Microsoft Word - IL35.2 Sato RTG.docx © Kunimasa Sato. Informal Logic, Vol. 35, No. 2 (2015), pp. 204-220. Motivating Children’s Critical Thinking: Teaching Through Exemplars KUNIMASA SATO University of Keiai 5-7-7 Akitsu, Narashino-shi Chiba, 275-0025 JAPAN miamikunickham@gmail.com Abstract: This study focuses on fostering the motivation to think critically through teaching with ex- emplars. First, I argue that teachers and parents can be seen as exem- plars who exhibit thought processes and attitudes relevant to critical thinking, as can fictional characters in media such as novels and films. Second, I demonstrate that, through learning from exemplars, children may begin to develop their own way of critical thinking. Third, I conclude that admiration for exemplars may motivate children to think critically, even small children who have not yet developed a sensitivity toward evidence and reasons. Résumé: Cette étude porte sur l’usage de cas exemplaires afin de promouvoir la motivation à penser de façon critique. Dans un premier temps, je soutiendrai que les ensei- gnants et les parents peuvent être considérés comme des modèles qui témoignent d’habitudes de pensée et d’attitudes qui sont pertinentes pour la pensée critique—et qu’il en est de même des personnages de fiction qu’on trouve dans les médias, comme les romans ou les films. Par la suite, je démontrerai que les en- fants peuvent commencer à dé- velopper leur propre mode de pensée critique grâce à leur apprentissage à partir de cas exemplaires. Finale- ment, je conclurai que l'admiration pour des modèles peut motive les enfants à penser de manière critique, même dans le cas de jeunes enfants qui n’ont pas encore développé une sensibilité à l'égard des preuves et des raisons. Keywords: critical thinking, exemplars, motivation, the emotion of admira- tion 1. Introduction In contemporary epistemic life, we accept a huge number of be- liefs that are obtained through the testimony of others. Reading a newspaper, I believe that carbon dioxide emissions can lead to the destruction of the ozone layer, causing global warming, alt- hough I neither justify this belief by myself nor can comprehend Motivating Children’s Critical Thinking © Kunimasa Sato. Informal Logic, Vol. 35, No. 2 (2015), pp. 204-220. 205 the scientific evidence needed in order to verify this belief. As Hardwig (1985) observes, it is probably unrealistic for people to consider the reasons and evidence to support each belief in their daily lives all by themselves. To a greater or lesser extent, peo- ple today must epistemically depend on others in the sense that they form beliefs through the testimony of others. This does not mean, however, that people no longer need to consider reasons for themselves. On the contrary, in order to at- tain truth in the present epistemic surroundings, it is more im- portant that people should be sensitive to the contexts in which critical thinking is called for and be motivated to think critically in the relevant circumstances. “The motivation to think critically in the relevant circumstances” largely means that, when encoun- tering situations that require critical thinking, one is motivated to seek reasons and to evaluate the weight of different reasons. For example, if the source of our belief seems unreliable, it is sensible of us to seek reasons for the belief and examine wheth- er or not it is true. It may thus be reasonable to think that, while epistemically relying on others, people nowadays should be ready to think critically in their intellectual lives. Given this, in preparation for life, children must learn to be motivated to think critically in the proper circumstances. Education, or the cultivating of rationality, may involve the fostering of children’s motivation to think criti- cally. In this paper, I will focus on the fostering of the motivation to think critically. I will first identify two problems with motiva- tion that are considered important in educational contexts: pri- marily, what can be a motivating force for small children1, who still have not developed a sensitivity to evidence and reasons, to think critically? Second, how can this motivating force be fos- tered? I will relate these problems to the literature on critical thinking. Then, I will answer these problems with motivation by arguing in favor of three ideas: first, that teachers and parents can be seen as exemplars who manifest rationality, as can also fictional characters in media such as novels and films; second, that, by observing paradigmatic cases in which rationality is manifested, children can learn to appreciate what it is like to think critically and how they can think critically; third, that the emotion of admiring exemplars may act as a motivating force for children, including small children who still have not devel- 1 In this paper, it is assumed that “children” includes children below and up to the age of junior high school. Referring to relevant literature such as de- velopmental psychology may be necessary to specify what age of children my argument applies to. Kunimasa Sato © Kunimasa Sato. Informal Logic, Vol. 35, No. 2 (2015), pp. 204-220. 206 oped a sensitivity to evidence and reasons and thus are not moved by reasons,to think critically.2 My argument consists of six parts. In section 2, I clarify the definition of a critical thinker. In section 3, I identify the prob- lems with motivation that are worth examining in educational contexts. In section 4, I expound on the notion of felt reasons, as Siegel (1997, Chapter 3) explicates, to argue that the way in which the evidence and reasons are presented can arouse feeling and emotion in children. In section 5, I explain the concept of exemplars that manifest rationality. In section 6, I argue that the emotion of admiring exemplars can be a motivating force to think critically. In section 7, I summarize these points and sug- gest further research. 