of students as well as to
“provide direct instruction” (p. 57).
New textbooks that use problem-solving and critical thinking, extensive use of the
internet, the new state implementation guide, national standards, and adopted curricular guides
were all mentioned by the teacher leaders as resources for teaching from this perspective.
Participants described the importance of adopting a problem-based curricula approach as a way
to enhance life skills. They were concerned that for those who do not know how to problem
solve, it will be more difficult for them to stay competitive in a global market. The teachers’
perceptions of the problem-based approach were that it “addresses different learning styles; is
user friendly; generates enthusiasm for the curriculum; and is valuable to students for coping
skills.” The constructivist classroom is a place where teachers can encourage students to consider
topics that are relevant and important to them which help them use high order thinking skills
(Gabler and Schroeder, 2003b).
Challenges of using critical thinking in the classroom created significant discussion
among the teacher leaders. Some descriptions of the challenges in their own words include:

Students don’t buy into it; student fatigue; students interested in points only; takes
time and effort; probe to go deep enough; lack of adequate resources; do we get
the content in the process (teaching thinking explicitly rather than infused);
teacher brain drain; taking various environment/home life situations into
consideration; forces our creativity; assessment; access to resources; public
opinion; brain block; negative resistance; changing paradigms for
textbook/worksheet/questions; more effort (for teachers and students), alternative
assessment; updating to critical thinking but has not changed impression others
have of traditional technical skills based FCS.

Critical thinking skills require users to have multiple applications to be competent and as Beyer
(1987) notes, students “must have repeated, instructive practice in it in a variety of contexts and
media” (p. 178). Williams (2005) writes “critical thinking requires hard work; many students
would prefer that teachers just give them answers to complex questions” (p. 182).

Open-ended Reflective Prompts

Why is it important to teach thinking skills? Four themes appeared as a result of analysis
of the open-ended text responses to this prompt.
1. Developing critical thinking skills is a learning process.
2. Critical thinking is a necessary skill for life.
3. Critical thinking helps students solve problems and make decisions.
4. Students using critical thinking skills is not a given in today’s society.
These four themes discovered in the teachers’ responses to this open-ended individual
reflective prompt can all be tied to the teacher leaders’ responses in the group sessions to the

12
questions about roles, attributes, strategies, environment and resources, and challenges. There
seems to be no question as to the value of the critical thinking, problem solving approach, but it
does require significant time, resources, practice, and patience. This may be further complicated
by a long standing tradition in FCS of a more empirical, technical skills based curriculum. The
teacher leaders may struggle with their comfort with the well known more product oriented skills
approach as they challenge themselves and their students in implementing the critical thinking
approach (Fedje, 1999).
What teacher behaviors seems to be the most important in helping students develop
critical thinking skills? The two themes discovered in the collection of the responses to this
prompt are modeling and flexibility. The word model/modeling was used a total of 11 times by
the teacher leaders in response to this reflective prompt. Modeling critical thinking seems to be
harder for some teachers than others. One wrote it is a challenge “being an exciting and
consistent example of a thinking person.” Another wrote that there has to be “teacher belief in
the process. They have to see that we believe in what we are doing.” Still another described the
process as “practice what you preach; if we are not totally comfortable using critical thinking
skills we cannot make our students confident users.” Gabler and Schroeder (2003b) wrote, “ As
you model for your students or set up modeling situations with students who model procedures
for their peers, you are also teaching yourself what is required of you as a facilitator along with
what is required of your students as active participants in learning” (p. 22). Teachers using the
process skills of thinking, communication, leadership, and management through a problem-
solving curricular approach know the importance of modeling.
The other key term used consistently was flexible/flexibility. Flexibility is a necessary
part of the critical thinking approach in its constructivist nature, with teacher as facilitator, and
student as active participant in the learning process. Flexibility is illustrated in these comments
by the teacher leaders “willing to try new things, being open-minded, it takes time, not jumping
in and giving too much help.” Ayers (1993) describes the importance of this flexibility and
encourages teachers to allow “opportunities for discovery and surprise” (p. 94).
Even with practice implementing a critical thinking skills curriculum and problem-based
approach, I am still challenged with? Challenges are an ongoing concern for the teacher leaders
in using this approach. The theme most often expressed was motivating students. It is the most
consistent challenge expressed by the teachers. Teaching thinking within the context of FCS
subject matter that is important to students may improve their motivation. However, teaching the
thinking skills explicitly is also important (Beyer, 1987). The constructivist approach is
important in motivating students; they are taking responsibility for their learning. Gabler and
Schroeder (2003a) wrote, “Authentic learning can motivate those students who are bored,
disinterested, or lacking necessary skills- the very students you might think could never do this”
(p. 202).
Way and Nitzke (1998) discuss an infusion model for teaching critical thinking, and
stress that critical thinking skills take time to develop and are difficult to measure. This was
further illustrated in the teachers’ responses regarding challenges. “They [students] have
difficulty with the problem based approach. They want simple solutions or projects that don’t
require much effort.” It is about getting them to see the value of thinking which requires
modeling.
Providing guidelines for students to use in solving problems as well as more in-depth
background information for scenarios were also mentioned several times. A reoccurring theme
which challenged the teachers was their perceived need for developing authentic assessment
techniques to show students’ mastery of thinking and problem solving skills. The time involved

