In countries like England, Wales, and Hong Kong, Critical Thinking Skills has been steadily introduced across the Curriculum through thought-provoking children’s stories in KS1 & KS2 (or equivalent up to Year 6 Primary Education in Malaysia). These skills include: asking good questions, understanding point of view, being rational, and developing the skills of research and of analysis.

Children tend to learn to become more and more critical in a process which involves practice to improve the habits and tools of critical thought. A central habit is that of Asking Good Questions. What are the assumptions being made? Are they rational assumptions? What are the hidden or implicit assumptions and values in the claims? How does the context influence the claims? Who is making the claims and why? Are they well supported by good evidence? Are there better alternatives?

Thus, critical thinking can be thought of as a toolbox of skills which enable children to think more deeply and clearly about what they believe (and what they read or are told in the media etc.), and about what they should do. Such thinking will help them to be better informed and less open to biased persuasion, to prejudice and to irrational behavior or belief. It is important that children develop these skills in school because learning how to be critical and how to think for oneself are key elements in becoming educated.

On top of that, Values (aka Moral education in Malaysia) also cross the curriculum and the national curriculum recognizes and requires that teachers have regard to the children’s personal, social, moral, cultural and spiritual development. Because stories necessarily embody core human values, they and the stories’ activities will contribute to values education.

If A leads to B which leads to C which leads to D, and D is undesirable, and on that basis we conclude that we shouldn’t do A, then we have a legitimate chain argument—if indeed A does lead to B, B leads to C, and C leads to D.

If, however, one or more connections between the links in the chain are untenable (suppose, for example, B doesn’t really lead to C) and we still conclude that because D is undesirable, we shouldn’t do A, then we’ve committed the Slippery Slope fallacy.



Slippery slope fallacies often play on our deepest fears. The links in this alleged chain are not strong, but this is not to say that challenging government is a risk-free practice. It is only to say that, logically speaking, when causal connections are claimed, there needs to be sufficient evidence that the connections are genuine.

And to claim that teaching Critical Thinking in young children across the curriculum, will one day when grown up ultimately cause them to question the government is plainly to make a claim that is insufficiently supported by the evidence. (i.e. Who are these “People”? Are they overgeneralized? Are they representative enough?)

OK, I won't delve deeper as it tends to go off-topic. In general, we are aware of the possibility of this tendency, and in specific, we agreed the intention of this thread is to suggest some good curriculum activities to wanzulfikri.