2. The definition of a critical thinker We will begin by clarifying what is meant by “a critical thinker.” It is broadly accepted that the conception of critical thinking comprises components of assessing reasons and having the criti- cal spirit3 (e.g., Bailin & Siegel, 2003, p. 183; Ennis, 1986). First, the reason assessment component concerns one’s skills and capabilities to assess their strength of reasons: for example, a critical thinker may be able to properly evaluate the weight of reasons to support a claim; she may be able to select better rea- sons that the claim may be true. Second, the critical spirit com- ponent deals with one’s tendency to consider reasons critically: a critical thinker may be disposed to base belief obtained from the testimony of others on reasons when necessary; she may be motivated to seek evidence on which to base views, theories, and actions. The critical spirit thus involves one’s habits of mind, disposition, motivation, and character traits.4 2 As will be shown, in order to corroborate the argument regarding the rela- tionship between the emotion of admiration and motivation, I will draw on relevant empirical studies. 3 Passmore (1967, pp. 195–7) uses the term “critical spirit” to refer to a char- acter trait that enables one to be a good thinker. The name and description concerning the critical spirit component differs among scholars (cf. Bailin et al., 1999). In this paper, I follow Siegel’s terminology. 4 See Ennis (1986) and Paul (1982) for other arguments regarding the im- portance of the critical spirit component. For example, Ennis (1986) enumer- ates thirteen kinds of dispositions, such as open mindedness and the disposi- tion to examine alternative possibility before coming to a conclusion. Then, he argues that these dispositions are constituents of a critical thinker as well as necessary skills and capabilities, including the correct inference (p. 16; p. 24). Motivating Children’s Critical Thinking © Kunimasa Sato. Informal Logic, Vol. 35, No. 2 (2015), pp. 204-220. 207 How, then, can the concept of a critical thinker be under- stood? Let us first clarify two features of reasons that are rele- vant to the description of a critical thinker. According to Siegel (1997, p. 3), who is an exponent of critical thinking in education, a critical thinker must be sensitive to the probative force and the normative impact of reasons. The probative force of reasons in- cludes the strength of reasons to support a claim, while their normative impact includes their force to move one to assess the weight of evidence and reasons in the relevant situations and to dispose one to base one’s belief on reasons. Let us illustrate the- se two features of reasons in the case below. Case [1] Taro comes to know (A) that carbon dioxide can destroy the ozone layer, bringing about global warming, and (B) that gasoline cars emit a huge amount of carbon dioxide. Taro thus has the belief (C) that driving a gasoline car can contribute to global warming, so he purchases an electric car. For example, the probative force of these reasons includes the cogency of (A) and (B) as the evidence for (C). The normative impact of these reasons is exemplified by the force of the reason (C) to move Taro to select an electric car. With respect to the relationship between two features of reasons and a critical thinker, Siegel provides us a concise ex- planation: First, reasons have probative or evidential force, and the critical thinker must be proficient at evaluating the proba- tive force of reasons. This is required for the critical thinker to be appropriately moved by reasons. Second, reasons have what might be called normative impact: they guide rational belief, judgement and action, and the critical thinker must be so guided if she is to be appropri- ately moved by reasons. (Ibid., p. 3) In brief, a critical thinker is not only competent at evaluating the probative force of reasons but is also guided by reasons accord- ing to their normative impact (e.g., Siegel, 1988a, p. 2; 1997, p. 3). In other words, (1) A critical thinker is a person who is appropriately moved by reasons. Kunimasa Sato © Kunimasa Sato. Informal Logic, Vol. 35, No. 2 (2015), pp. 204-220. 208 Although stipulation (1) is, I believe, more or less legitimate, the expression “moved by reasons” seems to have the risk of being misinterpreted. In Siegel’s account, the normative impact of reasons is regarded as a feature of reasons and, thus, the nor- mative force may probably take effect only when specific rea- sons are displayed to the person involved. However, the critical spirit includes not only one’s tendency to think critically by be- ing conditioned by the reasons displayed but also one’s tenden- cy to seek reasons for beliefs unconditionally in the relevant cir- cumstances. I will refer to the tendency to think critically by be- ing conditioned by reasons given as the “passive tendency” and the tendency to seek reasons unconditionally in relevant situa- tions as the “spontaneous tendency.” Let me illustrate the point of the difference between spontaneous and passive tendencies concerning the critical spirit. Case [2] Watching her favorite celebrity