The Way Out: Critical Thinking Instruction to Halt Teen Drug Abuse and Violence

A. Introduction

Teenage drug use and related violent crimes are endemic in the US. Social pressures present significant challenges for adolescents, and outlets, such as drug use – and in many cases, violence – are becoming the norm. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Youth Online 2011 survey results indicate seventy percent of all adolescents have had a drink of alcohol, whereas about forty percent used marijuana one or more times during their life, and finally, roughly twenty-one percent of adolescents reportedly took prescription drugs without a prescription (Youth Online 2011). Furthermore, those who use drugs are nearly two times as likely to engage in violent acts (“Youth Violence and Illicit Drug Use” 1). Social pressures, combined with the multiplicity and availability of drugs translates to a significant policy challenge for lawmakers. In 2013, this policy challenge translated to a $3.4 billion budget for the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration to address the community-level prevention, evaluation, rehabilitation, impact of drug use on adolescent mental health, and violence (“FY 2013 Budget” 6). While significant investments are needed at the community level to combat the various factors to spur this issue, there is a better way to halt this problem: integration of critical thinking curricula in high schools.

B. Thesis

The introduction of a critical thinking curriculum in high schools promises to stem drug-related violence through the mitigation of adolescent passivity, challenging students to consider the implications of their decisions, and finally, the promotion of self-reflection on decisions. To clarify, critical thinking is a framework in which individuals actively engage in the analysis of “observations, reflection, reasoning, or communication” (Elder and Paul, “Defining Critical Thinking”). There is widespread agreement in the need for critical thinking skills to cope with the increasingly complex pressures and information in today’s world (Marin and Halperin 1-2). The bombardment of Americans of all ages with information, images, and influences has become commonplace, and the slow deterioration of critical thinking skills translates to passivity (Browne and Keeley qtd. in Marin and Halperin 2). A critical thinking curriculum stands to inspire students for proactive engagement with their decisions, and if, implemented, could drastically improve the American teenage experience, undermine drug use, and hedge against drug-related violence.

C. Main Body

The objective of a critical thinking curriculum is to enable individuals to improve reasoning so as to better take command of their learning and their lives. Passivity and fealty to peer and other external pressures are in the crosshairs of such an approach to learning. Critical thinking cultivates conceptual and inferential thought based on a series of standards (“Using Intellectual Standards to Assess Student Reasoning”). These standards liberate individuals from undisciplined thinking by enabling them to assess the “quality of reasoning about a problem, issue, or situation”, and thus undermine the efficacy of pervasive external influences (Elder and Paul, “Universal Intellectual Standards”). Within the classroom, this translates to teaching with the aim to activate student engagement, rather than to cover as much information as possible. In other words, the contextualization of course topics becomes a topic in and of itself. This form of student engagement brings an end passive consumption and rote memorization of course subjects. Ultimately, “content is thinking, thinking is content” serves as the foundation for the critical thinking curriculum, but the impact is felt well beyond the classroom (Paul and Elder, “Content is Thinking, Thinking is Content”).

Critical thinking challenges the drivers of drug use and the related impact: violent behavior. Definitive reasons for drug use in adolescents remain elusive. Any number of explanations ranging from stress, curiosity, and peer pressure tends to be put forward by researchers, however, the correlation between risky behavior and drug use remains the most significant. Adolescents engaged in risky behavior tend to do so for reactionary reasons or in response to structural factors. The stress of peer pressure, schoolwork, or expectations serve as drivers for drug use, and thus while the root causes of risky and reactionary behavior may never be able to be fully addressed through national- or community-level programs such as the D.A.R.E. program, the gravitation toward such behaviors – and more crucially, corresponding drug-related violence – stands to be undermined through a critical thinking curriculum. Critical thinking enables individuals to “think for themselves” without the baggage of external influences. Moreover, critical thinking places importance on sound reasoning and judgment at the expense of reactionary thinking to imbue individuals with the tools to reach conclusions – or decisions – on their own.

One challenge adolescents face lies in the inability to grasp the implications of decisions and actions. All too frequently, adolescents fail to recognize the full impact of their decisions (“Facts for Families” 1). Social factors heavily weigh on adolescents and blind them to the larger scope of actions and decisions. This not only contributes to drug use but also the violence associated with it. Therefore, a critical thinking curriculum provides tools for students to grasp the wider implications of their decisions. And these are crucial skills to learn in the adolescent years, not only given the significance of social pressures but also for the potential of such decisions to affect and shape the rest of their lives.