13
in teaching this approach and in developing and implementing new learning materials is a
difficult challenge.
Other challenges expressed by the teacher leaders were the concern for time to complete
the curriculum and teach more in-depth, when you first have to teach students how to think and
problem-solve. Tying critical thinking to practical problem solving and authentic assessment was
a natural progression for the teacher leaders. Although, assessing students’ accomplishment of
critical thinking competencies can be difficult. Thomas (1998b) describes simulation, essay, and
interpretive exercises as three ways to assess students’ thinking skills. More than one teacher
indicated that it was still a “challenge developing scoring guides.” Marlowe and Page (1998)
caution against being too worried about the assessment itself and focus more on “thinking about
assessment as an active demonstration of student understanding and ability to apply this
understanding” (p. 62). Gabler and Schroeder (2003a) suggest using a variety of student directed
projects that are “driven by challenging, intriguing guiding questions . . . allow for a degree of
student choice . . . build on opportunities for students to share what they have learned with
classmates . . . (and) feature use of an evaluation instrument that provides students with
qualitative feedback on their effort” (p. 418).
Some teacher leaders set specific goals to organize and implement the critical thinking
approach more broadly, “create more thematic-based units instead of a few real-life type
assignments,” and to “[work] on organizing new scenarios.” These goals show the teachers’
understanding the need for more teaching in-depth and a more holistic approach to incorporating
the critical thinking approach. It also illustrates their own growth and development in thinking
critically by doing their own problem solving as they implement process skills and model
thinking in their teaching.
Keeping their perspective that it is a learning process, valuable for students, and helpful
in solving problems and decisions that are applicable to real life situations makes the challenges
worthwhile for the teacher leaders. Their concern for the time it takes to first teach students how
to think and the patience to keep at it will be well worth it. As one teacher leader wrote,
“Thinking is what educated people do. It is fundamental to the education process and not
something that people just know how to do.” Thompson (2001) a long time FCS teacher
reflected on how the new critical thinking perspective impacted her teaching

I had discovered the power and effectiveness of teaching for critical action. I no
longer had to be the ‘expert’. The students shared the responsibility for and the
rewards of their education. The students were highly motivated and created an
experience far more meaningful than any technical or communicative classroom
experience devised by the teacher. (p. 6)

Thompson (2001) did caution however, that it is hard work, a process, an effort. One of the
changes she made as she incorporated more and more critical thinking approaches into her
classes was “I added critical questions to tests and daily work primarily as process questions that
had to be answered and given to me as an exit slip before the student left the classroom” (p. 4).
When I think about directly teaching a practical problem-solving unit in my classroom,
will I do it differently now? How? An emphasis was put on organizational skills. The teachers’
comments illustrated their acknowledgement that getting, and staying organized is key to
teaching in a critical thinking, problem-solving classroom. Practical considerations highlighted
by the teachers were the importance of organization and relevance of the materials. One teacher
set a goal to “ask students what are their major problems with individual or family, then I will

14
work around these problems so they will see relevance.” Another organizational plan described
by one teacher is to teach the foundational process skills in FCS (NASAFACS, 1998) which are
thinking, communication, leadership, and management. She described it simply as “I plan to
begin each semester course with teaching the four process skills and begin to develop each unit
as a practical problem.”
Focusing on relevance of the scenarios and problems to make learning important to
students was mentioned several times, as was the need to add more background information,
depth and “meat” to problems, and follow-up assignments. Teachers stressed the importance of
more consistent practice and application of critical thinking and problem solving techniques to
engage students, keep them familiar with the process, and see the relevance to learning and
living in everyday life.

Mailed Questionnaire
Briefly describe how you feel you’ve met your goals with regards to incorporating these
new curricular approaches. Teacher leaders indicated that they met personal and teaching goals,
but also insisted that they have not made it all the way. The process was described by more than
one teacher as “a work in progress” or admitted they had “improved but it still requires work.”
Some teachers described specific strategies and goals they have accomplished such as “rewritten
some assignments adding new strategies…developed new course based on [the] critical thinking
premise” and “I teach the process skills and then implementing critical thinking in the curriculum
is easy.” These teacher leaders through their experiences in the Institute and the ongoing
workshops and interaction with colleagues are becoming transformative learners. Cranton (1994)
describes this adult learning as a “means of gaining knowledge and skills, a way to satisfy
learner needs, and a process of critical self-reflection that can lead to transformation” (p. 3).
Modeling thinking skills, practicing them, and blending them into class activities, assignments,
and assessments were all part of the process the teacher leaders went through to incorporate the
new curricular approaches.