advertising an electric car on TV, Hanako obtains the belief that gasoline cars are the primary cause of global warming. On the basis of this be- lief, she will soon decide to purchase an electric car. Hanako obtains the belief that gasoline cars can contribute to global warming and, for this reason, she chooses to buy an elec- tric car. Although, in this case, Hanako is motivated to base her action (purchasing an electric car) on reasons, this does not suf- fice as proof that Hanako possesses a critical spirit. This is be- cause she is not motivated to seek evidence for the belief that gasoline cars are the primary cause of global warming prior to the acceptance of this belief. It may be legitimate to think that, in order to have a critical spirit, Hanako must be disposed to verify the truth of the belief that gasoline cars have the most det- rimental effect on global warming, because there is no telling whether the source of this belief is reliable. This example demonstrates that simply being moved by the normative impact of reasons is insufficient to say that someone has a critical spirit and strongly suggests that, in order to have the critical spirit, we must possess both the spontaneous and the passive tendencies to think critically. Still, the point of the distinction between the tendency to think critically by being conditioned by the normative impact and the tendency to think critically unconditionally, that is, the distinction between the spontaneous and the passive tendencies, can be explained in accordance with definition (1) of a critical Motivating Children’s Critical Thinking © Kunimasa Sato. Informal Logic, Vol. 35, No. 2 (2015), pp. 204-220. 209 thinker that Siegel presents. For example, stipulation (1) could be altered: (2) A critical thinker is a person who has both the sponta- neous and the passive tendencies to consider reasons in an appropriate manner. For example, the disposition to seek reasons is accounted for in Siegel (1988, p. 39) and, given this, Siegel may well acknowledge stipulation (2). The distinction between passivity and spontaneity concern- ing the tendency to think critically will be crucial in examining the problem with fostering the motivation to think critically. In the next section, I will identify the problems with the motivation to think critically. 3. Identifying problems with fostering the motivation to think critically Let us begin by explaining the importance of fostering the criti- cal spirit in educational contexts. Developing the critical spirit is fundamental to education ideally enabling children to be critical thinkers. In order to have the tendency to think critically, one must have the critical spirit, and the critical spirit pertains to the personal qualities of a critical thinker. For example, a person possessing the critical spirit may wholly and partially possess reasonableness (Burbules, 1995, p. 97), inquisitiveness (Baehr, 2013, p. 249), and fair-mindedness (e.g., Bailin et al., 1999, pp. 294–5). These character traits can help a child to be disposed to think critically in the situations where they are required to do so. The fostering of character traits that are relevant to the critical spirit can thus lead a child to be “a certain sort of person” (Siegel, 1988a, p. 10), that is, a good-thinking person. By con- trast, the analogous description is not possible for skills because these skills are not manifested until one determines to do some- thing. Hence, the fostering of the critical spirit is of educational importance.5 The critical spirit includes the motivation to think critically, as explained in the previous section. Given the contemporary epistemic situation in which we should be ready to think critical- 5 The argument in this paragraph suggests that the critical spirit is relevant to good character traits related to critical thinking. See Battaly (2006) for the argument concerning the practice of teaching students’ character traits related to critical thinking. Kunimasa Sato © Kunimasa Sato. Informal Logic, Vol. 35, No. 2 (2015), pp. 204-220. 210 ly while at the same time epistemically depending on others, an epistemic aim of education may well be to enable children to have both spontaneous and passive motivations to think critical- ly in the relevant circumstances, including the cases in which children obtain their beliefs from unreliable epistemic sources. What, then, are the problems of fostering the motivation for critical thinking that are examined in educational contexts? I can point out two problems with fostering motivation. First, what can be a motivating force for small children, who still have not developed a sensitivity to evidence and reasons and thus are not moved by the normative impact of reasons to think critically? Second, how can the motivating force be fostered? For conven- ience, I shall call these two problems the “problems with moti- vation.” Let me reveal two presuppositions that must be taken into consideration in solving these problems with motivation. First, although the critical spirit concerns the motivation to think critically, it does not specify what motivates one to think critically. For example, Cuypers (2004), who is a critic of the two conceptions of critical thinking theory as described in the previous section, mistakenly assumes that the critical spirit is identified with what he calls “the passions.” Being appropriately moved by reasons requires reasons to have not only evidential force but also normative im- pact. This separation … mirrors the Humean distinction