teaching critical thinking in school

Classroom Q&A

With larry ferlazzo.

In this EdWeek blog, an experiment in knowledge-gathering, Ferlazzo will address readers’ questions on classroom management, ELL instruction, lesson planning, and other issues facing teachers. Send your questions to [email protected]. Read more from this blog.

Integrating Critical Thinking Into the Classroom

• Share article

(This is the second post in a three-part series. You can see Part One here .)

The new question-of-the-week is:

What is critical thinking and how can we integrate it into the classroom?

Part One ‘s guests were Dara Laws Savage, Patrick Brown, Meg Riordan, Ph.D., and Dr. PJ Caposey. Dara, Patrick, and Meg were also guests on my 10-minute BAM! Radio Show . You can also find a list of, and links to, previous shows here.

Today, Dr. Kulvarn Atwal, Elena Quagliarello, Dr. Donna Wilson, and Diane Dahl share their recommendations.

‘Learning Conversations’

Dr. Kulvarn Atwal is currently the executive head teacher of two large primary schools in the London borough of Redbridge. Dr. Atwal is the author of The Thinking School: Developing a Dynamic Learning Community , published by John Catt Educational. Follow him on Twitter @Thinkingschool2 :

In many classrooms I visit, students’ primary focus is on what they are expected to do and how it will be measured. It seems that we are becoming successful at producing students who are able to jump through hoops and pass tests. But are we producing children that are positive about teaching and learning and can think critically and creatively? Consider your classroom environment and the extent to which you employ strategies that develop students’ critical-thinking skills and their self-esteem as learners.

Development of self-esteem

One of the most significant factors that impacts students’ engagement and achievement in learning in your classroom is their self-esteem. In this context, self-esteem can be viewed to be the difference between how they perceive themselves as a learner (perceived self) and what they consider to be the ideal learner (ideal self). This ideal self may reflect the child that is associated or seen to be the smartest in the class. Your aim must be to raise students’ self-esteem. To do this, you have to demonstrate that effort, not ability, leads to success. Your language and interactions in the classroom, therefore, have to be aspirational—that if children persist with something, they will achieve.

Use of evaluative praise

Ensure that when you are praising students, you are making explicit links to a child’s critical thinking and/or development. This will enable them to build their understanding of what factors are supporting them in their learning. For example, often when we give feedback to students, we may simply say, “Well done” or “Good answer.” However, are the students actually aware of what they did well or what was good about their answer? Make sure you make explicit what the student has done well and where that links to prior learning. How do you value students’ critical thinking—do you praise their thinking and demonstrate how it helps them improve their learning?

Learning conversations to encourage deeper thinking

We often feel as teachers that we have to provide feedback to every students’ response, but this can limit children’s thinking. Encourage students in your class to engage in learning conversations with each other. Give as many opportunities as possible to students to build on the responses of others. Facilitate chains of dialogue by inviting students to give feedback to each other. The teacher’s role is, therefore, to facilitate this dialogue and select each individual student to give feedback to others. It may also mean that you do not always need to respond at all to a student’s answer.

Teacher modelling own thinking

We cannot expect students to develop critical-thinking skills if we aren’t modeling those thinking skills for them. Share your creativity, imagination, and thinking skills with the students and you will nurture creative, imaginative critical thinkers. Model the language you want students to learn and think about. Share what you feel about the learning activities your students are participating in as well as the thinking you are engaging in. Your own thinking and learning will add to the discussions in the classroom and encourage students to share their own thinking.

Metacognitive questioning

Consider the extent to which your questioning encourages students to think about their thinking, and therefore, learn about learning! Through asking metacognitive questions, you will enable your students to have a better understanding of the learning process, as well as their own self-reflections as learners. Example questions may include:

• Why did you choose to do it that way?
• When you find something tricky, what helps you?
• How do you know when you have really learned something?

‘Adventures of Discovery’

Elena Quagliarello is the senior editor of education for Scholastic News , a current events magazine for students in grades 3–6. She graduated from Rutgers University, where she studied English and earned her master’s degree in elementary education. She is a certified K–12 teacher and previously taught middle school English/language arts for five years:

Critical thinking blasts through the surface level of a topic. It reaches beyond the who and the what and launches students on a learning journey that ultimately unlocks a deeper level of understanding. Teaching students how to think critically helps them turn information into knowledge and knowledge into wisdom. In the classroom, critical thinking teaches students how to ask and answer the questions needed to read the world. Whether it’s a story, news article, photo, video, advertisement, or another form of media, students can use the following critical-thinking strategies to dig beyond the surface and uncover a wealth of knowledge.

A Layered Learning Approach

Begin by having students read a story, article, or analyze a piece of media. Then have them excavate and explore its various layers of meaning. First, ask students to think about the literal meaning of what they just read. For example, if students read an article about the desegregation of public schools during the 1950s, they should be able to answer questions such as: Who was involved? What happened? Where did it happen? Which details are important? This is the first layer of critical thinking: reading comprehension. Do students understand the passage at its most basic level?

Ask the Tough Questions

The next layer delves deeper and starts to uncover the author’s purpose and craft. Teach students to ask the tough questions: What information is included? What or who is left out? How does word choice influence the reader? What perspective is represented? What values or people are marginalized? These questions force students to critically analyze the choices behind the final product. In today’s age of fast-paced, easily accessible information, it is essential to teach students how to critically examine the information they consume. The goal is to equip students with the mindset to ask these questions on their own.

Strike Gold

The deepest layer of critical thinking comes from having students take a step back to think about the big picture. This level of thinking is no longer focused on the text itself but rather its real-world implications. Students explore questions such as: Why does this matter? What lesson have I learned? How can this lesson be applied to other situations? Students truly engage in critical thinking when they are able to reflect on their thinking and apply their knowledge to a new situation. This step has the power to transform knowledge into wisdom.

Adventures of Discovery

There are vast ways to spark critical thinking in the classroom. Here are a few other ideas:

• Critical Expressionism: In this expanded response to reading from a critical stance, students are encouraged to respond through forms of artistic interpretations, dramatizations, singing, sketching, designing projects, or other multimodal responses. For example, students might read an article and then create a podcast about it or read a story and then act it out.
• Transmediations: This activity requires students to take an article or story and transform it into something new. For example, they might turn a news article into a cartoon or turn a story into a poem. Alternatively, students may rewrite a story by changing some of its elements, such as the setting or time period.
• Words Into Action: In this type of activity, students are encouraged to take action and bring about change. Students might read an article about endangered orangutans and the effects of habitat loss caused by deforestation and be inspired to check the labels on products for palm oil. They might then write a letter asking companies how they make sure the palm oil they use doesn’t hurt rain forests.
• Socratic Seminars: In this student-led discussion strategy, students pose thought-provoking questions to each other about a topic. They listen closely to each other’s comments and think critically about different perspectives.
• Classroom Debates: Aside from sparking a lively conversation, classroom debates naturally embed critical-thinking skills by asking students to formulate and support their own opinions and consider and respond to opposing viewpoints.

Critical thinking has the power to launch students on unforgettable learning experiences while helping them develop new habits of thought, reflection, and inquiry. Developing these skills prepares students to examine issues of power and promote transformative change in the world around them.

‘Quote Analysis’

Dr. Donna Wilson is a psychologist and the author of 20 books, including Developing Growth Mindsets , Teaching Students to Drive Their Brains , and Five Big Ideas for Effective Teaching (2 nd Edition). She is an international speaker who has worked in Asia, the Middle East, Australia, Europe, Jamaica, and throughout the U.S. and Canada. Dr. Wilson can be reached at [email protected] ; visit her website at www.brainsmart.org .

Diane Dahl has been a teacher for 13 years, having taught grades 2-4 throughout her career. Mrs. Dahl currently teaches 3rd and 4th grade GT-ELAR/SS in Lovejoy ISD in Fairview, Texas. Follow her on Twitter at @DahlD, and visit her website at www.fortheloveofteaching.net :

A growing body of research over the past several decades indicates that teaching students how to be better thinkers is a great way to support them to be more successful at school and beyond. In the book, Teaching Students to Drive Their Brains , Dr. Wilson shares research and many motivational strategies, activities, and lesson ideas that assist students to think at higher levels. Five key strategies from the book are as follows:

• Facilitate conversation about why it is important to think critically at school and in other contexts of life. Ideally, every student will have a contribution to make to the discussion over time.
• Begin teaching thinking skills early in the school year and as a daily part of class.
• As this instruction begins, introduce students to the concept of brain plasticity and how their brilliant brains change during thinking and learning. This can be highly motivational for students who do not yet believe they are good thinkers!
• Explicitly teach students how to use the thinking skills.
• Facilitate student understanding of how the thinking skills they are learning relate to their lives at school and in other contexts.

Below are two lessons that support critical thinking, which can be defined as the objective analysis and evaluation of an issue in order to form a judgment.

Mrs. Dahl prepares her 3rd and 4th grade classes for a year of critical thinking using quote analysis .

During Native American studies, her 4 th grade analyzes a Tuscarora quote: “Man has responsibility, not power.” Since students already know how the Native Americans’ land had been stolen, it doesn’t take much for them to make the logical leaps. Critical-thought prompts take their thinking even deeper, especially at the beginning of the year when many need scaffolding. Some prompts include:

• … from the point of view of the Native Americans?
• … from the point of view of the settlers?
• How do you think your life might change over time as a result?
• Can you relate this quote to anything else in history?