Recommendations
Change in the way teachers teach requires time, continued commitment, retraining,
reflection, and practice. The goal is for the teachers to reach a level of transformative learning
which, “leads to some type of fundamental change in the learners’ sense of themselves, their
worldviews, their understanding of their pasts, and their orientation to the future” (Brooks, 2000,
p. 140). There are four critical recommendations as outcomes of this study.
1. Teachers need a solid understanding of the critical thinking, problem-solving
approach and the value it has for themselves and their students.
2. Teachers must learn to think critically and model and practice the techniques
consistently with students.
3. Teachers who take the time to learn new methods in teaching despite the
challenges perceive themselves as successful.
4. Support and continued professional development for current and future teachers in
the critical thinking, problem-solving approach is needed.
The change is worth the effort. However, in order for more change to happen and for the
approach to be used by more teachers, more training of pre-service and in-service teachers is
needed. One teacher leader wrote this comment on the follow-up questionnaire as a suggestion
for teacher educators and state staff.

15
 The Teacher Leader Institute should be continued. Other teachers should be
incorporated into the training. The shift of changing teaching [and] learning style
takes time and practice. This is not a process with one introduction and
workshop/seminar and send you home to try it, maybe, or file it and forget about
it. The work from the teacher-leader institute needs to be continued and perhaps
with quarterly or at least semester in-service.

Teacher educators are also concerned about placements for student teachers (who have
been trained in the new approaches) with cooperating teachers who are also practicing critical
thinking strategies and modeling it in their classrooms. A fellow FCS teacher educator at another
university in the same state wrote

I’m finding that it takes a long time for teachers to really interpret and use the
problem-solving approach. They say that they are using it, but when you ask them
if the students know what problem they are solving, they have never discussed or
stated a problem. My student teachers can write great lesson plans showing this
approach, but very few of the available cooperating teachers can model the
approach for them and the planned lessons in reality begin looking like traditional
lessons . . . We really need a large cadre of teachers that are modeling this
approach to learning.

The value of using critical thinking skills helps both teachers and students. The resources
and classroom environment needed for the approach are available and possible. Teachers are
successful with the approach and the benefits seem to outweigh the challenges. As one teacher
leader reflected, “Using thinking skills seems to be difficult for students and yet, it is something
which they will use daily and is so vital to their success in both [their] personal and professional
life.”
Teachers need to model critical thinking and practice it, using flexibility in their
approach. Students need to use thinking skills in a variety of ways so they can then transfer the
learned skill to other situations (Beyer, 1987). Motivating students is an ongoing challenge in the
classroom, but the critical thinking approach is more student driven, student friendly, and can
make a difference in the lives of students, their families and their communities. It is a step by
step process, for teachers and students, creating and practicing more and more classroom lessons,
assessments, and experiences in problem-solving approaches, until the process is systemic to the
way teachers teach. As one teacher leader wrote, “I have worked to improve my teaching skills
and incorporate critical thinking, problem solving and authentic assessment into my classes. I
have improved, but it still requires work.” Critical thinking and problem solving skills empower
students and teachers. It behooves those of us preparing new teachers and providing in-service
for practicing teachers to take the responsibility to provide training, resources, and support for
teachers and model and practice critical thinking ourselves.

References
Arendt, C., Boggs, H., & Glasscock, S. (2000). Strategies for state leadership. In A. Vail, W. S.
Fox, & P. Wild (Eds.), Family and Consumer Sciences Teacher Education: Yearbook 20.
Leadership for change: National standards for family and consumer sciences education
(pp. 219-230). Alexandria, VA: American Association for Family and Consumer
Sciences, Glencoe/ McGraw-Hill.