between the domain of ‘reason’ and the domain of ‘the passions’… So being appropriately moved by reasons re- quires more than ‘reason’ alone: it also demands the crit- ical spirit of ‘the passions’. (p. 85) Cuypers arbitrarily interprets that the critical spirit is identified with the passions in his terminology, which is clearly erroneous. What can serve as a force to move one to think critically is the problem that needs to be solved, although some passions might be related to the force to move one to think critically in some way or other. I will address this problem in the next section. Another important point is that the normative impact of reasons is an ontological quality of the reasons, and thus it is irrelevant to the passions, or feeling and emotion, even if the normative impact of reasons could move one to think critically. In other words, it is one thing for the normative impact as a quality of reasons themselves to motivate us to think critically; it is anoth- er thing for feeling and emotion to motivate critical thinking. It is unlikely that reasons themselves will have a sensible quality that affects our feelings and emotions unless a compelling ex- planation is provided. Motivating Children’s Critical Thinking © Kunimasa Sato. Informal Logic, Vol. 35, No. 2 (2015), pp. 204-220. 211 Second, for small children, the normative impact of reasons cannot be a motivating factor. From the argument so far, it can be accepted that those who have the critical spirit are moved by the normative impact of reasons. However, the normative im- pact of reasons can serve as a motivating factor only to those who are already sensitive to evidence and reasons, not to chil- dren who are only starting to acquire the critical spirit. In the educational process, children must learn to feel and comprehend the normative impact of reasons in order to grow up to be criti- cal thinkers. Hence, for small children, a motivating factor must be something other than the normative impact itself.6 Hence, the problems with the motivation are to be answered on the condition that the motivating factor must be something other than the normative impact of reasons. How, then, can we approach these two problems with motivation? I think that Siegel offers us a concept that can help to solve the problems with motivation: what he calls “felt reasons” (Siegel, 1997, Chapter 3). In the next section, I will explicate this notion of felt reasons.7 6 Hanks (2008) explains, “Cuypers and Haji address the motivational compo- nent of critical thinking…. they argue that motivational elements of critical thinking, the habits of reason-giving and acting on the basis of good reasons, must also be instilled in a nonindoctrinative fashion” (p. 196). I agree on the point that children’s motivation to think critically should be fostered in a manner other than an indoctrinative fashion. 7 Cuypers claims that the notion of felt reasons, as Siegel shows, does not contribute to the strength of their motivating force. In the next section, how- ever, I will demonstrate that the notion of felt reasons is a key to addressing the problems with motivation. So, let me confirm that Cuypers’s assertion fails as a criticism of Siegel’s argument regarding critical thinking. With respect to the notion of felt reasons, Cuypers (2004) observes, Reason alone has no internal motivational power. Since pure instrumental reason is motivationally powerless, Siegel tries to remedy this predicament by infusing practical reason with af- fect or feeling. Yet Siegel’s move towards such an impure practical reason, by appealing to affective reason or felt rea- sons, does nothing to fortify the internal motivational power of the pure reason assessment of his two-component theory. (p. 89) While Cuypers claims that felt reasons, as Siegel presents, cannot motivate one to consider reasons critically, he does not explain why they cannot. If his claim here is seen as a criticism of Siegel’s theory of critical thinking, not as a statement explaining his own theory regarding motivation, he must give a convincing reason why felt reasons cannot motivate one to consider reasons critically. Let me explain why. Although the notion of felt reasons can be seen as a concept that is rel- evant to motivation in the theory of critical thinking, any consideration ap- plying the notion of felt reasons to the motivation in the theory of critical Kunimasa Sato © Kunimasa Sato. Informal Logic, Vol. 35, No. 2 (2015), pp. 204-220. 212 4. The characteristics of felt reasons Let me first elucidate on the notion of felt reasons. By doing this, I will demonstrate that the way in which reasons are presented in novels and movies, as well as in real dialogues, can arouse feeling and emotion in children, and that this feeling and emo- tion can work as a motivating factor for them to think critically. According to Siegel, reasons can have a visceral quality. Taking the example of Dostoevsky’s The Brothers Karamazov, Siegel observes, Throughout the history of philosophy the problem of evil has played a central role in deliberations concerning god’s existence. What is so powerful, then, about Dosto- evsky’s presentation of the problem of evil? The answer, I think, has to do with the visceral quality reasons some- times have; with the impact that reasons sometimes have on us as feeling persons. (Siegel, 1997, p. 48) The Brothers Karamazov deals with existential and ethical prob- lems, such as free will, by describing the way in which Ivan and Alyosha, two of the main fictional characters, seriously