Analyzing a topic from occupational points of view is an incredibly powerful critical-thinking tool. After learning about the Mexican-American War, Mrs. Dahl’s students worked in groups to choose an occupation with which to analyze the war. The chosen occupations were: anthropologist, mathematician, historian, archaeologist, cartographer, and economist. Then each individual within each group chose a different critical-thinking skill to focus on. Finally, they worked together to decide how their occupation would view the war using each skill.

For example, here is what each student in the economist group wrote:

• When U.S.A. invaded Mexico for land and won, Mexico ended up losing income from the settlements of Jose de Escandon. The U.S.A. thought that they were gaining possible tradable land, while Mexico thought that they were losing precious land and resources.
• Whenever Texas joined the states, their GDP skyrocketed. Then they went to war and spent money on supplies. When the war was resolving, Texas sold some of their land to New Mexico for $10 million. This allowed Texas to pay off their debt to the U.S., improving their relationship.
• A detail that converged into the Mexican-American War was that Mexico and the U.S. disagreed on the Texas border. With the resulting treaty, Texas ended up gaining more land and economic resources.
• Texas gained land from Mexico since both countries disagreed on borders. Texas sold land to New Mexico, which made Texas more economically structured and allowed them to pay off their debt.

This was the first time that students had ever used the occupations technique. Mrs. Dahl was astonished at how many times the kids used these critical skills in other areas moving forward.

Thanks to Dr. Auwal, Elena, Dr. Wilson, and Diane for their contributions!

Please feel free to leave a comment with your reactions to the topic or directly to anything that has been said in this post.

Consider contributing a question to be answered in a future post. You can send one to me at [email protected] . When you send it in, let me know if I can use your real name if it’s selected or if you’d prefer remaining anonymous and have a pseudonym in mind.

You can also contact me on Twitter at @Larryferlazzo .

Education Week has published a collection of posts from this blog, along with new material, in an e-book form. It’s titled Classroom Management Q&As: Expert Strategies for Teaching .

Just a reminder; you can subscribe and receive updates from this blog via email (The RSS feed for this blog, and for all Ed Week articles, has been changed by the new redesign—new ones won’t be available until February). And if you missed any of the highlights from the first nine years of this blog, you can see a categorized list below.

• This Year’s Most Popular Q&A Posts
• Race & Racism in Schools
• School Closures & the Coronavirus Crisis
• Classroom-Management Advice
• Best Ways to Begin the School Year
• Best Ways to End the School Year
• Student Motivation & Social-Emotional Learning
• Implementing the Common Core
• Facing Gender Challenges in Education
• Teaching Social Studies
• Cooperative & Collaborative Learning
• Using Tech in the Classroom
• Student Voices
• Parent Engagement in Schools
• Teaching English-Language Learners
• Reading Instruction
• Writing Instruction
• Education Policy Issues
• Differentiating Instruction
• Math Instruction
• Science Instruction
• Advice for New Teachers
• Author Interviews
• Entering the Teaching Profession
• The Inclusive Classroom
• Learning & the Brain
• Administrator Leadership
• Teacher Leadership
• Relationships in Schools
• Professional Development
• Instructional Strategies
• Best of Classroom Q&A
• Professional Collaboration
• Classroom Organization
• Mistakes in Education
• Project-Based Learning

I am also creating a Twitter list including all contributors to this column .

The opinions expressed in Classroom Q&A With Larry Ferlazzo are strictly those of the author(s) and do not reflect the opinions or endorsement of Editorial Projects in Education, or any of its publications.

Sign Up for EdWeek Update

Edweek top school jobs.

Sign Up & Sign In

Developing Critical Thinking

• Posted January 10, 2018
• By Iman Rastegari

In a time where deliberately false information is continually introduced into public discourse, and quickly spread through social media shares and likes, it is more important than ever for young people to develop their critical thinking. That skill, says Georgetown professor William T. Gormley, consists of three elements: a capacity to spot weakness in other arguments, a passion for good evidence, and a capacity to reflect on your own views and values with an eye to possibly change them. But are educators making the development of these skills a priority?

"Some teachers embrace critical thinking pedagogy with enthusiasm and they make it a high priority in their classrooms; other teachers do not," says Gormley, author of the recent Harvard Education Press release The Critical Advantage: Developing Critical Thinking Skills in School . "So if you are to assess the extent of critical-thinking instruction in U.S. classrooms, you’d find some very wide variations." Which is unfortunate, he says, since developing critical-thinking skills is vital not only to students' readiness for college and career, but to their civic readiness, as well.

"It's important to recognize that critical thinking is not just something that takes place in the classroom or in the workplace, it's something that takes place — and should take place — in our daily lives," says Gormley.

In this edition of the Harvard EdCast, Gormley looks at the value of teaching critical thinking, and explores how it can be an important solution to some of the problems that we face, including "fake news."

About the Harvard EdCast

The Harvard EdCast is a weekly series of podcasts, available on the Harvard University iT unes U page, that features a 15-20 minute conversation with thought leaders in the field of education from across the country and around the world. Hosted by Matt Weber and co-produced by Jill Anderson, the Harvard EdCast is a space for educational discourse and openness, focusing on the myriad issues and current events related to the field.

An education podcast that keeps the focus simple: what makes a difference for learners, educators, parents, and communities

Related Articles

The Wisdom of Data

Notes from ferguson, the case for homework.

Want a daily email of lesson plans that span all subjects and age groups?

Subjects all subjects all subjects the arts all the arts visual arts performing arts value of the arts back business & economics all business & economics global economics macroeconomics microeconomics personal finance business back design, engineering & technology all design, engineering & technology design engineering technology back health all health growth & development medical conditions consumer health public health nutrition physical fitness emotional health sex education back literature & language all literature & language literature linguistics writing/composition speaking back mathematics all mathematics algebra data analysis & probability geometry measurement numbers & operations back philosophy & religion all philosophy & religion philosophy religion back psychology all psychology history, approaches and methods biological bases of behavior consciousness, sensation and perception cognition and learning motivation and emotion developmental psychology personality psychological disorders and treatment social psychology back science & technology all science & technology earth and space science life sciences physical science environmental science nature of science back social studies all social studies anthropology area studies civics geography history media and journalism sociology back teaching & education all teaching & education education leadership education policy structure and function of schools teaching strategies back thinking & learning all thinking & learning attention and engagement memory critical thinking problem solving creativity collaboration information literacy organization and time management back, filter by none.

• Elementary/Primary
• Middle School/Lower Secondary
• High School/Upper Secondary
• College/University
• TED-Ed Animations
• TED Talk Lessons
• TED-Ed Best of Web
• Under 3 minutes
• Under 6 minutes
• Under 9 minutes
• Under 12 minutes
• Under 18 minutes
• Over 18 minutes
• Algerian Arabic
• Azerbaijani
• Cantonese (Hong Kong)
• Chinese (Hong Kong)
• Chinese (Singapore)
• Chinese (Taiwan)
• Chinese Simplified
• Chinese Traditional
• Chinese Traditional (Taiwan)
• Dutch (Belgium)
• Dutch (Netherlands)
• French (Canada)
• French (France)
• French (Switzerland)
• Kurdish (Central)
• Luxembourgish
• Persian (Afghanistan)
• Persian (Iran)
• Portuguese (Brazil)
• Portuguese (Portugal)
• Spanish (Argentina)
• Spanish (Latin America)
• Spanish (Mexico)
• Spanish (Spain)
• Spanish (United States)
• Western Frisian

sort by none

• Longest video
• Shortest video
• Most video views
• Least video views
• Most questions answered
• Least questions answered

Can you solve the magical maze riddle?

Lesson duration 04:51

332,628 Views

How to make smart decisions more easily

Lesson duration 05:16

1,066,227 Views

Can you solve a mystery before Sherlock Holmes?

Lesson duration 05:17

466,694 Views

Can you solve the secret assassin society riddle?

Lesson duration 05:01

680,326 Views

How to overcome your mistakes

Lesson duration 04:52

893,113 Views

Can you solve the cursed dice riddle?

Lesson duration 04:31

676,736 Views

Why some people don't have an inner monologue

Lesson duration 12:03

2,754,845 Views

Science vs. Pseudoscience

Lesson duration 05:48

348,821 Views

Can you solve the time traveling car riddle?

Lesson duration 05:18

622,256 Views

This one weird trick will get you infinite gold

Lesson duration 05:08

995,062 Views

How to quit your job — without ruining your career - Gala Jackson

Lesson duration 06:13

104,639 Views

What if you experienced every human life in history?

Lesson duration 05:21

2,778,027 Views

How to design climate-resilient buildings - Alyssa-Amor Gibbons

Lesson duration 14:12

42,974 Views

The case for free, universal basic services - Aaron Bastani

Lesson duration 19:09

80,131 Views

Can you steal the most powerful wand in the wizarding world?

Lesson duration 05:20

757,550 Views

History vs. Thomas Jefferson

451,994 Views

The best way to apologize (according to science)

Lesson duration 05:06

1,440,862 Views

How do we determine the value of a life?

Lesson duration 06:06

696,063 Views

What’s the smartest age?

Lesson duration 04:53

1,555,108 Views

The Boltzmann brain paradox

Lesson duration 05:40

1,105,156 Views

The 4 greatest threats to the survival of humanity

Lesson duration 05:24

485,298 Views

Can you outsmart the college admissions fallacy?

Lesson duration 06:17

813,866 Views

Can you solve the fortress riddle?

Lesson duration 05:23

1,200,156 Views

Can you solve the private eye riddle?