16
Ashby, A. W., Conkin, M. A., & O’Connor, E. J. (2000). Implementing process in FACS
classrooms. In A. Vail, W. S. Fox, & P. Wild (Eds.), Family and Consumer Sciences
Teacher Education: Yearbook 20. Leadership for change: National standards for family
and consumer sciences education (pp. 208-218). Alexandria, VA: American Association
for Family and Consumer Sciences, Glencoe/ McGraw-Hill.
Ayers, W. (1993). To teach: The journey of a teacher. New York: Teachers College Press.
Beyer, B. K. (1987). Practical strategies for the teaching of thinking. Boston, MA: Allyn and
Bacon.
Brooks, A. K. (2000). Transformation. In E. Hayes, & D. D. Flannery (Eds.), Women as leaders:
The significance of gender in adult learning (pp. 139-153). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-
Bass.
Browne, M. N., & Keeley, S. M. (2001). Asking the right questions: A guide to critical
thinking. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Cranton, P. (1994). Understanding and promoting transformative learning: A guide for
educators of adults. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Fedje, C. G. (1999). Program misconceptions: Breaking the patterns of thinking. Journal of
Family and Consumer Sciences Education, 17(2), 1-9.
Fox, W. S. (2000). National standards model. In A. Vail, W. S. Fox, & P. Wild (Eds.), Family
and Consumer Sciences Teacher Education: Yearbook 20. Leadership for change:
National standards for family and consumer sciences education (pp. 11-19). Alexandria,
VA: American Association for Family and Consumer Sciences, Glencoe/ McGraw-Hill.
Fox, W. S., & Laster, J. F. (2000). Reasoning for action. In A. Vail, W. S. Fox, & P. Wild (Eds.),
Family and Consumer Sciences Teacher Education: Yearbook 20. Leadership for
change: National standards for family and consumer sciences education (pp. 208-218).
Alexandria, VA: American Association for Family and Consumer Sciences, Glencoe/
McGraw-Hill.
Gabler, I. C., & Schroeder, M. (2003a). Constructivist methods for the secondary classroom:
Engaged minds. Boston, MA: Pearson Education, Inc.
Gabler, I. C., & Schroeder, M. (2003b). Seven constructivist methods for the secondary
classroom: A planning guide for invisible teaching. Boston, MA: Pearson Education, Inc.
Kauchak, D., Eggen, P., & Carter, C. (2002). Introduction to teaching: Becoming a professional.
Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education, Inc.
Kegen, R. (2000). What “Form” transforms? : A constructivist-developmental approach to
transformative learning. In J. Mezirow (Ed.), Learning as transformation: Critical
perspectives on a theory in progress. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Ley, C. J. (1998). Context and thinking: Discussion, synthesis, and critique. In R. G. Thomas &
J. F. Laster (Eds.), Family and Consumer Sciences Teacher Education: Yearbook 18.
Inquiry into thinking (pp. 250-255). Alexandria, VA: American Association for Family
and Consumer Sciences, Glencoe/ McGraw-Hill.
Marlowe, B. A., & Page, M. L. (1998). Creating and sustaining the constructivist classroom.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

17
Mimbs, C. A. (2002). Leadership development as self-development: An integrated process.
Action in Teacher Education, 24(3), 20-25.
National Association of State Administrators of Family and Consumer Sciences (NASAFACS).
(1998). National standards for family and consumer sciences education. Decatur, GA:
Vocational-Technical Education Consortium of States.
Rowley, M. L. (1998). The teaching of thinking in family and consumer sciences secondary
classrooms. In R. G. Thomas, & J. F. Laster (Eds.), Family and Consumer Sciences
Teacher Education: Yearbook 18. Inquiry into thinking (pp. 238-249). Alexandria, VA:
American Association for Family and Consumer Sciences, Glencoe/ McGraw-Hill.
Thomas, R. G. (1998a). Family and Consumer Sciences Process-Oriented Curriculum: An Essay.
In J. O’Neil (Ed.), Family and Consumer Sciences: A Chapter of the Curriculum
Handbook (pp. 21-35). Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum
Development (ASCD).
Thomas, R. G. (1998b). Assessing thinking in context: The tailored responses test. In R. G.
Thomas, & J. F. Laster (Eds.), Family and Consumer Sciences Teacher Education:
Yearbook 18. Inquiry into thinking (pp. 187-210). Alexandria, VA: American Association
for Family and Consumer Sciences, Glencoe/ McGraw-Hill.
Thompson, N. E. (2001). The teaching process: An interaction of experience, theory, and
reflection. Journal of Family and Consumer Sciences Education, 18(1), 1-7.
Way, W. L., & Nitzke, S. A. (1998). Design and assessment of critical thinking instruction in
nutrition. In R. G. Thomas, & J. F. Laster (Eds.), Family and Consumer Sciences Teacher
Education: Yearbook 18. Inquiry into thinking (pp. 211-226). Alexandria, VA: American
Association for Family and Consumer Sciences, Glencoe/ McGraw-Hill.
Williams, R. L. (2005). Targeting critical thinking with teacher education: The potential impact
on society. The Teacher Educator, 40(3), 163-187.

About the Author

Cheryl A. Mimbs, PhD, is an Associate Professor and Family and Consumer Sciences
Teacher Educator in the Department of Applied Consumer Sciences in the College of Natural
and Applied Sciences, at Missouri State University.

18