contem- plate the problems of god and evil. In this way, readers are shown their thought processes, and some may be tempted to consider the reasons expressed by the characters and find them persuasive or unconvincing. A novel can work as a device that presents reasons to us in such a way that they appeal to us emo- tionally, and the same thing could apply to other media such as films and texts using dialogue. What precisely, then, is the meaning of the statement that reasons can have a visceral quality? This statement may seem to discuss the ontological status of reasons. Interpreted in this way, Siegel would have to elucidate the relationship between reasons, particularly their normative impact, and their visceral quality that can appeal to the senses. However, I think that it is reasona- ble to interpret the statement about felt reasons as not referring thinking is the interpretation presented by interpreters and critics of Siegel’s idea. This is because Siegel himself does not examine whether felt reasons are relevant to the motivation to think critically. More precisely, the problems with motivation are not highlighted in Siegel’s theory of critical thinking. Given this, if Cuypers criticizes Siegel’s idea of critical thinking by arguing that felt reasons cannot be a motivating factor to think critically, Cuypers, as an interpreter of Siegel’s idea of felt reason, must offer a compelling explana- tion. As mentioned, in the next section, I will show that the notion of felt reasons is a key to addressing the problems of motivation. In order to do this, I will first articulate the notion of felt reasons. Motivating Children’s Critical Thinking © Kunimasa Sato. Informal Logic, Vol. 35, No. 2 (2015), pp. 204-220. 213 to reasons themselves but about the way in which they are pre- sented. In my interpretation, the statement that reasons have a visceral quality means that the way in which reasons are shown can affect the senses, arousing feeling and emotion. There are two reasons that the notion of felt reasons can be interpreted in this way. Primarily, the argument concerning felt reasons focuses on the way in which reasons are presented rather than on the onto- logical status of reasons. The way in which reasons are present- ed includes not only the portrayal of characters discussing rea- sons in novels and movies, but also the interaction between children and adults exchanging reasons in real dialogue. The way in which reasons are presented can be generalized as fol- lows: (3) The way in which reasons are presented refers to the contexts in which the exchanges of reasons are inter- woven, encompassing the description of people’s man- ners and attitudes. Siegel points out that the notion of felt reasons may shed light on the importance of how reasons are exhibited: Felt reasons, rather, are ordinary reasons whose power to move people is made obvious or manifest by the way in which those reasons, and the person for whom they are reasons, are portrayed. Felt reasons are not a different kind of reasons; they are a particular kind of presentation of reasons. (Ibid., p. 52) It can thus be interpreted that, in the notion of felt reasons, Siegel is addressing not the reasons themselves but the way in which they are presented to children. Second, the strength of the visceral quality of reasons can differ depending on the way in which reasons are manifested. Suppose now that the visceral quality is an ontological property of the reasons. It would follow that, regardless of how reasons are presented to us, their visceral quality would be invariant. It is clearly asserted, however, that the force of a same reason can affect us differently depending on different situations (ibid., pp. 49–50). From this, it can reasonably be inferred that Siegel does not regard their visceral quality as an inherent property of rea- sons. On the other hand, with regard to the way in which reasons are presented, the way in which reasons are shown can be illus- trated differently, which may have varying degrees of influence on our senses. For example, the portrayal of a fictional character Kunimasa Sato © Kunimasa Sato. Informal Logic, Vol. 35, No. 2 (2015), pp. 204-220. 214 enthusiastically discussing reasons may cause a strong emotion in us. Similarly, participation in rational dialogue with parents and teachers may induce children to develop their standpoints based on their reasons. Therefore, we can conclude that, in his explanation of the notion of felt reasons, Siegel expounds on how the reasons are presented and its effect on us. Siegel makes two important points. First, how reasons are displayed can affect our senses, arousing feeling and emotion. Second, the strength of feeling and emotion that arises in us comes in degrees according to the respective ways in which reasons are presented. In brief, (4) The way in which reasons are presented can affect our senses, arousing different degrees of feeling and emo- tion in us. Let me evaluate the advantage of statements (3) and (4), as clarified, in solving the problems of motivation shown in section 3 and the problems left that need to be addressed. Our questions are “What can be a motivating force for small children to think critically?” and “How can the motivating force be fostered?” and these are to be answered on the condition that a motivating factor must be something other than the normative impact of reasons. What can be inferred from (3) and (4) is that the way in which reasons are presented can generate some feeling and emo- tion, and that this feeling