1,289,472 Views

• Skip to content
• Skip to search
• Staff portal (Inside the department)
• Student portal
• Key links for students

Other users

• Forgot password

Notifications

{{item.title}}, my essentials, ask for help, contact edconnect, directory a to z, how to guides, education for a changing world, how to teach critical thinking.

Daniel Willingham is a Professor of Psychology at the University of Virginia. His paper explores the ongoing debate over how critical thinking skills are developed and taught. He also outlines a plan for teaching specific critical thinking skills.

Willingham argues that while there is plenty of evidence to support explicit instruction of critical thinking skills, the evidence for how well critical thinking skills transfer from one problem to another is mixed.

Published: 2019.

Download the paper

How to teach critical thinking (PDF 373KB)

Other resources

• Peter Ellerton, Thinking critically for an AI world (Edspresso episode 3)
• Sandra Lynch, Teaching critical thinking through philosoph y (Edspresso episode 4)
• Peter Ellerton, On critical thinking and collaborative inquiry
• Learning First, Teaching critical thinking: Implications for stages 4 and 5 Science and History teaching
• Teaching and learning

Business Unit:

• Centre for Education Statistics and Evaluation

Critical Thinking for Teachers

• First Online: 02 January 2023

Cite this chapter

• Diler Oner 3 &
• Yeliz Gunal Aggul 3  

Part of the book series: Integrated Science ((IS,volume 13))

796 Accesses

2 Citations

Developing critical thinking is an important educational goal for all grade levels today. To foster their students’ critical thinking, future teachers themselves must become critical thinkers first. Thus, critical thinking should be an essential aspect of teacher training. However, despite its importance, critical thinking is not systematically incorporated into teacher education programs. There exist several conceptualizations of critical thinking in the literature, and these have different entailments regarding the guidelines and instructional strategies to teach critical thinking. In this paper, after examining the critical thinking literature, we suggested that critical thinking could be conceptualized in two distinct but complementary ways—as the acquisition of cognitive skills (instrumental perspective) and as identity development (situated perspective). We discussed the implications of these perspectives in teacher education. While the instrumental perspective allowed us to consider what to teach regarding critical thinking, the situated perspective enabled us to emphasize the broader social context where critical thinking skills and dispositions could be means of active participation in the culture of teaching.

Graphical Abstract/Art Performance

Critical thinking.

Everything we teach should be different from machines. If we do not change the way we teach, 30 years from now, we will be in trouble . Jack Ma

Jack Ma Co-founder of the Alibaba Group.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

• Available as PDF
• Read on any device
• Instant download
• Own it forever
• Available as EPUB and PDF
• Compact, lightweight edition
• Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
• Free shipping worldwide - see info
• Durable hardcover edition

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Burbules N-C, Berk R (1999) Critical thinking and critical pedagogy: relations, differences, and limits. In: Popkewitz T-S, Fendler L (eds) Critical theories in education. Routledge, New York, pp 45–65

Google Scholar  

Hitchcock D (2018) Critical thinking. In: Zalta E-N (ed) The Stanford Encyclopedia of philosophy. https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2018/entries/critical-thinking . Accessed 8 Aug 2020

Costa A-L (1985) Developing minds: preface to the revised edition. In: Costa A-L (ed) Developing minds: a resource book for teaching thinking. Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development, Virginia, pp ix–x

National Education Association (2012) Preparing 21st-century students for a global society: an educator’s guide to “the four Cs.” http://www.nea.org/assets/docs/A-Guide-to-Four-Cs.pdf . Accessed 08 Aug 2020

Oner D (2019) Education 4.0: the skills needed for the future. In: Paper presented at the 5th Turkish-German frontiers of social science symposium (TUGFOSS) by Alexander von Humboldt Foundation, Stiftung Mercator, and Koç University, Leipzig, Germany, 24–27 Oct 2019

Elder L, Paul R (1994) Critical thinking: why we must transform our teaching. J Dev Educ 18(1):34–35

Williams R-L (2005) Targeting critical thinking within teacher education: the potential impact on society. Teach Educ Q 40(3):163–187

Holder J-J (1994) An epistemological foundation for thinking: a Deweyan approach. Stud Philos Educ 13:175–192

Article   Google Scholar  

Dewey J (1910) How we think. D.C. Heath and Company, Lexington

Bruner J (1966) Toward a theory of instruction. Harvard University Press, Cambridge

Laanemets U, Kalamees-Ruubel K (2013) The Taba-Tyler rationales. J Am Assoc Advance Curriculum Stud 9:1–12

McTighe J, Schollenberger J (1985) Why teach thinking? A statement of rationale. In: Costa A-L (ed) Developing minds: a resource book for teaching thinking. Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development, Alexandria, pp 2–5

Taba H (1962) The teaching of thinking. Element English 42(5):534–542

Pressesien B-Z (1985) Thinking skills: meanings and models revisited. In: Costa A-L (ed) Developing minds: a resource book for teaching thinking Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development, Alexandria, pp 56–62

Cohen J (1971) Thinking. Rand McNally, Chicago

Iowa Department of Education (1989) A guide to developing higher-order thinking across the curriculum. Department of Education, Des Moines (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED-306-550)

Jonassen D (1996) Computers as mindtools for schools: engaging critical thinking. Prentice Hall, New Jersey

Ennis R-H (1996) Critical thinking dispositions: their nature and accessibility. Informal Logic 18:165–182

Facione P (1990) Critical thinking: a statement of expert consensus for purposes of educational assessment and instruction. California Academic Press, Millbrae

Paul R-W (1985) Goals for a critical thinking curriculum. In: Costa A-L (ed) Developing minds: a resource book for teaching thinking. Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development, Alexandria, pp 77–84

Ennis R-H (1964) A definition of critical thinking. Read Teach 17(8):599–612

Ennis R-H (1985) Goals for a critical thinking curriculum. In: Costa A-L (ed) Developing minds: a resource book for teaching thinking. Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development, Alexandria, pp 68–71

Ennis R-H (2015) Critical thinking: a streamlined conception. In: Davies M, Barnett R (eds) The Palgrave handbook of critical thinking in higher education. Palgrave Macmillan, New York, pp 31–47

Chapter   Google Scholar  

Davies M (2015) A model of critical thinking in higher education. In: Paulsen M (ed) Higher education: handbook of theory and research, vol 30. Springer, Cham, pp 41–92

Walters K-S (1994) Introduction: beyond logicism in critical thinking. In: Walters K-S (ed) Re-thinking reason: new perspectives in critical thinking. SUNY Press, Albany, pp 1–22

Barnett R (1997) Higher education: a critical business. Open University Press, Buckingham

Phelan A-M, Garrison J-W (1994) Toward a gender-sensitive ideal of critical thinking: a feminist poetic. Curric Inq 24(3):255–268

Kaplan L-D (1991) Teaching intellectual autonomy: the failure of the critical thinking movement. Educ Theory 41(4):361–370

McLaren P (1994) Critical pedagogy and predatory culture. Routledge, London

Giroux H-A (2010) Lessons from Paulo Freire. https://www.chronicle.com/article/lessons-from-paulo-freire/ . Accessed 8 Aug 2020

Freire P (2000) Pedagogy of the oppressed. Continuum, New York

Giroux H-A (2011) On critical pedagogy. The Continuum International Publishing Group, Auckland

Volman M, ten Dam G (2015) Critical thinking for educated citizenship. In: Davies M, Barnett R (eds) The Palgrave handbook of critical thinking in higher education. Palgrave Macmillan, New York, pp 593–603

Belenky M-F, Clinchy B-M, Goldberger N-R, Tarule J-M (1997) Women’s ways of knowing: the development of self, voice, and mind. Basic Books, New York

Warren K-J (1994) Critical thinking and feminism. In: Walters K-S (ed) Re-thinking reason: new perspectives in critical thinking. SUNY Press, Albany, pp 199–204

Thayer-Bacon B (2000) Transforming critical thinking. Teachers College Press, New York

Atkinson D (1997) A critical approach to critical thinking in TESOL. TESOL Q 31(1):71–94

ten Dam G, Volman M (2004) Critical thinking as a citizenship competence: teaching strategies. Learn Instr 14:359–379

Sfard A (1998) On two metaphors for learning and the dangers of choosing just one. Educ Res 27:4–13

Tsui L (1999) Courses and instruction affecting critical thinking. Res High Educ 40(2):185–200

Abrami P-C, Bernard R-M, Borokhovski E, Waddington D-I, Anne Wade C, Persson T (2015) Strategies for teaching students to think critically: a meta-analysis. Rev Educ Res 85(2):275–314

Mpofu N, Maphalala M-C (2017) Fostering critical thinking in initial teacher education curriculums: a comprehensive literature review. Gender Behav 15(2):9226–9236

Ennis R-H (1989) Critical thinking and subject specificity: clarification and needed research. Educ Res 18(3):4–10

Norris S-P (1985) The choice of standard conditions in defining critical thinking competence. Educ Theory 35(1):97–107

Paul R-W (1985) McPeck’s mistakes. Informal Logic 7(1):35–43

Siegel H (1991) The generalizability of critical thinking. Educ Philos Theory 23(1):18–30

McPeck J-E (1981) Critical thinking and education. St Martin’s Press, New York

McPeck J-E (1984) Stalking beasts, but swatting flies: the teaching of critical thinking. Can J Educ 9(1):28–44

McPeck J-E (1990) Critical thinking and subject-specificity: a reply to Ennis. Educ Res 19(4):10–12

Adler M (1986) Why critical thinking programs won’t work. Educ Week 6(2):28

Brown A (1997) Transforming schools into communities of thinking and learning about serious matters. Am Psychol 52(4):399–413