Finally, an important dimension to the critical thinking curriculum lies in self-reflection. Self-reflection, as a tool, contributes to the prior point of the larger context of decisions, but it also contributes to enhanced self-awareness and confidence. Crucially, self-reflection builds confidence in individual reasoning for the benefit of their individual conclusions. The intellectual standards of critical thinking, then come to form the foundation for reasoning, and in turn, erode egocentricity and contribute to intellectual humility and intellectual empathy. Thus, a critical thinking curriculum not only promises to enhance American high school education but moreover, produces more intellectually and empathetic individuals capable of reasoned analysis and free from the chains of their own egocentrism.

D. Counterpoints

Of course, there are a number of critics opposed to the implementation of a critical thinking curriculum in high schools. While few would argue against the need for critical thinking skills, most argue against the implementation for a variety of reasons ranging from immaturity to questions of how to implement such a program. For instance, should critical thinking skills be integrated into current coursework or should it be taught as a separate curriculum altogether (Ennis 1-2)? A further question lies in assessment: how should critical thinking skills be measured? Can they be integrated into existing assessments? While there is any number of answers to these questions, agreement in the need for critical thinking skills should serve as the impetus for investigation and experimentation with curricular development at an individualized school or district level. In essence, there is not a national silver bullet. Instead, experimentation with implementation is needed to better understand receptivity and efficacy of a critical thinking curriculum.

E. Conclusion

The implementation of a high school critical thinking curriculum poses the question of whether we, as Americans, want to address the roots drivers of drug use and the associated violence or whether continued attempts at band-aid solutions are in order. Ultimately, adolescent drug use and violence fall upon the shoulders of each individual adolescent. While we cannot dismiss the significance of structural and social factors, drug use and the escalation to violence are choices each teen makes. Therefore, teens need to be as prepared as possible to approach such decisions with confidence and self-awareness.

A critical thinking curriculum empowers all students with the tools and framework to make better decisions. Critical thinking sheds intellectual and social passivity, amplifies the implications of decisions, and most importantly, promotes self-reflection and self-awareness. As shown above, such skills are crucial to cultivating proactive participants in learning and in the wider world beyond high school. Given the significance of adolescent choices and the potential severity of pitfalls, it is crucial for policymakers and educators to improve the critical thinking capacity of our high school students through the implementation of critical thinking curricula.

Works Cited

American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry (AACAP). “Facts for Families”, July 2013, Retrieved at: http://www.aacap.org/App_Themes/AACAP/docs/facts_for_families/03_teens_alcohol_and_other_drugs.pdf

Browne, M.N. and Keeley, S. Asking the Right Questions: A Guide to Critical Thinking (5th ed.). Prentice Hall, Mahwah, NJ.

Centers for Disease Control (CDC), “Youth Online: High School YRBS 2011, United States 2011 Results”, Center for Disease Control, 2012. Retrieved at: http://apps.nccd.cdc.gov/youthonline/

Elder, Linda and Paul, Richard. “Content is Thinking, Thinking is Content”, The Critical Thinking Community, March 22, 1999. Retrieved at: http://www.criticalthinking.org/pages/content-is-thinking-thinking-is-content/958

---. The Miniature Guide to Critical Thinking Concepts and Tools, Foundation for Critical Thinking Press, 2008: as cited in “Defining Critical Thinking”, The Critical Thinking Community webpage. Retrieved at: http://www.criticalthinking.org/pages/defining-critical-thinking/766

---. “Universal Intellectual Standards”. Foundation for Critical Thinking, October 2010. Retrieved at: http://www.criticalthinking.org/pages/universal-intellectual-standards/527

Ennis, Robert. “Incorporating Critical Thinking in the Curriculum: An Introduction to Some Basic Issues”, Inquiry: Critical Thinking Across the Disciplines, Spring 1997, 16(3), pp. 1-9.

Halperin, Diane F. and Marin, Lisa M. “Pedagogy for Developing Critical Thinking in Adolescents: Explicit Instruction Produces Greatest Gains”, Thinking Skills and Creativity, 6, 2011, pp. 1-13.

United States. Department of Health and Human Services. Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHA). Fiscal Year 2013 Budget. Washington: GPO, 2012. PDF. Retrieved at: http://www.samhsa.gov/Budget/FY2013/SAMHSAFY2013CJ.pdf

United States. Department of Health and Human Services. Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA). National Survey on Drug Use and Health (NSDUH), “Youth Violence and Illicit Drug Use”, In Brief, The NSDUH Report, Issue 5, 2006. Retrieved at: http://www.samhsa.gov/data/2k6/youthViolence/youthViolence.htm

“Using Intellectual Standards to Assess Student Reasoning”, The Critical Thinking Community. Retrieved at: http://www.criticalthinking.org/pages/using-intellectual-standards-to-assess-student-reasoning/602