and emotion can be a candidate for a motivating factor for children to think critically, including small children who still have not developed a sensitivity to evidence and reasons. On the other hand, the argument so far does not specify feeling or emotion. Nor does the argument explain why the feel- ing or emotion that arises in the presence of reasons is about critical thinking. Feeling and emotion that arise only due to crit- ical thinking, not in the presence of reasons, can in some way or other motivate children to think critically. Hence, the next prob- lem to be addressed is to specify feelings and emotions about critical thinking and to demonstrate that these feelings and emo- tions can work as a motivating force to think critically. I will argue that the emotion of admiring exemplars that manifest rationality is a motivating force for critical thinking. In the next section, as an auxiliary to this claim, I will first expli- cate the notion of exemplars that manifest rationality. 5. Exemplars that manifest rationality Motivating Children’s Critical Thinking © Kunimasa Sato. Informal Logic, Vol. 35, No. 2 (2015), pp. 204-220. 215 Let us explicate the notion of exemplars that manifest rationality. To manifest rationality in the present context is to exhibit thought processes for one to think critically and the manners and attitudes necessary to consider reasons individually and collabo- ratively. While one’s thought processes may be relevant to the evaluation of the probative force of reasons, one’s manners and attitudes concern our actions related to reasons, and are thus rel- evant to the normative impact of reasons. According to Burbules (1995, pp. 88–90), reasonableness, as a character trait pertinent to the critical spirit, includes a proficiency at exchanging rea- sons with other people in critical dialogue. An exemplar is a person who exemplifies a paradigmatic case of something. For example, Mother Teresa, who is known as a figure who dedicated her entire life to help people strug- gling against poverty, may be seen as an exemplar of compas- sion and generosity. Similarly, an exemplar of rationality can be understood: (5) S is an exemplar of rationality if and only if S manifests a paradigmatic case of critical thinking. In light of this definition, teachers and parents, as well as fictional characters, can be exemplars that manifest rationality in distinct manners, including thought processes and attitudes. Teachers and parents may let children clarify the reasons pre- sented in novels and movies and inquire into the strength of the- se reasons together. Additionally, by having rational conversa- tion with children, teachers and parents may also be able to ex- hibit manners and attitudes to consider reasons with others. For example, they may respect the perspectives of others and show a willingness to follow others’ arguments as they develop.8 Let me note, however, that it may not always be possible for children to recognize characters, teachers, and parents as exem- plars of rationality, even if they manifest rationality. Let me ex- plain this by taking the case of moral exemplars. Santa Claus is usually depicted as generous enough to give each child a present but, unlike Mother Teresa, Santa Claus is unlikely to be seen as an exemplar of generosity, that is, children are never told to be like Santa Claus. Elgin (1991, pp. 199–200) claims that not all examples can give epistemic access to the features that they ex- emplify, according to which Santa Claus does not give access to generosity while Mother Teresa does. With respect to the exem- 8 As inquiry into reasons is often conducted in a community, these attitudes may be included in the manners and attitudes related to the critical spirit. Kunimasa Sato © Kunimasa Sato. Informal Logic, Vol. 35, No. 2 (2015), pp. 204-220. 216 plars of rationality, it is suggested that manifesting rationality may not be enough for children to gain epistemic access to ra- tionality. An additional necessary condition for rationality to be rec- ognized by children is to highlight rationality in describing the way in which reasons are presented so that rationality is made salient to children. Take the example of moral exemplars again. Mother Teresa is recognized as an exemplar of compassion and generosity, not only because she was, in fact, compassionate and generous, but also because her morality is delineated so that we can recognize it. This may hold true for exemplars of rationality. Exemplars can enable children to observe their rationality, not only because exemplars, as critical thinkers, manifest rationality, but also because their pertinent reasoning and rational character traits stand out in novels, movies, and real dialogues between children and adults. For example, novels and films can bring character’s reasoning to the fore, directing children’s attention to rationality even when they are reflectively aware of it. Similarly, teachers and parents can enlighten children concerning the ra- tionality that characters embody by interchanging reasons in conversation. Observing how exemplars think critically can promote chil- dren’s understanding of rationality in two ways. First, children can learn to appreciate what it is like to think critically. Learning what it is like to think critically means that one learns to recog- nize the probative force of reasons and to feel the normative im- pact of reasons. Admittedly, this recognition and felt impact do not suffice for children to appropriately evaluate the weight of reasons and