Article   CAS   Google Scholar  

Oner D (2010) Öğretmenin bilgisi özel bir bilgi midir? Öğretmek için gereken bilgiye kuramsal bir bakış. Boğaziçi Üniversitesi Eğitim Dergisi 27(2):23–32

Shulman L-S (1987) Knowledge and teaching: foundations of the new reform. Harvard Educ Rev 57(1):61–77. https://doi.org/10.17763/haer.57.1.j463w79r56455411

Oner D, Adadan E (2011) Use of web-based portfolios as tools for reflection in preservice teacher education. J Teach Educ 62(5):477–492

Oner D, Adadan E (2016) Are integrated portfolio systems the answer? An evaluation of a web-based portfolio system to improve preservice teachers’ reflective thinking skills. J Comput High Educ 28(2):236–260

Lave J, Wenger E (1991) Situated learning: legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

Book   Google Scholar  

Brookfield S (2012) Teaching for critical thinking: tools and techniques to help students question their assumptions. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco

Korthagen F-A-J (2010) Situated learning theory and the pedagogy of teacher education: towards an integrative view of teacher behavior and teacher learning. Teach Teach Educ 26(1):98–106

Putnam R-T, Borko H (2000) What do new views of knowledge and thinking have to say about research on teacher learning? Educ Res 29(1):4–15

Brown J-S, Collins A, Duguid P (1989) Situated cognition and the culture of learning. Educ Res 18(1):32–42

Scardamalia M, Bereiter C (1991) Higher levels of agency for children in knowledge building: a challenge for the design of new knowledge media. J Learn Sci 1(1):37–68

Shaffer D-W (2005) Epistemic games. Innovate J Online Educ 1(6):Article 2

Oner D (2020) A virtual internship for developing technological pedagogical content knowledge. Australas J Educ Technol 36(2):27–42

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Bogazici University, Istanbul, Turkey

Diler Oner & Yeliz Gunal Aggul

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Diler Oner .

Editor information

Editors and affiliations.

Universal Scientific Education and Research Network (USERN), Stockholm, Sweden

Nima Rezaei

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2022 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Oner, D., Aggul, Y.G. (2022). Critical Thinking for Teachers. In: Rezaei, N. (eds) Integrated Education and Learning. Integrated Science, vol 13. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-15963-3_18

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-15963-3_18

Published : 02 January 2023

Publisher Name : Springer, Cham

Print ISBN : 978-3-031-15962-6

Online ISBN : 978-3-031-15963-3

eBook Packages : Education Education (R0)

Share this chapter

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research

• Grades 6-12
• School Leaders

Learn How to Support Stressed and Anxious Students.

10 Tips for Teaching Kids To Be Awesome Critical Thinkers

Help students dig deeper!

For more tips, check out Mentoring Minds’  Critical Thinking Strategies Guide —a flip chart packed with question stems and lesson ideas to help teach kids to become better critical and creative thinkers. 

Getting students to dig deeper and answer questions using higher-level thinking can be a challenge. Here are our favorite tips for teaching critical thinking skills, adapted from Mentoring Minds’ Critical Thinking Strategies Guide,  that help kids solve problems by going beyond the obvious response.

1. Slow down the pace.

It’s easy to fall into a routine of calling on one of the first kids who raises a hand. But if you wait even just 3 to 5 seconds after asking a question, you’ll probably find the pool of students willing to give an answer grows significantly. Plus, it helps the speedy kids learn that the first answer that pops into their head isn’t always the best. There are times you may even want to wait up to a minute or longer if the question is particularly complex or time-consuming. To avoid an awkward pause, you can let kids know that they have 10 seconds to think before answering the question or that you need to see 10 hands raised from volunteers before you hear a response.

2. Pose a Question of the Day.

Put a new spin on bell ringers by asking a Question of the Day. Use a questioning stem (e.g., create a riddle that uses the mathematics term “multiply” in one of the clues or write a letter to a classmate recommending this book) and put it on the board. Students can write answers in their critical-thinking journals. Then have a class discussion at the end of the day.

3. Make a response box.

Write a random critical-thinking question on the board, (e.g., Is there a better way to work out this problem? Explain your thinking.). Give students a specified amount of time to provide a written response and put it in the response box. Pull out entries one by one and read them aloud to the class. Alternatively, you can give a prize—like a homework pass or free time—to the student with the first appropriate response whose name is drawn from the box or to everyone who submitted appropriate answers.

4. Take a side.

First, read a statement that has two opposing views (e.g., Do you agree or disagree with the author? Why?). Ask kids who agree to stand on one side of the room and those who disagree to stand on the other side. Then have kids talk about why they chose each side. They can switch sides if they change their minds during the discussion.

5. Ask “why?” five times.

When you encounter a problem in class, you can help the class come up with a solution by using the Why? Five Times strategy. Ask the first why question (e.g., Why didn’t the class do well on the spelling test?), and after a response is given, ask why four more times (e.g., Why didn’t students study for the test?, Why didn’t students have time to study for the test?, etc.). The idea is that after the fifth question is asked, the problem will be solved.

6. Role-play.

Come up with an imaginary scenario and have kids work through the steps to solve a problem as a class. First, identify the problem and write it as a question (e.g., Why didn’t the science experiment work as planned?). Then brainstorm ideas to solve it and choose the best one to write as a solution statement. Finally, create an action plan to carry out the solution.

7. Go “hitchhiking.”

Practice creative thinking by collaborating on a storyboard. Write a problem on an index card and pin it on the top of a bulletin board. Then put different headings on index cards and pin them below the main card. Have kids brainstorm ideas that develop each of the heading cards and let kids pin them on the board. Encourage kids to “go hitchhiking” by building onto their classmates’ ideas.

8. Turn around.

A great way to focus on the positive in not-so-positive situations is the Turn Around thinking strategy. If a student forgets to bring his homework to school, you can ask, “What good can come of this?” The student can answer with ideas like, “I will change my routine before I go to bed.”

9. Put your pocket chart to good use.

Choose six completed questioning stems from different levels of Bloom’s Taxonomy and put them in a pocket chart. Choose some strips as mandatory and let kids pick two from the higher levels to answer aloud or in a journal.

10. Hold a Q&A session.

One way you can figure out how well kids are grasping critical-thinking skills is by holding question-and-answer sessions. Ask a variety of questions one-on-one or in small groups and take note of the levels of thought individual students use regularly and avoid over time. You can review your notes to help build more higher-order-thinking questions into your lessons.

FREE E-BOOK! How to Build a 36-Week Character Education Program . S upport  social-emotional learning through a critical thinking lens with  36 projects and activities plus tips, research, and more!

You Might Also Like

5 Critical Thinking Skills Every Kid Needs To Learn (And How To Teach Them)

Teach them to thoughtfully question the world around them. Continue Reading

Copyright © 2024. All rights reserved. 5335 Gate Parkway, Jacksonville, FL 32256

• Our Mission

4 Strategies for Sparking Critical Thinking in Young Students

Fostering investigative conversation in grades K–2 isn’t easy, but it can be a great vehicle to promote critical thinking.

In the middle of class, a kindergartner spotted an ant and asked the teacher, “Why do ants come into the classroom?” Fairly quickly, educational consultant Cecilia Cabrera Martirena writes , students started sharing their theories: Maybe the ants were cold, or looking for food, or lonely. 

Their teacher started a KWL chart to organize what students already knew, what they wanted to know, and, later, what they had learned. “As many of the learners didn’t read or write yet, the KWL was created with drawings and one or two words,” Cabrera Martirena writes. “Then, as a group, they decided how they could gather information to answer that first question, and some possible research routes were designed.” 

As early elementary teachers know, young learners are able to engage in critical thinking and participate in nuanced conversations, with appropriate supports. What can teachers do to foster these discussions? Elementary teacher Jennifer Orr considered a few ideas in an article for ASCD .

“An interesting question and the discussion that follows can open up paths of critical thinking for students at any age,” Orr says. “With a few thoughtful prompts and a lot of noticing and modeling, we as educators can help young students engage in these types of academic conversations in ways that deepen their learning and develop their critical thinking skills.”

While this may not be an “easy process,” Orr writes—for the kids or the teacher—the payoff is students who from a young age are able to communicate new ideas and questions; listen and truly hear the thoughts of others; respectfully agree, disagree, or build off of their peers’ opinions; and revise their thinking. 

4 Strategies for Kick-Starting Powerful Conversations

1. Encourage Friendly Debate: For many elementary-aged children, it doesn’t take much provoking for them to share their opinions, especially if they disagree with each other. Working with open-ended prompts that “engage their interest and pique their curiosity” is one key to sparking organic engagement, Orr writes. Look for prompts that allow them to take a stance, arguing for or against something they feel strongly about. 

For example, Orr says, you could try telling first graders that a square is a rectangle to start a debate. Early childhood educator Sarah Griffin proposes some great math talk questions that can yield similar results:

• How many crayons can fit in a box?
• Which takes more snow to build: one igloo or 20 snowballs?
• Estimate how many tissues are in a box.
• How many books can you fit in your backpack?
• Which would take less time: cleaning your room or reading a book?
• Which would you rather use to measure a Christmas tree: a roll of ribbon or a candy cane? Why?

Using pictures can inspire interesting math discussions as well, writes K–6 math coach Kristen Acosta . Explore counting, addition, and subtraction by introducing kids to pictures “that have missing pieces or spaces” or “pictures where the objects are scattered.” For example, try showing students a photo of a carton of eggs with a few eggs missing. Ask questions like, “what do you notice?” and “what do you wonder?” and see how opinions differ.

2. Put Your Students in the Question: Centering students’ viewpoints in a question or discussion prompt can foster deeper thinking, Orr writes. During a unit in which kids learned about ladybugs, she asked her third graders, “What are four living and four nonliving things you would need and want if you were designing your own ecosystem?” This not only required students to analyze the components of an ecosystem but also made the lesson personal by inviting them to dream one up from scratch.

Educator Todd Finley has a list of interesting writing prompts for different grades that can instead be used to kick off classroom discussions. Examples for early elementary students include: 

• Which is better, giant muscles or incredible speed? Why?
• What’s the most beautiful person, place, or thing you’ve ever seen? Share what makes that person, place, or thing so special. 
• What TV or movie characters do you wish were real? Why? 
• Describe a routine that you often or always do (in the morning, when you get home, Friday nights, before a game, etc.).
• What are examples of things you want versus things you need? 

3. Open Several Doors: While some students take to classroom discussions like a duck to water, others may prefer to stay on dry land. Offering low-stakes opportunities for students to dip a toe into the conversation can be a great way to ensure that everyone in the room can be heard. Try introducing hand signals that indicate agreement, disagreement, and more. Since everyone can indicate their opinion silently, this supports students who are reluctant to speak, and can help get the conversation started. 

Similarly, elementary school teacher Raquel Linares uses participation cards —a set of different colored index cards, each labeled with a phrase like “I agree,” “I disagree,” or “I don’t know how to respond.” “We use them to assess students’ understanding, but we also use them to give students a voice,” Linares says. “We obviously cannot have 24 scholars speaking at the same time, but we want everyone to feel their ideas matter. Even if I am very shy and I don’t feel comfortable, my voice is still heard.” Once the students have held up the appropriate card, the discussion gets going.

4. Provide Discussion Sentence Starters: Young students often want to add their contribution without connecting it to what their peers have said, writes district-level literacy leader Gwen Blumberg . Keeping an ear out for what students are saying to each other is an important starting point when trying to “lift the level of talk” in your classroom. Are kids “putting thoughts into words and able to keep a conversation going?” she asks.

Introducing sentence starters like “I agree…” or “I feel differently…” can help demonstrate for students how they can connect what their classmate is saying to what they would like to say, which grows the conversation, Blumberg says. Phrases like “I’d like to add…” help students “build a bridge from someone else’s idea to their own.”

Additionally, “noticing and naming the positive things students are doing, both in their conversation skills and in the thinking they are demonstrating,” Orr writes, can shine a light for the class on what success looks like. Celebrating when students use these sentence stems correctly, for example, helps reinforce these behaviors.

“Students’ ability to clearly communicate with others in conversation is a critical literacy skill,” Blumberg writes, and teachers in grades K–2 can get students started on the path to developing this skill by harnessing their natural curiosity and modeling conversation moves.

  WHAT is Critical Thinking?

Critical = Evaluative

To avoid misunderstanding, in the context of "critical thinking" we need to understand what "critical" does mean, and doesn't mean.  In this context, critical thinking is just logical thinking;   critical thinking is not necessarily being “negatively critical” as in a commonly used meaning of the word.  In fact, a more accurate term would be logical thinking (re: its process) or evaluative thinking (re: its goal).  The result of evaluation can range from positive to negative, from acceptance to rejection or anything in-between.  Yes, critical evaluation can produce a glowing recommendation.  On this page, for example, the quotes and links — which are recommended, but (as with all sources of information) should be used with an attitude of "critical thinking" evaluation — are the result of my own critical thinking.

Here are two brief definitions of what it is:   Critical thinking is "reasonably and reflectively deciding what to believe or do." ...  Critical thinking means making reasoned judgments.  Basically, it is using criteria to judge the quality of something, from cooking to a conclusion of a research paper.  In essence, critical thinking is a disciplined manner of thought that a person uses to assess the validity of something:  of a statement, news story, argument, research, etc.  {quoting Robert Ennis, and paraphrasing Barry Beyer}

A page that is brief yet is rich in ideas, and is worth reading carefully, is Defining Critical Thinking by Michael Scriven & Richard Paul.  You can read Our Concept of Critical Thinking from The Critical Thinking Community which offers a comprehensive Library of Articles for you to explore.

Barbara Fowler has selected 19 brief definitions of critical thinking from a variety of sources, and Robert Ennis has a brief 11-point outline and a Long Definition .

Characteristics of Critical Thinkers

For a quick overview, read Characteristics of Critical Thinking which begins with "What is Critical Thinking?" and continues with: Characteristics of Critical Thinking, Why teach Critical Thinking?, and Teaching Strategies to help promote Critical Thinking Skills.

Linda Elder and Richard Paul describe Valuable Intellectual Traits (Intellectual Humility, Courage, Empathy, Integrity, Perseverance, Faith In Reason, and Fairmindedness) and Universal Intellectual Standards (Clarity, Accuracy, Precision, Relevance, Depth, Breadth, and Logic).

For a more comprehensive overview, use their 35 Dimensions of Critical Thought as a launching pad to read 35 pages with brief, clear descriptions of Affective Strategies, Cognitive Strategies (Macro-Abilities), and Cognitive Strategies (Micro-Skills).

And you can find much more by exploring the sitemap for CriticalThinking.org

Willing and Able, with Disposition and Skill:  An effective thinker must be willing to think and able to think.   These requirements — for disposition (be willing) and skill (be able) — are described in the pages above, and with more detail in a series of papers by Peter Facione, Noreen Facione, Carol Giancarlo, and Joanne Gainen.  I suggest The Motivation to Think in Working and Learning and Professional Judgment and the Disposition Toward Critical Thinking ;  or you can read the abstracts to see what looks interesting.  [[check: is there a url-link to the series?]]

Beneficial Uses of Critical Thinking

A person's critical thinking will be more generally-beneficial if they're able to think well and use their thinking well, in ways that will be more beneficial in more ways for more people.  A person's beneficial use of critical thinking can decrease if they're not "able to think well" (e.g. if they can't recognize fallacious reasoning "that is logically incorrect" or they unintentionally use it with unconscious motivated reasoning ) or if they don't "use their thinking well" (e.g. if they intentionally use fallacious reasoning in ways that might be considered unethical ).

Critical Thinking for Problem Solving:   A “big picture” perspective on critical thinking views it in the wider context of thinking that is productive for problem solving, where...

Knowledge + Creative Thinking + Critical Thinking → Productive Thinking   .

My links-page for PRACTICAL CREATIVITY begins by describing the productive interactions between Creative Thinking and Critical Thinking:   "Creative Thinking is extremely useful – and it's fun! – but it should be combined with Critical Thinking, during your process of Productive Thinking [that effectively combines Knowledge plus Creative Thinking and Critical Thinking ].  Why?  During productive PROBLEM SOLVING you ‘make things better’ by creatively Generating Ideas and critically Evaluating Ideas.   Usually, creative generation is the most exciting part of creative-and-critical Productive Thinking and it's very important.  But critical evaluation (i.e. logical evaluation ) is usually more important, in two ways:  • if creative ideas are immediately converted into action [due to uncontrolled enthusiasm] without being wisely evaluated, the result can be unwise action;   • your critical evaluation of ideas can motivate-and-guide your creative generation of ideas" in a productive process of...

  WHY should we teach Critical Thinking?

As explained in the pages above, critical thinking is essential for effective functioning in the modern world.

IOU – Soon, probably mid-October 2022, here I will describe (and quote from, and link to) web-pages that describe its importance, after evaluating some of the many pages about this.

In an essay that "takes a Socratic approach to defining critical thinking and identifying its value in one's personal, professional, educational, and civic life," Peter Facione discusses “what and why” in Critical Thinking: What It Is and Why It Counts and concludes with a consensus statement (of experts in the field) about critical thinking and the ideal critical thinker:

We understand critical thinking to be purposeful, self-regulatory judgment which results in interpretation, analysis, evaluation, and inference, as well as explanation of the evidential, conceptual, methodological, criteriological, or contextual considerations upon which that judgment is based.  [Since this includes almost all types of logical reasoning,] CT is essential as a tool of inquiry.  As such, CT is a liberating force in education and a powerful resource in one's personal and civic life.  While not synonymous with good thinking, CT is a pervasive and self-rectifying human phenomenon.  The ideal critical thinker is habitually inquisitive, well-informed, trustful of reason, open-minded, flexible, fair-minded in evaluation, honest in facing personal biases, prudent in making judgments, willing to reconsider, clear about issues, orderly in complex matters, diligent in seeking relevant information, reasonable in the selection of criteria, focused in inquiry, and persistent in seeking results which are as precise as the subject and the circumstances of inquiry permit.  Thus, educating good critical thinkers means working toward this ideal.  It combines developing CT skills with nurturing those dispositions which consistently yield useful insights and which are the basis of a rational and democratic society."   {the ending-quotation is from "Delphi Report" consensus statement, The Executive Summary for Critical Thinking: A Statement of Expert Consensus for Purposes of Educational Assessment and Instruction, Executive Summary & Expert Consensus from InsightAssessment.com with links for MORE }

Education in critical thinking offers an alternative to a drift toward postmodern relativism, by emphasizing that we can "distinguish between facts and opinions or personal feelings, judgments and inferences, inductive and deductive arguments, and the objective and subjective. {MCC General Education Initiatives}"  Critical thinking encourages us to recognize that our “rationally justifiable confidence” in a claim can span a wide range, from feelings to fact and everything in between.  Three Categories of Questions explains why, because students don't recognize questions involving "reasoned judgment" (which are neither fact nor opinion), they "fail to see the difference between offering legitimate reasons and evidence in support of a view and simply asserting the view as true."   You can see samples from The Art of Asking Essential Questions.