to possess the critical spirit. However, manifesting rationality can offer children a good opportunity to recognize the probative force and to feel the normative impact of reasons. For example, literature and films, such as portraying Alyosha and Ivan exchanging reasons, can be more likely to help chil- dren to feel inclined to consider reasons than can academic books. Second, witnessing and interacting with exemplars equips children to go on to think critically for themselves. Children may emulate how teachers, parents, and fictional characters manifest rationality, and emulating them in the present context means that children may attempt to think critically. Let me note, however, that emulating exemplars that manifest rationality does not mean that children will merely replicate what exemplars do, but that children will begin to assess the strength of the reasons presented and to shape their attitude that is appropriate in con- sidering reasons with others. In other words, by learning with exemplars, children start to develop their own way of critical Motivating Children’s Critical Thinking © Kunimasa Sato. Informal Logic, Vol. 35, No. 2 (2015), pp. 204-220. 217 thinking. For example, teachers’ assistance may help small chil- dren attempt to examine what reasons are compelling in novels and movies. Or, parents’ manners and attitudes in examining reasons with children may lead them to adopt their manners and attitudes to consider reasons (Scheffler, 1973, p. 64). Therefore, educating with exemplars that manifest rationali- ty may form the initial step for critical thinking, transforming children’s minds into the critical spirits. How, then, can this learning lead children to possess spontaneous and passive moti- vations to think critically? In the next section, I will answer this question. 6. Admiring exemplars as a motivating force to think criti- cally How can children be motivated to think critically by emulating exemplars? My answer is that, by observing how exemplars think critically, some children admire these exemplars and be- come motivated to emulate them. Teachers, parents, and fictional characters as exemplars of rationality can generate the emotion of admiration in children to emulate them. With respect to the relationship between the emo- tion of admiration and exemplars, I shall depend on the analogy of moral learning. Olberding (2012) states, “Conceptually, ad- miration is an emotion that will motivate us, an attraction that already includes the desire to be like the object of our admira- tion” (p. 64), which could apply to the present case. For example, reading a book that illustrates characters passionately contem- plating reasons, children may contemplate which reason is better and why they think so and, in turn, reconsider whether the rea- son that they provide is persuasive. Additionally, teachers’ atti- tudes, such as openness to questions and criticisms of others, may make children willing to display those attitudes in rational dialogue. In these ways, children can admire exemplars so as to resemble the way in which they manifest rationality. Recall here that, according to stipulation (4) clarified in sec- tion 4, the way in which reasons are presented can generate some feeling and emotion. Next, as Zagzebski (2004, p. 60) dis- cusses, emotions can be affective states about or toward some- thing of a certain description, in other words, some emotions have intentional objects. For example, fear is an emotion that someone can have when seeing something fearful. Then, the emotion of admiration arises in children because they witness the way in which exemplars manifest rationality on the condi- Kunimasa Sato © Kunimasa Sato. Informal Logic, Vol. 35, No. 2 (2015), pp. 204-220. 218 tion that they can recognize their rationality, and this admiration is thus seen as an emotion about critical thinking. Hence, if, by observing how exemplars consider reasons, children learn to ap- preciate what it is like to think critically and how they can think critically for themselves, it follows that exemplars can bring about the emotion of admiration in children and can induce them to emulate the way in which exemplars think critically. Finally, some empirical studies show that the emotion of admiring someone can encourage people to work harder in order to achieve their own goals.9 For example, Algoe and Haidt (2009), by categorizing the emotion of admiration as a social emotion, report that participants in their experiment were in- spired to emulate admirable people and attempt to improve their own method. Based on this, we can conclude that the admiration of exemplars who manifest rationality can motivate children to think critically as exemplars do. In other words, the emotion of admiration can serve as a motivating factor for children to think critically. Furthermore, since this admiration is an emotion, it can arise even in small children who are still not moved by the normative impact of reasons. This is my answer to the first ques- tion as to what can be a motivating force for small children, who still have not developed a sensitivity to evidence and reasons, to think critically. In addition, my answer to the second question, as to how the motivating force can be fostered, is that presenting reasons in an emotionally appealing way may foster a motiva- tional force in children. As Siegel clearly shows in his argument concerning felt reasons, some media can serve as a powerful means of fulfilling this purpose. 