  Causes and Effects of Motivated Reasoning

What is motivated reasoning.

Basically, it's a tendency for people to believe what they want to believe, and find reasons for believing it. 

iResearchNet.com says "Motivated reasoning is a form of reasoning in which people access, construct, and evaluate arguments in a biased fashion to arrive at or endorse a preferred conclusion.  The term motivated in motivated reasoning refers to the fact that people use reasoning strategies that allow them to draw the conclusions they want to draw (i.e., are motivated to draw). ...  motivated reasoning refers [only] to situations in which people want to confirm their preferred conclusion, rather than to [other] situations in which people's reasoning is driven by an accuracy motivation, " by wanting to reach a conclusion that is strongly justified by a logical evaluation of all available evidence.

motivated reasoning occurs when people (quoting Wikipedia ) "use emotionally-biased reasoning to produce justifications or make decisions that are most desired rather than those that accurately reflect the evidence, while still [even though their motivated justifications don't "accurately reflect the evidence"] reducing cognitive dissonance.  In other words, motivated reasoning is the tendency to find arguments in favor of conclusions we want to believe to be stronger than arguments for conclusions we do not want to believe. "

note:  In the quotations above and below, italics and [comments in brackets] are added by me.

A person can use motivated reasoning in any area of life (when thinking about the nature of reality, and principles for living well, policies for governing effectively, evaluating the abilities of themself & others,...) and it's only one aspect of a person's general overconfidence about many kinds of personal abilities in many areas of life.

WHY do people use motivated reasoning?  —  CAUSES

We'll begin by looking at a common deviation from one goal of critical thinking, which ideally should produce...

appropriate confidence:   An evidence-based logical evaluation should lead to improved understanding that promotes an appropriate humility about conclusions, with a logically-justifiable appropriate confidence that is not too little, not too much.    { Bertrand Russell, re: three kind of error }

inappropriate over-confidence:   We often see people being overconfident about the logical justification for their own personal views, and the views of their groups.   Why?  A major cause of overconfidence is the motivated reasoning that often is used by people, both individually and in groups.  So... we then can ask “why do people use motivated reasoning?”

causes of motivated reasoning, by individuals and groups:

A major source of overconfidence is the motivated reasoning that occurs because people (individually and in groups) have mixed motivations, combining logic-and-emotion in our thinking-and-feeling;  logically we want to have accurate understanding;  and emotionally we want to have a positive self-image so we can feel good about ourselves (as individuals & as a group) * and (as individuals in groups) we want to get respect from others and have supportive allies, and (as individuals & as groups) we want to win arguments, to have a positive self-image and a positive group-image.   Being in a group often leads to social pressures, with group dynamics that influence the reasoning of members, and reinforce our tendencies to be individually overconfident.

* The self-image of a person (or group) is improved when they can reduce the unpleasant cognitive dissonance (i.e. dissonance in thinking ) that occurs when they recognize an inconsistency between their beliefs, or between their beliefs and actions.  They want the personal confidence of believing that their system of beliefs-and-actions is internally consistent, and also has high quality because it's better than other beliefs-and-actions they could choose, AND often (in comparisons of self with others, producing effects that are both positive & negative) it's better than the beliefs-and-actions chosen by others.    /   Due to these comparisons, although the motive (of wanting personal confidence ) and strategy (of becoming more confident by reducing cognitive dissonance ) are basically healthy, and the direct results are usually productive (by leading a person to improve their beliefs-and-actions), there also can be unproductive indirect results because...   This motive-and-strategy can lead a person to over-estimate the logical justifications for their own confidence, so they become unjustifiably over-confident about themselves, and (in an extra step that doesn't have to occur, but can occur) they become disrespectful of others.

All of these psychological motives often are related to practical motives.   Definitions of motivated reasoning describe the general motivation of wanting to believe "what we want to believe" in a "preferred conclusion" that is "most desired."  These motives for "wanting... what we want" often are connected with our motives (as individuals & groups) of wanting to achieve practical goals, to get various kinds of benefits.

Most causes of motivated reasoning operate at the levels of individuals & their groups, so we can get useful insights from experts who study the psychology of individuals (alone & in groups) and sociology of groups.

a summary:  Why are so many so confident?  Because it feels good & gains allies, can persuade people, can help achieve practical goals.

HOW does motivated reasoning affect critical thinking?  —  EFFECTS

goals:  We should try to reduce the amount of motivated reasoning and the negative effects when it's used by ourselves and by others, when it's used by you and me, and them.

causes:  Motivated Reasoning {MR} can help a person feel good, gain allies, persuade people, achieve goals.

one effect:  When MR is not regulated by accurate self-evaluations, a motive of wanting confidence can lead to overconfidence .

other effects:  During a process of critical thinking, a person can use MR (consciously or unconsciously) in many ways,...

by selecting their evidence:

While a person is gathering information, MR motivates them to have confirmation bias by seeking-and-accepting evidence that confirms (supports) their own view, while ignoring-or-rejecting evidence that disconfirms their view or confirms opposing views.    {how biased preference is used in business strategies}

In high school our Monday-plus-Tuesday experiences taught us that " IF we want accurate understanding, we should get the best information and arguments that all position-views can claim as support."  But this "if" doesn't describe the way people sometimes think, when instead we actually want to see only evidence that supports our own views (even if this isn't an accurate understanding of reality), so each of us has a tendency to think “I don't want to hear anything about Tuesday.”

by adjusting their logic:

MR affects a person's ability to recognize fallacious reasoning (by themself and by others), their decision to either accept a fallacy (that supports their views) or challenge a fallacy (that opposes their view, supports another view) when it's used in a logical argument by another person, and their willingness to use fallacies when they construct their own arguments.  And...

They use gentle criticism for their own view when evaluating its pros-and-cons, but use harsh criticism for other views .  In doing this they are adjusting their standards for having confidence in a conclusion, shifting the evaluative “burden of proof” so it favors their view by asking “can I believe this?” for a view they want to accept, and “must I believe this?” for a view they want to reject.

They tend to ignore actual complexities that would challenge their overconfidence.

When their thinking is dominated by MR, an overall result is to reverse their sequence-of-logic;   with MR, first comes the desired conclusion, followed by evidence-and-logic to support their conclusion.

by adjusting their values:

MR can affect their evaluative weighting of predicted outcomes, as in a complex situation where they must "make decisions – based on their values & priorities – about the importance of each kind of outcome, and thus how much weight to give it in their evaluation."

by adjusting their ethics:  

If it's necessary because they recognize their bias, they can rationalize the process-and-results of their motivated reasoning — even though it's biased toward reaching conclusions they are motivated to believe — by thinking “my thoughts {and actions} are acceptable because       ” and filling the blank with self-protective rationalizations .

Complexity and Confidence

One way to adjust logic with MR is to oversimplify.  Usually questions asking “what is the best policy?” are complex.  Imagine a trial where a judge is trying to determine which of two (or more) competing policies will have more practical utility.   Even if we agree ( and we m a y not ) that the best practical utility is “producing a greater good for a greater number,” usually each policy will offer some advantages, so a wise critical-thinking judge must weigh all pros & cons.  They must compare different kinds of “good” and “bad” outcomes (each with varying degrees) along with the number of people who are affected by each outcome, and decide (based on their values & priorities) how to weigh the importance of each kind of outcome.  Also, there is complexity in using cause-effect reasoning to make predictions about issues with multiple complex causes and multiple complex outcomes, with outcome-effects that are good and bad, affecting a variety of people in different ways.

In situations that require coping with complexity, a judge-thinker tries to evaluate by using critical thinking that is minimally biased.  But a lawyer-thinker is motivated to think & argue in ways that are biased, and one useful strategy for “winning” (and reducing cognitive dissonance ) is oversimplification.     {decisions about policies-for-society are designing strategies-for-society }

Reversing the Process  –  doing Conclusion first, then Evaluation

Sometimes the overall result of MR-logic is to reverse the usual sequence of reasoning.  In a process that is logical, without bias, we should first do an objective evaluation by using unbiased evidence-and-logic plus values, and then reach a conclusion.  But the sequential order is partially reversed * when thinking is influenced by motivated reasoning, when (due to prior reasoning earlier in life) a person first (Monday) reaches an initial conclusion they want, and then (Tuesday) instead of continuing to learn more about the pros & cons of all positions, they creatively construct biased goal-directed reasoning — by selecting information & adjusting logic & adjusting values — to support their existing position, so they have arguments to logically defend their position internally (for self) and externally (for others).

*   It's only partially reversed (not totally reversed) because their Monday-conclusion is based on prior reasoning that occurred before "Monday" and may have been mainly-objective (with evaluation before conclusion, in the proper logical order) rather than mainly-motivated.