7. Conclusion I have explored the problems with motivation to think critically. Given our contemporary epistemic surroundings, while epistem- ically depending on others, children should be ready to think critically, in other words, to have the spontaneous and passive tendencies to think critically. These tendencies include the mo- tivation to think critically in the relevant circumstances. With regard to the fostering of proper motivation in children, I have demonstrated three points. First, teachers, parents, and fictional characters can act as exemplars that manifest rationality. Second, 9 In recent years, some philosophical studies argue for the relevance of emo- tion to rationality (cf. Greenspan, 2004), and some psychological studies are beginning to investigate the effect of emotions related to social relationships on motivation (e.g., Algoe & Haidt, 2009; Haidt & Seder, 2009). Motivating Children’s Critical Thinking © Kunimasa Sato. Informal Logic, Vol. 35, No. 2 (2015), pp. 204-220. 219 they can produce the emotion of admiration so that children can learn to appreciate what it is like to think critically and how they can think critically. In this sense, emulating exemplars who manifest rationality can form the initial step for children to ap- propriately evaluate the weight of reasons and possesses the crit- ical spirit. Finally, the emotion of admiring exemplars may act as a motivating factor for children, including small children, who have still not fully developed a sensitivity to evidence and reasons and are thus not moved by reasons, to think critically. These results can shed light on the epistemological roles of so- cial emotions and exemplars in fostering the critical spirit. References Algoe, S. & Haidt, J. (2009). Witnessing excellence in action: The ‘other-praising’ emotions of elevation, gratitude, and admiration. Journal of Positive Psychology, 4(2): 105–127. Baehr, J. (2013). Educating for intellectual virtues: From theory to practice. Journal of Philosophy of Education, 47(2): 248– 262. Bailin, S. (1998). Education, knowledge, and critical thinking. In D. Carr (Ed.), Education, knowledge, and truth: beyond the postmodern impasse (pp. 204–20). New York: Routledge. Bailin, S., Case, R., Coombs, J.R., & Daniels, L.B. (1999). Con- ceptualizing critical thinking. Curriculum Studies, 31(3): 285–302. Bailin, S. & Siegel, H. (2003). Critical thinking. In N. Blake et al. (Eds.), The Blackwell guide to the philosophy of education (pp. 181–93). Malden; Mass: Blackwell. Battaly, H. (2006). Teaching intellectual virtues: Applying vir- tue epistemology in the classroom. Teaching Philosophy, 29(3): 191–222. Burbules, N.C. (1995). Reasonable doubt: Toward a postmodern defense of reason as an educational aim. In W. Kohli (Ed.), Critical conversations in philosophy of education (pp. 82– 102). New York: Routledge. Cuypers, S.E. (2004). Critical thinking, autonomy, and practical reason. Journal of Philosophy of Education, 38(1): 75–90. Cuypers, S.E. & Haji, I. (2006). Education for critical thinking: Can it be non-indoctrinative? Educational Philosophy and Theory, 38(6): 723–43. Elgin, C.Z. (1991). Understanding: Art and science. Midwest Studies in Philosophy, 16(1): 196–208. Kunimasa Sato © Kunimasa Sato. Informal Logic, Vol. 35, No. 2 (2015), pp. 204-220. 220 Ennis, R.H. (1986). A taxonomy of critical thinking dispositions and abilities. In J.B. Baron & R.J. Sternberg (Eds.), Teaching thinking skills: Theory and practice (pp. 9–26). New York: Freeman. Greenspan, P. (2004). Practical reasoning and emotion. In A.R. Mele & P. Rawling (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of ration- ality (pp. 206–21). Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press. Hardwig, J. (1985). Epistemic dependence. Journal of Philoso- phy, 82(7): 335–49. Hanks, C. (2008). Indoctrination and the space of reasons. Edu- cational Theory, 58(2): 193–212. Haidt, J. & Seder, P. (2009). Admiration. In D. Sanders & K. R. Scherer (Ed.), The Oxford companion to emotion and the af- fective science (pp. 4–5). Oxford; New York: Oxford Uni- versity Press. Olberding, A. (2012). Moral exemplars in the Analects: The good person is that. New York: Routledge. Passmore, J. (1967). On teaching to be critical. In R.S. Peters (Ed.), The concept of education (pp. 192–211). New York: Humanities Press. Paul, R.W. (1982). Teaching critical thinking in the strong sense: A focus on self-deception, world views, and dialecti- cal mode of analysis. Informal Logic, 4(2): 2–7. Robertson, E. (2009). The epistemic aims of education. In H. Siegel (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of philosophy of educa- tion (pp. 11–34). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Scheffler, I. (1973). Reason and teaching. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul. Siegel, H. (1988a). Educating reason: Rationality, critical think- ing, and education. New York: Routledge. Siegel, H. (1988b). Rationality and epistemic dependence. Edu- cational Philosophy and Theory, 20(1): 1–6. Siegel, H. (1997). Rationality redeemed?: Further dialogues on an educational ideal. New York: Routledge. Siegel, H. (2003). Cultivating reason. In R. Curren (Ed.), A companion to the philosophy of education (pp. 305–19). Malden, MA: Blackwell. Siegel, H. (2008). Is ‘education’ a thick epistemic concept? Philosophical Papers, 37(3): 455–69. Warnick, B.R. (2008). Imitation and education: A philosophical inquiry into learning by example. Albany; NY: State Univer- sity of New York Press. Zagzebski, L.T. (2004). Divine motivation theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.