Personal Change-of-View

two possible results of MR:  Although a person's Motivated Reasoning can lead to a changing of views {or actions}, instead MR usually leads to increasing confidence in existing views {or actions}.  In either way, by changing or maintaining, MR can help a person achieve personal goals, e.g. by gaining more allies (in a new group or old group), or by improving their self-perception of internal consistency because they have reduced their cognitive dissonance.

reasons to not-change or to change, using unbiased Logical Reasoning and biased Motivated Reasoning:   When a person re-examines one of their views by continuing to rationally evaluate it with unbiased reasoning (using evidence-and-logic plus values), usually they decide that a change-of-view isn't justified.  But occasionally they decide, based on their evaluation, that a change is justifiable, and they are willing to change this view, so they do change, and they're happy because they are thinking “now my view is better than it was before.”  /  But for another view they are less willing to change, even if this would be justified by an unbiased evaluation.  They don't want to change, so they use biased motivated reasoning to avoid a change, or even to avoid thinking “maybe I should change.”    {Although MR can be one factor in promoting a change, this is less common than using MR to resist a change.}

What causes the difference in being willing to change?   Maybe in one situation this person self-defines the change as wisdom (because it's justified by their evaluation), while in the other situation they think a change would be a sign of weakness.   Or maybe in the overall context of their life, in one situation (but not the other) a change is personally beneficial.    /   situations and people:  For this person, being willing to change differs from one situation to another.  And a tendency for being willing to change differs from one person to another.  A willingness to change varies with SITUATIONS, and with PEOPLE.   /   If a person is not willing to change, this will increase their use of MR, but this won't necessarily determine the result.  Of course, with analysis using my interpretive framework (of “ unbiased Logical Reasoning combined with biased Motivated Reasoning ”) the result – by changing or maintaining – will depend on the COMBINATION of unbiased reasoning plus biased reasoning.   If a person is strongly motivated to maintain (or to change), their use of biased reasoning will increase if this will help them justify (internally & externally, for themself & others) the result they want.  But in “the combination” their biased M-Reasoning could be overcome by the unbiased L-Reasoning they also are doing, with their MR being overcome by their stronger LR.

A person who doesn't want to change their mind will think “Monday I reached a conclusion (made a decision, made up my mind), so Tuesday I don't want to think about it or learn anything new.”

By contrast, a person who is willing to change wants to learn more about the pros & cons of differing views, so their understanding will continually increase in completeness & accuracy.  They will change their views when it seems wise — if they find justifiable evidence-based Logical Reasons for a change — because they see the change as wisdom rather than weakness.  They will think “now I know more, and have evaluated more carefully, so now my views are different.  I want to self-educate myself by learning from experience , and if new experiences (to get more knowledge, do more evaluation) lead to a different conclusion, this is a beneficial change.”

Change of Mind and Change of Status:  During a person's evaluation of competitive Options, they can estimate a “Quality Status” for each Option by considering the many factors that affect its quality;  each Quality Status can be very low, or very high, or in-between;  and it can change during evaluation when the person gathers more evidence, and thinks about everything more carefully.  When an evaluation is done by using accurate evidence and valid logic, usually the evaluation-conclusion won't shift from being 100% for one option (by thinking everything favors it) to 100% for another option.  Instead there will be an honest recognition (unless motivated reasoning leads to a denial of complexity ) that each option offers some benefits, has some pros & cons;  during a period-of-changing there is a change in the person's estimates about the relative benefits of different options, about the “all things considered” conclusions after a careful weighing of all pros & cons.     { using Quality Status for evaluations }

Motivated Reasoning can be Intelligent Reasoning

Sometimes (but not always) a person's use of motivated reasoning {MR} will strongly affect the process-and-results of their critical thinking, leading to cognitive bias because they have selected information and have adjusted their logic & values & ethics .

All aspects of an evaluative process are influenced (consciously & unconsciously) by MR, to a degree that can be small or large.  Is this influence-by-MR reduced by intelligence?  Scientists think “no” based on research, as described by Winston Sieck (2013, updated 2020, with interesting comments) in Does High Intelligence Mean Low Cognitive Bias?   :

    "Ideally, a smart and critical thinker would reason through the pros and cons of the different possibilities and come to a balanced view of the issue.  Yet a great deal of research finds that people tend to just consider what they favor about one side.  We see this ‘myside bias’ all the time in the real world" and in research: "A number of studies have now been conducted on intelligence and the myside bias," showing that "people who scored more highly on the intelligence test showed just as much of the cognitive bias as the rest.  They found no link between intelligence and myside bias. ...  People with high IQ reasoned just like everyone else," even though our intuitions tell us that they should be more able to think rationally: "In everyday discussion, intelligence and rational thinking are often treated as ‘close cousins,’ or even as one and the same thing.  Yet, that does not appear to be the case in actual assessments of intelligence and cognitive bias," because intelligence tests "do not measure the extent of a person's cognitive bias or rationality."   He ends by concluding that "balanced, rational thinking may well be at least as, if not more important than IQ to what it really means to be smart in the modern world."   A person with high IQ might be more able to think logically-and-objectively with minimal cognitive bias, but not necessarily more willing.   Instead they may be motivated to use their intelligence to skillfully construct (by using motivated reasoning) clever arguments that have high cognitive bias, yet are effective in persuasively defending their beliefs.

It's useful to distinguish between different kinds of rationality.  If motivated reasoning helps a person "feel good, gain allies, persuade people, achieve goals," their motivated reasoning is “ personally rational ” for them, even though their MR isn't “ objectively rational ” because it isn't unbiased reasoning.   One definition of MR says " motivated reasoning refers [only] to situations in which people want to confirm their preferred conclusion, rather than to [other] situations in which people's reasoning is driven by an accuracy motivation " so they want to search for truth by using unbiased evaluation.  Here we see two aspects of overall motivation;  people want to find truth, and they have other motives.  The relative strength of these motives will vary, depending on the context.  In some situations a searching-for-truth rationality is actually less personally-rational because it's less effective in helping a person “get what they want” in their whole life.   My overview of Motivations for Learning describes a central goal of educators, who try to "consider all aspects of total motivation – intrinsic, personal, interpersonal, and extrinsic, all hopefully based on good values & priorities – that contribute to how a student thinks about their strategies-and-actions aimed at ‘getting what they want’ in their whole life as a whole person."  Although I think we should try to reduce MR and its negative effects because personal rationalities don't necessarily produce societal rationality we should try to reduce MR “with eyes wide open” by understanding why every person (including you and me) has a tendency to use MR due to their "total motivation... in their whole life as a whole person."

A broad definition of rationality is used in a research review (cited by Winston Sieck), Myside Bias, Rational Thinking, and Intelligence by Keith Stanovich, Richard West, Maggie Toplak:

    "The magnitude of the myside bias shows very little relation to intelligence. ... It is rare when a cognitive process or phenomenon is found to be independent of intelligence.  Nevertheless, some recent research has suggested that individual differences in an important critical thinking skill [reducing one's own myside bias] are largely independent of individual differences in intelligence. .....  Rationality is a more encompassing construct than intelligence. ... To think rationally means to adopt appropriate goals, take appropriate action given one's goals and beliefs, and hold beliefs that are commensurate with available evidence. [it's "and" even though it may not be possible to do all three, to "adopt... take... hold"]  Intelligence tests measure many important things about thinking, but they do not directly assess the degree of rationality of thought.  Thus, it is perhaps not surprising that intelligence is quite weakly related to at least some aspects of rational thought.  Myside bias turns out to be an aspect of rational thought that, compared with others, is particularly unrelated to intelligence."

They consider myside bias to be " an aspect of rational thought" and I agree, because MR can be personally-rational for a person due to the personal benefits it gives them, even if their MR isn't critically-rational (because the conclusion that's based on their MR wouldn't be justifiable based on an unbiased evaluation using evidence-and-logic plus values).  But even though MR with myside bias for persons (and ourside bias for their groups) can be personally-rational for individuals, there are reasons for us to think it will be societally-rational for us to have a goal of "trying to reduce the amount of motivated reasoning and the negative effects when it's used by... you and me, and them."

As explained above , scientists answer “no” when we ask “are MR and its effects decreased by high intelligence ?”  For a related question – “are MR and its effects decreased by high skill in critical thinking?” – experts say “ no, but... ”

Personal Rationality and Societal Rationality:  Even though fallacious arguments (using biased motivated reasoning ) can seem to be personally rational due to benefits that are short-range (are beneficial for only some people) and short-term, fallacies are societally irrational because the overall effects are detrimental for society.  You can see exemplars that unfortunately have expanded from “conversational use by individuals” into “societal use by groups” so they cause widespread societal damage, in this entry from my links-page about Logical Fallacies : 

Dean & Laura VanDruff share Conversational Tricks and Fallacies in a humorous way, illustrating "how not to talk" in an attempt to decrease the "conversational terrorism" (with a disrespectful "cheap shot" style) arising from the "growing abuse in our conversational landscape."

In this section you'll see two analogies ( lawyer -vs- judge and soldier -vs- scout ) that can help us think about two ways to use intelligence ( motivated with bias versus objectively neutral ) while we're evaluating & arguing.

Victory-Seeking Lawyers and Truth-Seeking Judges:  One way to improve our mutual understanding & respecting is by trying to think like a judge, not a lawyer.  How?  During a trial when a judge is trying to determine what is true, first the lawyers for opposing truth-claims each argue for their claim, trying to “win the case” by using evidence-and-logic that is non-neutral (is biased).   Then the judge tries to be neutral (non-biased) when evaluating the evidence-and-logic, trying to determine which truth-claim is more accurate, in what ways.  A wise judge tries to do neutral judging, tries to avoid biased judging based on biased reasoning , on reasoning that is motivated by personally wanting to believe one of the claims.  By contrast, each lawyer wants their own claim to win, so they are motivated to do biased arguing by adjusting all factors ( evidence, logic, values ) to favor the policy they want.     {in different kinds of trials, a judge can try to determine what is true, or what is fair, or what will be effective }

a clarification:  I'm not criticizing the ethical character of people who serve as lawyers.  They are just doing what we're asking them to do, by performing a valuable service in the context of our “adversarial” system of justice.  I am criticizing the transfers of biased lawyer-like arguing into the contexts of everyday life, where our understanding-and-respecting would be improved by a decrease of adversial attitudes & actions.  Similarly, I'm not criticizing the ethical character of the people who bravely serve us as soldiers.

Victory-Seeking Soldiers and Truth-Seeking Scouts:   Another useful analogy (developed by Julia Galef ) illustrates how different goals for thinking lead to different ways of thinking.  During a discussion, if you're behaving like a soldier your goal is to be an effective fighter;  for achieving this goal it can be useful to think over-simplistically, to view yourself as a correct-thinking “good guy” and your opponent as a wrong-thinking “bad guy” who deserves to be the enemy you hate, and fight;  when you're functioning as a soldier, understanding & respect could make you less effective as a single-minded fighter whose only goal is to win, so you don't want to acknowledge that "people with other views also may have good reasons, both logical and ethical, for their choices."  During a war, when you're thinking like a scout your goal is to find truth, to accurately know the actual situation (re: numbers & locations of soldiers, their equipment, the terrain,...) so you want an accurate knowledge-of-reality that will be a solid foundation for an effective planning of battle strategies.  During a discussion, you also can think like a scout who wants to find truth.

Two Analogies — Lawyer-vs-Judge and Soldier-vs-Scout

similarities:  In each analogy we compare biased thinking (by a lawyer or soldier, trying to win) with unbiased thinking (by a judge or scout, trying to determine truth).     {more about the scout analogy of Julia Galef}

    unbiased = neutral = objective:    In this page, all three terms are used with the same meaning.  In fact, many words have a similar meaning;  Collins Thesaurus lists 17 synonyms for objective : "unbiased, neutral, detached, just, fair, judicial, open-minded, equitable, impartial, impersonal, disinterested, even-handed, dispassionate, unemotional, uninvolved, unprejudiced, uncoloured."  Most people think these words describe admirable character traits, so here is...

a societal application:  We can use either analogy to ask, “would our society be more mutually respectful if more people decided to be more judge-like ( more scout-like ) in their feeling & thinking & behaving?   i.e. if more people were less lawyer-like ( less soldier-like )?”

personal applications:  I find that each analogy is useful for different situations, for when I'm alone (be a scout-and-judge) or interacting with others (be a diplomatic scout).  When my goal is to gather information that is relevant & reliable, “exploring like an objective scout” is useful, and “thinking like an unbiased judge” helps me decide what is more true.  Thinking like a scout/judge is also useful for trying to determine what is more fair, or more effective.    /   But... during a discussion it would be relationally-inappropriate if you (or I) tried to “behave like a judge,” and others would be justifiably offended. *   But it could be very useful if you “behave like a scout” who (like my teacher when Monday-and-Tuesday were combined ) tries to help others get accurate descriptions of different views and the best arguments for each view.   And in addition to behaving like a scout, you can imagine also functioning as a referee who unofficially and skillfully (by using diplomacy so the refereeing-actions aren't resented, maybe aren't even noticed) tries to cope with the “critical thinking fouls” that occur when someone uses fallacious reasoning as in presenting incomplete evidence (with biased selectivity) or inaccurate evidence, or describing a weak-and-distorted strawman of a view they oppose.  But... when you're doing these things (as scout & referee) you will be telling people what they don't want to hear (due to their MR) so they may punish you personally with “shooting the messenger” paybacks that hurt you socially or in other ways.    { *  But you will be doing your own internal judging that is kept silently invisible in your own thinking — except when you say “this is what I think” (not “this is what you should think”) — that can become the external judging of a scout who tries to diplomatically provide accurate information for other people. }

The Ethics of Scout-becoming-Soldier:   Of course, nobody is purely soldier or purely scout.  Each of us is some of both, with their strengths depending on what's happening in our life-context, and how we're responding.  Each of us has mixed motives;  we want to have accurate understanding, but we also want to win arguments (internally within ourselves & externally with others) and have supportive allies.  When our main goals are to get wins & allies, a common strategy is to get knowledge as a scout (to improve understanding) and then use knowledge as a soldier (to win arguments & gain allies).  Unfortunately, when this happens our understanding is weaponized, and often the result is a decrease of respect, due to...

Hostile Polarization:   In current society a common tendency is hostile polarizations that lead some people – especially when they're in groups – to have disrespectful attitudes toward people who disagree with them.  The human tendency to join “polarized tribes” can be promoted by many factors, including principles, loyalties, and pressures.

Important Principles:   When a person (and their group) takes a strong position on an issue they think is extremely important, it's more difficult to think an opposing position can be supported (as in our Monday-and-Tuesday classes ) by "good reasons, both logical and ethical," and that people holding this position should be respected.  In this context an opponent may be viewed as an enemy who must be defeated in us-against-them warfare.   This attitude does have a rational basis because — even though it's almost always wise to avoid "warfare" — we shouldn't try to buy peace at the high cost of abandoning important principles.    { polarization: loyalties & pressures }

Avoiding Postmodern Relativism

Yes, it should be avoided.  The pessimistic foolishness of radical postmodern relativists * — who deny the possibility (or even desirability ) of using evidence-and-logic objectively in critical thinking with less biasing by motivated thinking — should be rejected by educators.  Instead we should emphasize the possibility and desirability of trying to consistently use objective logical thinking.   {our Monday-and-Tuesday debates were not postmodern }

When we're thinking about our views, we should aim for a level of confidence that is appropriate (is not too high or too low), steering a path between the two errors of confidence described by Bertrand Russell: "error is not only the absolute error of believing what is false, but also the quantitative error of believing more or less strongly than is warranted by the degree of credibility properly attaching to the proposition believed, in relation to the believer's knowledge."  We can err by "believing more or less strongly than is warranted," with either overconfidence or underconfidence.

But usually a postmodernist isn't self-humbly underconfident about their own views.  Instead they weaponize their relativism by claiming that “YOU cannot effectively use evidence-and-logic objectively & effectively,” in an effort to make the logical arguments of their opponents seem less justifiable and less persuasive.

* Yes, claims of “postmodernists” do vary widely — with a broad range of perspectives being actualized in a variety of ways to produce differing claims, as in the many kinds of Critical Theory(s) that include Critical Race Theory — so my brief summary is oversimplified.  But the essential foundations of radical postmodernism do clash with the worthy goals of objectively-logical critical thinking.    {postmodernists began with a useful question – asking “how confident should you be?” – but then pushed their skepticism to foolish extremes, so we now see the rationality-and-idiocy of postmodern relativism }

Center for Excellence in Teaching

Encouraging critical thinking with scientific sketching activities, pragna patel, professor of biochemistry & molecular medicine at usc’s keck school of medicine, uses sketching activities to help students develop critical thinking skills in her courses and beyond..

Professor Patel was a 2021 recipient of the Associates Award for Excellence in Teaching

Watch this 2-minute video and scroll down for the full interview, plus tips for implementing this in your course!

Read more about this approach in Pragna’s own words:

Download this file [6.23 MB]

Interested in using sketching activities in your course?

Here are some tips for implementation:.

• Explain the purpose and process of making a sketch. Make a point to students that the artfulness of the sketch is not the main focus, rather it is the information contained in the sketch that is important.
• Provide them with a model and identify the key elements of a successful sketch.
• Ask students to complete their sketches individually or in small groups.
• Ask students to either reflect on their individual sketches, switch sketches with a peer and review, or discuss as a class.
• Lead a class debrief or provide group or individual feedback to tie the activity back to course content and your objectives for the activity.
• After the activity, students may submit their sketches or keep them as a study guide. Sketches could also be posted in the classroom or shared with the class virtually on a discussion board for follow-up activities.

More resources for active learning and sketching activities :

• CET’s Active Learning Facilitation Process Resource
• Hoskins, S. G., Lopatto, D., & Stevens, L. M. (2011). The C.R.E.A.T.E. Approach to Primary Literature Shifts Undergraduates’ Self-Assessed Ability to Read and Analyze Journal Articles, Attitudes about Science, and Epistemological Beliefs . CBE Life Sciences Education , 10(4), 368–378.
• From STEM to STEAM: 9 Specific Strategies for Adding the Art (Blog post)

What does the research say?

Edlund, A. F., & Balgopal, M. M. (2021). Drawing-to-Learn: Active and Culturally Relevant Pedagogy for Biology . Frontiers in Communication , 6.

Helen J. DeWaard, Giulia Forsythe, & Deborah Baff. (2024). Graphically Speaking: Expanding Landscapes of Scholarly Writing Using Sketchnotes . Brock Education , 33(1).

Nesbit JC, Adesope OO. Learning with Concept and Knowledge Maps: A Meta-Analysis . Review of educational research . 2006;76(3):413-448.

Wu, S. P. W., Van Veen, B., & Rau, M. A. (2020). How drawing prompts can increase cognitive engagement in an active learning engineering course . Journal of Engineering Education (Washington, D.C.), 109(4), 723–742.

Category: Teaching

Back to Faculty Profiles

Our Latest Teaching Resources

• A closer look: Information literacy
• Persona Power: Unleashing Creativity and Diversity in Music Marketing
• Engaging students through group work and advocacy
• Low-barrier in-class group assignments using Google Slides
• Writing together for Wikipedia

Follow Us On Social Media